Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


About Aotearas

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

2,147 profile views
  1. Cleveland doesn't seem very good

    The trick is not to go to the enemy, but get into a position where the enemy has to come to you, prefereably nearby an island that is just high enough that you can lob your shells over it (thanks to those freedom mortars) whilst their more shallow ballistic arcs just result in their counterfire smacking into the island you keep between you and the enemy. That way you can rain down shells (literally) on the enemy with near impunity as long as you keep the enemy firing angles checked.
  2. OP destroyers with radar

    ... I'm not sure I even want to know what kind of trainwreck your thought process was to respond to this: With that: Seriously, what the hell?
  3. Wow, I already wasn't impressed with the Kitakaze as it was essentially just a sidegrade to the existing Akizuki (which still mens it's a good ship, just nothing that reakky warrants putting her a tier higher), but the Harugumo is flat out disappointing. 35,7 knots topspeed, 830m turning circle and 5,5 seconds base ruddershift means that thing is essentially about as agile as a cruiser. With 6,2km top concealment for surface detection she's also the least stealthy DD with Khabarovsk being the sole exception, which combined with the poor speed makes it essentially impossible for her to actively engage any DD that doesn't want to be engaged, plus with her bad manouverability she has an inherent disadvantage against any DD that actually wants to pick a fight. Akizuki is already prone to catching torps, but this ship is going to be even worse a torpedo magnet still. DD ambushes are going to be the Harugumo's nightmare due to that horrible turning radius! No hard data on the turret firing arcs yet (or at least I haven't seen any) but I can guess from looking at the ship render that the mid and rear turret don't seem to have particularily good firing angles, so I'd guess that trying to bring all those guns to bear on a target means showing a good deal more side than other DDs have to, making her even worse at fighting kiting DDs (low speed and sailing an inefficient course to keep the dpm up) or kiting herself. Base HP looks nice, but as far as she's looking I'd say she going to need every bit of extra HP she can get. If they want to keep those stats as they are (and aren't surprising me with deceptively good firing angles on the turrets), I'd say this ship would need something some serious help in the consumable department. A special engine boost that gives more speed and engine power than the normal one for example (though that would be just a bandaid to mask the horrible agility). Or what I'd personally think would fit best would be give her the access to heal (either in the same spot of the smoke, or perhaps with the torpedo reload booster) so she can at least attempt to use her massive dpm to engage in HP trades against other DDs whenever she can and then using the heal to help sustain her survivability. But as she is right now, I don't think I'd give the Harugumo a passing grade.
  4. Oh, I very much share that opinion though I wouldn't call it a downgrade, just a sidegrade (which still isn't very charming).
  5. What else would you use? Range is unnecessary if not unwanted as you noted (and that's even assuming it gets access to it). AA is a waste unless you specifically build the ship for AA just to troll with CV divisions with the obvious lack of performance in normal randoms due to the vastly different captain build necessary for that. Torpedo reload is similarily a waste because the Kitakaze, much like the Akizuki wouldn't be performing well as a torpedo boat. Better reload, even if it's only ~0.4 seconds faster reload, is the only option that really impoves something that the Kitakaze can and should consistently employ. Pretty much a no brainer for me.
  6. Not impressed with the current stats of the Kitakaze. Just as slow as the Akizuki (and I'm fairly certain the entire point of the improved Akizzuki designs was to make her faster, the Super-Akizuki for example was designed to do 36 knots and though the Akizuki-Kai which WG is basing the ship on is supposedly a different design yet I very much doubt it wouldn't have adressed the same problem with the ship's low speed) and still a wide turning circle. The only improvements that ship would have over the Akizuki would be negligibly better midrange AA and the ability to slot tier IX+ upgrades. It also gets a bit more torpedo alpha, but trades that for a nasty long reload so I don't consider that an improvement to be honest. Imho the Kitakaze at the very least needs it's speed buffed up to 36 knots base, otherwise it just feels like a sidegrade rather than an upgrade.
  7. To expand on this earlier statement (which I had to rush a bit since I had to go off to work): Divisions can help with learning if you division up with players of noticably better skill level, but only if they have the time and awareness to coach you in realtime as the situation progresses. But that's not something that applies to me if one were to try and compare my start into WoWs with another beginner (especially since I only started playing in divisions a good time later). I personally learned the game much like everyone else, by soaking up informations and winning strategies, then working to apply them in battle. I had a bit of a headstart since watching Jingles' videos about WoWs (as basic as they are) already made me aware of some important basics such as angling and a valuable albeit limited perspective on how most of the ship classes play like. I read the forum on a daily basis. I also quickly found other Youtubers with more focus on gameplay advice such as Flamu and iChase whose commentaries I sucked up like a sponge (something which I highly recommend to every newcomer). I still had the odd couple moments where I was at my (lack of) wisdom's end and came running to the forum complaining about ships that I thought were bad, or things that I thought were unbalance, but always with the caveat that someone tell me when I'm wrong and how to make it work. For example: I still vividly remember I once opened a topic asking for advice on how to make the german tier III cruiser Kolberg work since I just couldn't get satisfying games in her. Amongst a couple helpful comments I was also asked why I cared much, since even playing badly I would be past the Kolberg in a jiffy since it's only a tier III. And that's not incorrect by the way. But my response was that I'd like to understand the game and ships to make it work, because the experience on how to can also be extrapolated to other aspects of the game. In short, I listened when better players gave me advice. And that helped me improve to the point at where I am now. Precisely!
  8. False. I played solo just the same as most other people when I started playing, up to around 1000 games until I found some people to division with. I still managed to get ~60% winrate that way. I also learned that lemmings trains are bad during that time. Playing in divisions makes little if any difference on learning the game. The fact that I see plenty divisions performing hilariously bad is easy proof of that.
  9. Oh really? Is that why you asked me for my arguments despite me having had posted those on the first page already? None of which you've actually adressed or attempted to counter I might add. Neither do we, it's just when people are patently talking nonsense that I tend to check their stats to see if they can back even the tiniest bit of what they're saying up. Lo and behold, the numbers say you can't. Nevermind that with lack of knowledge and experience it's pretty naive to think you can weight the arguments by yourself at this early stage, you're quite obviously not comparing them to the game. You've been comparing them to history books. Weighting arguments requires having a counterweight and that's something you're evidently lacking based on what you've been saying in this topic. Everyone starts out a zero and the only way to improve is to soak up knowledge and experience from those that have it. Attempting to weight those players' arguments based on your limited understand is nothing short of arrogance. The simple fact of the matter is, you don't know better. You've proven that in this thread over and over again. Just as fresh pupils have to simply accept that 1+1=2 in order to form a basis for further understanding mathematics, you have to accept that history book tactics don't work for a myriad of reasons, many of which have been noted in this thread. Learn to walk before trying to run!
  10. It's about experience and understanding of the game. You're still new, your experience is a fraction of that of some of the people you're argueing with, but for some reason you think you know it all better despite readily available evidence and testimony to the contrary. If you keep this attitude up, no number of games under your belt is ever going to be sufficient if you continue being so willfully ignorant about how the game works. In the gaming scene, there's words for that: A newb is someone who's new and doesn't understand the game due to the limited experience he's had so far. A noob is someone who refuses to understand the game, no matter his experience. And you are on the fasttrack to graduating to noob with honours right now. Listen when experienced players tell you how the game works and which tactics are effective or not. Don't brush their expertise aside just because you read a couple books about historic naval warfare that says different things, because this game isn't about realistic naval warfare! You wouldn't try to tell an naval engineer how to build a ship just because you do ship models as a hobby, would you?
  11. Forget it, you just can't help people that are utterly convinced that they're right and everyone else is wrong.
  12. You want my arguments on lemming trains, then read the bloody topic. I made a rather lenghty post about it and I'm not about to repeat myself because you can't be arsed to look around, it's on page #1, shouldn't be hard to find. And yes, individual gameplay is important. You as the individual player are the only constant in all your games, how you play individually makes a massive difference. If everything hinged on your eleven teammates, then how come I have such a higher winrate than yours? This whole "winrate means nothing, it's entirely dependant on your teammates" argument is nonsense and has been disproven times and times again, it's nothing but a weak excuse, a blatant attempt to cast aside ones responsibility for their own (lack of) performance. The simple math of the matter is if you were right, then doing as you say you do should win games more often than not and if I were wrong, I should lose more often than not. Yet our winrate tells quite the opposite. After you've read my arguments on the value of lemming trains/herd mentality or however you want to call it, you can ask yourself the simply question: who is more likely to be correct? You with your 450 games and below average winrate, or me with 7000+ games and an above average winrate.
  13. MM STILL Sucks Balls

    Have I missed something and WG snuck the next clan battle season into action already?
  14. It is though. How you play makes a huge difference that shows in your winrate. Since your winrate is below average, we can moderately safely draw the conclusion that you consistently perform below average. And according to yourself, you consistently follow the first "battle line" you see. Do you see what kind of consistent behaviour might actually result in your subpar performance? How the two might correlate? And if you could differentiate history from this game, why would you even start bringing the former up when it should be glaringly obvious that those things simply don't apply to this game?! They're entirely irrelevant. The fact alone that you apparently utterly dismiss the importance of armour angling as overpraised speaks volumes of your (lack of) understanding of the game mechanics. You can cite historic texts all you want, but it won't change that armour angling is a deeply integral game mechanic that players need to internalize and apply if they want to perform in any sort of positive manner.

    Because of the violent reaction and ensueing fisticuffs, or because of their violent reaction and massive vodka fueled combustion?