• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles


Community Reputation

51 Good

About Phaere

  • Rank
    Master Chief Petty Officer
  • Birthday
  • Portal profile Phaere

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Portal profile Phaere

Recent Profile Visitors

167 profile views
  1. Even if the French 15" guns end up good in-game the n1 only having 1 extra gun over the Tier 8 with no other real improvements put up against Tier 9's would be stupid. The n2 would indeed be safe but it would also be boring, it would end up being a smaller and lighter version of most the T9's we already have. I still see a problem with displacement, these 2 designs are still treaty battleships and would have health comparable to the North Carolina. The n3 design would be the most exciting imo has better armor and higher displacement (more health) and it would be something rather unique at Tier 9 and I don't feel having 12x 15" guns would end up OP at tier 9 even if they turn out good. Imo that idea for progression would make the higher tier french battleships as boring to progress through as the British Battleships; with KGV, Monarch, and Lion all looking basically the same and playing mostly the same.
  2. There were 3 design proposals for the Alsace. N1, N2, and N3. N1 which is as you describe would of had a 3x3 15" gun setup. While it would of been the most likely to be built due to size restrictions and etc, its the weakest of the Alsace designs offering no real improvement in armor or displacement over the Richelieu at Tier 8. I'm sorry but this design is simply to small and weak for Tier 9. N2 a slight improvement over the N1 design mounting 3x3 16" guns instead. Overall this design would be very similar to the North Carolina. Despite the larger gun caliber the armor and displacement is no different that the N1 design and the Richelieu (35000t). This ship is still basically a treaty battleship and would be more comparable to Tier 8s. N1 and N2 would have a similar armor layout to the Richelieu with a 330mm belt, 16.1" barbettes, and 17" turret faces. N3 is the largest and most powerful of the designs. Increased size and displacement; around the size of the Iowa-class at ~265m in length, >45000t displacement, and producing 220000 shaft horse power. Would mount 12x 15" guns in 3-quad turrets and the secondary armament would be as powerful as the post-war Jean Bart with 3x3 6" guns 12x2 100mm guns. Due to the increased displacement and firepower this design would be a much more fitting ship to put at Tier 9 for the French Battleship line. N3 would feature greater armor protection with 350mm on the belt and would most likely feature more armor in other area's as well.
  3. Immunity zone calculations are probably also done factoring in all the armor before the belt as well. The outer hull on top of the belt is 38mm sts, then there are 2 16mm hts plates between that and the belt, the 310mm belt is laminated with an additional 22mm of sts and there is a 16mm sts plating between the belt and the machinery spaces. As for the topic at hand I feel the citadel should be where they were histoically for all ships. For the Iowa and Montana that would roughly be at the waterline. I wouldn't count the air intake / outtakes as part of the engine citadel, and for the old citadel model the raised section of the magazine citadel was simply ridiculous any diagram shows the powder / ammo rooms being below the waterline.
  4. I would definitely like to see the West Virginia and/or Maryland as a hull upgrade to the Colorado or as a premium. Those 5" /38s, extra bulk, and newer superstructures just makes them look amazing. The modern tech installed on the standards made them go from ugly (imo) to quite beautiful ships. Sure there might be some balancing issues but we already got the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau which are honestly ridiculous and the upcoming King George V and Nelson which will further make the Colorado look like scrap in comparison. Giving her the Maryland or West Virginia hull would just put her back on par with stronger and stronger competition. And because I'm a sucker for 3-gun turrets I'd also like to see her:
  5. A modified april 1938 BB proposal would fit better as a Tier 10 than the BB-65-2 in my opinion. Better guns with the 9x 457mm /47 guns. Better armor with a 375mm belt sloped downwards @ 19 degrees, 533mm barbettes, 508mm turret faces, and 425mm bulkheads. The only thing that would need to be adjusted is the powerplant / speed. Since it's about the same size as the Iowa just throw in the Iowa's 200,000 SHP engines so it can go 30+ knots.
  6. I'm perfectly fine with the Monarch at Tier 8 as it's an early design study of the KGV and fits much better at the tier than the KGV does. Though I do not agree with replacing Nelson with KGV. I like KGV, I just like Nelson more. She's unique and got character (despite being a bit ugly). + she's on of the big 7 which should belong in the tech tree like the other Big 7's.
  7. I hope they keep Nelson at Tier 7 tech tree. It's pretty unique and I was gonna play through the RN BB line simply for that ship. Big 7 at Tier 7 Please. Not saying I dislike the KGV, it's a really cool ship too imo. I just want Nelson more than KGV. Phoenix's solution is also acceptable.
  8. There's nothing really scary with those 450mm guns except the muzzle velocity but it really doesn't amount to much. Shell weight is basically on par with other nations 18" gun designs (except the USN), but the armor penetration is simply terrible, In terms of belt penetration the French 15" gun is better at almost all ranges. Something really went wrong with the design of those shells. If you want a really scary 18" gun lets look at the USN 18" /47 gun with super heavy shells: 1746kg (400kg heavier), 732mps muzzle velocity, 16" of belt penetration @27900 meters.
  9. According to sea group the Tier X only has 11" of belt armor... L2 was designed with 15" of belt armor, even the G / K battlecruisers were designed with 12-14" of belt armor. So I have no Idea where WG is getting their sekrit documents for the Tier X.
  10. I don't know why WG is so afraid to nerf the Khab. Having 7% higher winrate than the Groz, Shima, and Gearing along with >50% more damage then them is simply not okay, it's a blatantly OP ship and needs to be put in line with the others. Get rid of the troll 50mm armor that lets it bounce cruiser and battleship shells and makes it quite resistant to the HE of other destroyers. Nerf the guns (and keep them nerfed) don't just nerf them and buff them right back up later like you did last patch. While the RoF is fine since it's historical, it's HE damage needs to be brought down. Replace the OF-46 shell with the OFU-46 shell which has a much smaller bursting charge and therefore lower HE damage (5.95lb compared to the 7.8lb on the current shell, for comparison the 5" /38 shell used on gearing has a 7.5lb bursting charge). With how big and heavy the ship is reduce the speed down to 40-41 knts and slow down it's acceleration and deceleration.
  11. The Tillman designs are quite honestly completely ridiculous and in no way viable to build. For a Tier 10 i'd rather see the April 1938 Iowa preliminary design: 9x 457mm /47(48) caliber guns in 3 turrets firing a 3800lb shell. 375mm belt angled at 19 degrees. 27.5 knts (can be buffed to 30 like montana). In all honesty the design is impossible as is, as its the same size as the Iowa. To fit those guns it would need to be bigger and have a greater displacement, but it's still much more practical then any Tillman design. On topic of standard battleships I would definitely like to see Nevada at Tier 5, New Mex with Idaho refit or Tennessee at Tier 6, with Colorado receiving either the West Virginia or Maryland refit at tier 7. Having the 5" /38 secondaries would really put that AA "national flavor" back into early USN battleships since AA pretty much got usurped by the german battleships until you finally get the NC at tier 8. Doesn't help that the "brawling" role WG originally designed the standards around also got usurped by the Germans and they don't have enough accuracy to effectively fight in mid-range so better secondaries would give them a bit more bite at the ranges you need to fight in. I'm a real fan of the standards, especially in looks after the 1940's refits. I'm not a major fan of how they are in game currently. The current game meta has just made them a bit meh compared to everything else.
  12. It doesn't help that Henri IV is using the shells from this gun: http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNFR_94-50_m1902.php same 220kg weight and bad penetration, air drag, and krupp value indicative of a WWI / pre-WWI shell. This is supposed to be a hypothetical "modern" 240mm gun and French shells of the 1930's and early 40s were quite heavy, had very good ballistics, and were a very low-drag design. A ship shouldn't be balanced around captain skills and you shouldn't need IFHE to make the shells actually do something other than shatter.
  13. From the images from the daily bounce it shows no belt on the Henry IV, does it have a internal belt similar to the Iowa and some other USN ships? and If so how thick is the belt armor?
  14. The Des Moines' guns were simply not capable of any sort effective AA ability. They couldn't elevate the guns high enough, nor train / elevate the guns fast enough. Simply look at the mount and turret data of the 8" /55 Mk 16 and the 8" /55 Mk 71 to see why. http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_Main.php Technically speaking you could have sailors stand on the deck of a ship and fire rifles at aircraft, but doesn't mean it will have any sort of effect. There's not much pretending they simply were not capable AA guns. Many Japanese guns also supposedly had AA ability with their san-shiki beehive rounds. But they were a completely useless. They were terrible at AA duty for the same exact reason the Des Moines' guns; lack of elevation angle and training / elevation rate to properly track aircraft.
  15. The Henry IV is huge, holy crap. It's much bigger than I expected. Not quite Moskva size but still quite big.