Jump to content

Tatsfield

Players
  • Content Сount

    23
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    5345

About Tatsfield

  • Rank
    Able Seaman
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

229 profile views
  1. As a CV player I find that regardless of whether the aircraft selection button actually selects a squadron, it makes the same sound. So if it doesn't actually work you still get an audible message which leads you to think it has. This leaves you with the wrong squadron or perhaps the ship selected and when you click on the tactical map to send what you think is one squadron to a vector, the last thing you had selected takes the command. I like to assemble all my attack aircraft to blitz isolated vessels and it takes a little fast selective clicking and adjusting to get them into a battle group and if the damn select keys don't work every time it makes a real mess of my operation in real time. It is also possible that the CV is accidentally left to sail off into danger. CV operation is complex and like playing the piano under fire and having these keys work so poorly makes me a worse player than I already am! If the key only gave an audible warning when it actually operated, it might draw my attention to the fact it hadn't worked but preferably I'd like the things to work when you click them. Do any other CV players find this? During battle the CV seems to get the blame for everything that goes wrong and it doesn't help if sometimes I make a bad play because of these keys. I'm used to the insults but I am interested if others have noticed this problem and if WG can look at the way the buttons work. Perhaps with the new CV evolution none of this will matter. PS, if you feel you have to send insulting messages about my choice of vessel, my game play, CVs in general or any other offensive content, please don't. As a CV player, I get enough of that during game play!
  2. Tatsfield

    Glare on screen obscures game comms window text

    I think I'm now aware why I didn't understand your advice. I'm not talking about any effects seen on the battle screen. I'm talking about the tactical map accessed by pressing the "M" key. The RMB and camera has no effect on the background to this map. The glare which can incapacitate the text window is only present on some maps and at some times but it is merely a graphics eye candy effect and serves no purpose and is not actionable with any keyboard commands. Players have no control over the tactical map graphics. I'm asking that WG remove these glare areas as they serve no purpose other than to in capacitate the readability of the text window. This problem is most felt by CV players who stay in the tactical screen for most of the game Other players may never need to access it and see all their comms text on the battle screen. This may not matter so much when the revised CV operation system comes into effect but currently between juggling with aircraft attack handling, ship movement and tactical reconnaissance, there is little time to look at the comms window and it being obstructed by the silly glare graphics makes it worse. Now got a picture. Glare in lower left corner but it can be anywhere in that area and often on comms window. I don't think there is any workaround that other players might suggest. I'm hoping WG read this and consider toning down the decorative graphics on the tactical map screen.
  3. Tatsfield

    Glare on screen obscures game comms window text

    I'm glad there is a solution to this problem; if only I understood what that meant . Please take pity on an illiterate and explain exactly what I have to do to remove the glare from behind the comms window. Thanks.
  4. Totally unnecessary graphics glare on the tactical screen obscures the games communications window text. This doesn't happen in every map but on some maps I cannot read what my team mates are saying and that causes problems. The glare on the surface of the sea is just eye candy and serves no purpose. Hasn't anyone, including WG programmers, ever noticed this self inflicted injury? Can it not be either removed or moved to a place on the screen where it doesn't coincide with the comms window?
  5. Tatsfield

    My clan is dead. How do I leave it?

    This sounds quite reasonable and I've no argument with it. As the OP I merely wanted to find a way of escaping from the "dead" clan so that I can resume my playing life with another clan, if I can find one that wants me. The oil was actually never mine as it went straight to the clan, so I don't feel any real sense of loss leaving it behind, just relief to have found how to leave the clan! Anyone can continue to discuss this matter but as far as I'm concerned, I've achieved what I needed to do. Thanks to Commander_Cornflakes for his help and to the rest of you for your interest.
  6. Tatsfield

    My clan is dead. How do I leave it?

    I think I was the biggest contributor of oil since I was playing every day for months while the rest of the clan seemed to be in hibernation doing absolutely nothing! But the oil cost me nothing and as you can't take it with you, other clans aren't looking for it as an entry requirement. I do think that dead clam lead ership is an unacceptable feature of the clan system and WG should allow some form of leadership challenge to allow clans to be resurrected but they are hardly going worry about it so I'm not going to either.
  7. Tatsfield

    My clan is dead. How do I leave it?

    Thank you. I'm now a free man!
  8. Apart from myself all the command officers in the clan have not played for over 100 days. There is no activity on the clan's site and no one responds to personal messages. Belonging to this clan is pointless and I don't know what I should do. Is there a way to just leave the clan? Is there a way to evict the non playing members and try to revitalise it? There doesn't seem to be any options in this area and all the clan topics are about people wanting to join clans not leave them! The clan is called Twisted Paradox and the paradox is that I'm stranded in a clan that does nothing. Perhaps that's why it's called Twisted Paradox!
  9. Tatsfield

    Which are the risks of accidental doubloon loss?

    I was looking for help and assistance in navigating the pitfalls of the game but this thread has turned into a one man hubrisfest which may make the individual in question feel self satisfied but actually destroys the usefulness of the thread. Left alone in front of a computer keyboard without the real presence of others can feed the aggressive tendencies of those with mild psychopathy. Forums and gameschat are two areas where such people launch into insulting behaviour that they never would outside the virtual world. I doubt that much more of use will appear in this thread now.
  10. Tatsfield

    Which are the risks of accidental doubloon loss?

    I also didn't understand the meaning of "in game currency" and assumed it meant ordinary credits which is how I have always covered resupply. So when I also was given some dubloons I thought I'd save them until I found something for which I needed to use them and then they were all gone. Now I can't complain about it because if I do, some smartarse will insult my IQ and humiliate me in public. So I'll say nothing.
  11. Tatsfield

    i had enough

    The OP seems to have disappeared and what he may have said has evaporated into cyberspace. I hope that others here don't thinbk I'm whining. I do tend to play BBs and I recognise that I'm not as skilled as many of the players I meet at mid levels. However I don't really mind how many times I get sunk. It is a game. I think there are two types of approach to combat games. Shooters and tacticians. Most games tend to be aimed at the former and it is not easy to find other players who appreciate the latter. I like evading interception and sneaking into an enemy's base to cap it. The game hardly rewards me for that even though it's the stated prime object of the game. It is the second object of the game, destroying enemy ships, that reaps rich rewards. I can live with that but6 as a lone wolf player, it's hard to find team mates who would play a more cerebral game rather than looking for shooting and mayhem. I have recognised where clever opposition has lured me into a killing zone and appreciated that thesee players know what they are doing but team tactics with 11 strangers seems difficult to achieve. I still would like to see torpedo bombers not welded together to form one huge 6 engine single pilot controlled plane that has the abilitys of a modern helicopter, but if other like it, I'll haver to put up with it. :-)
  12. Tatsfield

    i had enough

    Perhaps a little less of the cheap shot sarcasm would raise the cooperative level of this thread? I'm a very poor player who loves the game but am generally nervous to discuss matters on the forum because there are people who like to belittle others and operate in permanent hostile mode. My feelings about torpedoes in this game is that they are not necessarily easy to deploy but in the hands of an expert payer they are too effective. An earlier poster says that in 260 seconds he launched 48 torpedoes! I doubt that in real life there is a crew that could handle 48 torpedoes and that if they could, a percentage of them would not run true or to the correct depth. I'd like to see a random failure level in torpoeo deployment which would make the game more realistic and allow longer play with less annihilation. My main bind is about aerial launched torpedoes where a whole squadrom of torpedo bombers can wheel and manouvre as is it were one entity and launch a perfect spread of up to 6 fish from very short range without having to fly straight and level to align the target. This is rediculous as in real life heroic TB pilots would have extremely high casualty rates just getting their aircraft into a position to launch and they certainly didn't fly 6 aircraft abreast. Heroes like Lt Cdr Esmonde VC flew Stingbags slow and level one by one in line astern and often died in the attampt. There was no popping up and over an island, all 6 launching simultaneously from ridiculously short range with no alignment run in and then being abole to pop up and fly away without even overflying the target as real TBs had to do. I think this game would benefit from making the killing of our fellow sailors just a little more difficult for everyone in the battle zone and driving players to complete their missions instead of always trying to sink everything on the sea. The mission is achieved far less than the annihilation of most of the ships in the battle which seems to be the way most first person shooter games play out. I think WoW could be a better game if it were actually harder to sink ships and results depended on mission successes and time expired scores. A bit more like football matches and less like robor wars! Now let'sdsee how insulting some of you can be now that I've plucked up the courage to have my say. :-)
  13. Tatsfield

    A potential solution to camping Battleships

    I tend to turn off as soon as anyone uses the expression "camping". If lurking out of site and out of range gives a player some tactical advantage, it's war, so he takes what he can to give himself the edge. War is all about organising yourself to best be able to shoot the opposition in the back with minimum risk to yourself. The most skilled special forces troops are employed to "camp" in combat zones and to only attack the enemy when they can do so without any chance of retribution if possible. Running around waving a gun and screaming to let everyone know where you are is not best military tactics! It's dressed in flambouyant terms but the objective of every commander is to do the most damage for the least cost.. So why are BBs likely to stay away from close combat? Because they are at their most vulnerable there and why would anyone want to place himself in a vulnerable situation. I also shudder at the use of the expression "cowardice" . There is no courage in computer games and there is therefore no cowardice either. I tend to take my BBs into the most dangerous parts of the board and get sunk more than most because it's just a game and I don't care about that either. BBs are long range weapon systems from the days before cruise missiles. They were not intended to operate in shallow island cluttered waters and they were certainly not intended to go gunwhale to gunwhale cannon slugging. If anything the reason why BBs tend to stay out of the confrontation areas is down to the unrealistic nature of other weaponry. The ability of six torpedo planes to fly in line abreast and complete any manouvre in that formation and launch six mechanical perfect torpedoes in such a way that most BBs cannot avoid being hit is so unreal as to make a mockery of the game. Torpedo bombers were slow lumbering aircraft making long low level runs at their targets with incredible courage and tending to launch their torpedoes one by one; a pair of airfraft at a time would have been possible but less likely. The torpodoes they used were as likely to fail as succeed ; a high proportion were duds. Destroyers pirouetting to launch salvos of up to a dozen torpodoes is a tribute to the quick fingers of the game player but not of any realism. I've asked these sorts of questions before and been told that the game isn't intended to be realistic as it's not a simulator but a game. But all the criticism in this thread is about how unreal twenty minutes of BB action can be made to be. There is no way realistic BB action can take place in this game. Close quarter BBs waiting for slow turrets to turn and slow loading to happen are not going to chase into zones inhabited by impossible torpodo planes and unbelievable DDs and then dart in and out between islands. I don't blane BB captains sitting back out of range and doing the only thing that they can to gain an advantage. And then some 15 year old crys cheat and "camping" So, leave BBs as they are and remove mad uber lethal games features in closer combat situations. Make damage harder to repair, especially turrets and torpedo tubes. Make it considerably harder to wipe out fleets so that winning will depend much more on fulfilling the mission objectives. Make the game less fun for "shoot-em-up-quick" players and reward tacticians. Do not allow players to gain rewards of they cannot survive the battle. The deeds of sunk ships might benefit their team by helping them win but their captains shouldn't get high ppoints scores for getting sunk. Put less BBs into teams. Make DDs less lethal by making torpedoes more unreliable and less dominating but have more DDs so they have to co-operate to launch multiple torpedo attacks. Make cruisers the backbone of teams. Hopefully these suggestions will drive some players mad but perhaps bring some more realistic play to battles which are virtually always over in less than the alloted time, feature total annihilation and the sinking of vessels on a one for one basis until just one or two are left. Why not stop sunken vessels joining new battles until they have served a rebuild time in port because they no longer actually exist and all their crew are dead or adrift in life boats! Make the game harder and make players work to survive and achieve.
  14. Tatsfield

    Ship to ship distances in the tactical map

    To update progress on this fault: I contacted customer service and they agreed that the distances shown on the tac map are not as intended. They should be the same as those displayed over ships in live view indicating distances from the player's vessel. They are passing the problem to the development team and we will have to await the outcome of their investigation and a consequent program update. At least I don't feel that I'm going mad and that there is actually something wrong!
  15. Tatsfield

    Ship to ship distances in the tactical map

    Sadly it's not a pre-game thing! It happens whenever I use the tac map! And in any case your theory doesn't work as ships equidistant form the centre have vastly differing distance measurements. I cannot see what the game could be doing apart from logging wholly wrong readings. It doesn't make too much difference to game play as the live readings in the battle are accurate and there is little reason to worry about distances on the tac map. The gun range ring shown on the mini map show how near to being targetable ships are and combined with the live distance readings seen through the binoculars the whole thing is manageable. I just worried about the apparent glitch in case it is tied up with some other potential problem. I used to play one line games where the real time projectile trajectory was thrown out by the fact that I had a mirrored pair of hard disc drives and this produced an imperceptible time lag on the screen. For ages I thought a was a naturally poor shot!
×