Jump to content

callumwaw

Players
  • Content count

    59
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    4761

About callumwaw

  • Rank
    Leading Rate
  • Insignia
  1. 24h Premium Account as a gift from WG

    OK so it must have been in War Thunder and in Armoured Warfare that you could activate it later. In my case, I'm not even gonna get a taste of premium coz I'm leaving tonight and won't be home before Monday :-)))
  2. 24h Premium Account as a gift from WG

    It's great that after completing a simple mission you get 24 hours of premium account. It's really nice of them. However, it's extremely annoying it activates immediately after you win it. In at least three different missions/challenges, I got the 24h premium account literally on the evening before (a) going on holiday, (b) going away on business, or (c) basically not being able to play for a few days. Why can't we just win the OPTION to activate the 24 h of premium when we like? It works like that in several other games, World of Tanks included (I think). If you can, for example, hold on to your containers and open them when you like, why can't WG use the same mechanism for the activation of bonuses like Premium Account?
  3. 2 new japanese DDs

    You are perfectly right, and I agree with many of your arguments. But it seems to me that Wargaming are totally randomly selecting what to make very historical and what can be science fiction. For example, they painstakingly recreate the looks, names, armour layout, and even AA gun layout of the real ships. Why bother doing that, if we then totally screw up game balance? (mind you, I'm not a BB player, I mostly play DDs and then cruisers these days, so it's not like I'm an angry BB player crying that his ship gets sunk :-) But even as a DD player, I can see that the new ships are too powerful)
  4. 2 new japanese DDs

    Are you reading the same thread as me? Where did I say they never did it before? I mean testing by youtubers, like flamu, iChase etc. Their feedback was generally that the ships were OP. Wargaming sometimes takes their opinion into account and changes a ship, and sometimes it doesn't. This time it didn't. See above. I don't mean software testers, ffs, or in-house testers. Before you or me can get our hands on a new ship, it's released to (among others) some of the key community contributors, youtubers etc. etc. etc. as a "work-in-progress" ship for testing. This is the sort of tests I mean. The fact that YOU don't know about something doesn't mean it doesn't exist... The argument that "things are not historical in this game" has been used billions of times to defend the most idiotic decisions that Wargaming made, like radar or hydro that can see through islands. I understand that, if "things are not historical", you would be perfectly happy for some ships to have nuclear guided missiles that kill you with one hit? LOL So why do Wargaming bother researching historical details like armour layout, gun layout, even AA layout from real ships, if they "it's not historical"? C'mon. Ships are divided into classes to fulfil certain roles in the game. Battleships are supposed to survive long and tank damage. With the new DDs, they cannot do that because a single DD will melt a BB and kill it within a minute. So the new DDs basically negate the role of a battleship. Normally, DDs are countered by cruisers, but if a cruiser can't win a one-on-one fight with a DD then this role is also negated. I really don't know why people like you cannot stomach the truth that sometimes certain ships are released OP? It's not a big deal, it has happened in the past, all that has to be done is they need to be nerfed a little bit. Why is it such a problem for people like you and why is it so hard to understand? Wargaming have done this in the past many times, why is it so painful for you to allow they should do it this time, too? If you don't believe they're OP, just look at the damage, kill etc. statistics of these ships from the past few days, then you'll understand.
  5. 2 new japanese DDs

    Oh, sorry then, my bad. I was sure the improved pen is just for the new DDs. So it's even worse than I'd thought :) Why on earth do Wargaming do that? Why do they first give those ships pathetic tiny guns, and then mess around with the rules of the game to suddenly make those crap guns OP? LOL And most of the testers said it the new DDs were OP. Why do Wargaming even bother giving the ships to testers in the first place, if they don't listen to their feedback? :( I can see this game is going down the same path as WoT, which had become so ludicrous that I stopped playing it. SERIOUSLY, guys: 100 mm shells destroying Battleships? REALLY? Look at the chase after the Bismarck: there was a whole division of destroyers chasing the Bismarck and firing at it, but somehow they didn't sink it in 30 minutes. Why? because destroyer-calibre shells CANNOT SERIOUSLY DAMAGE A BATTLESHIP. IF they could, no nation would ever build battleships if you can have 20 DD's for the same cost, and at a lower cost of maintenance. This game is becoming another science-fiction game, like WoT.
  6. 2 new japanese DDs

    You are mistaken here. You're only looking at the stats you can see in the game. On the Akizuki and other destroyers you have theoretical dpm. In practice you get much less damage because HE and AP shells will shatter against BB armour, so you get a fraction of the theoretical dpm plus the fires. But the problem with the Kitakaze is that its ammunition has improved penetration, better than other DDs. With IFHE, its tiny shells penetrate the armour plating of every BB. Which means its practical dpm is nearly equal to its theoretical dpm (well, unless you miss your shots completely). This is why it is totally OP: the Akizuki may fire equally fast, but it can only hope to set fires. Most of its shells will shatter. Not the Kitakaze. So basically you fire every 2.3 seconds, you do a constant stream of reliable damage, plus you set fires. No other DD can do this. In my most recent game, I was up against a Kitakaze in my Baltimore. I was practically full health. I radared him,, came around an island promontory, fired two or three volleys into him hitting with most shells and taking a large portion of his health. But in the meantime, he killed me from full health. Which means that in a one-on-one battle, a heavy cruiser with a much bigger health pool and armour does not stand a chance against a destroyer. Can't you see how ridiculous this is? I mean, I would understand if he killed me with torps, that's OK, but with those peashooters? Some WW2 tanks had bigger guns than the Kitakaze, for f*cks sake! Basically: stoopid Japanese. Instead of building all those carriers, battleships and cruisers, all they needed to do was to build lots of the Kitakaze class destroyers and they would have kicked the Americans' arses and won WW2 :-)
  7. Love the reporting system

    So it doesn't matter if you actually use a swearword, what matters is if you're reported, right? I mean, you could say "Hello everybody" and if I reported you out of spite, you'd get banned? Also, at least one person on the team (in addition to myself) reported that guy for the tons of swearwords he used so how come he wasn't banned?
  8. Love the reporting system

    edited
  9. @th3freakie Thanks for the link, the video has clarified things: the calibre/4 rule pertains to battleship secondary guns unless they are also used on German destroyers or cruisers. So apparently these 105 mm's must be used on a DD or CL in the German tech tree and that's why they have calibre/6 penetration. Which means that the only difference IFHE makes it allows the 105 mm secondaries to shred tier 8-10 destroyers, which they cannot penetrate without IFHE. So basically it's a matter of whether you want to have the 6 x 150 mm guns damaging a DD or 14 guns (with a smaller chance of fire but doing damage constantly).
  10. This is what seems to be the case. Wow, this is amazing! But it's only at Tier 10, because Freddy only has 105 mm. I don't think I'll go there, I'm perfectly happy with the Bismarck and probably won't move up the line. I'm not that fond of science-fiction ships. That's why I stopped playing WoT. :)
  11. @Riselotte you did answer, and I thank you for that, but you didn't give any references. So, with all due respect, to me it was just another answer (like the one in the Warships Wiki, which clearly is wrong!). Your answer proved to be correct but I needed some reference material, so to say, to back it up. And other users have very kindly provided that.
  12. @Nautical_Metaphor I agree with all that you said, but, again, that was not my original question. The question was, did the 105's get calibre/4 or calibre/6 penetration (and, by extension, which armour thresholds were made penetrable by taking IFHE). @Redcap375 thanks mate, gl & hf to you, too.
  13. It is not true the answer is in google. When you google it, you find TWO CONTRADICTORY ANSWERS and that's why I started this thread. Seriously, how hard is it to read the original post and comprehend it? The only reason I asked the question is that I had googled it and I had found divergent answers.
  14. Finally someone said this! Thank you! But there are people who think there is only one valid build-up for a given ship, which is nonsense. If this were true, they wouldn't give us any choice, the captain perks would be distributed automatically. I agree there are different ways of building your captain. At the moment I'm experimenting with enhancing the efficiency of the secondaries as there seem to be fewer CV's so statistically, it seems, speccing for AA is not useful in as many games as in the past.
  15. @tank276 clearly, you're no linguist, so as a linguist myself let me explain: words of the same origin often have different meanings in different languages. Like the word "consequent" and its counterparts, which in many languages mean "consistent" but obviously not in English. It has developed differently in English since it was borrowed. As centuries pass, borrowed words often change their meaning in target languages. So it is of absolutely ZERO relevance what "dilemma" means in Greek for Modern British English. It could even mean "don't start off-topics in internet forums" in Ancient Greek, but it would still mean what Oxford English Dictionary says it means as far as English is concerned. And I doubt the original Greek word meant "not answering the question" or "preaching to other people what you think is right." Ahhh, here is the source of the problem. You didn't even bother reading the original post, you only read the title of the thread and jumped to conclusions. How's that for "not being very bright"? I even made out the bleeding question in bold to make sure everybody knew what it was, but you didn't even read that far. Please, stop adding more posts that have no relevance to the problem at hand. I will ignore any further comments that are irrelevant, it's a waste of time.
×