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
    • 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
    • Discussions about Warships
    • Player Modifications
  • Off Topic
    • Historical Discussions and Studies
    • Off-Topic
  • International Forums
    • Foro en Español
    • Fórum Brasileiro

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 28 results

  1. 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/
  2. Dunkerque overtaking Strasbourg. The following is a review of Dunkerque & Strasbourg, the tier VI & VII French battleships. They were both provided to me by Wargaming for review purposes at no cost to me. To the best of my knowledge, the statistics discussed in this review are current as of patch 0.9.12. Please be aware that their performance may change in the future. I couldn't help myself. I saw an opportunity to not only review a new ship but to update an older one too. Maybe I'll make this a regular thing going into the future whenever Wargaming releases a comparable sister-ship -- review the new addition and touch base on an older one. It seems a bit ambitious to declare it as the new norm, but we'll see what happens. At any rate, this is a review of both Dunkerque-class battleships: Dunkerque at tier VI and her new sister-ship, Strasbourg at tier VII. The two ships are almost identical which raises concerns on balance. Strasbourg is Dunkerque in almost every metric that matters short of tiering and access to the Main Battery Reload Consumable. One can't help but ask the following questions: Is Dunkerque so good at tier VI that she can be effectively cloned and placed at tier VII with little issue? Just how influential are the small changes made between the two ships? Is Main Battery Reload Booster that powerful on a 330m armed platform? Is Strasbourg worth the grind or should you just stick with Dunkerque? Let's find some answers! Quick Summary: Fast, lightly armoured battlecruisers with all eight of it's quick-firing 330mm guns mounted in two quad-turrets on their bows. Strasbourg has access to the Main Battery Reload Booster consumable. PROS All forward gun arrangement simplifies maximizing firepower. Fast reload (26s Dunkerque, 25s Strasbourg) Good HE shell performance and fire setting. Comfortable gun handling. Long ranged with good ballistics over distance. Solid agility with a good top speed and rate of turn. Strasbourg Specific: Has access to the Main Battery Reload Booster consumable. CONS Unable to fire her main battery guns directly rearward (for some inexplicable reason!) Lightly armoured, highly vulnerable to AP overmatch and HE shells. Exposed, high-water citadel with thin belt armour. Terrible anti-aircraft firepower. Large surface detection range. Strasbourg Specific: Small hit point pool for a tier VII battleship. Summary of Differences If you're a crusty ol' veteran with playing Dunkerque, so experienced in Marine Nationale ways battlecruiser ways that you serenade baguettes, you don't need me to tell you what she's like. To expedite things for these players, here's a list of all of the differences between the two battleships, from the significant to the inane. These are listed Dunkerque vs Strasbourg: Tier: VI vs VII (duh) Economy: VI vs VII (higher tiered ships earn more credits and experience for the same actions) Fire Resistance Coefficient: 23.31% vs 29.97% Superstructure HP: 1,800 vs 1,700 Belt Armour: 225mm vs 283mm Rear Upper Athwartship: 198mm vs 210mm Turtleback: 40mm vs 50mm Turret Faces: 330mm vs 360mm Turret Backs: 335mm vs 352mm Turret Floor: 150mm vs 160mm Sigma: 1.7 vs 1.8 Main Battery Reload: 26s vs 25s Main Battery Range: 18.21km vs 19.1km A-Turret's Fire Arcs: 310º vs 294º Number of 37mm twin AA mounts: 5 (18dps) vs 4 (16dps) Flak Explosion Damage: 1,330 vs 1,400 Main Battery Reload Booster: no vs yes Tonnage: 35,500 vs 36,308 Permanent Camos: 4 vs 2 Overview Skill Floor: Simple / CASUAL / Challenging / Difficult Skill Ceiling: Low / Moderate / HIGH / Difficult Both ships are wonderfully uncomplicated to use. The all-forward gun arrangement helps keep new-players safe, mitigating the need to expose the ship's broadside in order to maximize firepower. Their long range also helps keep new players safe. The ship's speed is also a blessing -- fast enough to get the ship where it needs to go but not being so fast that she can easily out-strip support as new players are wont to do. Were the ship easier to hide or if it had a better protection scheme, it might have warranted a "Simple" rating. There's a lot of strong carry potential with these ships. The combination of good speed and a relatively fast reload allows these ships to wreak all kinds of mayhem. Strasbourg's Main Battery Reload Booster is particularly delicious for punishing exposed enemies, be they a briefly lit lolibote or a high-tier battleship that needs to be burned. Unfortunately, they are painfully soft-skinned and very difficult to hide which are both strong limiting factors. The lack of overmatch potential on their 330mm guns is also a bit frustrating, though proper ammunition use can help mitigate this drawback. Options Both ships share similar customization principles. The marked difference between the two is in their consumables (naturally), but otherwise they can be built the same. Consumables Both ships have the same, standard Damage Control Party for French battleships. This has a 15 second active period, an 80 second reset timer and unlimited charges. Similarly, they share the same Repair Party which heals back up to 14% of the ship's starting hit points per charge. It queues 50% of all penetration damage, 10% of citadel damage and 100% of everything else. It has an 80 second reset timer. Their last shared consumables are the option between a Catapult Fighter and Spotter Aircraft. Dunkerque mounts these in her third slot and Strasbourg her fourth. The latter consumable increases their range by 20% for 100 seconds with a 240 second reset timer. Both ships begin with 4 charges. The former consumable starts with only three charges, deploying a pair of fighters which orbit the ship for 60 seconds. It has a 90 second reset timer. What sets Strasbourg apart is her access to Main Battery Reload Booster in her third slot. This reduces the reload time of her main battery guns by half for 20 seconds. She comes with four charges to start and it has an 180 second reset timer. Upgrades Both ships use the same build. In your first slot, Main Armaments Modification 1 is arguably optimal given the relative fragility of the Dunkerque-class's main weapons. Nothing sucks more than losing one of only two turrets! Otherwise, the two special upgrades, Spotter Aircraft Modification 1 and Damage Control Party Modification 1 may be used instead. They can be purchased for 17,000 from the Armory . Damage Control System Modification 1 is the only upgrade worth considering in slot 2. In slot three, Aiming System Modification 1 is optimal. But if you want, you can trade that out for faster turret traverse with Main Battery Modification 2 but this has much less benefit than decreasing the dispersion area. There are interesting choices for these ships in the fourth slot. Damage Control System Modification 2 is the most straight-forward and optimal, reducing fire and flooding damage. You can naturally opt to improve their handling by taking Steering Gears Modification 1 -- their high rate of turn and long range does lend them well to active dodging. However, given the disposition of these ships and their love of hugging islands, there's some worth in taking Propulsion Modification 1 for better acceleration from a dead stop. It's up to you based on your preferred style of play. When in doubt, though, default to Damage Control System Modification 2. Commander Skills Both ships can easily make use of the same commander. The ideal build differs somewhat from the default boring ol' battleship build in that Dunkerque and Strasbourg both benefit considerably from the Expert Loader skill. Making room for it can leave you with a skill point leftover which isn't as optimal as other builds. Oh well. Start with choosing between Priority Target and Incoming Fire Alert. I much prefer the former, but it's up to you. Grab the skills circled in green next to complete your 10pt build: Adrenaline Rush, Basics of Survivability and Fire Prevention. Next double-back and grab the skills in the red squares: Concealment Expert, Superintendent and Expert Loader. The skills in blue squares are nice to have but you may struggle to fit them in with the above recommendations. Mix and match to your tastes. Camouflage There are multiple camouflage options between the two ships. Dunkerque has Type 10, Fleur d'Acier (Steel Flower), Azur Lane and Mid-Autumn Festival camouflage patterns. Strasbourg has Type 10 and Winter Holiday camouflage patterns. All of the differences are cosmetic, providing the identical bonuses of: -3% surface detection +4% increased dispersion of enemy shells. -10% to post-battle service costs. +50% to experience gains. As an older (and popular) ship, Dunkerque has had a large number of premium camouflage types -- which is hella fun. I really like her Azur Lane camo. It's nice and sharp with the red and white contrast. Strasbourg's camo options are much more subdued. I'm not a fan of her Holiday camo. Firepower Main Battery: Eight 330mm/52 guns in 2x4 turrets mounted on the bow in a A-B superfiring configuration. Secondary Battery: Twenty 130mm guns in 5x4 turrets with two turrets per side and one mounted on the centre line facing the stern. Lemme preface this by saying that I'm not going to talk about the secondaries off the Dunkerque-class. They're not worth specializing into at the moment with their limited fire arcs, to say nothing of how poorly these ships fare in a brawl. Onto the main event! Big Guns, Bad Habits & Bae Bote I admit I have a bit of a bias against smaller-caliber battleship guns at the mid-tiers. This stems from my early days in World of Warships, having fallen in love with the overmatch potential of Warspite's 381mm guns tier VI. Bae bote's artillery, while not idiot proof, certainly lent itself well to firing nothing but a homogeneous loadout of AP shells. With all of the heavy lifting those Royal Navy 15" guns could do, I still remember being disdainful of Dunkerque's paltry 330mm guns when I first reviewed her back in late summer of 2016. They had no overmatch potential so they were OBVIOUSLY garbage, right? I'm somewhat less naive than I was way back when. Only somewhat, mind you. I still have a bit of a blind spot with bae-bote and battleship caliber guns with large-swathes of overmatch potential. That's something these guns lack but that doesn't make them bad by any means. There's a lot of good things about the combat performance of these weapons. They have excellent ballistics over range. They have a fast reload. They're decent fire starters. They have good AP penetration. AP penetration values drawn from Wargaming's Armada 2 video on Dunkerque from August 2016. Dunkerque and Strasbourg have some very respectable AP penetration values for guns of their caliber. There are two drawbacks with these weapons to keep in mind: They have French (and Italian) gunnery dispersion. They lack overmatch potential with their AP rounds. There's not much to be said about the first flaw. French battleship dispersion is the worst in the game currently, being slightly worse than that of American, British and German battleships. This leads to wonky shell groupings from these guns, especially at the long ranges Strasbourg is so often forced to engage. Having both guns on the bow in quad mounts does make them feel a little more accurate, at least in terms of the initial outbound shell clusters. However, this is more of an illusion than a practical advantage. Still, they have average sigma values, so within their dispersion elipse (larger as it is) their shell fall is pretty standard, though the difference between the two ships in this regard is largely indistinguishable. The best players in the game struggle to discern the difference between 0.2 sigma in standard game play, to say nothing of the 0.1 sigma difference between Strasbourg (1.8 sigma) and Dunkerque (1.7 sigma). Overall, the guns feel reasonable with their accuracy though they will troll you. Thankfully, their rate of fire helps alieviate the feeling of being cheated. One of the best fixes for bad dispersion is to reload often. When individual salvos don't feel like they matter as much, it's easier to forgive a few stray shells. Dunkerque's 26 second reload feels very comfortable -- more than making up for low individual shell damage. The extra second shaved off Strasbourg's guns is nicer still, though like her dispersion you might not feel the difference. Short reload times on battleships is a hella powerful advantage, even with the slightly lower alpha-strike from their hits. Battleship gunnery is incredibly opportunist, with citadel hit "money shots" making or breaking their play experience. Dunkerque's guns are more likely to be reloaded (or almost reloaded) when an opportunity presents itself. Strasbourg's are all but guaranteed. Like Jean Bart before her, Strasbourg's access to the Main Battery Reload Booster consumable is a game-changer. She will have her guns reloaded when it matters most, ensuring she can put shells downrange at vulnerable targets and best capitalize on the opportunities presented -- whether this be blowing out the citadel of a Christmas-Makarov or stacking fires back onto a Hizen that just blew its Damage Control Party. If Strasbourg's guns had better overmatch potential, they'd be downright oveprowered. The lack of overmatch potential is a problem shared by all battleship rounds between 283mm and 356mm in caliber. While the Dunkerque-class can overmatch 23mm of armour with their AP rounds, in practical terms, 19mm plate is the last effective armour value they can best at any angle. This makes most tier V, VI and VII cruisers vulnerable to being overmatched by these AP shells, but only the very-light cruisers at tiers VIII+. Like with dispersion, this is more of an issue for Strasbourg as a consequence of her higher tiering. It's only the extremities of tier V battleships that these AP rounds can overmatch and only then if the ships in question don't have dispersed armour schemes which gets a little more common at lower tiers. Against any other target, both Dunkerque and Strasbourg will want to reach for the HE rounds instead. To this end, I've found having the Expert Loader skill very handy if you can spare the single skill point for it. Outside of issues where they might ricochet from striking a plate they cannot overmatch at too steep an angle, Dunkerque and Strasbourg's AP shells perform well, with very respectable AP penetration values across all engagement ranges, with even better penetration than New Mexico's 356mm AP rounds. It's not quite high enough to contest higher-tiered battleship citadels at ranges of 15km or beyond, but it's good enough. Dunkerque may not appear to have impressive DPM, but she is more likely to be able to fire all of her guns than most other battleships -- especially while under fire herself. Her all-forward gun arrangement allows her to maximize her firepower while still maintaining a defensive nose-in aspect. Strasbourg is listed twice. The one with the asterix denotes her using her Main Battery Reload Booster for 20s. Strasbourg's faster rate of fire gives her comparable DPM placement to Dunkerque, tier-for-tier. However, her Main Battery Reload Booster takes things to a whole other level, allowing her to punish opponents when they give her an opportunistic shot. Both ships are decent fire starters. Strasbourg flirts with Royal Navy levels when she activates her consumable (again, denoted by an asterix). Gun Layout Dunkerque's A-turret fire arcs are gorgeous. Her B-turret are much less so. This makes her B-turret a good indicator for over-angling with Dunkerque when firing to the rear. So long as A-turret can engage but B-turret cannot, she's still in auto-ricochet territory -- you know, provided that the incoming AP shells don't simply overmatch her hull. The all-bow mounted gun arrangement of the Dunkerque-class is their most striking feature. In World of Warships, this has more advantages than drawbacks. Dunkerque was not the first battleship in the game with this layout. However she was the first battleship in the game to have all of her guns capable of firing directly forward. Thus she was the first battleship in the game that could "bow tank" while still maximizing her firepower. At the time of her release, it was easy to underestimate just how effective this was and how effective it remains in World of Warships. It is very easy to maximize firepower with Dunkerque and Strasbourg. Barring kiting situations, it is easier to bring all of their guns to bear than on any other battleship. This is further facilitated by their fast (for a battleship) traverse rate of 5º/s (36s for 180º). Even in situations where Dunkerque is being chased, her "over the shoulder" firing arcs are respectable with her A-turret being capable of hucking shells 25º off her stern, still maintaining a perfect auto-ricochet target with her belt. Obviously the drawback here is that she cannot engage enemies directly to her rear. What's more, this all-forward gun arrangement makes her slow to switch sides when firing backwards as her guns have to come all of the way around. Still, the all-forward gun arrangement greatly facilitates bringing all guns on targets for much of the battle. It's this ease of bringing guns on target -- all of their guns on target -- which makes these ships dangerous and it's one of their many strengths. Strasbourg doesn't have Dunkerque's delicious A-turret's fire arcs. Summary "Always ready" -- this defines the gunnery on Dunkerque and Strasbourg, and Strasbourg more than her sister. When facing off against these ships, their faster rate of fire, good fire arcs and gun handling is what makes them dangerous. As gunnery platforms, they're super comfy and fun to play. Their individual salvos may not hit as big as other ships; a consequence of both shell size and trollish dispersion, but they don't feel at a deficit in either regard. VERDICT: Their guns perform better than their smaller caliber would suggest. Beware Strasbourg's Main Battery Reload Booster -- used correctly, it can devastate vulnerable enemies. Durability Hit Points: 52,600 Bow & stern/superstructure/upper-hull/deck: 26mm / 16mm / 26mm / 26mm Dunkerque Maximum Citadel Protection: 26mm anti-torpedo bulge + 225mm belt + 40mm turtleback + 40mm/50mm citadel wall Strasbourg Maximum Citadel Protection: 26mm anti-torpedo bulge + 283mm belt + 50mm turtleback + 40mm/50mm citadel wall Torpedo Damage Reduction: 25% The durability fortunes of these two battlecruisers flips between their hit point totals and their armour profiles. While I would not call either ship blessed in either category, it's more that one or the other is "less-worse" in a given area than its sister ship. Overall, Strasbourg loses out wholesale to her sister, if only because she sits a full tier higher and contends with bigger threats. Health Pool Strasboug is the big loser here when it comes to comparing hit points. Dunkerque wins no prizes either, but as a tier VI vessel, she's she doesn't stand out in any negative or positive way. Strasbourg's woes come in two areas: She has a small (tier VI-sized) hit point pool. Her Repair Party is normal. The former kind of surprises me -- not that she has a small hit point pool, but that it's unchanged from Dunkerque's own despite the (slight) increase in tonnage. Best estimates should put Strasbourg's hit point total almost 1,000hp higher than Dunkerque. That's not enough to rescue her from the doldrums of tier VII health totals, but every scrap certainly helps and it would let her overtake Lyon at the very least. Moreover, the issue Strasbourg faces at tier VII comes from her plain-Jane Repair Party consumable. The glut of Royal Navy ships at tier VII along with Colorado makes Strasbourg's bare-bones Repair Party seem weak by comparison, especially on a ship with a hit point deficit. I suppose it's a blessing that she's not stuck with one fewer charges the way the Soviet ships and Florida are neutered, so that's something. Dunkerque's effective hit point pool is on the low side of average for a tier VI battleship. Now you can imagine what happens when you bring a "low side of average" effective health pool to a tier VII match-up. This is especially noteworthy as tier VII is where health regeneration gets super weird and powerful. Armour Profile When it comes to repelling HE shells, the two Dunkerque-sisters are functionally identical. While there exists some minor differences in their protection schemes, these are a non-issue when it comes to repelling HE shells. Dunkerque and Strasbourg are exceedingly soft-skinned and highly vulnerable to HE fire. Their near-homogeneous 26mm external plate makes them easy prey, not only for light cruisers but for 127mm+ armed destroyers. While the Inertial Fuse for HE Shells skill may be necessary, her opponents all have the potential to farm damage off the soft-skinned profiles of the Dunkerque-class battleships. Both battleships bleed a lot of hit points to small and medium caliber HE shells. Things don't get better when it comes to repelling AP rounds. Strasbourg attempts to correct some of the defence issues of her sister-ship with improved turret, belt and citadel protection profiles. Dunkerque is notoriously vulnerable to citadel hits, going so far as to have her machine spaces colour-coded through one of her camouflage patterns (thank you, Yuro, for pointing that out!). The thinness of her citadel protection means that with very few exceptions (Oklahoma, I'm looking at you), Dunkerque is vulnerable to battleship calibre AP shells at all ranges. This goes double for any AP rounds from guns of 380mm or larger as they are fully capable of overmatching her external armour plate and can land citadel hits at nearly any angle. Though Strasbourg's protection is improved, it's never so good that I would trust flashing her sides or snoot to incoming battleship rounds. Both Dunkerque-sisters take citadel hits frequently. They are both at risk of losing their turrets when they attempt to tank battleship fire. The best that could be said about Strasbourg is that she is largely immune to citadel hits from cruiser-calibre weapons, though again there are exceptions, especially at close range. Their armour profiles are almost identical but Strasbourg has the thicker belt, turtleback and turret faces. While the extra ~60mm of armour on Strasbourg's belt looks significant, the higher penetration gun she faces makes this improvement kinda moot. Summary These are ships that don't want to get hit -- like at all. Nearly every HE shell can hurt. Nearly every battleship-calibre AP round is a potential citadel hit. Having only two turrets makes the loss of one (even temporarily) a disaster. The best play with these ships is to not get hit in the first place; exercising their long range to make themselves a less appealing target. Anchoring one side against a piece of island cover is also a good practice, if only to mitigate flanking fire from enemy battleships from across the map. Limiting the angles of attack against these vessels is paramount to keeping them safe. They don't have a lot of armour. They don't have a lot of health. They don't have improved Repair Parties. VERDICT: Get hit, take cit. Agility Top Speed: 29.5kts Turning Radius: 730m Rudder Shift Time: 14s 4/4 Engine Speed Rate of Turn: 4.7º/s at 22kts (Dunkerque) or 22.2kts (Strasbourg). What a difference a tier makes. Strasbourg and Dunkerque both have excellent agility for a battleship. Not only do they have a respectable top speed -- nearly reaching 30 knots -- but unlike higher-tiered battleships, they are not shackled with a punitive turning circle radius. No matter how you look at it, both battleships handle beautifully. This combines with their very nice gun traverse rates to make keeping guns on target a very comfortable experience. The only real fault for these two battleships is that they flirt with but never quite achieve cruiser-levels of agility. This flaw mostly resides with their rudder shift time which, while not punitive, is definitely too sluggish to affect reasonable dodging metrics. Active dodging is really only ever possible at the extremes of their range. It's a bit of a tease that way, but by any other measuire, their agility is solid. Dunkerque is very fast for a tier VI battleship which helps translate to a good rate of turn despite her larger-than-average turning radius at that tier. If it weren't for ships like Warspite (bae! ♥) and Normandie, she'd be the clear winner. Once you start comparing Strasbourg and Dunkerque to tier VII battleships, it's no longer a contest. Strasbourg is THE most agile tier VII battleship, bar none. Lyon and Gneisenau provide some competition, but Strasbourg is the hands down winner. VERDICT: Some of the best mid-tier battleship agility you'll find out there. Both ships handle beautifully and are very comfortable to drive. Anti-Aircraft Defence Flak Bursts: 3 explosions for 1,330 damage per blast (Dunkerque) or 1,400 per blast (Strasbourg) at 3.5km to 6.0km. Long Ranged (up to 6.0km): 84dps at 75% accuracy Medium Ranged (up to 3.0km): 24.5dps (Dunkerque) or 21dps (Strasbourg) at 75% accuracy Short Ranged (up to 1.5km): 105dps at 70% accuracy I'm going to let the graphics do the talking here. Kay, so this looks like a hot mess and there's value in this chaos too. There are so many disparate AA range values at tier VI, it's hard to keep track. "Why so much negative space?" you might ask. Well, I scaled this to match the AA values of the tier VII battleships as both tier VI and VII battleships have to contend with tier VI and VIII aircraft carriers. The ships here are arranged in approximate level of effective personal defense, sorted by the formula [ AA DPS * ( range - 1km) ], thus putting more value on longer ranged damage output. None of the tier VI battleships could be said to have "good" or "effective" AA firepower, even against tier VI carriers. While Dunkerque sits in the middle of the pack here, she's in the bottom half of the incompetent. The best thing about her, really, are those 6km ranged guns which can help a friend out with overlapping fields of fire. Strasbourg has worse personal AA firepower than Nagato. It's only when battleships get to California or Florida levels of AA firepower that they can start looking towards their own defense. And it's not like these ships can prevent CVs from dropping on them -- oh no, they simply make it expensive (and then only if they haven't had most of their medium and small caliber guns shorn off by a spray of HE fire). Strasbourg stands little chance and is an easy mark for carriers. VERDICT: Hilariously bad on both counts. Vision Control Base/Minimum Surface Detection: 16.92km / 14.77km Base/Minimum Air Detection Range: 9.58km / 8.62km Detection Range When Firing in Smoke: 14.2km Dunkerque Maximum Firing Range: 18.21km to 21.85km Strasbourg Maximum Firing Range: 19.1km to 22.92km The stealth of these two battleships is crap. I don't know what really needs to be said beyond that. Their surface detection range is atrocious for a ship of their size and you can never truly get it under control. For Dunkerque, this is a more pronounced problem given the smaller maps she end up on at lower tiers. The only way you're surprising anyone in these ships is with long-range fire. While this may end a cruiser in short order, you're only going to annoy battleships unless their citadel protection is very (very!) soft skinned. In practical terms, everything will spot you first. Due to her fragility, this will so often relegate you to play defensively, hugging islands to protect a flank or deny vision lest you get crossfired from unseen enemy. VERDICT: Downright terrible. Final Evaluation Let's go back to those questions that started this review: Is Dunkerque so good at tier VI that she can be effectively cloned and placed at tier VII with little issue? Just how influential are the small changes made between the two ships? Is Main Battery Reload Booster that powerful on a 330m armed platform? Is Strasbourg worth the grind or should you just stick with Dunkerque? The answers to those questions are: Hells no. Largely irrelevant, though the extra second shaved off her reload and the extra armour is nice. I'm kinda miffed about her A-turret losing out on those firing angles, though. Yes. It's a disgustingly powerful consumable and it's what carries this ship at tier VII. Well, that depends. How much do you love Dunkerque? Dunkerque is a good tier VI battleship. This is largely owing to two factors: She has good guns and she has good agility. Dunkerque is fast enough to bring her firepower where it will do the most good and her guns are reliable enough to stack steady amounts of damage. Her fast reload makes her particularly good at picking on cruisers and stacking fires. Yes, her stealth sucks. Yes, her AA power sucks. Yes, defensively she's a bit of a joke. But those, like Tempest Keep, are merely a setback. Stealth and AA rarely define the battleship meta. Better armour would be nice, but it's not like Dunkerque is incapable of face-tanking a whole range of battleship opponents provided they're not armed with 380mm+ guns. Dunkerque is a whole bunch of "good enough" packaged behind comfortable gunnery. As one of the oldest premium battleships in the game Dunkerque doesn't have a gimmick to make her stand out anymore. Being French was her gimmick back in 2016. Since the release of the French battleship line, she lost not only that distinction but also the uniqueness of her all-forward gun arrangement. Players can simply unlock Richelieu from the tech tree if they want to have a taste of that game play, albeit two tiers higher. There's not a lot of 'wow-factor' baked into Dunkerque. She's good, don't get me wrong, but she's not amazing. She's not meta-defining or great. She wasn't a solid pick in tier VI Ranked Battles, sitting behind battleships that brought that oh-so covetted overmatch like Warspite and West Virginia and beyond consideration in team-based competitive (though admittedly everything played second fiddle to Admiral Graf Spee). Strasbourg will be rightly compared to Jean Bart and there is a reason Jean Bart isn't commonly available anymore (I'm still shocked she reappered for Black Friday, but whatevs, clearly WG likes money). If you love Dunkerque's game play, Strasbourg is so worth it, it's not even funny. I cannot stress enough how much the Main Battery Reload Booster consumable improves on what was already some damn fine gunnery. That's really the whole summation of Strasbourg. Yes, there's a bunch of other little changes here and there, but they feel so inconsequential compared to those twenty-seconds of fast-firing guns when her consumable is active. During development, Wargaming seemed oh-so careful not to repeat the misteps of Jean Bart's overpowered self. Strasbourg had her rate of fire nerfed from an initial 21 seconds (yes, really) to 24 seconds and then eventually down to 25 seconds with a slight sigma buff (from Dunkerque's 1.7 to the current 1.8). That should be enough to keep her in line, but I admit I enjoyed myself a lot playing Strasbourg. Such enjoyment on a test ship usually means that the ship is a little too strong. This speaks a lot to what battleship gameplay fundamentally boils down to: delivering big hits. The difference between good performance and bad in a match can so often be separated by a single Devastating Strike. Even if you lose, if you erased one ship outright, it's hard to call that a bad showing. Strasbourg's consumable makes it easier to do that and that's hella powerful. If I had to choose between the two, Strasbourg is (to me) the obvious choice. Dunkerque doesn't have anything novel going for her, in my opinion. Her best selling feature now is her tiering. Strasbourg at least has that gunnery gimmick; something a lot of players may not have access to in the future given the increased rarity of Jean Bart. Strasbourg is a GUDBOTE -- or more accurately, she's a MEHBOTE with a good consumable.
  3. Since both ships are effectively Battlecruisers, I would be interested to see how effective they'd be a match up, given one has the bigger guns and armor thickness, the other superior technology. Scenario 1: USS Alaska is commissioned sooner than expect and is at Ironbottom Sound during the Second Naval Battle of Guadalcanal in place of the USS South Dakota and USS Washington. Does USS Alaska have an advantage of facing the Kongo-class Kirishima at night in a point-blank brawl? Scenario 2: USS Alaska finds it self at Leyte Gulf after finishing it's shakedown cruise and manages to arrive at the Battle off Samar just as Admiral Kurita is retreating with his force. Kurita orders the Kongo to stay back and fight a rear guard action to protect the Yamato. In broad daylight with range between them, does the Alaska have the advantages facing the Kongo in late 1944?
  4. 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.
  5. I make no secret that I like the battlecruiser playstyle. To that end, I would like to see more battlecruisers in game, and the natural choices are the British and the Germans. German battlecruisers were generally better armored than their British counterparts, with smaller guns. The are counted as Battleships in game and the line branches off from the main German line via the engines of the Kaiser. Pros +Good armor +Better Acceleration than Tech Tree counterparts +Potential for Good Secondaries (with modernization) +External belt (as opposed to the internal belt of the later British) Cons -Tend towards smaller gun calibers than British Counterpart -Few barrels (After Moltke, never more than 8) -After Mackensen, no Turtleback (reliant on coal as armor) Tier IV Moltke-Class Displacement: 22,979t (Design) 25,400t (Full) Health: 40,800 Length: 186.6m (612ft 2in) Beam: 29.4m (96ft 5in) Belt: 280mm Speed: 25.5kts (28.4kts max) Main Armament 5x2 28cm L/50 AP: 7,400 HE: 3,200; Fire Change: 20% Secondary Armament 12x 15cm/45 SK C/09 guns in casemate 12x 8.8cm/45 SK Consumables Damage Control Part Repair Party Opening the line at tier IV is the Moltke-Class. A straight upgrade to the Nassau that precedes him, the Moltke loses a turret, but gains the ability to fire all guns on a broadside if cross-deck firing is allowed, or merely equals the barrel count if not. The armor is largely the same, but the guns are slightly superior and the mobility is greatly improved. Armor and firepower are inferior to Kaiser, but again, mobility is the key. Speed is actually so great in this ship that it might be best to tone down her max if it seems that she is having too easy of a time hunting cruisers. Other factors like reload and turret traverse can also be used to help reign in this potential monster. Tier IV -Premium- SMS Von der Tann Displacement: 19,370t (Design) 21,300t (Full) Health: 35,600 Length: 171.7m (563ft 4in) Beam: 26.6m (29ft 3in) Belt: 250mm Speed: 24.8kts (27.4kts max) Main Armament 4x2 28cm L/45 AP: 7,200 HE: 3,200, Fire Change: 19% Secondary Armament 10x 15cm/45 SK C/09 guns in casemate 16x 8.8cm/45 SK Consumables Damage Control Part Repair Party SMS Von der Tann, the first German Battlecruiser. While I'd put HMS Invincible at tier III, I put Von der Tann at tier IV because, while lesser than the Moltke, he is still a potent package. One less turret, and with weaker guns and armor, to boot, this ship will still run circles around other, true Battleships. The ship is historically significant for a number of reasons and deserves to be remembered in-game. That I believe he is still capable of holding his own, while being weaker than the tech tree ship makes this a perfect premium choice. I throw my money behind it. Tier V Derfflinger-Class Displacement: 26,600t (Design) 31,200t (Full) Health: 47,700 Length: 210.4m (690ft 3) Beam: 29m (30ft 2in) Belt: 300mm Speed: 25.5kts (26.6kts max) Main Armament 4x2 30.5cm SK L/50 C/08 AP: 8,400 HE: 3,500; Fire Chance: 23% Secondary Armament 12x 15cm/45 SK C/09 guns in casemate (14 on Lutzow & Hindenburg) 12x 8.8cm/45 SK Consumables Damage Control Part Repair Party The first battlecruiser with a fully center-line mounted battery and the trend-setter for the rest of the line, Derfflinger losses some of the edge over his tier mate, the Kaiser, though better acceleration and turning should make this battlecruiser still feel more agile than the true BB. While not a dud, I am not as excited for this ship as I am for some of the others. Tier V -Premium- SMS Seydlitz Displacement: 24,988t (Design) 28,550t (Full) Health: 44,500 Length: 200.6m (658ft 2in) Beam: 28.5m (93ft 6in) Belt: 300 Speed: 26.5kts (28.1kts max) Main Armament 5x2 28cm L/50 AP: 7,400 HE: 3,200; Fire Change: 20% Secondary Armament 12x 15cm/45 SK C/09 guns in casemate 12x 8.8cm/45 SK Consumables Damage Control Part Repair Party The Moltke, but better, I think Seydlitz deserves to be a Tier V premium. With armor to match the Derfflinger-Class and definite cross-deck firing, the Seydlitz sacrifices shell diameter for an extra turret and speed. This would be a fun ship to zip around in, though it might be a little seal-clubby. Tier VI Mackensen-Class Displacement: 31,000t (Design) 35,300t (Full) Health: 52,500 Length: 223m (731ft 8in) Beam: 30.4m (99ft 9in) Belt: 300mm Speed: 28kts (Possibility of an engine upgrade if needed) Main Armament 350mm/45 SK C/14 AP: 10,500 HE: 4,000; Fire Chance: 27% Secondary Armament 14x 15cm/45 SK C/09 guns in casemate 8x 8.8cm/45 Flak Consumables Damage Control Part Repair Party Launched, but never completed, the Mackensen-Class is the last of the tech tree battlecruisers in this list to be designed with a turtleback armor scheme. A member of this class is already in-game, the Prinz Eitel Friedrich, and it one of the ships that inspired me to make this list. A possible modernization to this class is the addition of 4 twin 15cm and 6 twin 10.5cm should WG design to further differentiate this ship from the P. E. Friedrich. Tier VII Ersatz Yorck-Class [Name] Displacement: 33,500t (Design) 38,000t (Full) Health: 55,700 Length: 227.8m (747ft 5in) Beam: 30.4m (99ft 9in) Belt: 300mm Speed: 27.3kts Main Armament 4x2 38cm/45 LC/1913 AP: 10,900 HE: 4,500; Fire Chance: 35% Secondary Armament 14x 15cm/45 SK C/09 guns in casemate 8x 8.8cm/45 Flak Consumables Damage Control Part Repair Party Engine Speed Boost A Mackensen with 15-inch guns, the Ersatz Yorck-Class is not a fantastic ship, and would definitely be served to have Engine Boost, to keep him up to speed. Tier VIII GK 2 Hela-Class [Image to Come] Displacement: 38,000t (Design) ~43,320 (Est. Full) Health: 62,000 Length: 235m Beam: 30.4m Belt: 300mm Citadel: 240mm Speed: 29.5kts Main Armament 4x2 38cm/45 LC/1913 AP: 10,900 HE: 4,500; Fire Chance: 35% Secondary Armament 16x 15cm/45 SK C/09 guns in casemate 8x 8.8cm/45 Flak Consumables Damage Control Part Repair Party Hydro-Acoustic Search Engine Speed Boost The GK 2 is what was wanted instead of the Ersatz Yorck-Class, though the Mackensens were too far into production and it was thought that it would be better to continue their construction. After a fictional modernization, it should be possible to give this ship Bismarck-esque secondaries. Tier VIII -Premium- GK 11 Hetzog von Falkenstein-Class http://www.dreadnoughtproject.org/plans/SM_Studienentwurf/GrosseKreuzer_11_100dpi.jpg Displacement: 37,000t (Design) ~42,180 (Est. Full) Health: 60,700 Length: 230m Beam: 31.0 Belt: 300mm Citadel: 200mm Speed: 28kts Main Armament 4x2 38cm/45 LC/1913 AP: 10,900 HE: 4,500; Fire Chance: 35% Secondary Armament 16x 15cm/45 SK C/09 guns in casemate 8x 8.8cm/45 Flak Consumables Damage Control Part Repair Party Engine Speed Boost This is the last design that I could find that had turtleback armor. GK 1-3, 6-10, and 12 do not, instead relying on coal stores to act as extra armor. This extends to the other GK series designs that I could find. For his extra survivability, I think it would be fair to take away his Hydro, since it would help differentiate the GK 11 from GK 2. A modernization can help make him more secondary-heavy. Tier IX GK 4532 [Name] http://www.dreadnoughtproject.org/plans/SM_Studienentwurf/Schnelle_GrosseKampfschiffe_4532_100dpi.jpg Displacement: 45,000t (Design) ~51,300 (Full) Health: 71,400 Length: 240m Beam: 33.5m Belt: 350 Citadel: 300 Speed: 30kts (31kts max) Main Armament 6x2 42cm/45 SK AP: 13,300 HE: 5,000; Fire Chance: 41% Secondary Armament 8x 15cm/45 SK C/09 guns in casemate 4x 15cm/45 AA Consumables Damage Control Part Repair Party Hydro-Acoustic Search Engine Speed Boost Armed with three two-gun 16.5-inch guns, the GK 4532 is armed fairly heavily. Extensive modernization can be carried out, increasing the ship's speed significantly and additional AA can be placed to increase the ship's secondaries. The GK 4532 has 4 centerline 15cm guns which can be converted into DP mounts. Adding additional 12.8cm twin DP guns will give this ship formidable AA and secondaries. With his turret layout, the GK 4532 is better at kiting away than pushing. Tier X GK 5041 [Name] http://www.dreadnoughtproject.org/plans/SM_Studienentwurf/Schnelle_GrosseKampfschiffe_5041_100dpi.jpg Displacement: 50,000t (Design) ~57,000 (Full) Health: 78,200 Length: 270m Beam: 33.5m Belt: 350mm Citadel: 300mm Speed: 30kts (31kts max) Main Armament 8x2 42cm.45 SK AP: 13,300 HE: 5,000; Fire Chance: 41% Secondary Armament 8x 15cm/45 SK C/09 guns in casemate 4x 15cm/45 AA Consumables Damage Control Part Repair Party Hydro-Acoustic Search Engine Speed Boost The last of the line, the biggest battlecruiser that I could find designed by the German Navy. I did a rough springsharp of this ship, and a modernized GK 5041 could easily fit Grosse Kurfurst secondaries and 34kt speed. This was done without doing the more complex operations, like factoring in the armor taper or the like, which makes me believe that such a modernization would be more than capable of being fielded. Special thanks to @OccultRogue for helping me translate the German.
  6. While there are only a handful of Battlecruisers in the game, and most of them are premiums, I enjoy their playstyle. The British and Germans are known for their battlecruisers, the USN spent a long time tinkering and toying with the idea of Battlecruisers, and they took a variety of approaches. The line I have presented here follows the latter developments of the quest for a Lexington-Class Battlecruiser up to tier 8. The tier V and VI are interesting designs, but are more optional and there to help fill the line. Their weak armor might lend them better to being super-cruisers are high tiers. Thoughts? Pros +High Speed +Responsive Rudder +Quick Acceleration +High Health Pool Cons -Weak Armor -Wide Turning Circle -Easily Knocked Out Engine -Long & High Citadel -Poor AA Unique Line Consumable Acceleration Boost- Short Duration, Short Cooldown, High Charge Count. While active, the Acceleration Boost drastically reduces time required for the ship to reach either it's top speed to or come to a halt. This is useful in long range dueling to avoid incoming fire, while brawling to avoid torpedoes, or even to initiate or avoid a ram. Engine performance can be improved between 33%-50%, depending on tier, balancing, ect, and would last between 10-20 seconds at the most. Charges would be about 5-7, after skills. It does not improve top speed, only the time to reach it. The Line is entered through researching the USS New York's Upgraded Engines. Tier V Battle Cruiser 8/25/15 Displacement: 35,500t Health Points: 52,800 Length: 745 ft @ water line Beam: 100 ft Speed: 30 kts Belt: 5-inch (127mm) Main Armament 4x2 14"/45 Mk 8 (356mm) Secondary Armament 12x1 6"/53 Mk 15 in Casemate (152mm) 4x1 3"/? AA guns (76.2mm) x .50 cal machine guns (12.7mm) Consumables Damage Control Party Repair Party Acceleration Boost With a High citadel, a high speed, and weak belt, she will begin training players in how to play the agile-but-fragile USN Battle Cruisers. Those who were expecting a brawlly battleship will be quickly cured of these notions, as these ships have less armor than even their British counterparts. Tier VI Battle Cruiser 6/16/16 USS Constitution Displacement: 33,500t Health Points: 50,400 Length: 850ft at water line Beam: 90ft Speed: 35 kts Belt: 5-inch (127mm) Main Armament 2x2 14"/45 Mk 8 (356mm) 2x3 14"/45 Mk 8 (356mm) Secondary Armament 18x 5"/51 Mk 7 (127mm) 4x1 3"/50 Mk 22 AA guns (76.2mm) x .50 cal machine guns (12.7mm) Consumables Damage Control Party Repair Party Acceleration Boost Probably the most interesting looking ships in the line, with her forest of smoke stacks, she can reach a blistering speed of 35 kts, meaning she can run down even destroyers. For sake of the players taking her out of port, the raised boiler rooms won't count as citadel, but will still count towards disabling her engines. She'll make a fine flanker, but her long size will mean that she has a wide turning circle, even with the inclusion of a responsive rudder. Tier VII USS Constellation Displacement: 44,200t Health Points: 63,000 Length: 874ft overall Beam: 105ft 4in Speed: 33kts Belt: 7-inch (max) 178mm Main Armament 4x2 16"/50 Mk 2 Secondary Armament 14x1 6"/53 Mk 15 in Casemate (152mm) 8x1 3"/50 Mk 22 AA guns x AA Machine Guns Consumables Damage Control Party Repair Party Acceleration Boost A little slower than the preceding class, this is the Lexington-Class as she was laid down. She'll still be fast, and would mount guns slightly better than those found on the current tech tree USN BB, the Colorado. Tier VIII Battle Cruiser 1919 Scheme B Displacement: 45,000t Health Points: 64,000 Length: 850ft at waterline Beam: 99ft Speed: 33 kts Belt: 8-inch (203mm) Main Armament 4x2 16"/50 Mk 2 Secondary Armament 14x1 6"/53 Mk 15 in Casemate (152mm) 4x1 3"/50 Mk 22 AA guns x AA Machine Guns Consumables Damage Control Party Repair Party Acceleration Boost An improved version of the Lexington-Class. As the ship stands, she'd probably be a Tier 7.5, and would require more than a little work to get her up to a suitable tier 8. The issue lies in the gap present in the Battlecruisers and the Battleship Cruisers (Fast Battleships) designed around the same time, and the lack of connection between the two. Tier IX Battleship Cruiser Scheme "D" Displacement: 49,500t Health Points: 69,300 Length: 900ft at waterline, 924ft overall Beam: 106ft Speed: 30kts (can be improved via modernization) Belt: 12-inch (304.8mm) Main Armament 4x3 16"/50 Mk 3 Secondary Armament 16x1 6"/53 Mk 15 in Casemate (152mm) 4x1 4"/? AA guns x AA Machine Guns Consumables Damage Control Party Repair Party Acceleration Boost Catapult Fighter I dislike the jump from the Battlecruisers to the Battleship Cruisers, but I am lacking in material, as the Volume 2 of the Bureau of Ships' Spring Styles is missing, presumed destroyed. If anyone has a better idea of what to put here, I am all ears. Originally, USS New Jersey (with her 1968 engine refit) was to fill this spot, but for better continuity of design, this ship was chosen instead. Ideally, a 3x3 16" Battleship Cruiser would sit here, instead, but I was unable to find any appropriate. Obviously, as a Tier 9, this ship would need to undergo extensive modernization. Tier X BB-Y3 (Montana Prelim) USS Maine [Picture Unavailable] Displacement: 73,700t Health Points: 97,900 Length: 1000ft Beam: 115ft Speed: 34knts + Belt: 14.2-inch (360.68mm) Main Armament 4x3 16"/50 Mk 7 Secondary Armament 10x2 5"/54 Mk 16 on Mk 41 Mount DP x AA Machine Guns Consumables Damage Control Party Repair Party Acceleration Boost Catapult Fighter Quite a large jump from the Tier 9, I again run into the problem of having a smooth transition from one tier to the next. This ship will differentiate herself from the Montana by being larger and faster, but having slightly less armor on the belt, having the citadel above water, and having an engine more prone to being knocked out. These are two other ships considered for the Tier 10 slot, but was ultimately passed over for BB-Y3. I need some external input for this line, as it is one of the more challenging ones I've put together. Feedback is greatly appreciated.
  7. Hello, I think it is time to give the Asashio the capability to hit battle-cruisers with her torps, like: Kronshtadt, Alaska, Puerto Rico, Stalingrad, Moskva, Petropavlovsk, Yoshino, Azuma, Siegfried, Agir, etc. If they have the same draught, draft, deep (whatever you call it) like a BB, then Asashio torps should hit them. It's logic.
  8. Allow to just slap this in for a second....For a little while now, I've been working on a spreadsheet of information for if HMS Renown, was added to the game. Now, here is what I've got, wanted to keep this section short and sweet...now enjoy the reading :D ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Basics: Tier-6 (Or 7, the AA Suite does in some ways feel more like a 7...idk...that's why I'm posting this here and on reddit also :\) Statues-premium _____________________________ Weaponry: 3x2 381mm / 42 mark I Range - 16.8Km Reload time - 28.00 Seconds Rate of Fire - 2.00 rpm 180 Turn Time - 45 Seconds Traverse Speed - 2.50 Degree/second Accuracy Sigma - 1.9 Maximum Dispersion - 234m ___________________________________________________ Shells: 381mm HE Mk VIIIb HE Shell Raw DPM - 63600 Maximum Damage - 5,300 Initial Shell Velocity - 749 m/s Shell weight - 879 Kg Ricochet - 89.0 Degree He penetration - 63mm Burn Probability - 38% -Per Salvo - 94.6% -Fire Per Minute - 1.85 _______________________________ 381mm AP Mark XXII b Raw DPM - 154,000 Maximum Damage - 12,000 Initial Shell Velocity - 749 m/s Shell Weight - 879 Kg Ricochet - 60-67 Degrees Overmatch - 26mm Threshold - 18mm Fuse Time - 0.025 s ______________________________ Secondary Armament 10x2 114mm QF Mark III Range - 5.7Km Maximum Damage - 1,700 Initial Shell Velocity - 746 m/s Reload Speed - 5 Seconds Rate of Fire - 12 Rpm Accuracy -Sigma - 1.0 -Maximum Dispersion - 237m HE Penetration - 20mm Burn Probability - 9% _____________________________ Fire 60 Seconds No. of fires - 4 Probability reduction - 27% DPS per fire - 158 Total Damage per fire - 9480 _____________________________ Flooding 40 Seconds No. of flooding - 2 Probability - 22.5% Damage Reduction - 28% DPS from flooding - 258 Total Damage per flooding - 10,320 _______________________________ Concealment Sea - 14Km After firing in Smoke - 11.8Km When on Fire - 17.2Km Air - 9.8Km After Firing in Smoke - 7.5Km When on Fire - 11.3Km ____________________________ Maximum Speed - 31 Knots Full power Forward - 60 Seconds Full power Reverse - 30 Seconds Power Ratio - 2.34 per Ton Turning Circle radius - 870m Rudder shift Time - 12.8 Seconds __________________________________ Anti-Aircraft Defense Far: [ 0.1-5.8Km ] Inner+Outer Explosions - 3+1 Damage - 1,200 RoF - 5 Seconds Spawn Time - 1.51 Seconds Distance - 3.5-5.8Km Aura - 132 DPS Damage - 34 Rate of Fire - 0.29 Seconds Hit Probability - 75% ______________________________ Medium: [ 0.1-2.5km ] Aura - 170.2 dps Damage - 42 Rate of Fire - 0.29 Seconds Hit Probability - 75% ______________________________ Near: [ 0.1-2Km ] Aura - 193 dps Damage - 58 Rate of Fire - 0.29 Seconds Hit Probability - 70% _________________________________ Other Useful Information: Length: 242.0m Beam: 27.4m Draft: 9.7m Displacement: 36,660 Tons Speed: 31 Knots (As stated above) Armament: Main-6x381mm Secondary-20x114mm AA 16x12.7mm 24x40mm 20x114mm (Sadly the AA from what I can find is all over the place, so if you know the FULL LIST of Renown's AA Suite in 1944, I will add it to this post to be correct.) Armour design is the same as the AA Suite, all over the place, So If you could Direct me to a book or provide the information on it, I will take it and add it over this piece of text.
  9. 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.
  10. Dear Wargaming, I have been playing this game since the open beta and have loved it from the first battle. So let me first thank you for the last five years of bringing so many glorious ships to life. There is one ship in particular, however, that I have always hoped to see but which does not appear to be in your plans. So I thought I would begin my campaign for her inclusion with a thread here in the forums. I am speaking, of course, about HMS Tiger. I believe she would fit very nicely as a tier V premium. She should play like a squishier Kongo with more accurate guns and better maneuverability. I believe the picture below says all that needs to be said . . . for now. https://i.redd.it/idmwyels37u41.jpg One thing more -- if by some miracle you decide to add her, please oh please do not attempt to reimagine her as she might have been rebuilt for WW2 (as was done with Bayern for instance...ugh). The primary reason for this request is seeing her beautiful lines (idealy her 1918 incarnation) in your beautful game. Here are some more images of her in model form to guide your programmers. http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery/bb/hms/Tiger-700-nd/index.htm Best, xXPSYOPSXx
  11. Lexington-class battlecruiser I think this would be a very exciting option for a tier V-VII American Battleship. Here is a little info about it. Final Design SpecificationsDisplacement: 44,638 tons full load; 51,217 tons emergency full loadDimensions: 874 x 105 x 31 feet/266.5 x 32.1 x 9.5 metersPropulsion: Turbo-electric, 16 295 psi boilers, 4 shafts, 180,000 shp, 33.25 knotsCrew: 1297 (1326 as flagship)Armor: 7 inch belt, 1.5-1.75 inch deck, 5-9 inch barbettes, 5-11 inch turrets, 6-12 inch CTArmament: 4 dual 16"/50cal, 16 single 6"/53cal, 4 single 3"/50cal AA, 4 21 inch torpedo tubes (above water), 4 21 inch torpedo tubes (submerged) Concept/Program: A group of six large battlecruisers ordered in 1916 as fast "battle scouts", part of a large program of fleet scouting ships, which included many smaller cruisers and destroyers. These ships were essentially scaled up from contemporary cruiser designs, rather than scaled down from battleship designs, as was typical foreign practice. The ships would have been large and powerful, but poorly protected and thus vulnerable in battle. By 1921 the weaknesses of the design, and of the type in general, were apparently recognized, and consideration was given to either converting some of the ships to aircraft carriers or building new carriers using materials assembled for the battlecruisers. Ultimately all six were cancelled under the Washington Treaty, and two were completed as carriers. Class: Sometimes identified as the Constellation class, apparently because Constellation (CC 2) was the first to be laid down. These were the only US Navy ships to which the battlecruiser classification was applied. The designation "CC", which was not formally applied until the 17 July 1920 fleet redesignation, is thought to have been derived from "Cruiser, Capital", indicating their status as capital ships. Design: The original (1916) design for these ships was quite different from their final design. In 1916 the planned specifications were: 36,350 tons full load with 10 14"/50cal and 18 5"/51cal guns, very light armor, half of the 24 boilers located above the protective deck, and seven funnels. The entire program was suspended in 1917 to facilitate construction of merchant ships for WWI service. The class was completely redesigned 1917-1919, taking into account improved technology such as watertube boilers, foreign development of more powerful ships, the need for improved armor and anti-torpedo protection, and the lessons of Jutland. The resulting design was considerably better than the original version, but still relatively lightly armored. Why should the Lexington Battlecruiser be in the game as a regular ship and what historical and game play benefits does it add? The Lexington was meant to be part of the greatest battle fleet that never existed. This battle fleet was to consist of 6 ships of the South Dakota’s class with 4 triple mount 16.5” guns, 4 ships of the Colorado Class with 16” guns, 6 ships of the Lexington Class battle cruiser with 4 triple mount 14” guns, followed up by another nine battle ships from the Nevada, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, and California classes with 14” guns. This Battle fleet would have been superior to any single battle fleet in the world, including the one ran by the Royal Navy. This fleet was never built due to the limitations of the 1922 Washington Naval Treaty that put a limit on the total tonnage of the Battle Fleets for the US Britain Japan, France and Italy. For the British this treaty was about not being out paced by the economic and industrial might of the US and it’s planned battle fleet it was building, for the US it was about limiting the size of the Japanese fleet to a manageable level to maintain control of the pacific. Given the fact that these ships were never able to be built how cool would it be to be able to play what could have been. The Lexington was not just a paper ship it was actually on order and partially built when it and its sister ship were converted to aircraft carriers the Lexington and Saratoga which went on to play significate roles in WWII. Another important factor for the Lexington being added is the many design changes and the different upgrades that can be associated with the ship class. “Like the South Dakota-class battleships also included in the 1916 Act, their construction was repeatedly postponed in favor of escort ships and anti-submarine vessels. During these delays, the class was redesigned several times; they were originally designed to mount ten 14-inch guns and eighteen five-inch guns on a hull with a maximum speed of 35 knots (65 km/h; 40 mph), but by the time of the definitive design, these specifications had been altered to eight 16-inch guns and sixteen six-inch guns, with a speed of 33.25 knots (61.58 km/h; 38.26 mph) to improve hitting power and armor (the decrease in speed was mostly attributed to the additions of armor).” Here Are just a Few of the Different looks from the redesigns With the level of design and redesign the sheer amount of historical documentation on this ships class would be massive, which could support the high level of historical accuracy of any WG recreation. The Lexington was order as a direct response to the Japanese Kongo Battle cruiser (which may be in the game). The design of the Lexington was heavily based on and an improvement of Britain Invincible class battle cruiser, which will most likely be added to the Britain line. Hopefully if we can get enough people interested in the Lexington Battlecruiser War Gaming seriously considering add this amazing ship.
  12. So I’ve been working on a side project on my own for the past 6 or 7 years where I have been coming up with ideas for a fictional alternate history series. I had an idea for a German battlecruiser design that combines the designs (both external and internal designs and the armor layout) of the German battleship Bismarck (using wows’s B hull upgrade as the basis for her exterior design) and the British battlecruiser HMS Hood (using her design in wows as exterior basis). My question is what would this design probably look like in your opinion? I would also like photos/reference drawings to be used in this discussion if whoever reads this wants to in order to make it easier to visualize the design aspects used.
  13. Welcome to part three of our at least three part series of "Will it Battlecruiser". If you'd like to catch up on the action up to this point check out parts One and Two. Today we're going to be covering the most talked about and/or theorycrafted BC lines: Britain and Germany. Both nations contributed more real-steel designs than all other nations put together, while simultaneously being some of the most frustrating lines to actually create full techlines for! Nonetheless, the two nations are far more complimentary and similar in terms of general performance and line development than even I realized! Therefore without further adieu, lets start with Myag... Cobr... eh, the Germans. This is going to be kind of a short walkthrough since I'm basing my line largely on the excellent work of @Shrayes_Bhagavatula and his "Raider" BB line split for Germany. If you haven't read his thread, I highly recommend doing so! His top tier options and playstyle gel pretty well with the overall design aesthetic of German BC's so all I am doing is simply using his branch as a springboard to extend all the way down to tier III. For those of you TL;DRers out there his branch is as follows: VI: Mackensen-class VII: Gneisenau VIII: Bismarck-class IX: H-39 X: H-40a w/ 8x2 16" guns (Though I personally would add an option for 42cm guns as well.) The main characteristics of these ships are that they are lighter, faster ships than the contemporary main line German BB's, often with faster firing but lighter/ fewer main guns but still keeping the common German traits of turtleback armor and strong secondaries. As I mentioned previously, this gels surprisingly well with the WWI era true BCs and makes creating a cohesive line from BC--> fast BB muuuuch easier. So with that said, lets start to backfill! Starting at tier V we have: V: Derfflinger-class As one might expect, for those of you forum readers who've been around the block, this ship is our 3rd in line. Main armament is only 8x2 12" guns, compared to the 10x2 12" found on the König-class. His speed should help to make up the deficit in firepower while the improved armor profiles (compared to their British contemporaries) should enable them to survive longer in mid-range battles. In a sense, these ships would be more akin to cruiser-killers, only firing on BBs opportunistically or when among allies. Next up at tier IV, a surprise I'm sure to some of you I'm sure: IV: Seydlitz Moltke-class Thanks to @Lord_Magus and finally getting some better looks at the schematics of these respective ships. I have reevaluated tiers III and IV so now Moltke is tier IV and the Von der Tann has come back as the starting tier III shown below: III: Moltke-class Von der Tann Let's now take a look at the ships Cob... Mya... Rex Kwan d.... uh the Royal Navy, can muster. And I'm going to preface this now; my top tiers are not what you think! III: Indefatigable-class This ship was chosen over the Invincible in the same way Bellerophon was chosen over Dreadnought; they were slightly improved, serialized ships over the preceding class. (Yes I am aware Invincible wasn't a one-off, work with me here!) Despite largely being a repeat, she did get improvements in armor and speed that should offer her a bit more... parity to Moltke than her sister class while still exemplifying the ethos of British BC's, thin armor, good-but-not-great firepower and high-er speed than any contemporary BB. Her guns, while not having particularly great firing angles, can still cross-fire as well, enabling an 8-ish gun broadside. From here, the rest of the line is pretty standard for most fans of the British BCs and proceeds as follows: IV: Lion Princess Royal-class V: Tiger VI: Renown-class (with refits) VII: Admiral-class (Anson) Now, it's at this point that other British BC lines end up with some combination of the follow-on alphabet classes that were in development in the early 1920's. And while tier VIII won't be any different, at least to a degree, don't expect Incomparable or anything of the sort to show up at tier X. For starters though let's have a look at the J3: This ship, obviously part of the Alphabet series of designs was basically the direct successor to Hood and the rest of the Admiral-class ships. It's also a far more conventional design than the ship that was chosen to replace the Admiral-class program, the G3. So why isn't G3 here? Well, it simply comes down to the unconventional design of that ship when compared to the rest of the line. This same justification was also the reason for keeping Nelson out of the line as well, since it's all forward gun placement would have been an extremely awkward shift in playstyle, so too would G3 after Admiral. I would certainly consider that G3 becomes a premium though, and hope that it does! But for the techline, J3 and it's 15" guns (which give it equivalent firepower to Monarch) offers a much better flow. Speaking of Monarch, allow me to digress for just a moment here, I promise it will all make sense... I despise this ship. Even though I have not played it, nor will ever do so Monarch is the single biggest bone of contention I have with WoWs and it's paper techline ships. Period. More than the Russian ships (which I really don't mind for the most part) More than the new Super Standards, more than the Italian high tier ships (though they are a close second). And why is this the hill I chose to die on? Well, it's because above all else it's lazy. A preliminary design that succeeds it's real-steel design. And it's not even particularly well done for a paper ship at that, rife with historical inaccuracies and wrapped up in a ship that, aside for marginally larger guns is the same basic ship from the preceding tier. And even though it did come into the game as a premium, HMS Vanguard would have been a natural alternative, but wasn't used. Why am I telling you all of this, what does it have to do with battlecruisers? Glad you asked. Since the J3 is (speed and armor aside) going to offer otherwise similar capabilities to the Monarch, it gives me an opportunity to replace it with something else. Something marginally more real and most importantly, different enough in capability to J3 to be unique. Enter: Lion. What you see here is the early versions of Lion through 1940, similar to what we have at tier IX in game already. Many believe that Lion is one of the weaker tier IX BBs, merely a last stepping stone before you get to Conquerer. I find that incredibly disappointing given that this ship was the counter to not only any German BB, it was to be Britain's answer to Iowa. And it's easy to see why, with her squishy sides, weak torpedo protection and somewhat lackluster 16" guns which means you just end up using the anachronistic 16.5" guns instead. What I propose instead is to move Lion as she exists down to tier VIII, replacing Monarch while J3 becomes it's spiritual successor. her 9x3 16" guns, in terms of AP power fall somewhere in between Nelson's and the American Freedomizer™ shells. She would still have the squishy-ish armor and poor torpedo protection (known flaws of the early versions of the ship). Detuned, this ship can easily be comparable to the Vladivostok or North Carolina-class at tier VIII, and provide a true alternative playstyle against the J3 in the BC line. So what then do we do with these lines tier IX ships? Well, Lion comes to the rescue again. This version of Lion is her in her proposed 1942 redesign. note the lack of spotter plane now and the much heavier AA suite. That's not all, she also would get the same Mk.IV 16" guns she has now in game but they would be improved. The Mk.IV was designed to handle higher pressures for new heavy AP shells which would make the guns in this version of the ship behave more like the guns on North Carolina or the Alabama (though she does have higher muzzle velocity than either of those, which is nice.) A lot of work also went into enhanced torpedo and deck armor protection as well. And sure, if you really want to keep them you can still have this ship with the 16.5" guns too though it'd make no sense. So while this neatly wraps up the BB line gaps what does the BC line have? This delightful little fella is one of the 1945 Lion-class proposals, meant to be a reduced size and cost alternative to not only fit in British naval shipyards (larger ships would have to be built in civilian ones, competing with civilian ship contracts) but also to enable the Royal Navy to maintain a sizeable postwar BB fleet. While it is still armed with 16" Mk.IV guns, it should be noted that these 1944/45 ship proposals were to have all been using the new Mk.III turret which was supposed to offer a rate of fire of 3 RPM. That's right, a 20 second base reload. So, whilst only having 6 guns, it can still pump out an impressive dpm, additionally carrying plenty of AA and, 4.5"in turrets as you can see above. Armor is quite variable on these ships, this particular version shown above for instance (B7) has only about 9-11" of belt armor and modest torpedo protection. Additionally, all of the ships were required to achieve a top speed of only 29kts so it would take a little WeeGee imagineering to give this ship the requisite HP to get to at least 30 knots but it's by no means inconceivable to do so. This finally bring us to the tier X in all of it's Lion-y glory: This is the 1944 Version of the ship and were among the largest variants ever proposed. Weighing in at an impressive 64500 tonnes full load. Designed to achieve a top speed of 31.5 knots it needed all that size to speed through the water. As you can see, we're also back to 9 guns, also of the Mk.IV in the Mk.III speedloader turrets. It should be noted that while all of the Royal Navies 16" guns were 45 caliber, there were plans and even a test unit for a 50cal version to be built (unofficially referred to as Mk.V) which would bring the guns performance closer to Iowa/Montana with their 16"/50 rifles. This gun though, would only show up on the 1944/45 ships however. Also, one final note for the eagle-eyed among you, yes those are torpedoes mounted amidships. Quintuple launchers no less! They were removed in the 1945 designs and I haven't decided whether it would be a good idea to give them to the tier IX ship or omit them from the tier X ship? Either way, despite the class stretching of epic proportions, we have found a way to create a full BC--> fast BB line for the British. Phew! Finally finished with the big boys! Of course there were other nations that tried and failed to develop battlecruisers as well that I have yet to cover. If you're interested in having me beat this dead horse into a fine powder, let me know! Otherwise comments and suggestions are always welcome and thank you again to @Shrayes_Bhagavatula and @Tzoli for the images!
  14. In our continuing series of "Will it battlecruiser?" We'll take a look at a nation that frankly, is long overdue for some new blood that isn't a derivative premium: Japan. While Japanese battlecruiser lines have been theorized on the forum before, many of them were derived from the idea that the BBs and BCs needed to be completely divorced from one another and exist in two separate lines, a la Britain and Germany. However, it's important to note that as the oldest BB line in the entire game it also happens to be the most BC forward of them as well. What I mean is that with 3 genuine BCs as part of the lineup (Myogi, Kongo, Amagi) not to mention 2 1/2 premium ones as well (I consider Kii to be kind of a BC, really just at true fast BB) BCs have not only been implemented successfully in WoWs, they've been clear path to the IJN's... flavour if you will in the game. Therefore, my proposal for a BC line would really be more of a split instead of a true 2nd line. Save those again, for Germany and Britain. So lets dive right in with the theorycrafting and see how this could look. Strap yourselves in though, the following ships are doozies! The first thing we need to look at is where does the split occur? Well, conventional wisdom might say it occurs from the tier III Kawachi, as it was a true Dreadnought and everything that comes after (until tier VI that is) is a BC. So just backfill with some other BB designs and you're good to go right? NO! While there are a few notable and well documented early BBs that could fit in that timeframe, including some early Fuso designs shown here: (H/T @Tzoli for all the amazing drawings I'm going to use in this post!) These ships by the way would be armed with 12"/50 and 14" guns respectively so while they would work, I'm not going to incorporate them here. My idea is instead to have the BC--> Fast BB line become the main line and more traditional heavy armor/ firepower BB's be the branch or spur line. Should we ever get to the point where we can start to see BB tiers lower than III at any point in the future, than yes we can revisit these designs to offer a better flow for the BB split. For now though, Kawachi remains a perfectly cromulent staring point. Our actual point of deviation will be with tier VI, branching off of the Kongo as one would expect. Therefore the actual Fuso becomes the start of that new (old?) BB branch, so what then would we see for tier VI in the BC line? Well... What you're looking at are blueprints from the excellent archive of the late Vice Admiral Baron Yuzuaru Hiraga. Hiraga-san was one of Japan's chief naval architects during this time, and had left his entire body of work and portfolio (over 40.000 artifacts in fact!) to the University of Tokyo, much of which you can view online! Why tell you all this? Because Hiraga-san is really going to be the primary source for any other designs that had come about during this period, and, while vague are certainly better than nothing. The designs shown above in particular are various design studies for battlecruisers that will eventually morph into the Amagi-class at tier VIII. The designs ran from project number B-58 all the way to B-64, which became the Amagi. The B-62 designs, with 6 subvariants A-F, are the most likely ones to fill out both tiers VI and VII. Essentially just bigger, longer and faster versions of the Nagato ranging in displacement from 35.000-46.000 tonnes and armed with 8x2 14" or 16.1" guns. Armor also varied to anywhere from 8-10" on the belt, and speed was generally between 32-35kts depending on the subvariant in question. There is more than enough information here to flesh out 2 complete ships for tiers VI and VII, provided they're given the same theoretical refits that the real-steel ships received. Tier VIII then, is simply the same old Amagi, we all know and love: Obviously this will leave a gap at tier VIII for the BB line, the only gap in fact. So what is going to fill that Amagi shaped hole? Well, if you know your ships or have been following along in the forums for a while you'll know that it's the Amagi's smaller, slower thiccer cousin, the Tosa-class: Finally we get to the good stuff. Tiers IX and X. And for those of you wondering, no there won't be a No. 13 design in sight! Instead, we're going to offer some slightly more eclectic designs starting with this one: This image once again is provided to us by Hiraga's archive, but was actually designed by a man named Kikuo Fujimoto. Both men had been part of a program in the late 20 and early 30's to design a replacement ship for the Kongo-class. With the London Naval Treaty looming, the ships were largely derivative in design and all between 25.000-35.000 tonnes to comply with the treaty. Speed would have been somewhat low for Hiraga-san's designs all clocking in at between 25 and 26 knots. In fact, one of these designs is fairly well known and even a physical model of the design was made to show off to the Naval General Staff: Unfortunately, despite the promise of a 10 gun, 16.1" broadside on this treaty battleship, this is not the design I am using. While there is a lot of vagueness to Fujimoto-san's design, it was able to cram 3x3 41cm guns into a 35.000 tonne ship and presumably achieve speeds in excess of 26 knots. But we don't know that for sure. As a backup though, Hiraga-san did come up with an, "unleashed" design if you will to achieve maximum performance within the specifications: This by the way, is the earliest genesis of the Yamato-class. Last but not least, is tier X: Since the Hizen is now going to be a premium in the game, it pretty much takes the wind out of the sails for a so called "light Yamato" that can rather nicely fit in the top end of this tree. So instead, you get this thing. A 67.000 tonne fast battleship from 1934. Designed by a man named Ezaki Iwiakichi, an understudy of Fujimoto-san. These designs were part of a preliminary 1934 program for new battleships, prior to the official A-140 program that would result in the Yamato. The ship was supposed to achieve a top speed between 31 and 33 knots, and be armed with the same 18.1" guns as Yamato. Unfortuantely, not much is known about its armor profile, likely those design specs were lost to time and the war, but it does provide a great starting point for WG to adjust the values as they see fit for a fast, quasi-Yammy. So there you have it. Japan's missing links to create a true fast battleship line. And for those of you wondering why I didn't just find some No. 13 battleship designs to make this, it's simply because these designs are just more modern. They're post treaty ships and just fit more naturally than trying to stuff 1920's era ships into a WWII timeframe, no matter how many fantasy refits you give it. :cough: Vermont :cough:. As always, comments and feedback are most welcome!
  15. Thanks in large part to @Shrayes_Bhagavatula and his recent (And frankly well done) German BB split proposal, I have been thinking about Battlecruisers once again and how such lines or line splits would shape up in the game. In particular, Sharayes' 'Raider Line' of German Battleships, at least IMO, would potentially pair well with earlier, true BC's to create not just a split but a true 2nd line of battleships to unlock for Germany. His top tier conclusions meant that one would only need to backfill down to tier III in order to complete a line, and since there are more than enough ship classes from the era to do so, a BC-->fast/ commerce raiding BB line suddenly becomes very attainable... at least in theory of course. But today, I'd like to start my suggestion with a different nation to backfill BCs with; the US. As we know, there will be an imminent split at tier 8 for the USN Battleship tree, and like many of you I was shocked and a bit disappointed when the ships were announced and shown off a few months ago. "This isn't at all what I wanted!" I exclaimed! "Where's the Nevada, the Tennessee, the real SoDak? Where's our awesome secondary focused, brawling BBs!?!?" Instead what we got was the original South Dakota, a rebuilt, pretend-to-be-a-Montana South Dakota, and one of the freakin' Tillman proposals! Not to say that such ships didn't have their fans prior to the announcement, they most certainly did! Even I'll freely admit I was hoping to see the OG SoDak come into the game at some point as a premium or, something. However, as I calmed down and started to think about it more, it's actually kind of brilliant on WG's part. We have always had a very nice, well put together tech line for the US BBs from a chronological standpoint. Starting from the first Dreadnought, to the standards, to the post 1930 era Fast BBs all the way up to the aborted Montana, it's a very well defined line! And now, we're going to be given a choice: what was versus what might have been. The simple fact is that the 1920 South Dakota-class was the next in line to be built after the Colorado-class and very nearly were, if not for that contemptable piece of paper known as the Washington Naval Treaty. Now, say what you will about the new ships, and they very well could end up being crap as many of the doomsayers are proclaiming, but there's no denial that these new "Super Standards" as I call them, will not only create a more interesting chronological line but also a more significant gameplay choice: continue with the slow, methodical playstyle of the standards or go with fast, maneuverable BBs? And therein lies the brilliance... So if you made it this far, congratulations! If you're looking for the TL:DR well here's your question: 'What the hell does all that have to do with American Battlecrusiers TW?' So glad you asked! Despite the fact that the USN fast BBs make chronological sense in the techline, it got me thinking; can it be extended and make sense gameplay wise? This is where the BC's come in. Since we already have existing tier VIII-X ships, we simply need to backfill the rest of the line as far as it can go. And how far does the BC line for the US go? Lets theorycraft! Starting off at tier VII, we have the most obvious ship to place in our hypothetical American BC line: The Lexington-class: As we all know, the Lexington and Saratoga were rebuilt as CV's so I would go with the name Constellation for this class in the techline. The main feature of these ships are that they are basically the ultimate glass cannons. Roughly the same size and maneuverability as HMS Hood (though slightly faster), Connie would also feature similar armament to Colorado, with 8x2 16" guns though these are the 50cal versions that were also to be used on the original SoDaks (nee: Kansas) Her main drawback is that this thing, other than being huge has only 7"(!) of main belt armor. That's only slightly better than a Baltimore and compared to Hood is equivalent to only her upper belt, whereas her main belt is 12". So yeah, you want to talk about easy broadside citadels, Russian BBs eat your hearts out! And it's this frankly jarring achilles heel that have some saying is the reason the Connie will never show up in the game, she's simply to fragile to to balance properly. But I argue she could be balanced, especially given a hypothetical refit that WG would certainly give her anyway, could make her perfectly competitive at tier VII, playing more like... a long range heavy cruiser rather than a true BB. Now at this point, many people would say "yeah, that'll work. Branch her off from the New Mexico and call it a day!" But Wait! we can still go further down the line! Just like a archeological expedition, we just need to dig a little deeper and get to tier VI where we find: Welcome to the original Lexington-class designs. The drawings you see above are the ships as they had been designed by 1916, only for the design parameters to change the following year into the ships that actually got laid down in 1920. Instead of 8x2 16" guns she was to be fitted with 10 14"/50 guns in a superfiring arrangement of 3 over 2, like the Pensacola-class CA. And just like her contemporary at tier VI, her armor is devastatingly thin at only 5" at the belt. Let me repeat that: FIVE. INCHES. It's the same armor thickness as the New Orleans at tier VII, in a ship four times it's size. Now, this does mean that she has an insane top speed of 35(!) knots, but even so. This is a ship of yuuuuge extremes. And just like her big sister a tier higher would likely mean the ship wouldn't play like a BB at all, more like a giant CA with 20% less firepower than the New Mexico. Oh gods I hear you say, make it stop! Surely there can't be more! Oh but there is... digging a little deeper still, we find: This ship was the culmination of a design study that had begun around 1911-12 in response to the IJN Kongo and in many ways was exactly that, an American rebuttal design meant to offer similar capabilities. And as you can see, this ship is rather... reasonable in design when compared to the insanity that becomes the Lexington-class project. Main armament was only 8x2 14" guns, these likely would have been the 45cal ones since they were just coming online at the time, so again about 20% less firepower than it's contemporary BB at tier V, the New York-class. They also feature... reasonable-ish armor protection as well, with a 10" armor belt as seen above. Overall, this ship is entirely sensible compared to what comes next. But is there anything that comes before? Can we go even deeper? Yes, yes we can. This drawing is based on a series of general requirements that had been drawn up by the Naval Design Bureau from about 1909 to design a battlecruiser, using the Wyoming-class as a base. 6 different design sketches were submitted and the end result was what you see above. Congress was never interested in authorizing any money to the Navy to build such ships, only changing their tune when the Kongo-class was revealed to the world. The main armament would be the same 12"/50 guns as on the Wyomings for those wondering. At this point we've pretty much hit rock bottom. I could continue this even further with Armored Cruisers, which were the true precursors to the battlecruiser but as there are no AC's in WoWs yet, that's a story that'll have to wait for another time. Hopefully soon... ;) Congratulations! You made it through the entire rant! I hope you found this interesting and as always, I welcome your feedback and suggestions!
  16. 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
  17. 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.
  18. 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
  19. 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!
  20. 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.
  21. 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!
  22. 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?
  23. 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?
  24. 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
×