Jump to content

Robber_Baron

Players
  • Content Сount

    1,118
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    5616
  • Clan

    [PRAVD]

About Robber_Baron

  • Rank
    Midshipman
  • Birthday 11/08/1988
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    The Netherlands
  • Interests
    Military (both modern and historical), autosports, comics (Lucky Luke, Donald Duck (Carl Barks)), heavy haulage, anime, scale modeling, books, movies and TV series.

Recent Profile Visitors

2,244 profile views
  1. What about Witte de With? Personally I would like to see Van Nes myself, but that would be mostly because the skipper was from my hometown.
  2. Robber_Baron

    Wishlist

    -Anything Dutch. Nothing heard of it since Gamescom (oh, and I heard subs, those wouldn't be justified without including Dutch ones); -Italian tech tree; -IJN Haruna around 1945. With striped turrets, without fictional camo; -British and German Battlecruisers as they served, no "what-if" hulls and that kind of thing. I for myself would like to see Repulse, but I'm not that into the stats to see if it would be hard to balance.
  3. Robber_Baron

    Giulio Cesare to be changed to T6.

    Giulio Cesare has way better stats than other tier 5 battleships. Sure, one has to be the best, but it's quite a leap. So I think it's fair to say she is OP. The problem is WG's timing. They had plenty of time to listen to supertesters and CC's. They had plenty of time to remove her from sale after the live servers comfirmed that it was needed. Instead they went with waiting for two years, giving it away in christmas boxes, and now after all that time they want to nerf it? If she was a weaker, but still capable tier 5 when released I might've bought it anyway. Maybe if she was a buffed tier 6 as well (although I have plenty of those already...). But why would I spend a single cent to any premium stuff if tomorrow WG can decide to nerf it?
  4. Robber_Baron

    Giulio Cesare to be changed to T6.

    So WG wants to directly nerf premium ships. Seems like a great idea if you want to get the number of paying customers down.
  5. Robber_Baron

    What do you like about patch 0.8.0?

    This would tempt me to buy the Graf Zeppelin, but I heard they are not Stuka's anymore? Heresy!
  6. Robber_Baron

    The CV Captains Cabin

    I don't like the new CV's so far. I'm mostly struggling with hitting bombs and keeping my planes alive. I try to weave a bit, but I have to align for the drop at one point. And then it's just blap, blap, blap - gone planes. This was in co-op, but I doubt it'll be easier in Randoms.
  7. Robber_Baron

    Is there anyone that likes this patch?

    Being on the receiving end I never got the hatred for carriers ingame. If WG ever decides to get rid of them, I'm out. I liked the old gameplay, but I probably never had to face the super unicums (then again, if this rework wasn't announced I might've played them more, becoming better in the process). So far I don't really like the new gameplay, but I only played two random battles in carriers, and it was expected this rework wouldn't immediately be decent from the point of release.
  8. Robber_Baron

    Which forum members have you seen in random battles?

    I just met @T0byJug in his... whatever the name is of that Ausria-Hungarian battleship with me in Ranger. Unfortunately on the enemy team. Since I'm not good in the new carriers yet I could only carry aircraft, not my team. So congrats with the victory.
  9. Robber_Baron

    Why all the fuss?

    I don't know what the borderline is, but since I remembered I had some captains where I prefered other skills, I decided to better be certain and did reset my 150 captains 1 by 1. It's done in a few minutes.
  10. Wasn't this a paper design? I don't really get the reasoning behind "historical characteristics" argumentation.
  11. Robber_Baron

    Why all the fuss?

    People didn't want "rts" CV's (I doubt they tried them) and I wonder what they think now. I'm a bit on both sides. I think fixing the old CV's would've been easier to do. But that would've been too logical, and they would've listened to feedback. So that was not going to happen. So now we have a rework. I don't think people realized it'll take time to balance this gameplay out, and I do believe WG in that you can't test this all without going to the live server (I've heard it from supertesters as well). I try to be open-minded. This is the heading WG has decided, and since I think chances for the return of the old carrierplay are very slim, I would like to see patience. But people react like WG beheaded their pet, whithin a few hours after the patch went live. Before all this, I jokingly wrote I would like to play carriers only to crap on the haters, and I'm not disappointed by the amount of salt. It's almost threatening my kidneys.
  12. Robber_Baron

    We need a new section for the forums

    I would also like to see that, but it won't make a difference. People will post the same stuff anyway, everywhere. You would almost forget we have subforums about each of the shipclasses, but I guess "Gameplay" is easier to find. Only a month ago we had somebody who posted the same whine threads on a daily base, and at times even several in an hour.
  13. Robber_Baron

    Concerning the upcoming CV rework

    Well, they were launched by Hellcats and Corsairs as well, quite nimble fighters. Also the big Tiny Tims. Though they likely felt the weight of the rockets. The Tiny Tims were developed as an anti-ship weapon in fact. I don't know about heavy armoured ships, but at least rockets were used against the Japanese destroyer Uranami.
  14. Robber_Baron

    Is it me ?

    Please take that with a grain of salt. There are idiots with 10k games who "play" on a daily basis but fail to contribute, while there are also people who can play well, but only have time during the weekends and holidays.
  15. Robber_Baron

    Concerning the upcoming CV rework

    USN Hellcat firing rockets at Japanese ships. According to Wikipedia, the 5" FFAR, HVAR and Tiny Tims were used against shipping, while the 3.5" FFAR was mainly used against submarines and deemed too small for surface ships. Whoops, Uglesett beat me to it.
×