General CV related discussions.

[Figment]

Andy, I'm just taking the liberty to illustrate the situation based on the circular range image you posted earlier from which you concluded it barely changed things. I think this illustrates fairly well what the effect of flight duration limitation (to a set amount of km covered) would be. Note that the CV is on a side with only a few units.

 

1. Note that aircraft range around a CV is not circular, due to the aircraft being launched in a forward direction.
   • This makes it saver to approach CVs from their rear (like if a CV is running away).
   • This also reduces their time to line up a good attack towards the edge of their range. Closer by it just takes time to turn around after launch, making a CV's attack less effective and slower than ships firing straight at them.
      
2. Screening of AA cruisers would be fastly superior to today due to flight paths being much shorter, you can't evade the bubbles without "losing range" towards a target behind it
   • Effective AA bubbles forces a CV to try and go around (and run out of flight range), or pass through a strong AA bubble to reach weak AA units and take heavy losses
   • Stacking of AA bubbles or deliberate screenings become a deliberate and powerful deterrent (this is what I meant by 'herding', two or more ships playing together makes them more AA effective and as such encourages coordinated teamplay, rather than two random individual ships sailing at random with their own goals. It stimulates some interdependency, communication and a sense of community.
      
3. Spotting nearby the CV would be quite doable as you'd have time to make passes by, but the further away one flies, the shorter the spotting can be (loiter time, time spend at a destination, is effectively shortened by the duration of a flight to a destination). At max range you have to almost get lucky to spot units with high concealment range, or basically have a good idea where it should be and fly straight to it. But you'd never spot it for long periods of time, because you can't hang around if your time's up.
   • Option: allow a limited amount of spotter aircraft drops (like today's fighters), which would be possible to shoot down with light AA. These would allow allies to do damage based on a CV's spotting. The spotting can be combatted easily or can be avoided by getting out of its spotting range and thus has to be used tactically to make it effective (limited amount or timed consumeable should ensure no spotter aircraft spamming)
   • Against hard to spot units, likely CVs won't be able to deal much if any damage near the edge of its range outside of a first run attempt. The first run would have to be lined up perfectly immediately. Today you usualy can do a fly-over first against DDs, but this would virtually be impossible if you're almost out of flight time. That means you can counter incoming air easier with positioning.
      
4. Units with weaker AA can control parts of the map without any fear of much if any aircraft interference. Breaking through there should easily give them angles on a CV.
    
5. Air-to-Air should still be a factor. IMO between any type of aircraft.

 

 

In such a scenario, CLs become a lot more important to the team effort. A same tier AA cruiser should be able to control quite an area to deny the CV a lot of effectiveness. The CV becomes dependent on allies to remove such ships and DDs have more freedom of movement.

 

 

This is completely incomparible to a situation where you have unlimited range and thus time to plan attack runs. It limits your effective attack angles (can't attack from the opposite side of a far away target really).

[redraven]

27 minutes ago, Figment said:

Completting reasonable cv suggestions.

And you think this was not suggested to wg before?
You are not the first to come up with this. You should learn it that Wg never listens to reasonable balance suggestions.

[Figment]

2 minutes ago, redraven said:

And you think this was not suggested to wg before?
You are not the first to come up with this. You should learn it that Wg never listens to reasonable balance suggestions.

Think I've already suggested something like this in Beta. So yeah. ;)

[CptBarney]

Too many bloody kagas in one room.

 

halp.

 

gib yorkie weegee, or ill sit on you.

[Miragetank90]

20 minutes ago, CptBarney said:

Too many bloody kagas in one room.

 

[CptBarney]

Just now, Miragetank90 said:

 

Only one solution to all of these kagas...

 

[AndyHill]

I think range discussion is somewhat interesting, because it at least feels like something that might make a real difference.

3 hours ago, Figment said:

Note that aircraft range around a CV is not circular, due to the aircraft being launched in a forward direction.

• This makes it saver to approach CVs from their rear (like if a CV is running away).
• This also reduces their time to line up a good attack towards the edge of their range. Closer by it just takes time to turn around after launch, making a CV's attack less effective and slower than ships firing straight at them.

Both are true, the scale of the changes naturally depends on how the planes actually steer. With the current system I'd estimate there is a not-insignificant difference between attacking forward or to the rear sector. Note that due to time savings I already prefer to point my nose towards the reds, so that's already an existing if not as strong consideration. Also depending on the situation I might prefer to do a reverse retreat, because at range my nose is fairly tanky and I can maximize my firepower by keeping my nose towards the reds.

3 hours ago, Figment said:

Screening of AA cruisers would be fastly superior to today due to flight paths being much shorter, you can't evade the bubbles without "losing range" towards a target behind it

• Effective AA bubbles forces a CV to try and go around (and run out of flight range), or pass through a strong AA bubble to reach weak AA units and take heavy losses
• Stacking of AA bubbles or deliberate screenings become a deliberate and powerful deterrent (this is what I meant by 'herding', two or more ships playing together makes them more AA effective and as such encourages coordinated teamplay, rather than two random individual ships sailing at random with their own goals. It stimulates some interdependency, communication and a sense of community.

This is more of a declaration of intent than actual design, I think, as all of this depends a lot on how powerful the AA is. And that's problematic with the current one flight only -design, because of its polarized nature where one flight gets through or nothing gets through (I don't know if you're aware but if two carriers attack one target, the AA power of the target magically doubles and both flights get full AA against them). I will return to this point a bit later on, though, since I think there's a strategic consideration being referenced here and I can reply to it better with the actual example image.

3 hours ago, Figment said:

Spotting nearby the CV would be quite doable as you'd have time to make passes by, but the further away one flies, the shorter the spotting can be (loiter time, time spend at a destination, is effectively shortened by the duration of a flight to a destination). At max range you have to almost get lucky to spot units with high concealment range, or basically have a good idea where it should be and fly straight to it. But you'd never spot it for long periods of time, because you can't hang around if your time's up.

• Option: allow a limited amount of spotter aircraft drops (like today's fighters), which would be possible to shoot down with light AA. These would allow allies to do damage based on a CV's spotting. The spotting can be combatted easily or can be avoided by getting out of its spotting range and thus has to be used tactically to make it effective (limited amount or timed consumeable should ensure no spotter aircraft spamming)
• Against hard to spot units, likely CVs won't be able to deal much if any damage near the edge of its range outside of a first run attempt. The first run would have to be lined up perfectly immediately. Today you usualy can do a fly-over first against DDs, but this would virtually be impossible if you're almost out of flight time. That means you can counter incoming air easier with positioning.

I always aim to minimize loiter time anyway, because it directly affects my DPS. The only time I will loiter around a target is if a hard to spot ship is close to greens and they can provide effective fire - or if there's for example a very low hp ship within reasonable range of greens and for some reason I can't kill it myself. But because most of the time I can, any loiter spotting is likely to happen at a fairly close range anyway (not always, though). Otherwise I might drop a fighter without slowing down if I see a good spotting opportunity, but that's basically the extent to which I would consider loitering.

3 hours ago, Figment said:

Units with weaker AA can control parts of the map without any fear of much if any aircraft interference. Breaking through there should easily give them angles on a CV.

Should, but will it? The most important stage of the battle is before the result has been decided and to get good angles at a CV the reds would need to push through pretty far on some flank without the CV being able to retreat, which sounds more like a done and dusted game already. For example in the example image if greens are in mirrored positions, this is an extremely aggressive full frontal contact, which rarely happens in WoWS and ships are about to die. Unless greens fail everywhere at once, I always have some direction to retreat to.

3 hours ago, Figment said:

Air-to-Air should still be a factor. IMO between any type of aircraft.

This is a big question that may change everything in the design. WG has stated clearly that their intent is to minimize air to air interaction, because one of the biggest problems they saw with the RTS carrier thing was one side dominating the air combat and making the other useless. It doesn't really matter in a purely theoretical discussion, but any design that could possibly be implemented by WG is of course more valuable than one that can not.

3 hours ago, Figment said:

This is completely incomparible to a situation where you have unlimited range and thus time to plan attack runs. It limits your effective attack angles (can't attack from the opposite side of a far away target really).

In some cases, yes, but in the example situation actually not. You didn't give any reason why I would want to go for the target you selected, is he super low or something? He is the furthest away target I can hit (with range limitations), but he's also the furthest away from any kind of action and by far the least improtant target - and I would want my team to avoid shooting him if they have anything else to shoot at, so not much point in spotting him either (if he's not visible as he's likely to be). My actual targeting order would be

 

1) This guy is isolated and if he progresses further, he will become a direct threat to me, so even if he isn't spotted, I will make sure there's nothing there. 

2) If I know that there are threats to the caps I will try to make sure they don't get in and smoke inside the cap without taking damage on the way.

3) If I don't know of 1 (or 1 is not there) and 2 (or 2 is not easy to strike or not directly threatening the cap), the obvious target is 3. He is close and alone, I can do some very, very bad things to him especially since he's next to an island and I can jump him from cover, bypassing much of his AA aura.

If you look at far away targets, CL1 is higher on my priority list due to his proximity to front lines. Also note that some of what you want to achieve is already a thing; I don't for example ever fly through AA auras without a very good reason. If for example the battleship in question was unspotted and at at 1k hp, the only place I'd consider pushing through would be between CL1&2. There just are almost never situations like this where I wouldn't rather strike a ship closer to me, so in this example the range doesn't really matter (unless there's a specific reason to strike that BB. If anything, in the example the most useless unit on the red team is much more safe than the six other ships on his side of the map and if there's a range limit in play, once they figure out where I am everybody will want to go west and the east side will want to get as far away from the carriers as possible, potentially making the game more passive.

 

Additional question: what about the flight's ability to make multiple attacks at max range? I'm assuming it wouldn't be possible, which isn't a bad thing in itself, but it kind of underlines one of the bigger stupidities in the current design, which is the completely illogical (not just unrealistic) way most of the planes loiter around doing nothing, while a few at a time go for the attack.

 

 

 

[steveraptor]

3 hours ago, redraven said:

And you think this was not suggested to wg before?
You are not the first to come up with this. You should learn it that Wg never listens to reasonable balance suggestions.

And rightly so, because 90% of those suggestions come from incompetent potatoes that have no clue whats good or bad for the game.

[Figment]

1 hour ago, AndyHill said:

Both are true, the scale of the changes naturally depends on how the planes actually steer. With the current system I'd estimate there is a not-insignificant difference between attacking forward or to the rear sector. Note that due to time savings I already prefer to point my nose towards the reds, so that's already an existing if not as strong consideration. Also depending on the situation I might prefer to do a reverse retreat, because at range my nose is fairly tanky and I can maximize my firepower by keeping my nose towards the reds.

Note that the maneouvrability of aircraft also determine how easy it is to start an attack. The rate of turn should be limited for balance purposes, but it's something that's of lesser importance at this stage and might be something you could balance CV's with against one another if they want to do the "I damage a bit more than you" thing.

Quote

This is more of a declaration of intent than actual design, I think, as all of this depends a lot on how powerful the AA is. And that's problematic with the current one flight only -design, because of its polarized nature where one flight gets through or nothing gets through (I don't know if you're aware but if two carriers attack one target, the AA power of the target magically doubles and both flights get full AA against them). I will return to this point a bit later on, though, since I think there's a strategic consideration being referenced here and I can reply to it better with the actual example image.

AA is weird at this stage. It's probably going to take its own balance patch, particularly if they'd get away from hp and move to module damage (which can be far more critical but also gives poor AA units a chance at a lucky defense). The doubling of AA is probably done to prevent CVs ganging up on their main deterrent, but at the same time, that ought to be fair game if you allow two CVs in one match (I think it's more fun if there's just one though, given that creates an assymetry to the battle to exploit).

I wish we could still give priority to air targets like in the old system. That way you could have the AA either half or focus fire - possibly even better, select priorities for left and right with the priority side thing + ctrl?

Quote

I always aim to minimize loiter time anyway, because it directly affects my DPS. The only time I will loiter around a target is if a hard to spot ship is close to greens and they can provide effective fire - or if there's for example a very low hp ship within reasonable range of greens and for some reason I can't kill it myself. But because most of the time I can, any loiter spotting is likely to happen at a fairly close range anyway (not always, though). Otherwise I might drop a fighter without slowing down if I see a good spotting opportunity, but that's basically the extent to which I would consider loitering.

Yes, but can you see now what I mean by providing basic intel (at your max range) that's of worse quality than that a DD can provide with more reliable spotting? This is what I mean with jack of all trades: can do it, but not that good at it as another unit.

Quote

Should, but will it? The most important stage of the battle is before the result has been decided and to get good angles at a CV the reds would need to push through pretty far on some flank without the CV being able to retreat, which sounds more like a done and dusted game already. For example in the example image if greens are in mirrored positions, this is an extremely aggressive full frontal contact, which rarely happens in WoWS and ships are about to die. Unless greens fail everywhere at once, I always have some direction to retreat to.

That's pretty much where you'd find my BB or cruisers tbh. Pushing to deter. If you give the example and focus fire on the lead ships, they'll usualy move back naturally. Depends on how many ships you got as well and if anyone got (un)lucky of course. But once you know the CV is on the other side, there's a better reason to dare move up.

Quote

This is a big question that may change everything in the design. WG has stated clearly that their intent is to minimize air to air interaction, because one of the biggest problems they saw with the RTS carrier thing was one side dominating the air combat and making the other useless. It doesn't really matter in a purely theoretical discussion, but any design that could possibly be implemented by WG is of course more valuable than one that can not.

Yeah, but they also thought it was a great idea to have a CV type with three fighter squadrons that had no air-to-ground capabilities and were completely dedicated to taking out the enemy CV's capacity to strike. So... WG devs... Eh.

Quote

In some cases, yes, but in the example situation actually not. You didn't give any reason why I would want to go for the target you selected, is he super low or something? He is the furthest away target I can hit (with range limitations), but he's also the furthest away from any kind of action and by far the least improtant target - and I would want my team to avoid shooting him if they have anything else to shoot at, so not much point in spotting him either (if he's not visible as he's likely to be). My actual targeting order would be

 

1) This guy is isolated and if he progresses further, he will become a direct threat to me, so even if he isn't spotted, I will make sure there's nothing there. 

Questions are, do you know he's there, would you waste DPS on a hunch there might be a DD sneaking around there? Can you reliably hit a DD and can you spot him long enough to strike?

Quote

2) If I know that there are threats to the caps I will try to make sure they don't get in and smoke inside the cap without taking damage on the way.

3) If I don't know of 1 (or 1 is not there) and 2 (or 2 is not easy to strike or not directly threatening the cap), the obvious target is 3. He is close and alone, I can do some very, very bad things to him especially since he's next to an island and I can jump him from cover, bypassing much of his AA aura.

2 and 3 depend on the strength and execution of the AA aura and your damage capacity though.

Quote

If you look at far away targets, CL1 is higher on my priority list due to his proximity to front lines. Also note that some of what you want to achieve is already a thing; I don't for example ever fly through AA auras without a very good reason. If for example the battleship in question was unspotted and at at 1k hp, the only place I'd consider pushing through would be between CL1&2. There just are almost never situations like this where I wouldn't rather strike a ship closer to me, so in this example the range doesn't really matter (unless there's a specific reason to strike that BB. If anything, in the example the most useless unit on the red team is much more safe than the six other ships on his side of the map and if there's a range limit in play, once they figure out where I am everybody will want to go west and the east side will want to get as far away from the carriers as possible, potentially making the game more passive.

That all depends on how much of a threat they consider you and if it's lucrative to shoot air defensively (should be much better rewarded with XP and silver than today IMO to promote screening roles a bit more).

Quote

Additional question: what about the flight's ability to make multiple attacks at max range? I'm assuming it wouldn't be possible, which isn't a bad thing in itself, but it kind of underlines one of the bigger stupidities in the current design, which is the completely illogical (not just unrealistic) way most of the planes loiter around doing nothing, while a few at a time go for the attack.

I'd rather have a single strike. No exploiting shortening the squadron and you could simply determine the max potential damage by the amount of aircraft still alive at the point of dropping the ordinance or something. Should also encourage dropping from a bit further away. Gives you more chance to get your air back alive and them more chance to dodge and survive. I really dislike the last second drop bit where you can't really even attempt to dodge.

[AndyHill]

1 hour ago, Figment said:

The doubling of AA is probably done to prevent CVs ganging up on their main deterrent, but at the same time, that ought to be fair game if you allow two CVs in one match

You could also in theory saturate the AA by dropping fighters, which you actually see people try to do and it's of course quite logical. Realism is one thing, but when a design functions in a purely illogical way, it's not a good sign. And yes, it's one of the indicators showing why "one flight gets through or no flight gets through" balancing is so challenging in the current design.

1 hour ago, Figment said:

Yes, but can you see now what I mean by providing basic intel (at your max range) that's of worse quality than that a DD can provide with more reliable spotting? This is what I mean with jack of all trades: can do it, but not that good at it as another unit.

Well that depends. The carrier's ability to relocate the spotting unit so fast wherever required gives it a sizable advantage against a DD. The DD also needs to get within spotting distance of whatever it's trying to spot, which can be very dangerous if there are for example radar ships or other DDs around.

1 hour ago, Figment said:

Questions are, do you know he's there, would you waste DPS on a hunch there might be a DD sneaking around there? Can you reliably hit a DD and can you spot him long enough to strike?

(target 1) That area is clearly my responsibility and I need to either find whatever is in there or make sure nobody is.

1 hour ago, Figment said:

2 and 3 depend on the strength and execution of the AA aura and your damage capacity though.

Well that's the thing with the one squadron design. Does one squadron have to get through the AA of one ship? If not, you will be creating a lot of situations where the carrier simply can't do anything. Especially as bottom tier. In this specific case the cruiser even placed himself in a vulnerable location where I can get him so that I can bypass much of his AA aura.

1 hour ago, Figment said:

That all depends on how much of a threat they consider you and if it's lucrative to shoot air defensively (should be much better rewarded with XP and silver than today IMO to promote screening roles a bit more).

AA kills and damage seem to actually do quite a bit of xp and credits. I don't think that's a very effective way of making people want to get targeted by planes, because it happens after the fact and you don't really know what affected the rewards. Of course then there are people like me who don't even care about xp and credits to begin with.

1 hour ago, Figment said:

I'd rather have a single strike. No exploiting shortening the squadron and you could simply determine the max potential damage by the amount of aircraft still alive at the point of dropping the ordinance or something. Should also encourage dropping from a bit further away. Gives you more chance to get your air back alive and them more chance to dodge and survive. I really dislike the last second drop bit where you can't really even attempt to dodge.

A single strike would of course make sense, unlike what we have now. I think the main justification WG gave for the current weirdness was that the ability to do more attacks per flight mile, the gameplay was more exciting and action packed. There's of course the added bonus where having some AA matters if it prevents the carrier from making multiple drops. The number of planes and ordnance per flight and the number of attacks to deliver all the potential is also one of the few things WG can use to differentiate the soon 4 branches of carriers in the current, wonderful design.

[Sunleader]

9 hours ago, powerzuff said:

I WG would be clever they would bring in those azure lane camos with a huge wide spread.

Especially the CV ones are great.

I would waste a lot of money here, even considering buying Kaga as a ship

but she gets wasted by Enterprise ... I am also missing

 

I still dont get why they dont give us all the Collab Camos that WoWs Blitz Version got.

 

 

 

https://imgur.com/a/IJH7NVE#oNPbxIQ

 

 

 

 

 

4 hours ago, CptBarney said:

Too many bloody kagas in one room.

 

halp.

 

gib yorkie weegee, or ill sit on you.

 

Aye. Him using the Picture as well also caught me off Guard. Its a bit strange Feeling if others use similar Characters as Avatar. Especially because I am the Type who will usually look at the Avatars rather than the Names when reading over Posts and distributing them to someone in my Head xD

[steveraptor]

8 minutes ago, Sunleader said:

 

I still dont get why they dont give us all the Collab Camos that WoWs Blitz Version got.

 

 

 

https://imgur.com/a/IJH7NVE#oNPbxIQ

 

 

 

 

 

 

Aye. Him using the Picture as well also caught me off Guard. Its a bit strange Feeling if others use similar Characters as Avatar. Especially because I am the Type who will usually look at the Avatars rather than the Names when reading over Posts and distributing them to someone in my Head xD

Are those T4 planes?

[Sunleader]

11 minutes ago, steveraptor said:

Are those T4 planes?

 

I think the System in WoWs Blitz works a bit differently. But I never really bothered with the Game itself.

[powerzuff]

wouldn't be a strike witches - plane skin set a nice to have

they are full compatible with the current CV technolgy

e.g. having Erica Hartmann  in the GZ Me-planes could be great, especially in a panty dive attack on DDs ..

;)

 

[BLUB__BLUB]

16 hours ago, CptBarney said:

gib yorkie weegee, or ill sit on you.

Some people would pay good money for that mate. 

Better not make promises... 

[CptBarney]

49 minutes ago, powerzuff said:

 especially in a panty dive attack on DDs ..

 

 

Can we not lewd the toineh thicc boutes pls. Thank yous.

soo many kagas now, hope no more pop-up (or god forbid bloody akagi).

2 minutes ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

Some people would pay good money for that mate. 

Better not make promises... 

Not if i use a very heavy iron chair

Also ran into that thicc german CV piloted by daniel russev, he did litterally sod all that match while messed up like 60% of my hits on the bigger ships while doing naughties to the smoll ones (i know ironic).

Although 2 encounters isnt enough to build a gud enough impression of her (talking about the tier 10).

[AndyHill]

Blitz has basically RTS carriers 

 

[BLUB__BLUB]

4 minutes ago, CptBarney said:

Although 2 encounters isnt enough to build a gud enough impression of her (talking about the tier 10).

Nope, and it also depends who is steering. I found that it matters if I like a ship or hate it, somehow. 

I cannot seem to be doing good in some, and some just, well, they fit. 

[Yosha_AtaIante]

7 minutes ago, AndyHill said:

Blitz has basically RTS carriers 

 

time to quit wows and migrate to Blitz 

[CptBarney]

1 minute ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

Nope, and it also depends who is steering. I found that it matters if I like a ship or hate it, somehow. 

I cannot seem to be doing good in some, and some just, well, they fit. 

Mind you hard to judge her performance when your in a CV yourself, but in both games her impact was negligable.

Dem torps doe. Soo bloody slow, universe will implode before they hit anything, like watching a baby crawl at 5x slow motion towards something in the distance.

 

I remember dat minotaur getting bummed doe lost 15k hp in one strike, but that was the most significant thing i saw from said ship.

[CptBarney]

is blitz on steam?

[BLUB__BLUB]

2 minutes ago, CptBarney said:

Mind you hard to judge her performance when your in a CV yourself, but in both games her impact was negligable.

yes I know. But you're pretty good, so your standards are quite high. 

Somebody that is actual unicum might be able to do really good with it, and a tater might just not.

 

2 minutes ago, CptBarney said:

Dem torps doe. Soo bloody slow, universe will implode before they hit anything, like watching a baby crawl at 5x slow motion towards something in the distance.

Depends on the arming distance as well, and how long they run. Maybe yoiu can steer them in at latest moment without getting enormous spread.

If they aim quickly you can throw them real short and FF up botes hiding around island. If they run longtime they are good for blobs. 

Like I can't get those 4 torps in Kaga to hit, three usually. But they have other handy uses. 

 

2 minutes ago, CptBarney said:

I remember dat minotaur getting bummed doe lost 15k hp in one strike, but that was the most significant thing i saw from said ship.

Wel if that is all it has they MEH indeed. Maybe better play Ryujo... 

Spoiler

 

 

[CptBarney]

1 minute ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

yes I know. But you're pretty good, so your standards are quite high. 

Nah the guys are far better than me at the game which is what threw me off (i thought someone sub 46% was playing the first match turns out it was someone with 15k battles 66.6% winrate and part of the OM clan), i think daniel is also better tha me.

1 minute ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

 

 

Depends on the arming distance as well, and how long they run. Maybe yoiu can steer them in at latest moment without getting enormous spread.

If they aim quickly you can throw them real short and FF up botes hiding around island. If they run longtime they are good for blobs. 

Nah they are too slow and their arming distance is almost 1km means only stationary or straight sailing targets or slow staright lining targets will get hit the most, the torps need a closer arming distance like 300m's or something for dat speed of 25knots

1 minute ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

Like I can't get those 4 torps in Kaga to hit, three usually. But they have other handy uses. 

 

Wel if that is all it has they MEH indeed. Maybe better play Ryujo... 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

Those rockets can deal 30k in one hit, but he only had a few planes left against the mino, he somehow missed the smolensk in the beginning (i was actually watching to see if he could devstrike the smolensk but f'ed up the shot this was the OM guy from the first impression).

 

bombs seem fairly consistent however, but two games isnt enough atm, need moar.

 

hmm might check if there are any youtube vids of her.

[BLUB__BLUB]

1 minute ago, CptBarney said:

dat speed of 25knots

Wut 25 kts          

...seriously? LMAO ROFLOL.... 

[CptBarney]

@Yoshanai@El2aZeR@Sunleader

look balans in blitz!

 

Wow they still have essex and taiho (stabby stab), they probs still have miss zuiho and boooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooogue! 'w'