Jump to content

Maddau

Members
  • Content Сount

    19
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    1408

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About Maddau

  • Rank
    Seaman
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Iowa, USA

Recent Profile Visitors

79 profile views
  1. Interesting topic for a different thread, but no question how WG implements sub spotting will be very critical and I'm sure something they are being very careful about. For all the discord that plane spotting causes, getting sub spotting wrong could easily unbalance the game.
  2. There is no question that WoWs CVs are way underpowered compared to their historical counterparts, and yet they still the fuel most of the debate on this board. History rhymes: the battleship admirals vigorously protested their funding getting diverted to build the first couple of generations of flat tops. They were complaining right up until Pearl Harbor. I suspect the debate will rage until the next disruptor arrives - submarines. I am looking forward to that. As we say in the silent service, you have submarines, and targets. WoWs is a target rich environment! I also predict submarines will give added importance to having DDs on your team, as they were the most effective counter to submarines during the era that WoWs is set in, and WG is attempting to emulate that. Submarines will add a whole other dimension to the game much as aircraft did (no pun intended). They may also usher in a golden era for those who enjoy playing DDs. Now back to your regularly scheduled heated debate over CVs. Enjoy!
  3. Good point about the distances involved in most WW2 carrier battles. Leyte Gulf was CVE and DDs vs BBs at close range that would approximate the WoWs battle map, and...well the Japanese didn't press their advantage for some reason but it would not have turned out well for the CVs if they did! Another good point about this being a game and balance being desirable. I don't think you'll find much disagreement at least in principle there. The question is...how?? Check the quote. I did not claim that carriers made surface ships obsolete. Carriers did make BBs obsolete. This is why the Iowa class was the last BB class built during WW2 (maybe Vanguard was completed later?) , Montana was never started (even though authorized by Congress), and carriers are still being built and operated by several nations to this day. Aircraft were a huge threat to individual ships during WW2, and did far more damage to warships than BBs. CVs are not OP in WoWs. I understand why players don't like being bombed and rocketed by a player they usually cannot immediately shoot back at, though. And I do think CVs depress the number of DD players at higher tiers, but I would guess radar and long range hydro is just as responsible for that. The cure for that may be submarines, though. We'll see soon enough!
  4. I think Kummetz is on to something here. Carriers are the premier naval warfighting platform to this day for a reason. They made the BB obsolete. WoWs is trying to model that transition in high tier play. At tier 4, CVs are unquestionably too strong right now. A modern fleet is built around the carrier, so it is appropriate/realistic that high tier WoWs battles with carriers present feel different than those without. A low tier battle should be more influenced by BBs than CVs. Though that is hard when trying to attract players to start the CV grind. I don't think another rework is required. Small tweaks until the balance is right (e.g. absolutely the Midway's torpedoes are too weak right now). My personal opinion is expanding patrol fighters starting at tier 4 (right now they start at 6) is the next mechanic tweak that should take place. The patrol fighter consumable limit should not be tied to the attack/bomber squadron, but to the CV. So (for example) each CV should have 10 patrol fighters to drop, with a reasonable cooldown (20-30s) between drops. Also catapult fighters should be beefed up (a bit) with longer flight times and shorter cool downs. In addition, make spotting from the air more lucrative, with an experience bonus for spotting with planes (including those not launched from CVs) vs spotting from ships. I also am curious how many players currently spec for AA. I'm curious to know how many players pick the AAGM2 for the 6 slot? How many spend 4 commander points on Massive AA fire? Perhaps WG should (further) tweak those to make them more attractive vs increasing DPS, accuracy, maneuverability, or damage mitigation. (My guess is commander skills and perhaps even upgrades will need an overhaul with the arrival of submarines). Kudos to WG for trying to get the balance right and accepting constructive feedback from their fan base. Let's try to offer input in that spirit. They are more likely to be receptive.
  5. Maddau

    Update 0.8.10 - Bugs Report

    The Conqueror's (and I'm guessing Thunderer's as well) turning circle radius is still bugged. ~100 m bigger than advertised. Been that way since release. Waiting patiently for this to be fixed.
  6. Maddau

    Conqueror Unique upgrade Question

    I wonder why it is taking so long to fix? I know nothing about coding, though, so perhaps it is more complicated than I think. Reported in this 8.10 bug forum topic.
  7. Maddau

    Update 0.8.10 - Resolute and Rapid!

    The turning circle is still listed at 820 m, though the 18" gun description has been removed. Does this mean the turning circle bug (where actual turning circle is > 900 m) for Conqueror (and Thunderer) now correctly matches the description? Thanks!
  8. Maddau

    Conqueror Unique upgrade Question

    Wargaming just updated the Conqueror description: I was curious if this included an update to the turning circle radius. When I checked after the update, it was still listed as 820 m. Is it possible they fixed the turning circle bug with 8.10 without notice?
  9. Maddau

    [ALL] ModStation

    That is good to know. I do hope that changes in the near future. Thanks!
  10. Maddau

    [ALL] ModStation

    Forgive me if this question has been answered somewhere else: Where is the game client file when I install thru the Windows Store? I've installed the ModStation but it is of little use if I cannot find the game client. Thanks again, friends!
  11. Maddau

    Conqueror False Advertising

    Will the false advertising about the Conqueror (and Thunderer) turning circle also be fixed in the next patch? See the second paragraph below:
  12. Maddau

    Update 0.8.9 - Bugs Report

    I'm sure in hindsight Wargaming now regrets initially making the 18" rifles available on the Conqueror. I'll be skipping the UK BB grind and focusing on gathering coal for the Thunderer. The combination of maneuverability (once the turning circle bug is fixed), stealth, and accuracy make it an easy choice to give up the super repair party. She is a pretty unique ship for tier 10. I even like the AA consumable.
  13. Maddau

    Update 0.8.9 - Bugs Report

    So does this mean the Conqueror turning radius has been fixed and now is the advertised 820 m while the Thunderer's turning radius is still bugged (100 m > advertised)? Or are you referring to the 18" guns being made exclusive to Thunderer?
×