Jump to content

Trainspite

Supertester
  • Content Сount

    1,525
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    16

Community Reputation

445 Excellent

About Trainspite

  • Rank
    Lieutenant Junior Grade
  • Birthday June 3
  • Insignia

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    No
  • MSN
    Nope
  • Website URL
    Nahh
  • ICQ
    Nada
  • Yahoo
    Negatory
  • Jabber
    Nosirree
  • Skype
    Actually, no.

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    The Garden of England.

Recent Profile Visitors

2,694 profile views
  1. Trainspite

    ST, British event arc and Lunar New Year

    Ever the harbinger of historically laden disappointment I seem to be. It's one more thing to add to the end of future thread of mistakes. This is another line I will dutifully ignore too, barring a time when/if the ships and gameplay style are brought in for questioning and re-evaluation. Which is behind RN BBs and DDs in priority, and even CLs which could use some cleaning up with separate CL splits.
  2. Trainspite

    ST, British event arc and Lunar New Year

    Unfortunately, it isn't a historical scheme (way to round out my complaints about the entire line - even the camouflage is wrong.) The Victorian schemes had a black lower hull with white superstructure/upper hull and (buff/yellow) funnels. The East Indies scheme had a 507C light grey hull and upperworks with Primrose Yellow funnels only. The China station scheme was a 507C hull with 507B home fleet dark grey superstructure before being replaced by 507C all over. I haven't found any ships with a white hull and yellow superstructure in photos as of yet. A giveaway of their non-authenticity is close to the stern too. Sure it looks nice (if not historically accurate), but having text plastered over the stern ruins it for me. A bit of a let down from the clean Italian camouflages which I do appreciate.
  3. Trainspite

    Bismarck And Hood. Last conquest Camo Accurate?

    As said before, WG's Last Conquest camouflage is very much wrong and has absolutely no connection to Hood or the RN. There are numerous mistakes with a lot of camouflage schemes in game, and sometimes just questionable choices. Grey schemes are still camouflages at the end of the day, and with all the flashy schemes in game, perhaps gone are the days that a smart one or two tone scheme would be considered boring. The most recent release, Indomitable has a fair few which I put at the end of this post. I would recommend surfing the model warships forum and relevant threads and discussion regarding Hood's colours if you hadn't found them already. At least for me it is interesting to follow how the final result as presented on the Hood Association website got there. http://www.shipmodels.info/mws_forum/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=167359 http://www.shipmodels.info/mws_forum/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=166899
  4. Trainspite

    ST, test ships changes

    You could gauge my disappointment about how many British ships I have in game too. I FXP'd to Leander immediately after the release of RN CLs. I currently have a stock Edinburgh that I have rarely played. On the RN BBs, I have a partially upgraded Orion. It's been around for ages. I haven't even started RN DDs or CVs. Knowing that most of these ships are wrong/fake/poorly balanced kind of sucks away any kind of joy I would get out of playing them. Although with CVs, it is more just a CV issue, I haven't ever got up to speed with them since the rework. As far as premiums go, they have fared better. I have had Warspite since OBT. Nelson was a gift. DoY and Dreadnought arrived from missions. I saved enough doubloons for Vanguard since I believe her to be a good example of a premium ship. Hood has recently arrived from a gifted crate, I refused to buy her since I find Hood being a premium objectionable. Gallant also came from a free crate. Belfast and Campbeltown were bought on release. I spent some pocket change to acquire Cossack from the armoury while that event was ongoing. I also bought Exeter, although that is purchase I am now sceptical of. It could be worse, but it is by no means ideal/what I would prefer. This does mean Thunderer is the only RN premium I don't have, and will never get since I dislike it (for being a premium 457 Conq instead of a regular, and for being a fake ship stealing a name from authentic Lion class designs). At least until London and Cheshire arrive. One of those is also fake, and the other is one of the most unfun and frustrating experiences in the entire game. It's surprising I have so many, but I guess a better proportion would be the ships I actually spent money to get, those being Warspite, Belfast, Campbeltown, Cossack and Exeter. I also invested myself in getting Cossack, Dreadnought and DoY, though the latter was more because I enjoyed the game enough to grind out so I could get some some RN eye candy in port. I fear I could be wrong on some counts with some RN CA issues, I am young and relatively inexperienced, but I trust my gleaning well enough to pick out the reliable sources. One day with more time and money I will visit the archives myself. I guess some ships just don't get along nicely with the game. It does depend on implementation to a large degree though. I believe there are ways to make these things work, nothing is really irredeemable, within reason. Except the fake ships. I have no pity for them. I think London was a decent choice for a premium ship. She is the only County rebuilt in such an extensive manner, so at least her looks are distinctive. However there are definitely other cases for a County class premium. Suffolk, Norfolk, Berwick etc. have better war records, even if the latters was just to be the fall guy. There are also Canberra and Australia to contend with too. For balancing, trading something out would make the ship a lot more comfy. Better yet, the comfiest option would be at T7 and retaining both consumables while getting her limiting statistics fixed to be reasonable. I hadn't considered the impact of the attack of the fake clones (Thunderer, Georgia, Ohio) all being premiums. I was a bit more focused on trying to divide the regular BBs of the tier (Montana, GK and 419 Conq against Repub, Yamato and 457 Conq - before Conq turned traitor). It would be a bit of a balancing issue with the plating, being too effective against low tiers, and uncompetitive against high tiers, and that is something I would have liked to see tested and fine tuned. This would in my mind be the only such line in the game where plating plays such a key role, so with some balancing, it hopefully wouldn't become to prevalent, but I see where you are coming from. There are many bad endings/timelines that it could end up on. From my perspective I'm annoyed at Goliath for blocking a free T6 York, but swings and roundabouts. Especially since having torps on Hawkins is a better alternative to me than having a 1938/1939 design's statistics dragged forward post war so you can try make a post-war RN CA. That just results in a frankenfakeschiffe. And a bad one from a gameplay PoV at that. Speaking of, RIP Drake, now Surrey is the only RN CA worth getting out of the entire lot. Hawkins being stuffed from the start. Devon being frustrating and annoying to play. London is Devon but more extreme. Horrible game design. Albemarle has awful citadel syndrome. And is fake. I'd rather let it suffer than be buffed and compared to OP Martel and Baltimore. Cheshire is not worth talking about. Everything about it is wrong from the name to the hull. Drake and Goliath now have relatively low damage output, with little to adequately gain from it. And Goliath is in all likeliness a fake too.
  5. Trainspite

    ST, test ships changes

    One buff to range could make them far more enjoyable to play and flexible, but also too good. They are already 'reasonable', Devon more so than London since London is a ship of extremes. But as I said, they are heavily frustrating and unfun to play. You can murder T5s and T6s in the right situation, and that can be exacerbated by trying to the get the ship to not be large moving target in T6-8 games. It's very similar to Pensacola in terms of the ship naturally being too good for the tier it is at, and therefore some really hurtful nerfs have to come into play to stop the ship being runaway overpowered. In Pepsi's case, it is gutting the concealment and turret traverse. In Devon/London's case, it is the range combined with the low RoF. At the same time, Surrey isn't too far off, you could have a reasonable T7 historical County class instead of one at T6 which has very questionable value in every game you play. Surrey has a 13s reload, Devon 14, and London 15. Surrey has 14.8km range, Devon 14.0km and London 13.4km. Surrey also gets a spotter available (I'll take this to note Surrey should have two catapults as per Exeter) Surrey has 10.8km detection, Devon 11.2km, and London 11.7km (all with Camo). Surrey has a 7.5s rudder shift with 660m turning circle, Devon and London have 7.8s with 710m (Probably some doubt for Surrey being so different). There aren't really any major differences between them, and Surrey has statistics that could reasonably be applied to a T7 County. It's like WG didn't learn anything from Exeter. The initial version was very fun to play, and would have made for a great T6. The current version is strong, but more sedated. I'd rather take Aoba at T6 than either Devon or London, Aoba has some plating for some limited protection, it isn't the catch all HP repair, but it will do. Aoba has far better firepower, and is far more flexible and adaptable in battle. Having Devon sacrifice her X-turret as historical for some AA and RoF would be a positive thing for the ship overall in my opinion. London is the far bigger offender though. That ship basically needs to be a T7, crying out for it. It is probably one of the most unfun premiums I have had the pleasure of testing. My aim with the plating is to make roughly half the BB AP at the tier autobounce off the extremity plating, and near all of it off the amidships section. It also serves against DD HE, but the main aim is to reduce the impact of BB AP. Hence the T10 in an RN CA line has 30mm plating on the bow and stern and 32mm plating amidships. It's a reasonable concept for a better RN CA line to me. HP repair would appear at T8 as per the CL line, unsure if it would be of the 'rebuild the entire ship' variety though. T8 Surrey should work. The firepower is meh. Even with a 10s reload. In return I would give it 27/30mm plating, HP repair, and radar. It would be small for a T8 cruiser, so the HP repair helps alleviate the relatively low HP. The speed can be an issue, however there is a historical solution, at least if you give the ship a module upgrade to 32.2 knots. Which is what D'Eyncourt thought the speed would be if a 80,000shp powerplant was installed opposed to the 60,000shp that Surrey was planned to be built with. Radar could be thrown in for some utility. It would be a far better ship than Albemarle/Cheshire in my opinion. It has a role, it has more effective damage, and it can more effectively avoid/mitigate damage. I don't really trust WG to do such a thing, they would probably botch it, much like how Surrey's visual model is horrible compared to the actual design. It is still Hawkins at the end of the day. The ship hasn't received much buffing up or bonuses as you would say. She gets the RN CA line gimmicks of HP repair and buffed HE in return for a poor RoF, which got nerfed with those changes for some inexplicable reason. I can't count that as a net buff. Torpedoes get added in for consistency. Ignoring the AA on the B-hull and the amidships director, WG did a decent model of 1930s condition Hawkins. The rear three guns (X, Y, Z) are the main offenders for firing angles. X gets trapped by cables which usually get ignored, Y stops when firing a shell when the gun isn't elevated, but can be improved further if the gun was only to elevate and fire. Z is a candidate for getting 360 traverse. It is Y's arcs that are the worst, and they would still be poor, but it is no reason to not make it slightly more comfortable. X is also still bugged last I checked. The ballistic changes are needed, considering Hawkins got the worst drag value in the game on her 7.5" IIRC. They'll still be meh arcs, but not unusable on everything except 20 knot BBs at 13-14km anymore. Combine the above with a not insignificant RoF buff to historical parameters and a soft stat buff in rudder shift. It will still be Hawkins, but a lot more enjoyable and effective to play. It certainly should put paid to the notion of it being a T4 candidate. When the line is eventually released, I'll go check over them again. Then I'll probably go drop a thread listing a rather significant amount of errors. Seeing as how Indomitable has just been approved for sale despite having all her Octuple 40mm pompoms swapped out for quadruple 40mm pompoms, WG don't seem to care too much for premiums that they try and get more accurate than regular ships. It seems to be a case of once it is done, it is done. So London can be very much correct (except the camouflage being totally wrong), while Indomitable has silly AA mistakes on it. Oh and Indomitable's camouflage has some quite numerous mistakes too;
  6. Trainspite

    ST, test ships changes

    It should theoretically be solid, but they aren't. They are extremely unfun and frustrating to play, since you are either out of range, or waiting for the reload. Add in that they also eat damage due to being large targets with no special plating. One moment you can murder T6s that try and challenge you within 13km, and next you are useless, being outspotted, with little to no means of fighting back, waiting on a reload that most of the time will not deliver good results. Especially against T7s and 8s, the nerfs they received to fit into T6 makes them borderline unplayable, you have to rely on enemies running straight to you, because you have no capacity to do anything otherwise. If you had a 12s reload on both London and Devon, with 15 to 16km range, they would be far nicer ships to play, far more flexible, better suited to being T7s, while being just as 'interesting' as they are now. Obviously I would rather they both be T7. Replace the HP Repair with 26/30mm extremity/amidships plating at T7, (25/27 for T6). Make Kent or Norfolk the regular T7, Devonshire gets her X-turret removed as per her modelled condition and can be used as a T6/7 premium as such. London is particularly egregious with 13.4km range, that ship really needs to be T7, because being able to murder T5/6s with ease and then utterly fail in any T7/8 (and some T6) games is poor gameplay design. It needs to be more well rounded, less extreme. It would be a lot more fun to play, and would probably sell better as a premium ship too. I haven't paid attention to any CC reviews in a long time. It wouldn't take much effort to create a happy T7 London/Devon from Surrey being there now. However Surrey as a T8 would be better than Albemarle currently is anyway, and I have no doubt that I could create a balanced ship out of her at T8, even if that tier is very unwelcoming to 8x 203mm CAs. I could probably repost my stats for the superior RN CA line(TM) out of the redacted forum and here, but suffice to say, a 10s reload, 27/30mm plating, HP repair and near best in class maneuverability at T8 compared to others should see Surrey through. Oh, I had radar as an option somewhere for T8-10 too, although that isn't a necessary carry over. The only ships worth getting at the moment are Surrey and Drake. Hawkins is Hawkins, London and Devon are frustrating as all hell. Albemarle is a Neptune hull and hence absurdly vulnerable, technically balanced, but winning no awards and just as annoying to play. I wouldn't recommend any buffs to it, just because Martel and Baltimore are still OP at T8 as ever. Cheshire is not worth any semblance of thought. Goliath is a whole bunch of meh, a buff wouldn't go amiss for her. Hawkins can be fun. The distributed armour allows the ship to survive surprisingly long, and allows some ballsy moves. I identified 5 major problems with the ship upon first sight. The reload, the ballistics, the firing angles, the rudder shift, and the accuracy. The rudder shift and firing angles are rather unnecessarily bad and combine to make the armament that is already inflexible harder to use. The rate of fire seems to be the trade off for the HP repair, but I would rather a 10s reload than the HP repair at this point. With questionable single mount accuracy and ballistics that don't make things easy, the ship needs to be able to output more. The citadel surprisingly doesn't factor much despite it being disproportionately large. The ship would be a natural T5 if WG only gave it stats that would allow it's better use there. The HP repair is part of the RN CA traits, but should probably be scrapped, it is arguably less important here than the reload. The torpedoes aren't really necessary, and they make very little difference (it is just a case of WG adding them for consistency - Trento/Furutaka A/B etc.). The AA is typical WG. Hawkins 1943/1945 AA would certainly be capable of T5. But WG modelled 1930s Hawkins (with the wrong amidships director I might add), and so haven't bothered transferring her AA over. It is certainly not a natural T4, since with the current stats it would still be just as appalling clumsy to play and no more effective outside of just being bigger than other cruisers. (For reference, I created this for Hawkins late war AA). WG deciding to throw in twin 102mm, 13.2mm quads and an extra pair of 40mm quads is simply nonsensical. The RN CA traits seem to be one tier too low and long reloads inherited from Italian cruisers, HE damage and range inherited from Japanese cruisers, with an HP repair thrown in. It's hardly a very attractive line. At least when compared to what I envision for RN CAs, which would be relatively low damage guns/thick armour plating. Hawkins is the only RN CA at the correct tier outside of Goliath, and suffers disproportionately more with a lower RoF thanks to the nature of her guns on top of that. I would argue it is not all the fault of the ship if WG are giving it statistics that are unsuited to it. A 10s reload would be the best buff Hawkins can receive, buffed to her upper historical parameter as quoted by navweaps. Personally for balancing Hawkins I would also buff HP to 34,300 as Hawkins was very large for her time and had a full displacement of close to 13,000t IIRC. 23/25mm plating would be added to the ship by my balancing proposal for RN CAs. The rudder shift going to 7s would also be a large help, and doing a Cossack on her firing angles would help (i.e. - not limiting them on the first thing that may obstruct a shells potential path). The ship is already a pretty decent fire setter at T5, and if only the RoF was better, she could start to shed the label of being a flop. She doesn't need to be completely equal to gold standard Furutaka, but the ship has the promise of performing well at T5, it is just hidden behind WG's arbitrary stats.
  7. Trainspite

    ST, test ships changes

    It shows promise as a T5. It could be good. But the stats that WG have given Hawkins hold her back in so many ways. Most of those stats are unnecessary, as if WG want it to be purposefully bad. T4 Hawkins is still a no-no. It's already bad enough that the rest of the RN CAs are hamstrung by being at a tier too low. Just like how London and Devon are fairly crap at T6 while Surrey excels at T7 proving what they could be. I'd rather not have a frustrating and inflexible T4 Hawkins to add to the disappointment of RN CAs. Keep at T5 and let it get a buff to any or all of 10s reload, 7s rudder shift, firing angle buffs and accuracy.
  8. No 131.5kg AP shells for Albemarle then, very sad. Things could be worse, they could be gimmicked to all heck and back. I do appreciate some of the changes, base cruiser hydro/Def AA, the plating isn't needlessly worse like the RN DDs and CLs. At the same time, giving so much focus over to the HE (with the long RoF) takes away from the AP of the 9.2". Obviously I would prefer my own balancing for them though, in place of the HP repair (which gets introduced at T8), you have bow/stern/amidships plating that can bounce some of the AP shells the ships are likely to meet (below ends/mid) T5: 23/25mm T6: 25/27mm T7: 26/30mm T8: 27/30mm + HP Repair T9: 29/31mm + HP Repair T10: 30/32mm + HP Repair Add in a few other features like Single fire torps, and others that you could suggest, and you have a character for the line, being tankier to an extent, but with relatively low effective DPM. Insert York at T6, change Devon's name to Norfolk, kick Goliath out, and push the rest up a tier, and I would be a lot more excited for this line. The prevailing winds show that Drake should be the T10, not Goliath. Goliath very much seems like the type of ship that should be a T10 FXP/Coal/Steel premium. Drake on the other hand is silly. 9.6km max concealment is a bit of a meme for a cruiser of that size and firepower. It's one of the two ships in the line I would currently consider getting, if only it wasn't littered with historical errata (Triple shafts, raised rear turret, torpedo cut out in hull, wrong style of 9.2" turret, wrong machinery listed, unusual type of 4.5" fitted etc.) Surrey's performance makes the case very well that Devon and London should be T7. I very much prefer the extra flexibility of Surrey, feeling more capable, instead of being a tier too low, but being relatively inflexible as Devon/London are right now. For the same reasons I liked Pensacola while she was at T7, but at T6 she sucks the fun out of playing the game, as if the ship is working against you at every turn. Given the ships get the HP repair though, there isn't a reason these ships should be a tier down. Of course I believe Surrey would make a better T8 than Albemarle too. Having a competitive RoF on a buffed up Surrey hull instead of a vulnerable Neptune hull which feels relatively clumsy. I get the feeling German BCs might be hinted at from Eitel existing (like Exeter before this disappointment of a CA line). But given what fate has befallen the RN CA designs (ignored and cannibalised into a fake - Albemarle/Goliath), I'm very concerned. I did think these models had been rushed in production, but perhaps butchering the designs is an acceptable shortcut to WG.
  9. Ach, I'd missed the drag difference for Surrey/Devon against London. Serves me right for only working with the in port data. Assuming Devonshire and Surrey have the same shells as Albemarle, then Albemarle is using the wrong AP shells, alongside Devonshire and Surrey having the wrong shells outright. Regardless, as time goes on, watching/playing these Italian/Japanese hybrid feeling RN CAs is like watching a relative slowly succumb to Alzheimers. Perhaps I am too bitter about T6-9 being a tier too low and the many unnecessary and fixable historical errors, but my enthusiasm wains. Probably shows considering how little effort I have put into obtaining the RN BBs, CVs and DDs (up to T4, 4 and 2 respectively).
  10. Devon and Surrey having the wrong velocity with the right shells is just one of the errors/mistakes I picked up on but have not yet seen a fix. Unfortunately it has been over two months since I first pointed these out. I'd estimate about a month more before things are too far gone towards release and I will drop a rather long passive aggressive list of grievances.
  11. Trainspite

    Viribus Unitis - DO NOT BUY

    I beg to differ from my experience. It wasn't close to Nikolai V2.0. Definitely strong and worthy of a nerf before a release at T4, but it wouldn't break that tier if released as it was, though I would think it should have had some changes from that state before release. There were enough disadvantages compared to the other T4 BBs that kept the ship from being too dominant. Namely the armour, HP and turret angles. Alongside the more generic T3-5 BB issues of speed and AA etc. As a tier 5... the less said about it the better.
  12. Trainspite

    List of all the 'Paper' Ships in game.

    I deliberately listed Bayern as an example of it's exclusion from the list in the description box thing, where in the A-hull is 'close enough' to historical condition (minus the newfangled directors and extra 88mm mounts), as to escape being branded in the same category as more comprehensive changes to the ship. The B-hull is obviously fictional, and if the A-hull ever gets removed, Bayern gets added. Had to reluctantly remove Orion under the same reason. Even with being a mish-mash of 1914 condition masts and secondaries with a 1915/1916 condition hull, the non-historical parts are just the rangefinders, 40mm AA, and 102mm guns on both hulls. Refits as given to Iron Duke, Konig and Kaiser cross a line and alter the ships appearance quite significantly, hence they got on the list. It's what I originally had put down, however after posting on reddit, the in game Nikolai might be one of it's preliminary designs from 1914 due to the different bow, including the first turret at a higher level, which is opposed to the pictures of Nikolai's hull I've seen. The hull has all a flush deck, and an icebreaker bow as per Gangut.
  13. Trainspite

    List of all the 'Paper' Ships in game.

    That is what WG want people to believe Monarch is. Truth is that Monarch is a Frankenstein of more than KGV preliminaries. The major issues below; The hull is a clone of Duke of York's/ Old T8 KGV B-hull. It is a longer hull than the one 15" armed KGV preliminary designs, in the region of 2m. It's not much, and could have been a change later in design development, but not accurate to the design of 15C. The turrets are of the wrong style. They seem to have been copied from Nelson, rather than being the flat faced style the RN had moved to come the genesis of the KGVs. The data set of the 15"/45 Mk.II is applied to them. The secondaries are wrong for 15C. 15C and the other 15" armed preliminaries had 10x 2 4.5" a la QE or Renown as rebuilt. These designs were dropped in October/November 1935, before the 5.25" was adopted. You could take it and run with the 5.25", but it isn't necessary, esp when the 4.5" are better in game and more historically accurate to the design. The lattice masts are completely out of place. The statcard reported 'as of1945' as a date, but not even Vanguard had these masts. This would be a post-war refit addition. The catapult is still there for some reason, while there is a late/post war AA fit. Lion suffers from this too. All very strange things that don't fit with RN practice. Most of the stats are cloned from KGV too, Monarch Mongrel is a very lazy job. The late addition to the RN BB line that screwed things up. I'm still holding it that it gets replaced by KGV and made into a T8 premium (maybe one day). In short, Monarch is a Frankenstein of different RN BB related parts (Nelson turrets, Belfast masts, DoY hull etc.), aside from having a 9x 15"/45 data set on a KGV hull, she doesn't really come close to the 15" KGV preliminaries.
  14. Trainspite

    List of all the 'Paper' Ships in game.

    That is one way of defining it. Commissioned/ or not is a broad stroke, but I think it the most appropriate. It is a clear cut off point, while trying to sift through which designs got further is a bit messier. Additionally, even ships that were laid down don't attract that much attention, although being a capital ship helps it's notoriety.
  15. Posting this after a trial run on the WoWs reddit, and debating which section of the forum to stick this in (this is more of a resource I feel, it would just get buried in general - who knows, maybe it will even get pinned). Long story short, for over the past years I started compiling an excel document of all the paper ships in the game, as a matter of reference. A short description, date of design, and whether this was a fictional (created by WG) design or not. A list of what every paper ship is a useful resource for those interested, so I have prettied it up and pushed it out so more people can learn from it and for me to improve it. And with creating such a list, there comes the matter of defining what a paper ship is, and ships that begin to blur the lines. Therefore I find it important to clarify what I have defined a paper ship as, and so attached a small text box to each image of the list. Repeated below it is as thus; A paper ship here is classified as anything that did not enter service (commission), as well as including certain ships that were built and served that have had their gameplay and appearance dramatically altered by fictional changes. The reason for a major gameplay/appearance change is that most ships in the game has some sort of mistake, change or fictional aspect to it. Paper ships range from; - Ships almost commissioned and completed (e.g. - Graf Zeppelin). - Ships laid down, but never completed (e.g. - Amagi). - Completed designs due to be laid down, but never were (e.g. - Montana). - Preliminary designs (e.g.- Charles Martel). - Specifications for a ship, but no design completed (e.g. - Zaō). - Fictional creations by WG (e.g.- Conqueror). - Real ships (and designs) heavily edited from specification (e.g. - Huanghe, Chester). - Fictional members of a real ship class (e.g. - Harekaze). Certain ships that have a historical (or very close to) hull are excluded from this list, even if the other hull is fictional (e.g. - Orion, Bayern). Spaces marked in Orange indicate uncertainty. Fictional ships are chosen by deviation from the original design and navy practices. Nearly all ships in this list have more minor model accuracy issues. Semi-Fictional ships are ships that have significant historical design basis but also differ significantly. Additional input on any of the ships would be welcome, I'm not a student of every navy, and will have repeated a mistake or few from my gleaning. Individual lists for; Imperial Japanese Navy: United States Navy: Royal Navy: Kaislerichemarine/Kriegsmarine: Imperial Russian Navy/Voyenno-Morskoy Flot: Marine Nationale: Regia Marina: Pan-Asia: And the one huge list, that is better off opened in a new tab since it is too damn long at this point. Honestly it is just best used as a visual device to show how many there are.
×