mariouus

Players
  • Content count

    174
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    4204

About mariouus

  • Rank
    Leading Rate
  • Birthday
  • Portal profile mariouus

Recent Profile Visitors

450 profile views
  1. Colorado, definitely Colorado
  2. One 16/45 gun was built by Vickers, Not much is known, probably similar to performance of the Colorodo MKI guns, but inferiour do MKV - propelling 1116kg do about 766m/s. Russian made and designed variant were do be mutch "hotter" 1116kg propelled do about 840m/s, making it more powerfull than US 16"/50 MK7, what is obviously BS in 1914 (source "Последние исполины Российского Императорского флота" 1999). And unsupprisingly, this magical gun was never built. While it is clamed, that Vickers built 16" gun for "proposed Black Sea Battleship" it is not the case 16" four gun turret was thought do have rotating mass of 2210.t. What again is rather unrealistic -Richelieu had 15" guns and weaker armor, but more weight.Guns were do be idividualy sleeved. Loading system were do allow 3.rpm. While there are sketches in Russian archives for that turret, it was actually not finalased or even advanced design. Rather than sketched proposals. Now, if we talk about that "Russo-Baltic SY study". Just like I sayed, it is a fantasy ship, not design or proposal. They actually started from the book "Последние исполины Российского Императорского флота" 1999. And is from the drawing board of the book author Sergei Vinagradov. It is author rendition of different notes, sketches and god knows what artistic moments of somebody. For example picture of the sidearmor is authors representation of Gavrilov sketch to the assiastant off somebody and so on. In that book ship had 16 universal and 11 oil fired boilers. Actually, most of the ships info does not come from historical data, but is book authors opinion.
  3. If specification is wildly off from realistlicly achievable it is fantasy. I do not think they would mind. Firstly, I am rather sure, that they did not had anything to do with this stated design. Secondly "Vene-Balti Laevaehituse ja Mehaanika Aktsiaseltsi Tallinna Laevaehitustehas" was only one year old in June 1914, what further reinforces my opinion that it is not 1914 design. But one (or two, dependes how you look at it) Wows ship -Svetlana or Krasnõi Krõm (Krasny Krym) was built in Russo-Baltic, Actually Russo-Baltic Shipbuilding and Mechanical Society of Reval was not only Estonian shipbuilder during WW.1. Another Tallinn shipbuilder Bekker ja Ko (Bocker and Co) built Izyaslav class destroyers. I am Estonian, actually. So I am pretty accustomed with given shipbuilders
  4. Do not get me wrong. I am not accusing you in anything. Russian sources sometimes tend do be, how do say it, extravagant. It is lot to do with Soviet era, at that time everything Russia or Soviets did had do be faster, stronger and make a bigger bang than anything else. Hell, they sayed that Lada (car) was beautiful, fast, relaiable and safe- and it just wasnt any of those things. If this ship would have been built. It would have had displacement of roughtly 60000.t and speed of 22-25.kn from roughtly 75000shp. It would have been sort of decently armored, but ineffecently armored for WWI. It would have been bad gun platform, while its beam is rather wide, it is insufficent for 4X16.inch turret.
  5. Not really. There were several boilers nicknamed Admirality type, including some pre-dating turbines quite a bit. I am just saying, this symbol used on that armor layout is symbol for cilindrical waterdrum boiler, what is quite a bit younger than stated design. Here is boiler symbol for Gangut era. Note waterdrum shape on given pic (red circle) The fact is. If somebodys claims something in a book, does not mean it is true. Question what you have do ask is that, could a ship 265 meters long and 34 meters wide attain 30. knots using 1914 propulsion and 120000shp? Would, in 1914, 11 coal/oil firing and 16 oil firing boiler generate 120000shp? Is there any way, that ship with displayed armor scheme, arnament and size could only displace 45000t? If answer to all those question is NO. And you add utterly unrealistical armor-layout for 1914. There is not many conclusions there can be. It is defenetly not a design, it is a fantasy. Now, given the armor-layout it probably is not a fantasy dating 1914.
  6. Well. Primary reason why it did not left drawing board, was because this ship is made-up. And whose ever drawing board it was, had nothing to do with 1914. There are some obvious reasons.. 1.Armor is weird. Russia spent a lot of time and money do find good armor protection for their dreadnoughts. On the picture, we have exact layout, but wrong way around. Seeing 5.cm decapping plate infront of main armor is fancy, but not that expected for 1914. Also 250mm flat turret roofs are unnecessary, not only, pre-Pearl Harbor no-body would have seen any threat do justify it. Who ever designed this ship, saw aircraft as credible threat for BB, whenever this happened, probably not in 1914. 2. 27.boilers, 120000shp and propelling 265.m long "fat" ship to 30.kn. Not going do happen. In 1914 anyway. For ship this size 150000shp is minimum. 3.Minimum displacement for 265.m long ship, with 16 16.inch guns and decent armor is around 55000.t or rather 60000.t not 45000.t. 4. Last, but not least. On schematic, we see boiler symbols, what are obviously Admirality cilindrical waterdrum boilers, what were not even envisione in 1914. It is interwar design. Most likely those ships are similar to K1000 Battleship. Very little to do with reality. But I recon, this will not stop WG.
  7. Hard to say.I have seen strong performance from GZ. But I would say, I have see higher percentage of questionable gameplay.
  8. But when players delibaratly play baddly, then WG Will not get right info. While sometimes fraud is easily tracable. If player drives into secondary gun duel for example. But when player delibaratly looses planes, but otherwise playes normal.Then it is very hard do trace. For example, other day saw GZ planes circled his target for extended time, only after loosing a lot of planes it attacked. On statistic, he did not play baddly, did damage, but lost lot of planes. In reality he wanted do loose planes.
  9. No. What balancing like that will cause, is that slow BB, who can not keep up with cruisers, will be deleted early. GZ will see tier.6. And with GZ set-up it is mutch easyer do dispose low-tier BB s, than any other CV. From tier.6-7, only Colorado can give it mild troubles. Secondly, it will cause ships do lemming train up. Taking out any varability. Oh, I am on map X, lets just all "blob" up. Oh now I am on map Y, I know, lets just all train up. This in returne, will cause extremly pontless gameplay. Two "blobs" of opposing teams meeting and excancing fire at long range. BBs can not vanguard, because in order do support BBs against GZ cruisers have do follow BB to suicaidal range they actually have to be ahade of BB. And with-out AA you can not push. Yes, being attacked by CV while pushing is always a problem, but GZ IS just ridicilous.Yes, CV should be able do damage unsupported BB heavily. But with GZ support has do be in front If the supported, what is kind of suicaidal for cruisers. Only way do achive it is by camping. Mostly what we see is not people not knowing how do CV. It has much more to do with players deliberately throwing matches, so ship they are testing would appare weaker.
  10. I never got along with NC, while I overally like it. NC guns are just appauling, in my opinion. If I could get NC with Colorado guns, I would be very happy.
  11. So.Because I re bought Colorado for this thread. Here is a quick run-down of the current state of Colorado. Since re-buying it I have played 130 battles in Colorado. Averaging 68% winrate and 84000 hp of average damage. After 40 battles I re-spected my captain and modules (now running: Preventative Maintenance, High Alert,Adrenaline Rush. Basics of Survivability, Superintendent, Fire Prevention, Advanced Firing Training) and last 90.battles of 130.battles were at 69% of winrate and 91000 hp of damage. Colorado, in my opinion is the best tier.7 BB, extremely capable. At the same time, it is most unforgiving (now Nelson tops it, in that), any misplay will be punished heavily. But if you know your limitations of the Standard class, you will probably do well. It has gone so far actually, that if I see that enemy team has Colorado I become happy - easy kill- what is kind of weird when I am playing Colorado.
  12. I would say that tier.8 BB (and probably DD)s can play at tier.X with-out much problems. Tirpitz or Bismarck for example is just small and maneuverable enough do fight on tier.X maps. Sure their firepower is lacking, but the fact that they can manouver in the places, where tier.X BB can not, is nice. I, for one, prefer Tirpitz in tier.X anyday, over Iowa or Montana. The reason why I do not play tier.9 and tier.10 BBs, is that they are so large and unmanouvrable that they are very hard do play aggresively. Lets face it, if you play your Tirpitz or Bismarck and your secondaries are not firing, then you are doing it wrong. But yes, I hate playing tier.8 cruisers in tier.X battle.
  13. Last week, during the hight of Gangut Mission, saw very little amount of DDs.This week, on those two days I played DD numbers where rather decent. Averagind 3 per side.Thats why I sayed "looks healthy" At the same time, this might just be impression, caused by old MM issue. In other words, there is a high probability, that when I was getting 3-4 DDs per side, somebody else was not getting any.
  14. Arter the Gangut special is over, mid-tier DD population lookes more-or-less healthy. Problem seemes to be, just like with cruisers, in tier.8.
  15. I used maplesyrup site. What, for last week, showed about 64k of battles on both tier X BBs and DDs. At the same time, statistic on different sites are rather different. So I might be using a wrong site.