Jump to content


  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


Community Reputation

183 Valued poster

About Midshipman_Hornblower

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Midshipman_Hornblower

    Aircraft Damage Counter

    No screenshot, but I went back and looked at the replay file, and I figured out what's going on. I had forgotten that, about mid-game, my internet connection blew up and I got disconnected. I logged back in, and continued the game. Just before disconnecting, the damage counter showed a bit over 26K damage, and I had 20 "shot down" ribbons. When the game restarted, it restored the "shot down" ribbons, but did NOT restore the damage counter, so the counter started over from zero. A few minutes later, I got a brief shot at some planes, and the counter recorded 546 damage. So, that's what I saw when I looked up just before game end. 20 planes shot down over the entire game, and 546 damage to planes since restarting the game. Riddle solved. Seems to be a minor bug in the way the game recovers from a disconnect.
  2. Midshipman_Hornblower

    Aircraft Damage Counter

    Several Patches back, WG added a counter to the battle screen (upper right corner) that shows damage done to aircraft. Has anyone figured out exactly what that counter is telling us? I had assumed it tallied up total damage done to enemy aircraft, but... I noticed this in a game just now. It's almost the end of the game, and my aircraft damage counter shows 546 damage to aircraft. But look at the ribbon tally right there next to it, and I see I've shot down 20 planes. These are T8 planes, so I really doubt the damage counter. Maybe 20 seconds later, the game ends, with me not having fired my AA again. When I check the end of battle summary screen, it shows 20 planes shot down, and over 26,000 damage to aircraft. From this, I conclude that either (a) the in-game counter is wrong, or (b) it is showing something other than total damage. Anyone know?
  3. Midshipman_Hornblower

    Replay requests

    OP, yes, I know you've posted "photographic evidence". That's a good start. Here's the problem I have with it. Let me try to explain by example. Ok, you posted a photo in an earlier thread, and pointed out a cruiser who was behind an island. A mistake by said cruiser captain? Honestly, I can't tell from that single snapshot. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with a cruiser using an island for cover. I would need to know why he went there, and what he did while he was there. If he used the island for cover, and was able to rain HE down on the reds without taking any return fire, I'd call that skillful play, but I'd need to know the entire tactical situation before I could decide whether that particular play, skillful or not, was the best use of his time and ammo at that point in the game. I am reminded of an incident in a random battle a few days ago. I was running my Yorck in a T7/8/9 battle. About mid-game, a couple (dead) team mates were critiquing the useless play of the rest of their team. At some point, they turned their ire on that useless Yorck player, sitting behind an island. I guess it could be a matter of opinion, but from the point of view of that useless Yorck player, they were sort of missing the fact that on the other side of the island there were four - yes FOUR - red BBs. Higher tier BBs, at that. Would it REALLY have been smart for me to have come out and faced them in open water, 1 T7 CA vs 4 higher tier BBs? Or was it smarter to do what I was doing - moving back and forth behind a pair of islands, all the while lofting HE over the islands onto those BBs, since they were all spotted and I wasn't? I'll just mention that in the end, all four of those red BBs ended up dead, and the useless Yorck survived to the end. Oh, and we won. You decide. So...that's why I would prefer replays to screen shots. Replays give me not just the snapshot, but what came before and after. They supply the context that is missing from a single screenshot. Now don't get me wrong, you have every right to refuse to provide replays. I'm just saying replays would be very helpful.
  4. Midshipman_Hornblower

    What to do about gross misbehavior?

    That surprises me, @Hapa_Fodder. I DID send the replay to WG, and the response I got back pretty clearly stated that you rely strictly on your automated system. It did not say ANYTHING about taking any other action. In fact, it clearly said you would not. If that automated message is wrong, I suggest you rework the wording so it says what you really mean, because based on the message I got back, I had decided that if anything similar ever happened in the future, I wouldn't bother to send in a replay, because it would have no effect whatsoever. I don't mind that it's an automated message, as long as it's clear, and it says what you really mean.
  5. Midshipman_Hornblower

    Stricter punishment for AFK

    Hmmm...ok, I'll make a couple observations here. First...I don't think that's what most of us have said. What we've said is that we think repeated, intentional AFK is a relatively rare event, and that most AFKs are unintentional. We've also said that there's no way to know if a given AFK player is the victim of a power outage, or just decided not to play. We're arguing that a player should not be punished for something he had little or no control over. Second...if you want to limit your punishment only to those who intentionally and repeatedly go AFK, then I won't argue with you. I have no problem with that, as long as you can explain how your system will never punish the guy who just lost his power, or whose computer fried in the middle of a game (actually happened to a friend recently), or all those other real life events. Explain how you will determine the difference. And also define "repeatedly". Is that "twice"? Unfortunately, I suspect that most of us who have played the game for more than a year or so would probably get counted as repeat offenders. But in the end, if you can design a system that ONLY punishes those who go AFK intentionally, and habitually (with a reasonable definition of what that means), I'm ok with it. I just don't think such a well-crafted system would actually have much effect, because I think very few people would actually be affected. And finally, can I close with a kinda humorous anecdote? It's sorta related to the subject, here. This actually happened to me a few months ago. The battle started, with me playing one of my favorite cruisers. I hit W a couple times, and headed towards the enemy. Just as the first red ship was sighted, a thunderstorm knocked out my power and internet for 3 hours. The next day, on a lark, I checked the results of my last battle. Would you believe...I somehow got credited with a kill and the Die-Hard achievement? And my team won. I do SO wish I could watch a replay, just to see how that happened.
  6. Midshipman_Hornblower

    Stricter punishment for AFK

    Oh, we get it. We just disagree. Maybe because I'm one of those old guys you seem to have such a low opinion of. And on that subject, you may call it "doesn't care". I prefer to think of it as "more tolerant". And a little more toleration here wouldn't go amiss.
  7. Midshipman_Hornblower

    Stricter punishment for AFK

    ...and there's no way to know which are which. My guess is that the vast majority were not intended. I've been AFK a few times. I'll bet anyone who's been playing the game for any amount of time has. Thunderstorms happen. Computer and internet glitches happen. The pot on the stove boils over. The kid falls down, hits his head, and is bleeding on the carpet. Wife needs you RiGHT NOW (and no, you can't just tell her to wait. Married guys will understand this...assuming they've stayed married very long). Yes, I know it's really annoying, especially in ranked, when one of your team is AFK. But ship happens. Play the best game you can and move on.
  8. Midshipman_Hornblower

    What to do about gross misbehavior?

    Ok, I've lived on this planet long enough that nothing surprises me anymore. At least, that's what I thought. But I just had something happen in a ranked game that proved me wrong. I was running my Hipper, and there was this Benson on our team. Mr. Benson was pink, which normally wouldn't matter, but in this case it matters a lot. Benson and I spawned closest to one cap, and we both headed there. We took the cap almost unopposed. I started dueling at relatively long range with a red CL and BB. Abut mid-game, I noticed they seemed to be abandoning my side of the map, so I turned to push into the next cap. Only thing down there was a red Edinburgh, sitting in his smoke, and our Benson, sitting in his own smoke. I decided to use Benson's smoke to cover my approach. I was 1 or 2 klicks away from him when suddenly he fires his guns at me. At that range, of course he hits. I'm thinking some sort of stupid accident, then he does it again, and again. He accelerated away still firing at me, then emptied his torpedo tubes at me. I turned so hard I damn near capsized, and avoided all but one of them. He continues running away, but stops firing. I curse, and turn my attention to the Edinburgh. Edinburgh runs, and disappears behind an island. Nothing in sight, but then I get hit by a salvo of shells from behind me. Yeah, the Benson has turned back around and is firing on me again. It takes a lot to actually make me mad, but by now I'm getting close. There being no red targets in sight at the moment, I vote for self-preservation and, for the first time in my life, I intentionally fire at a team mate. The Benson goes down. I got sunk a bit later on and, with this sort of insanity on our team, it's no surprise we lost. Based on the fact that he was already pink, and based also on his in-game name (which I will not mention because, you know...) it's pretty clear this guy makes a habit of this. Of course, I reported the guy. And I've already sent the replay to WG. But the incident caused me to wonder a couple of things. First, the mechanics of teamkill penalties. When I checked the post-battle results, I discovered that, although I had indeed put two shells into Benson, and he had died, I did NOT receive a teamkill penalty. In fact, the results indicated Benson had been "destroyed by teamkill penalty". And his score showed -1 kills. I didn't even know that was possible, but I can't help but wish it had killed him sooner. So does anyone understand how this teamkill penalty works? Second...well, I'm wondering if anyone else has ever experienced something like this, and how you would handle it. Normally, I'd say just keep fighting the reds, but this was SO bad, so blatant, and so prolonged...where would you draw the line and shoot back? '
  9. Midshipman_Hornblower

    "Either/Or" missions

    By golly, I just checked both places, and it looks like you are right. Only shows credit for one condition on the post-battle screen, but if you go to the missions in port, it shows credit for both. I didn't check the totals to make sure they are calculation correctly, but at least there's something there.
  10. Midshipman_Hornblower

    Damage to Planes

    Several patches ago, WG added a "damage to planes" counter to the screen. At the time, I recall them saying that was the first step in adding damage inflicted by AA to the calculation of XP, credits, etc. awarded for a battle. That hasn't happened yet, has it? Or did I miss an announcement? (wouldn't be the first time). If not, has anyone heard anything more on the subject? Like, if they still intend to do it, and if so, when?
  11. Midshipman_Hornblower

    "Either/Or" missions

    Has anyone figured out exactly how the new either/or missions work? It SEEMS obvious to me, but I've concluded that I really don't know how they work. Here's an example. One of the current missions required that you either earn 100K FXP OR cause 1.25M damage. Either condition can be fulfilled using any T5+ ship. So I go out in a random battle, in a ship (and battle type) that qualifies. I do some damage, and I earn some FXP. But, after the battle, I look at the mission and I see that I've gotten credit for the FXP I earned, but have not gotten ANY credit for the damage I did. I tried this 3 times this morning, with the same result each time. Apparently, you can't get credit for both? That doesn't seem right, but leaving that aside, how does the game decide WHICH of the two criteria you get credit for? Just curious.
  12. Midshipman_Hornblower

    21 German containers and no CV.

    I was starting to wonder, but I did finally find a CV mission in a container. Funny thing is, I really don't particularly want the CVs, but I really WOULD like that premacamo for the Hindy, and you have to have CVs to finish several of the missions. So, I'll take the CVs if I can get them. That said...I haven't done a rigorous calculation, but my impression is that the probability of being able to get one of those permacamos (600 tokens) is VERY remote, unless you spend money to buy quite a few containers. So...not holding my breath. In the end, I'll use whatever tokens I've earned for whatever seems best for me of the available choices. If I'm going to spend money, I'd rather spend it on an actual permacamo than on a CHANCE to MAYBE get a CHANCE to MAYBE earn it for free.
  13. Midshipman_Hornblower

    Nürnberg - Hydro Mod?

    Yeah, you're probably right, and I was sorta leaning this way already. As everyone has pointed out Nürnberg's armor is pretty "soft". Personally, I don't actually mind that. I mean, the key to playing MOST cruisers is "don't get hit", and that's exactly how I play Nürnberg. Stay out at range, where I have time to dodge, WASD like mad, and always keep at least one eye on my PT indicator. If somebody's aiming at me, I'd better be turning...frantically. I've had a lot of success with that style. Of course, at that kind of range, you don't often have any use for hydro. Hydro can be useful later in the game, but by that time, assuming you're still alive, there are many fewer targets for those nasty CVs to pick on, so that's also when you tend to need your AA worst. I'm thinking for now I'll stick with my current set up. I'll probably start out running DFAA in place of hydro for clan battles, till I see how many CVs I'm encountering. I can always go back to hydro if there are fewer CVs out there than I expect.
  14. Midshipman_Hornblower

    Nürnberg - Hydro Mod?

    Has anyone tried Hydroacoustic Search Mod 1 on the Nürnberg? I'm thinking of trying it, but I'm a little concerned. I have Engine Room Protection in that slot right now. It's been a long time since I first got this ship, but I seem to remember that without engine room protection her engine/rudder were rather fragile. I've got a 19-pt captain on her, with PM but without LS. I'd prefer not to respec him. My current setup is working, but it seems sort of a shame not to take maximum advantage of that wonderful German hydro. Any more experienced Nürnberg drivers have thoughts on this? On a related question...I'm thinking Nürnberg may be the best option available in my port for the upcoming CB season. For CB, I'm leaning towards taking DFAA and dropping hydro. Based on last season, I'm thinking CVs will be common and DDs, not so much. Of course, if experience shows otherwise, I can easily go back to hydro. Thoughts on this? Would you give up that super hydro for DFAA? My captain has BFT, so that would give the DFAA a bit of a boost, but still, not taking hydro in a German CL just sorta feels...wrong.
  15. Midshipman_Hornblower

    got the Graf Spee

    I'm with you OP. I wanted the Graf Spee. I could care less about the Odin. I got the Graf Spee. I'm happy. I'll do no more grinding on this event. I'll finish a few more of the directives, just in the normal course of play. Whatever rewards I get for those are icing on the cake.