flyingtaco

Meh probably wont mess with it even though I can because I DONT WANT TO LOSE MY SHIPS. I play mid tiers a lot because it fun ... not because I want to slog through the entire line again. I mean I'd totally be ok if they cut it down to a portion of a tree or maybe a single ship ... but I dont see giving away the ability to play an entire line ...where are the historical camos that blank blank blank nda edit nonspecific detail etc.... I'd totally spend time to kit out the ships I enjoy with camo etc... but I dont want to turn my gameplay experience into what would basically be a line specific Exeter campaign.

only one class of ship s can really deal with them... one that often gets the weight of the whole game already thrown on them... im not really sure that there are enough ships to go around and do all the tasks required without raising the number of ships in each game.

No one wants canada...... which tends to lessen the need to constantly update ... though that thing with the avro arrow back in the day could have been a game changer.... most of the NATO countries aside from the US has just been building export type ships for 40 years because they figured the greatest issue would be getting convoys to and from North America.

Well that's what got project Pluto canceled back in the 50s.... it's like using chemo to treat cancer .... the treatment is almost as bad as the problem

This seems promising ... I mean they can't deal with their own subs as they decay.... but Russia be like :

NC is a big jump and people probably over commit in it

I've always liked colorado ... but the difference I'd the speed and slightly better secondaries and aa. Can bow tank better. Allows you more flexibility rather than having to constantly anticipate where the battle is headed.

my best definition of a seal clubber is someone who could win based on skill and ship alone but then puts halsey or yamamoto in as captain or uses ... premium consumables. i dont think players who enjoy play particular ships should be penalized for playing them... im not going to change captains just so I can play a ship... you would have people with eventually 5 or 6 captains speced up to play a low tier ship but then they would get promoted and not be usable. .... but then there probably isnt a really good reason to be running around in tier 5 battles with a 19 point captain a ship that looks like its decked out in flags for tier x ranked.

Tankers

Good about ..... well it might not happen

This whole bit seems like one of those yo dawg exhibit memes .... but where the player base was asking for meaningful reasons to play lower tier battles ie campaigns to unlock historical camo, pee wee ranked, etc and then WG is: we take your ships away. You get to play play them all again fun yes? But I enjoy the lower tiers because much history is there. I dont want to lose my ships and the ability to play them, I want historical camo and more modules that change the actual ship to mirror different points in their careers.... and it's all geared towards ultimately upgrading tier x. So even at the end of it nothing at the lower tiers has materially changed.

right the modern navy is really defined by the vls. the CGs and DDGs are really just most of the same systems juggled around in different configurations. the vls requires data links, sensor input, etc none of which were developed with the idea of exposing them to major caliber projectile blasts. None of this is happening in isolation. the situation was so bad in the 80s that they had to artificially limit the train of the turrets aboard the battleships. Anything you do with traditional guns will impose restrictions on what you can do with the rest of a ship. The iowas never got sea sparrows because they could not survive. the answer would seem to be the rail gun, but they use kinetic kill only so far as I have heard. The last system that was being developed that was most similar to what you discuss was the vertical gun system I think they ended up changing the name to advanced gun system before cancelling it when the DDG1000s were cut to 3 ships and the total guns cut to six. economy of scale no longer applied so a single round ended up being one million or some such outrageous number. So to get a good return you need to make the guns large enough to warrant sending something down range, then the areas around the guns have to be hardened against blasts or moved far enough away as to not be effected. unfortunately the postwar navy cut down guns and planted antenna farms so they are going to have to get creative if they want to avoid building a ship that does not look a bit like a two turreted monitor.

the big difference as I see it is motive force. One of the reasons they didnt do guided shells earlier is because the electronics could not take the shock of firing from a gun but could withstand the more gradual acceleration of missiles. Also it depends on what sort of shell you are firing a unitary shell will take more stress than one filled with submunitions. Apparently they had trouble with shells cracking etc. The other thing is .... if you fill a shell with avionics at. Then you are cutting down one of the key benefits of using guns: less costs. Then there is the trade off in payload. Guns shoot weights. The ballistic calculation is dont care what in is in the shell... only how much powder is being used, the weight of the projectile, length of barrel etc. But there is a tipping point where you can't make guided shells worth the effort. Project gunfighter, the project that produced the long range shells for USS st. Paul and a study for 11inch sabots in the late 60s also had a 5inch component but they terminated when they realized that a 3 inch shell shot out to 30 miles or what have you would be useless as far as damage and accuracy went... so to really make it worth while the shells have to be large... guns have to be large ... large guns need special built platforms .... specially built platforms tend to lack flexibility. .... and in the modern navy with fewer ships... the navy is adverse to ships with discrete utility... even if they are the best at a given task.

Those rounds were developed from the conventional spotting round for the 280mm atomic annie cannon. There tends to be a trade in accuracy for range. It would probably be fine for area fire ie naval bombardments.. but not anti ship. They had a 13 inch sabot in development in the 80s but they too were being developed with shore bombardment in mind. You could in theory do lots of stuff with conventional rounds ... the Iowa messed around with air bursting the mk 13 rounds over ships to kill their antennas etc. They used some trickery to get in range of enemy ships. Going dark and such there was a case where Iowa got within gunrange of kirov and painted it with its mk13 radar. Freaked the Russians out a bit. That was in one of the ocean wedding exercises I believe.

Well most missions are 5 plus only so it would be nice to have missons that low tier stuff can be applied to. I still think lower tier stuff is more fun because the low tier games tend to be more mobile in the sense that the ships are less situational so you dont have a ton of sitting around trying to promote particular conditions that are more a staple of higher tier play. I really enjoy Arkansas and Wyoming etc but the structure of the missions and such makes them an afterthought that are difficult to return to if the campaigns and missons have limitations that exclude them