Jump to content

Captain Virgil Hilts

Verified Tanker [NA]
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Captain Virgil Hilts

  1. Not my idea of fun, not going to play that way. That's just miserable. Just another reason wargaming doesn't earn any of my money. They do not know how to balance game pieces, nor do they know how to balance battles.
  2. I had a Farragut, and just plain had to get rid of it, the damned thing took me from 48% wins and improving to 44% and tanking. Like CV's, I'd like to learn to play DD's, but unlike CV's I find myself not improving in DD's, but rather getting rapidly worse. I feel compelled to get in and do real damage before too long in the battle, and the DD's simply get trashed. Every single hit I take disables the engine and the rudder, leading to the ship being a blazing wreck soon to be extinguished by sinking.
  3. Wow, I'm so looking forward to the grind. Or maybe, not. I can see a metric shit ton of misery on the horizon. The lack of speed will only serve to exponentially magnify my shortcomings in positioning skills. The poor accuracy will only cause me to focus more on making good shots, which will further distract me from everything else, so I'll be trying to make shots when the rest of my team has fled the area, leaving me to be focused down by a half dozen ships, including 4 cruisers hosing me with fire starting HE. Oh joy..........
  4. 1. Not necessarily so. U.S. carriers were mostly set on fire due to bombs or kamakaze attacks. And the U.S. had very little success with torpedos (witness the battle of Midway) against any ship. Torpedo bombers were slow and vulnerable, and had to get in very close to make very well aimed attacks with a lot of torpedos in the water, in order to get even a relatively poor hit ratio. Unescorted torpedo bombers were, for the most part, easy pickings for fighters, and once they were low and slow enough to get into a torpedo run, for anti-aircraft batteries. All of Torpedo 8 was shot down, with only George Gay surviving, at Midway, with no hits. Not sure the U.S. even scored a torpedo hit with any of the 3 torpedo squadrons. And the U.S. dominated that battle for the most part. 2. Actually, the later U.S. battleships were designed, and then regularly updated, to be anti-aircraft platforms. The most modern of them were good at it. It's one reason the U.S. sacrificed some armor for speed, in order to have battleships be fast enough to stay with carriers and screen for them. Destroyers didn't really even have enough firepower to defend themselves, cruisers were iffy, but later U.S. battleships could fill the air with a steel umbrella, eventually the Japanese resorted to suicide attacks of one form or another just to get hits. 3. If any player can consistently get reliable torpedo hits against a decent enemy player, provided the "victim" isn't alone or nearly alone, and very slow, then topedo bombers are fairly OP compared to reality. 4. That's somewhat true, in some cases. But, most often, carrier squadrons were launched a couple of scouts first, maybe, attack planes shortly after, and then fighters, to escort the attack groups. Then another wing of fighters usually launched even later, as a CAP (combat air patrol) to protect the fleet. Attack planes were regularly and often used to actively search for the enemy in likely areas. Outside of PBY scout amphib planes at Midway doing early spotting, it was attack planes that found the Japanese at both Coral Sea and Midway, for example. By late 1942, the U.S. considered torpedo bombers to be almost completely obsolete. At best they were a decoy to keep the ememy from concentrating on the dive bombers. I can see dive bombers being pretty powerful, but if torpedo bombers are all that and a bag of chips, then something is really wrong.
  5. If you're doing well, and having fun, then power grind. If you stop having fun, start losing, or playing poorly, walk away. I used to not walk away. I do now.
  6. My problem is now resolved, everything works well. Thank you sela.
  7. I can remove it, but I do not think it is the source of my problem. I was having problems with the game locking up instead of loading into a battle, it's why my recent stats suck, I never loaded into 4-5 battles I tried while I was working on the problem. I'm just sitting it out for a while, real life has me too busy to play much any way. Is sort of a downer that I didn't get to use my free day of premium, and I didn't get to play for the Tetrarch, I'd have gotten gold and a slot instead. Oh well, the small things are no big deal.
  8. Thanks sela. I'm sitting back waiting on your fix. I do not feel confident that I can make adjustments to solve my problem, and I won't risk not being able to load a battle, leaving my team short handed, that isn't fair, even if I have a bad battle and just absorb damage.
  9. Because some clown at wg arbitrarily decided it is now (after the move from tier X to tier IX) a "tank destroyer" and tank destroyers don't mount vertical stabilizers (never mind the fact that the real prototype T30 was capable of mounting one, and was a heavy tank). Probably the same clown who arbitrarily decided the T34 should have worse view range when it was at tier IX than the T29 did at tier VII, and you should have to grind about 200K or so to get to the 120MM when it started out equipped with the T29's 105MM. That same genius decided that the T29 was so good that the T32 should not get anything better than the 105MM on the T29. The T7 155MM has always struggled with random bouts of stupidity, this might improve it slightly, but will not resolve it. I'll take what I can get. But the damned thing suffers from RNG as though it were a piece of indirect fire artillery.
  10. I installed the latest version, 9.7.4, the base mod, then Melty's Mathmod, then Locostan's detailed stats. Then went back and turned off noscroll. The problem is, I can load the game, and log in. But then when I click battle, I stay hung on the intro screen until I kill the game with Ctrl+Alt+Delete. So I just did a fresh download, and started over. It did it again. So I did a fresh reload just now, logged in, and played a battle just fine. This is pretty much the same set up I've run for a long time, trouble free.
  11. Applied last Saturday. Still waiting. Probably won't make it in, no invite code, either.
  12. LOL. I probably still can't get close to the ceiling.
  13. This. Oddly enough, I do fairly well in it. Especially considering I'm a mediocre player.
  14. I agree. Within reason. I'm not sure the big meta swings are.
  15. No doubt they have good brakes, most vehicles that weigh a lot do. However, you're showing an Abrams, while we're dealing with what are supposed to be tanks no more modern design wise than 1959. Massive difference. There's nothing wrong with arcade style play. Within reason. However, when you screw around with the- laws of physics, you start screwing up balance a great deal. And WG is great at screwing up balance, they do that better than anything else they do. The massive swings in the meta are a perfect example. Hovercraft light tanks in places they probably couldn't go, doing things they probably can't do, is another huge meta swing.
  16. It's a tank, not a sports car, it shouldn't be able to stop or change directions instantly at some ridiculous speed. Tracked vehicles that weigh several tons shouldn't handle like sports cars and racing 4 wheelers that weigh a ton or less. There are serious limits to what tracks will withstand, and how much traction they actually have. There's also that pesky "inertia" part of physics. And hanging off of cliffs while firing is a real joke. The recoil of the gun will exert enough force to overcome the traction of the tracks, especially on rocks, not to mention the fact that hills steep enough to barely hold grass will certainly not offer enough available traction to hold a 5 or 10 ton vehicle on a 60 degree incline while it fires a cannon. Yeah, sure, there are all sorts of testing videos of light tanks doing all sorts of wild things. They are just that, tests, not what could actually be done in combat. Those are vehicles with trick engines and transmissions, and reduced weight. They also don't have to worry about being stuck in a hostile zone with an irretrievably broken vehicle. Those vehicles are set up to get the military to invest in the concept, whether or not it is a viable concept. They're like car or truck commercials. Just as imaginary as a $50K street car running around the track keeping up with real race cars, or a $50K pick up truck out on the street pulling incredible loads. Sure it will do it. Once, under very special conditions, with all sorts of modifications. For about 2 minutes. Then you'll have to rebuild it from the ground up.
  17. Safeshot seems okay for me. Session stats are relatively complete, just far different from what I had in 9.5, it looks almost stock. I have been using J1mbo's sight, I wanted to try Melty's sight this time, and it just doesn't seem to have all of the features shown in the preview. Everything else seems to look exactly like the previews.
  18. I'm probably doing something wrong, but the after battle stats seem to have changed considerably. Also, Melty's sight seems to be lacking some of its features, such as the angles and the armor data. It doesn't look like the pictures in the previews. Maybe I did not install everything. Or did not do it correctly.
  19. I hated the T1, I'll agree with you on that. The M6 is anything but unreliable. Mine is awesome, plays almost like a T20, a tier lower, with less hit points and less agility. After that, the T29 is legendary, the king of tier VII. After tier VII, the U.S. heavy line falls short in the alpha department, all of the U.S. heavy tanks in the comfort line tanks are older than many of the other lines. The T32 is a tactician's tank, the T5E1 105MM is not so great at tier VIII as it was at tier VII, against tier IX and tier X, you struggle to penetrate, and the alpha is wanting. But the turret, low profile, and decent agility help offset the 105MM. The M103, for me anyway, is just okay, it's a decent tank. My stats in it, by the way, are not in the M103, I have less than 100 games in the M103, those stats are for the old T34, during the grind to the 120MM and the better turret. Possibly the most horrific grind in WoT until they replaced the T34 with the M103 and made the T34 a premium (a very handicapped premium). I'm actually around 51-52% in the M103. All that being said, I like the U.S. heavy line. I'm not nearly as happy with the M103 and T110E5 as we were lead to believe we'd be, I don't think the 120MM is anywhere near what we were told it would be. There was a time when 400 or so alpha was pretty stout. Now it's just meh. So the 120MM isn't the monster we were hoping for. The T110E5 is a solid, decent tank. It is a jack of all trades, mostly, and definitely a master of none. I struggle in the T110E5, it just doesn't fit my play style, either as a heavy or as a big medium. And I'm still really just getting around to really working on my tier IX and tier X skills, I'm decent at tier VIII, not so good above that. I am convinced my play style is very gun dependent, which is a bad thing, since it leaves me less able to deal with bad situations.
  20. Well damn, missed it. I haven't had the time to sit and wait/watch for it to open. I did subscribe.
  21. The T110E5, although not nearly what we were promised, and a victim of power creep, is still a viable and useful tank. Yes, it is worth having, if you want a tier X, especially if you've ground the experience already.
  • Create New...