Jump to content

zeeschuimer

Beta Tester
  • Content Сount

    159
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan

    [3-RTR]

About zeeschuimer

  • Rank
    Petty Officer
  • Insignia
    [3-RTR]

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. zeeschuimer

    Naval Battles

    I give up. This is not a forum, but a simple childish yes and no game. No arguments, no explanations, just qualifying others here.
  2. zeeschuimer

    Naval Battles

    1. It has nothing to do about opinions, like there has to be a vote or so. It is about arguments. That is what is missing. I gave my reasons why to discuss things, not a question to be answered with non-information. 2. Yes you can have an opinion. But as this is indeed a forum, say why you think it's rubbish. I can give you reasons enouigh why I think it is not. 3. Yes it has. If you think this has nothing to do with eachother, then XP in a tier 1 battle should be as large as in a tier 10 battle. And we both know it isn't. 4. Maybe I am in a clan and talking with other clans as well? Maybe clans discuss things? Have meetings? Ofcourse you have been wrong already once, could it be you are wrong twice?
  3. zeeschuimer

    Naval Battles

    1. What WG said can't be discussed? Maybe there are reasons to do so. 2. Do you decide what is rubbish and what is not? I have reasons to propose something. This is a forum, right? 3. Well if you are, lets say a tier 5 player with a 5 skills captain, that is something completely different than a tier 5 ship with a 19 skills captain. 4. I am not talking here for myself, you seem to misunderstand that as well. If you don't ask why certain suggestions are made, you can always ask why. Again, this is a forum. When everything on this forum is measured by one persons feeling if it makes sense or not, tell that. That's what a forum is for! I better ignore that last remark. Makes no sense as I never asked for bigger cookies. I just want to contribute to a FAIR game.
  4. zeeschuimer

    Discussion about the Thunderer

    Indeed.
  5. zeeschuimer

    Naval Battles

    About your answers: 1. That is your opinion, I notice other opinions in and outside my clan. 2. Can't do anything with such an answer. Take people who are in this forum serious, just an advice. 3. If you think it has nothing to do with the matchmaking. I'm afraid it does. 4. Because people who are doing their best to make damage don't get a chance to reach the goals set in Naval Battles by their own team, thats why. You last comment makes no sense at all. The advice of Wargaming to discuss matters on the forum are useless as any suggestion, idea or critics are constantly waved away. How do you think this contributes to a positive community?
  6. zeeschuimer

    Naval Battles

    *edit* 60 was my mistake, allright. 50 versus 20 is still 30 more, ok? so 300 attemts more, ok? *edit* Olonborre, my clan is pretty succesful in the Naval Battles. When analysed what happens and what commenst I receive, a deeper insight is necessary. We know tricks, strategies etc. But that is not what I try to state. I see things happen and think about it. Oil doesn't really bother us, as our base is 80% finished already. *edit*
  7. zeeschuimer

    Naval Battles

    Naval Battles are a nice thing to do with your clan, versus another clan. Unlike Clan Battles it is played between players who don't participate in it. Now there are some things in Naval BAttles I struggle with. First thing is, that when Naval Battles are on, people who don't play this mode spoil it many times for those who do. How? When the game is about damage or ribbons, capping it out. Pretty unsportive and actually leads to team damage by the irritated players, who lose their chances by this childish behaviour. When it is about XP you see 'seal clobbers' going low tier with their top captains, not leaving any chance for beginners. Isn't it possible to: 1. Enlarge the capping time, but give more XP the longer the capping lasts? 2. Not letting people join who don't have Naval Battles switched on? 3. Limiting the captain level like it is done with the tier? 4. Introduce something like team death match without capping at all? Next I noticed there are big clans, with like 60 players fighting clans with only 30 players. The last is pretty chanceless winning it, as, when both clans have equally good players. Simply because they have more attempts reaching their goals.
  8. zeeschuimer

    Discussion about the Thunderer

    I think I missed nothing.
  9. 200% rebate coupon.......That means if you buy a PLN 168.88 ship, Wargaming gives you PLN 168.88 plus the Tirpitz? I think I live in the wrong country...
  10. Now for quite some time I use this strategy for commanders. But the more I think of it, the more it wonders me why WG doesn't make a better system for it. What is going on? Now, if you purchase a new commander with 3 skills, it costs 25 doublons. When I want to retrain an officer with 3 skills for the next ship, its costs me....500 doublons. Can't wargaming figure out there is something wrong here? Why doesn't is just cost a certain amount of doublons for each skill? XP can be 'upgraded' with buying free XP for doublons, so kids can get a tier X ship. The result is there. Bad players in high tier ships. Now I realize this brings us on a slippery slope. People can as well buy premium ships at a higher level than they actually play. But maybe it makes the game much more interesting and much more competitive if you can buy only premium ships of the level you have earned. Now it can be thought that this would harm economics, but wouldn't it harm economics more when people lose their interest in a game due to the loss of competition? Most people love to 'sink' a ship, same tier and premium with an unskilled player, but don't they prefer to have a fierce battle with a skilled player? I think so. It would be much more motivating to reach, lets say, tier 8, to get a Bismarck with superior secondary guns. What are the thoughts about this?
  11. zeeschuimer

    European Destroyers: Early Access

    Spanish cruiser Canarias Spanish Heavy cruiser project Almirante Cervera Project 1047 (Netherlands) Cruiser HNLMS De Zeven Provincien (Netherlands). Rear guns later replaced by Terrier missile system. Who ever has pictures of cruisers of other european navies, just place them. Let wargaming know they must do their homework! HNLMS De Ruyter (Netherlands)
  12. zeeschuimer

    European Destroyers: Early Access

    And there are many more, Andrejevic. Thanx for giving more information about the Mediterranean and Black Sea states! (Holland class, much like Friesland class) (HrMs Evertsen, Admiralen class, 8 ships) (HrMs Isaac Sweers, Callenburg class, 4 ships.) HrMs Tjerk Hiddes and HrMs van Galen, both N-class destroyers in game as TNI Gadja Madah. HrMs Banckert (Ex-HMS Quilliam) HrMs Evertsen, (ex-HMS Scouge ) Kortenaer and Piet Heyn (S-class destroyers) Now the argument given ('then it would consist only dutch warships') is really a non-argument. That would really ignite the question about the swedish dominance in one complete line called 'european' Where is the swedish cuiser Tre Kornor (see picture below)? And where are the cuisers of the other nations? Aparently it prevails to have fantasy ships in the national interest of certain countries for 'patriotic reasons'. Wich is actually a pretty nationalistic statement. I had another word in mind, but will not use it as it is just just a little bit more abusive as 'patriotic', but has a little more historical load, even if it means the same.
  13. zeeschuimer

    European Destroyers: Early Access

    Do your own research, I would like to say. If you don't understand how Europe has evolved after world war 2, you better say nothing. I already gave the name of the danish destroyer (Peder Skram). Now do some research for yourself. With the links I gave a good start. Already only the dutch give you battlecruisers, cruisers and destroyers. So does the spanish. With the gigantic fantasy of wargaming that should be enough to build two complete navies. Friesland consists of two classes. Now they gave her no torps, as she had none, but no RADAR where it had 3 seperate systems. An Air warning RADAR (The big antenna at the rear mast), A surface warning RADAR (Decca) and a target aquisition RADAR, the smaller antenna on the bridge. Now don't mix target aquisition RADAR with tracking RADAR. The first is 2 dimensional (constantly turning antenna), the second 3 is dimensional pecil beam and has to be pointed at a target first found 2 dimensional. Next, surface aquisition RADAR turns faster than Air warning RADAR (about factor 1.5 to 2). The reason is that surface targets don't have to be followed by a tracking radar. Thy move to slow for that. Talking about RADAR antennae. Air warning RADAR (the largest antennae) in the dutch navy are painted BLACK (always)! Surface aquisition RADAR antennae are GREY (always) Euratom has NOTHING to do with what we are talking about here. I don't know why you even mention it. The EDC has very certain an EEC connection, or you really don't understand why the EEC was raised in the first place. Don't be mislead by the name (European Economic Community).
  14. zeeschuimer

    European Destroyers: Early Access

    Wrong. Ever heard of the European Defence Community? https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/int/edc.htm Denmark and Norway certainly had small fleets but no reason to put none in. I don't say the Swedes shouldn't be counted. I give the reasons why Sweden is not Europe, if many other nations are not counted in as well. Don't turn it around. I don't agree. Give it the name it deserves. Don't get me wrong, I don't oppose having Swedish ships in the game, I oppose calling that European. It is definitively not representative. That's the point I'm trying to make. I regard you an intelligent enough person to recognize this. So if I do the same, it suddenly is hypocritical? I don't exclude nations, I want them to be included! I just give you reasons why it is doubtful to call Sweden representative for Europe. Especially when we talk the era the ships are placed. But that does still not wanting me to exclude their fantastic ships! And there I fully agree with you, I'm actually telling the same story. I would say, check this: https://www.naval-encyclopedia.com/ A very well informed website, not excluding any country
  15. zeeschuimer

    European Destroyers: Early Access

    And Sweden is not the same as Europe. The European Union, in the early days the EEC ,was an organisation to form a block against the east and only few countries joined in the beginning. In the same period there was NATO. Both organisations being a military cooperation. Now, Norway was and is part of NATO. Sweden has until 1995 not been part of any of these. So in the era this game is placed, Sweden has, like Finland and Switzerland no place in the European part. Just call it Swedish line, not European. But that is very black and white. My statement is to say that if there is a block formed for this game and called 'European', let it be European and not solely three countries of wich 90% is only one country. This suggests the Sweden is a major naval power in Europe. Well didn't play any role last century in any conflict. And this is not because I don't like Sweden, or their forces, it's just very narrow view on what Europe is.
×