Namolis

Players
  • Content count

    660
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    9336

About Namolis

  • Rank
    Warrant Officer
  • Birthday
  • Portal profile Namolis
  1. I don't disagree. I think the RN battleships would have been better served with a more conservative approach - I find them both frustrating to play and frustrating to play against. It's so hard to apply skill either way when it's just all about spamming HE at everything you see and their gimped AP shells can't properly punish broadsides (which, annoyingly, still isn't enough of a weakness that you can use it against them - you still need to angle).
  2. What's so vexing to me is that I think the tiering for KGV is not only correct, but that it was a "brave" (maybe too strong a word, but you know what I mean) choice. WG made that choice against the wishes of some fans of the Royal Navy - they put more emphasis on capability, rather than year of construction/design. Most of the people who could be bothered to care seem to have wanted it on T8 with "special buffs" to make up the shortfall. (now we have it on T7 with "special buffs", so I guess that is one way of making everyone happy... ) And the people at Lesta do care, I think - but they take their orders from WG heads, obviously. This time, it seems Mammon's Magick was just too strong to resist for them.
  3. It's interesting how steady it is over the week - this forum will always tell you how bad everything is during weekends, but the weekly differences aren't that many percent from the weekdays. The graph is just a little fatter, that's all. It's also remarkable how stable the overall numbers have been since a couple of months after CBT ended. I guess players either leave the game early, or they stay on virtually forever and ever (like me).
  4. Oh come on, Lesta... Musashi was THE most T10 ship ever built! It was a slightly heavier, slightly improved version of Yamato - if you want to use the no-AA version, you can give it its historical turning circle to compensate. Remember back in 2015 when the Americans were all so dissappointed that their pride Iowa was relegated to a tier lower than Yamato? Your response was "they do not compare in raw stats". Have you stopped caring for historical, well... if not "accuracy", then "consistency"? Why not do this: 1) Make Musashi the CW reward - or something else on T10. A special premium, a reward ship for particularly challenging campaigns, whatever. 2) Move that Russian cruiser that nobody has heard of down to T9 with suitable soft stat nerfs and sell it for free XP. This accomplishes two things: a) You put the right ships on the right tiers and b) Your customers will have a non-battleship free XP ship to choose from.
  5. If exit strafe is free for Saipan, then it's free for all ships Or, rather, the price is in ammo, not planes.There, fixed.
  6. The real issue is not losing planes to strafing out. I have to say that falls under the "what were they thinking" kind of issue.
  7. Short fuse is strictly worse for a battleship. If it wasn't; WG would not have used it to balance the low tier battleships and for the line with the best HE. (And no, I don't know where that leaves Hood, who also has worse sigma than QE and WS. Note also that I'm just talking about battleships here. For lower calibers (needing less steel to arm), there could be advantages to having a short fuse.) To se why, you need to ask yourself when you want to be shooting AP and what you are aiming for. It's simple: you are shooting AP to punish broadsides and ideally you want to get citadels. Where is most of the citadel? Underwater. Since the fuse arms on contact with water, you will not get as many underwater citadels. You will not be able to sneak underneith the armored belt on battleships at range either. Can people please stop saying it's equal? Or if it is; please let me have the choice!
  8. No, I haven't seen the replay, I just posted more in general terms. Maybe I should have been clearer about that. I do see a lot of forumites who just follow the established meta on the forums without putting too much thought into it though.
  9. Conq vs any other BB = Conq will win Conq vs any CA = Conq will win In addition; Conq will do as good as Montana and better than Yama and GK vs CV (good AA). Conq will do better than Yama and Montana vs DDs (though perhaps not as good as GK due to hydro). And this ship is fine? No. Friendlies insisting on dying before the Conq can burn down the opposition and clear a path for cruisers does not mean that the ship is fine.
  10. As a piece of evidence for why a Conq doesn't need a nerf this picture is not adequate.
  11. Positoning is the hard part. Don't listen to the folks who say "get closer" because they are just demonstrating their orthodoxy to the current religion of "Everyone-except-me-is-a-camper-ism" that exists on this forum. I try to follow 5 rules: 1) Capping wins games 2) Your weapons are more potent the closer you are. 3) The enemy's weapons are more potent the closer you are 4) The enemy will shoot a target if they can 5) The enemy will kill a low health target if they can Rule 1) pushes the early rush towards each other. Much responsibility falls on the destroyers here. In domination games, it limits how conservative you can be. In Standard games it doesn't. Rule 2) makes i preferable to close in, while rule 3) makes it preferable to stand back as far as possible. How to reconcile those two? The idea is to make sure you get favorable trades. Sometimes you can avoid being shot at (through use of smoke or terrain); most of the time you need to accept that at least one ship can trade damage. Make sure you only accept favorable or equal (if desperate) trades. Rule 4) means that it is not always a good thing to not get shot at. Tanking is a thing, making an enemy swing at you and miss is better than swing and hit at a friendly. On the other hand, don't give an enemy a target to shoot at, if he would otherwise sail empty. Rule 5) Is where so many get it wrong. They move in, get focused and killed; vow never to do that again, and get too passive instead. The problem is that once you get low, it can be hard to shake the "aggro" off you. High tier ships turn like bricks and gun ranges are so long that you won't outrun damage until you are unspotted. People have learned this (conciously or through simple trial and error), and play more passively than on lower tiers. If there is a competent CV on the enemy team, you can't rely on ever going unspotted and you can't park yourself behind an island outside your fellow ship's AA cover either - making it even harder to break the "low damage aggro" vicious circle. Then you need to be even more careful. In other words: You want to close as much as you can, but not more. Close in if and only if you have an exit strategy or are sure that you don't really need one. Like it or not though: high tier games are more passive for a reason.
  12. Yes and no. It still should show up indirectly by increasing the ship's WR, but it isn't. The weird thing is that when I tried the Lion and the Conq on PTS, they seemed absolutely as powerful as they felt when I was on the recieving end. No matter what enemy (save perhaps a carrier, but they didn't show up too much when I played), any kind of 1v1 was mine to lose, not his to win. Yes, you can die to a hidden Shima spread to the side. Any T10 battleship - GK included - does. The one thing Conq won't do as well as the other three battleships is blap broadsiding cruisers due to the short fused AP and having HE loaded. You still have no trouble taking any of them on, of course, but you may need more time to destroy them, and like you say it is better at aiding other cruisers wittling them down. Because of that, I'm not surprised Montana does more % dmg to cruisers, though I am still somewhat surprised by the amount. I am very surprised by the fact that Montana does more % dmg to destroyers. Conq is more likely to have HE loaded, the HE is better and it doesn't spend the 3rd slot on accuracy, so it has 24.6s reload rather than 30. This all leaves me with a few questions on what's going on: 1) Is Montana an OP ship, and I'm just too potato to fully grasp her true potential? 2) Are Conq players not utilizing their combined HP pool very well (willingly or accidentally letting their concealment advantage shift damage over to the rest of their teammates)? 3) Are Conq players being suckered by the allure of large damage numbers into focusing the wrong targets? Do they let ships that are ultimately more important to the match's outcome (ie. destroyers and cruisers) go free when they shouldn't? 4) Are the greens less able than the reds to take into account that there is a Conq in the game - ie. do they play the same as they always would and don't allow the Conq the time it needs to take apart the enemy team by burning down their long range standoff or stripping off AA? In other words: do the friendly cruisers go into the fray too early and die before the Conq has had time to send the enemy battleships into hiding?
  13. They also gave Shimakaze a speed that just barely allows her to reach true top speed with speed boost. And then they made Leningrad (rl speed 40 kts) into a 43 kts ship without speed boost.
  14. If it makes no difference to the potatoes and it makes a difference to non-potatoes, why not do it? No it's not. The "fire prevention" captain skill says it gives -10% fire chance, on IFHE it says -3% (or -1% fire chance), while the "demolition expert" skill says it gives +2% fire chance. Do you honestly think that it is obvious to a new player how the total fire chance will work when one ship fires on another and both ships have all of those skills?
  15. Yeah. Getting addicted to large damage numbers can let people ignore the DD. Conq should be uniquely well suited to hunt down the other high WR ship on T10, the Khaba.