FliesLikeABrick

Member
  • Content count

    431
  • Joined

  • Last visited

medal

Community Reputation

188 Neutral

About FliesLikeABrick

  • Rank
    Officer cadet

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    People's Republic of Sussex
  • Interests
    Organising my crayons

Recent Profile Visitors

750 profile views
  1. To be totally honest, I'd rather have one 20+ minute game, where I can opt to use any of the classes in my lineup, and spend some time sneaking/angling/sniping/brawling appropriately, than have four 5 minute wipeouts which drives me to play one class all the time. But again, we come back to it being a player issue - I understand why people rush cap and then just straight to CAS... but I don't get why anyone finds it a rewarding game experience. Nor does it make sense when there's no real specific benefit to grinding modules on planes, and is far easier/quicker to do in AB.
  2. Finland seems to have been ripped straight out of WoT's 'How To Design A 3 Corridor Map' guide. Effective ranges on that map are under 200m for the most part. In fact, most of the snow maps are point blank brawling nonsense aren't they? el Alamein isn't too bad - although I always thought the place was just a train junction in the desert, not a towering castle as depicted in game? Strangely enough, just had an awesome RU/GB vs GER game at 4.7 there earlier - went on for 22 minutes, and the three caps changed hands so many times it was crazy. There was still ten left on each team at the end when the tickets bled out. Give you an idea - I came sixth with 3k RP, 6 kills, 9 assists, and 5 caps. Kursk and Sinai can be really frustrating when you take a TD looking forward to a long range slug fest and your entire team all mindlessly rush to cap.
  3. Bet you can't park a Sunderland on one
  4. I managed it with the Hudson on Norway, but that thing is fairly small and has a stall speed just above walking pace
  5. Yeah, but IRL naval pilots didn't have to cope with packet loss, lag, wonky FMs, a carrier narrower than your wingspan, or the damn thing suddenly altering course just as you cut the power.
  6. That opens a broader question as to what is and isn't an attacker. For example, currently the British tree has no attackers, but Vickers Tempest, Mossie 6pdr, Wyvern, and most of the FAA line can do little else. There's also a significant wedge of players who never fly Jugs above 2000ft, so how do you deal with them lawnmowing?
  7. Right mate, as one who has done the entire Brit tech tree, the highlights are; Spitfires (all of them) cannon Hurricanes And Typhoon (they'll suit your play style) Tempest II Blenheim (it's a little gunship) Halifax And the Mossie with 6pdr can be fun, as can the Vickers Tempest when you get it spaded. The rest are either okay, or not suited to the current meta. The only real stinkers are the Firebrand, and the woefully modelled/overtiered Lancaster and Lincoln.
  8. Urgh, erm, err... damn you Kropotkin! (Although, debatable whether you can say they actually sunk her - she seems to have been deliberately scuttled. Certainly there was no definitive killing blow like she inflicted on Hood, even if there was, it would have beem endless controversy as to which ship did sink her, given half the Home Fleet was having a crack by then)
  9. Thanks for the info - didn't realise there was that much big gun action in the Pacific.
  10. The irony being the Bismarck was the only battleship in WW2 to sink another battleship (albeit a very large battlecruiser) of similar size and power in combat on the high seas. (Can't remember any of the Japanese BBs falling to gunfire?)
  11. No, this was the Germans talking about the Soviet repair teams repairing soviet tanks
  12. Found one in the book I'm currently reading; "They performed extraordinary feats by following the tank troops on foot to tow away and repair the machines. I therefore issued orders that, on principle, tanks were to be set on fire." Manteuffel, on the Soviet field repair teams. sauce; Citadel Battle of Kursk, Robin Cross.
  13. It probably has more to do with the AB casual players wanting to be engaged in a full frontal derp-off within 20 seconds of spawn than anything else. Here in RB we just get the same maps. I got a late spawn on one of the small maps the other day to find all three caps already red and two spawn campers picking off the late joiners - no more than two minutes into the game.
  14. Veteran of SH3 or not, you are correct. 1) Deck gun was used when safe to do so, but U-Boats don't make good gun platforms, so relegates it to secondary weapon for calm seas and picking off stragglers. Early in the war, if catching a lone merchantman on the surface, they'd often surface and engage with deck gun, aiming for the wheelhouse (by default usually next to the radio room) so the target couldn't send out a distress. Standard distress call was SSS, which told everyone a sub was in the area. Later on, once the RAF started patrolling the Bay of Biscay with centimetric radar, it was extremely risky to be on the surface in those waters at any time of the day. Thus the deck gun was often removed to decrease underwater drag. Some had 20mm AA guns fitted instead, but that didn't work too well. 2) The preferred method was torpedo surface attack from behind the convoy at night - basically because it's far easier; the boat is faster, it doesn't need trimming down after each launch, and you can see what's happening. They were perfectly capable of sinking from submerged, and this was standard practice for daytime attacks, or if the sub was ahead of the convoy. As for his other points - the U-boats nearly starved England out in WW1, and we got down to two weeks worth of food left in WW2. However, had things got really close, then perhaps Harris would have been compelled to release some of Bomber command's heavies to sub patrol work. On the other side of the Atlantic, Admiral King was equally guilty, by assigning all the VLR Liberators to the Pacific. The curious thing is considering how technically advanced the Germans were on land and in the air, the Type-IX u-boat barely changed during the entire war, and was more or less obsolete by late 42. The later marques were much better, but too little too late. You could attribute that lack of development to the folly of Tirpitz sitting in the fjord, the deathride of the Bismarck, or the generally poor showing by the KM elsewhere, colouring the view of Hitler. It could be down Donitz's singlemindedness, his terrible relationship with Raeder, moving his HQ to Berlin, or the fact that German industry was squandering resources on so many pointless projects that the traditionally unpopular KM just never got a look in. Recommended reading; War Beneath The Sea, Peter Padfield. I've just finished it, and very interesting. Covers the four main submarine belligerents throughout the war.
  15. The carrier size issue is well complained about, but Gaijin is certain the carriers are correct size relative to the planes. if you want a real hoot, the Wyvern is almost impossible to land on a carrier (test drive and try it).
  16. Yeah, big Sinai is my favourite, followed by big Normandy, and the large Kursk (I think it's Kursk) because they're not WoT style corridor rubbish and you can flank, snipe, camp, fly about and so on. Which is another problem with small maps - the AA and air elements are also squeezed into an effective corridor
  17. Soviet Premiums - have most of them. KV-1E and Guards T-34 are great in the mid BR range in RB, especially when supported by the P-47 Planes - apart from the IL-2 and Pe-2 (don't think they're available now anyway) they're all pretty good. My personal favourite is Golowhotsits Yak-9M the only one I'd avoid is the little Zut-37, because it's useless as AA, and requires a lot of luck when using in AT mode
  18. and we promptly arrive back at the BB vs CV paradox - because BB still needs a CV to protect it in the air... so you may as well just spend the money on another CV, or more planes for your CV, or a sub.
  19. Definitely didn't imagine this one. Think it might have been To War With The Bays - which is actually an actual book and *probably* in the loft. I'll retract until I summon enough motivation to go up there, as I need to wade over several tonnes of my wife's rubbish to get anywhere near my books
  20. I thought we'd drifted away from the OP ages ago fallenkezef? As for a modern BB - costs would be the main issue; HMS Vanguard cost £11.5m in 1946, which is £455m adjusted to today's money. Which, on face of it is quite cheap compared with the QE class carriers. However, that Vanguard cost is for WW2 technology - the QE carriers cost between four and six times more than the equally fudged Audacious class carriers (analogous with Vanguard), depending on which figures you look at. So, you could budget for a Vanguard sized BB, with modern technology, at between two and three billion sterling. However, there is one very large problem with this - how many shipyards can actually build an Ironclad now? Certainly nothing of what's left of the British shipbuilding industry could do it - more than anything else, it would be knowledge of how to design and construct one. So you'd have to literally resurrect the necessary industry to build the thing. Well, you wouldn't, you'd have to give it to BAe, and that would immediately triple the costs, push delivery out a decade, and ruin everything.
  21. Hindsight is a cruel thing though, especially when it comes to military hardware. Fortunately for everyone, it never came to finding out.
  22. First hand accounts of war in the desert - British crews would routinely shoot German stuff until it was absolutely dead. I'll have to rummage around in the Kindle to find it, so may be a while to find the reference
  23. Interesting document, thanks. Depends on which Chieftain you're comparing there - the Mk.X had grown the fairly sizeable Stillbrew package, because it was recognised the early turret was no longer strong enough for the battlefield. Additionally, as it later transpired. the casting process on the Chieftain turrets wasn't quite as good as anyone thought, and some of them have turned out to be very poorly armoured indeed. However, as I keep saying (and people keep missing), tank armour almost always reflects the expected threat and armoured doctrine of the specifying force at the time - the post war/Cold War British doctrine was semi-entrenched defensive long range engagement, bordering on Tank Destroyer tactics, the main idea being to kill the Reds from miles out. To be brutally honest, the sheer difference in numbers meant that had the Cold War gone hot, the Chieftain would have lost anyway.
  24. Part of that is down to the standard practice of shooting tanks repeatedly to totally destroy them - the Allied side were well aware of German field recovery and repair capabilities. But, everyone tended to shoot at tanks until they were definitively on fire, exploding, and in many pieces.
  25. RP is up there with Limited Slip Differentials, Tea, and Women's Logic - nobody is quite sure how they work. I have noticed that you get less RP for long range sniping kills - presumably there's a spotting modifier involved. You also seem to get RP for tanking or taking damage, non penetrating hits, being near things, assists, caps, decaps, and whether it's a Wednesday, your birthday, someone else's birthday, and probably lose a bit for blowing up Soviet glorious revolutionary designs. What really, really, gets me is when you have a monster game but strangely only earn enough RP to finish the module you're on...
  26. Yeah, but the British doctrine was to be completely hull down - often in a scrape dug by the tank itself - and to be engaging at ranges way beyond effective soviet response. Hence the Chieftain being so heavily armoured on the turret, with a near flat UFP, and relatively thin LFP and sides. There's also a big difference between PC games simulating tank combat, and actual tank combat Chieftain gunners were taught to aim centre mass. Nothing more. Sniping weakspots like LFPs at 3km wasn't really a thing.
  27. Ah, missed that - glad I didn't invest all that time in linking accounts, I'd have been salty as hell!
  28. You sure? I'm certain the steam DLC was British Grant and 65rg Achilles
  29. Regarding the LFP thicknesses - this is a bit of a moot point, as almost all Western tanks feature this, as almost all were designed with a specific threat in mind - that of trying to stop the Soviet steamroller on the North German Plain. In a primarily defensive battle, from semi prepared positions, at long range - your LFP shouldn't be anywhere near a threat. Indeed, if you're fighting in a situation where an enemy can specifically be aiming for the LFP (or ballistic arc doesn't render a shot liable to hit at such an angle that it would deflect), then you've probably got bigger worries than the small chance of your driver stopping a kinetic round with his groin.
  30. You what, mate? Trolls aren't some kind of organised movement, unless you're referring to 4chan, and they pick on absolutely everyone. Anyway. The simple fact is that in many tactical arenas, the German war machine was specifically organised to promote the deification of talismanic figures - for example, the ludicrous number of kills achieved by German fighter aces was largely down to the entire Staffel effectively being a support act devoted to setting up kills for the ace. To a certain degree, this habit is endemic in totalitarian regimes - the needs to be talismans which 'the people' can identify with in 'the struggle' against whatever. The Russians did it with both fighters and those working in the factories, the Chinese much the same, the Japanese too... and the Nazis went totally overboard with it; it all boils down to heroic effort (usually involving self sacrifice) for the greater good. It is worth noting that all sides - even the ones who didn't go in for the individual hero worship such as the British and Americans - almost always overclaimed. Rarely deliberately so, more often because combat is extremely stressful and confusing. I once asked my Grandfather how many Germans he'd killed during the war. Forty years after the event he was certain of three men and two tanks. Six years of war, numerous battles, two years in tanks, and a pre-war regular soldier, and was only certain of that number. On the flipside, in Holland he came under fire from an AT Gun in his Churchill. The first shot tore a track off and after the second shot bounced they decided to bail and retire to safe distance. Third shot set fire to the vast amount of personal clutter on the rear deck, and as that was blazing merrily the AT Gun apparently decided that was a kill and went silent. A few hours later they were mobile again, albeit missing a lot of personal kit - no doubt the German gunner claimed it as a kill. I'm currently reading War Beneath the Sea about WW2 submarines of all sides. American claimed tonnage was usually halved by post war research. One Japanese sub captain claimed sinking a battleship, heavy cruiser, and an aircraft carrier in one sortie - post war research showed that the only thing happened on that day was an AA Cruiser was attacked by torpedoes (they missed), and an Escort carrier group was in the area but unaware of being under attack. My point is that there is very rarely any reliable source for anything - confusing situations, confirmed kills which actually weren't, post battle reports being altered to suit prevailing mood, and the political method of dealing with things at the time all combine to produce, at best, a very questionable version of any event.
  31. Thanks for the correction. In my defence, I'm rather deep into a book on submarine warfare in WW2, and the Pacific section has got me thinking Yamamoto and Yamato rather a lot
  32. You've just used WW2 battles to state the usefulness of BBs? They're completely obsolete, both as a tactical weapons system and as a strategic arm, because they're a bilateral force; you need to have an enemy who also adheres to the Decisive Big Gun Battle doctrine, otherwise they're just very big, very costly, artillery pieces. As a tactical weapons system, it was proven pointless in WW2 by carrier and land aircraft (Pearl Harbour, Taranto, Midway, Bismarck, Prince of Wales, Yamamoto, etc) and then superseded decades ago by jet aircraft, cruise missiles, attack subs, helicopters, and so on. The last time anyone put a a large capital ship to sea during war was 1982, and look how that went. As a strategic device, the BB was conceived solely for mastery of the seas, at a time of empire, colonies, and vast domestic merchant fleets. The concept was based solely on the enemy (of which there were many) also requiring dominance of the sea, having a merchant fleet to protect, and an empire or sphere of interest to protect. Historically, there was precisely one engagement where they were used precisely as intended; Jutland. Which only proved one thing; the individual power or technical brilliance of an individual weapon is broadly irrelevant - it's not how good you make 'em, it's how many you can make. Which, funnily enough, was much the result of Kursk, El Alamein, the Pacific carrier battles - it was irrelevant how good the Tiger II, or Yamamoto were - it was just a case of how the victor having greater industrial capacity. On the modern battlefield, there is nothing a BB can do better or cheaper than anything else available to a force commander. Strategically a carrier or missile cruiser/sub projects far more power a lot further, whilst being significantly cheaper, and in both instances the primary weapon system can be moved to somewhere else if required.
  33. It was also available via Steam when buying the Achilles package (swapping the premium time of the usual Gaijin web store). It never bothered finding out properly how much effort it would be to link accounts, then forgot about it entirely until a few minutes after I bought the Achilles package in store.
  34. The game is, technically speaking, almost perfect. The problem is that there's a few little gameplay related holes which the Meta Abuse Muppets happily exploit all day, every day, which ruins the immersion for those of us who want an involving time engrossed in a world of tank combat. 1) SP for capping + RP for planes in GF = hordes of zergrush gimps all trying to outcap each other so they can grind their fighter planes by machine gunning a few tanks. 2) Seal Clubbing. Due to the unforgiving nature of WT, crew skills, and the low level of map variety, Seeing people with 000s of games in Pz.IV F2s just farming players with several hundred games is just sad. 3) BR and RP progression not linear enough. It does get frustrating when you've got absolute beginners at 4.7 and beyond because the progression system allows you to jump straight up there without grinding properly. Hence we get hugely unbalanced team abilities around iconic tanks like the Firefly, Tiger, and T-34-85. 4) Performance balancing - unlike the other tank game, who can play about with HP, alpha, dispersion, reload, and all sorts of other parameters to balance a tank, WT is wedded to using BR. Yes, it's a good thing they stick with some level of historical accuracy, but getting uptiered in a Matilda (for example) is pure pain; underperforming solid shot, ineffective armour, and poor mobility... because I'm facing stuff that, IRL, came into service long after the Matilda was withdrawn. With such a broad BR spread, especially in a heavy/assault you end up either stomping or being stomped, depending on what the matchmaker has thrown together. These four things alone are enough to cause replayability issues. When you combine all four simultaneously you have a problem. For example, I played just one GF yesterday. Berlin, Churchill III, downtiered. Came out with five kills and four assists in the Church, and then two more frags in the Achilles when I finally got ran out of armour in the Churchill. I logged off after that because although it was an amusing game, it wasn't particularly challenging. More importantly, I knew that it was the best game I'd have all night - everything else would be a combination of uptiering, terrible teams, or the four points above - this would end up with me frustration quitting anyway, so found something more constructive to do instead.
  35. I'm slowly forming the opinion that the game is nearly perfect, but ruined almost entirely by the playerbase. Won 3 from 12 so far today, got so fed up of terrible British teams I switched over to Russians. Got massively uptiered on Port of Novowhatsit in my 4.0 lineup... and still had a guy in a BT-5 overtake me out of spawn. He literally drove straight into enemy formation and went straight back to garage.
  36. Tiny Tims on the British F6F are... erm... a bit easy. The real problem is not the planes per se, rather than 90% of your team - especially when playing Allies - all want to abuse that mechanic. Zerg rushing cap so they can all jump in a plane and throw the game. GG.. much fun for those of us actually trying to play/grind/enjoy tanks. Normandy big map at 4.0 yesterday. We were winning, easily, until the point 11 of our remaining 14 players ended up in the air. We had to SPAA, and me in the middle of the map in the Churchill. Game lost because Russians capped out, and there was still 9 people flying about on my team
  37. It's an interesting element of the period that WT never addresses - technological advances in tank design tended to be quite binary. For example, the A12 Matilda II in 1940 was without peer on the German side. 7th Panzer Div had nothing to stop the dozen of them at Arras until the Luftwaffe 88s were brought up. Similarly, the Char B1 bis was basically impervious to anything the Germans had. Then the Germans went East, and found - to their horror - the KV tanks were simply impregnable. Then the Tiger appears, and the pendulum swung back the other way, with nothing in the allied armoury able to challenge it in a 1-on-1 situation. From a strategic perspective, none of the above were ever able to be brought to bear in significant numbers before the counter to them appeared. One day, when I get round to it, I'll do a user mission for the 12 Matildas at Arras versus the 35 and 38ts of 7 Pz.Div
  38. I actually think AP has had a bit of tweak in the last week or so - getting an awful lot of one shots with 17pdr on Achilles, just aiming centre mass. Head-on against StuGs, T-34s, and Pz.IV I'm getting reliable kills just hitting the drivers vision port. anyway, the awesome teams continue - having a great game versus Russians on the big Normandy map, with 3 caps. We're winning, massively. Suddenly I'm aware I'm the only tank on the minimap... we have a grand total of 11 people in the air. That left me to defend three caps in Churchill III. Even with my pleas in chat, nobody did the decent thing. Consequently we lost a certain victory as the Russians capped out, 9 players ended with just one death and were still mindlessly zooming about as game ended.
  39. Drag this one up from the depths, but... Having established 5.3 in the Comet is pure pain, decided to go back to 4.0 and spade the Churchill III. Bought the Achilles 65 rgt, and away we go. Aaaand we're back to astoundingly bad teams - five games in a row I've had more kills than the rest of the team combined. List of tactics available on majority maps; Zerg rush cap camp bush flank ambush cautiously advance hull down sniping and 90% of players choose.... Logged off because I had to before insanity set in
  40. Compared to WoT, RB:GF is much more rewarding patience and bush lurking, especially with the Germans. some basic meta/mechanics to be aware of; Solid shot is weak due to lack of post-pen effects and spalling. Makes the later British hard work APHE is king of the field at the moment, due to unrealistic fuse effects armour doesn't play as a big a factor in WT as it does in WoT. Some heavies are difficult to pen frontally, but don't rely on armour to save you SPAA is a nuisance, and the German ones especially are lethal in close Tracer works both ways, especially when using MG for ranging otherwise, welcome to a very steep learning curve Oh, and after 32k games in WoT with top 10 EU clan, I can safely say RB:GF is far more of a thinking game
  41. Ignore WR - teams are generally so terrible it's completely arbitrary if you win or not. I grabbed a sneaky game about lunch time. Got 9 kills in T34 1940.... which was three times that of the rest of my team combined... 14 players managed 3 kills between them.
  42. Lot of work went into this The main problem I can see is that only the US really spent any time developing true attack helicopters, with the Russians kinda following along with the Hind. Interesting that the US interest arose from the Vietnam experience, and the Russians from their torrid time in Afghanistan. Here in Britain, helicopters were primarily for moving things about for the army, and ASW for the navy. Indeed, it was really only Afghan that drove us to adopt the Apache. Much same applies with Germany and France.
  43. And we'd have RB server pop equal to sim... I.e. You and a few others. All the real sim nuts left years ago, or just bit the bullet and play RB Anyway, regards the OP. The skill level seems pretty dire whatever nation and BR you choose. However, you tend to find low BR German teams full of level 100 people seal clubbing in early 109s and He-100s. Mid BR suit the Russians and their nuclear tipped ShVAKs. Then it's Spitfire spam all the way to early jets. The US tree I've found the hardest because they need altitude to work, and none of the maps except Norway give you enough time and space to get up high. If you get Hokkaido, you inevitably get four heavies which gives you a -4 disadvantage straight away, and there's always a couple of people lawnmowing in P-47s. (It's those easy pickings that drove the Spit LF IX to 5.7 in my opinion)
  44. Well, could have been a good weekend event, but poorly designed in my opinion; 1) The German team, despite having access to some serious heavy metal, just can't win - played 15 as Brits, won 14. I ended up feeling sorry for the KT drivers trying to deal with M18s swarming them. Some games were like WoT as three tanks circled at point blank. 2) Map too small for the guns and mobility in play. No variance in tactics, just simply point blank brawling along western side, and eastern map edge did give a few options for flanking, but not used 3) Spawn camping started to become an issue thanks to the mobility of the M18s. 4) Planes. Didn't need them to be honest - especially since the Allied ground pounders are so strong. Watching Jugs, Stangs, and Typhoons blowing up Tigers as they spawn was frustrating. I rate it 4/10 - nice idea, but execution show lack of play testing and a lack of appreciation of how the playerbase will abuse the meta. The guy currently leading the leaderboards (Jermoesgd) I've seen in most games today, every time he was using all three spawns on Typhoon - not a name and shame, just an observation. That said, in 15 games I've researched Firefly, Achilles, Crusader AA, and unlocked half the Firefly, so pretty easy grinding. Got bored in the end though
  45. Is there a balance issue at 3.3? Decided to grind the Brit line again, having been amusing myself with Cobra King and T20. Haven't actually won a game yet because half the team is back in hangar whilst the Germans and sometimes Russians are still full team. Twelve straight defeats, none of which have been even slightly close. Full yolo rush to the objective point, and then sit there getting wrecked by long barrel Pz.IV, followed by a whole gaggle of people then sitting in spawn with AA. Nobody flanks, even on wide maps like Ardennes. It can't all be players? Things improve in Tier III right? I'm not sure I can take much more of this psychological torture. edit oh, and a Flakbus 88 from 1000m hits the front wheel on the Sherman II, travels through it, through the side armour, enters the gearbox, exits the gearbox, kills driver, then detonates the ammo on the far sponson??
  46. Been clubbing flying about in early Spits to unlock the skins (hey, it's a hobby), partially brought about by rediscovering them in the EC event last weekend. Anyway - the early ones all suddenly seem to have terrible oil overheating problems at all altitudes on all maps. Is this new? To keep the IIb cool on Norway I was 89% throttle, 88% pitch. Water was stone cold, even with rad shut. Oil was hovering in the 88 area, just off orange..