Helstrem

Dude probably fired what he had in his tubes. Don't be so harsh.

How is any of that relevant? We're talking about AP, which is what was fired at Midway in the screenshot. If they'd have been HE they'd have shattered, not bounced.

Plunging fire really doesn't exist in this game. The ranges are, the vast majority of the time, too short. The 16"/45s on the North Carolinas and South Dakotas are about the best at it in the game, but still need to be more than 21km from the target as I recall.

And what does that do to QE class and Nagato class? (Nelson class too, but she's over performing to such a degree that it isn't relevant)

Not in a way that made her any faster. Post refit the speeds I see quoted for her are 20.5 knots and 21 knots.

Giving them fictional engine refits to make them faster than BBs that, historically, were faster than the US Standards rubs me very much the wrong way. And no, I don't like the French and German fictional engines either.

Your OP is less than clear on that point. It looks like it is saying that North Carolina, Iowa and Montana are strong if played to their strengths, but need buffs to their secondaries. Then it goes on to talk about standards. I disagree about secondary focus. It is an idiotic concept and there is a reason BBs carried those massive, heavy turrets and it wasn't because the little secondaries were going to do the heavy work. For NM and Colorado I'd look at sigma and rate of fire as places for buffs. Later war final hulls with better AA would be fine as well, but not instead of the core buffs to their guns. There are two lines that are centered around good performance of main battery, USN and IJN BBs. I'd not want to see that reduced to one.

Targeted buffs at the standards, sure, but not speed. Buffs to the North Carolina, Iowa and Montana? LOL, no. The Montana is the top pick for Tier X competitive and is very solid in randoms. North Carolina is regularly cited as the top pick for Tier VIII competitive and is also solid in randoms. Iowa, like all Tier IX tech tree ships, is overshadowed by Missouri and Musashi.

Most. Revisions happen to most ships after supertesters get them, after CCs get them. I am having difficultly thinking of one that wasn't adjusted. RN DDs, RN BBs, RN CLs, Harugumo/Kitakaze, Giulio Cesare, Hood, Haida, Cossack, Musashi, Kii, Jean Bart, Graf Spee, T-61, Prinz Eitel Friedrich, Kaga, Graf Zeppelin, Duke of York ect, ect. All changed, some radically, after reaching the CCs/Supertesters.

LOL. It is cute that you think that would have the effect you think it would. The ones hanging in the back are already quite happy with their minimal contributions prior to garbage time forced combat by opposing forces run rampant. Your suggested change would have no effect other than to drive players out of the game.

Hood's torpedo bulge mostly covers her 305mm belt, but that belt is mostly submerged. In turns I can see the torpedo bulge being above the surface. I am not sure how much water AP rounds can penetrate, and I am not sure if HE rounds can penetrate any amount of water. Overall I can't say I am fond of the idea of making torpedo bulges such a liability. Also, to those laughing at BB players, keep in mind that some non-BBs would be affected too. Myoko, for example, has her belt mostly covered by an anti-torpedo bulge.

@LittleWhiteMouse, I just took a look at my personal favorite BB, HMS Hood, to see how this might affect her. She has a torpedo bulge, but it is fully submerged, just barely. I notice Musashi and Yamato are also in this category. What kind of effect do you see happening to ships like Hood and Yamato if this change goes live?

On BBs with 20+ battles: Dunkerque: 31% Warspite: 30% Iron Duke: 28% Missouri: 28% Hood: 28% Heh. Just checked my Mikasa. 31% over 7 games, actually my 3rd highest BB main battery hit rate.

Why? The ships are relatively balanced right now. This would make them bluntly overpowered. What is the goal here? You say to help them a bit, but they don't globally need help. If you just want US ships to be better than non-US ships, you'll find that is a non-starter. Montana, for example, is the top pick Tier X BB for competitive matches. She doesn't need buffs. The US ships that do need buffs ought to have buffs targeted to them, not rely on a global buff that makes the entire nation overpowered. A 10% damage reduction is huge. Over the course of a Tier IX or X battle that can easily be effectively 15,000+ additional health. I recently had a match in HMS Hood, a Tier VII, where at the end, having burned all 5 repair parties and barely survived, I had taken over 125,000 damage in a ship with 67,700 health. A 10% damage reduction would have changed some very close calls during that fight into easy mode. As this is a game there needs to be an in game need to justify buffs. Historical stuff will provide ideas for how to do buffs, but there needs to be an in game need for the buff as well.

I am a BB main who started with cruisers, so take this with a grain of salt, but Icarus is serviceable. I've had some good games and some garbage games, but the fact that I've had good games puts her on par with only the Minekaze for DDs in my hands. Vastly better than Acasta due to the 1km stealth torp range and the hydro.