Jump to content


  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


Community Reputation

175 Valued poster

About Maddau

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Maryland, USA

Recent Profile Visitors

884 profile views
  1. I'd be fine with that version: six 8" barrels with DM's reload. I'd also be find with the Baltimore's 10 second reload with 9 barrels. You'd get access to slot 6 so you can bring it down to 8.8 s without AR. Whichever WG wants to bring us, as long as it is balanced, I'll be content. I think the 9 barrel version would be easier to develop because it would essentially be bringing back the T9 Baltimore the existed before 0.7.5. Heck, they could do both: 6 barrel as Oregon City and 9 barrel as Rochester.
  2. There are plenty of topics with suggestions and discussion on that subject. I'd look for those if you want to comment further.
  3. The latest season of clan battles reminded of me the total lack of premium T9 non-super cruiser options. I mostly played in USS Alaska, which is not as good as it once was due to the loss of fire prevention. I find it curious that WG has not released any premium non-super cruisers at this tier. I consider T9 tech tree cruisers to be weak for their tier when compared to their T10 successors (e.g. USS Buffalo vs USS Des Moines), unlike several T9 tech tree DDs and even some BBs. In addition, many have some glaring vulnerability (e.g. HMS Drake's rear turret firing angles). Instead of a steady stream of more premium cruisers at T8, or more premium T9 CBs, why not cash in on the considerable pent up demand for balanced premium T9 CAs or CLs? Here are a few ideas based on ships that actually were built: USS Rochester - This ship belonged to the successor to the Baltimore class heavy cruiser, the Oregon City class. It was in service from 1946 to 1961. Here is how to bring the ship to the game: Start with a fully upgraded Baltimore Add a few thousand hit points Add a repair party and upgrade slot 6 (like all T9 cruisers get) Adjust the radar consumable to last 35 s (consistent with other T9 US cruisers) Increase turret rotation speed by 1 degree per second Decrease rudder shift by 0.5 - 1.0 s Slightly improve AA continuous damage to reflect historical AA battery and the better firing angles offered by the smaller super structure of this class Everything else stays virtually identical to the USS Baltimore The cool thing about Rochester is we know WG can balance what would essentially be a T9 Baltimore since that is where the ship was slated prior to the US cruiser CA/CL split. USS Fargo - This ship belonged to the successor to the Cleveland class light cruiser, and was the lead ship of the Fargo class. It was in service from 1945 to 1950. Here is how to bring the ship to the game: Start with a fully upgraded Cleveland Add a few thousand hit points Add a repair party and upgrade slot 6 (like all T9 cruisers get) Adjust the radar consumable to last 35 s (consistent with other T9 US cruisers) Decrease rudder shift by around 0.5 s Improve her concealment by -200 to -300 m Slightly improve AA continuous damage to reflect historical AA battery and the better firing angles offered by the smaller super structure of this class. Her AA should not be quite as strong as USS Seattle's because she did not have a dual purpose main battery. Everything else stays virtually identical to the USS Cleveland I'll do some further research on other historical T9 premium non-super cruisers that could be added to the game. One that comes to mind is the already in development: HMS Tiger. Maybe add HE shells, or a short range hydro and some more hit-points and up-tier her to T9? If anyone has any other cruisers that could fit in this category, historical or not, please share below. Thanks!
  4. Maddau

    where is the vampire II ?

    Released right before ANZAC Day. Nice!
  5. I think it is great, Hapa! I plan on putting him in my wardroom soon. Did the devs record his voice like Jingles and Ovechkin?
  6. These skill changes are all significant, otherwise Wargaming would not have made them. As I pointed out in the OP, they want more players to choose these skills! Well, let us try them for free like you said you were going to. Don't agree? Let's look at the raw numbers: Cruiser's skills: "Survivability expert" The hit point bonus for each ship tier has been increased from 350 to 450. A 29% increase in the effectiveness of this skill is insignificant? Destroyer's skills "Extra Heavy AP Shells" Damage of main battery AP shells increased from 5 to 7.5% A 50% increase in the effectiveness of this skill is insignificant? "Fearless Brawler" Removed the penalty to the ship's detectability. Totally removing a concealment penalty from a 4-point DD skill is insignificant? Aircraft Carrier's skills "Enhanced Reactions" The 25% penalty to the action time of the "Patrol Fighters" or "Interceptor" consumables has been replaced with a 25% bonus. Extending the patrol duration by 67% is insignificant? "Super Heavy AP Shells" Damage of main battery AP shells increased from 5 to 7.5%; Fire extinguishing time and flooding recovery time reduced from 30 to 25%. A 50% increase in the damage effectiveness of this skill, while reducing it's penalty by 8% is insignificant?
  7. WG: Keep your word and don't be penny wise and pound foolish. A change that effects the captain skills of a particular class should include free opportunities for players to redistribute their captain skills on that class. You said as much yourself back on January 16: After the release of the Update, additional balance corrections might be required. In case of significant changes going forward, we will provide additional opportunities to retrain your Commanders for free. Here is the source of the quote: Update 0.10.0: Commander Skills Update | World of Warships The free market is a blessing that is based on parties exchanging goods and services in an honest manner. I acknowledge that Wargaming is a for profit company and making money is a precondition for them bringing us this excellent game. I have no problem paying doubloons for resetting captain skills when I decide to try something new. However, WG is being foolishly greedy by refusing to do what they said they were going to do in January. Changes are being made to skills that involve all classes of ships in update 10.4 (ST 0.10.4, changes to commander's skills). Granted, only Deadeye is going away completely, and it is fair that a free reset is being offered for BB captains who have selected this skill. However, changes to the other (non-Deadeye) skills are clearly being made because not enough people are choosing them. These changes are significant enough that WG thinks people will reconsider them to optimize their captains skills. In addition to doing what they said they were going to do, if WG wants players to try these skills, they should incentivize that by offering free captain skills redistribution for all classes following the 10.4 update. WG, are you trying piss off your informed players (and customers) by NOT doing what you said in writing you were going to do only 3 months ago? Is that a good business practice? By refusing to offer a free skill redistribution you leave yourself vulnerable to legitimate complaints of hypocrisy and claims of yet another WG "cash grab". A certain former CC member has probably already made a video about 0.10.4 being just that.
  8. That actually seems reasonable. They could then increase the Interceptor skill to 4 points, and drop Enhanced Reactions down to 3 after removing the patrol duration penalty. Or they may be fine with using fighters for extended spotting. My observation is that the vocal objection to CV spotting tends be more of an elite player objection specific to clan and ranked battles. In random battles, teammates are usually grateful to have your fighters circling overhead. And 90 second spotting has been a thing since the squadron consumable was added into the game...so....I guess we'll see what happens in the fall. As it stands, the skill change would seem to allow for more customization for CV captains. I'm playing around with hybrid US fighter/accuracy builds in my mind, with a separate dedicated captain with the "full interceptor" 10 point skills along with squadron consumables mod in slot 5 for select competitive modes. Saipan seems like a good choice to keep at the ready for a full interceptor build after the change. Thanks for the video on the topic @Ahskance. Someday I hope to have the time to watch you stream live.
  9. Please let's not turn this into a CV hate vs CV great debate thread. I do see a potential to be more supportive of teammates when incorporating the new skill. Good CV players try to support the entire team, not just div mates. They don't farm damage. Watch any of the videos by @Ahskance and you'll see what I mean.
  10. That's a fair critique. My guess is they were concerned about air superiority CVs from the RTS carrier days. I didn't play then, but my understanding is that one of the RTS carriers getting air supremacy over the other was a tactic that was perceived as unfair.
  11. Those are reserved for the upcoming submarines.
  12. This is a huge change. With the squadron consumable upgrade in slot 5, this will allow a patrol time of almost 2 min (112.5 s to be exact), and effectively instant interceptions for 105 s. The skill is now well worth the 4 points. The 10 point "full interceptor build" will be very strong in T8 and T10 competitive game modes, and possibly even in random games. Kudos to WG for making a viable alternative for those who seek a more defensive role for carriers.
  13. Maddau

    ANZAC Day is 25 April......

    Also known as the Gallipoli flag.
  14. Maddau

    ANZAC Day is 25 April......

    There is the Gallipoli flag already isn't there? I think I have it mounted on HMAS Perth and HMAS Vampire.
  15. And it is the perfect opportunity for WoWs to release the Vampire 2. She's been in development a while now, and her stats look strong in the dev blog (like a cross between the Haida, Cossack, and Daring) and I've seen her perform well helmed by testers in a few random battles. I just spent most of my steel on the FDR, so hoping she won't go for steel. I've been hoarding my FXP in case she goes for 2 mil or she winds up in the Research Bureau. She looks too strong for a coal ship to my eye, but then again....Thunderer and Georgia were coal ships (as was Musashi briefly I just learned).