|
|
-
crap ships..
03. 27. 2012 07:32
jumong
|
i would like to ask if why navyfield is adding those cv and bb that have not seen action in wwII...since this game is based on wwII naval batlle events..why adding those crappy ships that have not seen or played a vital part in history...most of the new ships have spent their time in shipyard and are sold for scrap......tskk...pity
|
-
Re : crap ships..
03. 27. 2012 08:11
Sonlirain
|
1 - Because SDE needed more ships.
2 - All ships have a place on the battlefield (at least in theory).
3 - Say whatever you want but KM has the crapiest ships and they were among the original 4 nations.
|
-
Re : crap ships..
03. 27. 2012 08:56
CNR4806
|
Because not all nations built all the way up to BB5 and CV5 IRL.
If you're talking about "seeing action in WWII", the original 4 nations stop at...
KM:
- BB3
- CV0
USN:
- BB4
- PCV
RN:
- BB3
- CV4 & PCV
IJN:
- BB4
- CV4 (I don't think going out for a sea trial and get sunk is a major action, so no CV5)
Now explain how can we balance this.
|
-
Re : crap ships..
03. 28. 2012 14:28
Stormvanger
|
UK had a single BB4, actually. Vanguard.
|
-
Re : crap ships..
03. 28. 2012 15:37
Iced8383
|
Originally Posted by Stormvanger
UK had a single BB4, actually. Vanguard.
That was commissioned after the war.
|
-
Re : crap ships..
03. 28. 2012 17:48
vadarrog
|
Originally Posted by CNR4806
Because not all nations built all the way up to BB5 and CV5 IRL.
If you're talking about "seeing action in WWII", the original 4 nations stop at...
KM:
- BB3
- CV0
USN:
- BB4
- PCV
RN:
- BB3
- CV4 & PCV
IJN:
- BB4
- CV4 (I don't think going out for a sea trial and get sunk is a major action, so no CV5)
Now explain how can we balance this.
The thing you put for ijn cv is actually wrong. The zuikaku praticipated in the assault on pearl harbor in cluding the shokaku which was shokaku's sister ship. Kaga 1935 also took part in the war.
Before you start complaining do some research noob.
|
-
Re : crap ships..
03. 28. 2012 21:45
CNR4806
|
Originally Posted by vadarrog
Originally Posted by CNR4806
Because not all nations built all the way up to BB5 and CV5 IRL.
If you're talking about "seeing action in WWII", the original 4 nations stop at...
KM:
- BB3
- CV0
USN:
- BB4
- PCV
RN:
- BB3
- CV4 & PCV
IJN:
- BB4
- CV4 (I don't think going out for a sea trial and get sunk is a major action, so no CV5)
Now explain how can we balance this.
The thing you put for ijn cv is actually wrong. The zuikaku praticipated in the assault on pearl harbor in cluding the shokaku which was shokaku's sister ship. Kaga 1935 also took part in the war.
Before you start complaining do some research noob.
Zuikaku is a Shokaku class and I don't obviously see the reason of putting it as a seperate class anyway. And who took Kaga 1935 out? Since when is Kaga 1935 above CV4? Look at the shiptree again, please.
Also, Kaga/Zuikaku or not, my points still stands. KM has no CV and no BB4, US has all the way up to PCV (which is actually a sub-class of Essex instead of the second ship in class). Wow balance.
|
-
Re : crap ships..
03. 29. 2012 10:32
vadarrog
|
Originally Posted by CNR4806
Originally Posted by vadarrog
Originally Posted by CNR4806
Because not all nations built all the way up to BB5 and CV5 IRL.
If you're talking about "seeing action in WWII", the original 4 nations stop at...
KM:
- BB3
- CV0
USN:
- BB4
- PCV
RN:
- BB3
- CV4 & PCV
IJN:
- BB4
- CV4 (I don't think going out for a sea trial and get sunk is a major action, so no CV5)
Now explain how can we balance this.
The thing you put for ijn cv is actually wrong. The zuikaku praticipated in the assault on pearl harbor in cluding the shokaku which was shokaku's sister ship. Kaga 1935 also took part in the war.
Before you start complaining do some research noob.
Zuikaku is a Shokaku class and I don't obviously see the reason of putting it as a seperate class anyway. And who took Kaga 1935 out? Since when is Kaga 1935 above CV4? Look at the shiptree again, please.
Also, Kaga/Zuikaku or not, my points still stands. KM has no CV and no BB4, US has all the way up to PCV (which is actually a sub-class of Essex instead of the second ship in class). Wow balance.
What part of sister ship do you not understand (It means they are the same ships/class), And yes i dont see the point of adding a kaga 1935. I mean i like this idea because i dont wanna be stuck with an ugly kaga 1928 but japan has lots of CVs so how else would you use them. KM was to busy trying to fight on land on many fronts. They thought that the war was going to last a few months to around a year. Thats why they did what they did. If you really want to make navyfield historically accurate then km would be under powered severly. Stop complaining, I still think you over react about everything.
|
-
Re : crap ships..
03. 29. 2012 18:48
CNR4806
|
Originally Posted by vadarrog
Originally Posted by CNR4806
Originally Posted by vadarrog
Originally Posted by CNR4806
Because not all nations built all the way up to BB5 and CV5 IRL.
If you're talking about "seeing action in WWII", the original 4 nations stop at...
KM:
- BB3
- CV0
USN:
- BB4
- PCV
RN:
- BB3
- CV4 & PCV
IJN:
- BB4
- CV4 (I don't think going out for a sea trial and get sunk is a major action, so no CV5)
Now explain how can we balance this.
The thing you put for ijn cv is actually wrong. The zuikaku praticipated in the assault on pearl harbor in cluding the shokaku which was shokaku's sister ship. Kaga 1935 also took part in the war.
Before you start complaining do some research noob.
Zuikaku is a Shokaku class and I don't obviously see the reason of putting it as a seperate class anyway. And who took Kaga 1935 out? Since when is Kaga 1935 above CV4? Look at the shiptree again, please.
Also, Kaga/Zuikaku or not, my points still stands. KM has no CV and no BB4, US has all the way up to PCV (which is actually a sub-class of Essex instead of the second ship in class). Wow balance.
What part of sister ship do you not understand (It means they are the same ships/class), And yes i dont see the point of adding a kaga 1935. I mean i like this idea because i dont wanna be stuck with an ugly kaga 1928 but japan has lots of CVs so how else would you use them. KM was to busy trying to fight on land on many fronts. They thought that the war was going to last a few months to around a year. Thats why they did what they did. If you really want to make navyfield historically accurate then km would be under powered severly. Stop complaining, I still think you over react about everything.
What are you even talking about? It's jumong that's asking why NF is adding all those project ships and ships that never saw action during WWII, and I was explaining why by putting the facts out.
YOU overreacted, not me.
|
-
Re : crap ships..
03. 29. 2012 19:08
vadarrog
|
Originally Posted by CNR4806
Originally Posted by vadarrog
Originally Posted by CNR4806
Originally Posted by vadarrog
Originally Posted by CNR4806
Because not all nations built all the way up to BB5 and CV5 IRL.
If you're talking about "seeing action in WWII", the original 4 nations stop at...
KM:
- BB3
- CV0
USN:
- BB4
- PCV
RN:
- BB3
- CV4 & PCV
IJN:
- BB4
- CV4 (I don't think going out for a sea trial and get sunk is a major action, so no CV5)
Now explain how can we balance this.
The thing you put for ijn cv is actually wrong. The zuikaku praticipated in the assault on pearl harbor in cluding the shokaku which was shokaku's sister ship. Kaga 1935 also took part in the war.
Before you start complaining do some research noob.
Zuikaku is a Shokaku class and I don't obviously see the reason of putting it as a seperate class anyway. And who took Kaga 1935 out? Since when is Kaga 1935 above CV4? Look at the shiptree again, please.
Also, Kaga/Zuikaku or not, my points still stands. KM has no CV and no BB4, US has all the way up to PCV (which is actually a sub-class of Essex instead of the second ship in class). Wow balance.
What part of sister ship do you not understand (It means they are the same ships/class), And yes i dont see the point of adding a kaga 1935. I mean i like this idea because i dont wanna be stuck with an ugly kaga 1928 but japan has lots of CVs so how else would you use them. KM was to busy trying to fight on land on many fronts. They thought that the war was going to last a few months to around a year. Thats why they did what they did. If you really want to make navyfield historically accurate then km would be under powered severly. Stop complaining, I still think you over react about everything.
What are you even talking about? It's jumong that's asking why NF is adding all those project ships and ships that never saw action during WWII, and I was explaining why by putting the facts out.
YOU overreacted, not me.
First, why would i be mad at what jumong posted. Matter in fact hes part of my fleet so why would i even bother putting the blame on him. Second, unlike you, even though you say your putting up historicly accurate facts it looks like you havn't done your research. Yes i did over react on the last sentence i put on my first post but i was just pointing out your mistake. Actually i explained about everything for clarification on your post. DONT tell me historically accurate when i did my research before i posted. I KNOW what i'm talking about because FIRST, i'm japanese so i no what i'm talking about.
|
-
Re : crap ships..
03. 29. 2012 20:05
CNR4806
|
Originally Posted by vadarrog
Originally Posted by CNR4806
Originally Posted by vadarrog
Originally Posted by CNR4806
Originally Posted by vadarrog
The thing you put for ijn cv is actually wrong. The zuikaku praticipated in the assault on pearl harbor in cluding the shokaku which was shokaku's sister ship. Kaga 1935 also took part in the war.
Before you start complaining do some research noob.
Zuikaku is a Shokaku class and I don't obviously see the reason of putting it as a seperate class anyway. And who took Kaga 1935 out? Since when is Kaga 1935 above CV4? Look at the shiptree again, please.
Also, Kaga/Zuikaku or not, my points still stands. KM has no CV and no BB4, US has all the way up to PCV (which is actually a sub-class of Essex instead of the second ship in class). Wow balance.
What part of sister ship do you not understand (It means they are the same ships/class), And yes i dont see the point of adding a kaga 1935. I mean i like this idea because i dont wanna be stuck with an ugly kaga 1928 but japan has lots of CVs so how else would you use them. KM was to busy trying to fight on land on many fronts. They thought that the war was going to last a few months to around a year. Thats why they did what they did. If you really want to make navyfield historically accurate then km would be under powered severly. Stop complaining, I still think you over react about everything.
What are you even talking about? It's jumong that's asking why NF is adding all those project ships and ships that never saw action during WWII, and I was explaining why by putting the facts out.
YOU overreacted, not me.
First, why would i be mad at what jumong posted. Matter in fact hes part of my fleet so why would i even bother putting the blame on him. Second, unlike you, even though you say your putting up historicly accurate facts it looks like you havn't done your research. Yes i did over react on the last sentence i put on my first post but i was just pointing out your mistake. Actually i explained about everything for clarification on your post. DONT tell me historically accurate when i did my research before i posted. I KNOW what i'm talking about because FIRST, i'm japanese so i no what i'm talking about.
Why would I need to give a damn to the IJN, when my actual point is placed on US and KM over the issue of balance based on his imagination that only ships that saw action in WW2 are in NF? You're just distorting the topic.
Fact:
- KM has nothing more than BB3 (Bismarck) and no CVs at all
- US has up to BB4 (Iowa) and has all the way up to PCV (Long-hull Essex class)
Conclusion:
- Faction balance is non-existance without adding project ships or post-war-commisioned ships, since they are not "just" like each other in real life.
Simple enough for you to read? Or do I need to break it down further?
|
|
|
