Trainspite

Supertester
  • Content count

    1,814
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    2862

7 Followers

About Trainspite

  • Rank
    Midshipman
  • Birthday June 3
  • Portal profile Trainspite

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    Somewhere, anywhere.
  • Portal profile Trainspite

Recent Profile Visitors

862 profile views
  1. It doesn't make much difference that Musashi is at tier 9 with regards to the guns. Tier 7s get overmatched by 15" guns and above already, and the only effect would be on the increased frequency of seeing tier 8s compared to regular Yamato. Which shouldn't be that much of a problem as it is probably going to be behind a large FXP wall. I am more concerned at the actual balancing of aspects of the ship like the armour (Worse frontal bulkheads, but still good) and HP, as the guns themselves are no problem at tier 9, it just means the hull they are mounted on needs to be worse.
  2. Give QE the same number of games as the other 3, and she will slide down. I can't argue on my stats because of this: QE was 67,309 over about 10 games. (Stats not recorded on account). Aside from the Bayern, which is stock, the average damage lines up with when I bought and played the ship (exception being Warspite which sees quite a bit, but was my first tier 6 BB after my CBT Fuso got taken away from me. This lines up with me developing/getting better as a player, so when QE produces results akin to that, while Warspite in a similar batch of games now produces 80k + average, I am quite confident in condemning QE to medicority/lacklustre/eternal below average-ness. Turret traverse can be worked around. I even had a go at those who thought Warspite's old 72s traverse is so terrible, but Warspite had the rudder to make up for the 72s time. Orion is OP even with the traverse, and it is a balancing feature on Iron Duke, but QE just doesn't deal with it well. It confines QE to mid-range, being a lot less flexible and impactful than Warspite.
  3. Aye, that can be taken into account, but that does mean it is even longer to turn the turrets if needed. It still doesn't redeem the ship for having so many poor/mediocre attributes.
  4. Hell no. New Mexico is awesome. Speed was her only disadvantage, when the tier 8s came rushing to you, that did not matter. The guns are fairly reliable, having 12 of them, and they punch hard. The armour is workable and sturdy enough to tank several hits. New Mexico, aside from speed, is fine against tier 7s and 8s. QE on the other hand is forced to the back lines in tier 6 games because she has that 72s traverse and nothing to make up for it (No good turning circle like Warspite). I find this far more crippling than the 21kn speed. Unless AA counts to make up for it. Bayern has armour and decent all around stats, and QE would be similar, except that she is just worse in the soft stats. Bayern has more range, better rudder shift, better speed, better armour, better concealment, better turret traverse, better turning circle. In return, QE gets better AA, more HP and 2.0 sigma. The British 381mm gun is a superior gun for HE spam and AP performance, but the difference is negligible at times. Bayern was never held in that high regard against the other tier 6 BBs, and QE is just worse in most situations. Now, I do recommend QE receive a buff or two, she is the worst RN BB in the game currently, and though not unworkable, just un-competitive/less flexible when you compare her attributes against others. At least by my reckoning, that beats the NewMex Brick as the worst T6 BB. I would think Mutsu is better for the most part too. Warspite is so very much better in gameplay terms. As for premium BBs. Kii and Amagi are roughly equal. Bismarck/Tirpitz are too. Of course that doesn't counter things like OP Albert being more OP than OP Nassau, or Alabama/NoCar, but it is just disappointing to see QE that low. That wasn't my experience firing the AP at broadside BBs. Using even the nerfed (wrong data set) 14" guns on KGV, I still sliced upon citadels on tier 8 and 9 BBs, and 8-10k hits where relatively common. Angled, and I can understand the HE tossing, as any other BB in the game would, and the RN BBs do well at that. Personally, I do think the 1/4 HE should be taken away from the the RN BBs, and left with a high fire chance, as it should promote more usage of the AP. AP at DDs should not be considered a viable choice, but I am aware of the damage it does to DDs which just seems wrong at times, so HE is the way for DDs.
  5. Simple solution would be to not spam HE with Iron Duke or KGV. The AP is quite nice, don't let the HE overshadow it. Knowing that you could have done better with Warspite in basically every situation was hardly that fun for me at least. A challenge, but that would be because she is the worst T6 BB as it stands.
  6. Sorry, I was in a rush and did not elaborate enough. Buffalo is as it appears in the hidden stats, Design CA-B, 4x 3 203mm. I don't really approve of the 12" armed ships that are too large being cruisers, like Alaska. Things like Graf Spee might be acceptable, but it is awkward to create a line out of such ships, especially when it would be just as paper as German CVs etc. The Brooklyn preliminaries all have the same firepower, albeit in a very... interesting layout. In theory it could work, but given WG is so focused on progression these days, I think scheme 8 offers the best of that. The problem with Worcester is that Minotaur is just better. 3s reload to 5s, and all Mino's consumables to boot. Worcester has the better hull, but assuming the USN CLs don't get as gimmicky as the RN CLs, Worcester is a step behind Minotaur. Old Pepsi could work as a tier 6, it would just be wholly unsatisfying with the nerfs given to an already nicely balanced ship. Pepsi is a decent tier 7, and there shouldn't be reason to change that.
  7. Ach, I got summoned. Either way I guess I should wheel out that graphic I have. - After Omaha, you get a choice of 2 paper ships, which I have given names. One continues the branch of 6" armed CLs, the other transitions into 8" armed CAs. - Starting with CLs, you get Providence. A variety of designs fit this role, but my preferred one is an Atlanta preliminary (IIRC) as shown below. The ship has 1 less turret than Cleveland, as well as worse AA, but has torpedoes that carry over from Omaha, before disappearing at T7. The AA should be quite good for the tier still, and the ship should be an ideal brawler or close range fighter. - Brooklyn is next up. In an ideal world, Brooklyn could be tier 8 given her firepower and but she is a worse option overall than Cleveland, and can be balanced to fit tier 7 if you tone down the RoF from 8s to 10s or so, and making the ship slightly more awkward to use so the use of the 15 6" barrels is limited. The ship would have to nerfed something awful to be a tier 6, sort of like how Cleveland is now, only worse. On the bright side, Helena is good tier 8 premium CL candidate, with an 7/8s reload, with better AA and soft stats than Brooklyn. - Cleveland gets notched up to tier 8 with her historical stats. 6s reload, unnerfed turret traverse, better firing range, better AA, access to tier 8 modules etc. - Keeping the general style of the line, fairly close range. Fargo is just a fatter Cleveland with slightly differing AA, hardly enough of an upgrade to warrant tier 9 when Worcester is available, and hence settles in for T8 premium. - Worcester improves upon Cleveland by having 12 guns still, but a 5s reload, as well as DP guns. At this point I would be considering adding consumables like radar, but knowing WG, it would be added at tier 8. However, without a lot of buffing, Worcester can't manage tier 10, which brings me to the tier 10. - Basically, rumours/proposals to refit the Worcester class with triple autoloading 6" turrets, however this tier 10 would only carry 4 such turrets, as the hull would not stand 6 of them. The RoF is nearer to Minotaur (3 to 4s) and the armour is far better in comparison, but 'Vallejo' shouldn't have as much in the way as gimmicks as Minotaur. A more stable ship to spam from. - Onto CAs, the tier 6 design I called Pittsburgh is this below. Armament of a Pepsi, with the speed and armour of Omaha effectively. A nice ship to jump to gap to Pepsi with. The reload should ideally be midway between Omaha's 6.7s and Pepsi's 15s, around 11s would do, similar to Aoba. - Pepsi stays as is. Maybe she gets a C-hull with more AA, maybe she doesn't. Northampton joins her as an alternative and a start to the other CA line. Differences being slightly better reload on N'hampton, slightly better protected, and 6 forward firing guns, giving a choice, though they should perform in very similar ways. - NO could use a small buff, maybe to maneuverability, but right now she is adequate or below average, and she is not terrible to play. Wichita sacrifices a few soft stats for better armour and AA, but is basically the same otherwise, again prompting a choice. - Balti & Oregon City are awkward to differentiate, but it could be done by manipulating RoF and concealment. Like Balti being a RoF specialist, but Oregon City is more stealthy and flexible. - Buffalo is as is, following the trends of the T9s before them. Des Moines spams the 8", Buffalo is more precise.
  8. It is just a circulated statement, I don't know the specifics of it. Then again, WG are far from consistent on anything, even if they say so or try to be.
  9. The fire chance is decided by the bursting charge in the shells, hence the values are higher for some guns. Like the 120mm on Gallant having 8% to the USN 127mm having 5%.
  10. Monarch was a really awful ship for me to play as well. I got it to work a couple of times, but it was mostly failure after failure. The HE is alright, but poor in comparison to KGV, and the AP is hardly much of an upgrade. In many ways, being an imperfect WG made up fake clone of KGV has screwed Monarch by having the same stats for range, rudder etc. In effect, it is just not much of an upgrade over KGV, except in armour (32mm bow and deck), and short range AA, as well as accuracy. I would try having a balanced mix of AP and HE, abusing the reload and staying at mid-range, but the ship is quite meh. I guess your performance should even out, but the ship is definitely the worst tier 8 BB out there by my reckoning.
  11. As good an excuse as any to wheel out a semi-incomplete list of paper ships
  12. Well, et voila, some changes. Not like I can comment on them, but I would expect more changes.
  13. It is not even released/finished yet you fool. You can make a better decision on the ship when it is released.
  14. Well, Tone was mentioned and slated for production until a point, but releasing an irreversible premium at that point without the appropriate mechanics is slightly different from a the hints that French BBs are coming this year, or early next. Plus, some things just don't work out, though WG don't really help themselves at times. Of course, ships using the same model are fairly easy, and have to be expected. In some cases it is unnecessary, but I have no real qualms with it. Plus, re-using models from development, or at least updating them and releasing them is also to be expected.
  15. Because the model is there and available, and there is a museum ship which just happens to be of that class. If you don't like it, don't get it, but you should have expected Alabama & Massachusetts as dual tier 8 premiums from the start. There is no need to complain about it, given we know Jean Bart/Richelieu is in production from that naval legends video, MN BBs being likely for this year, and Roma being mentioned.