Jump to content


  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


About GA_Tirpitz

  • Rank
    Leading Rate
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. GA_Tirpitz has arrived... not

    Not unless you manually press "retry"
  2. GA_Tirpitz has arrived... not

    Missing text? Information is overrated but I've a proposal: FUBAR!
  3. GA_Tirpitz


    However they managed to get the game shut down at 5:00 CET...
  4. GA_Tirpitz

    Is "Concealment" the new "Situational Awareness"?

    Okay they could reload one and a half times, not just one time.
  5. GA_Tirpitz

    Is "Concealment" the new "Situational Awareness"?

    Impressive list huh??? 400 entries, really don't want to spot the DDs but there are only 6 BB, CL/CA, CVs on it and only 3 of those kills actually make sense in WOWS gameplay.
  6. GA_Tirpitz

    Is "Concealment" the new "Situational Awareness"?

    Aktually they reached 24knots. Only Issue, they never were fully functional nor see any "combat service" during WWII. Most data on those ships is actually data from the confiscated copies the allied navis refurbished for their own purposes. The USN remodeled her copy for speed tests in preparation for USS Nautlius. I'll credit you the CVs that were left alone as they are in WOWS too. But take a look at the situation the other ships were attacked, only Ashigara was a realistic assault, Maya and Atago maybe, if you don't mind fixing your submarine to a single place for like 98% of the match, for Kongo, remember there is no night mode. What is SN? Soviet Union: K-Class submarine cruisers (12 ships) 98m, Pravda (3 ships) 90m, S-Class (40+ ships) 77m KM: Type XXI 77m (not really in service), Type IX 77m (about 200 ships), Type VII 67m (700 ships) USN: Balao, Gato, Tambor, Tench all about 95m (200 ships in total). Sorry for my mistake! You pretty well know that it is any easy lookup think if you exclude DDs. However people should also take a look at the circumstances of sinking the ships
  7. GA_Tirpitz

    Is "Concealment" the new "Situational Awareness"?

    Okay I'll give you a hint and a hand, focuss on Japanese CV, BB Kongo and 3 Cruisers in Pacific war sunk by US Submarines (the most fruitfull task) Geman Navy WW II HMS Courageous [CV] (with only two escort DDs, no planes airborne, stalked for over 2 hours before killed) HMS Barnham [BB] (killed at 400m, possible due to misinterpretation on British sonar) HMS Royal Oak [BB] (moored at scapa flow, but still needed three runs to become hit effectively) HMS Avenger [CVE] (killed in convoi with trooptransport and supply ships so basically unprotected) HMS Galatea [CL] (attacked in the middle of night) HMS Penelope[CL] (only succesfull attack on a ship doing max speed) Since I doubt you'll do the list for US Navy here a summary CVs mostly unprotected, Ashigara [CA] (with one DD around) attacked by 3 subs, Atago and Maya [CA] both attacked in narrow passage by subs long before stationed and awaiting, Kongo [BB/BC] and a DD attack during night by sneeked in close range.
  8. GA_Tirpitz

    Is "Concealment" the new "Situational Awareness"?

    Mhm where exactly... Count the numbers of submarines during WWII KM, IJN, Dutch, RN, US Navy, Soviets (to make it easy just count the units afloat between 1939 and 1945) Tell us about the submarines that got significantly larger than 70m Tell us about US and RN subs with "external" and "internal" tubes, but don't forget to mention that they just carried enough torps to reload once Tell us more about the RN order to use torps only on capital ships, due to a torpedo shortage Give us a list of naval Vessel sunk by submarines during WWII you may include DDs. Now struck all from that list that wasn't sunk moored or run on ground. Whats left, and how many ow them was lonely escorts to convois at slow speed? Tell us about those big submarines in WW2 that had enough room in it's bow to reload all tubes at same time Tell us all about German Ge7/T3 with 5km range at 56km/h, employ FAT and LUT into your calculations with at least 3 turns what range do you get. Tell us about Ge7/T4 with 8km range but trading it for speed with GNAT on it still the most viable weapon for WOWS Tell us about the hulls all designed for maximum speed at surface only (some 33km/h) Tell us about the fancy sub that reched submerged speeds over 20km/h while the standard models only made luckyly some 15km/h Don't cheat us with 1954s USS Nautilus, there was no atomic powered engines nor nuklear warhead missiles in the WOWS timeset And finally tell me: Do you see any historical equivalent of Seelöwe or Killer Whale (just given the torpedo performance) that wouldn't even bust Wargamings rendition of historical truth? At least instead of just calling me dumb at least point out the 3 dumbest "lies" I obviously told and tell me what proffes them to be wrong. I mean anybody can come and just say "Magna Carta was the dumbest piece of law ever written". Edit: I perfectly well know that design intention of most submarines initially was to attack slow BBs too but reality proved that the design failed. Reality also profed that submarines was not really made to operate together with surface units (not talking about the supply ship). Be warned it's quite hard to get the data of naval ships sunk by submarines for good reason.
  9. GA_Tirpitz

    Ban CV *Edited divisions....

    Hello CraftyVeteran, I wish you a wonderfull good morning. What about fixing yourself a coffee and wake up first, got a story to tell you: There are some wonderfull flowers on the lawn called sarcasm and cynism Sarcasm want's to let you know that she sees no censorship in your post besides the one intention of censorship you adressed so well: Isn't that exactly what censorship is about: dictating what one may to and forbidding/eradicating/censoring everything else??? Cynism just got a question: If you are apparently not the censor why would you think you are the one uneducated individual? And now both will sing in perfect harmony: CraftyVeteran, don't you knu, that one post wasn't about U. CraftyVeteran, get the clue, that post was in support of U.
  10. And the same ship, too since it is scrapped with the captain? So maybe 1 should be more explicid: We Take player A (currently having 2 T7 und 2 T8 CVs) and we got Player B (having all CVs) Player A wants to quit all CVs, Player B wants to keep T8-T10 for ranked and other competitive, and T6 or T7 for scenarios/ sealclubbing. What Player A does: Buying now all CVs T4-T6 because he wil cash back the credits anyway but such will gain free XP as a side effect, he even can put unwanted low lvl captains on the ship without training them in to be rewarded Elite Captain XP a top, he even can take captains from ships he barely uses to but them on the CV to turn into Elite Captain XP, since he eventually can rebuild the captains again later if needed. Even more he can put a 19pt captain from say Omaha on langley to later convert it into a 19pt captain on any other US ship without needing to train him in. (That actually would be my first plan if that Captain XP refund would be made true, works even out positive if you need to buy T4 and T5 with free XP, because it's still cheaper than moving a captain old fashioned way) What Player B can do: Plan 1 (wait for rework) Well he can resell his entire fleet and research it again without loss (except for the loss of time) maybe he loses some credits on modules, hull and upgrades if it's not a 100% refund. (Okay he just will buy the CVs he want and not those in between.) Maybe it's not a 100% free XP refund and he will lose free XP, too. Maybe Wargaming is whitty enough to put a ban od say 6 month or repurchasing CVs once refunded? A lot of maybes but the sketchy announcement doesn't give any clues for the time beeing. So Player B has quite a high risk of losing. Plan 2 (before rework) Selling off all unwanted ships now without getting any refund. So you see Player B already has nothing to win when it just comes to mere vessels while taking some risk and losing a lot of time following Plan 1 to convbert some captains too. On the other hand player A can just win, maybe not 100% but even 80% refund would gain 80% win on Free XP, plus no risks with the captains. So anyone who want's to quit CV should make sure that he got all CVs in port up to the current tier he runs. Those that never played CV should at least get the T4 to convert BB xp into free XP at the expense of some credits. Player B can only take pride in his loyalty to CVs.
  11. GA_Tirpitz

    Is "Concealment" the new "Situational Awareness"?

    And I don't see why that should be stupid? Submarines are the weakest naval force when it comes to compete with other naval vessels at least in the timeframe meta we WOWS is set in. The submarines in the scenario have been hilariously overpowered . Even T10 submarines will be tiny, like half the length of a DD They will have like 4 Tubes front and 2 Tubes aft. They will not be able to reload more than 2 Tubes facing same direction at same time. They will like DD have an unlimeted amount of Torpedos, but they will have to be on periscope depth to fire, and they will have quite narrow torpedo angles or see a drastik Torpedo rework with German FAT and LUT Torps.... Which would be great but would need the Sub to get substantially closer to the target (1 to 2 km). Or the GNAT giving it a more secure efective range of 6km. (Ranges are based on real historical Torpedos, not the T10 illusionistic stuff). And of course only the Germans and Japanese got viable submarines. [RN, USN and Dutch submarines, the few dozens there are were not viable at all to attack any naval vessel] After all, even the Germans did design their submarines to mainly target cargo vessels. So no need to be scared, they were slow, short sighted, and clumsy
  12. So sounds good with just a little catch... Those that keep their CV are f***ed. I even suppose a lot of people just dedusted their CVs yet to make more exchange profit. Saw a lot of flying potatos lately. I guess with modules but for sure not the gathered "Elite ship XP" (some people aparently believe in the latter too)
  13. Es tut mir leid, aber deine Aussage ist nicht so ganz richtig. Das Schiff selbst ist aus den 90ern, die Technik weitestgehend aus den 80ern. Mal am Beispiel erklärt: Abschussplattform: Mk 41 VLS ist eine Entwicklung aus den 1960ern (Planungsabschluss 1976, Erprobung seit 1982, Indienststellung 1986) Flugkörper: RIM-162 Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile ist erst 30 Jahre alt (Planungsbeginn 1988, Erprobung (in house) Ende der 90er, Erprobung USN 2002, Start der Serienfertigung 2004) Radar und Bewaffnung kommen da nicht besser weg. Heute kann es sich praktisch keine Nation mehr leisten ein wirkliches up-to-date Kriegschiff zu bauen. Wobei man generell animmt, dass up-to-date "20 Jahre vom Reißbrett bis zur Indinststellung" bedeutet, also der Schlitten schon völlig veraltet ist bevor er einsatzfähig ist. Bestes Beispiel ist die USS Gerald R. Ford: Kiellegung 2005, Indienststellung 2017 was vor allem am EMALS lag. Die Amis haben da sehr hoch gepockert und das Schiff gebaut bevor EMALS auch nur annähernd funktionsfähig war, und um haaresbreite und nur dank viel Datenschieberei und Bereiningen der Statistik ist es überhaupt fertig geworden. Wäre EMALS gescheitert hätte die US Navy jetzt einen wunderschönen 25 Milliarden € Stahlklotz auf Reede. Die Briten haben mittendrin dann lieber ganz auf CATOBAR verzichtet (3 Jahre nach Kiellegung volle kraft rückwärsts) und sind auf STOVL umgestiegen: Queen Elisabeth: Planung 1996, Ordr 2005, Kiellegung 2009, Stapellauf 2014, in Erprobung seit Dezember 2017. (Bevor jemand meckert, Kiellegung und Stapellauf sollten besser Baubeginn und Aufschwimmenlassen heißen, den das gute Stück wurde modular gebaut, die Ford gabs immerhin am Stück, aber auch die wurde nicht vom Stapel gelassen). PS: Bei kleineren Einheiten geht das ganze natürlich etwas schneller aber selbst Panzer und Flugzeuge sind im Vergleich zu einem normalen PKW schon abgelaufen bevor sie ausgeliefert werden, da ist aber meistens die Hülle deutlich älter als die Technik was wieder ganz andere Probleme mit sich bringt.
  14. GA_Tirpitz

    Mechanism to stop accidental use of doubloons

    You actively set the auto-resupply. Legally that's enough. That's truely a button that would be nice without affecting any economical interests of WG. But that one must be carefully hidden unless you want people complaining that they accidentally deflagged all ships and now had to reflag every single ship. However a "nude" button on every ship itself would already be a great advantage (including removing camo & flags and replacing consumables with the free version of it (not the default)) Wouldn't call it attacks and insults, just some big chunk of salt. But besides the "How about just using your eyes and double check that tick boxes is how they should be?? You can't blame WG for not using your sight.", that should be substituted by one(s) I fail to find the "peronal" in "personal attac".
  15. GA_Tirpitz

    Ranking system

    So once potatoe got a lucky streak it jumps in and get stuck there forever? I already discussed some problems of how to set a "qualification" mark on gamers: Point 3 in initial post. So some other problems might be: random+ for all tiers literally means a new server well paying BB Kevin will complain about elitism not everybody can achieve over 50% winrate without seal clubbing (just beacuse out of 24 only 50% can win per instance) leaving seals alone on random the next better gamers qualify for random+ (so eventually it might just and with the worst potatos on random and eveyone slightly more giftet on random+) so you would have actively change from random+ to random to play down the winrate of the potato overlords (and that's really something my ethics sensor triggers the alarm button at) might just relocate some problems The strongest and also the most dangerous advantage of your idea that jumps my eye immediately is: Requesting a winrate might actually revive teamplay and stop egoistic but tactically unhealthy rages for dmg records. (The egoists will do their records in random+ then). I guess we all can agree that mending with MM is very delicate and bears a high chance of worsening it.