Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'battleships'.



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
    • Update Notes
    • Public Test
    • Surveys
  • General WoWS Discussion
    • General Game Discussion
    • Team Play
    • Support
    • Discussions about Warships
    • Historical Discussions and Studies
    • Player Modifications
  • Support
  • International Forums
    • Foro en Español
    • Fórum Brasileiro
  • Contest Entries
  • Contest Entries
  • New Captains
  • Guías y Estrategias
  • Árboles Tecnológicos
  • Fan Art and Community Creations
  • Community Created Events and Contests
  • Support

Calendars

  • World of Warships Event Calendar

Found 310 results

  1. Which mid-tier battleship do you dread seeing on the enemy fleet? Even though it is my namesake, seeing a Gneisenau, or a few of them, on the other team puts me on my toes. Solid, fast, agile, good guns, powerful secondary armament, and torpedoes make her a ship that respects your attention. With dangerous waters ahead, which mid-tier battleship poses the biggest threat to you and your fleet? "Never fear your enemy but always respect them." John Basilone, US Marine Corps #threatassessmentthursday #anchorsaweigh
  2. BB's are broken...hear me out first

    First of all lets get this out of the way...I have played Warships for little over two weeks in this is my opinion which has been discussed and debated over with my streams on twitch. Battleships have no distinct advantage in Warships. Destroyers have torpedoes which has no counter (yes there is Hydro..but even then u only use that so many times yet torpedoes are unlimited). Cruisers has much faster shooting and some have torpedoes as well. What do Battleships have? thicker armour..oh please....the armour isnt that much.....better ammo? sure if you hit....try hitting a destroyer or a cruiser from distance where a battleship belongs (like a needle in a haystack at times). Hydro? sure it helps and is effective but very limited due to limited uses. Planes? are they better than a Carriers planes...lol no.......so again what distinctive advantage does a battleship have? ok they can take more torpedoes hits...(swirls fingers at that). yes some have torps as well but you really want to compare that to a destroyers. How to fix this: Give them way more increased armour like they have in the real world....battleships rarely sunk compared to other ships..... or unlimited hydro (now I know the destroyer peeps would freak out on this), a torpedo counter such as a mine placed in the water to attract torpedoes away or or maybe more health (shrug) Battleships are supposed to be the tanks of the water and support other ships to attack or defend....but it just seems the Battleship is just lacking a certain something.....especially when playing with Carriers who target you with salvo after salvo of torpedoes. This isnt sour grapes....I enjoy playing Battleships..I have played DD's, CV's and Cruisers but I enjoy playing the tank role more hence why I mainly use BB's. I am sure there will be cute replies on this one....but if u have some good candid reply I will listen.
  3. PLAYING IN SUMMER BATTLES

    The summer is on, and the summer is on strong. This is a demonstration of how your team will react if you try to push out into a CAP alone, no vision, just going for it.
  4. A Couple Of Questions About Battleship Play

    After having one of my replays reviewed by Lord Zath, I am wondering if anyone could answer the following questions, mainly pertaining to target selection and the concept of flanking: I once read a battleship guide that stated that battleships should always shoot the target that's broadside, meaning ignoring the enemy Montana 7 km away that's bow-on and instead shooting the broadside North Carolina 13 km away. However, Lord Zath stated that I am doing the above (opportunistic broadsides) instead of, to paraphrase him, damaging and killing the ships that help the team win. What exactly does he mean by this, and how can I use this advice to improve my target selection? What exactly distinguishes "flanking" from "sailing uselessly away from the battle"? How can I ascertain when going off by myself to one side of the battle will help the team rather than hinder it? All advice is welcome.
  5. (Place tongue firmly in cheek before proceeding. And remember: Irony is Truth) Invisible ships that whine about radar and battleship AP Big fat clumsy ships that whine about invisible ships, fires and walls of torps Floating citadels that win by hiding behind cover and lobbing lameness onto hapless targets that can’t fire back at them Smoke, smoke, smoke and some more smoke Fire-spitting smoke clouds featured prominently in the naval battles of the early to mid-20th Century Overpenetrations: 16” shells go right through a canoe, you know, for only 10% damage The Dispersion Slot Machine---feeling lucky? Well, are you, punk? Hair-pulling and rage incumbent upon the attempt to get a few digital stars next to one’s name through “competitive play” (mark you: there is no monetary compensation for this) Wailing, frustration and rage about the matchmaker Wailing, frustration and rage about “having a bad team” Wailing, frustration and rage about “losing 10 games in a row and it’s not my fault” Cyclones: “Well, Yuri Ivanovich, you have to encourage people to close the distance somehow.” “Great idea, Igor Semyonovich, let’s implement it!” (leaked conversation from WG St. Petersburg office, circa 2016). Angling: Because 2700 lb shells aren’t that dangerous if they hit you at 65 degrees. To borrow a phrase from WoT: "Bounced off!" Overmatch: The number 14.3 is extremely important in naval combat (who knew? I’ll tell you: The designers of 460mm Japanese naval guns. Smart!) One of the greatest innovations in naval strategy in this period involved pointing the bow of the ship toward the enemy and slowly reversing. Don’t you dare cross the T, noob. What do you think this is, a historical game? British battleships: Because to heck with your angling Great Naval Battles in bodies of water full of large masses of strangely-shaped land An aircraft carrier? Never seen one of those. Deep Water torps: Because battleship players are stupid and there are too many of them Radar: Because if your own DDs die, how will you ever see the little buggers? Egos and Tempers the size of the USS Midway Who knew the Soviet Navy boasted such a formidable surface fleet with artillery more accurate than anything any capitalist pig-navy could ever devise? “Destroyers in World War II primarily performed fleet and convoy escort, as well as antisubmarine warfare duties” Oh wait…. Detonations: “We at Wargaming.net believe in fun and engaging gameplay!” Detonations: “Buy this piece of striped cloth and hoist it up the mainmast. It will prevent the unlimited supply of torpedoes in your hull from going off when hit.” Fires: Because how else can a 127mm gun sink a 60,000 ton ship? 33% Skill, 67% Luck. Want to change that? Carry harder and git gud, scrub. “I play World of Warships because it helps me relax.” “I play World of Warships because of the friendly, welcoming and helpful community.” Losing credits? “May I interest you in a premium account, dear sir?” Armor penetration mechanics more Byzantine than organic chemistry Soviet Battleships: The End of the World is Coming
  6. Wargaming to rework Battleships

    Do to Battleship population numbers continuing to climb. World of Warships will be reworking Battleships to bring them in-line with the other classes in order to bring back into a competitive arena. All sales of premium Battleships will be halted until this rework is completed.
  7. The title says it all this is my idea of what the italian battleships should be like. so the battleships should start at tier three with the first dreadnought the country had right? but see the problem is that the first italian dreadnought had 4x3 12in guns(in fact the Dante Alighieri where the first ships in the world that had triple turrets) that firmly puts it at tier four for a battleship, So I see to solutions to this 1) start the line at tier four 2) put the last pre-dreadnought at tier three instead like what they did for the french so lets start III-Regina Elena the last italian pre-dreadnought armed with 2x1 12in guns and 12x1 8in guns. So how would that work, easy replace those 12in guns with 8in guns and have that at tier three. I think it would be a unique play style different to any other tier three battleship IV-Dante Alighieri the first italian dreadnought built armed with 4x3 12in guns and 12x1 and 4x2 120mm guns with a belt 10in thick and a speed of 22Kgt it should make a decent tier four battleship V-Conte di Cavour Yeah Yeah the Giulio Cesare is at tier five and it's over preforming but I'm not saying put the refited one at tier five I'm saying put the WWI version of it at tier five. the second dreadnought built by italy, ordered to combat the Courbet class of the french. Armed with 3x3 and 2x2 12in guns and 18x1 120mm guns with a belt of 9.8-5.1in thick and a speed of 21.5Kgt. VI-Andrea Doria just like the Conte di Cavour the Andrea Doria had a WWI version and a refit before WWII so what I suggest for tier six is the WWII refit of her. ordered to combat the Bretagne class of the french. Armed with 2x3 and 2x2 320mm guns as well as 4x3 135/45 gun mounts and 10x1 90mm guns with a belt 9.8in thick and a speed of 26Kgt VII-Francesco Caracciolo designed by rear admiral Edgardo Ferrati, meant to combat the queen elizabeth class of the british. Armed with 4x1 15in guns and 12x1 152mm guns and 8 102mm guns with a belt 11.9in thick and a speed of 28Kgt. It was laid down but never finish thanks to resource shortages it guns where used to arm the Alfredo Cappellini class monitor. VIII-Littorio Just look at the Roma and imagine it under a different name IX-Leonardo di vinci I know that's not it's actual name but I never found any information on it under a different name meant to be a further development of the Littorio class it was a bit bigger and have an extra turret in the back bringing it's totally up to 12 15in guns X- ??? I really don't know what to put here the last Italian battleship I know of is the one above but I have a few ideas of what would work 1) A bigger Littorio with 16in guns instead of 15in and the 135/45 gun mounts for duel purpose arment 2) a bigger Littorio with 17in guns and the 135/45 gun mounts so let me know what you think.
  8. With the Massachusetts reportedly set to be released SoonTM and seeing and reading the associated videos and reviews I am wondering about the apparent requirement for IFHE and the proposed "full secondary" Captain build consisting of, say, PM, AR, BFT, AFT, MFCSB, and IFHE. First this demands a 19-point Captains and limits the ability for this ship as a "trainer". Further I also get worried about the absence of any "protective skills" like BOS, FP, etc. Given the skill, intellect, and experience of the Commanders reading this posting I look forward to your thoughts as the optimal build for this ship and the specific need for IFHE to make this effective. Thanks.....
  9. The golden rule of ships with a repair party is to never ever repair a single fire (unless you're about to die from that one fire). Personally, I never repair a single fire in battleships unless I know that I'm going to die otherwise (although at that point, it's probably only a matter of time until I die). However, I do notice that sometimes, I just get constantly lit on fire only once (so I don't repair), and it occasionally causes me to die in situations where I might have otherwise managed to come out on top. For instance, a single fire might cause me to ultimately lose a bow-on fight with another battleship due to the health difference the fire caused. Is there ever a time when I should, apart from immediate threat of sinking, repair a single fire?
  10. Phoenix_jz’s Italian Battleship Tech Tree Hello all, I’m back at it again with tech trees, and this time I’m throwing out an idea for the Regia Marina, and its options for a battleship line. Now, as of we’ve got two Italian battleships in the game – the tier V rebuilt Cavour-class battleship Giulio Cesare, and the tier VIII Littorio-class battleship Roma. Italian battleships are fairly well represented by these two. Italian battleships fall short on AA, and their citadels tend to be somewhat tall (No magic boilers like in the Royal Navy, I guess) – but they’re usually fairly well protected. They’re quite mobile and tend to handle well for their size, and carry powerful, high-velocity guns with questionable accuracy. They tend to be quite stealthy for battleships, but at the cost of range. While I did initially draft out two lines, for this post I decided to only post the ‘main’ line, while I will perhaps make a post on the second at a later date (Spoiler – It’s lots of Ferrati designs - #outquadthefrogs). This main line is essentially the majority of what historical Italian battleships were. Like many Italian designs, speed tended to triumph over armor in order to sustain firepower – in order to defend Italy’s long coastlines from attack, Italian ships had to be able to rapidly deploy against enemy ships, dashing up or down the coast. Likewise, they also stressed artillery performance at range, thus the use of heavier than average shells at infamously high velocities. As a note, I’m not going to try and guess AA suites for B-hulls, but hitpoints would be for a B-hull. Major Line Features: You get: High Speed/Mobility – Generally speaking, these ships will be faster and have better handling than most other battleships Generally good levels of stealth, better than other battleships at the same tier Powerful guns with very high velocities, leading to high penetration, and good gun handling with their fast turret traverse times Unique SAP/AP flavor - Explained below Armor profile starts out as sub-par to mediocre, but becomes very powerful in higher tiers La bella figura– these ships look good. At the cost of; Generally sub-par AA for their tier The main battery range tends to be average to poor The guns share the poor dispersion of German and French battleships, offsetting their ease-of-aim. The main battery lacks HE The health pool of these ships is generally average, but at higher tiers falls behind the competition to a serious degree. They also have relatively high citadels compared to other lines with lower citadels (or physics-bending like the British) The SAP/AP Flavor, and Lack of HE There is only one part of the Italian battleship line’s flavor that can be defined as gimmicky, in the same way the French battleship’s speed boost, the German super-hydro, or British… everything? I’m not even sure where to start with them. This gimmick is that Italian battleships are unable to fire High-Explosive shells from their main battery. Why? Because that’s what the Italians did historically. Unlike their cruisers and destroyers, Italian battleships did not carry HE shells (In Italian; Granata Dirompente – I may refer to this round as ‘GD’ later in this write-up. These shells had an instant fuse and a bursting charge of 5-7% the mass of the shell). Rather, Italian battleship fired two types of Armor-Piercing shells; Palla (or sometimes Proiettile Perforante - PP) – These rounds were the pure Armor-Piercing rounds used by the Italian navy, designed to punch through as much armor as possible, and had small bursting charges of between 1-2% of the shell’s mass. Palla translates to literally ‘ball’, although it can also be used to describe a bullet. Proiettile Perforante would be in a literal sense Piercing Projectile, but the term is analogous to an Armor-Piercing shell in English. These terms describe the same kind of round regardless. This was the primary round to be used against the heavy armor on enemy battleships, and that was essentially their only purpose – the only exception is a curious note from a September 1942 document that advises the use of 320mm Palla against the American Baltimore-class heavy cruisers. This round was used outside of battleships only as the armor-piercing rounds of the 152mm guns used aboard Italian light cruisers. Granata Perforante (GP) – This type of round, with a name that blended that of the two other types of round, is often erroneously dubbed a High-Explosive by English sources (such as navweaps.com, and English translations of Italian books). Their name translating directly as Piercing Shell, these shells were essentially a Semi Armor-Piercing shell, with more explosive power than the pure AP rounds but less penetration, and like the AP used a delay fuse. These shells tended to be about 90% of the mass of Palla, and had on average only about 55-60% of the penetrative potential at most given ranges, but their bursting charges tended to be 2-5% the mass of the shells. This was the general-use round on Italian battleships, and was meant for use against carriers, cruisers, destroyers, and even the lighter armor of some battleships. These rounds also performed as the primary Armor-Piercing ammunition for the 203mm guns of Italian heavy cruisers as well as Italian 120 to 135mm destroyer guns – however performance did vary. As Italian heavy cruisers were still meant to duel and defeat enemy cruisers their shells tended to favor ‘palla’-style performance and had a smaller than average bursting charge, while the destroyers had higher values approaching those of GD rounds, as they were meant for use against very light armor only. An example of the qualitative differences of the two Italian AP types from official documents Essentially, what this boils down to is that Palla is the ‘Anti-Battleship’ round, while Granata Perforante is the ‘whatever else’ shell for Italian battleships, and that’s the flavor that will be reflected in the line. The performance of the round types thus will be as such: Palla (AP)– The same AP shells you’ve always known, these shells have the normal fuse time, and have high penetration. They’re great against battleships, being very punishing even against heavy belts because of their high penetration – however against cruisers, due to that penetration and their velocity retention, this will lead to over-penetrations in many cases. Weaker AP like that found on the 320mm and 305mm Italian guns will still be appropriate for use on cruisers, especially those with heavier armor, as their lower overall penetration and also higher tendency to lose speed (the WWI-era 305mm shells having poor drag performance typical of the era, while the 320mm shells of these guns when re-bored was still rather poor at about 4crh). Granata Perforante (SAP)–These shells will perform differently than regular AP. With higher velocity usually, these lighter shells might feel easier to aim, but they have fundamental differences. They deal less damage than the pure AP, and have much less penetration – they’re not going to do well against the main armor belts of enemy dreadnoughts. They also have short fuses similar to British battleship AP, meaning they’ll have a harder time reaching battleship citadels. However, the combination of less penetration and a shorter fuse time means they’ll tend to over-penetrate cruisers less in the way that Roma’s 381mm Palla does chronically in-game. They’ll also be better for hitting destroyers then regular AP, as well getting regular penetration against the softer areas of battleships that are too angled to penetrate – this will mean excellent damage farming off of German battleships, who’s incremental armor schemes guarantee regular 33% penetrations with ammunition of this type. To compensate for the lack of 'auto damage' that HE gives from raw penetration and fires, these shells have auto-ricochet angles identical to those of Hood's AP - 60° and 67.5°, rather than the normal 45° and 60°> The Tree: Quick Breakdown: III: Cuniberti 17t – Designer Vittorio Cuniberti’s 17000t dreadnought design – the real first dreadnought. IV: Dante Alighieri – Italy’s first dreadnought, Nikolai Iis a Russian version of her. V: Conte di Cavour – The original version of what Cesare’s sister once was, a heavy broadside defines this WWI battleship, with thirteen guns. VI: Caio Duilio – The successor class to the Cavour as rebuilt, this is essentially a better Giulio Cesare. VII: BB1935 – A design that existed beforeLittorio, it uses the 320mm guns in a modern layout with high speed and balanced armor VIII: Littorio – Roma’s sister, she’s similar to Romabut a more comfortable ship with more reliable performance IX: Impero – The third Littorio, this is Littorio as intended, essentially the tier VIII turned up to 10, if the Littorio’s performance was tuned down to 8 (which it kind of is) X: BB1936 – The 406mm design that existed next to Littorio, it was the ultimate expression of Italian battleship design – she’s dwarfed by the tier X BBs of other nations, but is faster, well protected, and has a very strong armament. Tier III – (Cuniberti 17000t) Napoli The design that started it all. The Italian Naval Engineer Vittorio Cuniberti first put his name on the map when he designed the 1901 Regina Elena-class battleships. Pre-dreadnoughts, they had followed the high speed stereotype Italian ships had already gathered for themselves in the latter half of the 1800s, despite the country being so young. At 22 knots, they were the fastest battleships in the world, even after the first dreadnoughts were completed. This, of course, came at the cost of armor (their belt was 250mm, which actually was fairly average for the era). These pre-dreadnoughts were unusual as although their medium battery of guns was exceptionally heavy (6x2 203mm guns, six to a broadside), their heavy battery was very light – only two 305mm/40’s in single turrets, one fore, one aft. The reason for this was more important than one might think, at first glance. The Regina Elena-class in fact had its origins in Cuniberti’s own work, on a 1899 design for a powerful 8000 ton armored cruiser featuring a uniform main battery of twelve 203mm guns, a top speed of 22 knots, and a 150mm belt. It was to be the ultimate Armored Cruiser, faster and better armed than any other. Such a design would ultimately be realized eight years later by the German Kaiserliche Marine in the Armored Cruiser Blücher of 1907 (6x2 210mm, 25 knots, 180mm belt), but not so for the Regia Marina. The design was rejected, and Cuniberti turned it into the 13000 ton ‘battlecruiser’-style Regina Elena-class, whose design philosophy was to be faster than any enemy battleship, and far outgun any enemy cruiser – which it accomplished for its era. Two were built, the Regina Elena and Vittorio Emmanuelle, both laid down in 1901. However, the Italian navy wanted two more battleships, and this time Cuniberti decided to revisit his old concept, and put it on a battleship as he had originally envisioned it – the ‘all-big-gun’ battleship. Thus he took the Regina Elena design to the same place he had taken his armored cruiser design – the ship grew to a displacement of 17000 tons, and featured the single most powerful armament ever put to sea – twelve 305mm guns in four twin and four single turrets. It is important to understand the context in which this came about. Fire Control Systems had come far from their origins, but were still extremely primitive in this era. The range to which they were effective was out to a few thousand yards – massively superior to where they had been only a few decades prior, where a few hundred yards was the extreme limit of naval gunnery. For this reason, the big guns of a battleship were of less use. At the ranges they fought, their main guns had more than enough penetration, and fired slowly. Smaller-caliber weapons still had enough penetration, but could fire faster, and more could be mounted for much less weight. Thus, they were much more effective at closer ranges. However, Cuniberti envisioned that as fire control became better, battles would increasingly be dominated by longer-ranged gunnery from the heavy guns. His ‘all-big-gun’ battleship would simply be able to overwhelm the enemy with large-caliber fire, smashing them under a deluge of heavy shells, and moving on to the next in line. The ships’ own armor would be strong enough to resist enemy fire in return. One of these ships would be worth many of the enemy’s battleships, and six of these would be a force powerful enough to deter any fleet in the world from challenging them. This behemoth was meant to go 24 knots as well, thus being able to run down any major warship in the world – but this is unlikely on a 17000 ton hull, 21 knots being a more realistic speed given the size of machinery of the era. 24 knots would have required a much greater displacement of about 21000 tons. Ultimately the Italian navy rejected the design due to its prohibited cost, but allowed Cuniberti to publish his idea in Jane’s All the World’s Fighting Ships 1903, where he recommended the design be pursued by the British Royal Navy. Meanwhile, the Italian navy built two further Regina Elena’s, laid down in 1903 as Roma and Napoli (hence why I’ve adopted the name Napoli for ours in-game). In May 1905, Cuniberti’s ideas were vindicated. The Russo-Japanese War saw the Battle of Tsushima fought, which was decided primarily by long-range gunnery, at staggering ranges exceeding 5 km reaching all the way to 7 km. The evidence was enough for Britain’s First Sea Lord Admiral Sir John Fisher, who had been exploring the idea of these big-gun ships already. That October, Britain laid down their first all-big gun battleship as the HMS Dreadnought, obsoleting every battleship afloat overnight. Roma, the sister to the Napoli that was ultimately built. Napoli was Italy's last pre-dreadnought battleship. Survivability: 21800 tons – 36600 HP Belt: 305mm belt, 305mm turrets and barbettes Main Armament: 4x2, 4x1 305mm/40 RoF: 2 rpm (30 sec) Dispersion/Sigma: German, 1.8 Traverse: ?º/sec AP: MV: 780mps Mass/Dmg: 417 kg (MaxDmg: 8100) SAP: MV: 780mps Mass/Dmg: 386 kg (MaxDmg: 7800) Secondary Battery: 12x1 76mm/40 Ansaldo 1916 RoF: 15 rpm (4 sec) HE: MV: 680mps Mass/Dmg: 6.5 kg (MaxDmg: 1100, 4% FC) Maneuverability: Engine Power: 50606 shp Top Speed: 24 knots All in all she’s your pretty standard tier III – probably faster than most, but still only having an eight-gun broadside. You’ll be out of it in a second, so I don’t think I need to elaborate on her. Sail around derping eight-gun broadsides into enemy ships, and profit, like any other battleship at this tier. Tier IV – Dante Alighieri … con l’animo che vince ogni battaglia The first Italian dreadnought, the Alighieri was unusual and ambitious. Her design was meant to maximize Cuniberti’s vision, by allowing all of the ship’s main guns to fire to her broadside. She was light for her size, but had a heavy broadside of twelve 305mm guns, with a sub-par 254mm belt and a top speed of 22 knots. She carries the distinction of being the only battleship to ever be named after a Poet, but make no mistake – Dante Alighieri is no mere poet, at least not in Italy. While to most he is the famed author of la Divina Commedia, in Italy he is something more, considered the father of the modern Italian language. La Commedia was one of the first European works written outside of Latin, and Alighieri chose to write it in a Tuscan dialect he referred to as ‘Italian’ – marking one of the first ‘modern’ appearances of the concept as Italy as a nation and an identify. This was grasped onto by the Risorgimento movement, and formed an important pillar of the Italian identity used to unify the peninsula. Laid down on the 9th of June 1909, she was the first battleship to be laid down with its armament mounted in triple turrets, and was completed in 1913. Her career remained uneventful, and despite taking part in the First World War and several Adriatic operations, due to the nature of Adriatic Theater in WWI she never saw action against Austrian dreadnoughts. She served as a testing platform for important gunnery and fire control technologies, and was scrapped in 1928. Her motto, “… con l’animo che vince ogni battaglia” comes from Canto 24 of L’Inferno, words Virgil speaks to Alighieri to boost his moral – the line is usually translated in (modern) English as “...with the spirit that overcomes every battle”. Survivability: 21800 tons – 36600 HP Belt: 254mm between end barbettes, 100mm to bow. Main deck is 50mm with 50mm turtleback slopes, upper deck is 30 or 38mm. 254mm turret faces. Main Armament: 4x3 305mm/46 Modello 1909 (Broadside: 12 guns) RoF: 2 rpm (30 sec) Dispersion/Sigma: German, 1.8 Traverse: ?º/sec AP: MV: 840mps Mass/Dmg: 452 kg (MaxDmg: 8700) SAP: MV: 840mps Mass/Dmg: 401.2 kg (MaxDmg: 8200) Secondary Battery: 4x2, 12x1 120mm/50 Modello 1909 (Broadside: 10) RoF: 6 rpm (10 sec) HE: MV: 850mps Mass/Dmg: 22.1 kg (MaxDmg: 1700, 6% FC) Anti-Aircraft Battery: 4x1 76mm/50 Modello 1909 - 16.8 dps @ 3.00 km 2x1 40mm/39 Vickers 1917 - 11.2 dps @ 2.01 km Maneuverability: Engine Power: 32190 shp Top Speed: 22.8 knots Dante Alighieri is going to look somewhat similar to some people, because of Russia’s own version – the Imperator Nikolai I. While it is true that Italian design did have influence on Russian dreadnought design of the period, it has not actually been indicated by any surviving documents that the Russian 4x3 designs, very similar to the Alighieri, were actually inspired by it, and so such Russian battleship design appears to be an independent development. So, what you should expect from Dante is something of a Nikolai-lite. While less armored, she has similarly powerful guns – a lighter shell (452 kg vs 470.9 kg), but fired at a much higher velocity (840 mps vs 762 mps). She’s got a 1.8 knot speed edge over the Russian dreadnought, but overall weaker armor (270mm belt on Nikolai) and their secondary battery being about equal – both having a 10-gun broadside, the Russian battleship bringing larger 130mm guns while the Italian 120mm guns fire faster. AA armament of both is rather minimal. However, the playstyle will be similar. Despite her thinner armor, Dante is well suited to bow-on tactics, and with three of her four turrets facing forwards, is well suited to swapping fire from port to starboard rapidly, regardless of what her turret traverse may be. Tier V – Conte di Cavour A nessuno secondo The follow-on class to Italy’s first dreadnought, the Cavour-class battleship was meant to be a response to French building, but as Italy lacked a 13.5” (343mm) gun to upgrade to for their battleships, they sought to use an even heavier armament of 12” guns – this time mounting thirteen 305mm rifles. The same as those used on Dante, these had a superior layout, a triple turret with a twin turret super-firing over it both fore and aft, while a single triple turret found a home amidships. Less ambitious in speed, it saw an engine power increase to compensate the increased displacement, and typical of Italian design, to achieve a speed advantage of 1-2 knots over the 20-21 knot dreadnoughts of foreign navies. Armor was slightly improved over the Alighieri, but speed saw a decrease - despite the target speed of 22.5 knots, the top speed was only 22 knots. Cavour was named for the Count of Cavour, Camilo Benso. Prime Minister of Sardinia-Pedimonte, he was instrumental in the formation of Italy as a nation, essentially Italy’s counterpart to Otto von Bismarck. He became the country’s first Prime Minister. Her motto was ‘Second to none’, written by the famous writer, war hero, and eventual proto-fascist Gabriele D’Annunzio. Survivability: 24250 tons – 39500 HP Belt: 250mm between end barbettes, 80mm to bow. Main deck is 50mm with 50mm turtleback slopes, upper deck is 30 or 38mm. 280mm turret faces. Main Armament: 2x2, 3x3 305mm/46 Modello 1909 (Broadside: 13 guns) RoF: 2 rpm (30 sec) Dispersion/Sigma: German, 1.8 Traverse: Dunno lol AP: MV: 840mps Mass/Dmg: 452 kg (MaxDmg: 8700) SAP: MV: 840mps Mass/Dmg: 401.2 kg (MaxDmg: 8200) Secondary Battery: 18x1 120mm/45 Modello 1909 (Broadside: 9) RoF: 6 rpm (10 sec) HE: MV: 850mps Mass/Dmg: 22.1 kg (MaxDmg: 1700, 6% FC) Anti-Aircraft Battery: 6x1 76mm/50 Modello 1909 - 25.2 dps @ 3.00 km 2x1 40mm/39 Vickers 1917 - 11.2 dps @ 2.01 km Maneuverability: Engine Power: 31278 shp Top Speed: 22.3 knots Conte di Cavour is an interesting ship, especially considering that her sister, Giulio Cesare, is Italy’s tier V premium battleship. Well, here’s the thing to keep in mind. Cesare is utterly OP at tier V. It’s outright comedic how well she does, and legend has it that in a lost Canto, Dante places her in the forgotten tenth circle of hell where not even the Devil himself was made to suffer. So we’re not comparing these sisters. No, rather, we’re comparing Cavour to other WWI dreadnoughts like Bretagne, Iron Duke, and König. With an identical turret layout to these ships, they’re pretty easy to compare. König, with her thick belt and turtleback, is by far the most durable, Iron Duke not far behind her, with Cavour trailing and Bretagne in last. Pretty much the same order follows for speed, at 24, 22.5, 22.0, and 21 knots. Firepower is where they vary. The Entente dreadnoughts bring 10x 340/343mm guns firing 2 rpm, and while König brings 10 guns as well, they’re only 305mm guns… but fire faster, at 2.3 rpm. Cavour only fires at 2 rpm with 305mm guns… but has 13 of them. Her penetration should be the best among 12” guns, and the extra three barrels allows her to easily keep up in shell output. Meanwhile, the extra barrels also let her compete with the damage output of the British and French battleships, which she also has more penetration than. Thus, she has similar flexibility to the other battleships with her speed, and although her armor is hardly stellar, it’s adequate. Her main battery is fearsome, thirteen guns throwing heavy shells at high speeds allowing her to hit hard father away then her caliber would seem to suggest. Like many other Italian battleships, her weakness is her mediocre-at-best AA battery, and relatively low health pool for her tier. Tier VI – Caio Duilio Nomen numen The Caio Duilio-class battleships were a follow-on of the prior Cavour-class, and a response to the French Bretagne-class battleships. Since the Regia Marina was satisfied with the prior class and considered them on-par with the Bretagne-class, the Duilio-class ultimately ended up being largely an improved version of the Cavour-class with a revised secondary battery, superstructure, and the decision to accept a lower speed being the primary differences. Caio Duilio was named for the famous Roman admiral Gaius Duilius, who commanded the republic’s fleet at the Battle of Mylae and won Roma’s astounding first naval victory against Hannibal Gisco’s superior Carthaginian fleet. In the inter-war period, as tensions rapidly shot up in the 1930s the Regia Marina began a major revision to its main battleline, which had changed little since the end of the First World War, save for the losses of Dante Alighieri and Leonardo da Vinci and minor modernizations to the battleships as a whole. In response to the French construction of the Dunkerque, the Italian Navy essentially rebuilt the Cavour-class, leaving barely 40% of the original ships behind. As tensions continued to rise, and it became clear that war with Britain was likely, the Regia Marina sought to bring its battleline up to snuff as rapidly as possible, and thus the decision was made to rebuild the Duilio-class in the same radical manner as the Cavour’s. An improved version of the Cavour project, the rebuilding of Caio Duilio and Andrea Doria saw something similar to the Cavour rebuilds, with several notable differences. Like the Cavour-class, their armor was slightly increased, the hull lengthened, and machinery replaced, making the ships capable of 26 knots (one knot slower than the Cavour rebuilds which could make 27 knots, but both classes were still able to force up to 28 knots). The middle turret was removed, and the other guns were bored out from 305/46’s to 320/44’s, greatly increasing their punching power. The Duilio-class had an extra 3º of elevation compared to the Cavourrebuilds giving them an extra 800m of range, but more importantly had a better Fire Control System, making them more capable of engaging targets at range. Their AA battery was far superior to Cavour’s, mounting a battery of 10x1 of the excellent 90mm/50 AA guns rather than the obsolete 100mm/47’s. It also included more 37mm AA guns. Finally, instead of the 6x2 120mm battery of Cavour, Duilio had a 4x3 battery of 135mm guns. Survivability: 24250 tons – 39500 HP Belt: 250mm between end barbettes, 80mm to bow. Main deck is 100mm over magazines, 80mm over machinery spaces, 30mm outboard. A lower portion of deck armor (vertical armor was 70mm) was 74mm thick 24mm turtleback, upper deck is 44mm. 240mm turret faces. Main Armament: 2x2, 2x3 320mm/44 Ansaldo Modello 1936 (Broadside: 10 guns) RoF: 2 rpm (30 sec) Dispersion/Sigma: German, 1.9 Traverse: 5º/sec (36 sec) AP: MV: 830mps Mass/Dmg: 525 kg (MaxDmg: 9300) SAP: MV: 830mps Mass/Dmg: 475 kg (MaxDmg: 8900) Secondary Battery: 4x3 135mm/50 Modello 1937 (Broadside: 6) RoF: 7 rpm (8.57 sec) HE: MV: 825mps Mass/Dmg: 32.7 kg (MaxDmg: 2000, 7% FC) 10x1 90mm/50 OTO Modello 1939 (Broadside: 5) RoF: 15 rpm (4.0 sec) HE: MV: 860mps Mass/Dmg: 10.1 kg (MaxDmg: 1300, 5% FC) Anti-Aircraft Battery: 10x1 90mm/50 OTO Modello 1939 - 95.0 dps @ 3.99 km 6x2 37mm/54 Breda 1932 - 69.6 dps @ 3.51 km 3x1 37mm/54 RM 1939 - 26.7 dps @ 3.51 km 8x2 20mm/65 Breda 1935 - 27.2 dps @ 2.01 km Maneuverability: Engine Power: 75000 shp Top Speed: 26.0 knots Special Consumables: Speed Boost - Standard So, what is Caio Duilio at her core? Well, she looks very similar to Cesare on the surface, and… well, simply put, that’s exactly what the case is. The class was originally built very similarly, and the rebuilds followed a similar path. The biggest diversion between the two ships comes in raw speed and secondary/AA firepower. Duilio’s broadside of six 135mm guns hit harder than the six 120mm guns of Cesare… but fires more slowly (7 rpm vs 10 rpm), albeit firing HE rather than AP. The 90mm guns on Doria are more numerous and fire faster, although less damaging (40x 100mm shells per minute versus 75x 90mm shells per minute). Her AA firepower is head and shoulders above that of Cesare, but she’s also one knot slower for her base speed. Given the fact that Cesare is OP as sin at tier V regardless of being uptiered… Caio Duilio makes for a strong contender at tier VI, being fast, stealthy, and still hard-hitting. She’s got the speed and stealth to escape ships that are more powerful than her, and yet she’s fast enough to run down other battleships at similar tiers, as well as chase down cruisers that are doing the wiggles – especially with her speed boost, which allows her to force her engine power in order to reach just over 28 knots (28.08 knots). However, she will struggle more at higher tiers. Being able to meet tier VIII battleships, she will encounter battleships that are faster, better armored, and better armed than her. For this, her great level of stealth inherited from Cesare will need to be exploited. The motto is an ancient Roman phrase that explains itself handily; "The name means power.” Tier VII – (BB1935) Leonardo da Vinci Non si volta chi a stella è fiso ‘BB1935’ finds its origins in one of the 1935 studies for a 26500 ton battleship to counter French construction following their decision to build the Dunkerque. The study called for a 26500 ton battleship armed with main guns of either 305 or 320mm, and a top speed of 30 knots. General Pugliese, who was in charge of the project, went around to over a dozen Admirals in attempt to get a consensus of what was most wanted. Although I’m sure you don’t need me to tell you the obvious, the results were… diverse, to say the least. Layouts varied drastically, using everything from triples to twins to quads. In total some 9 different designs were drawn up, which looked like everything from Nelsonto Dunkerqueto reverse King George V... well, you get the idea. Oh, and Admiral de Feo had a design in there too, which is pretty much all you need to know about thatone. The one we’re looking at is one of the larger designs, which managed to grow to 30000 tons. It featured a main battery of 3x3 320mm guns, a top speed of 30 knots, and protection similar to Littorio. The secondary battery included 140mm guns in either triple or quad turrets, but since no 140mm guns existed within the Regia Marina, I’d assume the most likely choice of armament would have been the 135mm/45. The intended TDS system was Pugliese’s own. The name I’m borrowing form the third member of the Conte di Cavour-class battleships, which suffered a magazine detonation in port and was ultimately scrapped after an ambitious yet expensive recovery operation. Unlike some of the other names on this list, I’m sure I don’t need to cover her name, as da Vinci is quite famous and well-known far beyond Italy’s borders. The motto is a quote from the MC himself, which in English usually comes out as “He who is fixed to a star does not change his mind” Survivability: 30000 tons – 46300 HP Belt: 350mm between end barbettes inclined, at 11º, Main deck most likely at least 100mm on 12mm plating with a 36mm on 9mm upper deck. Upper belt perhaps 70mm. Main Armament: 3x3 320mm/44 Ansaldo Modello 1936 (Broadside: 9 guns) RoF: 2 rpm (30 sec) Dispersion/Sigma: German, 2.0 Traverse: 5º/sec (36 sec) AP: MV: 830mps Mass/Dmg: 525 kg (MaxDmg: 9300) SAP: MV: 830mps Mass/Dmg: 475 kg (MaxDmg: 8900) Secondary Battery: 4x3 135mm/45 Modello 1937 (Broadside: 6) RoF: 7 rpm (8.57 sec) HE: MV: 825mps Mass/Dmg: 32.7 kg (MaxDmg: 2000, 7% FC) 12x1 90mm/50 OTO Modello 1939 (Broadside: 6) RoF: 15 rpm (4.0 sec) HE: MV: 860mps Mass/Dmg: 10.1 kg (MaxDmg: 1300, 5% FC) Anti-Aircraft Battery: 12x1 90mm/50 OTO Modello 1939 - 114.0 dps @ 4.50 km 6x2 37mm/54 Breda 1932 - 69.6 dps @ 3.51 km 3x1 37mm/54 RM 1939 - 26.7 dps @ 3.51 km 8x2 20mm/65 Breda 1935 - 27.2 dps @ 2.01 km Maneuverability: Engine Power: 100000 shp Top Speed: 30.0 knots Perhaps best described as a link between Caio Duilio and Littorio, the 1935 mini-Littorio design (Littorino?) combined the firepower of the Italian rebuilds with the speed and protection that the Littorio-class was to have. Littorino would find such an ‘in-between’ playstyle in-game, the first truly tanky Italian battleship, with a similar combination of the tankiness and mobility available to Roma, with a similar AA suite. The main battery, three triple 320mm mounts, would start to sag, the guns being excellent at tier V, comfortably adequate at tier VI, but starting to get long in the tooth at tier VII, where tier IX battleships are a potential opponent. However, this weakness in firepower is the price that will have to be paid for having such a capable hull – 30 knots at tier VII with a hull that’s supposed to be as durable as Roma, and similar anti-aircraft firepower. I’ve also decided to extend the range of the 90mm/50 AA guns to 4.5 km, as: A) 4.0 km range on a tier VII+ BB is just stupid (side glance at Roma) B) This shows the greater performance of the 90mm mounts on Littorio versus Caio Duilio– the smaller battleship’s mounts were simply to close to the waterline and invasion of water was impossible to prevent – thus their RPC systems had to be disabled, while Littorio’s RPC systems remained intact for the 90mm AA guns It’s possibly the guns would need a RoF higher than 2 rpm in order to stay competitive, but as of now I’ve kept it there because I desire to avoid dipping into unrealistic reload times, and 2 rpm is the highest I’ve seen for these guns. Tier VIII – Littorio Molte nemici, molto onore The largest and most powerful class of battleships built by the Italian Navy, the ‘35000 ton’ (standard displacement was in excess of 40000 tons in reality) Littorio-class was a response to France building a second Dunkerque-class battleship and the subsequent breakdown in negotiations of battleship construction that had been taking place between the two nations. The design ended up being a bit of a test bed for the Italian Navy, featuring Pugliese’s torpedo defense system in full, and a new system of armor defense revolving around decapping of Armor-Piercing projectiles. The deck armor system had a 36mm upper deck laminated on 9mm plating to decap incoming shells, while the main deck was either 100mm (machinery) or 150mm (magazines) laminated on 12mm plating. The result was somewhat contradictory – her magazines were probably better protected from deck penetration than those of any other battleship save Yamato, but its machinery deck protection rates as one of the worst of the modern fast battleships, closer to ships like Bismarck and North Carolina than South Dakota, Iowa, Yamato, or Richelieu. However the belt was a different matter, a composite structure consisting of a 70mm homogenous armor decapping plate, a 250mm gap filled with cellulite, and a 280mm belt of Terni Cemented FH armor. The result was a belt that was largely immune to penetration from almost any gun ever put to sea – and even if splinters should result, two layers of splinter bulkheads existed within the ship before the splinters could actually hit the citadel bulkhead itself. The Littorio also mounted the most powerful guns ever mounted on an Italian battleship, the 381mm/50 Modello 1934. Firing an 884.8 kg Armor-Piercing shell at 850mps, and an 824.3 kg SAP shell at 880mps, it was the most powerful 15” rifle ever created, with belt penetration surpassing that of the American 16”/50 Mk.7 (WWII shells) or the Japanese 46cm/45 – although its deck penetration was inferior by a wide margin due to the shallow angles of impact. Although the full engine power was 160,000 shp, a lower operating speed of 128,200 shp was generally used during the wartime, on which she could make 30 knots. In-game, she’s largely a variation of Roma. Littorio was named after the Lictor, the one who would carry the fasces in ancient Rome – the fasces being the symbol of fascism. The motto used an oft-used saying of fascism – “Many enemies, much honor”. Littorio was the only ship of her class to use a motto. In what is probably the most famous picture of the class, Littorio and Vittorio Veneto conduct gunnery exercises together Survivability: 45236 tons – 64300 HP Belt: 375mm between end barbettes inclined at 11º with an internal 40mm bulkhead (yes, I'm keeping the nerfed internal armor, for the sake of balance with Roma), Main deck is 162-112mm with a 45mm upper deck. Upper belt is 70mm. Turret Faces are 380mm sloped at 30º Main Armament: 3x3 381mm/50 Ansaldo Modello 1934 (Broadside: 9 guns) RoF: 2 rpm (30 sec) Dispersion/Sigma: German, 1.8 Traverse: 6º/sec (30 sec) AP: MV: 850mps Mass/Dmg: 884.8 kg (MaxDmg: 12000) SAP: MV: 880mps Mass/Dmg: 824.3 kg (MaxDmg: 11800) Secondary Battery: 4x3 152mm/55 OTO Modello 1936 (Broadside: 6) RoF: 5 rpm (12 sec) AP: MV: 910mps Mass/Dmg: 50 kg (MaxDmg: 3100) 12x1 90mm/50 OTO Modello 1939 (Broadside: 6) RoF: 15 rpm (4.0 sec) HE: MV: 860mps Mass/Dmg: 10.1 kg (MaxDmg: 1300, 5% FC) Anti-Aircraft Battery: 12x1 90mm/50 OTO Modello 1939 - 114.0 dps @ 4.50 km 8x2 37mm/54 Breda 1932 - 92.8 dps @ 3.51 km 4x1 37mm/54 RM 1939 - 35.6 dps @ 3.51 km 8x2 20mm/65 Breda 1935 - 27.2 dps @ 2.01 km Maneuverability: Engine Power: 128200 shp Top Speed: 30.0 knots So, how does Littorio differ from Roma, our already existing premium? In subtle, but telling ways, as she’s not a straight clone. First and foremost, she loses out on durability, with 1100 less hitpoints and a less effective TDS (-10% - and yes, I know I haven't been listing TDS. This is the only time it really mattered). She also trades away her generally ineffective HE for the trademark Italian SAP rounds. She also isn’t as stealthy, visible from 820m further than Roma (from 14.94 km to 15.76 km, or a drop from the fully built 11.22 km to 11.82 km), but also able to fire farther away, base range increasing from 18.12 km to 18.94 km (21.74 to 22.73 km with a spotter aloft). You also have a considerably more capable mid-range AA suite and an extra 500m range on your long-range AA, making you somewhat more capable of defending yourself. With this changes, Littorio will still play similarly to Roma, but with a greater emphasis on staying a little farther away, as well as being less reliant on someone else’s AA. You’re not as stealthy, and torpedoes will hurt you more, not to mention you’ve got slightly less health overall – but at least you’ve got a little more breathing room when it comes to firing back, and you’ve got SAP shells to use so you don’t overpen cruisers quite as often. Tier IX – Impero Laid down as the third Littorio sister but never completed, Impero was one of the ‘second’ generation Littorio-class battleships along with her sister Roma, making the pair somewhat of a slightly different set of siblings… perhaps a second set of twins, if you consider both pairs to be Irish twins? Originally the successors to the Littorio-class would have been the ‘BB1936’ designs (which was adapted into the Ansaldo’s Project 41, which was then sold to the Soviet Union and played an important role in the design of the Projekt 23 Sovetsky Soyuz-class’s design), essentially much larger, 406mm gun armed Littorio’s, but as raw material came harder to come by in the years running up to WWII (due to Allied sanctions), and the need to finish the projects quickly for a 1943/44 war, a second set of slightly improved Littorio’s was chosen instead – Impero laid down in May of 1938, and Roma four months later. Impero, as I’m choosing to represent her here, is the Littorio-class unleashed. As we know it in-game (Roma), the class underperforms in many aspects, especially protection (many of the interior bulkheads scrapped) and the efficiency of the main belt, 375mm in game… which is a fraction of what it was capable. While technically speaking the MAB’s strength is a blank check (decapping against Face-Hardened is different then against homogenous – essentially if you decap the shell, it’s just going to either fail to penetrate, or just shatter, unless it’s of sufficient caliber. You’d need a 470mm shell to actually guarantee punching through Littorio’s belt), we do have one strength figure – able to resist her own shells at 16 km through tests. In-game, Roma has just over 490mm of penetration at this range. Likewise, the engine only operates at about 80% power in-game, compared to its 160000 shp full output. On top of that output, it was able to boost power by a further 12% in emergency situations – getting you just short of 180000 shp. In terms of their actual ability, Littorio somewhat straddles the line between tier VIII and IX with our in-game system – her biggest drawbacks are the raw dpm cap of only nine 381mm guns at tier IX, the low health, and the weak AA… but her protection, speed, and absurd penetration balance this out considerable. Impero (lit. “Empire” in English) was named for the new ‘Italian Empire’ proclaimed by Mussolini. Survivability: 45236 tons – 64300 HP Belt: 420mm between end barbettes inclined at 11º with an internal 36mm bulkhead, with a 24mm bulkhead ~4 meters further inside the hull. Main deck is 162-112mm with a 45mm upper deck. Upper belt is 70mm. Turret Faces are 380mm sloped at 30º Main Armament: 3x3 381mm/50 Ansaldo Modello 1934 (Broadside: 9 guns) RoF: 2.14 rpm (28 sec) Dispersion/Sigma: German, 2.0 Traverse: 6º/sec (30 sec) AP: MV: 850mps Mass/Dmg: 884.8 kg (MaxDmg: 12000) SAP: MV: 880mps Mass/Dmg: 824.3 kg (MaxDmg: 11800) Secondary Battery: 4x3 152mm/55 OTO Modello 1936 (Broadside: 6) RoF: 5 rpm (12 sec) AP: MV: 910mps Mass/Dmg: 50 kg (MaxDmg: 3100) 12x1 90mm/50 OTO Modello 1939 (Broadside: 6) RoF: 15 rpm (4.0 sec) HE: MV: 860mps Mass/Dmg: 10.1 kg (MaxDmg: 1300, 5% FC) Anti-Aircraft Battery: 12x1 90mm/50 OTO Modello 1939 - 114.0 dps @ 4.50 km 8x2 37mm/54 Breda 1932 - 92.8 dps @ 3.51 km 4x1 37mm/54 RM 1939 - 35.6 dps @ 3.51 km 8x2 20mm/65 Breda 1935 - 27.2 dps @ 2.01 km Maneuverability: Engine Power: 160000 shp Top Speed: 32.0 knots Impero becomes Roma on steroids. Or rather, she’s Roma, but without a broken ankle and a few cracked ribs. She’s fast at 32 knots, second only to the 32 knot + speed boost French battleships and the American battleships Iowa and Missouri. Her armor gives her fantastic resistance – the 70mm upper belt and 45mm upper deck giving very good protection against HE spam, and her defense against AP being out of this world. Her 420mm/11º main armor belt (the thickness being a compromise) is quite strong, allowing her to resist her own shells at just past 18.5 km broadside, and angled at only 30º she can resist her own shells at 15 km, the American 16”/50 within 16 km, and the Japanese 18.1”/45 at just over 19 km… without taking into account her internal bulkheads, and her thin citadel, despite how thin it is… because WG removed her innermost citadel bulkhead… Blue is actual, green is the current citadel. Even if they punch through the main belt, it’s almost impossible for any short fuse (hi, Royal Navy) BBs to thus hit the citadel – which means it has to be travelling at least 164mps. Shooting a broadside Impero at 10 km or greater with the French 380/45 would penetrate the belt, sure (well, until you hit 18 km) – but the shell won’t actually reach the citadel. You’ve got to be within 10 km to still have enough time to hit the belt before the shell’s fuse runs out after going through the main belt and first splinter bulkhead. In terms of firepower, she uses the same guns as Roma, but this time comes with 2.0 sigma, and a 28 second reload – somewhat offsetting the fact that you’re somewhat hurt by autobounce and having just nine barrels (Alsace still had similar caliber-weapons, but has twelve of them!). In terms of her actually getting hits, however, she should be fine. Alsacegeneral averages higher rates of hitting than Richelieu(7.9 shells per minute versus Richelieu’s 4.9 rpm), but that’s only a product of having 12 vs 8 guns and access to the RoF module. Without said module, it drops to 7 shells per minute, and with only 8 guns this would be 4.6 shells – Richelieu’s higher sigma (1.8 vs 1.7) coming into play. Roma, with 1.8 sigma, averages 5.4 shells. Keeping that sigma would give you 5.8 spm, 6.6 spm with the reload module. With 2.0 sigma, you’re easily seeing a similar number of shells as what Alsace achieves… and the 381/50’s AP is stronger than that of the 380/45. She’s Roma turned up to 12. Her AA is still anything but stellar, but it’s at least somewhere just under ‘on-par’ for tier IX. She’s fast, she’s durable, and she still hits hard – just more often. Tier X – (BB1936) Piave The ultimate evolution of the Italian battleship, ‘BB1936’, often known as UP.41 (Ufficiale Progetto 41 by Ansaldo’s nomenclature), this wasn’t so much an evolution past Littorio so much as it was the original idea. The Littorio’s design work was largely done under the jurisdiction of the WNT, which limited battleship design to 35000 tons standard displacement with an armament not exceeding 406mm. Naturally, just as every country had rushed to design a ship fitting the most 203mm (maximal caliber) guns as possible on a 10000 ton hull with their heavy cruisers, they did the same as with the battleships. This evolution was part of the same process that lead to Littorio, but the designers struggled as they felt it was too difficult to for nine 406mm guns on a sufficiently protected hull and get it to go 30 knots under an operational load. The weight reduction in terms of armament from choosing lower caliber weapons, in combination with the relative ease of developing new 381mm guns versus 406mm guns, lead them to shrink the armament down to ‘only’ nine 381mm guns as the project developed into what eventually became Littorio. However, development did not stop there, as Ansaldo continued to play with the design, and it grew, BB1936 being the ultimate product of these efforts, a 45000 ton vessel. However, the design did not take advantage of the more advanced protection methods used in Littorio’s armoring (such as the composite belt). Ultimately, as war came ever closer, despite the effort made to upgrade the Navy’s facilities to build and operate these large ships, it was decided to go with a repeat of the Littorio-class for the next battleship order (and thus Impero and Roma were ordered). However, Ansaldo had also sold the design to Russia, as UP.41 – with heavy modification to Russian preferences, and without the Puligese TDS. This is the project we have data for, but needless to say it varies significantly from any design that would’ve succeeded Littorio. So, stat-wise, that is why I will try to recreate (including a composite belt, to explain the increased thickness). Her name is an interesting leap of logic for me – while personally speaking I’d love to name her Giuseppe Garibaldi, the fact of the matter is that A) by tradition only cruisers bared his name and B) By this period battleships were no longer named after people – that went out with the rise to power of the Fascists. Thus, the names of Italian battleships afterwards usually had to do with the glory of fascism (Littorio), a new Roman Empire (Impero), while Roma had a somewhat less neutral name, being named after the eternal city of Rome itself, although that still had ancient connotations to bit, as Rome always will. However, one of these ships had a name that that did not call back to a long-ago past, or a new fascist age. One ship had a name that simply spoke to Italy, the relatively young nation that existed here and now – the one that actually mattered. This was the Vittorio Veneto, named after the major victory achieved by Italy over Austria in 1918 that brought down the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Such a name was a powerful symbol that spoke more about a modern Italy – the one that mattered – than any name harking to some militaristic past or future that involved the subjugation of foreign nations. The Battle of Vittorio Veneto marked an important moment in Italian history – the final defeat, after hundreds of years of struggle, of the Hapsburg Empire, who had dominated Italy for about half a millennium. The victory not only avenged the defeat at Caporetto a year earlier, but also the centuries of foreign rule suffered by the Italian states. Thus the name I decided to go with was named after an earlier battle, but equally important, fought not long after Caporetto. Fought a little over 100 years ago, the Battle of the Piave River was where Italian troops halted and broke the Austrian offensive after the route at Caporetto. This was done in spite of the fact the Entente powers insist they fall further back, as they did not believe the Piave could be held... But hold it did. The Austrians were beaten back again on the Piave when they attempted their last offensive with a counter-attack launched 100 years ago today, and the utter defeat of this effort marked the first point where the Central Power’s command staff realized the war was beginning to end, despite the triumphs of 1917. Piave, although typically unanimously ignored by histories outside of Italy, stood as an important moment, a 20thcentury Legnano, and because of that I think that such a name is appropriate for Italy’s tier X battleship. Survivability: 49506 tons – 69300 HP Belt: 450mm between end barbettes inclined at 11º with an internal 36mm bulkhead, with a 24mm bulkhead ~4 meters further inside the hull. Main deck is 162mm with a 55mm upper deck. Upper belt is 150mm. Turret Faces are 400mm sloped at 30º Main Armament: 3x3 406mm/56 Ansaldo Modello 1936 (Broadside: 9 guns) RoF: 2.0 rpm (30 sec) Dispersion/Sigma: German, 2.0 Traverse: 6º/sec (30 sec) AP: MV: 850mps Mass/Dmg: 1350 kg (MaxDmg: 14800) SAP: MV: 870mps Mass/Dmg: 1100 kg (MaxDmg: 13500) Secondary Battery: 4x3 152mm/55 OTO Modello 1936 (Broadside: 6) RoF: 5 rpm (12 sec) AP: MV: 910mps Mass/Dmg: 50 kg (MaxDmg: 3100) 12x2 90mm/50 OTO Modello 1939 (Broadside: 6) RoF: 15 rpm (4.0 sec) HE: MV: 860mps Mass/Dmg: 10.1 kg (MaxDmg: 1300, 5% FC) Anti-Aircraft Battery: 12x2 90mm/50 OTO Modello 1939 - 160.8 dps @ 4.50 km 24x2 37mm/54 Breda 1932 - 378.4 dps @ 3.51 km 4x1 37mm/54 RM 1939 - 35.6 dps @ 3.51 km 24x2 20mm/65 Breda 1935 - 81.6 dps @ 2.01 km Maneuverability: Engine Power: 180000 shp Top Speed: 32.0 knots Alright, so I lied. This is not quite true to BB1936. That design intended to use a 406/50, with characteristics similar to the Russian 406mm/50 B-37, which the Italians helped develop. The planed 406/50 was to extend the given range of penetration compared to the 381/50 gun by 2000 meters – meaning it far exceeded any other gun that actually saw service in raw power. This ship doesn’t use that gun. Instead, this ship uses the monstrous 406mm/56 that was considered for the 4-16/16-40, a monstrous design that was intended to mount sixteenof these guns on a hull with 406mm of steeply inclined hull armor, and a top speed of 29 knots. The gun is your Vittorio Veneto, with the ability to rip through just short of 700mm of armor at 20 km, even the most heavily armored battleships will struggle to protect themselves from these guns, the raw penetrative power of a 1350-kilogram projectile fired at an initial muzzle velocity of 850 meters per second more than making up for the smaller caliber and the low gun count for that caliber. The raw kinetic force behind its armor-piecing gives it as high a damage potential as Yamato’s monstrous 460mm guns, and the SAP as much as American SHS! With the ridiculous velocity retention of such heavy shells, you’ll likely have issues over-penetrating cruisers just with your SAP shells – these might just be a more viable weapon than your AP at closer ranges against battleships! If your offensive armament is your Vittorio Veneto, then your armor is your Piave, because it’s a tough nut to crack. With 450mm of armor inclined at 11º, your belt is essentially 18” before angle of fall is even considered. Such a belt is seriously thick, and you retain the series of internal bulkheads to keep your citadel safe from stray rounds and the like. Angled at 45º, even Yamato’s 460mm APC won’t penetrate the belt by itself beyond 11 km. Your thick main armor deck is highly resistant to AP bombers, while your overall HE protection is improved. With a 55mm upper deck, even German 203mm HE will shatter on it, as will regular HE up to 330mm. IFHE will need to be greater than 254mm to penetrate it, and higher-penetration HE with IFHE will need to be 170mm or greater. Your 150mm upper belt provides significant protection against destroyers and light cruiser AP, and is immune to HE and IFHE of any penetration type. Even your AA protection isn’t terrible, although nor is it fantastic. Adequate is the best way to describe it. And if your armor is your Piave, then your mobility is your Carica della Savoia Cavalleria, because it’s going to get you out of (and into) trouble. Able to make 32 knots, you’re in the fastest tier X battleship, and because of your relatively small size, you’re probably able to turn much better than any other tier X battleship, too, handling more like a tier VIII than anything else. This will combine well with your good stealth. Exploit this brutally. However, that brings us on to the final point, which is your endurance. Watch how far you extend yourself, or it will be your Caporetto. You pack a huge wallop offensively, you’re fast, and you’re well armored, a tough nut to crack. However if that nut is cracked? Well, you’re light, and that means you’ve got a fairly small healthpool. You’re sitting on less than 70000 health at a tier where the lightest competitor has 82900 health, over 10000 more than you. That’s the price you pay for this unusual combination of characteristics. The Line overall So how does the line overall bring something new to WoWs? A good line can’t just be ‘more stuff’. It should bring something new to the table, and ideally do it without relying on a crazy gimmick, such as a super heal or speed boost. Nor should it rely on incredibly unrealistic rebuilding (side glance at Normandie and Lyon), or massive buffs to shell penetration (side glance at French 305 and 340mm guns). The Italian battleships start out being fairly unique from the start. While Napoli is fairly standard for a tier III battleship, SAP rounds aside, Dante Alighieri immediately takes you for something unique – a unique armament layout allowing you to bring twelve powerful 305mm barrels to bear against enemy ships at a tier where most ships can only manage ten barrels at best. Your armor is less than most of your foes, but your speed is better than most. Conte di Cavouris your last dance with a WWI-era battleship, which is a nice development – most nations don’t ditch the WWI battleships until tier VII. She again stresses a powerful broadside, boasting thirteen barrels to a broadside, and very nice firing angles – the lower turrets can traverse ±150º, and the superfiring turrets ±155º - past autobounce angles! The amidships ‘Q’-turret, meanwhile, rotates a full 360º. The armor and speed are hardly spectacular, armor being average to sub-par for the tier, and unlike before, where only the Japanese battlecruisers beat Dante in speed at tier IV – at tier V, Cavour is only about as fast as Iron Duke – well behind Kongo and Cesare, and an appreciable gap between her and König. At tier VI you start to push into the higher-tier face of the Italian battleship line, and playstyle starts to become more unique. Higher speeds with better handling, punchier guns with fast traverse and fairly sneaky for you tier. Your healthpool also starts to look a little short. However, you’re still carting over the poor armor of your predecessor with a citadel a deck over the waterline, and you’re not that fast. Both French tier VI battleships are faster than you, as is Mutsu, and Bayern’s only behind by a knot. However, with speed boost active, only the French battleships are faster than you. Tier VIII battleships will be a major threat given your low health and poor armor, and the fact that many are faster than you. Your AP is punchy, however – you’ve got more penetration than Bayern’s 380mm guns! Use your stealth to get where you need to be, and surprise enemies with powerful AP volleys. You’re probably not going to want to directly fight many other tier VI or VII battleships, but you can certainly hold your own against them. In tier VIII games, play in support of cruisers and destroyers, using your SAP rounds to gut targets most battleships would simply overpenetrate. At tier VII, you’ll be finding yourself having to do something similar, albeit with much, much thicker armor and a full 30 knots – no more speed boost, however! This puts you ahead of most, ultimately – tied only with Ashitaka and 2 knots behind Hood and Gneisenau. With a 2.0 sigma, however, your shells are going to be quite accurate, so good aim will be rewarded. As a famous American admiral said; Hit hard, Hit fast, Hit often. Your guns will be feeling fairly anemic by this point, comparing poorly to the other guns of tier VII battleships, so speed, stealth, and armor must be exploited ruthlessly in order to come out on top. Finally at tier VIII you hit Littorio. With it’s powerful, high-velocity guns and strong belt, those familiar with Roma will be at home, although the Littorio trades TDS for better AA, especially with upgrades adding to light AA. Unlike Roma, while Littorio lacks HE, its SAP rounds help it significantly to aid with one of Roma’s major issues with her main battery – chronic overpenetration of light armor. With still well over 200mm of penetration at 20 km, the 381mm SAP rounds and their shorter fuses make ideal weapons for shots against cruisers, or the upper works of angled battleships, while the AP shells will simply punch through almost any battleship armor one might expect to find in her MM range. At 30 knots you’re in the average for tier VIII battleships, but your handling is still slightly above average for the 30-knot+ club. Tier IX gives you quite a gem. Impero is a capable battleship, using the same guns but with much-improved sigma and a slight RoF boost (to 28 seconds – about the fastest RoF at loading angle the guns achieved that is known of). She’s also 2 knots faster, and has a thicker armor belt – whereas in-game Roma is proof against her guns at 22 km and beyond, Impero is proof at ranges of 18.7 km and beyond – still not quite the 16 km figure the belt was rated at (this would require a 462mm/11º belt), but still quite powerful – a moderate angle of 30º will see you safe from the American 16”/50 Mk.7 at beyond 15 km, and even Yamato’s monster 460mm guns can’t penetrate your belt from outside of 24 km, or about 19 km at a 30º angle. This drops to 13 km at 45º. However, you do pay for this with lower than average health for the tier. Tier X gives you the pinnacle of the line, Piave. This tier X battleship has stupidly strong guns and its main AP rounds may be seldom used due to the ridiculous penetration, able to punch past the belts of even well angled tier X battleships at the range of 20 km. The gun averages 9-10” more penetration at a given range than the vaunted American 16”/50 Mk.7, the most powerful 406mm gun to ever see service. At sub-5 km ranges, this 406mm Palla can penetrate over a meter of armor. Your own armor isn’t too shabby, 450mm of inclined armor, the most powerful belt at tier X. However, you’re light for your tier, and you don’t have the power of overmatch over 30mm+ plating – with only nine guns to boot! Using your stealth, speed, handling, and armor to survive will be vital to success, as otherwise damage will stack up rapidly. Thus while the lower tiers may feel very vanilla – a high gun count, but otherwise a familiar story aside from the lack of HE – the mid and higher tiers adopt their own unique flavor. Mid tiers are more modern and faster than many counterparts, but often just don’t compare in the armor department, and start to look a little underweight. This is somewhat of an experimental version of the tree, but I wanted to try it because I tend to like avoiding paper where possible, and I also though the 406/56 was simply too awesome not to use. So I do acknowledge that the tree does have other options for tier IX & X. For example, Deamon93’s version sees BB1936/UP.41, with the 406/50, at tier IX, with tier X being an unknown – the 4-16/16-40 somewhat being a placeholder due to the fact it would be absurdly overpowered in-game. That being said, there are easily other options if WG fudges it like the last three tier X BBs – a 10-gun BB with either 406mm gun would work well if still fast and well armored, using the iconic gun layout of the Abruzzi-class and the rebuilt battleships. It would also not be unrealistic to see on a modern Italian battleship – at one point this familiar layout was considered for Littorio in order to equally divide firepower fore and aft. Obviously, that route was not taken, due to weight concerns. Likewise, I should point out – the weight for many of the SAP rounds are guesstimated. I only have data for the 320mm and 381mm Granata Perforante, so I could only guess based on those shells for those that equip other guns. So, what do you guys think? As always, constructive criticism is welcome (and I'm sure I'll hear it on the tier X...). Happy Hunting!
  11. Reworks for the Conqueror?

    Hey guys and Wargaming staff, Are there any upcoming updates for the Conqueror in planning or the development phase? I just had a few battles against it in my t9 and t10 Missouri, and the thing is still stupidly OP. Had a few Conquerors sit completely broadside, while I was shooting back in my Missouri/Iowa, Fredrich de Grobe, and Yamato, and they take less than 10k dmg, no no history of citadels whatsoever. Range varied from 8-18km, but it feels like they are even tankier than the German Battleships. This tankiness is fine, but the Conqueror can just return fire with only two of his 4 turrents for +10k dmg in HE, not to mention the numerous fires. And I can't reduce that by angling. I would really like to ask players thoughts on this, as well as suggest to Wargaming to rework the Conqueror, and balance it in light of the new ship lines and reworks that are coming out. Because this is a ship that is still stupidly hard to fight against, unless somehow you got off the perfect torpedo volley...
  12. When To Push And When Not To Push?

    I find that a lot of the time one's success in playing battleships, especially at the higher tiers in battleships that are good at mid-close range (like with Iowa and Missouri or the German BBs), is determining when to play it safe (using islands as cover from flanking/torpedoes, kiting, etc.) and when to just charge in and attack. Yet I seem to have trouble discerning when to be push and when to retreat/not advance, which I think is hindering my BB play (especially in Iowa/Missouri). I try to speed around the backlines looking for targets = too far away to accurately land hits or forced to shoot bow-on targets. I try to bow-tank from mid-range = focused down, torpedoed, and set aflame (not to mention those random citadels at a 70º angle) I try to use islands for cover = sitting duck for HE-spammers and torpedoes, not to mention anyone who flanks me I try to advance = trapped in cross-fire and can't get good shots on a bow-on enemy. Especially in Iowa/Missouri, who get punished heavily the moment they mis-angle and have horrible maneuverability (worse than North Carolina, which I think I did rather well in), this knowledge seems especially important, yet I don't seem to be able to find a good formula. The only time I recall advancing successfully was when I had multiple teammates alongside me that killed off enemy destroyers and distracted the other enemy ships long enough for me to make my shots count. All other times (even when I try to set up a firing lane using an island in order to be able to flank the enemy with some protection), it still seems to fail miserably. I would really like to stop having games where I only do 50-60k in Iowa/Missouri (well short of my own standard of 78k average damage). I know Iowa/Missouri can work, but I can't seem to find the secret to success.
  13. My visit to the USS Iowa BB-61

    ....welloh man like a complete noob I effed up and put this in the wrong category.....pls forgive that.......anyhows: farewell to the Iowa and if you visit too I hope you get your $20+parking worth!.....I know I sure did.....(I also started at the end to be quixotic....)....the business end.....................................arriving near Port's O'call in sunny San Pedro, CA (Los Angeles) you'll get an up close view of these 5" DP 2ndaries...they're remnants of a bygone age...when BBs like this were made, we didn't have huge supertankers and cruise ships that (guns and missiles aside, of course) kind of make this 887-foot behemoth look less intimidating........... a 16" shell from the main battery seen on deck up against the rear turret.....bear in mind these things weigh a ton and with 6 of the 110-pound gunpowder bags can be thrown clear over the horizon with a fair amount of accuracy. ......................................... a neat little guide to your options.....mine's the nuclear tipped one.....would definitely make our game pointless, but quick! ..........and no, that's not me in the photo....idk who that friggin guy is.... all the radar haters that've been cropping up on forums lately'll love this bad boy.....here's a closeup of the 60mm, 6,000 (iirc) rounds-a-minute CIWS (close-in weapons system) that came with the modernization in the 80s....meant to down incoming missiles.... ....here's one of the Harpoon missile lauchers that was also part of the revamp......these were for offense...and just think of how many sophomoric comments one can make about the 'poon we got on this ship!....(arright that's the stuff that'll get me an e-mail...lemme dial it down) ...there were much larger, very-long-range Tomahawk missiles mounted as well, but they're not too photogenic....really just big boxes and there wasn't a concomitant mock-up on display as here.... ..here's a checklist of places to go if you're like me and you're into this stuff...I've been aboard the USS Massachusetts and the USS Missouri so far and this one makes 3 of 8..... lemme know where you've been too and how it was, won't you?
  14. WE will try this on this coming FRIDAY on June 1st 6/1/18 8:30-11:30PM US Eastern standard time , 7:30-10:30 PM US CENTRAL TIME, 6:30-9:30 PM US MOUNTAIN TIME, 5:30-7:30 PM US PACIFIC TIME , 10:30AM -1:30 PM in Sydney Australia 8:30 AM - 11:30 AM in Perth Australia. this will be in the training room labeled naval battle Guadalcanal part 1 chapter 6. search for training rooms by Outwardpanicjoe (Chapter 7) Naval Battle of Guadalcanal part 2 IJN force : 1 myoko 2 kongo (kirishima ) 1 atago 2 kuma or similar CL, 5 DDs tier 5-8 Asashio, Akatsuki, Shiratsuyu, Kagero, Akizuki, fubuki class. the kongo classes will lead the forces on each flank north flank is more ship heavy. Objective protects Battleship kirishima so you take out battleship South Dakota ( alabama) and take out Washington along with a one dd. USN force: the new battleships Washington and South Dakota, of Enterprise's support group, together with four destroyers, as TF 64 under Admiral Willis A. Lee to defend Guadalcanal and Henderson Field. For this scenario we are having 1 North Carolina restriction free , 1 Alabama but can only fight bow on and can only zoom to the min amount due to electrical difficulties, 1 enterprise but can only use its planes but can only have 2 reloads of strike aircraft after that they can only launch planes from then on because front elevator issues can use dive bombs against DDs and cruisers and enterprise main mission is to sink BB hiei . And 6 dds tier 7-9 Mahan, Benson/Gleaves, Fletcher 2 dd escort the enterprise and 4 dds escort the 2 Battleships. Fighting will be around north island volcano. Objective: destroy one battleship with NC and Alabama ,keep Alabama afloat, and one DD as a minimum to claim tactical victory . if anyone is interested in helping to make new events or suggestions feel free to join the workshop discord https://discord.gg/ygjyP2G
  15. How to play Arizona

    I hate you so much, why are you so cute? now I want to play you... Anyways how does one play the American battleships? Sticky playing Japanese ships resulted in me missing out on the meme ship that was Kutuzov and I don't want to let that happen again. This is what happens when you let national sentiments take you over, definitely not shipgirls are anything. But It's been years since I touched an American ship and I'm finally opening up to foreign ships. Currently, I got Arizona from a Christmas box but apart from her I don't have any other ship. Is Arizona any good? Or should I drop lower and just regrind?
  16. The title pretty much says it all. It feels nimble enough to allow me to dodge torps if I'm paying the least bit of attention to my surroundings. The guns seem erratic past 15k but seem to hit pretty regularly within 10k. Armor seems vaguely reliable. I've had a few decent games in it even if I'm in T7 matches. This is, however, my only T6 let alone my only T6 BB. Am I just not aware of how bad it is compared to other ships?
  17. The Most Roma Match Ever

    I want to preface by saying that I quite enjoy the Roma. When she performs, she REALLY performs. However, because she's so temperamental, when she sucks, she REALLY sucks
  18. High Tier USN

    Tier III: South Carolina
  19. I am putting out my own video on this nonsense. For now, here's first my critique of Mr. Not-good-enough-Ser. It's impressive how the big three community contributors can get what they want consistently, yet the unforeseen changes they recieve invariably worsen their experience, and they proceed to complain about the very features they asked for to make the game either competitive, or to negate the role of specific ship classes. I wonder what this persistent targeting or casual ship players or ship classes will eventually yield them TL:DR Version- Notser proposes a problem with the game is Experience Gain (XP), and projects issues with his gameplay onto others I contend the game has many gameplay aspects and designs that already reward players, and other edits, such as more irrevocable ranks, or lesser penalties in ranked would help players more than a completely reworked XP model that almost benefits exclusively Destroyers Let's move onto the specific points I make by almost minute by minute bases: 1:00 “They have min-maxed XP . . . this is Wargaming’s fault” For someone who has not hesitated previously to call out the performance of “players” in Battleships rather than focus on the game design; and then cosign blame only somewhat adequately to the company. Later saddling it [poor gameplay] on the players and demanding the company change smoke and dispersion to make Battleships irrelevant, this is perhaps the most ironic thing you could possibly say. Now I haven’t even gotten into the particulars of the ironies of him discussing Experience specifically, which I will do shortly. 1:24 “What is the correct play, contesting . . . and being engaged with the enemy” Problem there, your smoke changes from the 6.0 patches made diving a cap with the biggest guns possible to provide area denial blew that meta up. So now you’re getting your comeuppance; call it Catharsis III. Never mind it’s hard to differentiate from a good versus suicidal push because plenty of situations, even for good or bad players, are catch 22s. You have to push so you may just hope and pray to rally the cowards on your team to follow; or sit in the back and reinforce the risk aversion to a push. It’s very much a “bystander effect” situation a lot of players will find themselves in unless you’re fairly confident or skilled. Sadly, the most confident people [people willing to dive a cap early] tend to be the saltiest and occasionally [not always] the least skilled, call it the Dunning–Kruger effect [When they blame the team or long-range players]. 1:38 “XP isn’t enough to justify the risk or reward” This is ironic consider the number of games one can get first strictly through the crazy XP rate you get from capping now This also ignores you know proper risk aversion analysis because what you truly RISK is the star, you don’t risk XP. To be fair, early on, it’s quite easy to detect whether or not your team is up to snuff to win, and you can easily figure out when it’s time to start being selfish to preserve your progress, because it costs too much to lose given the current ranked structure. 1:48 “From 20km save your star and move on to the next game” Would you advise a Zao or Hindenberg to play differently? I have [had] the sneaking suspicion he’s about to mention battleships here. 2:03 “I don’t want that wargaming, I don’t think you should be punished for trying to win the game” I agree with the latter sentiment, I disagree with the first. You specifically asked for this, and seemed to have simply forgotten how teamwork operates in the grand scheme of things. You do run into incompetent teams that will have 4 or 5 ships crowd a single smoke, but at least when smoke worked, you could actually deny area and encourage aggression since your fights would have to be closer; which is where radar meta came in. Actually, thinking about it, I disagree with your second sentiment as well; because had you actually believed that statement, then what do you think quote, “cowardly” play of ships is other than ships attempting to do their part to win the game? After all, this is universal as a tip, if you survive later into your games as a statistic, you can exert more influence and opportunities to actually win or carry games. You’re no good dead early and earning top XP. 2:14 “Now long range player are trying to win the game . . . they are not giving up everything.” My point exactly; that’s almost by definition how games work [do not give up everything]. Perhaps you’re not a historian or a truly competive gamer, but you don’t shove all in unless you’re about to lose or are truly desperate. Ironically, as the game situation gets worse, some battleships, if they’re smart, will suddenly become more aggressive so they can farm as much damage and XP as possible. Perhaps that had not occurred to you as well. 2:20 “They’re playing it just enough to where, well if we lose, well I’m not losing” Freud would have a field day with you. Classic projection, or did you forget your classic declaration during the 6.0 patches; “It’s MY smoke, only I should use it”. To explain more precisely, I go back again, would you advise say a Hindenberg, Zao, or in this case we’ll include Yueyangs and Shimakaze’s to play differently? They’re not just “playing it just enough” as it turns out harassing the enemy from a distance often provokes a hasty push which your team can exploit. Then again I guess you’re not much of a team player are you? Also your logic, “If we lose, I’m not” basically crumbles if say, there are more than 1 ship remaining both attempting to farm at the end of the game. Normally then you have no guarantee that “You” won’t lose. Then it comes down to who dies last or who farms the most damage in a suicide push. Though this as you or Zoup may claim from my other parts can easily say “this is too general of a statement to be held under scrutiny.” 2:48 “The system isn’t nuanced enough . . . “ So you would like a system that would make it more fun and rewarding to offset the risks associating with pushing or making tough decisions. Or as one of your compatriots puts it “Dumb it down to the lowest common denominator.” –Flamu Now Ironically, despite the denigrating nature that formerly yourself, Flamu, or even Zoup as of late would assign to that, I’d appreciate such a change myself, the problem is of course that would make the game; much less the literal skilled segment of it; ranked play, by definition, targeted toward a casual audience, which is not what you wanted in the first place anyway. I’d appreciate a system nuanced or rewarding enough to offset the painful risks in the game, but that likely won’t happen. 3:02 “I’m really tired of the meta being dictated by what’s the easiest” That’s, partially what metas are; path of least resistance; or more exactly; what will get you blasted wins. In context of this statement, I ask you a denigrating question NoZoupForYou asked us all, “Why are you playing” then? 3:06 “Guess what the easiest this season is? Long range support ships . . .” So basically the same meta since ranked season 6? Never mind we by definition have to ignore 1 through 5 because those kind of cruisers were not in the game yet, and I do not have the data specifically on them, though I can’t imagine it was different then. 3:21 “I hate that a player who wants to play a specific ship is denied that right, . . . [the matchups] are too volatile.” Jesus, I wonder why in the world that is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGofBzE5_ag NoZoupForYou on Battleships https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6A7VGOPhhh0 NoZouForYou on Battleships https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMDKrRdVAqc Flamu on Battleships https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTCgNKujaXM Flamu on “Casuals” and Battleships, via Conqueror https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_68vnTIbsas Notser on 6.11 Changes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6nuAC6CnlI Notser “What’s up with me” Digging in your heels 3:34 “This is coming from a DD player” So sit in the back and snipe with torpedoes and quit complaining. You have the second least difficult time in Ranked. What are you complaining about? Is it battleships? I bet it’s battleships. 3:45 “You have all the radar cruisers being punished for being in a position that could threaten their ship” Yeah, and I’m getting tired of being reported for dying first, but I have to be up there, but let’s hear what the anti-Battleship captain has to say about it. 3:46 “Same with the DDs” What? 3:47 “Even the CVs” I’m guessing you’ve not encountered many CVs or DDs despite being a DD captain, but in cases where you’re caught out by radar, you’re not playing long range support . . . you know, the Cruiser’s or Battleship’s job. Remember, longest radar is 12 km, surely you know that. 4:09 “This can’t be the final implementation of XP” Why haven’t you talked instead of placing more irrevocable ranks so that the risk aversion to losing stars is not as great or the very fact losing costs a star rather than just, stagnating a player in position? Would that make the game too casual? How is rank’s structure XPs fault? Oh and on the note about domination, easy for DDs, hard for CVs, but in either case do what I did what Flamu, you, and Zoup demanded I do . . . play, better. Or I am forced to ask Zoup’s question again. “Why are you playing?” 4:18 “It is influencing the way players do every action” I’m sorry, did my previous video, forum posts, comments, and flurry of cursing and swearing, and general feedback go over everyone’s heads? Are we finally acknowledging risk aversion affects us and what 6.11 on after did was amplify our risk aversion? Probably not. 4:42 “It has rewarded the wrong play style universally” Either, you’re not playing it right, or you do not understand risk reward. More to the point, if the problem you find is in all the games, since every single game, not just ones that happen to be produced by Wargaming, have this issue, quote “Rewarding the wrong behavior”, then maybe it’s just you. Oddly the elites all behave in ways the general public do not wish to or ardently refrain from behaving in. To provide an analogy; If you’ve dated dozens of women, they’ve all either turned you down or you’ve broken up with them, and you go “You know what all these women look for the wrong stuff in a guy”, maybe it’s not them. Maybe it’s you who suck. 5:25 “Can we get XP correct for once, please?” Two things, given you just said none of the Wargaming games do this, perhaps it’s high time you realize it’s not being designed for you. More specifically, if they have never done it right, and since we’re including World of Tanks, they’ve not done it right in over 5 years of programing and development and professional marketing, their version of correct seems to conflict with your version of correct. Second, let’s go back a little on this basis to his point about Mediums. Now, as much as I hate to say historical realism plays a part; consider these are more so Arcade War games, not War simulators; Mediums are built if The Chieftain is to be believed, to counter other tanks, other TDs, generally a jack of all trades, and they are rewarded accordingly, especially being both historically, and in gaming the most prolific and versatile tank. You don’t get brownie points for being a specialist if it just so happened something else did your job at the same time. They’re competing against you, intentionally or not, and as far as Light versus Medium versus Heavy ought to be concerned, just be happy you in your example have Mediums that could perform those tasks at all. By extension, I wish to take this time to point out, in theory using my example Battleships ought to be the highest XP earners, but invariably and ironically, you cannot accurately just hand them the first place spot in ranked. Strangely I’d say it’s almost perfectly balanced in terms of who can get first on a losing term based on the game design in terms of XP. I personally would argue DDs get top billing almost all the time, but I would need data to back that up, and I don’t have it on hand at the moment. 5:30 “Couldn’t we see a system that rewards the right actions, that are agreed upon” No, because the two presumptions built into that is one, there are “Right” actions, and two, most importantly, that we can agree to them. We cannot even agree whether or not Destroyer Advantage is a reality, much less whether or not Battleships are in their quote “Right place” in the game. We cannot even agree upon “Why we’re playing”. 5:51 Points on Capping No, m0ostly because I don’t imagine you’ve been in games where your team has all caps, while the enemy simply bypasses them in exchange for murdering all of you for the win despite having cap lead. Dispute that at your leisure, the opposite has definitely happened as well, but surely you know early cap advantage can evaporate stupidly fast with or without an XP change. Fittingly your proposed change would benefit almost exclusively destroyers, the things that can get in and out of caps and defend or contest them fast enough; so selfishly you just want a system that makes you look good, guarantees you get the most XP every time, forget the others. 6:04 “Why isn’t there a reward for that” Because even I know, and all of you know and won’t hesitate to point this out, being out of position earns you nothing. It’s fine if I’m area denying the C cap and have my guns there, but if I’m out of position, unable to shoot anything . . . I’m not contributing anything to the fight; and it is the fight we’re ultimately concerned about. If I’m not in position to fight, what good am I, move my [edited]from the mountain and get stuck in. “Oh, but I brought up already that you’d be punished!” So? It’s a risk I have to take. Do I want to earn my star more, or do I want to ensure I lose the least? One of which freezes me in place, the other actually gets me somewhere, and no one would defend me if I chose to hold my ground close to the enemy, behind hard cover, but couldn’t do anything else but spot. 6:09 “Long range ships don’t seem to want to capture the base” Yeah, but you know what they want to do, fight, survive, they want to attack if possible, but it’s no good to anyone to get in close to fight typically unless you’re a destroyer and no one can see you drop your torpedoes. . . oh wait. Oh, as an aside. It’s not their job to cap. Guess who’s it is. 6:18 “What’s the deal wargaming?” I don’t know, what’s the deal Notser? Not enough rewards for your specific play style? Well you’re one of our unofficial PR people, let’s change that to make it easier for you to look Unicum, would that help Dunning-Kruger? 6:26 “Give you XP for when it’s contested . . .” It’s called your hit ribbons, they already built it in. Oh and if the cap is flipping, defense ribbons. Enjoy 6:34 “Gain defender points while in it” We’ll ignore you contradict yourself, softly, from before talking about being useless sitting in the cap and I’ll briefly explain from a designer perspective why that doesn’t exist: Because the attacker is not actively in the state of flipping the cap to their side. They’re already earning XP for shooting the target. You only get credit for assaulting a cap, when you . . . assault the cap. 6:39 “Nobody knows how to actually play the game” Ghosts of 6.11 are coming up, is someone about to blame battleships? Oh and “nobody” knows how to play the game, but you do? See point about and analogy about dating women and concluding they all suck, which gives you an excuse not to change your mind about what you’re doing. 6:49 “The XP system doesn’t teach you how to play correctly” Besides maybe World of Warcraft, name a single game where XP takes up the place of the tutorial. Since when has gold, credits, XP or what have you ‘taught’ someone how to play. Yes, if we use the classical behavioral psychology approach and say “Well rewards dictate your behavior through positive reinforcement”, yes, but as it turns out you’re also ignoring “Positive punishment” and since the human mind tends to amplify our negative experiences, guess what has way more impact as a behavioral reinforcement than XP. Never mind your XP quite quickly becomes worthless to you in the late or even mid game of warships, so it’s perhaps the least effective reward mechanism you can offer unless it was the Gold Free XP . . . but that would cost the company money. 6:50 “It only rewards selfish play” So being the best is selfish? I suppose you mean strictly on the losing side in the context of ranked, but keep in mind your proposed changes would have impact outside of ranked as well. Then again you and the other two in the Big Three seem to lack a lot of foresight. Let’s put it like this then since apparently it’s selfish. On a selfless, well coordinated team, versus a team of all selfish players. . . who will win? That is by definition a loaded question, but your general statement implies that somehow being selfish alone is far more rewarding than the inverse. 7:04 “Some sort of XP for being close to the capture base” Or conversely make the bases bigger then. Effectively same result technically, but you want XP I imagine over time, which either, benefits almost exclusively destroyers and cruisers who can get on point first. You brought up CVs, and unless you mean XP through planes by proxy as well, this won’t help them at all, it would in fact be detrimental to anyone who wants to meaningfully grind CVs, because what’s the point if I can get through other trees faster? 7:17 “I hate players who have to have three bases” Like who? Since when? 7:20 “You only need to have more points than the enemy team at the end of the game” Your point? (Considering the statement before is unrealistic and/or moot) 7:24 “Why are you pushing into the enemy” Well make up your mind, you either want XP, or aggression or you don’t. Arguably, you asking this question means 6.11 worked exactly the way you wanted; and now you’re complaining about aggression warranted or otherwise? 7:38 “We have base lead, they have a ship deficit, why are you pushing in?” If you’re not going to be blasted specific then this doesn’t matter. In that case because it’s the prudent thing to do. Call it from Starcraft the Day9 Rule: “When you’re ahead, get more ahead” “But Spoor, I just said that’s stupid, and you could very well throw the match that way”, yes, but a good team corned in that situation can make an effort to come back and then they get to dictate the terms of the fight, not you; That! That is why you keep attacking when you’re ahead, you drive them to a corner and 7:45 “I’ve probably lost 20 games like that, this season” That’s it? Is that the only way you’ve lost. I suppose I could take the time to look at the total number of ranked battles you’ve played this season, but let’s use my own for example. Then Of the 68 I’ve played, so I’d lose 1 in 3 on aggressive pushes that went bad while I had the lead. So where does the other 1/3 come from because it took me 13 battles to go from 10.2 to 9.0, the point-2 being two stars in Rank 2, versus rank 9 with no stars. While I appreciate the appeal to emotion, give me data, then may be I’ll give you credit for this point, but there are far stupider ways people are losing out there. Also somewhat hypocritical to bring up a push that went wrong, when the whole first half of this video was long-range ships playing like cowards . . . Specifically in this scenario of an unwarranted push, they they’re doing exactly the right thing and winning the match. Way to defeat your own point, you imbecile you. 8:05 “and I don’t see anything wrong with that because that’s what we want.” No, that’s what you want, never mind the fact you’ve not weighed the consequences of your statements at all like back in 6.11, nor considered viable alternatives that somewhat meet this nonsensical critique you have on specifically Experience all of a sudden rather than ranked game design itself. 8:14 “We don’t want them operating at max gun range” You don’t want them, quit projecting. Never mind that with stealth fire gone, smoke gone, and your own contradiction on how an aggressive push with the lead may cost a game simply reinforces that max range behavior from cruisers primarily, with BBs finally operating as the meat shields in front. Perhaps you’ve not won using these tactics yourself and that’s why you’re suddenly raging against them. I’m perfectly satisfied, win or lose so far, with understanding it’s my job to set fires on Battleships, be close enough to my DDs to support at 13 km to deny space to other destroyers with HE. Make it as hard as possible, or painful as possible for the enemy to win, make them sweat, make them quit. I have to say, it seems to working at least on you. 8:18 “And not helping their team at all at the capture point” I seem to recall someone saying literally minutes ago “You don’t need all three caps”. Also, if I’m alive, and setting fires, or doing damage, how am I not helping the team. Now there are specific context which I can be completely alone in say the 1 or 10 columns, using a spotter and hitting targets, but in now way killing the low health push on my team or denying destroyers position; but there’s that, the image you wish to portray, and then there’s the person who uses range and position to their advantage. 8:27 “Let’s give ribbons for spotting enemies, using radar” I suppose he does not anticipate that this can be exploited by radar ships, including the Yueyang just spam consumables to farm XP and sail away without actually fighting if the team is losing in order to save stars specifically in ranked. Later says having a ship die while under effect, which is already done, spotting damage is granted for that, though I suppose he doesn’t remember 6.11 at all, though I cannot earnestly say when spotting and position were given XP in matches. I suppose he just wants that sweet sweet DD XP for himself because I fail to see how any of this would help any other class at all. 8:43 “Smoke on an enemy who’s dying” Already in game, depends on what the dying ally does from that point on, because if they survive; however, do not continue fighting in any way, besides the points saved, what have you accomplished? Besides other times sometimes true potatoes will simply sail out of it anyway, so how do you picture this being programmed in? 8:46 “These are such simple simple things to check . . .” Spoken like a true person who’s never programmed any logic loops in his life. Never mind I cannot claim to have been anywhere near talented enough to program the same loops that would check Boolean values and factions of health to delineate the amount of XP per Hit Point or per position per unit of time. Ignoring that, each of those scenarios or spotting items is circumstantial and you only get XP, or rather, continue to get XP by virtue of your use in game already assuming you fight. Again, no brownie points for spotting torpedoes and then sailing into them anyway. Though I suppose that will give the Z-52 player like himself far more to farm XP off of. Is anyone here noticing a pattern? 9:12 “It’s the same with DD, CV, CA . .. “ Ah, but not Battleships, but I suppose they don’t deserve it even though your examples for long range mostly apply to Moskva’s, Hindenbergs, and Zao’s using max range and concealment to effect. Also, they’re not remotely the same. I understand your delusion and desire for them to be the same, but how can a CV position to cap, or what consumables aside from heal or AA do they get? What about cruisers who cannot take forward positions because they’re out-spotted by 5km by any destroyer on approach, and out-spotted by some cruisers if you’re the Chapayev or Moskva. How is it the same for them. It might, just might, be for the Minotaur, but even for it, it would struggle with or without smoke, with or without radar getting into position without dying upon being spotted as you noted before. Then for destroyers, given not all destroyers even play the same blasted way, I.E. a Khabarovsk versus Z-52, these two ships have insanely different play styles from each other and must assault positions differently understanding their separate limitations. Though I appreciate your gross oversight in order to favor your own ship class. 9:20 “Why are we rewarding long range gunnery so much?” Because that’s where the fight is lost or won sir; normally won. 9:30 “Why is that not a priority” Because either specifically for assaults and defending, that’s put into the game already and for consumables, why should we reward potentially wasted resources? “But I mean only when the resources are used for effect”, yes, and there’s already spotting XP and stat trackers in game, and you claim they are grossly inadequate? I’ve seen zero-damage destroyers score around middle in the team in randoms strictly through spotting and potential damage. I suppose that’s not good enough for you. 9:35 “That seems like the most important thing to me.” Stop and repeat this to yourself until you realize the chief problem for the past 9 and a half minutes of ranting and bad ideas. 9:50 “There are so many things that Wargaming could do to enhance the team aspect of the game” Like bring back pre 6.11 smoke, oh wait . . . 9:55 “Through manipulating a players tendencies through reward” And others by punishment, though so far it sounds like you want everyone to play your game, not their game, which I am afraid to say is a common trap you, Zoup and Flamu fall into, demanding that the population play your game, rather than the population demanding you play ours. Granted I cannot even claim to be part of the population based on the number of ships I have or my stats anymore. I spent so much time getting better so I may be listened to, only to find myself the hypocrite now, having excluded myself from others experiences to be able to connect to yours so you would no longer ignore me, ignore us. “Seal clubbing potato” with no skill, I haven’t forgotten Flamu’s words, his fourth NA Forum post ever, direct at someone who presumably he didn’t care about. 10:00 “You’re missing out so much with this ribbon system” Besides wargaming itself, what ribbon system or what games are you comparing this to conceptually? Star Trek: Online, where mutual support an science abilities do correlate to a little bit of XP if I remember correctly. Red Alert 3, Starcraft 2, League of Legends, what are you correlating this inane demand in design to? To be fair, thanks to your critique, what I used to take for granted, the Capture Point XP, Defended Ribbons, Spotting Damage, Damage over Time, Fires, Module Knockouts, Secondary Hits, I had never stopped to think of all this stuff that I never thought about was already given to me, also, and most especially giving players credits and XP for earning, for being in the fight, getting tough and ready to try to fight and win. I never realized how much effort the teams have made to reward players for their efforts intentionally or not, it’s amazing to think about. Now obviously plenty of improvements need to be made, but consistently somehow you aim at something completely different or irrelevant; or if you do aim at the relevant problem, you invariably suggest things that make the game worse. “But that’s just your opinion, you think the game has gotten worse” Well, true, but of course it wasn’t just me saying the changes asked for made things worse. Need I point to Notser’s, Zoup’s and Flamu’s videos on clan wars, smoke changes and the commentary made as of late? It’s like patch whack-a-mole with you three morons. Talk to the rest of us when you have actually good ideas. 10:04 “I want this game to succeed, I want players to play this and feel I am rewarded for my action.” No you don’t, otherwise why would you or anyone been in favor of half the insane changes you demanded or suggested we good. No you don’t, otherwise you’d actually insist for changes that appeal to casual gamers, like bringing back Tier V to operations or including an irrevocable rank at Rank 5 which would minimize the impact of people playing to preserve stars since risk of dropping a lower rank is halved. No you don’t, because almost entirely all these changes appeal directly to something your class of ship is singularly capable of and you’ve deliberately excluded a class that you and your little friends have decided don’t deserve a place, much less a voice, in this game. Talk to me when that is amended. 10:30 “We gotta do something about this XP” Notser, have you, specifically, been losing stars because you didn’t get enough XP. Join the blasted club buddy. But audience, you know what that means, wait for 7.5 to have a massive patch for XP, and all your destroyers leap to the top of the scoreboards in randoms from now on, everyone else doesn’t deserve it. I mean I remember the last time he begged like this, he, and his buddies got exactly what they wanted and complained about it after they got it because it made another part of their experience worse. 10:42 “The game is not doing a good enough job empowering them to play the right way” You keep using this, which is a way to weasel in what you believe is the way the game ought to operate as if that were fact. The fact of the matter is, the game does plenty to empower players to quote, play the right way. Otherwise why would Flamu point out how insanely good the Asashio, despite it’s inability to deal with cruisers, still is. The game does empower players. Why at tier ten do the Z-52 and the Khabarovsk, despite nerfs, continue to dominate games? Do you think your class of ship needs to be nerfed more to reward Battleships and Cruisers more? Are you prepared to go to that extent? 11:00 “I can’t wait. . .” You know what, I only partially agree. I can’t wait for things just to be blasted ok, things to be adequate without people like you jacking it up for the rest of us, or misrepresenting the community’s opinion on how a ship should or should not play. I’m waiting for a day when you actually aim to please the community rather than things that please you. I’m almost begging the devs to bring stealth fire back just to shut people like you up because fine, I’ll take the hit if just to throw the “skilled” players who used stealth previously to get back into this game. I’ll take a really painful hit to my gameplay if it just means I get to use my ships the way I want more or less. I can’t even do that anymore, I’ve had to change time and time again for better or worse, and still you think I have someplace I need to be, your blasted place.
  20. Reach out and touch someone or close encounters of the third kind? My preference is to get in close (10km to 15km) and take damage for my team while providing main battery gunfire to keep the enemy scattered and get a vessel to make a crucial mistake. Fire at range or prepare boarding parties? "A good commander is benevolent and unconcerned with fame." - Sun Tzu "A ship in port is safe, but that's not what ships are built for." - Grace Hopper, US Navy #tacticaltiptuesday #anchorsaweigh
  21. I started WoWs thinking I'd stick to cruisers to get the best of both worlds of torpedoes from destroyers and guns for pounding other ships. I find when in a cruiser I get too fixated on the guns and need to develop strategy and tactics in using torpedoes. For one, I don't use them near enough and I've got to develop an approach to use them where I'm not getting battered by my opponents guns. More than once I went up because I took too much damage when either getting into position or waiting for the torpedoes to load. While I think the versatility of cruisers makes them more interesting to use I have to say there's something to the visceral to pounding an enemy ship with repeated broadsides and seeing there life indicator precipitously slide leftward with each shell landings! I've been alternating between my cruisers and battleships. As soon as one round ends with one ship I immediately start another with the other ship type. Not always a good idea when you forget your ship type momentarily and you wind up pounding your '3' key futilely to switch to torpedoes before you realize you're not carrying any...
  22. As I've been playing World of Warships, I've gotten more interested in the ships themselves. Watched documentaries, videos outlaying hypothetical battles (more or less Iowa class Battleship vs Yamato class Battleship). But there have been 2 warships that have interested me which was the "mighty" Hood and Le Dunkurque. Both ships were pretty excellent Battle Cruisers by the beginning of World War II, Dunkurque being one of the latest additions to the French Navy, meanwhile Hood, though a couple decades old by 1939, was the most powerful ship of the Royal Navy and was the pride of Great Britain until she was sunk by The Bismark. But I wondered what if both ships ended up on each other's business end of their main batteries? Who would win? How much damage would've be done? Now yes, you could do a 1v1 in a training battle in World of Warships and see the results, however player tactics in World of Warships were not used in World War II, and Wargaming is always buffing or nerfing ships to fit the game balance. So using World of Warships would not make an accurate response. What do you think?
  23. Done with battleships

    when a battleship *texas* misses a crusier *Kirov* at less then 5 KM *4.7 KM* its time to give up playing BB's.
  24. This is How You Battleship!

    Happened in ranked... two battleships communicated, pushed and dominated. Quickest round of ranked I've had.
×