PSA about the Puerto Rico.

[The_Chiv]

2 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

• looks like you think like WG, you must be proud
• it proves that the US military does not mindlessly spend money on every project, as they did in this case
• I was talking about the US military, not WG

• No, I just know if everything always stays the same then things tend to become stagnant. 
• Have you seen our deficit lately?
• yes and this is a topic about a fictional warship that WG phoned.

[ColonelPete]

31 minutes ago, The_Chiv said:

• No, I just know if everything always stays the same then things tend to become stagnant. 
• Have you seen our deficit lately?
• yes and this is a topic about a fictional warship that WG phoned.

• you do not seem to know much about balance, things can be different and balanced
• it would be worse if they spend money on every project infinitely
• I have no idea how one phones a warship

[Admiral_Bing]

Can't remember was the current PR orginally  classified as a rare ship? if it was is not now.

[The_Chiv]

5 hours ago, ColonelPete said:

• you do not seem to know much about balance, things can be different and balanced
• it would be worse if they spend money on every project infinitely
• I have no idea how one phones a warship

• I would say your absolutism about how balance can be achieved is both regressive and allows for no innovation and only promotes stagnation.
• The US a history of doing so simply to keep the war industry employed. In several cases once the item was finally produced in the bulk order it was immediately sent to bone yards or held in reserve to sell to others.
• lack of effort in design.

[ColonelPete]

4 hours ago, The_Chiv said:

• I would say your absolutism about how balance can be achieved is both regressive and allows for no innovation and only promotes stagnation.
• The US a history of doing so simply to keep the war industry employed. In several cases once the item was finally produced in the bulk order it was immediately sent to bone yards or held in reserve to sell to others.
• lack of effort in design.

• It should be obvious that you do not achieve balance by ignoring it
• which means they had use for them, the Convair YB 60 was canceled after one prototype, despite being cheaper and having a bigger bomb load than than the B52, she was just not what the Air Force wanted
• PR is doing fine

[The_Chiv]

21 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

• It should be obvious that you do not achieve balance by ignoring it
• which means they had use for them, the Convair YB 60 was canceled after one prototype, despite being cheaper and having a bigger bomb load than than the B52, she was just not what the Air Force wanted
• PR is doing fine

• not ignoring, just moving the yard stick and redefining what is and isnt balanced. WG has a history of this so the fact that you seem to be against this concept is a bit baffling. 
• OK...Still does not disprove my point.
• Oh I know it is, however, that does not mean I or anyone else can not find fault in the approach wargaming took. Nor does it mean I need some one trying to tell me that where I see an opportunity to do better is wrong. 

[ColonelPete]

44 minutes ago, The_Chiv said:

• not ignoring, just moving the yard stick and redefining what is and isnt balanced. WG has a history of this so the fact that you seem to be against this concept is a bit baffling. 
• OK...Still does not disprove my point.
• Oh I know it is, however, that does not mean I or anyone else can not find fault in the approach wargaming took. Nor does it mean I need some one trying to tell me that where I see an opportunity to do better is wrong. 

• when you move the yardstick, you have to adapt EVERYTHING, WG has never done that and I did not see in your starting post that you proposed that
• It does, Alaska herself is proof enough that the US Navy was not interested in an autoloader for her 305mm guns
• better in this case means stronger, which is not necessary when she does fine

[The_Chiv]

1 minute ago, ColonelPete said:

• when you move the yardstick, you have to adapt EVERYTHING, WG has never done that and I did not see in your starting post that you proposed that
• It does, Alaska herself is proof enough that the US Navy was not interested in an autoloader for her 305mm guns
• better in this case means stronger, which is not necessary when she does fine

• Maybe that will change with the split, who knows?
• Just because they found the system unsatisfactory does not mean they would abandon the concept.
• She could have been better than "Just Fine". That was my point. It is a point you will never change no matter how much you try.

[ColonelPete]

19 minutes ago, The_Chiv said:

• Maybe that will change with the split, who knows?
• Just because they found the system unsatisfactory does not mean they would abandon the concept.
• She could have been better than "Just Fine". That was my point. It is a point you will never change no matter how much you try.

• Yes, WG could change and adapt WoWs to a perfectly balanced game that makes everyone happy in the next 12 months, but I do not care for such fantasies
• they did abandon it for Alaska, and as you have argued yourself, there was obviously no lack of funds
• when you argue with ignoring balance, one gets the impression that you want to go too far

[The_Chiv]

1 minute ago, ColonelPete said:

• Yes, WG could change and adapt WoWs to a perfectly balanced game that makes everyone happy in the next 12 months, but I do not care for such fantasies
• they did abandon it for Alaska, and as you have argued yourself, there was obviously no lack of funds
• when you argue with ignoring balance, one gets the impression that you want to go too far

• I can understand, however just cause you lack hope does not mean all should.
• To be fair the whole line concept was found wanting by the USN, that and the end of ww2 where the 2 major factors. 
• Not ignoring it in any way. Just looking at everything that is in game and considered balanced. Maybe DM like reload reduction might be much, but a reload booster consumable would not. 

[ColonelPete]

1 hour ago, The_Chiv said:

• Not ignoring it in any way. Just looking at everything that is in game and considered balanced. Maybe DM like reload reduction might be much, but a reload booster consumable would not. 

A reload booster sounds like a sensible suggestion, which is also easy to balance with the amount of charges.

[The_Chiv]

1 minute ago, ColonelPete said:

A reload booster sounds like a sensible suggestion, which is also easy to balance with the amount of charges.

Yep, though I did ponder the whole conde burst fire mechanic but...

[ColdHeat]

The Alaska is my most beloved ship. You can place yourself strategically, play bow on and take some proper damage while being able to dash out in the right moment and wreak absolute havoc against broadsides or destroyers alike.

 

The Puerto Rico on the other hand feels like a massive downgrade. You got that additional turret that gives you the feeling that if you don't use your XY turrets constantly you're wasting your potential (which is true) but using them will expose you so much that you'll feel instant regret that you´ve used them. It's a fatal lure that can and will get you killed if your position isn't 100% safe. So either you abandon 50% of your firepower - and can enjoy playing an Alaska at tier X - or you try to play as safe as possible and limit yourself seriously of strategic options.

 

My last resort is that I´ll actually try kiting with this BFS a bit but the "use your radar and positioning for area denial" just doesnt seem a real option anymore. If that doesn't work I can't help but feel that WG needs to buff it because otherwise, why ever play it over the Alaska?

[Yxkraft]

Translated into Alaska spread, the PR has a sigma of 1.7 (Alaska has 2.05).  And the Alaska also has 2 seconds faster reload. Marseille has a sigma of 1.8. So PR is the most inaccurate of the T10 supercruisers.