Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'battlecruiser'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • World of Warships - News and Information
    • News And Announcements
    • Updates and PTS
    • Developer's Corner
    • Player Gatherings and Events
    • Community Volunteer Programs
  • Feedback and Support
    • Game Support and Bug Reporting
    • Player Feature and Gameplay Suggestions
    • Game Guides and Tutorials
  • General WoWs Discussion
    • General Game Discussion
    • Game Guides and Tutorials
    • Discussions about Warships
    • Player Modifications
  • Off Topic
    • Historical Discussions and Studies
    • Off-Topic
  • International Forums
    • Foro en Español
    • Fórum Brasileiro
  • Master Archive
    • The Pigeon's Nest
    • Closed Beta Test Archive
    • Alpha Test Archive
    • For Development and Publisher Only
    • QA AUTO
    • Contests and Community Events
    • Super Test
    • Newcomer's Forum
    • Contest Entries
    • Questions and Answers
    • Contest Entries
    • New Captains
    • Guías y Estrategias
    • Task Force 58
    • Livestream Ideas and Feedback
    • Árboles Tecnológicos
    • Fan Art and Community Creations
    • Community Created Events and Contests
    • Community Staging Ground
    • Forum Reorg 2.0 Archive
    • Noticias y Anuncios

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


Discord


Twitter


Website URL


Instagram


YouTube


Twitch


Skype


Location


Interests

Found 23 results

  1. The following is a review of both Agir & Siegfried, the tier IX German large cruisers. These ships have been provided to me by Wargaming at no cost to me (though I do have to unlock Siegfried again). To the best of my knowledge, the statistics discussed in this review are accurate as of patch 0.9.5. Please be aware that their performance may change in the future. Whoo, double-header! Wait, does this count as reviews #150 and #151? Bah, I'll figure that part out later. Welcome to my mistake! There is a lot of similarities between the two O-class sisters, but there are some marked differences too -- not the least of which is their actual game play. I've tried to separate things out to make things more readable but it's kind of a mess with all the back and forth going on. I'm worried that I've focused too hard on one ship over the other. Oh well, I committed to this folly and I'm going to ride it out to the very end! Let's begin! Agir Summary: A tier IX Odin in cruiser-form with improved main battery guns, but she has worse protection and secondaries. Siegfried Summary: A tier IX Gneisenau in cruiser-form with better guns, secondaries, torpedoes, AA power, agility and concealment. She is squishier than the tier VII battleship though. Difference Summary: Siegfried and Agir share the same protection scheme agility and concealment. However their weapons differ. Siegfried's has more powerful 380mm guns, is more accurate, has fewer but (much) longer-ranged secondaries. Agir has 305mm guns and an extra two-pairs of short-ranged secondaries and better torpedo arcs. In addition, Siegfried gets more consumables. Because reasons. SHARED PROS Strong citadel protection for a cruiser with a 190mm belt backed by an 80mm turtleback and 45mm to 60mm citadel wall. Good structural armour protection with 27mm thick extremities, 90mm thick upper hull and 30mm thick deck. Phenomenal anti-torpedo protection for a cruiser with a 37% damage reduction. Hell, most battleships would love to have this level of defense. Long ranged main battery guns (18.5km for Agir, 20.64km for Siegfried). Excellent main battery HE penetration for both ships. Secondaries have 32mm of penetration, making them capable of directly damaging the extremities of even tier VIII+ battleships. Good anti-aircraft firepower. Access to the improved German cruiser Hydroacoustic Search consumable with it's increased detection ranges of 4km for torpedoes and 6km for ships. SHARED CONS Turtleback isn't angled steeply enough to guarantee auto-ricochets, leaving their citadels potentially vulnerable. Wait, how is this a flaw, really? Most cruisers would give away their X-turret for this level of citadel defense. Agir and Siegfried's not-perfect turtleback be damned. Fires spank for a full 60s, and floods waterboard you for 40s. Kinky. Poor main battery HE DPM. Horrible main battery gun fire angles both forward and backward. Torpedoes are pathetically short-ranged at 6km. Chunktacular agility with handling for a cruiser that feels like sticking your hand in cottage cheese or duck puke. Large surface detection for a cruiser. SPECIFIC PROS Excellent AP penetration and overmatch ability with Siegfried's 380mm guns. Siegfried makes use of cruiser dispersion (!) with her battleship caliber guns. Siegfried has long range-secondaries with good fire arcs (better than Agir's for some reason). Agir has the same fire-setting ability as Azuma and Alaska with her main battery guns. SPECIFIC CONS Low AP DPM on Siegfried's guns (combined with that earlier low HE DPM). Siegfried is a bad firebug with a low fires-per-minute. Agir's main battery lacks AP penetration making it difficult to contest battleship armour except at ranges of less than 12km. Agir may have more secondaries but they too short ranged to be useful. Overview Skill Floor: Simple / CASUAL / Challenging / Difficult Skill Ceiling: Low / Moderate / High/ EXTREME Large cruisers tend to be pretty forgiving as far as cruiser game-play goes. They borrow a lot from battleships which are some of the easiest ships to play. For beginners, Siegfried and Agir provide these training wheels along with very forgiving gunnery dispersion. For veterans, imagine German battleships that actually hit whatever you aimed at. Yeah, scary, especially in Siegfried's case. Stack onto that good survivability, brawling, kiting, DD hunting with their hydro, using islands for ambushes / cover -- yeah, there's a lot of room for skill to affect game play. Let's do these next few sections out of order and focus first on where they're similar and then touch on where they're different. Defense Hit Points: 62,850 Min Bow & Deck Armour: 27mm extremities, 90mm upper hull & 30mm deck Maximum Citadel Protection: 190mm belt + 80mm turtleback + 45mm to 60mm citadel wall. Torpedo Damage Reduction: 37% How the hell are these things balanced? Siegfried and Roy are just a couple of key-features away from having a god-tier cruiser protection scheme. Let's go through the checklist: Anti-torpedo damage reduction in excess of 25% Citadel capable of repelling even large-caliber AP shells 27mm extremities or greater Upper hull in excess of 30mm Amidships deck in excess of 30mm Ice-breaker bow & stern So barring having a Furutaka-style deck and a Stalingrad ice-breaker, Siegfried and Agir have about the best defenses for cruisers that are available. But let's go into the details: Anti-Torpedo Protection Look, most cruisers don't have any torpedo damage reduction to speak of, never mind the "better-than-many-battleship" levels boasted by Siegfried and Agir. At present, they have the BEST fish-protection found on any cruiser in the game. Let's not forget that these two ships also have a German Hydroacoustic Search which further reduces the dangers presented by torpedoes. Short of these ships being more nimble (which they are decidedly not), you have the best defense you could ask when it comes to mitigating torpedo damage. Cruiser Turtlebacks & Internal Citadels Taken from GameModels3D.com with colours exaggerated to show the different layers of citadel protection on the O-class battlecruisers. This way you can clearly see the external 190mm belt in red (sloped at -1º to -21º), the 80mm turtleback in yellow (sloped 49º to 60º) and the citadel itself shown in blue (0º). Most AP shells have to contend with passing at least one auto-ricochet check to punch through her turtleback. The protection scheme of the O-class battlecruisers citadel protection closely resembles that of a German battleship. Their armour is optimized to protect the magazines and machine spaces in medium to close range encounters. However, it remains vulnerable to high-penetration, long-range fire. While these ships are not immune to citadel hits, they are about as well protected as you could hope for a cruiser to be. The effectiveness of their citadel protection varies depending upon where the ship is struck and the angle of incoming fire. Their lateral belt + turtleback protection covers the whole range from "impossible to citadel" to "difficult but not impossible" depending. Barring a shell moving at a perfect horizontal or slightly upward motion (possible due to normalization after penetrating the reverse-sloped belt), the O-class's turtleback isn't inclined enough to guarantee ricochets. Thus there's always a chance of a shell with sufficient penetration to punch into their magazines or machine spaces. The two layers of armour work in tandem with the near vertical sections of belt armour around the funnels being mated with the most steeply sloped turtleback and the more shallow angled turtleback around the magazines is paired with the most exaggerated reverse slope of the belt. The biggest danger to these ships when caught broadside are the (relatively) low velocity but high penetration shells of American battleships or the massive shells off Yamato, Musashi and Shikishima. At range, every battleship becomes more dangerous. Every time you get shot, you're rolling the dice and hoping that RNGeebus will be kind. So don't go offering up your broadside unless you're one pious momo. Their biggest citadel weakness is their enormous 27mm thick snouts which can be overmatched. Unlike other high-tier German cruisers, they have no 'ice-breaker', no extended waterline belt to help foil shots aimed at their squishy bits. For opponents that aware of this vulnerability, this area can be hit for days for easy big-damage. I'm not going to lie -- it can be frustrating to try and protect this weakness. If your opponents aren't playing ball, you're going to have a bad time. Make no mistake: Agir and Siegfried are not battleships -- they can't stand up to battleship levels of punishment. The O-class's 90mm upper hull is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it helps you resist HE shells and ricochet AP rounds when you're angled. On the flip side, it guarantees fusing every single AP shell it faces if the shell manages to penetrate, leading to Siegfried and Agir taking big damage. The recess into which Siegfried's hull-mounted torpedoes are set opens up a further shell-trap that can be exploited by your opponents. Be careful. Suck it, 381mm Guns You too, 127mm guns. Let's step away from dwelling on citadel hits and simply talk about resisting damage entirely. Given the glut of 381mm and smaller caliber guns throwing AP shells about at high-tiers these days, these ships can face-tank select targets with relative impunity. Furthermore, the 27mm threshold makes them immune to direct damage from 127mm HE shells even if they're using the Inertial Fuse for HE Shells skill, so that's pretty nice too. Their 90mm upper hull is again capable of being pretty troll when it comes to resisting damage -- both AP and HE shells, though you need to angle to resist the former. This opens the door for some interesting (if limited) brawling opportunities. The flip side is that this thicker armour all but guarantees everything (and I do mean everything) will have their AP shells fuse properly and deal chunktacular penetration damage. This can be as devastating as individual citadel hits. Overall, though, these ships are better at resisting citadel hits than they are direct damage. HE spam from cruisers is stupid-dangerous. Siegfriend and Agir's 30mm decks and 27mm extremities are big weak spots for HE to exploit. Lemme repeat myself: these are not German battleships -- they're not built to shrug off damage to the same level as those Deutsches-Stahl leviathans. You can lose HP in a hurry even if you never take a single citadel hit. So beware. Barring exceptions, most cruisers can queue up to 33% of citadel damage for repairs. Agir & Siegfried's large hit point pool gives them access to better heals, but this still falls behind the extra Repair Party charge enjoyed by Azuma and the portable` dry-docks of the British cruisers. Overall Feels The O-class sisters remind me a lot of tier VI and VII battleships -- tough but not invulnerable, with stupidly-big weak spots that are easy to exploit. Fire is a problem. Overmatch is a problem. HE spam is a problem. AP penetrating hits are a problem, but proper angling can help mitigate it. Citadel hits happen but they're uncommon and largely caused by your own mistakes, so that's easier to stomach. If you think of playing one of the O-class as the equivalent of bringing a tier VII battleship up into a tier IX match, you're not far off in terms of considering their durability. Their protection level is much better than that of the typical cruiser, but they fall well short of god-tier. VERDICT: Hella good, very rewarding and lots of fun. Agility Top Speed: 33.5 knots Turning Radius: 880m Rudder Shift Time: 14.0 seconds 4/4 Engine Speed Rate of Turn: 4.7º/s These aren't cruisers. Well, they are -- they conform to cruiser norms in terms of energy retention, for example. The rest of their agility parameters are very much those of a battleship. These aren't ships with which you can wiggle and dodge. Their bad fire angles on their guns, especially when kiting, makes this dangerous to attempt -- doubly so with their 27mm extremities being the literal back door into their citadel. They barely have more speed than most of the battleships they face, to say nothing of the cruisers, so kiting is made even harder. You have to pay close attention to the flow of battle and plan your moves accordingly. This largely limits their manoeuvres of defense to flashing their sides just enough to bait hits into their belt rather than their honkers and playing keep-away from the second line until it's time to brawl. It could be worse, I suppose. They could crawl like Roon does. Apparently Dmitri Donskoi's in-port stats are being fixed soon! VERDICT: One of the weaknesses of these ships. Refrigerator Base/Minimum Surface Detection: 15.12km / 11.88km Base/Minimum Air Detection Range: 10.74km/8.7km Detection Range When Firing in Smoke: 11.9km Hydroacoustic Search Ranges: 4km torpedo detection, 6km ship detection. If these were battleships, their Vision Control would be excellent, but they're not. They're cruisers, so their Vision Control kinda sucks. While they do bring the German cruiser Hydroacoustic Search to the table, they're not pairing it with great surface detection or good sprinting speed. This largely limits aggressive use of the consumable to misplays on your opponent's part. Otherwise, it's just there to keep you and your allies torpedo-safe. Like Azuma before them, these ships also lack the Surveillance Radar boasted by American & Soviet large cruisers. That consumable is nearly a must-have in team settings, so going without a huge strike against these ships. Overall, Siegfried feels this deficiency in concealment much less than Agir. Siegfried's guns are more comfortable at a distance and she has longer range to boot. Heck, Siegfried can almost stealth-fire her secondaries (one of these days, WG will screw up and I will have my stealth-firing secondary cruiser). This, in my opinion, makes her the easier and more powerful ship between the two when combined with everything else. VERDICT: This is another area where they perform poorly, but it's not unexpected. Alright, that's all of their similarities. Let's go over what makes them unique. Options Let's start with the pretty mild differences of their option optimization. Consumables Agir and Siegfried differ in their consumable load-outs with Siegfried having more options than Agir. I've highlighted the consumables that are Siegfried-only. Agir and Siegfried share the following consumables: Their Damage Control Party is standard for a cruiser with a 60s reset timer and 5s active period. It comes with unlimited charges. They have access to a German Cruiser's Hydroacoustic Search with a 4km torpedo detection range and a 6km ship detection range. Both start with 3 charges and have a 120s reset timer. Finally, they both share a Repair Party. This heals back 14% of the ship's health over 28s. 50% of penetration damage is queued up along with 33% of citadel damage and 100% of all other damage types. This starts with 3 charges and has an 80s reset timer. For Siegfried, I prefer a Hydroacoustic Search along with a Spotting Aircraft for my consumables of choice. SIEGFRIED ONLY CONSUMABLES Siegfried may swap its Hydroacoustic Search for Defensive AA Fire which comes with three charges and an 80s reset timer. Siegfried bumps her Repair Party over to the fourth slot and has the option of both catapult aircraft in her third slot. Her Spotting Aircraft provides the usual 20% bonus to range for 100s. It comes with 4 charges and a 240s reset timer. Alternatively, she can use a Catapult Fighter. The squadron is active for 60s with a 90s reset timer and comes with three charges. Upgrades There's a smart way to build for these ships but there's also the fun way. Being some of the first cruisers with capable secondaries, it's fun to build for them for a lark. In Siegfried's case, this may even be slightly competitive. Start with Main Armaments Modification 1. You have a choice in slot two. Fire damage is pretty dangerous for these ships so Damage Control System Modification 1 is a sound investment. Alternatively, you can go into the Armory and spend 17,000 for Hydroacoustic Search Modification 1. In slot three, Aiming System Modification 1 is optimal for both ships. Alternatively, you can grab Secondary Gun Modification 1 for the memes. This will pay off more for Siegfried but it can work for Agir too, especially in PVE modes. Again, with full-damage fires being a threat, Damage Control System Modification 2 is optimal for slot four but you can swap it out for Steering Gears Modification 1 if you prefer to take a more active hand in your defense. Concealment Expert is too good not to be the optimal choice in slot five. For those who like to live fast and dangerous, Steering Gears Modification 2 is an option, but keep in mind that these ships have bad fire angles for kiting so this isn't ideal. Finally, let there be no doubt that Main Battery Modification 3 is the best choice for slot six. Captain Skills There's a smart way to build for these ships and then there's the German secondary battleship build. The smart way borrows the entirety of the "fire resistant battleship" build. I agree, girls. So dull even if it is the "ideal build". You can swap out Priority Target for another tier 1 skill of your choice. Expert Loader is a good idea, but the usual standbys of Preventative Maintenance and Incoming Fire Alert are reasonable. German battleship build, recently recommended with my Odin review! Make sure you take Secondary Gun Modification 1 for this build and load up on Mike Yankee Soxisix signals. All of the cool kids are doing it. Camouflage Both ships have their default Type 10 Camouflage and you can purchase the Nordic Camouflage separately as a cosmetic swap. Both provide identical bonuses, so don't stress about missing out on possible economic gains by not spending more money. These are standard bonuses for tier IX premiums: -3% surface detection +4% increased dispersion of enemy shells. -20% to post-battle service costs. +100% to experience gains. So nothing too extreme there. Let's move onto their anti-aircraft firepower. Verdict: Siegfried has better options than Agir by a country mile, offering two distinct and viable play styles not only in PVE but PVP as well. Siegfried's default camo scheme, which is pretty sexy. Agir's default camo scheme is more grim. The Nordic camouflage looks good on Siegfried. But it looks better on Agir, in my opinion. Anti-Aircraft Defense Flak Bursts: 5 explosions (6 for Agir) for 1,540 damage per blast at 3.5km to 6km. Siegfried / Agir Long Ranged (up to 6.0km): 102 / 130 dps at 90% accuracy Siegfried / Agir Medium Ranged (up to 4.0km): 329 / 364 dps at 90% accuracy Siegfried / Agir Short Ranged (up to 2.0km): 147 / 119 dps at 85% accuracy Agir has better raw AA numbers than Siegfried. Siegfried has access to Defensive AA Fire (if she chooses to ditch Hydroacoustic Search). Both ships have "good" AA firepower, but this doesn't particularly matter. Individually, these ships have enough teeth on them to make dropping on them expensive in the long run. However, it would be a fool's mistake to think they're capable of fending off a determined CV by themselves. Apply the standard anti-CV tactics in order to keep safe. Blob-up and Just Dodge™. Otherwise, you're food. Long story short: Agir's AA is noticeably better (flirting with Alaska-levels) but Siegfried can take DFAA. I've ranked these in order of "effective AA DPS" -- meaning simply that I applied a formula (DPS *[range-1km]). This weights longer ranged AA mounts more than shorter ranged ones but it doesn't do so perfectly. This order only really gives an impression of ranking of personal AA defense, not overall effective values (such as providing support to an ally). At the end of the day, everything between Brindisi and Saint Louis are very, very close and this ranking doesn't really speak to in-game effectiveness. That's because none of this really matters. Sadly, CVs can still dunk on you no matter what and the idea that REALLY GOOD AA firepower could somehow prevent drops is a thing of the distant past. VERDICT: Disappointingly good. I say disappointing because good AA doesn't really mean anything unless the enemy CV is a total novice. Firepower Main Battery: Nine 305mm guns in 3x3 turrets (Agir) or six 380mm guns in 3x2 turrets (Siegfried). Both are setup in an A-B-X superfiring configuration. Secondary Battery: Eighteen 128mm guns in 9x2 turrets (Agir) and fourteen 128mm guns in 7x2 turrets (Siegfried). Torpedoes: Eight tubes in 2x4 launchers mounted on either side amidships. Let's start with the similarities between the two ships. Torpeedus Agir and Siegfried both have access to the same Steinbutt torpedoes (heh, butts). If you imagine Tirpitz's torpedoes but add an extra knot of speed, you're bang on the money. So they're stupid short ranged and kinda wimpy on a per-torpedo basis all things told. You're only ever going to get to use them in brawls or ambushes so keep that in mind. I can forgive their performance as both Agir and Siegfried feel like battleships, even if they are ostensibly cruisers. Their fish are super fun to use but you won't get to use them in every game. Still, those moments are always memorable and totally worth it. The big difference between the two ships in terms of their torpedoes are how they're mounted. Agir has them on deck giving her good forward firing arcs. Siegfried houses hers in the hull lower down, greatly reducing their field of fire (and opening up a potential shell trap besides). Agir has good torpedo arcs and terrible gun firing arcs. Siegfried has terrible torpedo arcs and less terrible (but still awful) gun firing arcs than Agir. Secondaries Siegfried has the better secondaries. This is despite Agir having more of them. Normally I wouldn't bother wasting more than a couple of sentences on cruiser secondaries, but these ships are special ... and not in that "Kiev also has a secondary!" kinda special. Siegfried's secondaries are so good, she's arguably the first cruiser in World of Warships where a full secondary build is competitive. While Siegfried doesn't have the broadside weight of a battleship, her secondaries are good enough with the combination of high penetration, good range and a decent rate of fire. Mouse's impression of the effectiveness of most cruiser secondaries. Agir should be in a similar state but she's not. Despite having the same penetration and an even better volume of fire grace of having an extra turret firing broadside, her arcs are slightly worse and she loses out on range. While you can still make this work in Co-Op battles, it's really not viable in a PVP environment -- not for the returns you get. Personally, I totally blame Flamu for this as he spilled the beans on how fun this is. Now your only way to get access to this game play is by grinding out the Research Bureau. BOOOO, Flamu! BOOOOO! You ruined everything! ♥ I stress it's this deficit of range that really hurts Agir and range remains the key factor that determines secondary-build viability in Random Battles. Agir's 5.3km base range can only be upgraded as far as 8.01km with a deep secondary build -- compare that to Siegfried's 11.49km and there's just too much of a gap. Perhaps more importantly, Siegfried's main battery gun performance isn't as hurt by spending her third upgrade slot to increase range as it is with Agir, owing to Siegfried's improved main battery gun dispersion (more on that later). You can make a secondary build on Agir work, but it's a pale shadow of the potential found on Siegfried. On the whole, it's exciting to see secondaries on cruisers being viable both to a lesser and greater degree on Agir and Siegfried respectively. I would have preferred to see this on a 203mm or 152mm armed cruiser rather than a near-perfect battleship analogue, but hey, it's progress. No, it doesn't make sense. Whatever logic was used to determine these fire angles, it's not consistent between the two vessels. Siegfried simply has better arcs on her secondaries. I have no idea why. Main Battery Guns These two ships couldn't be any more different when it comes to their main battery guns. Since I recently finished reviewing Odin, let's start with Agir's armament first because there's a lot of parallels there. Odin, Perfected If you read my review of Odin, the tier VIII German battleship, I wasn't very flattering when it came to my evaluation of her guns. Odin's 305mm guns struggle to put enough shells on target. Her battleship dispersion and her slower rate of fire just means that not enough shells stack to keep up with the damage she needs to put out. This might not be such a big issue if Odin struck like a hammer from on high, but she doesn't. While her 305mm guns are pretty good cruiser killers once you compare them to the other super cruisers, they're really lacking. Alaska & Stalingrad have improved auto-ricochet mechanics. Kronshtadt and Stalingrad have god-tier levels of AP penetration. Azuma and Yoshino have improved HE damage. So without any of these specialities, Odin was left struggling to deal damage when someone angles or plays a battleship that won't brawl with them. For comparison, here is Odin's main battery dispersion (in yellow on the left) using a standard dispersion test. This is 180 AP shells fired at 15km, locked onto a stationary Fuso bot. The Fuso lacks camouflage and Odin is using Aiming Systems Modification 1 to reduced her dispersion by 7%. Shots are coming in from right to left (Fuso is bow-tanking). Odin's 'good for a battleship' dispersion is alright, but it doesn't do the ship any favours given the rather wimpy punch of her shells. Agir's main battery gun dispersion (in pink on the right) following the same parameters as Odin's above. While Odin makes use of the American-British-German battleship dispersion area, Agir makes use of the Graf Spee (aka "Battlecruiser") dispersion. Agir inherits Odin's lackluster AP penetration and anemic HE issues. Boooo. However, her improved dispersion and faster rate of fire compensates somewhat for this disparity in performance. Her shells are "bad" but she fires enough of them and hits often enough to kinda-sorta offset her disastrous ammunition. Still, this isn't a ship in which you want to be actively trading fire with opponents. She's not a high DPM monster nor are her alpha strikes particularly impressive barring a cruiser derping monstrously. Fire opportunistically and avoid return damage as best you can. I struggle to call Agir's main battery firepower "good". It's alright -- I'd give it no more than that. There's nothing here really to get excited over. Siegfried, on the other hand... Gneisenau, Perfected Imagine if Gneisenau (or Tirpitz for that matter), hit with nearly every shell she fired. German 380mm guns are notorious for their inaccuracy so that might be a little difficult, but make the effort. Difficulties visualizing aside, take a cruiser and equip it with a small battery of battleship caliber weapons and make them stupid-accurate. That's Siegfried. That's her thing. It goes beyond that though. Siegfried takes Gneisenau's offensive abilities and improves upon them to such a degree that it's hard to believe Siegfried made it out of testing without significant nerfs. She boasts a slightly more powerful torpedo armament than Gneisenau. Her secondaries are longer ranged, using the same excellent 128mm L/61s with their improved penetration. And finally, Siegfried's main battery guns hit whatever you aim at -- something the tier VII and VIII German battleships could only dream of. It's this last part, it's her main battery guns, which puts her head and shoulders above Gneisenau despite the similarities of their armaments. Let's take a blast from the past to illustrate why Siegfried's accuracy is so jaw dropping. This is Bismarck's old dispersion (in yellow on the left), back when she was still using the French & Italian battleship patterns. Gneisenau and Tirpitz shared in this performance, with all three ships having 1.8 sigma. Things have improved slightly -- at 15km the width of their fall has reduced by 3 meters from 198m shown here (with ASM1 installed) to 195m with the new American battleship dispersion they're presently using. Yeah, you kinda got bamboozled if you thought the recent changes fixed anything. Siegfried (in blue on the right) uses cruiser dispersion. No, not battlecruiser -- actual cruiser dispersion. She has the same spread of shots as you'd find on Cleveland or Henri IV. She has their 2.05 sigma too unlike the 1.8 sigma you played with when using German battleships. Aim well and you can hit with everything. It's for this reason that Siegfried can get away with upgrading her secondaries rather than focusing on reducing her main battery dispersion -- it's baseline value is already good enough and ASM1 isn't changing much. Aim well and you can hit with EVERYTHING. Look, German 380mm L/52s aren't the most impressive of battleship weapons but they're certainly novel on a cruiser. Even with that said, landing six out of six battleship caliber shells of a given volley is enough to make anyone sit up and take notice regardless of the ship type. Like Jean Bart, Siegfried will tear you a new one if you're foolish enough to give her a broadside. While the French battleship will do it through volume of fire, Siegfried will do it with a single well placed shot. Even her awful HE performance is counteracted (somewhat) by this phenomenal accuracy she boasts. Siegfried almost feels Soviet, what with firing high-velocity shells and having the ability to snipe destroyers from a distance. It's that accuracy that solves a lot of Siegfried's woes -- not all of them, mind you, but a lot. Without landing citadel hits or steady penetrations, Siegfried will lose just about any damage race. So while her individual hits are pretty jaw dropping, it's a struggle to land enough of them to make a difference if you're not prioritizing targets properly. As good as Siegfried's guns are on paper, without a good head behind the helm, she can be pretty terrible. Unlike Agir's guns, which improve upon pretty forgettable weapons, Siegfried's are an improvement on some rather novel guns. If nothing else, Siegfried makes for some interesting gunnery. Imperfect Perfections As different as the guns are on the two ships, Siegfried and Agir share a couple of problems. Poor damage out put. Poor gun firing angles. As good as Siegfried and Agir's guns can be, they're fouled by angling. Granted, Agir is more vulnerable to this than Siegfried, but Siegfried performs even more poorly when it finally meets a target it can't overmatch. German HE performance is notoriously terrible and if these ships are forced to fire it for long, their numbers will tank. Agir's only saving grace in this regard is her fire setting ability which is ... well, it's not great but it's not at the appalling levels Siegfried suffers. In short, these ships struggle in head-up fights where they can't brawl and they can't use their AP shells reliably. If an enemy is aware of them and reacts accordingly, they can largely shut down their damage output outside of close-range knife fights. Agir's AP DPM is pretty darned respectable -- more-so if you consider she can make ready use of it more often than many other cruisers. Siegfried, by contrast, is way behind. But when you remember she has battleship caliber guns, capable of actually landing citadel hits reliably at a distance, this helps make up for it. However, she's always going to lag on damage output, so she needs to aim well and survive long to keep up. I made this graph the same scale as the AP DPM so you could compare them. The O-class cruisers really miss out on HE DPM -- Siegfried's is especially appalling. Landing six penetrating HE shells is only 8,712 damage -- and that's a best case scenario every 22.9 to 26s. While this will ruin any destroyer's day, other targets can shrug that off, especially when it halves due to saturation. While Agir's HE shell performance may be lacking, her fire setting is on par with Azuma and Alaska, which is respectable. Siegfried is again pretty embarrassing. As for firing angles, well... they're terrible, frankly. You have to expose a whole lot of broadside to fire forward and even more to fire rearward. Agir is especially bad for this which opens up these ships to taking a lot of damage they should otherwise be able to avoid. Furthermore, this makes both ships very poor choices for kiting. When engaging targets chasing them, their guns are doubly terrible. First, their overmatch potential is limited -- Agir moreso than Siegfried, but the latter has her problems too. Next, you're faced with the loser choice of either firing with a single turret or slowing yourself down when you open up your broadside to return fire with their A & B turrets. Agir is much worse for this than Siegfried -- as if Siegfried needed any more improvements over her sister. The only place where Agir's gun handling performs better is her faster turret traverse. Once you stack on Main Battery Modification 3, Siegfried's gun traverse gets so sluggish she can actively out-turn her turrets. I hate that. You'll want Expert Marksman if you can afford it, but Siegfried's deep secondary build might preclude you from having the points to pick it up. Finally, the biggest drawback of these ships is the need for time deal their damage. While you can hope for some cruiser to offer themselves up as an easy meal, their low damage output means that you're leaning on their survivability to last longer -- giving you more opportunities to make their weapons count. This can be from stacking fires in Agir, padding numbers with Siegfried's secondaries or finally getting a chance where you get to use their fish. Siegfried's numbers are especially volatile with her 380mm guns providing periods of both feast and famine. More time gives you more chances to finally find those opportunities. Agir Summary Agir corrects some of the problems found with Odin's armament but then takes on additional problems of poor fire angles and ineffective backup weaponry. Firepower wise, I'd rather have Alaska or Azuma. These ships all have similar AP penetration but Alaska has her improved autobounce angles and Azuma has way better HE shells. All three are comparable firebugs. Still, the torpedoes that Agir has are nice but I can't see myself enjoying her secondaries outside of co-op. So yeah, poor marks here. Siegfried Summary By contrast, Siegfried's main battery guns are exciting and so are her secondaries. Yeah, she has problems but they're not insurmountable and it's a worthwhile price to pay to have access to 380mm guns that hit with (almost) everything. Verdict: Siegfried's weapons are fun and unique. Agir is Odin Two: The Electric Boogaloo with better main battery guns but worse secondaries which is boring as all get out. Final Evaluation I have nothing but praise for Siegfried and I'm generally dismissive of Agir. The basis of these feels is pretty simple: Siegfried's game play is new and novel -- she's effectively a glass-cannon version of Gneisenau, greatly improving offense at the expense of durability. Agir, by contrast, is a more-different Odin but she loses out entirely on secondaries and adds durability issues. The other way of looking at Agir is to compare her to the front-running large cruiser at tier IX, Alaska. Comparing the two of them, Alaska is hands down better -- she has better artillery and better team utility. Agir only wins out in brawls. I wouldn't go so far to say that Siegfried is better than Alaska, but at least Siegfried offers a change in game play. Fun and novelty is a worth the price of optimization in my opinion. I'm not surprised Siegfried is the more compelling choice over Agir, not when she's locked behind the Research Bureau grind. Unlike Agir which seemed to be nerfed every step along the way of her development, Siegfried had only two significant changes made to her since her introduction in early 2019. First, her AA power got played around with. That shouldn't be unexpected given the volatility of the CV rework over that same time period but it is what it is. Second, her torpedoes dropped from an 8km range to a 6km range. Wargaming have, quite deliberately, preserved the attractive secondary-heavy game play that turned people's heads during Agir's development. Siegfried is a big ol' fat carrot on a stick hoping to lure you into regrinding a few tech tree lines. To me, Agir feels like a consolation prize -- a poor man's Siegfried, as it were. Though she is a lot more accessible and she's not terrible, she's a distant second to her sister ship and even further behind Alaska. Given the ongoing events, if people wanted Agir, I'd steer them to Odin instead. I can't speak for Siegfried being "worth it" for having to participate in the Research Bureau, but she is a good ship -- as I have said repeatedly, she's interesting if nothing else. It's up to you if that's worth your time investment. So yeah, that's the O-class. A fun ship locked behind a painful experience and a meh ship that will forever have you looking over your shoulder wondering what you could have had instead. Siegfried turned quite a few heads during play testing. Agir just turned stomachs with her constant nerfs. Conclusion Wargaming is still at it. Champagne has been finalized so there's another ship added onto the pile that needs reviewing. I need some time off after this one, so I don't anticipate having another review out before early July. Thank you very much for reading.
  2. I saw this topic in the EU forums and realized I couldn't post since I have an NA account... so i thought I'd start a topic here since everyone seems to blow off the Agir as a poor ship.... I'm an average player who should know better... I often makes mistakes due to being too aggressive and not waiting long enough to make a push... I find AGIR to be a great ship at pushing caps and stalking island chains since its combo of Hydro, Torps and workable armour makes you a pretty good brawler. I've been using a tank survivability build with a quicker rudder, turrets, and stealth of course. His guns can hit very hard if you aim at the right areas... he has much better accuracy than Odin. Long range I shoot above the waterline at BB's and AP superstructure shots at bow on heavy cruisers.... Inside of 8-10km these guns can often punch thru any BB armour broadside.... With broadside cruiser I find that a little bit of angle... say 10*... mitigates a fair amount of shot that could become overpens... I had to pick up a work phone call while duelling the Riga and made two dumb mistakes... shot the rocks TWICE while trying to multi task... otherwise I should have been able to kill her and made more of a nuisance of myself. She didnt do to bad against the T8 CV.... was able to fend off most re-attacks after the first strike. Note that I only fired one broadside of HE all game... I usually load HE for starters to lit up DD's going for early caps. Secondaries did fairly well, 27% hit rate, and caused 3 fires... for a combined total of 15k damage.... I did NOTHING to buff them. I would also take this with a pinch of salt... as you will see that in the replay... a Bismarck tries to run from me at close range for a song and dance until I showed him what his brother Tirpitz got instead of Hydro... I was also able to tank almost 1.5 million potential damage... not bad for a ship in Cruiser MM... I also find that you get alot more opportunitites for crosffire broadsides on BB's since they have to angle against your teams BB's. All in all I am very happy with this ship so far... she needs to play a certain style but it fits me... also I may be biased towards the chonky Germans as I am basically an Angry Prussian in Space/ Imperial Fist. Appropriate meme for most of my playstyle this game .... 20200614_202938_PGSC519- BEST REPLAY AEGIR Aegir_25_sea_hope.wowsreplay
  3. How about a semi Frankenstein British battleship that has a kind of hull, main armament, speed, about the same armor as the hood, gun lay out as gneisenau, and secondary's and structure as warspite. I am talking about the HMS Renown. Renown was laid in 1916 , she and repulse set a record on being the fastest capital ships upon completion. she didn't see action in ww1, but was overhauled twice in between. during ww2, she was part of the group to hunt the graf spee that was sinking merchants at the time. unfortunately, she couldn't be able to find the ship. She was part of the British squadron that was sent to the Norwegian campaign and came across the Scharnhorst ang gneisenau, she received minor damage but also critically damaged gneisenau in return. She was later part of the search group to find the Bismarck, although the ship did find Bismarck's supply ship. after this she was sent home for repairs and upgrades. after this, she was sent to protect the winter convoys to Russia, then transferred to protect the carriers for Operation Torch. after this, she was sent home to have her aircraft removed and her AA upgraded and added. After this, she helped send Winston Churchill back home. She was sent to the pacific to help in Operation Cockpit and bombarded enemy positions at the Nicobar islands and Andaman islands. She continued with other operations until she was relieved by Queen Elizabeth. She was sent home for another refit but was cancelled. She hosted a meeting with King George Vi and President Truman, and after this she was scrapped and survived a few days longer than the carrier Furious. The Renown that I would like to see in the game is the 1939 refit. The reason for this is because I believe that hood and warspite had a baby and had a extra cromosone from gneisenau. I think she can do well in the game as she will have pretty much the same things as a a regular tier VI regular British battleship but in a tier VII slot right next to hood. naturally, hood would at least be 2 or so knots faster than renown, but dreams can be dreams I guess.
  4. HMAS Australia is a Indefaticable-class battlecruiser HMAS Australia (1911) Ship Specs: Length: 590 ft (179.8 m) Width: 80 ft (24.4 m) Draught: 30 ft 4 in (9.2 m) at maximum Displacement: 18,500 full load 22,130 deep load * :\ * Armaments: 4 x 2 BL 12 in Mk X guns (2 is centerlined and the other 2 are winged staggering diagonally) 16 x 1 BL 4 in Mk VII guns (1915) 1 x 1 3 in 20 cwt anti-aircraft gun (1917) 1 x 1 4 in AA gun (1920) *both previous AA guns were replace by these guns* 2 x 1 BL 4 in MK V guns *she also carried 2 x 1 18 in submerged torpedo tubes with 12 torpedoes* Armor: Belt: 4-6 in (102-152 mm) Decks: 1.5-2.5 in (38-64 mm) Barbettes and Turrets: 7 in (178 mm) *note, I want to point out that Australia has biplanes in a covered hangar on top of Q turret, and I am unsure if I want to add it to the list, should I?* Machinery Specs: Propulsion: x4 shafts with 2 steam turbine sets Power: 44,000 hp (designed) 55,000 hp (actual) Speed: 25 knots (designed) 26.89 knots (actual) Range: 6,690 nmi @ 10 knots
  5. Here’s a fun little thing my friend and I made today using the new 30” Lexington CC model I had made for me. It’s a port ship profile picture of what Lexington might look like if she were a tier VII battleship, or battle cruiser in reality. The Lady Lex herself in all her glory as she might have been had she’d been completed as a CC, battlecruiser, instead of a CV, aircraft carrier. If you’re interested in seeing this gallant beauty in game, check out this article I wrote a while back. Also, include below is another piece about the Lexington CC model I had built. Check them out and have a great day!
  6. Well, the model has arrived and the photos are in from SD Model Makers. She is 30” long, so just under 1:350 scale. Something like 1:34896 or whatever. For those of you who don’t know, the Lexington -class aircraft carrier, or CV, was originally supposed to be a battlecruiser, or CC. The model is is being built in a configuration that suggests what she might have looked like as a CC in USN service in early 1941. ARMAMENT: x8 16”/50 main guns. x10 6”/53 secondary guns. x10 5”/25 heavy AA guns. x6 1.1”/75 “Chicago Piano” medium AA guns. x19 Water cooled M2 .50 caliber BMG light AA guns. Enjoy! P.S. This is an article I made a while back about having this ship added into WoWS. Check it out if you like the Lady Lex.
  7. LittleWhiteMouse

    Premium Ship PREVIEW: HMS Hood

    The following is a PREVIEW of the upcoming release of Hood, a ship Wargaming very kindly provided me. This is the second version of the ship seen during testing and her stats are current as of May 15th, 2017. However, the statistics and performance discussed here are still being evaluated by Wargaming's developers and do not necessarily represent how the ship will appear when released. Error 404: Detonation joke not found. Quick Summary: A large, very fast, if under armed battleship with curious AA mechanics.Cost: Undisclosed at this time.Patch and Date Written: 0.6.4 to 0.6.4.1. April 22nd, 2017 to May 15th, 2017. Closest in-Game Contemporary Kongo, tier 5 Japanese BattleshipDegree of Similarity: Clone / Sister-Ship / Related Class / Similar Role / Unique Are you as surprises as I am that Warspite isn't listed here? Hood reminds me very much of some of the early days of playing Kongo, when she was one of only two tier 5 battleships. Hood, like Kongo, has speed but not the firepower. She has good protection when angled but she falls apart when she's caught out of position. When top tier, she's a great ship. When she's not, she feels lackluster -- more so than some other battleships. PROs Excellent fire angles on her main battery. Guns are very accurate at all ranges with tight horizontal and vertical dispersion and 1.8 sigma. Improved fuse timers and better auto-ricochet angles makes her well suited to damaging even evasive cruisers. Very fast with a top speed of 32.0 knots. Good rudder shift time of 13.4s. Deceptively agile for her size with a turning rate of over 4º per second. She's the first Battleship with a (albeit limited) Defensive Fire consumable. Possesses an improved version of the Repair Party consumable, queuing up to 60% of penetration damage received. CONs Hood is a very large target with an enormous citadel. Small main armament of eight 381mm rifles leading to poor penetration, alpha strike and DPM. Small and poorly positioned secondary gun battery with limited arcs of fire. Defensive Fire consumable only affects her Anti-Aircraft Rockets. Rocket AA mounts are incredibly fragile and small in number with only 200hp each and are easily knocked out by single HE hits. No Royal Navy Battleships to train Captains for (yet). Where did the last month go? Hood has had a long development cycle -- at least it's felt very long because of all of that testing I was doing. I haven't spent this much time, energy and focus on a single review since Saipan. The ship had two major iterations during the testing period and rather than release one for each, I've held off on publishing while I waited for the ship to finalize. Instead, I spent time trying to learn everything I could about the ship, including testing her shell dispersion patterns, acceleration rates and even the vulnerability of her citadel and magazines. Despite holding off as long as I have, Hood still isn't finalized. Changes may still be coming, but on the eve of her release, I am pulling the trigger to give you all a glimpse of the ship that was. I present the Mighty Hood. OptionsHMS Hood is the first Battleship to have access to the Defensive Fire consumable. This version of Defensive Fire is special, affecting only her short-ranged Anti-Aircraft Rocket mounts to a pronounced degree, lasts 60s and comes with three charges standard. In addition, Hood has a special Repair Party consumable. It may heal up to 60% of all penetration damage done by all sources instead of just 50%, similar to that of HMS Warspite. It still only recovers a maximum of 14% of Hood's HP over 28 seconds like normal battleships, unlike Warspite which recovers 16.8% per charge. Consumables: Damage Control Party Repair Party Defensive Fire Module Upgrades: Four slots, standard British Battleship options Premium Camouflage: Tier 6+ Standard. This provides 50% bonus experience gains, 3% reduction in surface detection and 4% reduction in enemy accuracy. During the Hunt the Bismarck campaign, two additional camouflage patterns will become available through completing Mission #6. The exact bonuses they provide were not disclosed by the time this was published. For upgrades, Hood should equip the following modules: In her first slot, take Main Armaments Modification 1. You're going to take a lot of hits in Hood and because of the aggressive angles you'll be taking, many of them will strike your forward turrets and barbettes. This will help keep your guns in action against such punishment. If you're planning on specializing her anti-aircraft armament, you should consider Auxiliary Armaments Modification 1 to increase the survivability of your rocket-mounts. In the second slot, you have two interesting choices. Optimally, taking Aiming Systems Modification 1 is best. This will tighten her shell groupings, especially at range, while simultaneously providing a slight increase to the range of her secondary gun batteries. Alternatively, you can seek to maximize her AA power by taking AA Guns Modification 2. This latter choice will not make her a threat to enemy aircraft carriers but it will provide some functionality with her Defensive Fire consumable but only if paired with Advanced Fire Training, so keep this in mind. In your third slot, Damage Control System Modification 1 is your best choice. This will increase her torpedo damage reduction from 16% to 18% And in your last slot, you have a choice of either Steering Gears Modification 2 or Damage Control System Modification 2. Take the latter if you're afraid of fire, though she's not any more flammable than other tier 7 Battleships. Firepower Primary Battery: Eight 381mm rifles in 4x2 turrets in an A-B-X-Y superfiring configuration. Secondary Battery: Fourteen 102mm rifles in 7x2 turrets with three down each side behind the funnels and the last mounted rearward on the center line. Let's start with the bad news: Hood doesn't have very good weapon systems. Her main battery lacks penetration and her secondaries are horribly placed. These elements really hold the ship back from being truly excellent. Hood has fewer secondary guns than Colorado and they're largely placed towards the rear half of the ship..This creates large blind spots forward preventing them from being brought to bear when on the attack until a target is 35º off her bow. More often than not you will only have one or two turrets firing at most. While they may pick up the occasional low-health kill, it would be a serious mistake to rely upon these weapons or the specialize into improving their performance. Hood's 381mm/42 MkII guns superficially resemble those off Warspite. In fact, looking at their stats in port, you would have a hard time finding much in the way of difference between the two ship's guns beyond range and rate of rotation. It's within her hidden stats, namely shell normalization, AP fuse timers and penetration that Hood steps further away from Warspite. Hood's penetration values are bad. To compensate for this, Wargaming made Hood better at avoiding ricochets and damaging lightly armoured targets. The exact changes are as follows: Hood shells auto-ricochet at 67.5º instead of 60º like Warspite. With the notable exception of Hood, all Battleship shells that do not overmatch the thickness of armour will auto-ricochet if they strike a shell angled less than 30º to the horizontal regardless of the relative penetration power of a given shell. This value is common in most warships in the game with a few notable exceptions -- the most common being the high tier American Heavy Cruisers. Hood's shells will not auto-ricochet unless they strike at an acute angle of less than 22.5º to the horizontal. This is designed to make Hood more likely to penetrate vessels taking an aggressive bow-on attack posture and to ensure she has fewer shells that careen off of funny angles of turret faces and the like. Note, that this does not provide any bonus value to penetration or normalization. An armour plate at the acute angle of 31º to the horizontal effectively doubles its relative thickness so while a shell might not ricochet from the angle of impact, it may still shatter against the relative thickness of the plate it encounters from a lack of penetration power. Hood has faster fuse-timers at 0.015s instead of Warspite's 0.033s. An AP shell's fuse arms by passing through a sufficiently thick piece of steel plate or striking a structural divide between ships sections. After a small delay, the shell detonates. For most ships with 330mm guns and larger, this fuse delay is set at 0.033s while those of a smaller caliber have 0.01s delay. The shortened delay timer makes it more likely that her shells will explode inside a target -- particularly narrower sections of a ship, such as the extremities battleships or the broadside of light cruisers at close range. However, the fuses still only arm when they strike thick enough metal so this doesn't guarantee that they will penetrate soft skinned ships like destroyers and French cruisers. Hood's fuses need to strike a plate 64mm thick (or a structural divide) in order to arm. Striking at the maximum angle, Hood would need to hit a minimum 25mm steel plate in order to arm in this manner, so it's still very possible to see over penetrations from a broad range of targets. Hood's accuracy is slightly worse than Warspite's with 1.8 sigma instead of 2.0 sigma. While Hood's shell grouping aren't as tight as those of Warspite, she's still a Royal Navy Battleship which brings an accuracy perk. These vessels have some of the tightest horizontal and vertical dispersion in among the current dreadnoughts. Due to the lower shell velocity of her 381mm guns, the overall dispersion area per shot is comparably less than that to any other nation. This does mean that you can drop some rather accurate shells on unsuspecting targets. Aim well and pick your targets right and Hood can still perform. Without a target lock, the shell dispersion patterns seen here are roughly double what would be seen when firing at enemy ships. There is approximately 350m between nav buoys. Shells are traveling from right to left. Hood has approximately 7% worse penetration than Warspite at all ranges. It's the drop in penetration power that's telling and largely dictates why her guns have sub-standard performance. She has less penetration power at 10km than Gneisenau has at 15km. Due to her lower shell velocity, her volleys come in at a higher angle than other battleships which further increases the relative thickness of plate against which it strikes. Thus even armour you might assume Hood possesses enough raw penetration to best can end up shattering her shells. At ranges greater than 12km, you can't expect Hood to reliably penetrate the belt armour of any enemy battleship you come across. Instead, aim a little higher and try and hammer the upper hull or superstructure. Looking back at port values, two statistics should stand out: range and gun rotation. On paper, Hood has the second lowest range of any of the tier 7 Battleships, though it pays to keep in mind that Colorado can boost her reach from 17.1km up to 19.9km with her Artillery Plotting Room 1 upgrade. Unfortunately for Hood, she doesn't have access to the same. Hood's 18.6km reach will often feel insufficient, especially when she gets up-tiered. Unlike Warspite, she doesn't have access to a Spotter Aircraft to temporarily boost her range, functionally giving her less maximum range than her tier 6 cousin. All of Hood's main battery drawbacks could be done away with if she was a good brawler. Her penetration woes would fall away. Range wouldn't be an issue. This would really exemplify the strengths of her improved auto-ricochet angles and the decreased shell fuse timer. In truth, she does have some qualities that would make her a good medium to short range brawler, such as her agility and protection scheme (see below for more on that). On top of this, her gun angles are excellent. Her #4 turret can engage enemies 30º off her bow and her #3 can do so with enemies at 31º. If only she had decent secondaries or working torpedo launchers to back them up. So while Hood has arguably the worst guns (both primary and secondary) at her tier, they're not without their merits. While their performance will not do players any favours, proper target selection and aim can go a long way towards mitigating their drawbacks. What about her gun Rotation? At the time of writing this, HMS Hood had a 3º per second main battery rotation speed -- 60s for 180º turn which is pretty terrible. Unconfirmed rumours had mentioned that Hood's turret rotation would be buffed up to 5º per second before release. I don't like to write my reviews based on rumours, especially not ones Wargaming themselves cannot confirm or deny. As it stands, with her original traverse rate, this is another drawback to her weapons, albeit a minor one. Her excellent firing arcs makes it very easy to mitigate this issue by locking the rear turrets in an 'over the shoulder' position and just apply small touches of rudder to unmask them before slipping back into a more aggressive, not-quite bow on stance to emphasize the strengths of her armour once more. Should Hood receive this turret rotation buff, this would give her some of the fastest turning turrets among Battleships in the game -- just behind the quick turning rates of Friedrich der Große and on par with the likes of Bismarck and Dunkerque. This will again bring up the question of brawling with Hood and ... while possible, it's still a very dangerous game to play, especially without good backup weaponry in the form of torpedoes or awesome secondaries. Still, it might be the play to make in select circumstances, but I wouldn't rely on it. Summary: The gimmicks of shortened fuses and improved auto-ricochet angles are nice and all, but they don't prop up what are ultimately the weakest guns at their tier. Hood is under-armed with low DPM, low penetration and low range. Her secondary's suck moose balls. Her accuracy is good, though, being as good as (or better) than some of the 2.0 sigma warships at her tier grace of the tighter British dispersion. Manoeuvrability Top Speed: 32.0 knotsTurning Radius: 910mRudder Shift: 13.4s Turn Rate: 4.08º per second HMS Hood's agility is a story of contrasts. She's very fast, but she takes a long time to get up to speed. She has an enormous turning circle, yet she can change her heading very quickly for a ship of her size. It's all too easy to dismiss Hood's handling as "bad" -- especially with her turning circle of 910m. This is the worst at her tier, and by a significant margin. While it's true that requires a lot of room to turn around, the rate at which she does turn is surprisingly fast for her size. Hood manages just shy of 4.1º per second in a turn grace of her high speed. This is well ahead of Nagato (3.7º per second) however it falls short of all of the other tier 7 battleships. This still puts her ahead of ships with smaller turning circles, like North Carolina and Arizona. So while Hood's ability to turn isn't "good", it's not terrible either. She'll surprise many opponents with how quickly she changes her heading or how aptly she can wiggle and dodge. Her rudder shift time can be dropped down to a mere 10.7s which only adds to her responsiveness. The only downside to this agility is that during play testing, she was out turning her turrets and by quite a bit. If Hood has a real shortfall it's in her acceleration. Compared to her closest contemporary, Gneisenau, she's slower in the turn (23.9 knots versus 24.1 knots) and she takes longer to accelerate to full speed from a dead stop (73s versus 65s). The difference between the two in manoeuvres is more telling -- Gneisenau recovers from deceleration faster, reaching her full speed again within 30s while Hood needs 35s. This can limit Hood's ability to dictate engagement ranges unless she sails in a straight line. Indeed, the strength of her high top speed -- as fast as or faster than any other Battleship she'll encounter short of the Iowa-class -- is predicated by sailing on a straight line course. Pray there are no torpedo armed destroyers able to draw a bead on her. If there's room to pull this off, she can effectively kite opponents that attempt to give chase. Even destroyers (particularly the slower IJN Destroyers) will struggle to keep pace with Hood when she has a mind of opening up the distance. This has the added benefit of pointing her badly positioned secondaries at whatever is pursuing her. On the attack, Hood can dominate slower Battleships and unwary cruisers, using her speed and handling to bow in, angle against incoming fire and close into her own optimal firing range while. Cruisers cannot comfortably outpace her without sailing in a straight line and Hood will punish them for moving predictably. In the latter stages of a match, Hood can really make all of the difference, with her high speed allowing her to power from one flank to the other and address the needs of her team mates. This even makes up for some of the disparity of her range. High speed should never be discounted -- it's an incredibly powerful asset. Finally, Hood's manoeuvrability combines with her excellent firing arcs of her guns and her fast rudder shift. It's quite easy to keep the ship heavily angled, touch the rudder to unmask turrets 3 and 4, fire and then touch the rudder back to return to a defensive stance. When she elects to take a brawling stance, her speed and handling doesn't let her down. Om nom nom, Atlanta. Hood has the speed to chase down many cruisers, especially if they don't turn tail and run flat out. DurabilityHit Points: 67,700Maximum Protection: 25mm + 305mm + 40mm Min Bow & Deck Armour: 25mmTorpedo Damage Reduction: 16% Hood's reputation for fragility precedes her, so it may be a bit of a tough sell for me to declare that she's rather well protected. There's some obvious points to get out of the way -- she's not German so her citadel can be penetrated. She's also tier 7 and not tier 8, so this hamstrings her with her tier mate's 25mm bow and stern armour which can be overmatched by 380mm guns or larger. But overall, she's not an especially fragile battleship. Hood's citadel protection over her machine spaces is comparable to Nagato's, but she rides much lower in the water. This fully immerses her citadel beneath the waterline, which is an immediate plus. The downside is that this also immerses most of her belt armour, leaving only a bacon-thin stripe over the water's surface. Without angling, the large slab sides of the ship are vulnerable to letting in AP penetrations from even cruiser-caliber guns, so be careful about giving up her flanks. Her armour scheme works best at medium to close ranges where she can turn in against incoming firepower. Like all ships with turtlebacks, Hood has to be especially wary of long range fire. Most of the citadel damage I've taken has come from long range shell strikes from distances greater than 15km. Giving up your flush broadside is also asking to have your machine spaces blown out. Her vulnerabilities lie primarily with her turrets and barbettes which aren't as well protected as her contemporaries, leaving them vulnerable to direct fire. It's quite common for these guns to get temporarily disabled, so Main Armaments Modification 1 is a sound investment. Preventative Maintenance on your ship's Commander wouldn't be remiss either. It's against high explosive fire that Hood is surprisingly adept. She shares the usual vulnerabilities of her superstructure to all gun calibers and her bows and stern can be easily damaged by 152mm guns or larger. However, like the German Battleships Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, amidships, her deck is too thick for even heavy cruiser HE shells to damage. Similarly, above her armoured belt, her plate never gets thin enough for high explosive to damage either, being immune to everything up to and including Battleship caliber HE shells. Hood is highly vulnerable to torpedoes, however. Her long keel presents an ideal target for broadside spreads. Her propensity to want to sail in straight lines to maximize speed can set her up for disaster, so keeping a wary eye on the minimap is necessary to avoid unwelcome surprises. Concealment & Camouflage Base Surface Detection Range: 16.2km Air Detection Range: 13.9 km Minimum Surface Detection Range: 13.5km Main Battery Range: 18.6km Hood is a large ship and she understandably has a rather large surface detection range. It's perhaps a surprise that it's not the worst at her tier. She sits comfortably in the middle -- outdone by 500m when compared to the commerce raiders Scharnhorst and Gneisenau but ahead of Colorado by the same margin and with nearly a full kilometer's advantage over Nagato. This happy middle ground evaporates when her aerial detection is concerned -- she has the largest surface detection by a large margin. You're not sneaking up on anything in Hood. Even if you specialize in concealment, you're still going to be sniffed out from the air at a range of 11.9km and from the surface at 13.5km. This can put a real hurt on her efforts to take up flanking positions, as she's more visible than most of the American and German Battleships (especially when they're higher tier and rigged for concealment) and she stands little chance of catching a cruiser off guard. What really hurts Hood's concealment is that without allies, she has to do her own spotting. She has no access to Hydro, Radar or some kind of catapult aircraft to give her early warning about another ship's approach through concealment or obstacles. So not only is a she a big ship, she's also a blind big ship. Destroyers can approach her confident that she won't spot them early and that her secondaries are ill placed to fend them off. This allows Hood to be out played by another ship that can control vision. Were it not for Hood's speed, she might be surrendering all initiative to the enemy because of this deficit. I ran lots (and lots, and lots) of tests of Hood's anti-aircraft ability, both against bots and against volunteers like Lert. The more heavily specialized she became, the more more brutal her AA power became under the Defensive Fire consumable. It's almost meme-worthy, but don't swallow the hype wholesale. Anti-Aircraft Defense AA Battery Calibers: 178mm / 102mm / 40mm / 12.7mmAA Umbrella Ranges: 1.5km / 5.0km / 2.5km / 1.2kmAA DPS per Aura: 50 / 56 / 69 / 8 Much ado will be made about HMS Hood's anti-aircraft defenses. Let's get this out of the way before we go any further: Hood is selfish. Whatever you feel about the final values of Hood's AA power, she isn't designed around fleet-defense. Her dual purpose, 102mm guns may have the reach but can only do so much to help to a beleaguered ally, even when fully upgraded. Instead, Hood's flak is meant to selfishly protect herself from enemy air attack. The only redeemable quality of Hood's anti-aircraft defenses comes solely from her two unique features -- her anti aircraft rockets and her Defensive Fire consumable. On the surface, her rockets are pretty lackluster too. She has five mounts, each adding 10dps to the collective whole which isn't spectacular. Worse, they have only a 1.5km range. Stock, they are utterly incapable of engaging enemy torpedo planes before they make their drop. At best, they can engage enemy dive bombers on their final attack run. Worse, her Defensive Fire consumable only affects these rocket mounts, meaning that the disruption effect provided by this consumable only touches planes that have slipped within this 1.5km window. Clearly, we're not off to a great start. Thankfully, it gets better. While Defensive Fire is limited to her rocket mounts it does have two buffs over the standard consumable. Instead of buffing her DPS by a factor of three for forty seconds, Hood's Defensive Fire lasts sixty seconds. And, the DPS of her rockets is buffed twenty-five times. Yes, you read that right: Twenty-five times. Without any other bonuses, Hood's rockets generate an average of 1,250 DPS for sixty seconds. To put this in perspective, Minotaur, the tier 10 British cruiser that's renowned for her anti-aircraft firepower, generates a total of 494 DPS stock. Anything that wanders into the rocket's aura is going to take heavy casualties, but this won't be enough to do more than maul most air groups. Most carriers will be able to stomach such losses if it means being able to drop ordnance. So while Hood might cause a few casualties, stock she's not going to scare anyone off. This changes if you choose to upgrade heavily into anti-aircraft defense. Taking the AA Guns Modification 2 upgrade in combination with Advanced Fire Training on your commander will nudge up your rocket's range to 2.2km. This range may not feel like much but it's significant. First, it gives your rockets more time to engage dive bombers. Second, this range will also catch torpedo planes -- sometimes before they drop but almost always after they drop. So while this will again make attacking Hood expensive, range boosts alone will not discourage carriers from engaging her. Boosting her DPS will. With the Captain Skills Basic Fire Training and Manual Fire Control for AA Guns, Hood's rocket DPS spikes up over 3,000dps. This is the equivalent of two Montana-class Battleships specialized for anti-aircraft firepower firing in tandem at the same target. In short, nothing survives inside of 2.2km. Attack plane squadrons melt like they hit a wall. Carrier players have no reaction time to recover aircraft that slip inside this barrier and the only answer is to either wait out the consumable or launch torpedoes at very long range. Torpedo planes will always be Hood's bane, though. While it is possible to annihilate a poorly managed torpedo bomber wave before they drop, usually they will get at least a few fish into the water. Hood's large size and huge turning circle does make dodging fish challenging (though not impossible with her good turning speed), so it's likely she will take at least some damage from a concerted attack. However, her AA defense does have an Achilles Heel. The weakness in her AA defense is the survivability of her rocket mounts. Though they count as a large-caliber weapon, they do not have the protection of large caliber guns. Hood's rocket AA mounts have the same hit point totals as small and medium caliber AA Guns -- a mere 200hp as opposed to t he 800hp of dual-purpose mounts. Using Auxillary Armaments Modification 1 will double this to 400hp, but this will only keep her safe from 130mm HE rounds -- nothing bigger. This makes them exceedingly vulnerable to cruiser fire and it''s very unlikely that her defenses will be intact once she's taken even a modest amount of high explosive damage. Each mount lost cuts her heavy-hitting AA power by one fifth so it doesn't take much to neutralize her anti-aircraft aura to a pittance. This makes a heavy investment into AA firepower seem foolish as it can be largely dismantled even from light damage from surface vessels. When an enemy carrier faces a Hood, the question will always be: "Is it worth engaging her?" The truest test will always be to see at what range Hood's batteries engage those aircraft. If her guns remain silent at 7km or even 6km, then she's probably a safe target for torpedo planes. Dive Bombers should stay away until Hood is on half health or less. Braving attack runs on a specialized and weary Hood will only empty out your hangar for very little gains. Personally, I found using a fully specialized AA Captain hilarious. The comments from carrier players when everything died before dropping their warheads was always so satisfying. Proper management of her anti-aircraft guns was key, including disabling her AA guns to lure planes in and shutting them off again after an attack run to accelerate the reset timer on her Defensive Fire. However, let's be clear: It's a heavy investment for what amounts to little gains in the majority of your battles. It hinges on:a.) Matchmaker placing you in a game with enemy carriers...b.) ...that are intent on trying to attack you with their planes...c.) ...before enemy surface ships destroy your AA rocket mounts. If this seems incredibly specific and unlikely, you're not mistaken. The skill points and modules are likely be better spent elsewhere. But there's no denying the joy of annihilating enemy aircraft. How to be MightyThere are two main Commander builds to consider for Hood. Anti-Aircraft Build, to maximize the defensive potential of Hood's hilarious AA mechanics. A conservative, defensive build to stress concealment and fire damage mitigation. The core skills you'll want for both Hood builds starts with Priority Target (1pt) followed by Adrenaline Rush (2pts) to help prop up her awful DPM totals. From here, the paths of the two builds diverge greatly. The anti-aircraft build requires the use of Basic Fire Training (3pts) and a rush to get Advanced Fire Training (4pts) as soon as possible. This last skill should be combined with the AA Guns Modification 2 upgrade to push the range of her rockets out to 2.2km. The next skill to grab is Manual Fire Control for AA Guns (4pts). It's highly recommend you take Superintendent (3pts) as a follow up to add another charge to your Defensive Fire consumable. This will give you a maximum of 5 charges. This will leave you with 2pts remaining to be placed where you prefer. Expert Marksman (2pts) or High Alert (2pts) are the best choices. The defensive build for Hood should look familiar to veterans of battleships and stresses reducing the reset timers of consumables while mitigating the risks of fire. After taking the first two skills listed above, grab Basics of Survivability (3pts), then Concealment Expert (4pts) to get your surface detection range down. Next, you have a choice. I would put points into Superintendent (3pts) for the extra charge of her Repair Party, High Alert (2pts) and Vigilance (3pts) with the final point going towards Preventative Maintenance (1pt). Alternatively, drop the last two skills for Fire Prevention (4pts) instead for those that really hate fires. It's possible to mix and match skills from both builds to create a hybrid. Advanced Fire Training is the key skill to make the anti-aircraft build work, provided it's combined with AA Guns Modification 2. You may not kill every plane this way, but at least you can make it expensive for CVs to engage you. "Hood has Defensive Fire? That would have been nice to know," said a Taiho Captain after this attack run. Hood's AA couldn't prevent the drop of all three stacked torpedo squadrons, but it could shoot most of them down, making attacks like this prohibitively expensive. Overall Impressions Skill Floor: Simple / Casual / Challenging / Difficult Skill Ceiling: Low / Moderate / High / Extreme Hood is a battleship -- and a battleship with good durability and accurate guns which makes her rather forgiving on the surface. However, she's not idiot proof like the low tier German Battleships, nor will she do you any favours where dealing damage is concerned. One of the main complaints about her will forever be her guns which simply don't hit hard enough without compensations to the volume of fire. In the hands of an expert player, Hood will tick all of the same boxes that Dunkerque and Iowa do. She's a fast, flanking Battleship that can really cause a lot of headaches to the enemy. Hood is one of the best ships out there for denying a flank to enemy cruisers and dreadnoughts by being annoying and hard to kill. Her speed lets her control the engagement and delay even a hard push by tanking far more damage than anyone expects her capable. Her carrying potential is limited by her small main battery and awful secondaries. Mouse's Summary: Held back by her weapons. Hood really makes you work for every scrap of damage done. Her anti-aircraft armament is a fun gimmick. Not very practical, but a lot of fun. Hood is a lot tougher than her historical reputation would suggest. Never underestimate the value of her speed. I was (not-so secretly) hoping Hood was going to be a 30-knot, faster-firing version of HMS Warspite: Fast. Agile. Good DPM for her tier. Tough as nails if played right but uncompromising if mishandled and absolutely brutal in a close range fight if push comes to shove. That's not what Hood ended up being and admittedly, it took me a little while to get over my disappointment of not being able to replace my favourite ship with something better. It's almost like Wargaming didn't want to give a Royal Navy fangirl a(nother) super-overpowered British boat. Harumph. Now, those unrealistic expectations aside, I had a lot of fun play testing Hood. I put this ship through her paces. I mapped her shell fall patterns. I drag raced her against the other tier 7 Battleships to check her acceleration and put her through my usual tests to find her rotation speed. I even went head to head with iChase's Nagato in a trio of one-versus-one duels in the original build of Hood. We really hammered out the strengths and weaknesses of the ship in those engagements. It made a few lessons abundantly clear: Her speed is amazing. She's painfully blind with no aircraft or spotting consumable. Her guns may not hit hard, but they hit reliably and the damage she can do is not insignificant if you aim well. Brawling is largely a mistake unless it's to finish off a low health and vulnerable foe, then it can be amazingly decisive. She's also a lot tougher than she looks (though she'll still get her citadel blown out), and her anti-aircraft armament is hilarious. I want to be able to say clearly how I think Hood is going to perform in the community at large. I think people will really love her durability and handling. I do think that her gun performance is going to hold her back from topping those vaunted damage charts everyone hovers over as the yardstick for a successful boat... however, her survivability and speed might let her snatch up a few extra scraps of damage that might be otherwise denied to a Nagato or Colorado. I don't think anyone will be disappointed to see HMS Hood on their team -- in fact, they may prefer her there over the presence of a Colorado. I don't think she will displace the Scharnhorst-sisters as some of the best ships at their tier. Finally, Hood isn't overpowered. I do think she'll polarize players though. You'll love her quirks or you'll get turned off right away by her guns. So while I didn't get a better, faster Warspite, I did get to play something different and ultimately enjoyable. Would I Recommend? It's always fun phrasing recommendations for famous ships. It's understandable that a lot of people will have already made up their minds well in advance -- HMS Hood is just one of those iconic vessels that demands attention. PVE Battles How well does the ship maintain profitability in Co-Op modes and how does she fare against bots? As a Battleship, Hood is well suited to bullying bots and is a good choice for PVE Battles. She has an enormous hit point pool which keeps her low on the bot's priority list and her AA power and agility is more than sufficient to avoid hits from CV auto-drops. Her repair costs sit at 26,775 credits with 90 credits spent per shell fired. However, she won't make bank. A typical 400 base experience game will net about 50,000 credits after expenses without a premium account. Random Battle Grinding This includes training captains, collecting free experience, earning credits and collecting signal flags from achievements. While I do feel that Warspite is the better Battleship trainer between the two, Hood isn't a bad ship. If you need only one Royal Navy Battleship trainer, I would recommend the former -- she'll be more cost effective. However, taken on her own merits, Hood is a good ship for grinding in Random Battles. For Competitive Gaming:Competitive Gaming includes Ranked Battles and other skill-based tournaments. This also includes stat-padding. It's hard to recommend Hood for competitive gaming. While she would enjoy relative immunity from enemy CV predations, she's just too blind and too under armed to be as strong a contender as Nagato, Scharnhorst or Gneisenau. For Collectors:If you enjoy ship history or possessing rare ships, this section is for you. Do I seriously need to fill this section out? For Fun Factor:Bottom line: Is the ship fun to play? Yep. I enjoyed my time with her. Although, I admit that the "look out for Bismarck" jokes got pretty old after a while. What's the Final Verdict?How would the ship rate on an Angry YouTuber scale of Garbage - Meh - Gud - Overpowered? GARBAGE - Grossly uncompetitive and badly in need of buffs.Mehbote - Average ship. Has strengths and weaknesses. Doesn't need buffs to be viable, but certainly not advantageous.Gudbote - A strong ship that has obvious competitive strengths and unique features that make it very appealing.OVERPOWERED - A ship with very clear advantages over all of its competitors and unbalancing the game with its inclusion. I still want one.
  8. Well, the preliminary photos are in from SD Model Makers. Some additions and alterations still need to be done, but she is coming along nicely. She is 30” long, so just under 1:350 scale. Something like 1:34896 or whatever. For those of you who don’t know, the Lexington -class aircraft carrier, or CV, was originally supposed to be a battlecruiser, or CC. The model is is being built in a configuration that suggests what she might have looked like as a CC in USN service in early 1941. ARMAMENT: x8 16”/50 main guns. x10 6”/53 secondary guns. x10 5”/25 heavy AA guns. x6 1.1”/75 “Chicago Piano” medium AA guns. x19 Water cooled M2 .50 caliber BMG light AA guns. Enjoy!
  9. I want to pose the question for all you USS Alaska enthusiasts and naval historians out there: Do you think that the Alaska-class cruiser is a battlecruiser or a large cruiser, and why? I have been studying this question myself....but I want to hear what you all have to say as I want to gather more information for my research into this debatable question. Below I have links to the Wikipedia article of the USS Alaska, the Wikipedia article of the Alaska-class, and the YouTube video from Drafchinifel, a British naval historian (who's channel I highly recommend that you check out, if you have not done so already) for you consideration in answering my question. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Alaska_(CB-1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska-class_cruiser
  10. Playing WoWs over the last year has given me a thought about potential battlecruiser lines. With Wargaming running out of major nations, what is another option in the ever present search of new content, one I think is the battlecruiser. While not as flashy as submarines, a large candidate for the addition of battlecruisers is that they are already in the game as battleships such as Hood and the Kongo, and arguably some cruisers. These lines also bringing in mostly historic ships rather than paper ships such as the Myogi. How they would probably be implemented as a sister class to battleships staring at tier 3 and when they become obsolete, shift into the battleship line like the lights shifting into the mediums at tier 8 back in the old days of WoT. A huge user of battlecruisers and founder of the concept was the British so that's where I'll start with my idea. To start the line as a sibling to Bellerophon at Tier 3 is the Invincible, the Invincible came out about the same time as Bellerophon and has the same guns, but had sacrificed armor and one of the twin turrets to gain increased speed. The tier 4 would be filled by the Queen Mary, while the Lion came out with the Orion, the Lion is taken in name by the Tier 9 but makes little difference nonetheless. The Queen Mary continues the trend giving up armor and a gun turret for speed, while still having the same guns while at the same time increasing gun caliber and speed. The tier 5 would be the Tiger, she is very much like the Queen Mary and would likely end up being an improved version in game if used, having the same number of guns, armor and similar speed. The tier six would very definitely be the Renown class. The Renown class, once more follows the British battlecruisers pattern and has a clear upgrade path, with WW1 then Repulses WW2 form then Renown's modernized form. Tier 7 however is murky, in an ideal world it would be Hood, the last battlecruiser, however it is a premium, but if it was changed It would be a break the tradition as it has 15 inch guns unlike King George V’s 14 inch guns as well as having a completely different turret layout, but also a clear path like the Renown, WW1, the unmodernised form from the fight with Bismarck and the current planned modification Hood. And then the line would end by shifting to the Monarch. If this is not the case, the line could merge into King George V, as it is fast and would be a fitting ending to the line as well and would not break the tradition of the earlier part of line but at the cost of excluding Hood, arguably one of the most famous battlecruisers and the last of her kind. Overall, The British Battlecruisers have a clear focus on speed at the cost of armor and a slight reduction of firepower, this allows them to chase down cruisers more effectively than the excruciatingly slow early dreadnoughts and would allow them to dictate engagements. However following the historic trend of being hopelessly under protected against battleships, but I think would be a great addition to WoWs. The other large user of Battlecruisers is Britain's current greatest opponent, Germany. The first ship would be the Von der Tann at tier 3, like it's British adversary, the Von der Tann gives up armor for speed, but instead sacrifices two gun turrets to achieve high speed while still keeping adequate armor. This sacrifice in firepower makes it well protected while being faster than Invincible. The drawback is that like Nashau, she only has 11 inch guns, and less of them. At tier 4 would be Seydlitz, unlike the Von der Tann, the Seydlitz only sacrifices one turret while increasing the armor and speed over her predecessor and is an overall improvement. But like Vonn der Tann only has 11 inch guns compared to the 12 inch guns of British capital ships. The next ship on the list would be the tier 5 Derfflinger, following the battlecruiser tradition of losing one turret over its battleship counterpart, but also has high armor for a battle cruiser and is once again a step up as it gets larger 12 inch guns at the cost of two guns. At tier 6 would be the only paper design thus far, the Mackensen. The Mackensen class is already modeled in game as the Prinz Eitel Friedrich so it would be easy to add and would likely be an obvious choice as a result. Unlike the ships before her Mackensen has the same number of guns as Bayern but they are 14 rather than 15 inch, but would likely be a watered down Prinz Eitel Friedrich. From here the line would end as the line shifts from Imperial German to WW2 German and the line could merge into the Gneisenau. Or potentially the the line could continue to tier 7 with the Scharnhorst with its 11 inch guns becoming a normal ship with the line shifting to the Bismarck instead. To summarize, The German Battlecruisers would focus on speed but do not sacrifice as much armor as British Battlecruisers and as a result are slightly slower. This makes it so that while they can dictate engagements similar to British Battlecruisers once in an engagement they are better protected than their opponents as they were designed to fight along side other battleships. Due to the lack of large Battlecruiser forces in other navies there isn't enough ships to create another line of ships so there is only two. However they could potentially be created as Battleship lines if WoWs wanted to add them without adding a whole new line and all the balancing issues. But overall I think that it would be a good addition to the game as fast battleships are popular but the slow speeds of Dreadnoughts are a big turn away to potential BB players who are used to cruisers and destroyers and Battlecruisers bring fast ships with large guns to early game play until faster battleships become available and would likely encourage line diversity to those who do not like traditional BB lines. I have been tossing this around in my head and with so many paper ships I thought that this might be a good idea and I decided to put this up to see if it is a good idea. I'm wondering if anyone else thinks this is a good idea to or have similar ideas and want to give feedback on the idea.
  11. Battlecruisers are some of my favorite ships in the game, and I love their fast, hard hitting play style. I’ve posted a British Battlecruiser branch previously, and I am thinking of post a revised one soon-ish, I’d also like to take the time to put together and propose a German Battlecruiser line. The biggest difference between German and British Battle Cruisers is that the British designed their battlecruisers to hunt, catch, and kill cruiser, while being able to outrun an battleships that tried to do the same. The "Out Gun what you can't Out Run and Out Run what you can't Out Gun" philosophy that you hear as battlecruiser doctrine. To achieve this, armor was sacrificed for speed. German battlecruiser took a different route. They were design to hunt, catch, and kill battlecruisers. For this purpose, German battlecruisers needed armor able to withstand battleship grade fire. In this case, firepower. German battlecruisers carried smaller guns than their British counterparts. Pros: Good armor Good secondaries with good range Good straight line acceleration Good rudder shift time Cons: Guns tending towards lighter caliber Poor accuracy at long range Losses 60% of speed in hard turns Large turning radius Less health than British counterparts Tier III SMS Van der Tann A knot slower than her tier rival, with guns that are an inch smaller, SMS Von der Tann has the advantages of being to fire her wing turrets cross-deck and of better armor. Tier IV SMS Seydlitz An improvement of the Moltke-Class, SMS Seydlitz has a firepower advantage over HMS Queen Mary in that she has an extra turret, matching Queen Mary's damage-per-volley, but better her in rate of fire. Tier IV -Premium- Moltke-Class Not quite as fast as SMS Seydlitz, the Moltke can still outrun battleships of her tier, and only Seydlitz and Queen Mary can out pace her. Tier V Derfflinger-Class Here, I used SMS Lutzow,as all 3 where subtly different. Fast, with heavy and numerous secondaries, the Derfflingers should be fun to dive head first into a brawl and get stuck in. Tier VI Makensen-Class An improved Derfflinger-Class with 13.5 inch guns instead of 12, the Mackensen-Class should be fun to fight in close quarters with. See the Prinz Eitel Friedrich for an example of the class. Tier VII Ersatz Yorck-Class The Mackensen-Class with 15 inch guns. She is comparable with the Admiral-Class, slower but with better secondaries. Might look into giving her a speed boost. Tier VIII GK 4531-4532 Stepping up to 16.5 inch guns, the GK 4531 & GK 4532 will only be able to bring 6 barrels into battle, compared to the G3 and exceeds the J3's gun size, but with only 2/3 the barrels, a flip from the tradition. Will be able to accelerate and decelerate faster than her tiermate, the Bismarck. Tier IX Fantasy based on GK 4541-4542 Work would need to be done, likely increasing the belt and citadel armor, as well as upping the speed. Tier X Fantasy based on GK 5041 Almost the same length as the Friedrich der Große, and a little less than 6,500 t lighter. Might need a slight speed buff and definitely will need armor values added. Carries six 16.5 inch guns vs nine on the Großer Kurfürst. Either need to up the turrets to triples or better her stats in other areas.
  12. Fair warning, this is not a serious proposal, as the entire line is paper, with the exclusion of the Iowa-Class. Also, from tier 4 through 8, all of the ships are either designs for the Lexington-Class or designs that lead to the early Lexington designs. For the most part, they'd be very responsive ships, able to accelerate to top speed and change course very quickly, compared to any other battleship or battle cruiser, but would pay dearly for that privilege, with the most heavily armored ship having 13 inches and with the weakest being a measly 6 inches (original plans called for 5). The citadels will also tend to be fairly high, and not all will be turtle backed, so making use of the quick acceleration and rudder shifting is the key to survival. Their play-style would be closer to oversized cruisers, rather than fast battleships, and misplays will be punished severely. This line is not for the faint of heart and would have a fairly steep learning curve. However, near paralleled mobility for ships of their firepower, they would be deadly in the right hands. It might also be good to give them relatively good turret traverse, at least better than similar armed battleships. Fake modernizations will be needed to help with their pitiful AA, though it might allow for a small boost in speed. Pros: Fast acceleration Responsive rudder High top speed Good guns Large health pools Lack of tall superstructures Might be overpenned a lot? Good firing angles on all turrets Cons: High and long citadel Weak belt Large size Consumable selection will be key, as they can make or break the line. I suggest that they get Vanguard's heal, or at least something similar, and they get it early. Or maybe an engine boost that significantly boosts acceleration and deceleration, but doesn't affect top speed? Tier IV Lexington (1912-B) Main Armament: 2x Double 356mm 14”/45 Mk I (fore, superfiring) 2x Double 356mm 14”/45 Mk I (aft, superfiring) Secondary Armament: 16x Single 6” Anti-Aircraft Armament: [Unknown] Displacement: 38,329 t Speed: 29 kts Belt: 254 mm Citadel: [Unknown] Length: 280.4 m Beam: 29.6 m Draft: 9.3 m A lightly armored but heavily armed ship, her high citadel and thin belt will come as a shock to those coming fresh from the South Carolina, though her high speed and big guns would hopefully offset some of her flaws. Ideally, I would have liked to start players at tier III, but I couldn't find a suitable 12-inch armed design, and while I am using a lot of paper, I don't want to resort to pure fantasy ships. However, the flip side is that it will still start players off at tier 4, which is less competitive than higher tiers, and the relatively small calibers that she'll we facing means that her armor deficient isn't as bad as it would be. She'll either be really fun or really painful. Tier V Lexington-145 (1915) Main Armament: 2x Double 356mm 14”/45 Mk I (fore, superfiring) 2x Double 356mm 14”/45 Mk I (aft, superfiring) Secondary Armament: 12x 6” Anti-Aircraft Armament: 4x 76mm 3” Displacement: 32,205 t Speed: 30 kts Belt: 152 mm Citadel: [Unknown] Length: 259 m (waterline) Beam: 30.5 m (waterline) Draft: 9.3 m While she has a thinner belt than her predecessor, Design 145 has significantly more internal armor, so while she'll take more penetrating hits, her internal armor might reduce the number of citadels. Might be better to swap with the tier IV. Tier VI Lexington-169 (1915) Main Armament: 1x Double 356mm 14”/45 Mk I (fore) 1x Triple 356mm 14”/45 Mk I (fore, superfiring) 1x Triple 356mm 14”/45 Mk I (aft, superfiring) 1x Double 356mm 14”/45 Mk I (aft) Secondary Armament: 2x Single 152mm 5” (port, conning tower, casemate) 2x Single 152mm 5” (starboard, conning tower, casemate) 3x Single 152mm 5” (port, midships superstructure, casemate) 3x Single 152mm 5” (straboard, midships superstructure, casemate) 2x Single 152mm 5” (port, aft, casemate) 2x Single 152mm 5” (straboard, aft, casemate) 2x Single 152mm 5” (port, midships superstructure, open) 2x Single 152mm 5” (straboard, midships superstructure, open) Anti-Aircraft Armament: [Unknown] Displacement: 30,390 t Speed: 35 kts Belt: 152 mm Citadel: [Unknown] Length: 259 m (waterline) Beam: 27.4 m (waterline) Draft: 9.2 m A slight increase in firepower over the previous two tiers, but a dramatic step up in terms of speed. Now with more funnels! Tier VII Lexington (1919-B) Main Armament: 2x Double 406mm 16”/45 (fore, superfiring) 2x Double 406mm 16”/45 (aft, superfiring) Secondary Armament: 5x Single 152mm 6” (port, midships superstructure, casemate) 5x Single 152mm 6” (starboard, midships superstructure, casemate) 2x Single 152mm 6” (port, midships superstructure, open) 2x Single 152mm 6” (starboard, midships superstructure, open) Anti-Aircraft Armament: [Unknown] Displacement: 40,826.3 t Speed: 33 kts Belt: 229 mm Citadel: Length: 259 m Beam: 30.2 m Draft: 9.3 m Losing 2 knots, 2 funnels, and 2 barrels, the B Scheme of 1919 gains better belt armor and now carries 16 inch guns. Tier VIII Lexington (1919-No. 1) Main Armament: 2x Double 406mm 16”/45 (fore, superfiring) 2x Double 406mm 16”/45 (aft, superfiring) Secondary Armament: 5x Single 152mm 6” (port, midships superstructure, casemate) 5x Single 152mm 6” (starboard, midships superstructure, casemate) 2x Single 152mm 6” (port, midships superstructure, open) 2x Single 152mm 6” (starboard, midships superstructure, open) Anti-Aircraft Armament: 4x 76mm 3” Displacement: 32024 t Speed: 35 kts Belt: 152 mm Citadel: Length: 259 m Beam: 28 m Draft: 9.6 m Losing armor to gain speed, she'd be the fastest 16-inch platform in the game. Don't know if 5 knots is worth 1/2 the belt of the alternate, though. Tier VIII -Alt- Lexington (1918-C) Main Armament: 2x Triple 406mm 16”/45 (fore, superfiring) 2x Triple 406mm 16”/45 (aft, superfiring) Secondary Armament: 8x Single 152mm 6” (port, midships superstructure, casemate) 8x Single 152mm 6” (starboard, midships superstructure, casemate) Anti-Aircraft Armament: [Unknown] Displacement: 48,080 t Speed: 30 kts Belt: 305 mm Citadel: Length: 262 m Beam: 32.3 m Draft: 9.6 m Slower than the other contender for the tier 8 spot, but with twice the belt and 50% more guns, she'd carry a very heavy armament for a ship as fast as her, and it also might do to increase her speed a bit to keep her equal to or greater than the French. She'll be able to overpower just about any cruiser at her tier, though she will need to stay at range when dealing with other battleships and battlecruisers. The 12 inch belt will be a welcome respite, allowing her to angle more effectively against other ships and make use of her good turret angles, she still suffers from a large and high citadel, so misjudging angles will prove costly. Tier IX Iowa-Class The Iowa-Class would be moved into this line, the only actually built ship in the entire line. Other than a change of location, I don't think there needs to be any change, Tier X Tilman-III Main Armament: 2x Triple 406mm 16”/50 (fore, superfiring) 2x Triple 406mm 16”/50 (aft, superfiring) Secondary Armament: [Unknown] Anti-Aircraft Armament: [Unknown] Displacement: 57,600 t Speed: 30 kts Belt: 330 Citadel: Length: 297 m Beam: 33 m Draft: 10 m I know the Tilman ships are a meme and were originally a trolling of Senator Tilman, but the design was still designed as if she were to be built. While most of the Tilmans would be overpowered, the Tilman-III is relatively tame, her belt is 3 inches lighter (and only an inch more than Iowa) to give her a designed speed of 30 knots to the Montana's 28. Since the Montana can do 30 knots in game, you could edge her speed up to 32-33 knots and make her engines and rudder a bit more responsive. Of course, the secondary and AA armament would have to get the USN WW2 treatment, ie stick a gun anywhere there's more than a square foot of deck space available (why the captains never got a pintle-mounted .50 cal, I'll never know. The Army got to have all the fun). In general, she would fit the style of the other American Battle Cruisers, except she's not made of glass. Since in this theoretical line would be taking Iowa for itself, a modernized South Dakota (1920) would be put in its place. She was similar, though lesser than Montana. Tier IX -Iowa Replacement- South Dakota (1920) Main Armament: 2x Triple 406mm 16”/50 (fore, superfiring) 2x Triple 406mm 16”/50 (aft, superfiring) Secondary Armament: [Unknown, Modernized] Anti-Aircraft Armament: [Unknown, Modernized] Displacement: 39,200 t Speed: 28 kts Belt: 343 Citadel: Length: 200 m Beam: 32 m Draft: 10 m
  13. Almost all of the most famous battlecruisers belonged to the British Navy, and it is a shame that those ships are not represented here, in game. As opposed to the German Battlecrusiers, which where in essence fast battleships, built with heavy armor, but lighter guns, the British went the opposite way (or you could say the Germans when the other way, since the British did it first). British Battlecruisers carried guns of equal caliber of their equivalent Battleship cousins, in most cases, with a turret less. They hauled all that impressive firepower around at impressive speeds, too, though at the cost of armor. Comparing this tree with my German one, you will see that the British are faster and carrier bigger guns, but with significantly reduced armor. This will mean that these ships will need to be played in a different way than their German counterparts. With heavy, hard hitting guns and high speed, they will make excellent flankers and cruiser hunters, and could probably be played almost like oversized cruisers, themselves. Pros: Large guns, larger than either the French or Germans that she'd meet up in the same tier. High speed firing platforms Get large caliber towards the (Up to 18-inch) Cons: Weak armor Usually 1 less turret than same tier BB counterpart Weird ABQX turret layout for low tiers which becomes ABQ at higher tiers. 16", 16.5", & 18" guns are high velocity guns with lighter shells Tier III Indefatigable-Class The fastest battleship (and battlecruiser) at tier 3, Indefatigable would be a fairly mobile firing platform. With the ability to fire cross-deck with her wing turrets, she will have a broadside of eight 12-inch guns, which will make her competitive, in-so-much-as tier 4 can be competitive. Tier III -Premium- Invincible-Class In all ways lesser to her tech tree counterpart (as it should be), the Invincible would still be faster than every other country's battleships, though her firepower is less, since she can't fire cross-deck with her wings. You won't get her to win, you'd get her for the historic fact that she was the first class of battlecruiser built and is responsible for spawning the development of battlecruisers in most every other nation (it could be argued that the USN had independently come up with the idea of a battlecruiser as a fleet vanguard unit, but the British were the first to put it to practice, and the USN only really started seriously pursuing it afterwards). Tier IV HMS Queen Mary Following the Lion-Class (which I discluded because to avoid confusion with the British tier 9 BB), the HMS Queen Mary was a unique class that was an improvement of the Lions. Like the Lions and the Orion-Class super-dreadnoughts , the HMS Queen Mary carries 13.5-inch guns along her centerline, in an A,-B- Q- X layout. She's 6 knots faster than the Orions, but at the cost of a turret aft. Tier V HMS Tiger While she's not any faster than the preceding tier, HMS Queen Mary, HMS Tiger has the advantage of rearranged engineering equipment, moving the Q turret back and clearing its field of fire aft. While it's fire is still blocked directly aft at close range by a small superstructure. With the removal of the funnel, however, long range fire directly aft as it can fire over the superstructure, and it doesn't take much turning, either to port or starboard, to clear the superstructure. Tier VI Renown-Class Hull (A)Hull (B) The Renown-Class was essentially built out of parts for the Revenge-Class battleships, who themselves were a cheaper alternative to the Queen Elizabeth-Class. The stock hull represents the Renown-Class as they were built, while the upgraded hull is how HMS Renown was near the end of the war. She goes from having poor AA to being probably the best in tier. While her medium and long range battery would be the same as the Queen Elizabeths, her short range aura would be vastly superior. While she only has 3 double turrets, she can still outrun any other battleship currently in the game. Players who like highly mobile game play will like her, those who would want to hang back and fire from long range, like the rest of the line, have better options to do so. Tier VI -Premium- HMS Repulse Additional Consumable: Spotter (and Maybe Fighter) HMS Repulse, in her configuration at the time of her sinking in December of 1941. She lacks the number of 4.5-inch dual purpose guns that were fitted on HMS Renown, as well as the American levels of lighter guns. However, she would have access to the spotter consumable, and maybe the fighter consumable. At one time, Renown had a catapult plane, but it was removed and the hanger was converted into a theater. Better than Renown's Hull A, worse than Renown's Hull B, as it should be. Tier VII Admiral-Class HMS Hood as she was designed. Largely, she'll play the same, though without the rocket launchers for AA defense. Semi-Realistic Conventional
  14. In 1935, the British built Battlecruiser Kongo was dry docked to be uparmored. With the reconstruction complete in 1937, the Kongo was reclassified as a "Fast Battleship". But were the Kongos even worthy of that classification? She had a main armor belt of 203mm, and turret armor of 254mm and barbette armor of 229mm. For comparison, the Dunkerque, which as conceived as a Battlecruiser in concept (meant to counter the Panzerschiff) seemingly had thicker armor. The Dunkerque had a main armor belt of 225mm, turret armor of 330mm, and barbette armor of 340mm. And it has been said that the Dunkerque could not even resist the 11" guns the Scharnhorst or Gneisenau. The Dunkerque was officially classified as "navires de ligne" but given what she was designed to do, and what her armor could and could not resist, it would be fair to term her a Battlecruiser. But...if the Dunkerque has thicker armor then the Kongo, and the Dunkerque can't even resist the smallest of post-dread Battleship main-battery guns, then can the Kongos truly be considered "Fast Battleships? Was this just propaganda? Is there more to the armor scheme of the Kongo's then general armor thickness? Just what kind of guns could the "Fast Battleship" Kongos even resist?
  15. Tomorrow, the fourth and final part of the Prinz Eitel Freiderich missions are available. Four million credits per nation, and I have mostly tier 6 ships for each nation (or something equivalent) for almost each nation. I have no Italian, Polish, or Commonwealth ships of equivalent tier. I do, however, have the Graf Spee, Aigle, and October Revolution. For those ships, which of them are my best chances of earning 4 million credits before the missions end?
  16. Grand_Admiral_Murrel

    [WIP] RN Battlecruiser Arc

    Been doing some research, and kinda started wondering why the Royal Navy couldn't stand to have a second branch of battleships in-game. Of course, they'd have to be different from the current line to be attractive, so why not have a battlecruiser line? There is no shortage of battlecruisers built by the royal navy; a new arc could likely start as early as tier 3, since the first battlecruisers were laid down at the same time as HMS Dreadnought. I would appreciate it if other players could recommend ships they'd like to see, if this new branch were to materialize in the near future. As battlecruisers (and not battleships), they would feature large calibre guns typically found on battleships, but sacrifice some armour for a speed advantage. As a side note, it would be nice to have Royal Navy battleships that don't sling OP HE all the time, and without an absurd repair party. Instead, I propose better AP (or at least standard compared to other nations) and not-so-OP HE. Also, many of the ships I have named carried some form of torpedo armament. Might be interesting (and make sense) for these to b the standard Royal Navy torpedo launchers, which can launch single torpedoes. The stats provided are historically accurate *cough*, so bear with me. All proposed HP values were calculated using player Fr05ty's tried and true formulas, which he graciously provided. In my work, I noticed that there seems to be a 12% increase in HP for the existing British battleships. This change has not been accounted for in the numbers I offer below. Designs yet to consider: https://warshipprojects.wordpress.com/2017/07/03/washington-cherrytrees-2/ https://warshipprojects.wordpress.com/2017/09/25/washington-cherrytrees-2-ii/ https://warshipprojects.wordpress.com/2017/09/27/washington-cherry-trees-ii-part-3/ I3 J3 K2, K3 L1 L2, L3 M2 M3 N3 X4 Design Y Design B, C1, C2, D Design A Design T1 LII LIII Battlecruisers K --> A Battleships L --> Z J3, I3, H3a, H3b, H3c – battlecruisers all-in; Nov.-Dec. 1920 O3 F2, F3 Here are my ideas for potential ships, by tier: TIER III Invincible class (HMS Invincible, HMS Inflexible, HMS Indomitable) Main armament: 4x2 305 mm guns 2x2 450 mm torpedo tubes (one on each side, amidships) 1x1 450 mm torpedo tube (stern-mounted) Secondary armament: 16x1 102 mm guns Speed: 25 knots (ridiculous speed at tier 3, let alone tier 4) Displacement: 21,084 tonnes HP: 35,700 (vs Bellerophon at 38,100) TIER IV Indefatigable class (HMS Indefatigable, HMS New Zealand, HMAS Australia*) Main armament: 4x2 305 mm guns Speed: 25 knots Displacement: 22,846 HP: 37,800 (vs Orion at 42,700) This ship is far below the average 43,900 of other tier 4 ships, and therefore would need to be buffed. HMS Neptune (below) - very similar to Imperial Germany's Kaiser class... nothing special in my opinion. Please let me know if there is any disagreement in the comments below. Premium... maybe? Succeeded by very similar Colossus class dreadnought (only real difference being more torpedoes... but who doesn't love a battleship armed with torpedoes?). TIER V Lion class (HMS Lion, HMS Princess Royal) - As there exists a Lion in-game, the latter name would be better Main armament: 4x2 343 mm guns Speed: 28 knots HP: 47,200 (current maximum HP at tier 4 is 46,400, with the average at 43,920. If this ship were to be used at tier 4, its HP would have to be nerfed moderately. HMS Queen Mary Main armament: 4x2 343 mm guns Speed: 28 knots HMS Tiger Main armament: 4x2 343 mm guns 2x2 533 mm torpedo launchers (one pair amidships on each side) Secondary armament: 12x1 152 mm guns Speed: 28 knots Displacement: 34,332 tonnes HP: 51,400 (vs Iron Duke at 47,100) HMS Canada (aka Almirante Latorre (below), could be the first South American (Chilean) battleship in-game) Main armament: 5x2 356 mm guns 4x 533 mm torpedo tubes Speed: 23 knots HMS Agincourt - unique in that it was armed with 7x 2 305 mm guns and 3x 1 torpedo tubes; this ship has an interesting story, but it isn't truly a battlecruiser (it is a true dreadnought), and therefore might make a very appealing premium ship rather than fitting into this proposed line. TIER VI Renown Class (HMS Renown (below), HMS Repulse) - could be a little OP at tier 6, stats similar to Gneisenau at tier 7 Main armament: 3x2 381 mm guns 2x1 533mm torpedo launchers (mounted in the bow) Secondary armament: 5x3 102 mm guns 2x1 102 mm guns Speed: 31 knots Displacement: 33,265 tonnes (slightly less than the HMS Tiger) HP: 50,130 (vs Queen Elizabeth at 55,300) (Note that this is slightly less than my calculated values for HMS Tiger at tier 5) FOR LOLZ: the Courageous class (HMS Courageous, HMS Glorious, HMS Furious), in particular HMS Furious, which had a grand total of 2x 457 mm guns... this would make an "interesting" premium light cruiser, considering it had the armour of a light cruiser. This thing could lol-pen anything within several tiers, but the number of guns is a "limitation". Personally I wouldn't buy it unless it had a decent reload, and even then... If enough interest arises in these ridiculous ships, I will post their stats, but here's a pic to satisfy your interest: TIER VII Admiral Class (HMS Hood, HMS Anson, HMS Howe, HMS Rodney) Main armament: 4x2 381 mm guns 10x1 torpedo tubes!!! Secondary armament: 12x1 139 mm guns Speed: 32 knots Displacement: 48,191 tonnes (based on Hood's displacement) HP: 67,800 (vs Hood at 67,700) TIER VIII G3 Battlecruisers (paper ships) Main armament: 3x3 406 mm guns 2x2 622 mm torpedo launchers (some serious calibre) Secondary armament: 8x2 152 mm guns Speed: 32 knots Displacement: 55,652 tonnes HP: 76,574 TIER IX *** Ideas welcome Different iteration of G3? Move rear turret closer to stern, faster reload? TIER X N3 Battlecruisers (paper ships) - the ship to rival the Yamato (difference in calibre of 3 mm) Main armament: 3x3 457 mm guns 2x3 (or 2x4) 533 mm torpedo launchers Secondary armament: 8x2 152 mm guns Speed: 30 knots (maybe increased for the tier) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *HMAS Australia would be a good addition to the Commonwealth tech tree Please send me suggestions by replying! Also, here's a link to a very similar topic on the Asia forum: https://forum.worldofwarships.asia/topic/3961-british-royal-navy-and-battlecruisers/
  17. [WIP] German Cruiser (Panzerschiffe) Arc GANZ GEHEIM! First and foremost, a special thank-you to @Fr05ty for all his assistance to give this shipwreck of a thread more credibility! The following arc would best fit into the German tech tree as a branch off of the current heavy cruiser line. Indeed, these "panzerschiffe" are somewhere between cruisers and battlecruisers, and therefore are a bit difficult to classify. I chose to treat them as very large cruisers, like the Graf Spee and USS Alaska are. They would offer an entirely unique playstyle, boasting high speeds, decent maneuverability, and guns that make regular cruisers think twice before engaging. They lack significant armour (typical cruiser armour), and therefore they would likely be more "opportunistic" hunters than brawlers. Most likely, a quick strike and then an even quicker retreat would be favourable. The guns mounted aboard these ships would have an admirable reload, and the shells would have a high velocity. Also note that, while these ships were mostly paper designs (Plan Z), the likelihood of their existence, had war not broken out in 1939, would have been very high. In most cases, the ships were either started and not finished or the designs were contracted out and then cancelled due to a change in priorities. Before I jump into the ships, I first want to address the current stats of existing in-game "super-heavy" cruisers that are most similar to the ships I am proposing. Ship HP VI Graf Spee 39,400 IX Alaska 60,800 IX Kronshtadt 71,050 X Stalingrad 72,450 X Azuma (B65) 71,800 *Note: While many may consider Scharnhorst and Gneisenau to be battlecruisers, they do not fit into the data sets of the ships in the above table. WG treats them as fast battleships, and so that is how the numbers play out. I would like to see at least one heal on these ships, as well as the traditional German hydroacoustic search. I am welcome to suggestions!!! Ships yet to be classified: Panzerschiff D Design 3b, Ersatz Elsass (19,000 tons), 2x3 or 2x4 283 mm guns L21 alpha L20e alpha L27, L28 Tier 6: Lutzow (Likely not to be included in this tree, as the current Graf Spee is too close to the cruiser-style gameplay. The D-class would provide the better battlecruiser experience) Main armament: 2x3 283 mm guns Reload time: 20 s 180 degree turn time: 25 s Initial shell velocity: 910 m/s AP shell maximum damage: 8,400 HE shell maximum damage: 3,200 HE shell fire chance: 20% 2x4 torpedo launchers Secondary armament: 8x1 150 mm guns 3x2 105 mm dual-purpose guns HP: 38,900 Armour: Main belt: 80 mm Deck: 45 mm (substantial) Superstructure: Main battery face: 360 mm Maneuverability: 29 knots Tier 6 alternative: Prinz Heinrich (P-class) Main armament: 2x3 283 mm guns Reload time: 16 s 180 degree turn time: 25 s Initial shell velocity: 910 m/s AP shell maximum damage: 8,400 HE shell maximum damage: 3,200 HE shell fire chance: 20% 2x3 torpedo launchers Secondary armament: 2x2 150 mm guns (mounted centerline) 4x2 105 mm dual-purpose guns Armour: Main belt: 120 mm Deck: 20 mm Superstructure: Main battery face: 360 mm HP: 49,300 Maneuverability: 33 knots Tier 7: Ersatz Elsass (D-class) Main armament: 2x4 283 mm guns Reload time: 18 s 180 degree turn time: 25 s Initial shell velocity: 910 m/s AP shell maximum damage: 8,400 HE shell maximum damage: 3,200 HE shell fire chance: 20% 2x3 torpedo launchers Secondary armament: 4x2 150 mm guns (mounted at each corner of the superstructure) 4x2 105 mm dual-purpose guns Armour: Main belt: 220 mm Deck: 35 mm Superstructure: Main battery face: 360 mm HP: 45,400 Maneuverability: 30 knots Tier 8: Admiral Zenker (1928 Design) Main armament: 4x2 305mm guns Reload time: 22 s 180 degree turn time: 30 s Initial shell velocity: 860 m/s AP shell maximum damage: 9,100 HE shell maximum damage: 4,000 HE shell fire chance: 20% 2x3 torpedo launchers Secondary armament: 3x3 150mm guns (think tier V Konigsberg's turrets) Armour: Main belt: Deck: Superstructure: Main battery: HP: 51,300 Maneuverability: 34 knots Tier 9 PREMIUM: Siegfried (O-class) Main armament: 3x2 380 mm guns Reload time: 24 s 180 degree turn time: 36 s Initial shell velocity: 840 m/s AP shell maximum damage: 11,600 HE shell maximum damage: 4,400 HE shell fire chance: 34% 2x3 torpedo launchers Secondary armament: 3x2 150 mm guns 4x2 105 mm dual-purpose guns Armour: Main belt: Deck: Superstructure: Main battery: HP: 64,200 Maneuverability: 35 knots Tier 10: (UNKNOWN) Main armament: 4x3 305 mm guns Reload time: 25 s 180 degree turn time: 25 s Initial shell velocity: 910 m/s AP shell maximum damage: 8,400 HE shell maximum damage: 3,200 HE shell fire chance: 20% 2x3 torpedo launchers Secondary armament: 5x2 150 mm guns 8x2 105 mm dual-purpose guns Armour: Main belt: 225 mm Deck: 20 mm Superstructure: 16 mm Main battery face: 360 mm HP: 70,000 Maneuverability: 35 knots Tier 10 PREMIUM: (Panzerschiffe D Neuentwurf II) Main armament: 3x3 283 mm guns Reload time: 16 s 180 degree turn time: 25 s Initial shell velocity: 910 m/s AP shell maximum damage: 8,400 HE shell maximum damage: 3,200 HE shell fire chance: 20% 2x3 torpedo launchers Secondary armament: 4x2 150 mm guns 7x2 105 mm dual-purpose guns Armour: Main belt: 225 mm Deck: 20 mm Superstructure: 16 mm Main battery face: 360 mm HP: 70,000 Maneuverability: 35 knots Other designs to be considered: Ship/Design ID Displacement Main Battery Maximum Armour thickness ~1933~ D-33/I D-33/II D-33/IIIa D-33/IIIb D-33/IIIc D-33/IV ~1934~ D-34/I D-34/II (later D-35) (Neuentwurf I) D-34/III (Neuentwurf II) ~1935~ D-35/I D-35/II D-35/III D-35/IV D-35/V (later D-35/VI) (would later become Scharnhorst-class) Older version of Design D and E (Gneisenau and Scharnhorst) 30,400 9x283 mm/3x2 330 mm/3x2 350 mm Panzerschiff F (Bismarck)/G (Tirpitz) original designs 35,000??? 4x2 350 mm To be continued... [WIP] The problem with battlecruisers is that they are really hard to classify using the current "battleship or cruiser" division. USS Alaska, for example, is basically a battlecruiser. It does not fit the battleship formula for HP, nor does it fit the cruiser formula. It's kinda in-between. Using the battleship formula, it should have 51,300 HP. Using the cruiser formula, it should have 73,700 HP. The in-game ship has 60,800 HP (almost EXACTLY halfway). Graf Spee, on the other hand, fits the cruiser formula very closely, with roughly a 6.75% buff.
  18. ST. Balance changes. American cruiser Alaska. According to the results of testing, the American cruiser will receive some improvements: The rudder shift time has been reduced from 13.8 to 13.1 seconds; Detection reduced from 16.2 to 15.5 km; Detection when firing from smoke is reduced from 12.78 to 12.09 km; Turret rotation speed is increased from 5 to 6 degrees per second; Firing angles increased and improved. Fire duration on Alaska, as well as on other similar ships (Stalingrad, Kronstadt), is increased from 30 to 45 seconds. So buffs and a nerf on fire time. https://www.facebook.com/wowsdevblog/?fb_dtsg_ag=AdyTXH7Ngp7M8oZspdqfCedkKKpm62urnqr-iu2pwI6jpA%3AAdw7_GRgRGxrF6A4cGjWX_aYLdJ68-yjHWMz-vWEJYo-kw
  19. A_Horde_of_Sharks

    Ishizuchi Fanclub

    Let's give a few cheers for the alright-ish dreaded vegetable Battlecruiser! This is my go-to ship for clubbing due to it's hilarious fire chance and surprisingly good armament for killing dds... She is certainly not easy to play for most however. It is certainly an acquired taste! -Don't skip your vegetables!
  20. Disclaimer time! I’m not a professional balancer, nor do I have large amounts of experience with either the real ships or the in-game stats that would be associated with them. I also don’t claim to own any images used in this, and because I didn’t include stats for Invincible, I’m going to retroactively include them in this proposal. There is plenty of conjecture in this post, and that’s exactly what this is: conjecture. But without further ado, may I introduce… Tier III Commonwealth Battleship HMAS Australia As soon as I found out about this ship, I’ve been pondering about what she would be like in WoWs. As not just the only capital ship ever commissioned into the RAN, but the only capital ship to be commissioned into ANY commonwealth fleet, Australia has a very special spot in naval history. She was an Indefatigable-class battlecruiser, a close relative to the Invincible class, which I’ve written about here. The two ship classes are very similar, although Indefatigable is slightly more capable and would probably be a better fit for a Tier 3 battlecruiser. Regardless, the main differences in the classes are Australia’s 25.8 knot speed versus Invincible’s 25 knots, slightly newer secondary battery, and much better firing angles. ARMOR: 102-152 mm belt 38-64 mm deck 178 mm barbettes and turrets 102-254 mm conning tower 64 mm bulkheads Australia’s armor is nearly identical to that of Invincible’s, with the only difference being slightly thinner armor around parts of the conning tower. As a battlecruiser, Australia wouldn’t have the best armor at her tier. Her belt would be among the worst at her tier, although her deck amor is more respectable. Her citadel would be more vulnerable to other battleships, and with a displacement of 18,500 long tons her health pool would most likely be around 33,300 (if I calculated correctly). This amount is pretty typical of Tier 3 battleships, beating out the likes of South Carolina and Nassau but losing to Bellerophon and Kawachi. She would, however, have slightly more HP than a theoretical Invincible-class ship, which would only have about 31,050 hit points. This of course puts Australia well above her would-be tech tree cousin, but other aspects could be balanced to bring the two more in line with each other. GUNS: 4x2 BL 12 in (305 mm) Mk X main battery guns 16x1 BL 4 in (102 mm) Mk VII secondary guns 1x1 4 in (102 mm) AA gun Australia has a generic turret layout with one turret on the bow, two amidships that are able to cross the deck (like Kaiser), and one more turret on her stern. She has a the same main battery as both Invincible and Bellerophon, although it would need to be tweaked for balance purposes. I propose something along these lines: 24 sec. reload 3.6’ /sec. Rotation, for a 50 sec. 180 rotation 13.2 km firing range Sigma of around 1.8, like that of Bellerophon’s 5,200 max HE damage and 8,100 max AP damage I have nearly no experience in balancing fine numbers like these, but the general characteristics I’m aiming for are the same damage as Bellerophon’s guns a with a better rotation speed and reload time to make up for the lack of a turret. Because I didn’t provide any numbers for Invincible in my article for her, I’d assume she would have a better sigma (around 2.0) and perhaps even better reload time and/or rotation speed. Nerfing Australia’s guns would be necessary if Invincible were the tech tree Tier 3 battlecruiser, as Australia has significantly better firing angles for her two amidships turrets. Despite having one less turret than Bellerophon, she has the same broadside of eight 12 inch guns, due to Bellerophon’s two wing mounted turrets. Aside from main battery, Australia has a secondary battery of sixteen 4 inch rifles, the same type mounted on Bellerophon. As such, I imagine they’d have the same parameters. 7.5 sec. reload 3 km firing range 1,500 max HE damage These guns aren’t the most useful in the world, but serve their purpose. But at tier 3, who really pays attention to secondaries anyways? Australia was also given a single 4 inch AA gun in 1917, which would provide some nice confetti for any aircraft that come to engage her. MANEUVERABILITY and CONCEALMENT: 25.8 knots Proposed 10.6 km concealment Australia has an extra 0.8 knots over Invincible, and can steam circles around all other battleships at Tier 3. This speed would serve her well, but on the cramped maps at her tier speed isn’t as important as it becomes later. I think a base concealment of 10.6 km would be appropriate, and with premium camouflage she would get down to around 10.3 km. Invincible would also have her beat here, with a prospective concealment value of around 9.8 or so. CONSUMABLES and UPGRADES: Damage Control Party Repair Party Australia gets the bare essentials of all Tier 3 battleships with a damage control party and repair party. I feel as though anything else might make her too much better than Invincible, so I’m just going to leave it at those two. Australia would also have all of the standard upgrades, although I’m not sure you would want to use them on a dinky Tier 3 battleship. Australia may not look like anything too special, and that’s probably because she isn’t. In reality, the Indefatigable-class of which Australia is a part of would most likely make for a better Tier 3 tech tree ship than Invincible. Australia’s main selling point, however, is the fact that she was the only capital ship to ever be commissioned into a Commonwealth navy. If the idea of a Commonwealth premium battleship doesn’t sound cool, I’m not sure what would please you. WG has already shown that all it takes for a low tier ship to make it into the game is historical significance (*Cough* Varyag *Cough*), and I’m sure Australia would make for a very unique port queen, despite having almost no commander training, economic, or competitive potential. I think WG would be missing a huge opportunity if they didn’t add this special little ship into the game. Thanks for reading this, and please be sure to tell me what a terrible job I did balancing both Australia and Invincible, because I really have no idea what I’m doing in that regard. I did, however, have lots of fun making this article and would love to do many more. I would also be very interested to hear what strange/unique ships would make for good additions to WoWs, so be sure to list those too if you feel like it.
  21. SayWhatAgainMF

    Please help me Identify this ship

    Good day all, I have recently found a pile of old negative pictures from my great grand-father and after submitting them to the Historical Society of my hometown due to the significance of a lot of them, they came along a picture of a warship, unidentified. The location on the picture is on the St-Lawrence river in between Quebec City (across the river). The picture was taken from the southern shore (city of Lévis). So anyway, judging by the picture we can almost clearly see the British naval ensign at the stern. The picture was taken in August 1919 so right after the Great War. Judging by the smoke stacks and the number of portholes and turrets and the masts, it seems to me like it is the HMS Renown 1918 refit version. So the first picture is my great grand-father's one, the second picture is from Wikipedia so basically the Renown circa 1918, the third image is the Renown blueprints 1918 version and the last picture is the Sister ship HMS Repulse. I would like to know your opinion if you think I am wrong to suspect it is one of the two ships, HMS Renown or HMS Repulse and why. Of course I will most definitely end up looking at the city's Archive to try and find the port's logs from that era and have a definitive answer to give the historical society. In the meantime, your help would be most appreciated. The picture is compressed on the forum and is only 197kb so if you would like to see the original picture please leave me a message in private and I will send it to you. Thank you
  22. Hi Well I know its only been 2 days but the fact this ship is now in testing on the server means that she may be not that far away from going live ( famous last words think T-61 ). Anyway come all you CC's and ST's get this beauty out and about so us everyday people can have a glimpse of her in action. regards
×