Jump to content


  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


Community Reputation

45 Neutral

About fbifiles

  • Rank
    Petty Officer
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

1,083 profile views
  1. fbifiles

    DevBlog 310 - Closed Test 0.11.4, New Ships

    Option 2 has my vote as well. I think option 1 is too close to a repeat of the German BCs to be interesting. If I had to make a guess based off the maximum dispersion numbers, it looks like they (fittingly) use the battlecruiser dispersion curve. I don't think the sigma is going to be much of an issue if they do. As for the feels, if the German BCs are anything to go by, the artillery should be pretty comfortable. And let's not forget that the T10 has nine 18 inch guns...
  2. fbifiles

    Detonation RNG

    Not particularly, no. I just bought it up because it's the only way that I know of to (I think) semi-consistently get detonations. On the other hand, I run Juliet Charlie on most of the stuff I play now and it's been a while since I played Bismarck. For all I know something wonky could be happening and I just haven't picked up on it. I also never bothered to test it myself either. If you like, tomorrow I can jump into a training room with a Gallant and see if I can reproduce it.
  3. fbifiles

    Detonation RNG

    Hey @LittleWhiteMouse. Your post about detonations here reminded me of something that you might find interesting. In my experience, if a Bismarck takes a torpedo hit in the way of number 4 main battery gun turret it will detonate the magazine. I have had this happen to me on a couple of occasions. I'm not sure if this is the case on Tirpitz, however. I remember in one of your posts from a while back you said that magazine positions can vary on ships of the same class, so it may not be.
  4. Quick question for you, @LittleWhiteMouse. I know that this would be brute forcing the issue, but how far do you think a 50 to 100% increase in AA DPS for all ships (judged on a ship-to-ship basis) I would go to solving the current AA/CV issue? I'm not trying to pitch this as a solution to the problem, I'm just genuinely curious.
  5. fbifiles

    Tier VII California Buff Discussion Thread

    A Florida sidegrade wasn't what I had in mind when I brought up the idea of reducing California's dispersion. But now that you mention it, I like the idea. As a die-hard fan of Florida (and sniper battleships in general, honestly), I love her accuracy but I absolutely detest her neutered AP and HE shells. I will shamelessly admit that I took Deadeye on Florida back when that was available (and I think it should still be for certain ships, but that's a different topic of discussion) . The extra accuracy from Deadeye worked well to balance out the sucky shells, if the individual hits are terrible, then stack up on the number of hits (plus, I'd be lying if I said that landing six or more shells on a ship 12 to 14 kilometers away wasn't at least a little funny). Honestly, I'd pay money for a ship like Florida that trades the speed and the DFAA for extra durability and unneutered ammunition.
  6. fbifiles

    Tier VII California Buff Discussion Thread

    One thing they could do is, instead of buffing the reload (which I wouldn't be apposed to), they could buff the dispersion curve. Giving California the battlecruiser dispersion curve (or atleast the Warspite curve) could balance out her reload. I (personally) wouldn't mind waiting 35 seconds between shots if the shell grouping was nice and tight. This would also synergize with her long range (which is only going to get longer with the upgrade and consumable options she has), making her a more effective second line fire support platform. In a historical sense, you could also justify a dispersion buff as the result of radar directed fire control (which was effectively used by the similarly refit West Virginia at the Battle of Surigao Strait).
  7. fbifiles

    Premium Ship Review: California

    No problem, love your work and glad I could help.
  8. fbifiles

    Premium Ship Review: California

    If you're talking about the Marlborough dockyard, Repulse was the freebie for that one. Strasburg was initially released in the "In Pursuit of Strasburg" campaign during the 2020 Christmas event.
  9. fbifiles

    Tier VII California Buff Discussion Thread

    For some reason I can't message you, so I'll just ask you here. For a little while I've been thinking about making a post discussing new ideas for upgrades, and I wanted your opinion as someone who has more experience both playing the game and with the numbers than I do. Would you be up to sharing your thoughts? Please message me if you're up for it so we can talk.
  10. fbifiles

    Changes to San Diego (2022.03.31) - She Still Sucks

    This might not be a popular option, but I want to see Sandy with a reload booster. Let me explain why. The 5/38 had a maximum sustained rate of fire of 15 rounds a minute, this is why I agree with Mouse that Sandy should have a 4 second reload. As for the reload booster, there'd be two things about it that'd be different. 1. It would have a short duration, approximately 10 to 12 seconds. 2. It would boost the reload time by only 32%. Why 32% specifically, and why have a reload booster at all? Like I said, the 5/38 had a maximum sustained rate of fire of 15 rounds a minute. However, well-trained gun crews could raise that to 22 rounds a minute over short periods. Reducing the reload by 32% would drop it to 2.72 seconds from 4 seconds, thus achieving a 22 round a minute rate of fire, but only for a short period of time. By doing this, WG gets its reload booster that they're determined to shove down our throats, and we get to double dip on historical accuracy.
  11. This, right here. If WG did this, I'd probably pick this up and Sandy.
  12. fbifiles

    San Diego's Initial Stats are a Flaming Turd

    Personally, I'd go for the reload buff. Quick question for you, Mouse. How do you think Sandy would fair in her current iteration (including slot five) if she was tier 7?
  13. fbifiles

    Actual AA DPS in World of Warships

    Small mistake, Flandre"s maximum base speed is 33.5 knots.
  14. Good evening Miss Mouse.

    I don't know whether or not you intend on doing a review of Carnot, but I can tell you from personal experience her AP is good enough to citadel in North Carolina class battleship at 16.5 kilometers.

  15. 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