Jump to content


  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About cools0812

  • Rank
    Lieutenant (junior grade)
  • Insignia
  1. cools0812

    Will French BB Richelieu Be Tier 9?

    Nope, richelieu should be T8, and T9 could be Alsase(three quad 380mm turrets), 8 380mm guns just is not enough for IX. Alsace-class Battleship (french naval project which is abandoned due to... well, everybody knows, fall of france): Twelve 380mm guns comparing to nine 406mm or 420mm seems balanced to me. More barrels, less caliber, she would be a very fun ship to pilot at tier9.
  2. cools0812

    HMS Warspite : Is it worth it?

    If thats really the goal devs want to achieve in these patches then they are doing a bad job because its simply not the case right now. DD are supposed to trump BB - correct. Destroyer can approach and launch torp strike at battleships while hidden all along BB are supposed to trump CA/CL - correct. most battleships can outrange cruisers and quickly destroy them with citadel hits CA/CL are supposed to trump DD - they can barely do so. even while their guns are designed to hit and destroy quickly maneuvering targets as destroyers, they cant hit a ship that cant be seen. With all kind of stuff to increase the concealment and speed of destroyers its so hard for cruisers to spot them and maintain contact. Maybe the real system is more like this: CA/CL are supposed to trump CVs - since their AA consumables can neutralize an air raid. Many cruisers——especially high tier US ones are real nightmare of CVs. CVs are supposed to trump DDs - while most carriers might lock their torps on battleships, they are actually the only vessel with ability to spot and maintain contact with the enemy destroyers. An exposed destroyer is a dead one. So the whole issue on destroyers - some say they are OP and annoying, some say they are UP and require buffs - might be the result of total absence of carriers in mid tier or low tier games. From my personal experience as destroyers or battleships, i find the importance of destroyers totally different in games with or without carriers. And most games on Asia servers are without carriers.
  3. cools0812

    HMS Warspite : Is it worth it?

    IIRC Warspite wont get rudder shifting time nerf like other BBs.She will be affected by the torpedo sighting range reduction too, but remember, the premium damage control party will offer one more consumable, so that means i can get the vigilance skill instead of superintendent for my BB captains which offers 20% additional torpedo spotting distance. Everything would be just the same as usual for Warspite in the next patch.
  4. eh, flight squad death penalty would make the already worsened CV gameplay even more intolerable, especially ijn CVs, which i played since my entry to the game. Nevermind, now i dont want to play CV anymore, thanks to all patches from 0.4.1. with the fighter storming ability enhanced, i can see that WG is encouraging player to get as many fighter squad as possible, then spend all the time on the struggle for air superiority, which effectively reduced CV into support role. Though i missed the old happy time with 032 ryujo, i fully understand why wg would do this. BUT, if they want CV players to play as supporter, at least such gamestyle should have equal reward as before, planes shot down and spotting should reward more for CVs. the unreasonable ratio between how complicated CV gameplay is and how much one gained from it is the main reason why nobody ever play CV anymore.(rarely met them at mid-tier PVPs) BTW... with death penalty implemented Midway might meet a significant nerf, so the only superior top tier US ship would be less attractive....and top-tier dominated by yamato, zao, shimakaze and haku. That certainly cant be called good balance between nations, right?
  5. Still, that's a post WW2 era warship with post WW2 tech armed to a pre-WW2 italian hull design. for example, the CM5 cross-level stabilized long range DP gun with individual director and FC radar (currently that gun granted Kutuzov the best long range AA output at tier 8). With terrific AA, nice shell trajectory, good igniting chance and HE damage, she is like Cleveland, Mogami, Baltimore all combined to one ship, certainly not fair for the T8 opponents shes facing - most of them are from the last generation of treaty cruisers.
  6. cools0812

    Most satsifying / enjoyable kill

    A kill with my hiryu. i launched first wave against the target- a nagato, against cruiser AA and catafighter i got only one torpedo dropped from two squads. When i was considering this wave a failure, the torpedo hit nagato below her no.2 turret.... and caused a magazine denotation. that nagato hadnt fire a single shot.
  7. cools0812

    World War I ship battling with World War II ship?

    Kongo, Omaha, Furutaka Kongo was a pre-WWI battlecruiser, Omaha and Furutaka were both designed during WWI but built after Washington Treaty as"pre-treaty treaty cruisers". None of them can be considered as real "WWII ships" so..... Still, I agree that the earlier german cruisers are imbalanced. I cant even bear with the trajectory and damage of the 105L45 or 150L45 guns,while the ijn 14cm have a reasonable damage effect, the us 6"L53/50 good in both trajectory and damage effect, that made the german ships inferior to even same tier opponents.With the WWI kriegmarine's obession on the 45 caliber light shells it is fact that these cruisers are armed with shitty guns. The only hope for these ship are the equally stupid RN pre-WWI 6 inches 45 caliber cruisers that would not be implemented into the game anytime soon. My suggestion is, jump to Konigsberg, still a paper-made ship with unproteced machinery and rudders, but her guns are decent.
  8. cools0812

    HMS Warspite : Is it worth it?

    Warspite. Her old but reliable Mark I 15" are perfect in dispersion and penetration. All i want for my old lady is a firing range upgrade or some matching protection since i find the server has a persistent intention of sending my Warspite into a Tier 8 game...... then i have literally nothing to do with my 16.3km range.
  9. cools0812

    Buffalo, USN Tier 10 CA

    and btw, what you think is the orginal post of that blueprint, actually was constructed based on the imaginary drawing of <Maru>, as it was shown in the page 12 of the same thread. http://shipbucket.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=3704&start=110#p136111 I just contacted the artist, bb1987, and he confirmed that his artwork is based on "another artist rendition made for a magazine". So unless a 基本計画番号 can be found from any reliable english or japanese source, Zao/Unzen still tends to be pure fantasy, and there is a hundred reasons why this design is unrealistic to fulfill the General Staff demand(i just listed a few above).
  10. cools0812

    Buffalo, USN Tier 10 CA

    Shipbucket.com are full of these "unbuilt designs" with no references or original plans.As for the Maru 6 CA this artist doesnt even have a Kihon Keikaku Number, unlike other Maru 5 and 6 unbuilt ships in that thread. More solid evidence are required to prove these designs actually existed, at least there has to be a Kihon Keikaku number that all other japanese paper ships have. In Japanese Cruisers of the Pacific War Lacroix and Wells discussed all the cruiser design in Maru 5 and 6 programs, but no design are known for these Type A cruisers. An important reason why this design seems odd: its speed. BB1987 gave us no speed data and <Maru> said 31 knots. How would the IJN, so obessed in the speed superiority, accept a design two knots slower than the existing US cruisers? Anyway if IJN asked for a similar design capable of 35knots——the standard speed of IJN heavy cruisers——the ship would be a nightmare. To achieve a speed that fast the hull must have an extreme length-width ratio, and such a ship is not a good platform for steady firing. thats why the 35knots cruisers of IJN chose twin turrets rather than triple ones. Solution A, design a triple turret as small as the twin turret, like russian did on the Kirov, but the 180mm guns packed so closely together have a very bad dispersion. Solution B, enlarge the hull, that would result in a horrific displacemnt, like the American CA-C study, which showed a 3x4 8inch 35knots CA cant be built under 20000t, with 1667t per gun, and propulsion derived from Alaska class, General Board confirmed this is the worst bargain. So unless japan possessed some better tech in hull designing and propulsion(which they didnt), they cant achieve anything better than CA-C, and any heavy cruiser of that dimension would be certainly unfavorable. Besides, the 2 CAs in Maru 5 and 8 CAs in Maru 6 were originally planned together, only to be seperated into the Maru Urgent Program as the Ibuki class. Its a very common guess that Maru 6 CA will follow an Ibuki design, not this highly unconventional and unrealistic design.
  11. cools0812

    Buffalo, USN Tier 10 CA

    ah i know this "Unzen" or 雲仙. you are refering to this: This unzen is a fantasy design by some ijn fans on a Japanese naval magazine (iirc its from <Maru>) The text above told us clear that both the name and design are pure imagination. And thats absolutely not a ship that IJN would build. The writer almost certainly used CA-C as reference since this ship has so many US features than Japanese ones. And if you check the speed, AA and main armament of Unzen, you would notice its differences from the Zao that WG built.
  12. cools0812

    Buffalo, USN Tier 10 CA

    the 1940 8-inch cruiser study - scheme CA-B
  13. cools0812

    Buffalo, USN Tier 10 CA

    Well, Buffalo is a paper ship. WG invented its name, using the name of an uncompleted Fargo, but the design is historically accurate (except for the torpdedos) Its real name is “1940 8inch gun cruiser study - scheme CA-B", a preliminary design study after Baltimore, ordered by General Board, to find a better post-treaty heavy cruiser than Baltimore, Basically CA-B is a 12-gun Baltimore with significantly improved protection( 7.6” belt),capable of 33 knots. General Board actually found CA-B quite satisfying since the preliminary study estimated a standard displacement of 17000t,thats 1417t per gun, better than 1611t per gun offered by Baltimore. However by 1940 the United State, gearing up for war, was in dire need of new cruisers, and designing a whole new cruiser would cost too much time. CA-B was dead by 1941 and DoN decided all new heavy cruisers would repeat Baltimore design. Some saw Buffalo as an American Zao, but Zao is more likely an Japanese CA-C(another scheme of the 1940 study, a CA-B capable of 35 knots). Zao, or the Maru 6 heavy cruiser program left no record about its design, not even preliminary studies, when WG reconstruct this ship out of pure imagination, they were clearly influenced by the 1940 8inch gun cruiser studies by US.
  14. cools0812


    保密協議已閱讀完畢,大致每天都會上線遊戲,擁有skype,能及時反饋意見, 目前場次400以上,軟件硬件已準備完畢,希望可以成爲超測的一員