Jump to content

Affeks

Beta Tester
  • Content count

    1,564
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    5861
  • Clan

    [-G-G-]

About Affeks

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Norway

2 Followers

Recent Profile Visitors

896 profile views
  1. But that would spoil the fun
  2. Thats the reason I want this thing to be nerfed in return for better guns, because I know the ship is adequate in randoms. Whenever I play Kronshtadt no one ever bothers to focus me and BBs sail broadside for minutes on end. If this thing was a bit squishier maybe people would focus it and if it had more consistent damage output maybe people would treat it like an actual threat? I can tell you my percentage damage dealt is much higher vs. BBs than cruisers or DDs compared to Missouri or Iowa where overmatch lets me consistently deal damage to cruisers and arcing shells have a higher chance to detonate in DDs. So those "practical" numbers might be skewed for all we know. Also the fact that Kronshtadt has higher tanking average is more proof than anything of these stats being skewed.
  3. Both ships have all available accuracy modifiers in that graph. Without the mod Iowa still has half a percentage better hit rate at 10km, but 0.16% worse at 18km actually.
  4. Current Kronshtadt has battleship dispersion patterns despite not having anywhere near the effectiveness of one. Have an example of how bad this dispersion is Yeah its for some reason worse than an Iowa, and this is despite lacking BB overmatch and high alpha. I could go into more details, but if you cant see whats wrong with this image I dont know how to convince you otherwise. I do however understand why WG cant just buff Kronshtadt in its current form. It is just way to tanky to have guns with actual effectiveness. So I wonder whats a fair buff in exchange for dispersion patterns closer to a Graf Spee? An HP nerf to around 61k seems fair to me (this would use a normal BB HP calculation as opposed to the middleground calculation used by Stalingrad and current Kronshtadt). Though I would want more feedback. Current Kronshtadt is way too much of a slotmachine. Waiting or positioning for a broadside just to have BB dispersion shoot for the clouds is not fun. Its a special kind of tank currently, yet tanking isnt really rewarding at all.
  5. Arguably better as youre still spending 4 points on it which couls be used on something thats usefull for getting into secondary range to begin with. Then again that puts us back to the core problem with secondaries. Spec for secondaries = not tanky enough to use them. Spec for tanky = no secondaries worth using.
  6. At tier 6 it can damage just about anything tho. BB superstructures, all CA hulls except tier 8 and ofc most importantly DDs excluding tier 8. So at that tier fast firing 105s are amazing. I would say secondary range will do more than enough. Lately Ive been skipping Manual Secondaries anyway due to being limited to a single target.
  7. I support the idea of nerfing concealment but buffing secondary range instead. It would just reinforce the german flavor by an order of magnitude on the ship.
  8. Stalingrad! which version you prefer?

    Voted second option, but still not happy with how the current one is looking. Theres a ton of stuff that should be switched around. Its just not interesting enough. For example two HE shells was designed for Stalingrads guns, one slow velcity (700m/s) shell but with heavy weight (high yield) and one super high velocity (1300m/s) but very light (low yield). Using either or both would make for a super interesting and never before seen dynamic, yet here we are with a shoehorned HE shell with same velocity as the AP shell with no interesting trait what so ever. Heres hoping for the best!
  9. If we dont get Italian CAs close to when we got PA DDs last year I will throw a fit for sure. Still, I wouldnt be surprised if the next soviet branch isnt far off, but considering we just had MN BBs, RN DDs are closeish and a new nation should be in the pipeline I cant really logically come to a conclusion other than that Italian cruiser will come first.
  10. Haha wow youre good! really did a write up on this huh? Problem is none of ot matter as those values are readily used by WG all the time, just look at Moskva. Taken with a pinch of salt? Sure, but if data suggests anything Stalingrad should have highet RoF than Kronshtadt. Edit: guns existed, were built and tested. Sure never fitted on a ship but I dont want you to get carried away by "muh paper ship" arguments either.
  11. I call plausible. It might have been a preliminary roadmap listing deadlines going with the absolute latest release dates... Not very likely but explains why dates of new releases are so far between. Still 95% fake. Most points seem possible to deduce for just about anyone.
  12. That is old Stalingrad, new Stalingrad will have better accuracy more along the lines of Graf spee but with 0.35 better sigma. That version or Stalingrad had literally BB dispersion same as current Kronshtadt.
  13. British Cruisers ??? Whats the point

    Tl;dr british CLs tier 6-10: Scoot around, smoke up and club seals. Alternatively for advanced clubbers (tier 8-10 only): Scoot around, radar scrubs out of position and club seals.
  14. USS Alaska sighted

    It wasnt named Ishikari afaik. Just an author of a line drawing called it Ishikari and thus people defaulted to it. The torpedoes are an interesting topic as in technical notes the Japanese did mention 2x4 torpedo tubes, but no official sketch included them nor any info on where and how they were to be mounted. Most likely (if WG includes them) they will be mounted the same way Zao and Kii has them, way back at the stern below weatherdeck. Edit: personally I think its a no brainer that they should be included seeing as its a simple yet effective way of giving it IJN flavor over Alaska or other similar ships.
×