Jump to content

skytank_invader

Members
  • Content Сount

    118
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    2120

Community Reputation

41 Neutral

About skytank_invader

Recent Profile Visitors

832 profile views
  1. I like the line, only problem I have is calling Gneisenau a BC when it’s a fast BB. Also I didn’t know about the 1928 design at all it definitely fits in with the rest of the German lineup.
  2. skytank_invader

    ST 0.10.4, new ships

    Now that the Netherlands have their own tech tree, will Austria be getting its own tech tree and BB line or will it be like the “Pan European” DD line where there’s only one none Swedish DD. Anyways, I’m not entirely sure why the Dutch in particular would have an air support consumable. Especially, considering the fact that in the early stages of WW2 the Dutch had some of the best AA fire control systems in the world, though having AA as your entire lines gimmick isn’t exactly a good thing. To me a Commonwealth line would make more sense to have air support as their gimmick. Alternatively perhaps their gimmick could be that they have the best CL/CA concealment at their tier. (especially near islands) Other than that the line looks interesting since the Dutch are the only nation to get a Large Cruiser through their tech tree.
  3. skytank_invader

    ST 0.10.3, new ships

    On one hand I’m ecstatic that we’re finally getting a Lexington class battlecruiser, on the other hand I’m not exactly enthusiastic at the way WG has been handling the 1920’s era US BBs primarily in that despite evidence to the contrary WG refuses to give any USN BB that predates the Iowa class a 16/50cal gun, especially since these were the guns intended to be used on the South Dakota, Lexington, and Iowa class of Battlewagons. Also why torpedoes? This class of ship is anything, but a brawler. In fact their primary role was that of a scouting squadrons flagship, working alongside the Omaha and Clemson classes to pick away at the enemies Battlecruiser squadrons. Though with her detection range being slightly better than NC, I think it’ll work okay as a scouting BB. As for the radar it’s something that actually fits with the class’s role of scouting ahead, course if this ship does try and get within radar range it’ll be absolutely obliterated by the cruisers it was supposed to counter, let alone the equal or higher tier BB’s. Really my main complaint are the guns, they shouldn’t be “weak” guns of Colorado, and instead should be the superior guns that were intended for the ship. I’m just hoping that the ship will be a free XP/ coal ship because even though I like the Lexington class CC’s I have no reason to get Constellation since I have Alabama who not only has 1 more gun, but also much better shells. (If only there was a historically accurate way of buffing her guns to be better than a Colorado class’s oh well guess I’ll just have to imagine it) P.S. could we get a version of this at T7 for a fast USN BB split/ CC line if not then at least a premium in the original configuration.
  4. They would've had 15in/50cal guns opposed to the G3's 16in guns. So it would essentially be a J3 in an all forward setup, main battery wise.
  5. F2 and F3 Battlecruisers - All the World's Battlecruisers (tapatalk.com) I completely forgot that these were a thing.
  6. Sorry for taking it the wrong way. Honestly if WG wanted they could strap booster rockets to the P3 design and call it a day, like what they did with Lyon and Normandie. I think since G3 really is the best designed BC Britain made even including the 18in designs it should be apart of a British BC line, I know what you mean though that given WG’s decisions as of late the chances of seeing the G3 in a line would be pretty low. (even though it would be a contender for best T9 bb if they gave it the designed 16in shells that Nelson and Rodney were going to get before the war broke out. Then again that could also make it sell really well since everyone wants a G3, so making it really good would make people want it even more.)
  7. Izumo is an actual Yamato design that was in the same study as Hizen, in fact there is another design that had a Nelson style turret layout other than that it’s basically the same ship. As for a ship to follow up G3 there’s always the I3 design, which is a G3 with a weaker belt and is slightly smaller but it gained 9 18in guns in the same turret setup. The biggest problem I think would be finding a good T8 that follows the all turrets forward approach of G3 and I3
  8. Tier 7 (Yamashiro Rebuild) Description: The Yamashiro is the second ship in the Fuso class of battleships. The ships had a rebuild proposed by Hiraga in the 1920's after the Washington Naval treaty to modernize the two obsolete ships into frontline vessels capable of competing with the more modern ships of Britain and America. Cost 42.78$ Survivability: Displacement 39,300 HP formula BB HP 57,260 Torpedo protection: 42% Armor: 26mm bow/stern 26mm bow/stern deck 102mm bow/stern armor belt 35mm center deck 152mm upper casement belt 203mm lower casement belt 305mm center belt 229mm bow turret belt 64mm torpedo bulge deck 229mm upper torpedo bulge belt 305mm lower torpedo bulge belt 99mm citadel deck 131mm stern citadel deck 76mm bow citadel slope 305mm center citadel sides 102mm stern citadel slope 241mm bow citadel face 140mm stern citadel face 457mm turret face 280mm turret side face plate 229mm turret side rear plate 190mm turret rear 250mm turret roof 430mm barbettes Main Battery: 10 (2x2, 2x3) 41 cm/45 (16.1") 3rd Year Type (Model 1914) AP Shell APC Type 91 AP Shell weight 1,020 kg AP Shell Maximum Damage 12,600 AP Shell Initial velocity 806m/s AP Shell Krupp 2711 AP Shell Broadside DPM 126,000 AP Shell auto bounce angle 60 AP Shell armed threshold 68mm AP Shell detonation delay 0.033 HE Shell Common Type 0 HE HE Shell weight 938.5 kg HE Shell Maximum Damage 6,500 HE Shell Initial Velocity 805m/s HE Shell fire chance 30% Reload 34.6sec Turret Traverse 46sec Range 19.88km Sigma 1.8 Dispersion R x 7.2 + 84 = 227.136 Secondary Battery: 14 14x1 15 cm/50 (6") 41st Year Type (Model 1908) HE Shell Type 4 HE HE Shell weight 45.36kg HE Shell Initial velocity 825m/s HE Shell Maximum Damage 2,5400 HE Shell fire chance 9% Reload 10sec Dispersion 11*R/333.333+30 8 4x2 14x1 12.7 cm/40 (5") Type 89 (Model 1929) HE Shell Type 0 HE HE Shell weight 34.32kg HE Shell Initial velocity 725m/s HE Shell Maximum Damage 2,100 HE Shell fire chance 8% Reload 6sec Dispersion 19*R/333.333+30 Range 6km Anti-Air: Range 5.01km/ 2.49km DPS 40.4/ 30.6, 27 Amount 8 4x2 12.7 cm/40 (5") Type 89 (Model 1929), 20 10x2 25mm/60 Type96 (Model 1936), 17 17x1 25mm/60 Type96 (Model 1936) Maneuverability: Maximum Speed 22.2knots Turning circle Radius 830m Rudder shift time 15.67sec Concealment: Surface Detection Range 18.9km Air Detection Range 9.74km Smoke Firing Detection Range 16.9km Consumables: Slot 1 Damage control party Slot 2 Repair party 3 Slot 3 Spotter plane/Fighter plane 4 Summary: The Yamashiro is the sister ship to the tier 6 battleship Fuso, as such she shares the same weaknesses as the Fuso when it comes to the hull. The Yamashiro has the same AA and Secondary battery as her lower tier sister, with the biggest difference between the Secondary's being her their increased range. The main difference between the two sisters would be the added protection thanks to the added torpedo belt armor, making her more resilient to torpedoes and HE spam, while her Main Battery is completely different to that of Fuso with it being comprised of 10 406mm guns in two twin turrets on the bow and two triple turrets one midships and on aft of the superstructure. Compared to the rest of tier 7 Yamashiro has the tied best firepower with Ashitaka, however her speed is one of her greatest weaknesses with it only barely surpassing the speed of the American standards by 1.2knots. Her other weakness would be her almost non existent AA, making her very susceptible to Carrier attacks, specifically AP bombers and torpedo bombers, though if torpedoes hit her thick torpedo belt the damage would obviously be minimal (unless they detonate you). Sources:
  9. skytank_invader

    American Battlecruiser Split

    I'll admit you made a more cohesive line than me. Though there is a reason I picked Samoa at T7 and it was mainly because I remember hearing that (historically speaking) it's guns had either equal or superior pen to that of the guns on the California and New Mexico. I'll also admit that using the Lexington's finalized design probably would have worked out better, but I decided against it since I always remembered seeing comments on how the US doesn't have enough BC's to make a line, so instead of using the one ship everyone knows about I'd use ones that are slightly less well known. If I were to remake the line I'd probably use this: A more serious Tier IV American Premium BC suggestion (worldofwarships.com) as the T4 with everything continuing on the same until T7 where it'd use the 1930's Fast BB design that was here USN 1934 Fast Battleship - Player Tech Tree and Ship Suggestions - World of Warships official forum (until WG deleted it, the suggestion was really in depth and an enjoyable read, they also made this: USN Large Cruiser Line Proposal - Tier 6-10 - Player Tech Tree and Ship Suggestions - World of Warships official forum which has also been deleted.) but the ship would use 9 (3x3 set up) of the New Mexico's guns, have a 30knot top speed. After that it'd continue on the same as how I have now, until T10 which would be another Prelim Iowa design that has 4 triples only now it'd be replaced with twin 406mm/56cal guns that fire the mk8 at 800+m/s since they'd be more powerful than the 50cal's used on the Montana and the Iowa. I'd rather keep Mobile Bay since it would add more variety to the line, which is something I think the current US BB split lacked since every ship was a 1920's SD or a heavily modified Tillman 1 in Vermont. I'll admit that the line suffers from too many gun caliber changes with it being: 8in - 10in (8in side grade) - 12in - 14in - 14in - 12in - 16in - 16in - 8in. Yours's meanwhile: 12in - 14in - 14in - 16in - 16in - 16in - 16in and the redone line that I might switch it to: 10in - 14in - 14in - 14in - 16in - 16in -16in I don't know if the changes I'm proposing to my line make it better but it'd probably be more consistent.
  10. skytank_invader

    American Battlecruiser Split

    Technically speaking it should go either: Phoenix Omaha ———————Mobile Bay Or: Phoenix Omaha Dallas——Pensacola——Mobile Bay I’m only saying that since the T5 and T6 are closer to the Omaha class than any of the battleships the US made, assuming we’re removing tiers 2-4. If we’re keeping the T4 but just adjusting it the the line should instead go like this. St. Louise South Carolina————--Phoenix Wyoming——Providence | New York Mobile Bay <— Omaha (I know their beautiful aren’t they). Anyways how are Brooklyn and Providence OP? I get Seattle she’s a cruiser that would struggle at T4 probably but still fill a niche role of a battleship by absorbing larger guns with her heavier armor than the rest of the T4 CL’s since she’d be the only CA/ACR at the tier. While at T3 she can do the same role just now with HE spam that her armor could for short periods of time endure. In actually I used to think of potential making a line of USN CA’s that split off of the Erie at T1 and the only major difference would be the Olympia at tier 3 and the refitted version of the Tennessee class ACR’s being the T4 and some other proto Pensacola design fulfilling the T5 slot. Back on topic, but are they OP because of how their sigma are or is it something else? Since even with the speed advantage over the other T2 ships she is still out gunned, and in the event it get out flanked they’d be easy to kill. The British guns could probably put her down thanks to her weak belt. As for Providence you said it’d probably over preform but how? It’s a Wyoming with less armor, one less turret, and to make up for it is a higher top speed and better sigma. As icebreaker bows go she’d definitely have one of the smaller ones. The 2.0 sigma was to make up for the weaker armor. At higher tiers she’d probably make a good pick as a cruiser killer. So yah I’ll lower it to 1.8 (eventually). How about to make it different from New Mexico in terms of guns I raise the reload to 30sec and lower the sigma to 1.8, it’d still be more accurate than New Mexico. But not have too much of an advantage. The 140mm invisible waterline plate isn’t mentioned so it isn’t there, though to remove it from Samoa specifically it would require WG to edit PR damage model. Besides that I’m surprised you didn’t see that Samoa and the next ship also have DFAA. There were other designs to choose from I just picked this one to give people the closest this line gives to what the Lady Lex was going to be. Beside the T6, which is what the Lady Lex was going to be before the Hood showed up. (thanks Britain, because of you America didn’t build the worlds fastest and most heavily armed BC, I hope your happy). No it doesn’t, but I thought it’d make sense for an American ship to be a no fly zone that could help the teams DD’s and CA/CL’s in shooting down aircraft. As for the reload, I’d rather have it raised to match Texas and have the sigma lowered to 1.8. As for Louisiana (eventually) I’ll turn it into a premium and replace it with another ship equipped with the 406mm/56cal guns with a new lighter shell so it can surpass Slava and Izumo in terms ridiculous pen numbers. It’ll still be on an Iowa hull, or really an Iowa preliminary design so it’ll still have the speed advantage over Montana, Ohio, and Vermont. Anyway the closest thing there is in game to Louisiana would be Lyon since they have the same salvo size just that one is heavier than the other and three tiers lower. But besides that Louisiana probably is one of the last things the community needs since everyone is already complaining about ships such as Smallensk and all the HE spamming ships, this would be like those but on steroids since it’ll have the Des Moines AP making it a Minotaur’s worst nightmare once it and a Des Moines radar spotts them.
  11. skytank_invader

    American Battlecruiser Split

    When it comes to turret layout Mobile isn’t that different from any other ship in the line besides the tier 4, which is the only ship where it’s main battery isn’t perfectly split in half. The Mobile could work since with there only being two turrets it means you have to get used to the idea of halving half your potential firepower only accessible in most circumstances. Plus with her whole bet covering the ship it could giver her an added level of survivability that most US ships wouldn’t get, sure it’s not a full on icebreaker bow but it still provides a safety net (or maybe not). Really it doesn’t matter to much which of the three 8 gun designs that have their MB split in half would be chosen for a tier 5. Though funnily enough I think one of the reasons the USN stopped the fast Wyoming’s was because the Kongō’s had the same number of gun just with more oomph. I’d honestly love for my proposed Samoa’s final hull to be turned into a tier 8 premium BB since that way you have Montana secondary guns at a tier where 5in secondaries can be threatening compared to the larger Graf Zeppelin’s secondaries. (I use the 5in/54 because I used the art that Trolzi made for it that said it had 16 5in/54 guns instead of the PR’s 5in/38’s.) All of the designs besides the 8inch armored fast BB use the 6in/42’s (or whatever caliber Worcester’s guns are), but this design specifically called for the use of the 5in/38 (or maybe it would’ve used the Montana’s secondaries).
  12. skytank_invader

    American Battlecruiser Split

    I think what they were going for was that the definition of what is a BC, fast BB, and a Cruiser Killer (Deutschland’s, Azuma, and Alaska’s) is a very hard to define subject. For instance in the original configuration of the Admiral class they were called battlecruisers, yet after the intensive redesign the Hood was classified as both a battlecruiser and as one of the worlds first fast battleships. Alternatively I could call Nagato a BC because it has really light armor for a battleship and it’s much faster than any of its contemporaries beside the Queen Elizabeth class. Meanwhile you have something like say the Littorio’s, the Iowa’s, and the Scharnhorst’s all of which are fast battleships. Yet depending on who you ask the later two are either a BB and a BC, a BC and a BB, or both of them are BC’s. The last one’s are somewhat harder to classify since most are called battlecruisers or in the Deutschland’s case “pocket battleships” (seriously that term needs to go die already they don’t have armor capable of resisting any meaningful BB’s secondary battery let alone their main battery) anyways as Y_Nagato stated above most of them are up scaled cruisers and less de armored battleships. If anyone wants a post 1920’s BC look at the Kronstadt and Siegfried. Both of which are equipped with 6 38cm guns that are relatively equal or better to what the navy that would’ve fielded them used, plus they had sufficient armor to withstand slightly larger guns than the Alaska’s and Azuma’s could handle.
  13. skytank_invader

    American Battlecruiser Split

    (i’m not defending what they did to the 1920’s SD i’m just saying it happened, albeit now we kinda need a line split for faster low tier BB’s but whatever) Only the tier 2 and 3 are Cruisers, everything past that is a BB as far as the game goes. There are many different designs of making a BC version of the Wyoming I went with the one with a 10 gun broadside that came at the cost of armor. As for Mobile Bay well there are three separate choices of a Lexington class prelim with 8 356mm turrets, the one mentioned above, a conventional layout with 4x2 turrets similar to Hood and Bismark, then finally a design with a triple and twin forward and a triple as a rear turret. If I wanted to be boring I’d pick the boring conventional one, but I thought it wouldn’t stand out much among the Kongo and the Russian tier 5 in turret layout. Plus they all have a 5in belt but Mobile Bay is the only one that covers the entire ship. Fair enough if anything Guam would’ve been a better choice, but I went with the CA2-D because I know a lot of people didn’t get PR, plus between the two design this one is slightly closer to a BB than Alaska which is an overweight cruiser. There also is a battlecruiser design the USN made that had 9 New Mexico guns in an Iowa turret set up but I forgot about it after I finished making tiers 2-8 so I thought screw it. I believe it could go at 30knots. I would have used Iowa in this line but that’d mean I’d have to find a suitable replacement (which isn’t hard since in the spring style archives alongside the tier 8 ship is what the USN called at the time a fast battleship that had 12 406mm/50cal guns that is basically a proto Montana in 1919 or 1915 and it’s both lighter yet faster than the tier 8 ship at the same time despite having equivalent armor). Louisiana doesn’t have the 6inch DP guns because there isn’t a design with both a 35knot top speed, 12 6in DP guns, and 12 406mm guns in Norman Friedman’s book that I could find
  14. skytank_invader

    American Battlecruiser Split

    Yes, which is why I pointed out that their ACR’s and that with the planed modernizations they are the closest thing to an early tier BC that doesn’t go 35knots, only have 4 guns of 356mm or larger, and not have a belt made of paper. I could have had the line split from either the South Carolina or Omaha but I felt that having dedicated ships that get you more used to the lines somewhat consistent gameplay instead of just chucking you in with later tiers would be better. Admittedly those are the most out lying ships in the line, but their also the only ship in the line that were completed.
  15. skytank_invader

    American Battlecruiser Split

    Yeh, if anything they should come simultaneously since the British and Germans were in a navel arms race against each other. With ships like Hood being designed to specifically counter the 15in Mackensen, design the British obtained. Which lead the Germans actually laying down the Earst Yorck class to counter the Admirals.
×