Jump to content


  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


About callumwaw

  • Rank
    Leading Rate
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. @tasman_devil I keep reminding myself this is, in fact, a science-fiction/fantasy game that takes place in the alternative reality setting of "what would it be like if the USSR had not been the sh*thole of a place it actually was in terms of its power and technology" :) Still, the radar re-do is just unnecessarily complicated. Yeah, Russian cruisers tend to have worse detection but they more than make up for it with their other features. No need to give them radar that's 40% better.
  2. But why? Why do the Russians have to have a different radar? The Soviet Union wasn't able to develop its own radar at all (in WW2) so why is it supposed to have a much better in-game radar than anyone else? Even in your proposal, the Russian radar is between 20% and 40% better (in terms of range) than British or American. The latter two nations actually DID have radar, as opposed to the USSR. Why all the science-fiction?
  3. The radar change makes perfect sense. The Russian ships are, in general, very weak and not OP at all, oh no, if you say that, you're a decadent imperialist pig. So giving the Chapa a 12-km radar while its US counterpart, the Cleveland, has a 9 km radar, is logical, realistic and historical. As we all know, the Soviet Union wasn't even able to manufacture good trucks for their armies, but they certainly used special Stalinium-based radar that was much better than that in the UK and US. Well done, Wargaming, and no Russian bias at all. Happy to see this.
  4. callumwaw

    Upcoming Fix To AA Mechanics

    @bondone naturally, IRL such planes would be able to spot a BB, and perhaps even a DD, but wouldn't be able to relay their position to allied ships so accurately as to allow them to score first-salvo hits from 20 km away :) I ceased to talk about realism in WoWS ever since they introduced radar and hydro that works through solid mass of rock, like islands. So if we agree this is a science-fiction game (and don't even get me started on the fictitious Russian/Soviet ships that never really existed and the "a lot of our player base are Russian with a lost empire complex so we need to give them OP ships to prop up their morale and boost our income" strategy that Wargaming seem to have in each game they produce) then we can agree that high-flying planes can't spot ;)
  5. callumwaw

    Upcoming Fix To AA Mechanics

    The individual returning flights of planes (the ones that have carried out a strike and left the squadron to return to the CV, or the whole squadron after the F key has been pressed) result in the DDs being spotted 90% of the time. This can be solved easily: if the returning planes are immune to AA because they're "flying at high altitude", they should not spot ships either, because they're too high. A simple tweak like this can make DDs life livable again without nerfing the carriers in any way.
  6. callumwaw

    General feedback

    @MrConway 8.0.1 seems much better balanced. Enemy planes remain a challenge while not being invincible. An AA cruiser is able to shoot down a reasonable number of them, but this gives the CV the (logical) choice of going after ships that are not specialised anti-aircraft platforms. The game is much more fun than yesterday. I agree with @TomBasley that CVs definitely need to be able to switch sectors while in the plane mode. BTW do the planes that have conducted a strike (and are returning to the CV on their own) still spot targets?
  7. callumwaw

    [0.8.0] First CV rework tweaks and changes

    The whole problem with CVs is... that they exist in the game. It would probably be easiest to remove aircraft carriers completely. Yes, Wargaming would lose a (very) small number of CV-only players but in return they would prevent thousands of frustrated players from leaving the game. I'm not saying they will uninstall, but they will be so frustrated and pissed off that they will only play it very rarely. There is a difference between someone who plays an hour every day and someone who plays once every two weeks: the former is more likely to spend real money on the game; the latter won't spend a dime.
  8. callumwaw

    General feedback

    Basically, if a CV wants you dead, you will be dead. This was a complaint in previous patches (although I personally found it exaggerated) and I thought one of the reasons for patch 8.0 was to get rid of this alleged problem and balance the game better, but now it's clear to me it was only done in order to make CV gameplay more arcade-y and easier for console users. I can see no other reason. Right now, if you play a DD, you will get perma-spotted and you will spend your whole game dodging air attacks and finally dying. You won't even have the time to spot for your team, look for targets, or engage them. If you are not fired upon by enemy ships then you might spend 15 minutes dodging air-dropped bombs and torpedoes and perhaps even survive. But you're spotted all the time so naturally all enemy ships will be firing at you, too. And you won't even have the time to do anything about it because dodging rockets, bombs and torpedoes requires all your focus. The unlimited number of planes is such an absurdity that it could only be matched by giving other ships unlimited hit points :) I've played a few games in DDs and in none of them was I able to do my job (spotting, capping) properly because I seemed to be the sole target for CVs. Notser confirms this perception in his latest video. I need some dubloons and I was on the verge of buying them, but fortunately 8.0 is here and now I know there is no way I'm getting any premium time or dubloons in the current iteration of this game. The game has just become very, very boring for a DD player.
  9. callumwaw

    CV’s are released

    Flambas? That's the guy on my team yesterday who charged into a cap in a DD, got radared and killed in 30 seconds? :) Now, seriously: I think the only reason for this change is to make it more playable on consoles.
  10. callumwaw

    CV’s are released

    My fresh impression, after playing several battles, is that if a carrier wants you dead, you will be dead. So how is that different from what we had in the past? (well, the difference is NOW he has an unlimited number of planes, so he can actually keep attacking you for 15 minutes non-stop, even if you're in an AA cruiser... Even if you're perfect at manoeuvering and do all you can with your AA, he only has to get lucky a few times, and he doesn't need to worry about planes being shot down cos he has an unlimited number of them...) So far I'm very disappointed with the changes. They made CVs even less realistic (let me say this again, UNLIMITED number of planes? Really??), they made AA less realistic (DODGING flak... LOL, I wonder how many bottles of vodka they guy who came up with this idea had in him... or perhaps you have to be trained in the Gulag to have the reflexes to dodge a shell that has already burst :D ), and all of that would be fine if the changes improved the gameplay but it doesn't seem they did. So they made the CVs ludicrously and unnecessarily weird and in return the game has not benefitted anyhow.
  11. callumwaw

    Dynamic sights problem in the Musashi?

    @AmiralPotato same here! :) (by the way, this is totally counter-intuitive. Normally you give MORE lead when aiming at a longer distance, but in the world of Wargaming it is the other way round. Well, we shouldn't be surprised, after all this is a world where radar and sonar work through islands :-))) )
  12. callumwaw

    Dynamic sights problem in the Musashi?

    @LDPDC thank you so much, I had no idea - I thought that since the sight scales depending on the zoom, it also adapts to the distance accordingly. So the time-to-target is always given correctly but the scale is not. The reason I did not notice this earlier is probably that I rarely fire at very long distances. As far as BBs are concerned, I have mostly played the Bismarck and I like to play it at medium distances - about 15 km, now that I think of it! So it is only in the Musashi that I have started to use the spotter plane extensively and, yes, I do fire at longer distances. In the Bismarck, I must have adjusted this automatically. Once again, thanks for pointing this out, mate. I didn't find this information anywhere else.
  13. Hi guys. I'm having problems aiming with the dynamic sight in the Musashi. It seems to me that the shell flight time to target indicator (in seconds, the one to the left of the aimpoint) is totally off. It seems the actual shell flight time is shorter than what the indicator says. For example, if the enemy ship is sailing broadside to me at about 30 knots and the indicator says flight time is 14 seconds, then if I give a 14-dot lead on the sight, the shells will actually get there faster and hit the water ahead of the enemy ship, at about the 10th or 11th dot. Has anyone else noticed this? I know the Musashi/Yamato have a pretty fast muzzle velocity but I understood the shell flight time indicator takes into account the shell velocity of the actual ship you're using at the moment. This is something I've only noticed on my Musashi. BTW I use the dynamic sight with all ships and I have no problems aiming accurately. Only the Musashi seems to be the problem. What am I doing wrong?
  14. Ahh, I guess we'll have to wait & see. I really wish they gave everybody who voted a chance to get that camo, it's pretty nifty. But what I would like even more is for the Blyska to get some love & attention, it's been power-creeped to hell.
  15. OK, I got confused by this: "All prizes will be credited by 7 Dec.". I thought that, seeing as the mission was the prize for voting, we would get the mission on 7 Dec. :) Thanks for clarifying this.