Jump to content

mariouus

Players
  • Content count

    492
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    6708

About mariouus

  • Rank
    Warrant Officer
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

984 profile views
  1. Kronshstadt. I'm asking your advice

    I will send you some Good, some Bad and some Average. In Kronsthat, my performance is rarely Average. I would say that only about around 10%. About 45% of the battle are from Good to Very Good. And about 45% of the battles are from Bad to Very-Bad. It is unrelaiable for the Cruiser, for example in Hipper about 66% of the battles are around my average performance and only 15% constitute for Very-Good and 15% Bad to Very-Bad. So, only sending Average or medicore battles, I would actually be sending you the most rare battles.
  2. Kronshstadt. I'm asking your advice

    Ok, will find something and send them tomorrow.
  3. Kronshstadt. I'm asking your advice

    If you want, I can send you some of the replays, so you could determine, if you play in the same playstyle. But overally, I would wait. Alaska looks better, but I would not say better for me, I do hate slow shells. I would rather play Hipper against tier.X than Des Moines..
  4. Kronshstadt. I'm asking your advice

    Like I sayed in other topic, I play it like Germans and do reasonably well and like it. But my playstyle on the Germans is a bit different than you usually see, so experience may varie. AS far as Scharnhorst goes, it is a lot different. Kronsthad guns Are way better. As advice. I would wait, until Alaska comes out and forum-members get it and get an opinion on it. Alaska lookes somewhat more "Normal". And would be somewhat more relaiable. And then decide. Alaska should be out soon.
  5. Me personally, have profound hatred towards Moskva. And in my opinion it playes nothing like a Donskoie or Moskva. In my opinion, its playstyle is more in line with Germans. Specially the Roon and Hindnburg. And I really like, it is a fun ship. At the same time other players, with other playstyles will have different opinion. So It is hard to say. It dependes how you play your ships. Maybe some of your clan mates has it and lets you take it out for a spin.
  6. I have no problem with that assesment. I also think that Roon is overally better ship.And that in competitive perspective Kronsthat is less than optimal. But for me, it does not chance the fact that it is fun. I play ships that I can have fun in, not ships that I can take out maximum performance.I might draw some flak here, but basically, I play ships that allows me do play them in the way, that is fun for me, but what might not be the optimal way, nor on most optimal ships. I have read your posts in another topic. And I do unterstand the points you make. You have a different , but complitely valid, approach do the game, than I do. From my perspective, I see no reason for changing it. It is a freak ship and should reamain like that. But I do agree, that Alaska should differ from the Kronsthat, Alaska should be tailored for those who find Kronsthat unsatifactory.
  7. And I hope they will not. It is properly fun ship do play. My poor Hipper is just sitting in the port and not getting enought playtime because of it.
  8. Its playstyle is not really similar to Scharnhorst. It is similar to Hipper, but specially to Roon. In Roon you have do get close as you can, using your consilement and then turn, angling your stern at the enemy. In Roon, you have to do it because of the gunlayout. In Kronsthat, there is no problem with guns, but doing the same is beneficial, because of the 25mm bow, it cant bowtank. And its fairly poor manouvrability and consilement means that it is very easy do get stuck, with-out real ability do turn away, if you start firing bow in.Minus torpedoes, I would say my playstyle is more or less identical do Roon and my performance is also very similar. After enemy has thined-out. Kronsthat has no problem pushing any ship. Yes 25.mm bow is un-sufficent to stationary bow-tanking, but it has very strong tranverse-bulkhead. So it is possible do angle it against any BB, if you do it at the right time at speed. Against cruiser. It is good do keep minimum of 10.km agains CL and about 8.km against CAs. If you get too close, your guns would overpenetrate like crazy. There are some cruisers that are citatelable at any range, when they broadside, like Minotaur, Neptune, Moskva, Donskoie.For some reason Seattle and Worchester are almost impossible do citadel at close range when they broadside. If you get closer, try do wait, until they angle a bit. Keep in mind, US cruisers can easily be citadeld when they turn their stern at you. Kronsthat is way stronger than Scharnhorst. Kronsthat can stomp most tier.7 ships. I would say, it is situationally better than any BB in tier VII-IX It is very fun ship to play. But it lacks overall reliability of the cruiser. For me, cruisers usually deliver similar damage-output from game-to-game. For example, in Hipper I usually do 60k-90k of damage battle-to-battle. I very rarely have a battle, where I do less than 60.k of damage or a battle where I do more than 90.k of damage. Kronsthat is the opposite. For example Today: first battle 30.k, second 170.k, third 145.k, fourth 65.k. So the reason, why people are complaneing, while having better than normal stats in it. Is the unrelaiabilty. Some people remember bad battles and not the good ones. But overally I would say it is balanced and is good. I probably would prefer Roon over it, if it would have the same captain training and creditmaking ability.
  9. Roon paradox

    Where did I say that you run away from something you can beat? As a Raider, objective is do disturb and sink enemy supply. This is all the tactical consideration. Chasing down a enemy cruiser who runs, is pointless. Why should you? Nine 8" and six 150mm and six 105mm are more than enought against most of the escorts, to mucle it self into range and sink stubborn escorts who fight. If you meet superiour ships or numbers, then you run. And in this case, having six rear facing guns is good. Yes, Graf Spee at river Plate and Scharnhorst at North Cape did turn do use all guns and it ended so well. Do be fair, Graf Spee actually was lot slower than ships she was fighting, it is not like she was going anywhere. Not too sure where Bismarck did it. And additional 3.gun 8" turret would increase ships displacment by what? About 750-1000.t (with everything you need to mount it). Six 150mm guns, even with one twin turret, would be about what? 250-350.t. Infact 150.mm single mount weight about the same as one dual 105mm DP mount or one loaded quad-torpedolauncher. Being bigger than Hipper, Roons displacement allocated do armament would be roughtly the same that on the Hipper and lower than on Hindenburg. It is a fantasy ship, no question about that. Not denying it. But it is not a bad design by WG. Deutchland class was an actual bad design. P-class was better, but still flawed. Nor would I have any real confidence of the megalomaniacs O-class. As far as nonsense features are concerned, the fact that you are calling them nonsense, does not make them nonsense. They are complietly sound ideas (or irrelavent). Something that is hard do say on many features on either Deutchland, P or O class. For example Deutchland was fairly unsuited for raiding. While outranging other cruisers, it was too slow do maintain that advantage, being armored like any other cruiser it did hurt, volume of fire was low. P-class fixed the issue with speed, but issue with volume of fire remaind, also in order do achive that speed, it was large for a cruiser and underarmed for a ship of that size (being roughtly the size of Scharnhorst, it was missing one turret and only having 4x150mm guns and 4x 105mm DP), armor was useable for CA, but not impressive. What WG did is that they took the Hull of the P-class and rationalised it, by adding 3x three gun turrets.Germans actually had considered design for 8" three gun turrets. Considering the size and weight of 11" turrets it would be complitely doable.With-out reducing internal volume for fuel. And changed a design that made little sense in complitley useable design. If germans would have not been that engulfed in trying do mount bigger and bigger guns on cruisers,they should have done the same. Roon, while being designed by WG, makes alot more sense than mess that is O-class, or sparsely armed P-class. 8" main calibre and 150.mm secondarys allows engagement of several "normal" convoy escorts simulataniously, with superiour firepower. With-out going into effective (or at times staying out of range of escort guns) range of the enemy. 105.mm would not allow it. It just do not have the range. For raiding UK trade routes, lot of the Atlantic was fairly "safe" from allied a/c for quite some time, so having more AA would have been somewhat less desirable than having 150mm (having stand-of capability is important).For example, during Weserübung, Deutschland was but out of action and forced do retire by only three (3) 6" shells hits. In a senise ofcourse, mounting even bigger guns on a cruiser made sense in the same way. 11.inch could stay out of range of enemy CAs. But 8" L60 could do it aswell.
  10. Roon paradox

    Well. Ibuki was in essence a Mogami. Do we have Mogami in game? Yes, yes we do, in tier.8. As a tier progression Hipper to Roon is mutch more logical, than having Mogami in tier.8 and another ship, what is in essence another Mogami, in tier.9. Ibuki was a result of emergy shipbuilding program and not a qualitive progression. Second thing, that if you calaim that something is stupid, silly or wrong. You should first think about, why someone would do something like that. 2.turrets at the front, one at the back serves a purpose, so does one at the front and two at the back. So does 150s. I am sure, that it is not an actual KM design, but WG have done suprising good job in invisioning it.It is a ship that is solid in intended role and situation for KM. Attributes it has, are complietly logical, yes it would have not been that usefull for US or UK navies, but complietly logical for KM situation.
  11. Roon paradox

    There are two different things. There is a traditional Cruiser. Whose role is do scout. And protect allied communications by either hunting down or chasing off enemy ships sent do disrupt or destroy allied communications. In pure Cruiser role, yes, forward battery is beneficial. If you are trying do hunt down or chase-off an enemy ship, it is better to have main firepower consentrated at the front. Germans, at the same time had little-to-no use for traditional Cruiser. What communications exactly would they be protecting? And who would they be chasing. German envisioned their fleet (before the war and right after start of the war) as a Raiding force. As a Raider, you are the one that enemy wants do chase off. Raiders are not there do hunt down enemy surface combantants. They are there strictly do disrupt enemy communications and supply. They do not want do cahase down enemy warships, they are hunting enemy supply ships. Merchantmen are slow, they can not run away. There is no reason do have stronger forward battery do hunt merchantmen. Convoy escorts are actually stuck with the convoys. If they fight, it is beneficial do have 150.mm guns. Sure, 150.mm have no advantages over 8", appart from the fact that they are additional firepower, fully capable do engage escorts, in their own right. Specially useful when you need do split your fire. And if escorts stands and fight, placemnt of the guns are rather irrelavent, it can use them just fine. If enemy warships does not fight and run. It is win-win for a Raider. Destroyers and CL have the speed do run. Merchantmen are too slow do run. If escorts run, Raider have no reason do chase them. Convoy it self is not going anywhere in a hurry. And sinking the convoy is why raider is there for. Not for chasing enemy warships around the seven-seas. In this case, having main firepower at the front, serves no real purpose. Raider as a rule, would not really engage equal or superiour enemy, at will. Warfare in general, fair fight is for suckers anyway. So if enemy wants do chase off or destroy a raider. It is beneficial for the raider do have stronger battery to the rear. Yes it will not sink BB with 8", but still having main firepower to the rear is better than in front. Yes. As a regular cruisers, for US and UK navys, who have alot of long communication lines do protect. Having a cruiser, with gunlayout and 150.mm secondarys like on the Roon, would be pointless. It would. But for Navy with very short, almost non-excisting, blue-water communications. And whose biggest objective would be disrupting enemy communications. Roon would have been complietly sound idea. Do be fair, ship with 2.turrets at the front and one at the back, would be somewhat un-understandable. Why would KM need a ship with that gunlayout?
  12. Roon paradox

    Well, ok. You do understand that if you mount 150.mm guns, you have them? In simpler words, you can engage enemys with them, in addition to your 8" guns, just like you could with 105s aswell. Only 150.mm have better range and hitting power than 105.mm. As a raider, 150mm would make more sense, up do atleast late 1943. Pointless do carry smaller calibre DP guns, If likelyhood of meeting a/c in numbers is fairly low. And yes, Roon would be a better raider, just because it has bigger secondaries. Logic is simple. If you have high threath from a/c, then AA DP mounts are usefull, non DP 150.mm are not.If you are fighting surface combantants, then fairly weak and short-range DP-mounts are also fairly useless and 150mm are way more usefull. I will if you will. There is nothing inherently wrong with either turret configuration, nor mounting 150.mm secondarys. The fact that you do not like the consept, does not maket it wrong. It was laid down as a simplified Mogami. But was converted do carrier, but never finished. Ibuki in game still have guns...
  13. Roon paradox

    150mm were in retrospect wasteful on Bismarck and Scharnhorst class aswell. Does not mean that they where not more effective than 105 or 128mm guns against ships. In a raider, 150mm are better. because even if you have 8" guns, why should you waste them on a lesser ships? Not do mention that they are additional fire-power. Actually KM just did not have capacity for real Raiders. If you look at the range, endurance and location of the Allied airfields, sufficently armed CA raider could have operated for years on allied routes with-out ever being sufficently threatened by aircrafts do constitute increased AA mounts.Up to about late 1943. Germans just did not have any cruisers suitable for that, nor supplybases located close enought or any CAs in sufficent numbers. Admiral Hipper class was just too unsuited for that, for reasons you named. Actually if you consider all the thing, Roon actually would have made alot of sense, in certain circumstances. It is no way more un-realistic or "product of dumb WG" than most other lines. Ibuki and Zao are also just unrealistic, so is Soviet and French line. If you go by that, only lines we would have in tier IX and X would be US lines. Yes. Most likely this design have nothing to do with real German WWII designs. But it is no way stupid, flawed or unrealistic. It is an very sound design, in it role. Not realistic in a way of German shipbuilding and raw-material situation. But so are alot of ships in WoWs.
  14. Roon paradox

    She has many 150mm guns, do dispose of lesser targets. If its weak, sink it with smaller guns, if it is strong, engage it with 8" guns, if it too strong, run away and try do make them do brake contact. Actually, it even playes exactly like that in game. (Apart from useability of 150mm guns ofcourse)
×