Jump to content


  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles


Community Reputation

296 Excellent


About Fr05ty

  • Rank
    Master Chief Petty Officer
  • Birthday September 14
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Denmark (Originally from Buenos Aires)

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I'd say that you should try and do this line without using the Spanish as they're basically their own thing (and from datamines we can surmise that Spain will be their own nation much like the Dutch are now). Also the Spanish have a sort of evolving design philosophy that can be exploited to make their own consistent line (just like the Swedish & Dutch had). If you manage to do that 3rd line, I think you're going to have a line design that will stand the test of WG's next nation release (and probably the last nation to be stand alone) which should be Spain. It might be hard to thread a proper line without the Spanish & Dutch ships at the higher tiers, but it's a fun challenge!
  2. Me harté que discutan en círculos. Los valores del juego se derivan de los valores de la vida real. En el caso de la vida de cada barco, se debe a su deplazamiento. En el caso de las armas, depende del peso del proyectil y de la velocidad (para AP) y del peso del proyectil y carga explosiva (para HE). La línea que propones un desastre. En el sentido de que no hay ninguna consistencia de progreso, los barcos en su gran mayoría están sobreestimados en su potencial de combate y porque en general es un vaivén de ideas. Sin considerar cuestiones de velocidad, protección y armamento antiaéreo, podemos utilizar el deplazamiento y armamento principal como forma de resolver los tiers de cada barco. T2 no existe para acorazados y el Anáhuac ni siquiera es un acorazado, sino que es un buque de defensa costero que ni para T1 da. El T3 requiere un acorazado Dreadnought de primera generación con un desplazamiento entre 17.000 y 22.000 toneladas con un armamento efectivo máximo de 10x 305 mm. Minas Geraes es el candidato perfecto. El T4 requiere un acorazado Dreadnought de segunda generación con un desplazamiento entre 23.000 y 30.000 toneladas con un armamento efectivo máximo de 12x 305 mm. El Rivadavia es el candidato perfecto. El T5 requiere un acorazado SuperDreadnought de primera generación con 32.000 toneladas de desplazamiento y un armamento efectivo máximo de 10x 356 mm. El almirante Latorre es el candidato perfecto. El T6 requiere un acorazado SuperDreadnought de segunda generación con 36.000 toneladas de desplazamiento y un armamento efectivo máximo de 12x 356 mm o 8x 381 mm. El Riachuelo es el candidato perfecto (4x2 381 mm). El T7 requiere un acorazado SuperDreadnought de tercera generación (generalmente los cancelados por el Tratado de Washington de 1922) con un desplazamiento de 40.000 toneladas y un armamento efectivo máximo de 9x 406 mm. El diseño Armstrong 784 para Brasil con 5x2 381 mm y 34,250t de desplazamiento base es perfecto (almacenará 40000 toneladas después de la modernización sin inconvenientes). El T8 requiere un acorazado rápido y moderno (generalmente la generación de boomers producidos maximizando los límites del tratado de Washington) con un desplazamiento de 45,000 toneladas, armamento efectivo máximo de 10x 406 mm y 27 nudos mínimos. El Acorazado de Gonzáles es perfecto para esto, que es un análogo latino del italiano Veneto Vittorio con varios cambios y 37.000 toneladas frente a las 40.000 toneladas del Vittorio Veneto. T9 requiere un mega acorazado (suele ser un acorazado pensado como respuesta al acorazado máximo creado en el tratado de Washington) con un desplazamiento de 55,000 toneladas y un armamento máxima efectiva de 12x 406 mm. No existe ningún barco latino que llegue a este nivel. El Lion de Chile, que es un invento horrible, podría ser el candidato. El T10 requiere un acorazado final con un desplazamiento de más de 65,000 toneladas y armamento máximo por encima del T9. No hay NADA que exista en América Latina para alcanzar este nivel. por suerte, Gonzáles fue sumamente claro con su proceso de diseño de un acorazado y por tanto podemos extrapolar lo que sería su acorazado de T10. Sería algo como: 3x4 406mm, cinturón 406mm, cubierta 203mm, 32 nudos, deplazamiento 65000t. Lamentablemente el acorazado de Perú no es para la línea (poco deplazamiento, poco blindaje, un calibre de armamento demasiado grande), pero sería un excelente T3 premium. México no tiene por qué aparecer en esta línea ya que nunca estuvieron interesados en tener un acorazado y no tienen ningún diseño que sirva. La línea de acorazados tendrá que ser Argentina, Brasil y Chile simplemente porque son los únicos que buscaron tenerlos en América Latina junto con el premium de Perú. De esta manera y con la línea como te la propongo, hay una progresión natural, balanceada y equiparable a la de otras líneas del juego en vez del sube y baja de calibres y desplazamientos que proponías y que volverían a esta línea en un chiste.
  3. Sadly that's a reality of the different countries' aspirations in the late 1930s. Chile & Brazil weren't really looking for battleships due to political issues, Brazil then entered WW2 with need for ASW & escort ships so they focused on destroyer designs, so they only started with large-ship aspirations once again after the war and even then, battleships were out of the question as they had become obsolete. Argentina was the only nation that had the stability to be looking to expand its fleet with large ships at that time. I hope we find that those 2 navies had some battleship plans in the 40s, but I haven't heard of much beyond some modernization plans for their existing dreadnaughts. Much better line this time than last, so good job! PS: I really like the 686 and I've been relentless in my proposal for it to be included as a T7 premium because it'd be incredibly fun. I even gave it a name long ago: Aquidaba.
  4. Did pretty well so far! I had given them hybrid CV capabilities instead to try and emulate their seaplane stuff, but their new consumable looks really good! SO HAPPY WE GET DUTCH BOTES! PS: Seems like I got 8/10 designs right for the line!
  5. Or Pennsylvania? Edit: Seems like Otaku beat me to it
  6. It's a T9 at most with 3x3 406mm. Consider that 3x3 406mm, 406mm belt, 30ish knots would produce ~45000t standard displacement, which to get to Argentine combat ranges (~10000nm) would carry around 9000t of fuel, so would end up with ~55000t full load. Basically, it'd be an Argentine Super-Vittorio Veneto. T10 however would need to be 3x4 406mm (which would be quite anti-Gonzales, but might be necessary for "uniqueness" and to keep the citadel short) or 4x3 406mm which would give you a ship with a displacement of around ~55000t which at full load would be around ~68000t and thus within T10 displacement. Argentine Super-Alsace?
  7. He disliked the 406mm ones because of their weight, slower firing rate and wear. He disliked the quadruple turrets because of the slower firing rate, vulnerability to a single hit disabling the turret and that in order to improve that you needed to subdivide it using another armour plate that practically negated the benefits of using a quadruple turret. If you want to do the ideal ship based on what he would've wanted without restrictions then follow his design principles instead of going against them. Use 406mm triple turrets instead of 381mm ones on a larger ship (so as to stay within the displacement % allocated to each part), give it 406mm belt, improve the AA and make sure it does at the very least 30kts. The matter of calling a 2x4 406mm design is what I take issue and you've deliberately gone against everything he says in the article if you're making such a large ship and just giving it quadruple 406mm guns which he mentions as being the worst of all kinds pretty much. Taken to its logical design conclusion, he's essentially trying to make an Iowa that's a bit slower but more heavily armoured, with an Italian-style secondary battery.
  8. You literally said that the ideal design was 2x4 406mm going 35kts in a Gascogne configuration with 406mm belt with a random made-up secondary suite. That is not "putting forth a very basic idea" when you're even putting 8mm guns on the design, that's already quite detailed. So yea, you made it up. Also, putting forth isn't the same as "being what they wanted". In fact, Gonzales argues against the use of 406mm in the article after taking into account their performance characteristics. I just re-read Gonzales' article and in no way, shape or form does he say he wants quadruple turrets. It would however fulfil his design vision if you decided to make a 45000t battleship with 406mm guns using the options he talks about in his essay, as most of what he's doing is accommodating the weight distribution by using percentages of overall displacement to ensure the resulting design comes out to a balanced battleship. In that realm, a 3x3 406mm ship with a 406mm belt doing 30kts (possibly even 31 or 32kts) and desplacing 45000t standard wouldn't seem to be out of place and would be a fitting T9.
  9. I'm not being anything. You have misrepresented facts as if Argentina was planning to buy any of the things you've said, while in the original article from where you got the idea that Argentina might've bought a Jean Bart, it was only used for comparison of what contemporary battleships were, not as an actual idea of buying one. I'm assuming you didn't actually read the writings of Gonzales in much detail as he's the one that makes the design that you've slotted in T7 because he argues about how all those other options are unsuitable due to several reasons. The options that you seen to be putting forwards were the considerations of what might've been but didn't get any real configuration and it is literally something you made up, which is fine provided you say it IS made up. The IDEAL battleship that was proposed was what Gonzales proposed which is a pseudo-littorio instead of just taking the maximum of everything as you've done and passing it off as the "Argentine ideal". If you're going to go off of the ideal you want, then just make the T9 be an enlarged Gonzales with 3x3 406mm instead of 2x4 406mm as he doesn't appreciate the use of just 2 turrets, and it'd be a much more "historical" design. The Gonzales has no business being at T7 when it has the characteristics it has, being superior to any other T7 battleships; it should be at T8 with all the ships it is meant to be with. For T7, there's Riachuelo designs to fix the gap which are a lot more worthy than just saying that because Jean Barts were mentioned in a comparison in an Argentine naval article that then Argentina was interested in buying them.
  10. So we agree up to T6. Your T7 is actually a T8. T8+ I wonder why you chose things that nobody ever even mentioned or wanted. There were other ships you could've used (there were plans for T8 ships at the very least), but why make up random crap like using Jean Bart or another random thing at T9? Did you try to do some research for this and that's where you got the data from? I haven't heard anything about a PanAmerican navy trying to buy a Richelieu or a Gascogne. If you're just going to make up things, just label it as such instead of trying to pass it off as having some historical basis. Additionally, why do you think that the Jean Bart is a T8 when the T7 is a 43000t Vittorio Veneto-ish ship? Jean Bart didn't have a 406mm belt either... So, what are your sources for saying that T8 & T9 where designed by other nations to be built for PanAmerica? Or where are you getting the idea that PanAmerican navies wanted a quadruple-turreted design like Jean Bart or the T9?
  11. Good line, Lert basically said all I was going to say, so guess the cat's out of the box, huh? (pun intended!)
  12. I can see the specific values granted by each mounting which is how I can tell you with confidence what the numbers are. If you're interested in that, you can get them off of gamemodels3d (though T8+ require a paid membership)
  13. I did a nice proposal for how I'd like to see it implemented, maybe you'll be interested in it. I wish we had gotten the Gotland prior to it being shrunk (would've been a bit nicer fit than what I had to do with the Gotland as I proposed), but we got what we got. I'm also a lover of the Gotland, and I'm trying to make a PanEU cruiser line using what funky ships the Swedes had. Sadly, they're all so quirky that they're much better off as premiums!
  14. Mate, I did read your whole line. I read everything you posted and told you the parameters that WG uses to determine characteristics of ships in-game and told you why this line was fudged. I gave you the tools & feedback on why it would not work. Take things as you will, but I didn't trash your proposal, I was just telling you that what you presented was unfit for what you wanted. If you want to see how I do a tech-tree line, feel free to look at my posts. You will find that I take great care in how I do them, didn't just go on wikipedia, and I've derived a bunch of formulas for translating real-life values into in-game values that several people in these forums use. I did proper research, datamining and data crunching to understand how everything WG does fits based on their real-life characteristics so I can tell you that tiering is flexible, but not quite as much as you think. WG have kept tiers to a +/- 1 kind of thing for ships, with that +/- being dependent on any gimmicks and soft-values being changed. Seriously, I am not shitting on you or your proposal, you're new at this so I am telling you the way you can measure ship characteristics to compare with those that are in-game. If you want to learn more, I can help you out, but you better stop thinking that people are shitting on you when they're giving you honest feedback. Paper ships are mostly unavoidable for the top tiers, especially when dealing with minor navies. Most navies skipped over large gunnery cruisers in the post-war era and went straight to using either american handoffs or missile-armed ships which means that there aren't many options to avoid paper. It happens with all navies except for the US which built so much during WW2 that they can get laid down T10s for most of their lines. It is worth more to have a consistent line than just adding random ships at tiers they don't belong in just to have all "real" ships.
  15. It has 258, not 252. It all depends on which boat you use as reference for the AA. The same AA weapons tend to have slightly different performance in a few ships. Not sure which ship I based the AA of the 40mm/70 from, but I can guess it was the Swedes as they're the same as the Halland's.