Jump to content

fbifiles

Members
  • Content Сount

    43
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan

    [NWNB]

Community Reputation

41 Neutral

About fbifiles

  • Rank
    Seaman
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

677 profile views
  1. Prologue So because my memory sucks and I forgot to tack this on Battlecruisers part 2 I'm adding this. I'll copy-paste this on all my battlecruiser line posts, so it goes around. They're two things that I want to note. 1. I was not able to find enough designs to make a 100% battlecruiser tree for every nation except the U.K., so some are early designs for battleships or cruisers, but before you go running for the pitchforks, all of the tier X designs, for example, would be at tier VIII at best if there were battleships. So they aren't as powerful as same tier battleships. I mean most of us here have seen a tier X cruiser melt a tier VIII battleship (or a tier X BB for that matter). 2. The largest guns we have on current battlecruiser are the 12.2 inch (310mm) guns on Azuma (and Yoshino). However, some of these designs had guns as big as 16 inch (406 mm). Now just put the torches down and hear me out. Only two of these designs are locked into 16 inch guns (not counting the Japanese because I can't make a full battlecruiser line for them). The only two battlecruisers locked into 16 inch guns are (one of) the Brit tier IX and X battlecruisers. The British built their battlecruisers with guns of contemporary battleships, so I guess that makes it ok for them to have 16 inch guns (the alternative was 18 inch guns). Two other designs have 16-inch guns as a gun option, but I can exclude those 16's if necessary. All of the other big guns at tier X are 12 inch (305 mm), 14 inch (356 mm), or 15 inch (380/381 mm). Now that that's out of the way... 1.interduction U.S. battlecruisers are interesting, at least to me, because the U.S.N. never commissioned any battlecruisers (the Alaska class doesn't count because they weren't classified as capital ships). However, the U.S.N. did look into battlecruisers before and during WWI and into "large cruisers" (like the Alaska class) before the war in the Pacific. The interesting part comes from U.S. shipbuilding philosophy. At the time (1900 to 1920) the U.S.N. valued armor and firepower over speed (see the standard types for a prime example). However, by definition, battlecruisers go against this policy, favoring speed over armor, so the result is a fast battleship like ship design. Later (1940) when the U.S.N. drew up the designs that would become the Alaska class, speed was a significant factor alongside armor and firepower in those designs, all of which had a speed of 30 knots or better. 2. overview and general info The general playstyle will likely be a mix of battleship and cruiser playstyles like battlecruisers in general. However, this battleship/cruiser playstyle mix will be emphasized with the U.S. main (tier III to X) line The main part of the line will likely play like a mix of battleship and cruiser playstyles. Being able to jump from a role usually performed by battleships to a role usually performed by cruisers and back again. This jack of all trades playstyle would define them. However, as a downside, the main lines stealth, from tier VII up, would be somewhat poor. They would have close to battleship levels of concealment. The tier VII was 920 feet long. The tier VIII was 1000 feet long. The tier IX was 1063 feet long. To put that into context, the Kurfurst (or the H 42 which the Kurfurst was based off) comes in at 1000 feet (305 meters). This and the fact that these ships don't have battleship survivability, would not mix well. The "large cruiser" split line would likely specialize in the cruiser-killer role. With Alaska like guns and auto bounce angles, this split line's capability to effectively counter even Moskva or Henri IV sized cruisers should be quite good. As a consequence of this, the ships of the "large cruiser" split would be slightly more vulnerable than most battlecruisers to battleships and even some battlecruisers for two reasons. 1) they would be more vulnerable to capital ship shellfire compared to other battlecruisers and 2) their guns (no bigger than 12 inch) would not have the hitting power of their battlecruiser piers. However, this doesn't mean that you have to limit your playstyle, you're still playing a ship from a quite versatile line The ships from both the mainline and the split line are still U.S. cruisers and would have the versatility that U.S. cruisers are known for. This battlecruiser line (particularly the mainline) would be one of the most versatile battlecruiser lines if not one of the most versatile ship lines in the game. However, as with most U.S. ships, the lack of specialization can be more harmful than helpful in some situations. This Jack of all Trades capability is their greatest strength but is also their greatest weakness. 3. ship by ship analysis This battlecruiser line has a split at the mid-tiers leading to two tier X's. All of the battlecruiser lines I'm going to have a split like this with one line with bigger guns but are nearly battleship size and the other being smaller but with smaller guns. As for the individual ships in the line Tier III Memphis class The Memphis class (originally the Tennessee class) cruisers were outgrowths of the Pittsburgh class (originally the Pennsylvania class) cruisers (themselves outgrowths of the St Louis class cruisers). The Memphis class had a primary armament of four 10 inch 40 caliber guns in two twin turrets (2-A-2 config). The 10"/40 cal's had pretty good performance for a 40 caliber gun, firing a 510-pound (230 kg) shell at 2700 fps (823 m/s). With a sizeable secondary battery of fourteen 6 inch guns and only four main guns, she would remind many of Mikasa. Tier IV 2x2 12 inch gun design This design, like the tier V and VI, were very early designs for a U.S. battlecruiser (so early they didn't get a design number). The basis for this one was a larger Memphis class with its secondary battery removed in favor of better armor, 12 inch guns, and, more importantly, a higher top speed. She would likely have an 8 to 10 inch (203 to 254mm) belt and a 25.5 knot top speed. Tier V 3x2 12 inch gun design This design, like the tier IV and VI, were very early designs for a U.S. battlecruiser (so early they didn't get a design number). This one could best be described as a three turret Wyoming with a longer hull. She would have had the same armor scheme as the Wyoming. One thing worth noting is that none of her turrets were superfiring. Her speed would have been 25.5 knots; however, I'm tempted to raise that to 26.5 knots for balance. Tier VI 4x2 12 inch gun design This design, like the tier IV and V, were very early designs for a U.S. battlecruiser (so early they didn't get a design number). This one, like the design before it, was based on a longer hull Wyoming. However, this design would have had eight guns in four turrets (probably 2-2-A-2-2 config, superfiring: yes). As before she would have had the same armor scheme as the Wyoming. Her speed was 25.5 knots, but it might need an increase to 27.5 knots for balance. Tier VII S-584-024 This design was the first proper U.S. battlecruiser. She would have had a main battery of eight 14 inch guns. She would likely have 14"/45 cal (Mark 8, New York, 10,300 max AP shell dmg ) guns as stock and 14"/50 cal (Mark 7, New Mexico, 10,500 max AP shell dmg) guns upgraded. She would have had a good armor scheme for a battlecruiser, refer to design drawing above for more. She was designed to make 29 knots. base concealment: ~15.5 km This design, along with the tier VIII and IX, were not part of the Lexington class design. These designs would probably get a fictional mid to late 1930s refit for stock and mid-1940s refit for the top hull. Starting from tier VII, the battlecruisers in this part of the line would have somewhat long reload times for a battlecruiser (25 sec or more). Tier VIII S-584-078 This design was a farther development of the tier VII. One thing to note would be the odd armor layout of the belt armor. Her armor belt (10 inches thick) was far below the waterline, but she had an 8-inch thick turtleback. Refer to design drawing above for more. This might have to change to a more conventional armor belt layout for balance (because it's power creeping the Germans, plus these battlecruisers aren't meant for brawling). The 1930s refit being the excuse to justify this. She was designed to make 30 knots. Gameplay-wise, she would likely have two gun options 1) ten 14"/50 cal (Mark 7, New Mexico, 10,500 max AP shell dmg) guns in a 2-3-A-3-2 config and 2) eight 16"/45 cal (Mark 5, Colorado, 12,400 max AP shell dmg) guns in a 2-2-A-2-2 config. base concealment: ~16 km Premium Tier VIII Lexington class The Lexington class just had to little armor to fit in this tree, so for the sake of having her here, I made her a premium. She would have a 5 to 7 inch armor belt (from wiki), vomit inducingly bad armor overall (6-inch thick turret face for goodness sake!) and a somewhat exposed citadel. With all of that, it's safe to say she wouldn't have high survivability, but she would make up for this in three ways. 1) she would make 33 to 35 knots 2) she would have a good chunk of health (65,000 to 70,000 while most battlecruisers at this tier have 55,000 to 60,000) and 3) she would have eight 16"/50 cal (Mark 7, Iowa, 13,500 max AP shell dmg or the 16"/50 Mark 3s she had historically, if they can fire the 2700lb Mark 8 Super Heavy Shell for the same shell damage) with a good (25 sec) reload. Those three things (particularly the 3rd one) would give her a rather unique playstyle. Tier IX S-584-072 This design was a further development of the U.S. battlecruiser (semi-fast battleship) concept (although this design came before the tier VIII (S-584-078)). She had a proper armor belt except over A and Y turrets. Over A and Y turrets she had no armor belt but an 8 inch turtleback. Again this might need to be changed for balance. She was designed to make 29 knots, but her late 1930s refit could increase her speed to ~31 knots. As for her primary armament, she has two options 1) twelve 14"/50 cal (Mark 7, New Mexico, 10,500 max AP shell dmg) guns in a 3-3-A-3-3 config and 2) eight 16"/45 cal (Mark 6, North Carolina, 13,100 max AP shell dmg) guns in a 2-2-A-2-2 config. Interestingly enough, the reload of her 16 inch guns (~25 sec) would be lower than her 14 inch guns (~28 sec), this could help close the DPM gap between the two guns. base concealment: ~16.5 km Tier X early N.C. design B This was the second design (out of something like 77) for what would become the North Carolina class battleships. This design was for a ship with twelve 14"/50 cal Mark B (1500 lb AP shell, 2700fps AP shell velocity (823ms) ~10,800 max dmg?) guns in four three-gun turrets (3-3-A-3-3 config same as the Montana). The next design that was drawn up (design C) had eight 16"/50 cal (mark 7 I think, but I could be wrong) in four two-gun turrets (2-2-A-2-2 config) but was otherwise the same as design B. Design C's guns, assuming they fire the 2700lb Mark 8 SHS, could be a viable gun option for this tier X. Her secondary battery would likely consist of 20 5'/38 cal guns in ten two gun turrets, the standard U.S. high tier battleship secondary config. The stealth issue would get a little better at tier X. stats health: 76,500 to 79,000 base concealment: ~16 km turning circle: ~790 m rudder shift time: ~15 sec speed: 32.5 knots (for balance) armor: likely similer to N.C. guns: tweive 14 inch (356mm) guns likely doing 10,800 maximun shell damage for a DPB of 129,600 damage or eight 16 inch (406mm) guns likely doing 13,500 maximum shell damage for a DPB of 108,000 damage gun range: ~21 km torpedos N/A base reload: 30 sec for 14 inch guns, 26.5 sec for 16 inch guns AA: a lot like B hull Iowa Her speed originally was 30.5 knots, But 32.5 knots might be better suited for balance. She would likely have an armor scheme similar to, if nor the same as, the N.C. This would likely extend to the torpedo protection. Her artillery is interesting, with the 14 inch guns shes a lot like Montana, I.e., her shells individuality aren't much but put all 12 of them together and you get a very powerful broadside (for a ship of her class), that can reliably do (some) damage to pretty much any ship she can face. The 14s would be the ships equivalent to a Swiss army knife. However, with the 16-inch guns, she should be able to fight alongside the team's battleships without to much trouble, unless she gets focused. The 16s would be especially useful if you want to be able to pose much more of a threat to battleships and other battlecruisers. The lower reload time of the 16s compared to the 14s would help close the DPM gap between them (at least that's the plan). Her AA would be good for a battlecruiser but might be subpar compared to the AA of the tier X U.S. battleships or cruisers. As for consumables, She, and the other mainline ships, probably won't get any specialized consumables. They'll likely look like this: Slot 1. Damage Control Party Slot 2. Repair Party Slot 3. Catapult Fighter/Spotter Plane In the right hands, this ship (and the other mainline ships in general) could fulfill pretty much any role that a player can come across in a battle. Just not as good as ships better suited to that role. This line has a split to it. This split will likely be excellent in the cruiser-killer role with Alaska like guns and auto bounce angles. If you liked playing the Alaska, you should like this split. The AA of this split would be pretty powerful in the high tiers (tier VIII+), but they wouldn't have DFAA to boost the AA. Tier V S-511-14 (Virgin Islands class?) You might have already noticed that this design bares a resemblance to the tier IX U.S. heavy cruiser Buffalo. However, there are two other designs like this on in Shipscribe. This design is the smallest of the three at 15,750 tons standard. The other designs came in at 17,000 tons standard (S-511-25) and 20,000 tons standard (S-511-29). I think the Buffalo is based off the 17,000 ton design (S-511-25). Her speed wasn't listed. However, she had 120,000 SHP, which would allow her to make 30 to 32 knots. When it comes to balance, we can't just put a Buffalo copy at tier V. So using the Buffalo as a starting point. These would be the changed to her stats I'd make to start with. reload time: 15 sec health: 33,500 to 36,000 base concealment: ~14 km gun range: ~15 km speed: 30 to 32 knots Mark 21 AP shell (5000 dmg) replaced with Mark 19 AP shell (4600 dmg) A heavily nerfed version of Buffalo's AA suite Tier VI S-511-16 (Samoa class?) This design comes in two variants. The first design was very similar to the tier V (S-511-14) with twelve 8 inch guns in a 3-3-A-3-3 config. The other had the same hull but with six 12"/50 cal (Mark 8, Alaska, 8,900 max AP shell dmg) guns in a 2-2-A-2 config. She had a speed of 33 knots. The 8 inch gun option would have a reload of 15 seconds, while the 12 inch guns would have a reload of 13 seconds. Her 8 inch guns would likely use the Mark 19 AP shell. I couldn't find any information regarding the armor scheme for either this design or design S-511-14. However, given the design tonnage, firepower, and hull size, it's safe to say that the armor scheme for design S-511-14 wouldn't differ much from the Buffalo. Design S-511-16 came in at about 17,500 tons standard, meaning it might be a little better. However, I don't think it would have improved by much. Tier VII S-511-17 (Puerto Rico class?) Design S-511-17 was an intermediate design between the small, heavy cruiser sized approach and the large, mini battleship sized approach. She had an interesting arrangement of her main battery. She had seven 12"/50 cal (Mark 8, Alaska, 8,900 max AP shell dmg) guns in a 2-2-A-3 config. She was listed to make 33.5 knots. Her design drawing didn't have any information on her armor, but, Garzke and Dulin's Battleships U.S. Battleships in WWII did, see below. She should make a good intermediate design linking the tier V and VI to the high tier designs. belt over magazines: 10.1 inches (257mm) thick belt over machinery: 7.7 inches (196mm) thick turret face plate-triple: 12.9 inches (328mm) thick turret face plate-twin: 14.2 inches (361mm) thick turret roofs: 5 inches (127mm) thick turret sides and backs: 6.5 inches (165mm) thick barbettes: 13.6-10.6 inches (345-269mm) thick conning tower sides: 13.6-10.6 inches (345-269mm) thick main deck: 2 inches (51mm) thick second deck: 3 inches (76mm) thick Tier VIII S-511-7 (Philippines class?) This design was basically a proto Alaska (at least In design, not chronologically). She had the same firepower as the Alaska. Mark 8, Alaska, 8,900 max AP shell dmg guns in a 3-3-A-3 config. She had 150,000 SHP powerplant allowing her to make 33.5 knots. The design came at 25,600 tons standard. With that tonnage, she might have roughly the same armor scheme as the tier VII (S-511-17). Her AA would be pretty good for the tier. The tier IX and X would likely also have great AA. Tier IX Guam class The Guam class would likely be the tech tree equivalent of the Alaska. Her stock hull would not likely differ from Alaska as she is ingame, albeit with a slight nerf in her health and AA. Her upgraded hull would incorporate a historical AA upgrade that wasn't carried out: the removal of her two catapults and replace them with two twin 5"/38 cal guns mounts (for a total of 8 mounts, up from 6). Besides that, her mid-range AA would likely consist of 10 quad 40mm Bofors and four twin 3 inch Mark 33 guns. Short-range wouldn't differ much from Alaska. Her speed would likely remain the same at 33 knots. Her armor wouldn't likely change either. Tier X S-511-6 (Hawaii class?) This design was the largest design considered, coming in at a whopping 38,700 tons standard. She was armed with twelve 12"/50 cal (Mark 8, Alaska, 8,900 max AP shell dmg, the same as other ships of the split from tier VI) in a 3-3-A-3-3 config (again just like the Montana). She had a secondary battery of sixteen 5"/38 cal guns in eight twin mounts. She had a 212,000 SHP powerplant and was listed to make 33.5 knots. From the design drawing, she appears to have pretty decent torpedo protection. Once again, the design drawing doesn't seem to have any information regarding her armor scheme. With a design tonnage of 38,700 tons standard, her armor should be pretty good compared to the other "large cruiser" designs, however, not so good by battlecruiser standards. stats health: 72,000 to 75,500 base concealment: ~15.5 km turning circle: ~870 m rudder shift time: ~14 sec speed: 33.5 knots armor: see below guns: tweive 12 inch (305mm) guns likely doing 8,900 maximun shell damage for a DPB of 106,800 damage gun range: ~20 km torpedos: N/A base reload: 28 sec AA: eight twin 5"/38 cal guns long range, ten quad 40mm Bofors and six twin 3"/50 cal Mark 33 mid range, ~40 single 20mm Oerkilon mounts. When it comes to her armor, to be honest, I had to guess the armor because I couldn't find anything about it. So going by the 38,700-ton displacement and allowing for several thousand tons of displacement growth during construction (the Iowas gained 12,500 tons during construction, going from 45,000 tons to 57,500 tons) these are the values I've come up with (feel free to yell at me in the replies for doing something wrong here) armor belt: 11 inches (279mm) thick lower armor belt: 6.5 inches (165mm) thick armored deck: 5.5 inches (140mm) thick citadel deck: 0.75 inches (19mm) thick citadel torpedo bulkhead: 2 inches (51mm) thick torpedo protection plating: 1.06 inches (27mm) thick upper forward athwartship: 11.4 inches (290mm) thick upper aft athwartship: 10.2 inches (260mm) thick lower forward and aft athwartship: 2 inches (51mm) thick barbette: 14 inches (356mm) thick turret face plate: 13 inches (330mm) thick turret roof and sides-back: 6 inches (152mm) thick turret sides-forward: 6.5 inches (165mm) thick turret back and floor: the same as the Alaska conning tower sides:11.4 inches (290mm) thick conning tower roof: 7 inches (178mm) thick fore and aft end plating: 1.06 inches (27mm) thick midships plating: 1.2 inches (30mm) thick midships deck: 1.4 inches (36mm) thick superstructure: 0,75 inches (19mm) thick The armor would very much be WIP considering I had to guess the values, and the only knowledge I have about warship armoring is from reading things like Garzke and Dulin's Battleships U.S. Battleships in WWII. She would be best used in the cruiser killer role. With twelve accurate, good damage guns sporting improved auto bounce angles, she would pose a threat to any cruiser. As for how much of a threat she would pose to that cruiser would mainly depend on the skill of both captains. Her 12 inch guns do have a long reload, however, and that reload would help reign in her damage output. That reload is something her captain is going to have to take into account when playing her. Like Alaska, she (and the other ships in the split) won't be able to go AP only like the Soviets can. Her AA would be vary powerful, but with no DFAA, she wouldn't be able to merderize planes in an instant like a dedicated AA cruiser can. Her speed would be good enough to get around the map, but not so good to allow her to chase most cruisers down. As for consumables, they'll likely look like this: Slot 1. Damage Control Party Slot 2. Repair Party Slot 3. Catapult Fighter/Spotter Plane/ Servalance Radar The reason why Servalance Radar is in the consumables list is not just because Alaska has it, but also because the split line ships aren't very capital ship-like. Their smaller and more cruiser like than most other battlecruisers. That's why I gave them radar, also if they need a nerf the radar could go. I would really like to see how this ship plays. 4. playstyle, quirks and other random bits As for upgrades, the U.S. battlecruisers might get access to the Artillery Plotting Room Modification 2 upgrade. This upgrade would lead to a playstyle changing choice. Do you take APR Mod 2 and reinforce your already good accuracy or take MBM 3 and do something about you appallingly long (for a battlecruiser) reload? If APR Mod 2 is in slot six then, by necessity, Aiming Systems Modification 1 can't be in slot 3, so either leave slot three down one upgrade or add APR Mod 1. If you take APR Mod 2, you can improve your accuracy, and that allows you to land more shells on small or distant targets enabling you to play the long-range gunfire support role and/or hunt (or at least hit) destroyers more effectively. If you take MBM 3, you can improve your rate of fire, which would boost your DPM and increase the ships fires per minute with HE. The mainline battlecruisers would best be used of the player doesn't have any one role that they want to play. The player needs to learn to adapt to the changing battle around them to do well in the mainline battlecruisers With good armor and powerful broadsides; the mainline battlecruisers should be able to hold their own in a gunfight. Their armor is decent, and the citadel is about as high as the citadel on U.S. battleships. Note; sailing broadside to battleships, most battlecruisers, and some cruisers will still get you a one-way trip to the seafloor (this goes for both the mainline and split line all the way to tier III). The long reload times of U.S. battlecruisers is a line trait and are meant to balance out the powerful broadside that they have. One thing to note is that the arrangement of the secondary battery on the mainline battlecruisers would likely be akin to the secondary battery arrangement on refitted standard type battleships or heavy cruisers (like the Baltimore). The split line battlecruisers would be smaller and a little faster than their mainline cousins. Their stealth would be better too but the maneuverability, in general, would be a bit poor. The turning circle, in particular, would be just flat out bad for a ship of this type, being beaten out by quite a few of the battleships that she can see. 5. conclusion If I had to be honest, I spent more time on this battlecruiser post then I did in the others. What can I say, I like the design concepts used in U.S. battlecruisers. I had nicknames for the early N.C. design B and S-511-6; mini-Montana and micro-Montana, respectively, and that sums up the overall play style. I.e., if you like the Montana, you'll love the tier X U.S. battlecruisers. The next post I'll probably do will cover not one but two battlecruiser lines. One of them would be the Japanese battlecruisers (which won't be a complete line, unfortunately, not enough designs) and the other battlecruiser line will be a little surprise. I would like to see what you guys think of this battlecruiser line. Please let me know in the replies. Go here to vote Battlecruisers main post
  2. fbifiles

    German battleship split line

    I asked the WOWS devs about this once. Turns out she designed by the WOWS devs using a triple turret design drawing but the Kurfurst herself was based on the H 42, not a triple turret H42
  3. fbifiles

    German battleship split line

    The rudder shift time and turning circle are meant to emphasize her as a tanking ship and to restrict her to mid-range combat. Although I do see your point about a shorter rudder shift time. I was basing the 457 reload off the Conqueror, but you do make a point. However, balance would ultimately be up to the WOWS devs and that assuming this line even makes it into the game.
  4. fbifiles

    German battleship split line

    One has a poll for you to vote and tell me what you think.
  5. 1. introduction All of the tier X battleships can be quite tanky. However, this split line, and particularly the tier X, would specialize in the tanking role rather then it being a secondary role. This line will incorporate a somewhat Kremlin/Slava like approach to the tier X compared to the Kurfurst (i.e., different but not too different). 2. overview and general info This line splits off from the Bayern at tier VI stating at tier VII. The ships in this line will likely have excellent HE protection thanks to an English-German armor system. That along with a half decent torpedo protection (30 to 35 percent) should allow for a good level of tankyness. Their armament will be somewhat generic, not bad but not great. The secondary battery would be quite mediocre for a German battleship. This line would have HE shells with 1/6 HE pen instead of 1/4 like the rest of the German battleships. The AA won't likely differ much from the current Germans. The dispersion curve that this line uses would NOT be the dispersion curve used by German (and I think French) battleships. This line would use the U.S./British/Japanese dispersion curve. Thus allowing the ships of this line to hit stuff at ranges of 12 to 16 km, which is also the optimum range for these ships to tank. 3. ship by ship analysis As for an in-depth view of the ships in this split Tier VII L 22c The L 22c was an early design for the L 20e a class battleship. The L 22c will likely resemble a larger Bayern. The L 22c will probably play like the Bayern. She will likely have a speed of 26.5 knots, and her AA will likely be a minor but good enough upgrade with the most notable change being two extra twin 4.1 inch (105mm) guns and a few more 37 mm guns over null B Bayern. Tier VIII H 40 scheme A The H 40 scheme A was one of two designs for the H 40 which would become the H 41 (FDG ingame). The most noticeable difference is that the H 40 scheme A only has three twin turrets in a 2-2-A-2 configuration. However, she will likely have 16 inch (406mm) or 16.5 inch (420mm) guns with about a 28 sec reload. You can think of her either as a larger Gneisenau with 16 inch guns and no torpedos or a smaller three turret version of the FDG. Tier IX L 20e a The L 20e a was the final design from a long series of design for what was supposed to be the successor to the Bayern. She was supposed to mount 16.5 inch (420mm) guns in a 2-2-A-2-2 configuration. She will likely have the L 24e a's (sister design) speed of 27.5 knots. In fact, for all intents and purposes, this is L 24e a. She would have turreted 4.1 inch (105mm) guns and casement mounted 5.9 inch (150mm) guns for a secondary battery. Her AA will likely resemble FDG's AA. Tier X H 42 The H 42 being here at tier X is somewhat out of necessity because I couldn't find any other ship design that would fit. Now I am aware that the H 42, H 43, and H 44 were never seriously considered by the OKM (Oberkommando der Marine translated as High Command of the Navy or Upper Command of the Navy) and she would be over the 80.000-ton limit (which I confirmed is still a thing). However, the Kurfurst, while being for the most part fictional, was based on the H 42 design (and somehow still conforms to the tonnage limit), so if whatever was done to the Kurfurst is done to the H 42 whos to say the H 42 design couldn't fit in the game. One thing to note is that while I keep calling her H 42, this ship would be more akin to a modified Kurfurst then a "proper" or design accurate H 42. stats health: 108,000 to 110,500 base concealment: ~18 km turning circle: ~1100m rudder shift time: ~21.5 sec speed: 28 knots armor: see below guns: eight 16.5 inch (420mm) guns likely doing 13,500 maximun shell damage for a DPB of 108.000 damage or eight 18 inch (457mm) guns likely doing 15,100 maximum shell damage for a DPB of 120,800 damage gun range:~ 21.5 km torpedos:N/A base reload: 25 sec for 420s 30 sec for 457s AA: likely similar to Kurfurst When it comes to her stats, the H 42 should be somewhat slow for her tier, easy to see and should turn about as well as the Antarctic continent (polar ice cap included). This was done to reinforce her as a tanking battleship and to give her a decently high skill floor. She would have the opportunity to choose between 420mm and 457mm guns. That's because Garzke and Dulin say she would have been armed with 420mm (16.54 inch) guns, but according to Erich Gröner (German Warships: 1815–1945) she would have been armed with 480mm (18.9 inch) but since there are no plans to go bigger than 460mm (18.1 inch) I downsized them to 457mm (18 inch) Her AP shell damage should keep up with the German AP shell performance. Her secondary and AA configuration will likely resemble Kurfurst with one notable difference, whereas Kurfurst has ten twin 128mm (5 inch) guns and four twin 150mm (5.9 inch) guns as her secondary battery with the 128s being dual purpose. The H 42 has eight twin 105mm (4.1 inch) guns and six twin 128mm (5 inch) guns, all of which would be dual purpose. Think of an FDG with her 150mm guns replaced with 128s, and you wouldn't be far off. That should give her a pretty good long range. That on top of the Kurfursts current AA configuration should give her overall decent AA. However, of course, her AA will likely depend on what is needed for balance. Her secondary battery range will probably be 6 km out of the box as not to encourage players to secondary build her. 3.5 H 42 armor Now when it comes to the H 42's armor, ship tonnage has to be taken into account. However, the main battery here consists of eight guns in four twin turrets. Thus the turrets and barbettes should be smaller and (in theory) lighter. That should help to save some weight; however, some of the armor would still need to be changed for good measure. As a result, compared to the Kurfurst, some of the armor plates would be thinned, and a few would be thickened. Let me list them. The plates that would be thinned are: The 120mm sections of the fore end armor belt would be reduced to 100mm. The 150mm and 280mm sections of the upper armor belt would have both been reduced to 120mm. The 150mm turtle back would be reduced to 130mm. The 380mm turret rear armor would be reduced to 300mm but only if it isn't needed as a counterweight. The 175 mm turret floor armor would be reduced to 130mm. The plates that would be thickened are: The 380mm armor belt would be increased to 400mm (or 410mm if possible). The 50mm sections of the deck would be increased to 60mm. While not thickened, the 60mm fore end armor belt would wrap around the bow. And if there is tonnage left over after the above increases: The 380mm barbette armor would be increased to at least 420mm (up to 450mm if possible). The turret face plate armor would be increased to 450mm (up to 480mm if possible). The turret roof armor would be increased to 250mm. I tried to remove armor from places where it isn't necessarily needed (like the fore end armor belt) without decreasing its effectiveness and add it where it is needed (like the main armor belt). The increases in the turret and barbette armor would only be done if there is sufficient tonnage left over from the other armor increases because turret armor isn't as important in-game as it was IRL. Like I said before, thinking of this ship as a modified Kurfurst would make much more sense than thinking of her as a design accurate H 42. I want to note; I don't know how to configure the armor scheme and thickness best to fit this game best. I know how to do it IRL, just not ingame. Thus I've configured her armor to better suit IRL but to keep the English-German armor scheme that gives her such good HE protection. 4. playstyle, quirks and other random bits The playstyle is rather simple, you tank and tank and tank some more. Ther armor scheme and large health pools that are features of this line will come in handy in the tanking role. Great care should be taken when hostile DDs or HE spamming cruisers are nearby and paying attention to you (your not doing your job right if they aren't). Because you would be a tempting target for torpedos thanks to your lack of maneuverability and do to the way DOT's work in this game, your large HP pool will work against you. Just because you have a significant health pool and armor best suited for tanking doesn't mean you don't have any offensive power. Your guns should allow you to slug it out with other battleships with a fighting chance of coming out on top. This lines consumables should be familiar to German battleship captains (or any battleship captain). I don't know whether to give this line Hydro, they would have good torp protection, but it isn't that good, and they would take a while to respond to rudder commands. I'm leaning towards yes mainly because it's a German line trait. Thus the consumables will look like this: Slot 1. Damage Control Party Slot 2. Repair Party Slot 3. Catapult Fighter/Spotter Plane Slot 4. Hydroacoustic Search (tier VIII+) I have been thinking about new consumables, more specifically, a consumable that makes you a more attractive target. Something that makes enemies unable to target allies is the first thing that comes to mind, but that might be rather annoying. Of course, that might be the point of a consumable like this. Stats: maybe 20 KM range (the range from you that enemy ships are affected ) 60-sec duration 240/180 sec recharge time. This consumable (from now on dubbed shoot me consumable) would be quite useful if you are in a division with a DD. Example: DD goes for cap, DD gets radared, you activate shoot me consumable, radar cruiser cant shoot DD accurately, DD can escape or get to cover while taking little or no damage. This consumable will be of little value to someone who only plays for themselves, not for the team. Unfortunately, players like this are quite common. If this shoot me consumable does become a thing this line will definitely have Hydro. Whether shoot me consumable will have its own slot (Slot 5), or if you have to trade another consumable for it, it will likely be in slot 3. 5. conclusion So that's the German battleship split line. This line is interesting. Its playstyle is focused on a job that all battleships and quite a few cruisers can do to some extent, but this line is supposed to excel at it. I would like to hear your thoughts on the armor changes, the shoot me consumable, and the line in general. I put up polls for you guys to vote on. Just in case anybody is concerned about health pool power creep 110,500 is the absolute highest I'm going to go because health is in part determined by tonnage and a ship that would have more than 110,500 health would likely be over 80,000 tons. If anybody has a chart regarding how health is calculated I'd love to see it. The next post I'm likely going to do will be the US battlecruiser line. That post will probably be out before August. This post but with a poll, go here to vote. https://forum.worldofwarships.com/topic/194900-german-battleship-split-line/?do=findComment&comment=4567808
  6. fbifiles

    German battlecruiser line

    You make a lot of good points here. However, this is only a very rough outline of what a German battlecruiser line could be. The only thing I've done here is listed the ships for the line, outlined a general playstyle, and give rough stats for the tier Xs. Also regarding all of these ships in this line, these are battlecruisers, they're not meant to stand up to a same tier battleship in a 1v1 fight nor are they meant to be as powerful as a same tier battleship. Against a lower tier battleship, they could win in a 1v1 but not against a same tier battleship.
  7. fbifiles

    German battlecruiser line

    I was going to do that, but I thought that 11-inch guns were a little too small/weak for tier X. The only way that could work if they had a very fast reload for that tier (15 sec or less). although a fictional 11 inch by about 60 caliber gun with a 16.5 to 17.5s sec reload, with great shell velocity, and doing at least 8,500 damage per shell could be interesting Thank you for your post you've got me thinking
  8. Prologue So because my memory sucks and I forgot to tack this on Battlecruisers part 2 I'm adding this. I'll copy paste this on all my battlecruiser line posts, so it goes around. They're two things that I want to note. 1. I was not able to find enough designs to make a 100% battlecruiser tree for every nation except the U.K., so some are early designs for battleships or cruisers, but before you go running for the pitchforks, all of the tier X designs, for example, would be at tier VIII at best if there were battleships. So they aren't as powerful as same tier battleships. I mean most of us here have seen a tier X cruiser melt a tier VIII battleship (or a tier X BB for that matter). 2. The largest guns we have on current battlecruiser are the 12.2 inch (310mm) guns on Azuma (and Yoshino). However, some of these designs had guns as big as 16 inch (406 mm). Now just put the torches down and hear me out. Only two of these designs are locked into 16 inch guns (not counting the Japanese because I can't make a full battlecruiser line for them). The only two battlecruisers locked into 16 inch guns are (one of) the Brit tier IX and X battlecruisers. The British built their battlecruisers with guns of contemporary battleships, so I guess that makes it ok for them to have 16 inch guns (the alternative was 18 inch guns). Two other designs have 16-inch guns as a gun option, but I can exclude those 16's if necessary. All of the other big guns at tier X are 12 inch (305 mm), 14 inch (356 mm), or 15 inch (380/381 mm). Now that that's out of the way... 1.interduction German battlecruisers were initially going to be a lot like their British counterparts. However, because Germany didn't have as many capital ships as Britain, her battlecruisers had to be able to fight in a battle line alongside battleships and thus fight against other battleships. Something their British counterparts were not designed to do. Refer to the Battle of Jutland to find out what happened when they did. Because German battlecruisers had to be able to fight in a battle line, they had quite good armor for a ship of their type. 2. overview and general info In some ways, German battlecruisers can be considered the first fast battleships. Because of this German battlecruisers should be able to sail with and fight alongside battleships, something that only German battlecruisers can really do. Other nations battlecruisers could do that as well in theory but not as well as the Germans. What makes the Germans so special? simple German battlecruisers are a lot like German battleships, i.e., they're quite tanky German battlecruisers tankyness (? is that a word?) is quite interesting at least if P. E. Friedrich is anything to go by. For one thing, they don't have turtlebacks until tier IX, and even then it won't be very thick. Long story short; even with an at waterline citadel, you can't brawl like a German battleship. Well, you can brawl if you want your citadel removed... violently... and explosively. However, because they're German they should (at least the mainline) have an English-German armor system thus they should have good HE protection. While these ships have good armor, they cannot win a fight against a same tier battleship unless the battleship makes a mistake. They can survive longer than other battlecruisers in a fight, but if you don't have support, your likely going to lose. If for example your in the L 21 a (the tier X) in a match with only two tier VIII and one tier IX battleship(s) you can play like a battleship. You can play like a tier VIII battleship in a tier X battlecruiser but not like a tier VIII battleship in a tier VIII or maybe IX battlecruiser, you should be able to see the scenario I'm talking about here. 3. ship by ship analysis This battlecruiser line has a split at the mid-tiers leading to two tier X's. All of the battlecruiser lines I'm going to have a split like this with one line with bigger guns but are nearly battleship size and the other being smaller but with smaller guns. As for the individual ships in the line Tier III Von der Tann Von der Tann was the first German battlecruiser. She was designed to fight in a battle line. She could fire all eight of her 11 inch guns at a wide angle over one side of the ship. She will likely have a 24 second reload, this reload will probably be the reload for all of the mainline German battlecruisers unless stated otherwise. She had a maximum speed of 27.75 knots (might need to be nerfed for balance). Her belt armor (250mm) is as thick or thicker than some battleships at that tier (Knyaz Suvorov has 203mm, Turenne has 250mm, Bellerophon has 254mm, and Nassau has 250/270mm). She will act as an excellent introduction to the German battlecruiser mainline playstyle. Tier IV Moltke class The Moltke class battlecruisers were an evolution of Von der Tann. They had ten 11 inch guns in five turrets and 270mm belt armor and could reach a maximum speed of 28.4 knots (might need to be nerfed for balance). Like Von der Tann she could fire all of her guns at a wide angle over one side of the ship. Tier V Seydlitz Seydlitz was a modified Moltke class design. She had a longer hull and a thicker armor belt (300mm) then the Moltkes while having the same firepower. The only area where she lagged behind the Moltkes was in speed, which is still pretty good at 28.1 knots. Like Von der Tann and the Moltkes, she could fire all of her guns at a wide angle over one side of the ship. Tier VI Derfflinger class The Derfflinger class was a new step in German battlecruiser construction. She had eight 12 inch guns in a more conventional 2-2-A-2-2 gun layout and a 300mm armor belt. She also had a speed of 27 knots. Tier VII Mackensen class The Mackensen class was an outgrowth of the Derfflinger class with the most significant differences being her eight 13.8 (350mm) inch guns and a speed of 28 knots. With P. E. Friedrich being a Mackensen class at tier VI and the rest of the Mackensen class being tier VII the question of balance comes up, and the best way I can sum it up would say pre-nerf P. E. Friedrich (P. E. Friedrich was nerfed quite a bit in testing before release). With stats similar to the pre-nerf P. E. Friedrich with better AP pen, and a 24 second reload should provide a good starting point for balance. Tier VIII Ersatz Yorck class The Ersatz Yorck class were basically Mackensen class battlecruisers with 15 inch (380mm) guns (Bayern's guns). They were designed as a response to the Renown class battlecruisers. Besides the guns size difference, the only notable change from the Mackensen class was the speed, 28 to 27.3 knots At this tier, I don't expect her armor to stand up well to battleship and a good chunk of battlecruiser guns because her armor is basically the same as the Derfflinger class at tier VI. Tier IX L 3 The L 3 was an early design for what would become the L 20e a class battleships. She was armed with eight 15 inch (380mm) guns (Bismark guns for balance) and had a speed of (artificially inflated for balance) 30 knots. Tier X L 21a The L 21 a was one of the designs for the L20e a class battleships she had ten 15 inch (380mm) guns (again Bismark guns for balance). The arrangement of her guns isn't known (at least I couldn't find it) but was likely either a 2-2-A-2-A-2-2 (like the Konig) or a 2-2-A-2-2-2 (like the Amagi). However, I want to go for a 3-2-A-2-3, so the number of turrets remains the same between the 15 inch guns and her other gun option: eight 16 inch (406mm) guns in a 2-2-A-2-2 configuration. Note: I can exclude these guns if 16 inch guns are too big for a battlecruiser at which point her 15 inch gun arrangement will likely be 2-2-A-2-2-2. stats health:79,500 to 82,000 base concealment: ~17 km turning circle: ~1000m rutter shift time:~15 sec speed: 30 knots armor: (for L20e a)(copy past from wiki) Belt: 30 to 350 mm (1.2 to 13.8 in) Bulkheads: 60 to 250 mm (2.4 to 9.8 in) Casemate: 170 mm (6.7 in) Barbettes: 100 to 350 mm (3.9 to 13.8 in) Turrets: 150 to 350 mm (5.9 to 13.8 in) Conning tower: 350 to 400 mm (13.8 to 15.7 in) guns: ten 15/47 cal guns likely doing 11,600 maximum shell damage for a DPB of 116,000 damage or eight 16/52 cal guns (stock FDG and Kurfurst guns) likely doing 12,700 maximum shell damage for a DPB of 101,600 damage gun range: ~20 km torpedos: N/A base reload:24 sec for the 15/47 cal guns 28 sec for the 16/52 cal guns AA: 8x2 128mm guns 7x2 55mm guns 12x4 20mm guns Her armor and guns should allow her to fight alongside battleships assuming the other team's battleships aren't paying too much attention to her. If you count her torpedo bulkhead, she has about 400 mm to 410mm of belt armor alongside a 30mm turtleback. Of course, that turtleback will be overmatched by any gun 17 inches or larger so I wouldn't rely on it too much. Even if it's not overmatched right off the bat, the turtleback will only offer about 60 to 70mm of armor. However, one good thing would be that the top of her citadel (and by extension the top of the turtleback) is just a hair above the waterline thus shouldn't be easy to hit. This ship should be pretty interesting to play. I especially would like to see her balance in relation to battleships. Please let me know what you guys think. This line has a split to it. This split is focused on second-line gunfire support play. With not very thick (but not necessarily thin) armor, smaller caliber guns even by German standards, and regular cruiser, not battlecruiser, dispersion circles. A 20 second reload will likely be the norm for this split. All ships in this split except Blucher will have 8 km range 13700 damage torpedos. Tier V Blücher Blücher was the response to the Invincible class battlecruisers. When she was designed, the Germans (thanks to British miss intelligence) thought the Invincibles were going to be armed with 9.2 inch guns. She was the last Armored cruiser built in Germany. They were phased out in favor of battlecruisers. Tier VI Deutschland class The Deutschland class stat wise likely won't differ much from Graf Spee as she is ingame bar the following. Besides the split wide cruiser accuracy, she will probably have about 2.5 km better range and late war AA in exchange for a 36 second turret traverse time, a 1 km larger surface detection range and a slightly higher citadel. Tier VII Final P class design The Final P class design was an outgrowth of and successors to the Deutschland class design. This design would have had over double the displacement of her predecessors of the Deutschland class (23,300 long tons to 10,600 long tons). The Final P class design had better armor than the Deutschland class (but not by much) and could make 33 knots while still retaining, for the most part, the armament of the Deutschland class. Premium Tier VII D class The D class was a much more heavily armored version if the Deutschland class, with most of the extra ~9000 tons worked in the design being used for the armor (a 220mm belt for example). So much so I've pulled her out of the tech tree where she was going to be the tier VII and made her a tier VII premium. The Scharnhorst class superseded the D class. Tier VIII Three turret P class design As I said before the P class was an outgrowth of and successors to the Deutschland class. Some of the later designs for the P class had a third turret. These designs would be the ones used here. You can almost think of the P class here as a somewhat thinly armored Scharnhorst with a ~20 km range and Grif Spee shell damage. Tier IX 1928 German Battlecruiser Design This battlecruiser design was one of the preliminary designs for the successors to the Deutschland class. She would have had eight 12 inch (305mm) guns in four turrets (2-2-A-2-2) and a secondary battery of nine 5.9 inch (150mm) guns in three turrets, two alongside the forward superstructure (one on each side) and one superfiring over X turret. Her armor wouldn't have been much better than the Deutschland class (100mm belt). I don't know for sure, but I think her maneuverability would have similar the Deutschland class as well but with a 34-knot speed. She would have been armed with 12/55 cal guns. I want to thank Masterrix for doing a review on this ship. If you want to know more, I recommend you go check that out, link below. Tier X O class The O class battlecruisers were initially designed as commerce raiders. With six 15/47 cal guns and a 7.5 inch (190mm) armor belt, she would have been a match for any allied heavy cruiser that might be escorting convoys but nothing more. I'm considering an unhistorical nine 12/55 cal gun option in a 3-3-A-3 arrangement in Scharnhorst like turrets. I'll put up a poll to see what you guys think. Having the O class at tier X here is somewhat complicated by the announcement of Siegfried which is an O class battlecruiser but at tier IX (and still work in progress as of the time I'm writing this so her stats may, and likely will, change). Well to be fair the announcement of Siegfried is both bad and good, it's bad because O class at tier IX and it's good because the stats of the Siegfried give me a good idea on what a tier X O class battlecruisers stats need to be. So what I've done here was take the Siegfrieds stats and modify them to (I hope) suit a tier X O class battlecruiser. stats health: 68,500 to 71,500 base concealment:~15 km turning circle:~900m rutter shift time: 14 sec speed: 35 knots (O class historical top speed) armor: same as Siegfried just with a 50mm turtleback guns: six 15/47 cal guns likely doing 11,600 maximum shell damage for a DPB of 69,600 damage or nine 12/55 cal guns likely doing 9,300 maximum shell damage for a DPB of 83,700 damage gun range: ~22.5 km torpedos: 4x4 533mm firing 8 km range 13,700 damage torpedos base reload: 20 sec for both guns AA: 7x2 128mm guns 7x2 2x1 55mm guns 9x4 4x2 20mm guns The O class's playstyle, and by extension the playstyle of this whole split, will likely resemble that of German cruisers i. e. sit back and provide gunfire support for your team. Like with the German cruisers you shouldn't have too much trouble with ammo choices with the ships in this split. AP should, for the most part, work just fine unless the target is angling then you should switch to HE. She will likely only have a 50mm turtleback (compared to the 80mm turtleback that the Siegfried has now) but still have a slightly above water citadel. Her torpedos are not meant to be used aggressively, but they can bail you out of a brawl with anything that's not a battleship. They can, however, take a good chunk out of a battleship if you find your self in a brawl with one, which might turn that brawl in your favor. Overall I wouldn't recommend getting into a brawl with anything bigger than a heavy cruiser and even then be careful. The 12/55 cal guns are intended to provide players with an alternative to the 15/47 cal guns. This alternative likely won't change playstyle much. With a ~915m/s shell velocity and German shell arcs, the 12/55 cal gun option would have ballistics akin to but not as good as the Russian's. With the 12/55 cal guns equipped the O class firepower will likely feel similar to Kronstadt or Stalingrad. The increased AP shell damage over Stalingrad (9,300 to 9,200) should keep the AP shell in line with German standards. 4. playstyle, quirks and other random bits German mainline battlecruisers are meant to be quite durable, tanky, and overall quite battleship like while still being battlecruisers. However, the split line German battlecruisers are intended to have a playstyle more akin to German cruisers. The German battlecruiser mainline will likely be the most battleship like battlecruiser line that I'm going to do. One thing worth mentioning is that the turtlebacks on the German battlecruiser will likely not have as steep of an angle as on German battleships meaning that at close ranges a shell that hits it won't be likely auto-bounce, i.e., it won't be as effective as the turtlebacks that German battleships have. However, their turtlebacks won't be like those of the French. Like German battleships, this line will get hydro starting at tier VIII, but that hydro will likely be the non-Greman tier VIII+ version (so 3.5 km torp and 5 km ship detection). The overall consumable layout might look like this: 1. Damage Control Party 2. Repair Party 3. Catapult Fighter/Spotter Plane 4. Hydroacoustic Search As you can see, there is nothing special about the consumables besides the hydro. One thing worth noting is that the slots that the consumables come in won't necessarily be the same as shown above. I just did that because I was thinking like British light cruisers, battlecruisers will get a heal early in the tech tree, but like the British light cruisers, it will be a battleship heal (so 10% citadel damage repair). 5. conclusion So that the Greman battlecruiser line. Personly I like German battlecruisers over their British counterparts because they had armor that could stand up to their own shellfire for the most part. I would like to see what you guys think of this battlecruiser line if your reading this in the general game discussion then look below for a link to this post with polls. Next battlecruiser post will be the U.S. battlecruisers. However I want to take a short break from the battlecruiser posts so the next post will likely be a German battleship split that has sucky secondaries, but U.S./British dispersion values (i.e., their more accurate than other German battleship at 12 to 15 km, being about as accurate as U.S. or British battleships at that range) and is better suited to 12 to 15 km tanking. this post just with polls please go here to vote Masterrix 1928 German Battlecruiser Design post https://forum.worldofwarships.eu/topic/4035-german-battlecruiser-design-1928-the-next-pocket-battleship/?do=findComment&comment=69259
  9. 1. Introduction. Ever since the development of this game was announced a lot of people asked of battlecruisers. For good reason, battlecruisers have a fascinating history to them thanks mainly to British and subsequent German developments. Many nations at least considered building battlecruisers including but not limited to: Britain, Germany, the U.S., Japan, France, and Russia, so we have a lot to draw from here. Battlecruiser development by nation tends to vary quite a bit (British and German battlecruisers were almost polar opposites of each other) which means battlecruiser playstyle will also differ just as much. 2. Overview and general info As for how battlecruisers play ingame? Battlecruisers can't play like battleships they're armor isn't good enough but they can't play like regular cruisers either their just too big. So how would they play? That depends on what type of ship the battlecruiser is fighting. Assuming your fighting same tier opponents if you come across a Light/Heavy Cruiser or a Destroyer then you're a Battleship (with all the advantages and disadvantages that come with being a Battleship). However, if you come across a Battleship or an Aircraft Carrier, then you're a Cruiser (again with all the advantages and disadvantages that come with being a Cruiser) and if you come across another battlecruiser your still a battlecruiser. When I hear the word battlecruiser, I (like a lot of people I imagine) think cruiser-killer (that's one of the roles that the first battlecruisers were designed to do). However, battlecruisers ingame won't necessarily be cruiser-killers. Yes, some will likely be better at it than others, but that is one of many roles that they can perform in any given battle. A battlecruiser's role will probably be battle dependent, i.e., if you're in a tier X battlecruiser in a tier X battle and each team has only two tier VIII battleships, then you can (and probably should) play like a tier VIII battleship. 3. Playstyle, quirks and other random bits When it comes to playstyle, a battlecruisers playstyle will likely vary just as much as the playstyle of the different nations cruiser lines. Regarding national differences when it comes to battlecruisers, in the example above you would fair much better if you were to play like a tier VIII battleship in a German battlecruiser then if you were to in a British battlecruiser because German battlecruisers would be much more durable, then they're British counterparts. As for battlecruiser balance? Here's the interesting part battlecruisers will likely classify as a cruiser (thus have cruiser matchmaking) but have some battleship or battleship like balance features. For balance, some features will likely be a mix if cruiser and battleship balance features such as but not limited to the following 1. 60-sec fire burn time 2. battleship like flood effects (damage and duration) 3. battleship like maneuverability (on average) 4. worse then cruiser but better than battleship stealth (on average) 5. 20+ sec reload times (up to 30 sec for some) 6. worse then battleship but better than cruiser armor 7. worse then cruiser but better than battleship speed (on average mostly noticeable at mid-tiers) 8. battleship like firepower but akin to BB's two/three tiers lower (on average) 9. HP pools at tier X ranging between 68,500 to 82,000 hit points 10. worse then battleship but better than cruiser AA (on average) 11. consumables like DFAA and radar note: "on average" means some lines might not entirely conform to the general stats shown in that category battlecruisers part 2 4. List of Battlecruiser lines Here is a list of the battlecruiser lines with links to they're posts (when I finish them) British battlecruisers German battlecruisers U.S. battlecruisers Japanese battlecruisers (not a complete line) (coming soon) I'll add links (if I can figure out how) to the post's with the battlecruiser lines when I finish them, but that might take a while so, please be patient. Thank you for your time.
  10. 1. introduction This line is meant to diversify Japanese battleship gameplay and be a breath of fresh air to the Japanese battleship line (one of the oldest lines in this game and one that has mostly gone unchanged since closed beta). This split line should feel different enough to add new gameplay but so different as to not feel Japanese. 2. overview and general info This line will likely be faster with better rutter shift and rate of turn while being slightly squishier (with thinner armor) with German turning circle radius while retaining the same stealth (or lack of) and hitting power as their corresponding tier counterparts in the current BB line. The floating fortress playstyle of the existing high tier Japanese battleships won't work with this line at high tiers, mainly due to the armor and gun layout. The firepower won't be all that different from the current BB line with accurate, long-range, and hard-hitting guns. The gun power at the high tier should match the current Japanese high tier BB's while the playstyle might be akin to mid-tier Japanese BB's. 3. ship by ship analysis As for the individual ships in the line Tier VI Ise class The Ise class battleships were originally going to be the 3rd and 4th Fuso class battleships, but they were redesigned while waiting for funding. The redesign was so extensive that they were declared there own class. As for how she will play ingame, she will probably play like the Fuso but with a few minor differences. The overall playstyle won't change much. Tier VII Hiraga class The Hiraga class (named after the designer of the ship) was supposed to be the new Japanese battleship built in 1932 when the 10-year battleship building holiday (i.e., no battleship were to be built in that period) expired on the 31st of December 1931. however, when that holiday was extended by five years in the London naval treaty to 31st of December 1936, the Japanese just designed and built the Yamato's instead stats guns: ten 16in/45 cal guns 2-3-A-3-2 config speed: 26.3 knots One thing that could be done here is to put the Nagato here and put the Hiraga in her place in the main line. Tier VIII Tosa class The Tosa class battleships were the basis for the Amagi class and were the successor to the Nagato and carried a fifth turret. The hull of the Tosa after she was launched but not completed was used as an armor, gunnery and torpedo test bed that ultimately influenced the design of the Yamato's armor scheme. There's not much more to go into for this one if you know battleship development then you know about the Tosa's Again the Tosa's could be put in the main line, and you can put the Amagi class here. The Amagi's as they are now would fit this line nicely. Tier IX Owari class The Owari class (Owari being the ingame name, this class is more commonly known as the Kii class, but we already have Kii herself ingame) was a fast battleship class. The Kii class was based on the Amagi class, which were based on a less armored (then the Kii's) Tosa class design. The reason why the Kii class ships were designated as Fast battleships were because by that point Japan had decided to end the distinction between battleships and battlecruisers. The AA might resemble that of Kii herself. If it needs a buff adding a few more 40mm twins should do the trick. Also, she probably won't have torpedo's unless having torpedoes becomes a line trait, but that's unlikely. Tier X Number 13 class The Number 13 class (designated as such because they weren't named before being canceled) sit's at tier X because she was the culmination of Japanese post WW I battleship development and she was the only ship class designed by Japan to mount 18-inch guns (yammy has 18.1-inch guns). She was based off the Kii and Amagi classes upsized to take 18-inch guns, but her design reminds me if the Nagato class. stats health: 95500 to 97000 base concealment: ~18.0 turning circle: 1000m to 1100m rutter shift time: ~19.5 sec speed: 30 knots armor: 13 in belt 5 in deck guns: 8 18in/45 cal likely doing 14800 maximum shell damage for a DPB of 118,400 damage AA: see below The turning circle will likely be a balance feature. We can go two ways with her AA. 1. give her 12 twin 5in/40 cal D.P. gins and 40 to 50 triple 25mm mounts like the Yamato or 2. give her eight twin 100mm/65 cal guns,~16 twin 40mm mounts, and ~30 triple 25mm mounts. I'll put a poll up and let you guys decide. 4. playstyle, quirks and other random bits The playstyle will likely be somewhat standoffish. With the ship engaging the other team at 14 to 16 km while using they're fast (for a battleship) rutter shift and rate of turn allow the ship to dodge incoming fire. (Well kind of, it should allow you to at least angle for the incoming salvo. This is still a battleship after all). While the turning circle should somewhat restrict the ship to open water use. A at waterline or above water citadel combined with their armor should discourage sailing broadside. The consumables won't have anything special and will likely be the following. 1. Damage Control Party 2. Repair Party 3. Fighter/Spotter Plane Overall the line shouldn't have anything that makes them too strong or too weak, and they should have apparent advantages and disadvantages with an easy to understand playstyle which can best be summed up as: Keep the range, keep maneuvering, and don't try to brawl if you can help it. 5. conclusion So that's the Japanese battleship split line. I've got a few ideas for new lines, and I think I'm going to put a poll up and let you guys pick what I do next. What do you guys think of this split line? Please let me know in the replies. Thank you for your time
  11. fbifiles

    Alternate british battleship line

    So just to be clear the problems are the Revenge class at tier VI and to a lesser extent the large number of paper designs? Please leave your feedback, thank you for your time.
  12. 1. introduction In an earlier post, I munched an alternate British battleship line here it is. It start's at tier III and go's to tier X like most lines. One of the most significant problems that the community has with British battleships is there HE. This lime wouldn't have that problem. 2. overview and general info What many people wanted in the British battleship was a line of Warspite's. Now I can't say this line will be that, but the line won't have good HE. Instead, the line will focus on AP shells and by that I mean the AP will have the following stats: 1. A 0.033 shell fuze timer instead of the 0.015 shell fuze timer of the current British battleships. 2. (maybe) Better auto bounce angles much like those of but not as good as British cruisers. Also, the HE will have the following stats: 1. A 1/6 HE pen value instead of the 1/4. 2. A reduction in fire chance by about 10 to 30 percent across the board compared to the same size shell. The line will still have great concealment and mega heal to keep it similar to the British BB's already in game, but the playstyle likely will be very different from current Brit BB's 3. ship by ship analysis As for an in-depth view Tier III St-Vincent class The St-Vincent class was the second set of the production run Dreadnaughts (Dreadnaught herself being the prototype and the Bellerophons being the first). The only notable difference is the guns. The St-Vincent's had 12in/50 cal compared to the 12in/45 cal on Dreadnaught and the Bellerophons. The 12in/50 cal guns weren't much better than the 12in/45 cal guns. Tier IV Royal George The Royal George class (name of the lead ship later renamed to King Geroge V) was an intermediate class between the Orions and the Iron Dukes and had the same main guns as both. They had additional armor and a different layout of the secondary battery then the Orions but used the same size (4 inch) guns. Tier V Canada class Originally a Chilean battleship named Almirante Latorre only to be commissioned into the British Navy during WW I and renamed HMS Canada. As far as I can tell HMS Canada was basically patterned off the Iron Duke class but armed with 14in/45 cal guns. She would likely play a lot like the New York. Tier VI Revenge class The Revenge class (or Royal Sovereign class or just R class) was a slightly smaller, slower and coal-fired version of the Queen Elizabeth class and weren't upgraded during the interwar period to the same extent as the QE's. The playstyle shouldn't differ much from the QE's. Tier VII Design 16A Design 16A was (as far as I can tell) one of the designs of what would become the Nelson class. Armed with eight 16in/45 cal guns in a 2-2-A-2-2 arrangement this ship should have a powerful broadside for her tier on par with the Natago and Colorado while having the same number of guns. One thing I want to note about this ship is that this ship is the only one here that I didn't find on Wikipedia. I found this ship on shipbucket. Now I don't know how reputable shipbucket is when it comes to historical accuracy. If anyone of you does know, please let me know in the replies. If shipbucket isn't reputable, I'll find something else Tier VIII I3 class The G3 battlecruiser. The tier VIII, IX, and X all have this turret arrangement I3 was the first of a series of capital ships designs that saved wight using an unusual turret arrangement placing the "aft" turret behind the conning tower separating it from the rest of the superstructure. Armed with 15in guns, the guns themselves are smaller then the Design 16A's 16's one tier lower, but these are 15in/50 cal guns possessing more power most likely because it's firing a higher velocity shell. The unique turret arrangement here is intended to interduce players to it, so they have experience using it before moving on to the tier IX and X and after hearing of this turret arrangement you probably already know what the tier IX and X is. So let's go ahead and move on to the... Tier IX G3 class Many people want this ship in the game (myself included), but it didn't seem sturdy enough to put at tier X so here she is at tier IX with her 16in or 16.5in guns. From what I hear the AP on the current tier IX and X Brit BB,s is good enough to be used over the HE, but I don't have any experience in either of those ships so I don't know for sure. This ship will focus on AP so she should be pretty good. She might play kind of like the Iowa in some ways but not others. She will likely have a gun upgrade from 16 to16.5 inch guns like the Lion. Tier X N3 class The N3 's being here at tier X shouldn't surprise anyone at this point, for good reason. She has good armor, big 18in/45 cal guns, and the ship herself is somewhat unique. The only two things that she would need is a heavily modernized AA suite and about 6 to 7 knots of more speed. stats health: 83000 to 85000 base concealment: ~16 km turning circle: ~850 rutter shift time: ~17.5 sec speed: ~29.5 knots armor (copy pasted from Wiki) Belt: 13.5–15 in (343–381 mm) Deck: 6–8 in (152–203 mm) Barbettes: 15 in (381 mm) Turrets: 10–18 in (254–457 mm) Conning tower: 15 in (381 mm) Bulkheads: 9–14 in (229–356 mm) guns: 9 18in/45 cal likely doing 14900 maximum shell damage for a DPB of 134,100 damage AA: likely similar to the Conqueror The N3 should be able to compete with the Yamato when it comes to overall AP firepower and broadside damage. The firepower, the health, the mega heal, the armor, and the stealth should make this ship interesting to see ingame and allow her to make herself known (and felt) in battle while keeping up with the great stealth and mega heal traits that the current high tier Brit BB's are known for. 4. playstyle, quirks and other random bit s With this line's good AP and stealth and the high tier's low health and mega heal, the tactic's that these ships could use could be interesting. For example with a surface detect if 12.57 km with a full stealth build on the N3 the N3 could close to ~ 13km from an unsuspecting battleship then open fire and do massive damage if not just blow that ship away outright. With the lines stealth, every ship here (at least from tier VII if not VI) could use this tactic. The high tiers with they're stealth and firepower they could use the above tactic or with they're armor and mega heal they could be quite good at the mid-range tanking role (which all high tier BB are good at to some extent) or with they're mega heal and firepower they could good at pushing a flank or defending that flank if the other team pushes. This line could be good at the many things that the current British BB line can do in the hands of a good player. 5. conclusion So there it is the Brit BB line is finally done. It took way too long to do this line. So what do you guys think I'm interested considering this lines relation with the current Brit BB line and the whole AP vs. HE focus differences. I don't know if this line is like a line if Warspite's (I haven't played her myself so I don't know how she plays) but I tried to make this lines AP the focus and to nerf the HE to a secondary with this line. So what do you guys think, please let me know, thank you for your time.
  13. fbifiles

    Pick the next post

    mmmm bacon
  14. fbifiles

    Pick the next post

    LOL hopefully some day
  15. fbifiles

    Pick the next post

    After reading the replies to my last post, I wanted to ask you guys what you want to see next. This post will decide the topic of the post I'll do after I get done with the British battleship line. The poll will close in a week, and by then the Brit BB line will almost be complete. Here are your options: 1. A Japanese BB slit line starting at tier VI that's focused not so much on a static playstyle but maneuverability and dodging fire while still being able to hit pretty hard. 2. A German BB slit line starting at VIII that's focused on mid-range (12 to 15 km) damage tanking and less on secondary's and brawling. 3. A U.S. DD line starting at tier II that's focused on (starting at the mid-tiers) large quantity's of AA while sacrificing torpedo tubes. Think a line of Kidd's 4. A series of six post's about battlecruisers and going through the different nations and playstyles while explaining why they should be in the game and thing's that can be done to balance them. 5. Hull options for high tier U.S. battleships with pro and cons regarding speed and AA maybe even with DFAA. 6. A U.S. cruiser slit line that's focused on rapid fire 5inch guns at the cost of durability. Think a line of Atlanta's (and that sound you can hear in the background is the crying and wailing of all of the DD players). 7. A series of posts about gun or hull options for tier X ships and explaining they're balance to the current ones 8. A U.S. CV line with small air groups or lower tier planes but with 6 inch main (i.e. player controlled) gun's for self-defense with DD range. This should be possible with the new CV mechanics but talking about CV lines this soon after 0.8.0. might be a little premature. You might have noticed that a lot of these lines are U.S. lines that's because I came across a very interesting site called shipscribe. Shipscribe has a section called spring styles about U.S. warship design from 1913 to 1925 and 1939 to 1944. I think all this information is historical, it was taken from the Naval History and Heritage Command. So please tell me what you think in the replies. Thank you for your time.
×