Jump to content

_Davidge_

Players
  • Content Сount

    61
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    1644

About _Davidge_

  • Rank
    Leading Rate
  • Insignia
  1. .Dear Wargaming. As an old player of all 3 of your games (Ships, Tanks, and Planes) I am proposing that you merge 3 games in economic and gameplay way more tightly. The main reason is that you are dispersing playing population in playing and economy way between those games without reason, and the solution is very simple. Many playes have no time to play all 3 games, and even not 2 most Popular (Tanks and Ships) and to build career of their crews and grind tanks and ships in the same time. Also there is economic problem, because money investment in World of Warships, due to Doublons, in not in any way reflected in World of Tanks, and Planes. I think Wargaming should remove doublons from World of Warships and change it to universal Gold distributable in all 3 games. We all know WG has trauma from World of Planes since planes became almost faliure because it went to be flying clone of World of tanks. However (and maybe many people dont know) World of Planes was improved very much and in the meantime it was linked with WoT . By playing battles in World of Warplanes player can get free experience that can be spend in tanks!. Also two games have same in game currency-Gold. For instance I gathered 290 000 exp playing my Me 109 , Mitsubishi Zero , and other planes over last months, and today I used that free XP from World of Planes to improve my Tank crews ( 1 X 10 crew XP ratio). Great stuff, it keeps me constant player of World of Warplanes to. BTW World of Warplanes is slowly recovering and its great thrilling game now. When I play Planes, I am getting solid free XP, and in fact like I am almost playing tanks to in a way that I am gathering most imprtant resource(free XP) for tanks. I would be more than happy if same would be possible to do with World of Warships. Changing Doublons with universal Gold , ( I heard seamen loved gold to!) and linking free XP gathered from all 3 games (Ships, tanks and Planes)would make people play all 3 games knowing that by playing one game they are acummulating most valuable game resource (free XP) that could be spent in any of those games, and I believe they will spend more money overal on all 3 games because every investment in World of Warships, World of Planes will be also partial investment in World of Tanks to and vice-versa. Thank you for considering this proposal.
  2. ​In my experience even "perfect" and undisturbed manual DB drop along slow battleship with weak AA can sometimes result in 7/7 miss (7 dive bombers in squadron every one miss). However, this will not be hughe problem if hits will deliver true damage. Unlike topredo hits, bomb hits never result in max or even 50% of max nominal damage. In my experience a class VIII dive bomb (Lexington) never delivers more than 3000 dmage though max nominal is...10 000 ! Crippling nerf. Ok, one could say RNG (random generator), well how is that NEVER any my bomb delivers 10 000 damage hit?, or even 8000...?Torpedos deliver much more percentage of their max damage.
  3. Only way to balance US carriers is to increase precision of their Dive Bombers. Us Carriers are most poorly modelled ships in this game since their 2 hystorically most represented type of plains (Fighters and Dive bombers) are crippled.. Fighters are crippled indirectly ,though superior to IJN fighters, they are not usefull because DB loadout that comes in combination with fighters is poor in performance. The direct reason thus are DB's since they are utterly ahistorical as they were main strike force of US carriers. The outright sacrilige is the fact that US Diving bombers changed the course of ww2 on the Pacific in the battle of Midway by sinking 3 IJN carriers, and continued to do so troughout war jet in this game they are made so weak. So my dear WG wake up, buff US (US!) Dive bombers and make US carriers viable.(BTW you can even slightyl nerf US torpedo bombers if there is scare of lost of control over things).
  4. _Davidge_

    The CV Captains Cabin

    Only way to balance US carriers is to increase precision of Dive Bombers.
  5. _Davidge_

    Poll- should we get more than 18 skills for captains?

    It seems that poll has solidified at 60 :40 in favour of releasing captain skills after 18. (TBH I expected more people will want it).
  6. _Davidge_

    Poll- should we get more than 18 skills for captains?

    But for somethig like that one would need to play maybe entire year or two with one captain to get to let say 21 skill point ( progressive Xp demand). To get let say 10 % advantage in "something" over 18 skill point captain .The advantages made by skills are already only in few percentages, those are not enormus ones. A good player with 12 skill captain will allways perform better bad player with 20 skill captain, easily. And that other players with poor 18 skill captain? Why would they not have the same thing, a 21 skill captain by....watch this..by playing alot like that other player who has it already? Some sort of challenge, a race, I think its a good motivation to play more and play better. Open race no dead-end race at skill point 18. Plus: maybe ( probabaly) many players will find its better to have few 17 skill captains than One 21 skill captain. So again strategicaly not damaging any balance at all! But , again , no dead end for captains career! And than let say...one day... a millions of unused ship XP accummulated by players (convertable by doublons to Free exp of course) and than this free xp (ratio 1:1 !) to be converted to captain XP. So someone could for let say for 100 euros (30 000 doublons) convert ships Xp to 1000 000 free Xp and than spend for 1 or 2 additional skill points for his captain ( or much more skill points if his captains are in lower in lower points class). Within a year I will have all my 7 captains at skill 17 or 18, so even if ever WG offer conversion of free XP to captain XP ( and surely they dont wand billions of unused ships XP to stay dead) I, like many plaer who will have their captains "maxed" at 18 will have no purpose in doing that because my captains are maxed already! Free of charge advice dear WG.( BTW thanks for great game) nothing to worry about. only even more pleasure for players, and more choices , new challenges.
  7. _Davidge_

    Poll- should we get more than 18 skills for captains?

    but what happens when one day captain acheives 18 skills? isn't this feeling of an END something counter-motivating to play this captain more? dead end is important psychological factor. Why limiting , why just not give progressively higher requirements, which for the 19th skill will already be around 500 000 and so on---so if player realy gets 500 000 xp he has contributed to this game much more thatn he got in return with that +1 skill point after a half year, and than skill 20, say around 800 000 xp, again player is motivated as he will get to something (which is different from nothing), but again that 20st skill will give his captain infinitesimaly low bonus compared to bonus game got by all those players motivated players strifing to get 20st skill....and so on...21st skill, more than 1 million Xp,...how much play, and how much contribution of the player to this game??? for one single point after a let say one year of hard gameplay?
  8. _Davidge_

    Permanent camo for more ships?

    I think permanent camo for all tier IX ships in the game should be established, for 4000 gold, and also a permament camo for all tier X ships should be stablished for 6000 gold , with +10 % credit earnings bonus for tier IX , and +15 % credit earning bonus for tier X, with other usual bonuses of course ( +3% concealment, +4% dispersion,+ 50 % XP) I presume it will give fair financial effect to Wargaming, but also will give players more reason to fight in highest tiers to.
  9. _Davidge_

    Cant win with Ranger & Saipan

    RANGER ? powerfull ship, when used properly. Personaly I dont care about WR ( I think its around 50% for me), I enjoy it, simply as that. I use only Strike loadout ( 3x Dive Bombers + 1x Torpedo bomber). Forget Fighters. Use ship improvement that gives 10 % faster planes reload on the deck, you have 73 ! planes and its waste not to use them all over the course of battle. Forget Fighters. Asemble all yours 4 squadrons (3x DB, 1x TB) to circle over your carrier or even better over frontline Cruiser/s with good AA, let say Atlanta! Than , choose best target (one target only!), strike en mass with 3x Dive bomber together , that is 21 planes! ( 3x7 with lvl 5 captain air superiority skill which is higly recommended ). Let this 1 x Torpedo bomber sqadron you have follow this bombers arround 10 seconds behind! Forget fighters, I mean just learn to feel when enemy fighters want to strife your 3x Dive bomber formation, in which case you should take turns to avoid, otherwise let them attack by " Stay on target!", its 21 bombers with rear gunner, they can defend themselves and drag fighters on them. in any scenario, ,even if attacked by 2 Fighters squadrons 3x DB will due to RNG deliver min 4 and max (in my experience) 9 hits together of which few will certainly cause fire and min 15 000 max in my experience 30 000 damage combined. That is the first phase of attack on designated ship. 10 seconds later Torpedo bombers arrive and skill of manual torpedo drop is recommended. by then enemy ship has already used its damage control party and /or repair party, since it was on fire, and you deliver at least 2-3 torpedos he will be sunk outright or sunk by flooding or at least crippled for the rest of game, even strongest ones. Losses because of AA and Fighters_ good news you have 73 planes, for every squadron you have 2-3 replacement squadrons, and 10% faster planes reload ship module is here essential, since if you dont spend them all you are playing like a granny or against absolute noobs. Return planes, rearm, repeat. If enemy carrier player is particulary good with fighters, you can change the dynamics by sending every of 3 Dive bomber squadrons on different targets (in the same time) but on widespred pattern ( different corners of map),... but choose one of those 3 targets to be primary target, and than let Torpedo bombers follow that one Dive bombers for that priority target again 10 second behind,.That puts even best "fighter lover" enemy player out of balance. Ranger is my only ship ever in which I had once dealed over 200 000 damage (212 000). Oh did I tell, forget fighters.
  10. _Davidge_

    DD killing CV

    Frequency of DD treat and inability of team to protect its carriers forced me to stick in US carriers to 2,0,2 setting, (2 Fighters and 2 Dive bombers). Torpedo attack on destroyers has unnaceptably low chance of success and player as you said must be true ace to get DD with torpedos. After Tier VIII US Bombers got 1000 lb bombs, 6 or 7 planes in DB squadron, only one bomb needed for DD sunk. On a first sign of DD treat 2 bomber squadrons take an action and in this setting I proved for myself ( and I am bad player) carrier has clear advantage. It goes that far that I count enemy destroyers spotted (and not spotted!) and destroyed early in game, and if one is "missing from the list" to long I considder that DD silently hunting my carrier that means alert and operating my planes to stay in vicinity of carrier.
  11. _Davidge_

    DD killing CV

    DD's in tier VIII and above are also hard to balance since carriers as rare thing that can stop them.
  12. _Davidge_

    DD killing CV

    Whataver. Everyone thus go to borderlines . About CV and DD, I came to Ranger tier VII carrier trough fire and hell and am abandoning Torpedo bombers! First reason is Ships AA is way to strong to enable constant use of TB. TB's are slower than Dive Bombers and have non-linear trajectory of attack and require more adjustment and thus DB's have better survivability. And finaly only thing that can effectively solve DD problem in high tier games is Carrier with Dive Bombers. I am eager to get Lexington to see what's the sound of 1000 lb bomb falling on Fletcher. Cure for carrier guys--- use Dive bombers and specialize for DD's.
  13. _Davidge_

    König: Bad ship, bad player or victim of tier 5 MM?

    Indeed something is wrong, or better to say sub-par with Konig. I compared it to US Tier V BB's I have and played alot (New York/ Texas) I like handling of the ship, its better than New York /Texas . And guns are more precise than NY /Texas. So guns precision + ergonomics for Konig is better compared to NY/Texas Howevever at the end could be that Konig's 305 mm guns damage and relatively short fireing distance (16 km) are to much burdeon for this ship. New York/Texas gets 18.1 km distance and their 356 mm guns have much stronger punch, plus better HE shells.Did I said konig He shells I almost uselles? I like to play Konig, but it is sub-par ship for named reasons because what makes BB are its guns. I Hope Byern with its 380 mm guns is more competitive.
  14. _Davidge_

    DD killing CV

    Feature of this game where DD's go alongside borders of the map is childish and unrealistic,though very exploitable, just like same nintendo like sights of stacks of Dive and Torpedo bombers from CV doing same alongside map border trying to reach enemy carrier, .....exploiting bigest and only gap on the map, which is border lines of the map. This is becaue game dont promote cooperation. Because of no-promoting of cooperation carriers are left alone. And carriers also dont cooperate... However because of that, and other issues, when playing carriers , I play US carriers, I have only Fighter + Dive bombers setup . On a first sight of my carrier been DETECTED from "nowhere" I know it is yolo DD approaching, my 2 Dive Bomb sqaudrons are emediately ASSIGNED FOR CARRIER PROTECTION , armed, and fly one by one searching DD and make his life miserable. I do receieve some hits and damage to carrier but In almost every game when this happend my 2 DB sqadrons should kill DD before DD kills carrier. Requiem to Torpedo Bombers BTW.
  15. I guess since they removed Murmansk in NA they will in here to. Or Not? BTW Murmansk was even slightly cheaper than Marblehead though better in everything..
×