Jump to content

Lord_Magus

Members
  • Content Сount

    2,907
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    5065
  • Clan

    [VVV]

Community Reputation

617 Excellent

1 Follower

About Lord_Magus

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

1,779 profile views
  1. Lord_Magus

    Future Ship lines thread

    And that's not in any way T10 material. We already have a T10 DD (Harugumo) with that armament and in about that size range. Type 815 would be more like T7 at most. Now perhaps this abomination could be the IJN equivalent to Smolensk (but do we really need another Smolensk?):
  2. Lord_Magus

    Premium Ship Review - Yukon

    Bold of you to assume they'd reduce the price for T9 premiums in this scenario, rather than just charging even higher prices for T10 or T11 premiums.
  3. Nevermind that Flint has always outperformed Atlanta. And Atlanta is also underperforming. The rational move would've been to buff them both. Both should get 4 sec reload.
  4. It did? That's insane given that Flint was rendered pretty terrible by the commander skill rework. What was WG thinking that it would need nerfs? New Jersey in particular saw the most combat of any of the Iowas and thus it would be cool to see her in WOWS in some form. But I'm fine with letting new players get Missouri rather than adding a 3rd Iowa.
  5. Lord_Magus

    Future Ship lines thread

    Lengthening the hull by 15m was something that the designers considered in 1919 when it was still uncertain whether the ships would be completed or scrapped. But they thought that'd get them 26 knots, not 30. The French designers also really disliked amidships turrets because of how limited the firing angles were for the preceding Bretagne class's Q turret. So I rather doubt that building up an aft superstructure that interferes with the firing arcs would've been in the cards. If anything they would've added that new 15m section forward of the turret so the firing arcs would be unchanged while still leaving room for most superstructure if needed.
  6. Lord_Magus

    Future Ship lines thread

    I still maintain that F3 is the best choice for a T8 British BC, just to have a progression of all-forward guns start a tier earlier. This was one of the alternatives considered for Nelson (the slower 406mm armed design ultimately chosen was O3). It's a pity that G3 and I3 didn't have the Nelson-like layout with all 3 turrets forward of the superstructure, or at least with the Q turret pointing forward instead of aft. Though given how WG has rearranged turrets on some other ships (such as Normandie having an the amidships turret point forward when the original design actually had it as both aft-pointing and superfiring over the 3rd turret), G3 and I3 might well get their amidships turret turned around to make it easier to when approaching a target.
  7. Lord_Magus

    Missouri Stealth credit nerf.

    It's not. That actually should be done. Minus giving existing Musashi owners a special reload module. I say this as an existing Musashi owner. As it stands she's a T9½ ship that gets regular T9 matchmaking.
  8. Yes, aircraft carriers were OP as **** in real life naval combat. So want them to also be OP as **** in WOWS
  9. Lord_Magus

    Future Ship lines thread

    In case anybody is wondering why this is called a battleship, that's for London Naval Treaty purposes. Under the treaty limits, 17.5k tons was the smallest allowable battleship. If somebody wanted to build a treaty-busting cruiser and call it a battleship, it would need to be a very large and expensive ship that would eat up a lot of their allotted battleship tonnage. France also considered a 17.5 ton "battleship" as part of the design process that eventually produced the 26.5k ton Dunkerque. 17.5k tons is also exactly half of the maximum size allowed for a treaty battleship. UP.90 and 102 would've been in violation of the treaty because of this (guns too big for a cruiser, displacement too small for a battleship, and export warships built by treaty powers were still required to be treaty-compliant), had the treaty still been applicable when Ansaldo was offering them. But the LNT expired in 1936 and Italy didn't sign the Second London Naval Treaty, so at that point their only restrictions were budget and physical capacity to build a given ship. Oh, and on the subject of supercruisers using the minimum size allowed under the treaties, here's a British 18.5k ton battlecruiser for Greece armed with 3x2 254mm/50 guns: I wanted to call her HS Kountouriotis, but a destroyer was already using that name at the time of her design so I decided on Themistoklis instead. She'd make for a decent T8 European cruiser.
  10. Lord_Magus

    Future Ship lines thread

    Not to mention his T10 is INS Viraat, a ship that India didn't enter Indian service until 1987. I seriously doubt WG would add an angled deck CV flying Sea Harriers.
  11. Lord_Magus

    ST 0.9.7, Kitakami

    But imagine how a training room with 12v12 Kitakamis could kill everybody's framerate by all launching at once.
  12. Lord_Magus

    Future Ship lines thread

    If that happens then I'd say put 155 Mogami in the CL line and make Takao the new T8 CA instead of 203 Mogami. While the T9-10 CLs would be 155 versions of Ibuki and Zaō. I'd give them the names Yodo and Shiroishi since those are rivers in the vicinity of Mt Ibuki and and Mt Zaō, and IJN CLs were named for rivers. Shiroishi would get 4x4 155mm, because autoloaders on an IJN CL would feel weird. As for the mid tiers, I'd put Agano at T5 just like her premium sister ship Yahagi. T6 would be the C-44 Kai-Agano design (name-wise any river would do, but let's say Chikugo since postwar a JMSDF DE class used that name). And T7 I'd fill with Niyodo (the proposed sister ship of the aviation cruiser Ōyodo) modified by removing the seaplane hangar and large catapults in favor of doubling her guns to 4x3 155mm. The remaining superstructure would be similar to Agano with centerline torpedo tubes and a floatplane catapult on the deck above them. All 3 of these centerline-torp CLs would get a couple of charges of torp reload boaster (and Yahagi would get buffed with this as well) because the Aganos had the same style of torpedo reload boxes as the DDs that get TRB in this game, and by extension any other CLs using the same layout would have the boxes too. And while we're messing with the IJN cruisers, the IJN CA line is a weird progression right now with Aoba at T6 with 3x2 203mm and then Myōkō at T7 with 5x2. So why not smooth that out by moving Furutaka and Aoba each down a tier and adding a 4x2 203mm design at T6? T4 Furutaka have the old A hull's 6x1 200mm and either no torps, or her 6x2 hull-mounted torps that'd have essentially no traverse to speak of. Regardless this would also mean the unique layout of the old Furutaka A hull would return, but at a tier where it wouldn't be agonizingly bad to play. Actually since 6x1 200mm is a pretty hefty armament for a T4 cruiser and it'd be quite strong to combine that with 610mm torps of any variety, maybe give this downtiered Furutaka a completely fictional set of deck-mounted triple 533mm torps instead? As for the new 4x2 203mm armed T6, I'm having trouble finding any data beyond the fact that the designs existed. But some of the preliminary designs for Myōkō had 4x2 instead of 5x2 main guns. Unfortunately the project numbers seem to be C-41 and C-42, which makes searching quite difficult since those numbers were reused for the designs that became Agano and Ōyodo. At any rate let's call this one Unzen. (BTW I'm not sure whether a Russian company like WG would want to include Suzuya in the game because of the history behind the name. The Suzuya River is on Sakhalin Island, Russia and is part of the territory seized in the Russo-Japanese War and later taken by the USSR after WW2.) So the IJN cruisers would look like this (asterisk for paper or fictional ships): Tier CL line CA line 1 Hashidate (2x2 120mm/45) 2 Chikuma (8x1 152mm/45) 3 Tenryū (4x1 140mm/50, 2x3 533mm torps) 4 Kuma (7x1 140mm/50, 4x2 533mm torps) Furutaka (6x1 200mm/50, ??? torps) 5 Agano (3x2 152mm/50, 2х4 610mm torps) Aoba (3x2 203mm/50, 2х4 610mm torps) 6 Chikugo* (C-44 Kai-Agano, 4x2 152mm/50, 2х4 610mm torps) Unzen* (C-42 pre-Myōkō, 4x2 203mm/50, 4х3 610mm torps) 7 Niyodo* (modified Ōyodo, 4x3 155mm/60, 2х5 610mm torps) Myōkō (5x2 203mm/50, 4x3 610mm torps) 8 Mogami (5x3 155mm/60, 4x4 610mm torps) Takao (5x2 203mm/50, 4x4 610mm torps) 9 Yodo* (Ibuki hull, 5x3 155mm/60, 4x4 610mm torps) Ibuki (5x2 203mm/50, 4x4 610mm torps) 10 Shiroishi* (Zaō hull, 4x4 155mm/65, 4x5 610mm torps) Zaō* (Circle Six Type A, 4x3 203mm/55, 4x5 610mm torps) My inclination here would be a CA rather than CL line for Commonwealth cruisers. Australia had several CA designs (some indigenous, some from Vickers) that could fill multiple tiers. And since I've already suggested a T4 CA above as part of tweaking the IJN line, here's a Commonwealth one as well. For T1 we could do a lazy copy-paste of one of the Black Swan class of India or Pakistan, but there's something more interesting. A passenger liner. No really. HMCS Prince David is a relatively small (5700 ton) passenger liner that was converted to an armed merchant cruiser. She was surprisingly cruiser-like in appearance after the conversion with 4x1 152mm guns in AB-XY superfiring pairs. Which might have saved her when she allegedly encountered Admiral Hipper in 1941; since German cruisers on surface raiding missions were supposed to avoid battle with enemy cruisers to avoid damage. But in reality this reported confrontation was probably invented for propaganda, and what she really chased off was a supply ship for U-boats or at most one of Germany's disguised auxiliary cruisers. She'd presumably have the largest HP pool and worst concealment of T1 "cruisers" and have no armor other than the gun shields. But it's T1, nobody really cares. Another option for T1 would be her sister ship HMCS Prince Robert which had an arguably more interesting career, but she could also potentially be a T3-4 CL premium after her conversion to an AA ship. In that configuration she mounted 5x2 102mm dual-purpose guns, 2x4 40mm pom-poms and 12x1 20mm Oerlikons. At T2 we use the Challenger class protected cruiser HMAS Encounter. (Gratuitous ship's cat photo now.) She has a very hefty armament of 11x1 152mm guns with up to 6 gun broadside, so I'm nerfing her muzzle velocity to 784m/s (the velocity using light instead of heavy charges) to make the shells floatier and reduce the AP alpha to 2800, and restricting the reload speed to 10 sec. The CL HMAS Adelaide would be my choice for T3 (she's basically the British T2 Weymouth except with the addition of an extra 152mm gun and more importantly some actual armor). During WW2 her armament was rearranged so that she had only 7 guns but retained the same 5 gun broadside. But since those refits would be counterproductive in WOWS (the AA would still be bad even after the refit, and even after subs get added a T3 ship will never see them) I'd skip those. I'm choosing her instead of HMCS Niobe because of Adelaide's historical importance of actually being built in Australia and also to lead into the T4 cruiser. There were some other further enlarged designs that Australia considered what would have either 4x1 or 5x1 190mm guns. So I choose the Modified Adelaide Variant B with 5 guns for a T4 Commonwealth CA. While that's 1 less gun that Furutaka they also reload a lot faster. Furutaka in the game now before upgrading from 200mm to 203mm guns has a dreadful 22 sec reload. While Hawkins the British CA line has 7x1 of the same guns that this Australian ship would mount and a reload 11.7 sec. So even with the small barrel count I think Mod-Adelaide-B would out-DPM the downtiered Furutaka by a lot. And she'd need to since she's a full 9 knots slower and would have nearly 5K less HP. Though she'd actually have slightly better armor than Furutaka as well on account of both having 76mm belts but Mod-Adelaide-B also having a 51mm icebreaker. Though as you can see from the image that "icebreaker" is very low in the water with lots of regular bow plating above it. I'd also suggest adding torps on the B hull. (Art by Tzoli.) Following that up at T5 would be Vickers Export Design 1242, a slightly modified version of the York class (like the British T5 premium Exeter). This is a pretty straightforward ship so not much to explain. (Art by Tzoli.) At T6 we have the Kent class HMAS Australia. This is a similar ship to the British premium London and even moreso the tech tree Devonshire (since she doesn't have the Queen Anne's Mansion superstructure; London was the only cruiser ever to get that). Her main difference would be that the belt around the citadel is 127mm thick instead of 114mm. The belt is shorter (1.8m tall compared to London and Devonshire's 2.4m) but in WOWS that might actually be an advantage since WG deemed the entire 114mm belt on the British CAs to be citadel. This means Australia would get a 0.6m shorter citadel that doesn't stick out as far above the water. Well unless WG decides that the citadel is the same height, in which case she'd have a citadel strip that's only 25mm thick. At T7 we see the Cockatoo Naval Yard Heavy Cruiser of 1924, which uses a slightly enlarged version of the Hawkins hull but mounts 3x3 203mm guns. This one is an oddball on several levels. The casemated secondaries are apparently American 5"/51s and the Hawkins hull is badly armored. But the main armament is such an obvious upgrade over Australia means she needs to be a tier higher. And the fact that she's an indigenous design of Australia's shipyard means she can't just be skipped over. Of all the paper ships of a Commonwealth CA line she's probably the most important one to include. But Australia herself is also too important to skip so I can't toss her at T6 and find something else to be T7. If her armor is kept the same as Hawkins she'll have a 38mm icebreaker but also a massive citadel that's only 64 to 76mm thick on belt along with citadel deck and bulkheads that are only 16mm thick in parts. Personally I'd just lower the citadel and beef up the belt armor around the citadel portion to 127mm. The B hull would probably also remove the casemate secondaries to make room for 102mm AA guns. (Art by Tzoli.) At T8 we see Vickers Export Design 1074X, another 3x3 203mm cruiser. This is essentially an enlarged York class (or Vickers 1242) with triple turrets rather than being in the direct lineage of the British County class CAs. Another interesting feature is that it calls for 4x3 622mm torpedo tubes. IRL the only ships ever to mount this weapon (the 24.5" Mk I torpedo) were the Nelson class battleships in fixed underwater tubes. But despite the huge caliber these wouldn't hit any harder than British 533mm torps. They only had a 337kg warhead, actually a tiny bit smaller than the Mk IX series of torps that mid to high tier British cruisers carry. The purpose of the huge size was to increase range, with the lowest range setting being 13.7km at 35 knots (remember that all ship launched torps have their speed in WOWS set to ~20 knots faster than IRL). Given that British cruiser design of the time had near-nonexistent 25mm belts (to meet the 10k ton treaty weight limits) but were suspiciously easily to refit with thicker belts once the treaties were breached by Japan and Italy, probably the same is true of Vickers 1074X. So just give her a 152mm belt and call it a day. (Art by Tzoli.) At this point we've run out Australian CAs and would have to use the leftovers that WG didn't use in the British CA line. T8-10 of that line are based on early 1940s British design studies for post-treaty heavy cruisers. But there are more such ships that WG didn't use. Bringing back the 9.2" (234mm) as a cruiser gun was Winston Churchill's pet project before he became PM and thus was less directly involved in the Royal Navy. But one of these large cruisers was instead armed with 4x3 203mm and weighed in at 21500 tons standard (so maybe 23000 tons full load). That's the design I'm suggesting for T9. This is a hull very similar to Drake in the British line but with a larger number of smaller guns. (Art by Tzoli.) And at T10 we have what I wish WG had used for Goliath in the British line, Churchill's 22500 ton cruiser. Instead of 4x3 234mm (a configuration that I believe WG invented) we have a shorter hull with 3x4 234mm instead. (Art by Tzoli.) Alternatively to keep from creeping over into the British CA line's gameplay niche and stick to 203mm guns, we could copy-paste Goliath's hull and but turret-swap her to 4x4 203mm. Even though it's not particularly realistic, for the sake of flavor and differentiation from the British CAs I'd put those 622mm 13.7km water mines torps on the T9-10 as well. Perhaps make up a fictional "24.5" Mk I*" torpedo for them so it'll be a little faster and hit a little harder. So that this won't be a purely Australian line, the paper ships can be spread around to other nations. My suggestions are to give the T5 to New Zealand as HMNZS Canterbury, the T9 to India as INS Vikrant and the T10 to Canada as HMCS Canada. While for the remaining paper ships that stay in Australia, T4 is HMAS Darwin, T7 is HMAS Brisbane and T8 is HMAS Newcastle. So in summary: Tier CL/CA line 1 HMCS Prince David (armed merchant cruiser, 4x1 152mm/45) 2 HMAS Encounter (Challenger class protected cruiser, 11x1 152mm/45) 3 HMAS Adelaide (Birmingham class light cruiser, 9x1 152mm/45) 4 HMAS Darwin* (modified Adelaide Variant B, 5x1 190mm/45, 2x3 533mm torps) 5 HMNZS Canterbury* (Vickers 1242 heavy cruiser, 3x2 203mm/50, 2x4 533mm torps) 6 HMAS Australia (Kent class heavy cruiser, 4x2 203mm/50, 2x4 533mm torps) 7 HMAS Brisbane* (Cockatoo Naval Yard heavy cruiser, 3x3 203mm/50, 4x2 533mm torps) 8 HMAS Newcastle* (Vickers 1074X heavy cruiser, 3x3 203mm/50, 4x3 622mm torps) 9 INS Vikrant* (21,500 Ton Cruiser, 4x3 203mm/50, 2x4 622mm torps) 10 HMCS Canada* (22,500 Ton Cruiser, 3x4 234mm/50 or 4x4 203mm/50, 2x4 622mm torps)
  13. Thanks. I haven't entirely quit yet. (Though I barely play anymore.) I actually spend quite a bit more time theorycrafting about the game than actually playing it.
  14. I'd suggest leaving this as a British DD split, and doing something different for a Commonwealth DD line. Here's what I'd like to see for Commonwealth: Tier 2: HMCS Patriot (Thornycroft M class destroyer, broadly similar to British T2 Medea) Tier 3: HMAS Anzac (Parker class destroyer leader, relatively similar but larger than British T3 Valkyrie) Tier 4: HMAS Vendetta (Admiralty V class, similar to T3 British Valkyrie but with triple instead of twin torps) Tier 5: HMAS Stuart (Scott class destroyer leader, similar to Pan-Asia T5 Jianwei) Tier 6: INS Rajput (R class destroyer, similar but bigger than British T6 Icarus) Tier 7: HMCS Crusader (Cr class destroyer, like Rajput but with 113mm instead of 120mm guns) Tier 8: PNS Badr (Battle class 1942 batch, similar to British T9 Jutland but without aft turret and only 2x4 instead of 2x5 torps) Tier 9: HMAS Tobruk (Battle class 1944 batch, similar to British T9 Jutland but without aft turret and with the same faster-firing guns as Daring) Tier 10: HMAS Voyager (Daring class, would have to largely be Daring except with different consumables) Starting at T7 the focus would be the 113mm guns, and the T8-9 would both be unique in that they're DDs with all-forward turrets. My original conception of this line was that they'd be a hybrid of the British and American DD lines, having American smoke like the T3 premium Vampire. But now I'm more inclined toward making them a creeping smoke line. My priorities when choosing which ships I want for the line were to when possible choose classes that weren't already in the British DD line (hence HMAS Stuart at T5 instead of the other option I considered, HMCS Saguenay which is the same class as HMS Acasta), and including multiple nations rather than exclusively Canada and Australia (hence India and Pakistan each getting a ship). Unfortunately there are no New Zealand destroyers, and the only options from South Africa and India were both T6 material so I deemed India a higher priority. Perhaps South Africa could be given a paper ship in the Commonwealth cruiser line instead.
  15. Atlanta except with only 8 guns hardly seems like T7 material. Especially since they'd also reload slower.
×