Jump to content

CapnPowl

Members
  • Content Сount

    31
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    7346
  • Clan

    [DRY]

Community Reputation

20 Neutral

About CapnPowl

  • Rank
    Seaman
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. CapnPowl

    Continuous sign out

    Been having same issue for a week, but from my home wireless terminal, not a hot spot. Everything drops after about 90 sec, and I get "Web Server Unavailable", or just a new window to with a "Connect" button.
  2. CapnPowl

    Inaccuracy when engaging paired ships

    @IfYouSeeKhaos Thanks. It was 5 different battles, but I'll be more attentive to where my target lock is and see if that corrects it. Appreciate the thorough answer.
  3. CapnPowl

    Inaccuracy when engaging paired ships

    I was using auto-track, and the target ship was identified as my target in at least 5 instances. I've taken to not engaging ships in that situation for this reason.
  4. Has anyone else noticed that when targeting at an enemy ship that is "behind" (in line of fire) another enemy ship (within a few hundred meters), that the rounds inevitably plop in between the two ships? I've often thought, hey shadow a friendly ship -- what a great technique for avoiding incoming. But it seems to be a glitch in the game function. Any thoughts?
  5. CapnPowl

    A Salute to History

    How does one verify your veteran status? NM -- figured it out. Duh.
  6. Just to throw my hat in the ring -- Do not allow CVs in any fight that includes ships below t4. Twice I've gotten a Tier 3 ship (virtually 0 AA and not much maneuverability) placed in a Co-Op and a Random with not one, but TWO CVs (because T4 ships were in the bracket). That's [edited]. Planes just hunted us down -- we hardly had time to shoot at enemy ships before dying from waves of plane torpedoes, rockets and bombs.
  7. I hate planes, but I love them. I do not play CVs, but when I have a good CV player on my side, I love what they do, especially scouting. On the other hand, what I hate is that planes distract, and cause me and my DD to get off my mission, and when I'm turning and dodging planes, the other guys are zeroing on me with their ships. And one rocket hit takes 25-50% of my HP, so I respect the hell out of them, and avoid them -- again taking me off my mission. I hate them, but keep them
  8. CapnPowl

    Why I deleted the game after enjoying it for years

    I am close to the same point -- quitting that is. I completely understand the frustration with disappearing ships and other ahistorical and unrealistic capabilities, but the designers do have to create balance of play, because -- sadly for me and others -- it is only very loosely based on history and reality. It is an arcade game. I do wish that WG would get out of the rut of just developing newer ships, and would design some Ops/scenarios/Randoms which are semi-historical. There are dozens of actual battles that are close enough to being balanced, and players would like to play them with their own highly customized ships and crews, just to see if they could do better than the actual adversaries did. I submitted a proposal for the August remembrance of the naval battles (5 of them) of Guadalcanal, that I think would be a HUGE hit (seriously) and a real change-up to the current line of predictable, boring ops. But, no feedback or response from any of the development staff, which is what is really driving me to consider quitting. Semi-historical Ops Proposal -- Guadalcanal - Player Feature and Gameplay Suggestions - World of Warships official forum Proposal to WoW Design Team.docx
  9. Oh, we probably will see them again, or some other form of "Tier after next", because it seems that -- as many have commented -- WG's main creativity drive is just more ships -- Italian BBs, German DDs, Agincourt, Ise, super BBs, submarines, Dutch cruisers.... on and on and on. And few, if any, changes to the Ops or scenarios we play them in. And this is presumably much cheaper than developing, testing and fielding new ships. I gave them two historical that would be ridiculously easy to develop ---- and....crickets. (No, I don't count the monster-fighting stuff as serious scenarios.) No one is looking for combat simulators -- we want to play our tier-appropriate ships in semi-historical engagements. They can't see the rut they are in because it's too deep.
  10. Thanks Stalker -- Check out my suggestion on Historical Ops/Scenarios to WG. I figure the more people that review and upvote it, the greater chance they'll pay attention to it.
  11. Hey Happa_Fodder -- I originally posted this on your feed. You advised me to bring it here. Don't know if any of the WG read it, but some feedback would be nice. Thanks
  12. I dunno if the WG people even read these posts. Lack of response would indicate not. I fully support something less boring than the same old, same old. I've stopped playing ops because they're too predictable. BTW, HISTORICAL OPS would be a big hit...just sayin' before I quit WG entirely.
  13. Renting ships or buying access to historical scenarios are good ways to monetize historical scenarios so it's not a money sink for WG. The questions are...why aren't they doing something so SIMPLE and OBVIOUS -- and IN DEMAND. I've only been playing for 6 months, I've spent money, but not anymore; not for the same old crap over and over again. I don't play the kiddie monster games or fantasy ship stuff. I'm getting ready to go find something else that is historical and spend my money there. If they don't take a serious look at this, I'm done.
  14. That Pacific night Op, might be the one mentioned in the thread above -- Cherry Blossom? I dunno, never saw it or played it. This Op would be from T5-T8, IJN vs US/Australian, and would be on the Savo Island/Guadalcanal map shown in the proposal. I included a Narvik 1 scenario as well, based on the actual map, using T6 US/Allied DDs vs German Mass DDs. Hopefully, with enough interest from other players, WG will do this for the August anniversary of Guadalcanal. Thanks!
×