Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'proposal'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • World of Warships - News and Information
    • News And Announcements
    • Updates and PTS
    • Developer's Corner
    • Community Volunteer Programs
  • Feedback and Support
    • Game Support and Bug Reporting
    • Player Feature and Gameplay Suggestions
    • Game Guides and Tutorials
  • General WoWs Discussion
    • General Game Discussion
    • Discussions about Warships
    • Player Modifications
  • Off Topic
    • Historical Discussions and Studies
    • Off-Topic
  • International Forums
    • Foro en Español
    • Fórum Brasileiro
  • External testing groups
    • Supertest Academy
    • Supertest
    • Clantest

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Website URL







Found 27 results

  1. With "superships" being based on the premise a post-WW2 warship development that didn't include missiles, I tried to come up with a non-missile version of Britain's next destroyer after the Daring class, the County class. The problem was I wanted to keep as much of the Counties' appearance as possible. Once I added aft gun turrets instead of the Seaslug missile launcher and helipad, there wasn't much room for torpedoes. But then I realized there was a place I'd been overlooking. The Counties' magazine for their missile launchers was enormous and ran more than half the ship's length. So I could make use of that space by putting torps on the centerline inside the hull with sliding doors to cover them when not in use. Unconventional but it allows the County superstructure to remain unchanged and thus keep the silhouette similar to the real ship. Or alternately she could just have 4x4 torps along the sides. Less interesting but perhaps more practical. The other thing to bear in mind is that HMS Glamorgan is herself enormous. She's bigger than Elbing (at least by displacement; Elbing is still slightly longer) and thus would be the largest DD in the game. She'll have a ton of HP but she'll also be an enormous target with no armor whatsoever. Just 19mm plating, 13mm superstructure and 6mm turrets, same as the much smaller Daring. Given the gigantic HP pool I'm not sure if she should get the same repair party as Daring but provisionally I'm keeping it there. I'm also adding DFAA since her AA would be kinda unimpressive for a T11 DD otherwise. As for the alternative firing mode gimmick, I have no idea what she'd get. Probably burst fire for the guns I guess.
  2. (clique na imagem para abrir no tamanho original) Proposta Consolidada para uma árvore tecnológica no jogo Depois de passar mais de um ano estudando o assunto, juntando desenhos e projetos há muito esquecidos, acho que dá para formar uma proposta e comparar esta com o que já se falou no forum. Por isso que chamo de proposta consolidada. Em linhas gerais, a linha pan-americana seria uma linha que exigiria mais qualidade do jogador, especialmente nos níveis intermediários. Isso refletiria a dificuldade com que as marinhas da América Latina adquiriam novos navios. Geralmente, quando o novo navio era comissionado na frota, ele já era de segunda geração (isso quando não era uma sucata inútil)... e rapidamente perdia a vanguarda tecnológica. Raras foram as exceções em que um navio de primeira geração foi comissionado numa frota latino-americana e permaneceu estrategicamente relevante por vários anos. Logo, o jogador com um navio latino-americano deveria ser sempre o mais frágil nesse tier, especialmente no caso dos encouraçados e cruzadores. Num primeiro momento, deixei de fora a proposta de porta-aviões. Parece, sim, que existiram idéias de conversões de navios para a função de porta-aviões, além da aquisição de porta-aviões do final da 2.ª GM. Talvez seja possível cobrir os tiers de 4 a 10. Mas não consegui pesquisar a fundo os projetos e os desenhos. Havendo a possibilidade de pesquisar isso mais a fundo, atualizo a proposta e a imagem. (Sei que vão perguntar) A imagem no topo é uma edição feita no photoshop para dar um sabor de 'como seria uma árvore tecnológica completa no jogo'. Não existem esses navios no jogo. A parte borrada é só uma máscara que encobre as linhas as quais eu ainda não terminei o trabalho de equiparar os desenhos que eu encontrei com os navios já existentes no jogo. Na medida que eu for progredindo, eu atualizo a imagem no topo. Links para todos os tópicos que tratam do assunto de navios pan-americanos (os que encontrei; perdão se deixei algum de fora): Nota: minha pesquisa se baseou pesadamente nos livros do Norman Friedman (historiador naval militar). Logo, muito do meu entender sobre os desenhos aqui propostos foi influenciado pela visão daquele historiador.
  3. With the recent announcement of I-56 (and with a high demand for I-400 to be added) I am turning my highly praised Japanese submarine line that I proposed a couple of months ago into a full on proposal with basic statistics for each ship. Over the next couple of days, I will be filling in this post with stats for each ship. In a nutshell, the line has short range acoustic torpedoes yet long range unguided torpedoes, poor maneuverability, speed, and detectability, good survivability and dive capacity, and the ability to surface and launch aircraft. Line characteristics: Short-range acoustic torpedoes that deal low damage yet are fast Long-range torpedoes that deal high damage yet are slow Poor torpedo launch angles yet decent reload Good secondary gun with long range (not player controlled) Good surviviability Large HP pool Decent armor Poor detectability Poor maneuverability Poor rudder shift time Decent turning radius Poor diving plane shift time Decent ascend/descend speed Poor speed Poor surface speed Poor underwater speed Good dive capacity Excellent dive capacity Decent dive capacity regen The ability to launch aircraft (similar to Ise and Tone) Small squadron size Small armament count High damage Decent squadron regen time I will also be updating this post over time as changes are made to submarines Tier 6: I-19 Part of the Japanese B1 class, she famously sunk two ships and damaged another with a singular torpedo salvo during the Guadalcanal campaign. One of her sisters, I-25, launched the first and only axis attack on the US mainland. Statistics: Tier 8: I-14 Commissioned late in the war as part of the AM class, she was effectivly a smaller I-400 in her characteristics and role. She carries two Aichi M6As armed with 1x torpedo each Tier 10: I-400 The lead ship of her class, I-400 and her planned sisters were envisioned to be a large underwater aircraft carrier fleet consisting of 18 submarines. However, this plan was canceled, and only three ships were built, coming too late in the war to make an impact. She carries three Aichi M6As armed with 1x torpedo each Tier 6 premium: I-25 Part of the Japanese B1 class, I-25 was the only axis ship to ever attack American soil, doing so twice. Her secondary gun is armed with HE and her bomber plane is also armed with HE bombs Tier 10 premium: ARP 1-401 I-401 might currently be in testing because she was spotted with the extended tech tree mod back in 2016 and her model was found in-game and was even used as a spotter plane. She is an exact duplicate of I-400. If you have any questions/comments/concerns please tell me below
  4. Hello, hello! The following is a "proposal" of a IJN CV line split. I say "proposal" because this line is probably going to come out some time 2022 - 2023 and this suggestion is unnecessary and is more of a prediction/early look. USN line proposal here NOTE: Pictures are not the same scale due to the lack of images in the same art style. My apologies! Line info: Splits starting at T6 Line gimmick: To be determined. If you have a suggestion for a line gimmick, please reply to this post. :) Tier 6: IJN Zuiho Originally layed down as a submarine tender, her design was changed to that of a light aircraft carrier due to Japan's involvement in WWII Her perma camo would be her 1944 version of her camo (name unknown) IJN Zuiho was originally the T5 in the IJN RTS CV line. She is extremely similar to Ryujo and would fit perfectly at T6. Tier 8: IJN Hiryu The only ship of her class, Hiryu had a unique design where her conning tower was on the left instead of the right. Used in Pearl Harbor, she was sunk at the Battle of Midway. Her perma camo would be similar to the Type 10 camo carried by Kaga IJN Hiryu was originally the T7 in the IJN RTS CV line. She is extremely similar to Shokaku and Kaga and would fit perfectly at T8. Tier 10: IJN Taiho Layed down in 1941, Taiho had heavy armor and increased protection. She was sunk by a US Submarine, however. Her perma camo would be her proposed late-war camo. (see spoiler) IJN Taiho was originally the T9 in the IJN RTS CV line. She is extremely similar to Hakuryu and would fit perfectly at T10. Tell me what you think below! I am also actively taking suggestions for a line gimmick. Once that is decided I will update this post so CHECK BACK HERE PLEASE! Gimmick proposals: 1. (Proposed by @lolpip) No rockets but HE and AP bombs with normal torpedo bombers -Elijah2159
  5. Hello, hello! The following is a "proposal" of a USN CV line split. I say "proposal" because this line is probably going to come out some time 2022 - 2023 and this suggestion is unnecessary and is more of a prediction/early look. IJN line proposal here All pictures are at the same scale to show the size difference between the three ships. Line info: Splits starting at T6 Line gimmick: To be determined. If you have a suggestion for a line gimmick, please reply to this post. :) Tier 6: USS Wasp Layed down in 1940 to fulfill the remaining tonnage for aircraft carriers that the US had from the Washington naval treaty, she was lost a mere 2 years later. Her perma camo would be her 1942 "Measure 12" camo USS Wasp was a smaller version of the Yorktown-class so it would fit perfectly at T6 with Yorktown at T8. Tier 8: USS Yorktown The successor to Lexington and Saratoga, Yorktown was the lead ship of her class. Her perma camo would be her 1942 "Measure 12" camo Announced around a month ago, Yorktown is not yet in-game yet it has been shown that she has modules like a tech-tree carrier so she is most likely coming to the US tech tree one way or another (most likely through a new line) Tier 10: USS Essex The lead ship of the most numerous CV class ever, Essex was in numerous battles in the Pacific, earning 13 battle stars. Her perma camo would be her 1943 "Measure 21" camo The T9 carrier in the RTS USN CV line, Essex was modeled previously in-game. She was the T10 in a WOWS tech tree split that was attempted. Tell me what you think below! I am also actively taking suggestions for a line gimmick. Once that is decided I will update this post so CHECK BACK HERE PLEASE! Proposed line gimmicks: 1. (Proposed by @Nevermore135) No rocket planes, weakened torpedoes, both HE and AP bombs -Elijah2159
  6. Hello, The following is a random idea for some bundles containing ships that were active at The Hunt for Bismarck Bundle 1: Royal Navy Hunters Bundle 2: Kreigsmarine Raiders Both bundles would be available from May 22 to May 28, with a 25% discount off of both containers on May 26-27 when the battle occurred. Thoughts?
  7. Hey everybody! The following is a proposal for a new ship to be added into the game, VIII Akagi Before I begin this proposal I want to get one thing clear: This is not meant as a replacement for Kaga. It is meant to balance out the amount of CVs in Japan compared to the USA and Germany. (USA has 1 premium carrier [plus another to be released], 1 freemium carrier and one "discontinued" premium carrier. Germany has the same. Japan (at the moment) only has one premium carrier.) Also, if this proposal is successful, I will probably propose Shinano as a T10 freemium carrier Heres a little bit of background info (this would go in the Ship Info area in the premium shop/armory): "Originally laid down as a battlecruiser, her design was later changed into a carrier during construction. She was the Japanese flagship in the famous attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, but was later sunk by the Americans at the battle of Midway. She carries torpedo bombers similar to VIII Kaga as well as HE dive bombers and AP dive* bombers" Here is how the ship would look/play/function: Ship model: Akagi would be modeled after her "modernization" (where her hangars were remodeled and the iconic three decks were phased into one flight deck). She would have a type 10 camoflauge similar to VIII Kaga except with the addition of sandbags around the conning tower (like she had from 1940 - 1942) Survivability: Hit points: 55,000 Torpedo damage reduction: 22.5% Damage control party (same as VIII Kaga) Secondary arament: 6x single casemate 20 cm (7.9 in) guns (3 on each side) Reload time 15.0 seconds Range: 4.5 km HE shells Maximum Damage: 3,250 Fire chance: 19.0% Penetration: 35 mm Velocity: 850 m/s 6x twin 12 cm (4.7 in) guns (3 on each side of the deck) Reload: 6.0 seconds Range: 4.5 km HE shells Maximum Damage: 2,000 Fire chance: 10.0% Penetration: 22 mm Velocity: 725 m/s AA arament: 6x twin 12 cm (4.7 in) guns (3 on each side of the deck) 14x twin 25mm (1 in) AA guns (7 on each side - spread out unevenly) Continuous damage: ~150 Damage from shell explosions: ~1,500 Priority sector reinforcement: 35% Firing range: ~5.5 to ~6.0 Maneuverability: Max speed: 31.5 knots Turning radius: 1,000 meters Rudder shift time: 15 seconds Concealment: Detectability range by sea: 13 km Detectability range by depths: 0 - 11 km Detectability range by air: 10 km Assured detectability range: 2 km Aircraft: (All aircraft and stats are historically accurate to VIII Akagi's aircraft during Pearl Harbor) Slot 1: Torpedo bombers (Nakajima B5N) (Tier VII) Hit points: 1,700 Cruising speed: 140 knots Maximum speed: 204 knots Engine boost time: 20s Engine boost cooldown time: 40s Size of attacking flight: 3 Aircraft per squadron: 12 Arament type: Type 91 mod. 2 Torpedoes in payload: 1 Maximum torpedo damage: 6,000 Torpedo speed: 50 kts Torpedo range: 5.0 km Arming distance: 806 m Detectability range by sea: 10 km Detectability range by air: 8.5 Aircraft on deck: 27 Aircraft restoration time: 85 seconds Slot 2: Armor-Piercing dive* bombers (Nakajima B5N) (Tier VII) Hit points: 1,700 Cruising speed: 140 knots Maximum speed: 204 knots Engine boost time: 20s Engine boost cooldown time 40s Size of attacking flight: 2 Aircraft per squadron: 8 Arament type: Type 99 No.80 Mk. 5 Bombs in payload: 2 Maximum bomb damage: 3,250 Detectabiliy range by sea: 10 km Detectability range by air: 8.5 km Aircraft on deck: 18 Aircraft restoration time: 85 seconds Slot 3: High-Explosive dive bombers (Aichi D3A) (Tier VII) Hit points: 1,600 Cruising speed: 160 knots Maximum speed: 230 knots Engine boost time: 15s Engine boost cooldown time: 35s Size of attacking flight: 2 Aircraft per squadron: 8 Arament type: Type 98 No. 25 land bomb Bombs in payload: 1 Maximum bomb damage: 2,750 Fire chance: 27.5% Detectability range by sea: 9.5 km Detectability range by air: 8 km Aircraft on deck: 18 Aircraft restoration time: 80 seconds Fighers: Ship-based (A6M2) (Tier VII) Hit points: 1,500 Number of fighers per squadron: 8 Figher flight time: 10 minutes Fighter reload time 75 seconds Engagement time: 20 seconds Detectability range: 8 km Detectability range by air: 6 km Detection range: 3 km Fighters: Patrol (A6M2) (Tier VII) Hit points: 1,300 Number of fighter per squadron: 6 Figher flight time: 60 seconds Engagement time: 20 seconds Detectability range: 8 km Detectability range by air: 6 km Detection range: 4 km Fighters: Interceptor (A6M2) (Tier VII) Hit points: 1,300 Number of fighter per squadron: 6 Figher flight time: 60 seconds Engagement time: 5 seconds Detectability range: 8 km Detectability range by air: 6 km *A quick note on this version of dive bombing: This type of dive bombing is NOT the same as Kaga (like it is for the HE dive bombers) but the attack is similar to Chkalov/Graf Zeppelin Prices and additional balancing is up to the World of Warships developers Please take this proposal into consideration because I, like a lot of other people, really want this ship due to its historical importance If you have any questions/comments/suggestions PLEASE leave them below :) Thank you -Elijah2159 (NA)
  8. After WG making an entire line of Pan-asia AA cruisers, using projects of Other nations that never saw the light of the day except the tier V that was comissioned in China and the others weren’t comissioned for the asiatic navies they represent in-game or were limited to blueprint stage. I decided to make my own research and propose my tech-tree of British AA cruisers, in a few minutes I will post another topic for US. The role and gameplay of this line in-game will be similar with the British light cruisers armed with 6 inch guns, but with dual purpose main weapons, higher RoF and weaker balistics and better AA. Also, to give more room for discussion and to not make my post too large, I will put only the most relevant content for the game itself. So the line starts at tier IV, making it a big tech-tree sub branch. I don’t think a fancy gimmick is needed to make this line interesting, since the ships themselves are already interesting enough to fit WoWs. I won't post the pictures, just to play safe, but I will give the sources below. Tier IV: HMS Carlisle (C-class/ Carlisle sub-class AA conversion) - 4290 long tons - 29 knots (4x2) - 102mm guns; (2) - 76mm AA guns; (2x4) - 40mm Pom-pom guns; No torps; (2x4) when built; Tier V: HMS Bellona (Sirius/ Bellona sub-class) - 7200 tons full load - 32.25 knots (4x2) - 133mm guns; (3x4) - 40mm Pom-pom guns; (24) - 20mm guns; (2x3) - 533mm torpedoes; OR a Hawkins-class cruiser AA conversion with 6 twin 133mm guns, she would balance better here, but unfortunatelly I didn’t find more info; Tier VI: HMS Argonaut (Sirius) - 6850 tons full load - 32.25 knots (5x2) 133mm guns; (2x4) - 40mm Pom-pom guns; (4) - 20mm guns; (2x3) - 533mm torpedoes; Tier VII: Design K25-F Light cruiser - 10450 tons full load (Crown Colony hull) - 32 knots Armour: 76mm Belt, 32mm Deck, Turrets had 76mm faces, 25mm sides and roofs; (8x2) 133mm Guns; (2x8) (2x4) 40mm Pom-pom guns (4x4) 12,7mm AA guns; (2x3) 533mm Torpedo Tubes; Tier VIII: Design K25-G Light cruiser - 10450 tons full load (Crown Colony hull) - 32 knots Armour: 76mm Belt, 32mm Deck, Turrets had 76mm faces, 25mm sides and roofs; (7x2) 133mm Guns - all in superfiring positions, also better firing angles, unlike K25-F; (2x8) (2x4) 40mm Pom-pom guns (4x4) 12,7mm AA guns; (2x3) 533mm Torpedo Tubes; Tier IX: OUR Project, there’s a big gap between pre-war and post-war designs to balance in WoWs, similar in a way to the gap between Omaha and Brooklyn, mainly in tonage. Tier X: Royal Navy Large cruiser Sketch I -17500 full load - 31 knots Armor: 89mm belt, 76mm deck; (4x2) 127mm/70 QF Mark N2 guns, 40 RPM; (6x2) 76mm/70 QF Mark N1 guns; (2x4) 40mm/70 OQF Mark XII AA guns; (4x4) -533mm torpdoes; Tier V (premium): HMS Delhi (Danae) - 5925 tons full load - 29 knots (5x1) 5-inch 38-calibre DP Mark 12; (4x2) 40mm Bofors; (12) 20mm Oerlikon; Reasons to become a premium: British cruiser armed with Amercian weapons; Sources for the ships that never were built: www.navweaps.com https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/the-1948-rn-cruiser-projects.34780/ Norman Friedman - British Cruisers: Two World War and After; Norman Friedman - The Postwar Naval Revolution; Alan Raven, John Roberts - British Cruisers of World War Two; David K. Brown, George Moore - Rebuilding the Royal Navy: Warship Design Since 1945; Also I have to thank Tzoli, his arts made easier to visualize the projects; https://www.deviantart.com/tzoli/gallery/77565994/rn-warships
  9. I posted earlier a similar topic focusing on British CLAAs, now it is time for the American ones. Player 40902nd made a similar topic, but I tried to give a smoother progression to the line like avoiding aircraft facilites on board, while using one more comissioned ship compared to his proposal. Also I recommend you guys to take a look. https://forum.worldofwarships.com/topic/241880-proposal-usn-anti-aircraft-light-cruiser-line-redux/?tab=comments#comment-5518675 If you are familiar with Atlanta the gameplay would be similar, but to make the line different from the premium versions while not creating a cancerous gameplay experience for the receiving end, my suggestion would not give them reload booster, radar or smoke and instead give the tiers VI and VII a standard heal, while the tiers VIII-X a heal similar to Salem to compensate their low HP at higher tiers. That means a more shellfish gameplay, moving away from the utility the premium versions offer. Tier VI: scheme 1A - 1936, I didn’t find the source or similar designs, so for this one take a look at the other topic I posted in the intro. Tier VII: USS San Diego CL-53 (Atlanta-class) - 8340 tons full load - 32.5 knots, famous! Very important! (8x2) 5in/38 Mark 12; (4x4) 40mm Bofors; (13) 20mm Oerlikon; (4x2) 533mm torpedoes; Tier VIII: USS Juneau CL-119 (Juneau-class) - 8450 tons full load - 32.5 knots (6x2) 5in/38 Mark 12; (These can be balanced at tier VIII with a higher RoF to compensate the reduced amount of weapons and less of them not in superfiring positions); (7x2) 3in AA guns; Doesnt have depth charges like the Atlanta-class, ironically making her better to deal with submerged submarines, since she can call aircraft to strike instead of rushing the target; Tier IX: S-511-23 “8100 Ton 5” Cruiser Design study DP Design study - 9950 tons full load - 33.5 knots, Sejong from the Pan-Asia faction is a similar design in-game (8x2) 5in/54; Smaller AA guns not mentioned; (4x2) 533mm torpedoes; Tier X: CL-154 - 11950 tons full load - 34.5 knots, sister from Austin in-game (6x2) or (8x2) 5in/54 autoloading; (6x2) or (8x2) 3in AA guns; Tier IX premium: S-511-36 “6” AA cruiser scheme “C” - 4 twin turrets - 14400 tons full load - 33 knots (4x2) 6in/47 DP guns; Smaller AA guns not mentioned; Source for S-511-23 and S-511-36: https://www.history.navy.mil/our-collections/photography/numerical-list-of-images/nhhc-series/s-file/S-511-23.html https://www.history.navy.mil/our-collections/photography/numerical-list-of-images/nhhc-series/s-file/S-511-36.html I was looking for “Atlanta-prototypes” or possible AA coversions for the Omaha-class as AA cruisers, in a similar way the British did with their WWI cruiser designs, unfortunatelly I couldnt find any relevant information.
  10. It's no secret that the USN battleship line split was a disappointment to many. Not simply because of the performance of the ships (though there's certainly that too in the eyes of many players, at least prior to the T10) but also because it was only 3 ships and failed to add the many actually-built US Navy BB classes that remain unrepresented in WOWS. There's also the fact that a line that revolves around slow BBs just isn't for everybody. So here's my proposal to solve both those problems. For those who have a need for speed, there's the battlecruiser and fast battleship line. And to flesh out the slow BB line, I have revisions to both it and the standard line. I'm also suggesting that some names be changed, because I greatly dislike the fact that Kansas and Minnesota (which are not in fact paper ships) weren't given their real names South Dakota and Indiana. Because of this I've used the name Kansas for a paper ships and renamed the SoDak Kansas to Indiana. Minnesota remains as is because I'm replacing her current SoDak hull with a slightly larger paper ship. I would also suggest that the premium Florida's name be changed since the real Florida will be part my proposal. Though if WG doesn't want to do that, it could simply be Florida '11 or Utah for the Florida class BB and any other pair of state names for my paper ships. I also want to globally buff the American 127mm/38 twin secondaries from the ridiculously slow 6 second reload (a gun crew that slow would be getting hell from the XO at the very least) to the same 4 sec as Massachusetts and Georgia. Though not the enhanced accuracy; those 2 should remain special for secondary build purposes. If those ships weren't already quite strong I'd suggest buffing their secondaries to 3 sec reload. I'll start out with the fast line since it's (almost) entirely new, while a bunch of the standard and slow lines will be ships we already have. The common elements of this line consumable-wise is that they'll get regular Repair Party rather than the enhanced version of the standard BB line, and starting at T5 they'll get Engine Boost. Tier IV: USS Chesapeake Wyoming-equivalent battlecruiser Chesapeake is as the design description implies essentially a battlecruiser counterpart to Wyoming. She brings us into the line somewhat gradually, because her speed is (while not bad) is not as fast as the other T4 battlecruisers Myōgi and Moltke, and her 203mm belt armor is actually thicker than the next several ships. (That said she won't have much internal plating between that belt and the citadel. And since the armor scheme is based on Wyoming the 152mm upper belt will be just barely above the waterline. So even if you don't get citadeled you'll eat a ton of pens.) She's also the closest to the British concept of a battlecruiser, in that she's the direct counterpart to a battleship and gets her speed by losing some armor and a gun turret relative to that equivalent BB.. Tier V: USS President 1915 Preliminary Design No.145 President is is early in the design lineage that led to the Lexington class battlecruisers. While her predecessor eased you into the squishiness of the battlecruiser, she leaps right into it by having only a 127mm belt and a top speed of 30 knots. She also upgrades to 4x2 356mm/45 guns. The paper stats would suggest she's just a worse version of Kongō (which can make the same speed with equivalent armament while having a 203mm belt), this is where the core consumable of the fast line comes into play: Engine Boost. She gets the regular destroyer version rather than the longer duration and shorter cooldown version of Georgia, but that will change later in the line. Tier VI: USS Cumberland 1916 Preliminary Design No.169 Cumberland is the design that was originally chosen for Lexington, but US entry into World War I meant construction never started, and the design was comprehensively reworked afterward. This iteration is armed with 10x 356mm/50 with triple turrets superfiring over twins, an unusual layout (normally when there's mixed turrets, the heavier ones are at deck level and the lighter ones superfiring) that's shared by the T6 heavy cruiser Pensacola. She's also the fastest ship in the line and even without the Engine Boost activated she's the fastest "battleship" in the game at 35 knots. But she pays for this in lack of armor. Not only does she have only 127mm belt armor, her citadel is enormous. Worse yet, there are sections of it (directly below the 3 centerline funnels) where the boiler rooms extend above the belt armor and thus have only 26mm hull plating between the boiler room walls (whose thickness I'd guess would only be 19mm) and the air. IRL the US Navy clearly dodged a bullet by not building these things. In WOWS? Well she's a T6 BB that can exceed 40 knots (by using a Sierra Mike, Engine Boost and the Brisk commander skill). That's almost as hilarious as her terrible armor scheme and her 7 (count 'em) funnels. If those exposed boiler rooms are too much of a problem, well boiler technology was improving rapidly in this era. A refit that removes those upper boiler rooms yet maintains the same horsepower would be very easy if she was refitted even as soon as the mid 1920s, let alone the 1930s. In other words WG could just not model those as part of the citadel; they've done far less realistic things on other ships. Tier VII: USS Constitution Lexington class battlecruiser Constitution is the actual Lexington class battlecruiser. Constellation's sister ship, but without the 1940s style refit that WG gave her. As such she'd have only minor changes from the real life design, replacing the majority of the open-mouth 152mm secondaries with 127mm/25 AA guns, adding light AA in the copious empty deck space and adding a 26mm torpedo bulge. The belt is now 178mm and angled at 12°. Speed drops to 33.5 knots, but now you get the 180 second duration, 90 second cooldown version of Engine Boost. And most importantly, unlike Constellation she won't have lazy copy-pasted Colorado turrets and guns. She'll have the proper 406mm/50 Mark 2 guns. However they'll be firing a relatively lightweight shell (957.1kg) which many years ago was Colorado's stock shell. Not even the dowtiered premium West Virginia '41 has that shell. (Which is too bad in the sense that I can't go to gamemodels3d.com and look up the Krupp value of a shell that's no longer in the game files.) The krupp value can be set at whatever it needs to be for those relatively lighter shells to be a viable BB armament. But on the plus side you get a very high muzzle velocity of 853m/s. Tier VIII: USS America Battle Cruiser 1919 Scheme B In order to distinguish the T8 ship from Constellation in more than just the consumable loadout, I went with one of the other late designs from the Lexington preliminaries for America. She has the same guns (although designated 406mm/50 Mark 3; IRL the only difference between Marks 2 and 3 was the construction method) as Constitution but now fires the same 1016kg shells as Colorado and Constellation. In the longer-barrel gun this gives her a 820m/s muzzle velocity. The belt armor is 229mm rather than 178mm. Tier IX: USS Iowa Not much that needs explaining here. The fast line is Iowa's natural home, and there are no true battlecruisers designed by the US Navy post-1922. Her only changes will be losing the enhanced heal and gaining Engine Boost. Yes, she'll keep her 32mm plating. Oh and add 3x1 20mm Oerlikon on top of the B turret of the stock hull. More for aesthetic purposes than for an AA buff. Tier X: USS New Hampshire BB-65 Scheme 8 While as I said there were no more USN battlecruiser designs after 1922, New Hampshire comes close. She's essentially a battlecruiser version of Montana, keeping the same armor and speed as Iowa while having the same armament as Montana. What does it take to achieve this? A ship that's enormous with a powerplant that's frankly ludicrous. This ship is a whopping 320m long at the waterline (and therefore about 328.3m overall, based on having the same bow and stern design as Iowa). By comparison WG has told us that Großer Kurfürst is 313.3m overall. And to get up to 33 knots on that hull she has 6 shafts (no longer will the ridiculous Kearsarge be the only 6-shaft ship in WOWS) turned by engines producing 320,000 horsepower. For gameplay purposes she's pretty much just a faster less armored Montana. Though that gigantic length means a long citadel and she's a large target in general, and the detection by air gets into "visible from the moon" range. Next up we have the standard BB line. In terms of new ships it'll actually be getting more than the slow line, but that's because I'm moving 3 ships in the standard line now over to the slow line. This being USN battleships though, both lines will be slow until we get to T8. Though to differentiate them I'll give the standard line improved acceleration and lose less speed in a turn. Like the British CLs, but nowhere near as extreme as their magic rudders that let you gain speed in a turn. The reason I chose the specific ships I did to switch over to the slow line is to maintain the theme of the 3 ships Wargaming already added to the slow line: more guns of equal or higher caliber than the standard line, while the standard line reload faster and get better accuracy. Tier III: USS South Carolina Though on the subject of speed, I would buff SC's to 20.5 knots, which she actually achieved on trials. Tier IV: USS Florida Essentially like Wyoming but with 1 less turret. In exchange for the reduced firepower you get better firing angles (particularly the forward angles) and more importantly better accuracy. Tier V: USS Kansas BB-36 Scheme A The first paper ship of the standard line is essentially an 8 gun version of the Nevada class. I didn't put Nevada herself here because her armor is so much better than New York that they're just not equivalent. We've already seen with Oklahoma what it takes to put a Nevada class in T5, and it ain't pretty. Kansas will have 28 second reload and high accuracy to make up for her low gun count. Well that and a refit that gives her B hull 28mm torpedo bulges that give good torpedo damage reduction and also can't be overmatched 381mm AP shells. Tier VI: USS Nevada Nevada will be in her post Pearl Harbor refit which is very similar to Tennessee. Being a tier lower she won't get 35mm torpedo bulges but she will get 32mm. Her 30 second reload won't entirely make up for having only 10 guns at this tier, but again she'll have excellent accuracy. Tier VII: USS Colorado The biggest change to Colorado is that the above (representing Maryland in 1945) will either become a C hull or just replace her current B hull. Honestly I'd kinda prefer to rename her Maryland (fun fact: Colorado was completed 2 years after Maryland despite being the "lead ship") and rename the West Virginia '41 premium to Colorado. But WG isn't likely to do that. At any rate, this gives her better AA and secondaries. Tier VIII: USS North Carolina Nothing particular changes other than the line's flavor of improved acceleration and rudder. Tier IX: USS Maine BB-65 Scheme G Unfortunately I can't find a sketch of this one anywhere. It's an early Montana preliminary design that's in the same size range as Iowa. Basically a slow Iowa with a 391mm belt. Tier X: USS Montana Nothing particular changes other than the line's flavor of improved acceleration and rudder. And now the slow line. The core flavor remains the same, more guns of at least the same caliber with less accuracy and slower reload. Tier III: USS Delaware Delaware is very similar to the standard line T4 Florida, but at T3 she'll have 3 major handicaps. First is reduced accuracy. Second is much worse firing angles for the Y turret. you'll have to be really careful when bringing all 10 guns to bear. Most important is 37 second reload. If you think this is too strong for T3 then Knyaz Suvorov says hi. Though I'd rate Delaware as the least important ship to include, she still is a real ship and thus I put her here. Tier IV: USS Wyoming Nothing changes. Tier V: USS New York Nothing changes. I would've remove the buff she got not long ago to her reload just to keep the "flavor" of slower reload, but her performance is bad enough that nerfs wouldn't be justified. Tier VI: USS New Mexico Only change is adding the above (USS Idaho with 10x1 127mm/38 secondaries; the only use of 5"/38 single turrets on a battleship) as a C hull. Tier VII: USS North Dakota 1917 Preliminary Design No.164 Pretty simple, North Dakota is a 10-gun Colorado. Turret layout is the same as Nevada. Because of the extra barrels she gets saddled with a 37.5 sec reload and less accuracy, and also the older shells that don't perform as well. Tier VIII: USS Indiana The ship we currently know as Kansas. But she'll be getting some buffs. The current totally fictional guns get removed in favor of the 406mm/50 Mark 2. This will be the same gun as on Constitution and the reload will be buffed to 38.5 seconds. Tier IX: USS Minnesota February 1919 Preliminary Design for a Fast Battleship Minnesota gets reworked into a slightly longer ship. "Fast" Battleship is relative, this design was intended to reach only 25 knots. And since she's in a post Pearl Harbor style refit along with me altering the design to retain the 343mm belt of the 1920 SoDak she'll be a bit slower than that. She'll get the same 406mm/50 Mark 3 as America and a reload of 37.5 seconds. Tier X: USS Vermont Minimal changes than buffing speed to 25 knots, the actual design speed of the Tillman IV-2 she's based on. She'll still be by far the slowest in tier, but less painfully so. Possibly add 1 more 127mm/38 turret per side. Or possibly replace replace the 127mm turrets with the twin 152 mm/47 DP Mark 16 of Worcester. But Vermont isn't outright terrible like her slow-line predecessors; the 457mm guns hit hard enough to make up for her shortcomings. General notes: The names of the battlecruisers came from prominent age of sail US Navy warships, as that had been the intended naming theme with the Lexington class CCs. While I was hoping WG would change Congress's name to a territory before it was released (it's a CB, not a CC) I left it out anyway. For the pair of Montana preliminaries I used the names of the 3rd and 4th ships of the class (2nd ship was Ohio which is already in use). Since United States has now been used for the US supercarrier, I changed the T8 CC to America. Since I was constraining myself to the theme WG already established for the slow line (more guns of at least same caliber as the main line's same tier BB) I sadly didn't have a place for Pennsylvania and Tennessee. But since their sister ships are already in the game I considered all the other Standard Type and pre-Standard BB classes that aren't implemented in any form a higher priority anyway. I didn't list AA values or basic dispersion values because I don't have a clue how WG derives either of those. Concealment, turning circle and rudder shift values were just taking a wild guess on the basis of other ships in the game with similar hull sizes, and firing range was whatever seemed like a good idea at the time. The AA armaments were again based on what other same-tier American BBs get (and real-life AA for the real ships). I actually started out trying to make a USN BB split years ago, before the CV rework (back when AA values were simple), and made adjustments in my free time in response to other ships WG has added. Originally my 2nd BB line idea (I'd yet to make any effort at all at a battlecruiser and fast BB line) didn't actually have any coherent theme, it was just a grab bag of the ship classes that weren't in the main line. So as much as I think WG botched the slow BB line, at least they forced me to do something coherent. And here's a chart summarizing the 3 lines: CC/Fast BB line Standard BB line Slow BB line 3 South Carolina Delaware 4 Chesapeake (Wyoming equivalent CC) Florida Wyoming 5 President (1915 Preliminary No.145) Kansas (BB-36 Scheme A) New York 6 Cumberland (1916 Preliminary No.169) Nevada New Mexico (with Idaho as the C hull) 7 Constitution (Lexington as designed) Colorado (with Maryland as the B hull) North Dakota (1917 Preliminary No.164) 8 America (Battle Cruiser Scheme B) North Carolina Indiana (1920 SoDak) 9 Iowa Maine (BB-65 Scheme G) Minnesota (Feb 1919 Preliminary Design) 10 New Hampshire (BB-65 Scheme 8) Montana Vermont I think that's everything. I guess at some point I'll need to do this for Commonwealth CA and DD lines, too.
  11. Well I said my next project would be proposing a Commonwealth cruiser line, so here it is. In the absence of T9-10 options that aren't straight clones of Neptune and Minotaur (or British export designs offered to South America and thus better-suited for the Pan-America line) and because of several Australian CA designs, I opted to make it a heavy cruiser rather than light cruiser line. This also differentiates the tech tree from the existing Commonwealth CL premiums yet also retaining the signature Crawling Smoke Generator consumable. I had to revise this line because just less than a month ago my long-intended Tier 10 choice was announced as a British premium. But what's bad for uniqueness within the line might be better for keeping a coherent line progression. With 190mm guns at T4, it's the lowest tier transition from CL to CA of any tech tree. Tier I: HMCS Prince David For T1 we could do a lazy copy-paste of one of the Black Swan class of India or Pakistan, but there's something more interesting. A passenger liner. No really. HMCS Prince David is a relatively small (5700 ton) passenger liner that was converted to an armed merchant cruiser. She was surprisingly cruiser-like in appearance after the conversion with 4x1 152mm guns in AB-XY superfiring pairs. Which might have saved her when she allegedly encountered Admiral Hipper in 1941; since German cruisers on surface raiding missions were supposed to avoid battle with enemy cruisers to avoid damage. But in reality this reported confrontation was probably invented for propaganda, and what she really chased off was a supply ship for U-boats or at most one of Germany's disguised auxiliary cruisers. I have no idea what if any formula WG uses to come up with HP pools of T1 cruisers. It's not the same that they use for other cruisers. So I'm arbitrarily giving Prince David 10k HP. She's an ocean liner hull, the only armor is the gun shields. She's also the biggest target with the worst concealment of any T1. She needs a big HP to survive. Tier II: HMAS Encounter Challenger class protected cruiser At T2 we use the Challenger class protected cruiser HMAS Encounter. (Gratuitous ship's cat photo now.) She has a very hefty armament of 11x1 152mm guns with up to 6 gun broadside, so I'm nerfing her muzzle velocity to 784m/s (the velocity using light instead of heavy charges) to make the shells floatier and reduce the AP alpha to 2800, and restricting the reload speed to 10 sec. I haven't been able to find any pictures that show her gun layout, but the preceding Highflyer class had the same layout: As a protected cruiser, she has no actual belt armor. Her protection is entirely from the deck armor. Most T2 cruisers are like this. When being shot from the front or rear she does get the advantage of 127mm engine room hatches, which mean part of the citadel athwartships is quite thick. Tier III: HMAS Adelaide Birmingham class light cruiser The CL HMAS Adelaide would be my choice for T3 (she's basically the British T2 Weymouth except with the addition of an extra 152mm gun and more importantly some actual armor). I'm choosing her instead of HMCS Niobe (which I see as T3 premium material) because of Adelaide's historical importance of actually being built in Australia and also to lead into the T4 cruiser. During WW2 her armament was rearranged so that she had only 7 guns but retained the same 5 gun broadside. But since those refits would be counterproductive in WOWS (the AA would still be bad even after the refit, and even after subs get added a T3 ship will never see them) I'd skip those.   Instead I'll go with a fictional blend of the 2 refits to create a B hull with a 6 gun broadside: Tier IV: HMAS Darwin Improved Birmingham Variant B HMAS Darwin is an enlarged alternative design that was considered for Adelaide, armed with 190mm guns in turrets all down the centerline. The longer hull and slightly increased horsepower also gives her 1 knot more speed. Gameplay-wise this is where the Crawling Smoke Generator makes its first appearance in the line. I'm also altering the design by adding a triple torpedo launcher on each side. Turret thickness in my stat sheet is guesswork based on the similar turrets of WW1 British armoured cruisers with 190mm guns, but it might be much thinner on account of the smaller ship. Tier V: HMNZS Canterbury Vickers Design 1242 While this Vickers export design was offered to Australia, I decided to spread things around a bit by giving her to New Zealand instead. The hull and armament are extremely similar to the British T5 premium Exeter. But as a Commonwealth CA she gets Crawling Smoke rather than Repair Party Tier VI: HMAS Australia Kent class heavy cruiser HMAS Australia is a ship that was actually built and saw extensive wartime service. She's a Kent class CA and thus half-sister to London and Devonshire. She has a thicker main belt than them, but it's not as tall. Whether that's good or bad depends on what's shooting at you. You'll probably get more pens but also more overpens from shells that go high rather than hitting the citadel, and the citadel itself is slightly better protected with the 127mm rather than 114mm belt. But since you don't have Repair Party, any damage you take is going to stick. Tier VII: HMAS Brisbane Cockatoo Naval Yard heavy cruiser design of 1924 At T7 we see the Cockatoo Naval Yard Heavy Cruiser of 1924, which uses a slightly enlarged version of the Hawkins hull but mounts 3x3 203mm guns. This one is an oddball on several levels. The casemated secondaries (an oddity even on the conceptual level for a heavy cruiser) are apparently American 5"/51s and the Hawkins hull is badly armored. But the main armament is such an obvious upgrade over Australia means she needs to be a tier higher. And the fact that she's an indigenous design of Australia's shipyard means she can't just be skipped over. Of all the paper ships of a Commonwealth CA line she's probably the most important one to include. But Australia herself is also too important to skip so I can't toss her at T6 and find something else to be T7. If her armor is kept the same as Hawkins she'll have a 38mm icebreaker but also a massive citadel that's only 64 to 76mm thick on belt along with citadel deck and bulkheads that are only 16mm thick in parts. Personally I'd just lower the citadel (though it's still above waterline) and beef up the belt armor around the citadel portion to 127mm. The B hull would probably also remove the casemate secondaries to make room for 102mm AA guns. Tier VIII: HMAS Newcastle Vickers Design 1074X Newcastle is Vickers Export Design 1074X, another 3x3 203mm cruiser. This is essentially an enlarged York class (or Vickers 1242) with triple turrets rather than being in the direct lineage of the British County class CAs. Another interesting feature is that it calls for 4x3 622mm torpedo tubes. IRL the only ships ever to mount this weapon (the 24.5" Mk I torpedo) were the Nelson class battleships in fixed underwater tubes. But despite the huge caliber these wouldn't hit any harder than British 533mm torps. They only had a 337kg warhead, actually a tiny bit smaller than the Mk IX series of torps that mid to high tier British cruisers carry. The purpose of the huge size was to increase range, with the lowest range setting being 13.7km at 35 knots (though remember that all ship launched torps have their speed in WOWS set to ~20 knots faster than IRL). I'm going to make fictional upgraded versions of these torps for the T9-10 CAs, just for "flavour" purposes. Given that British cruiser design of the time had near-nonexistent 25mm belts (to meet the 10k ton treaty weight limits) but were suspiciously easily to refit with thicker belts once the treaties were breached by Japan and Italy, probably the same is true of Vickers 1074X. So I'll just give her a 152mm belt and call it a day. Tier IX: INS Vikrant 1940 21,500 Ton Cruiser Design B At this point we've run out Australian CA designs, so I'm resorting to the leftovers that WG didn't use in the British CA line. T8-10 of that line are based on early 1940s British design studies for post-treaty heavy cruisers. But there are more such ships that WG didn't use. Bringing back the 9.2" (234mm) as a cruiser gun was Winston Churchill's pet project as First Lord of the Admiralty. After becoming PM he was less directly involved in naval affairs and that's when the project died. But one of these large cruisers was instead armed with 4x3 203mm and weighed in at 21500 tons standard (so maybe 23000 tons full load). That's the design I'm suggesting for T9. This is a hull very similar to Drake in the British line but with a larger number of smaller guns. I'm putting this one under the Indian flag as INS Vikrant. Tier X: HMCS Canada 4x4 203mm Goliath And here we have it, the dreaded copy-paste turret-swap. I'm left without any other options for this tier since the British T10 premium Gibraltar is using the design I'd originally wanted. But maybe it's better this way, since suddenly springing a 234mm gun cruiser at T10 after 5 straight tiers of 203mm wouldn't be the smoothest transition. I'm going to give this one to Canada under the name HMCS Canada. And here's some potential associated premiums: Tier III: HMCS Niobe Diadem class protected cruiser Niobe was the 2nd ship of the Royal Canadian Navy, and the 1st that's workable for this game. I chose her as a premium because she's just so different from the rest of the tree. She has a lot in common with St. Louis but there are a few differences. She has even more guns and better HE DPM, but worse AP DPM and much worse shell velocity. She has even bigger HP pool (800 more HP than South Carolina!) and a thicker turtleback deck over the citadel, but no belt armor at all. Tier III: HMAS Sydney Chatham class light cruiser Sydney is a direct predecessor of Adelaide. Largely the same ship as stock Adelaide but with 1 less gun. The layout is identical to British T2 Weymouth. But she's too strong for T2 so here she is. I'm just including her for historical importance as the ship that won the very first battle in the Royal Australian Navy's history. On November 9, 1914 she hunted down and defeated the German cruiser SMS Emden (already in WOWS as a T2 German premium) in the very one-sided Battle of Cocos. This is what Emden looked like afterward: To somewhat make up for the weaker armament she gets faster reload. Tier IV: HMCS Prince Robert d Prince Robert is the sister ship of the T1 cruiser Prince David. Initially she was given the same conversion as an armed merchant cruiser. While her sister ships were converted again to infantry landing ships for D-Day, Prince Robert was instead refitted as an AA escort. With 5 twin 102mm, a pair of quad 40mm pom-poms and 12 single 20mm Oerlikons she should be a bit of a surprise T4 CV players who are used to nonexistent AA. Those 10 fast-firing guns mean great DPM as well. But she's still a merchant ship hull with no armor, and unlike her T1 sister her HP pool is now rather low for the tier. Everything can pen her everywhere, including HE shells and rockets through the belt. She's also slow. The protected matchmaking spread of T4 isn't a luxury for her but a necessity. You'll need to make use of islands and your smokescreen to stay alive long enough to make use of the DPM. Tier V: HMAS Canberra Kent class heavy cruiser HMAS Canberra is Australia's is sister ship. She's a tier lower for a good reason though, which you'll be able to see in stats. The 25mm belt is not a typo. She's one of the County class that didn't have time to get refitted with a proper belt. Which probably didn't help at the Battle of Savo Island where she was lost, though the 3 New Orleans class cruisers with 127mm belts also sunk in that battle indicate it wouldn't have mattered. Otherwise she's pretty much a stock Australia. With arbitrarily lower shell velocity and AP alpha (same as the inaccurate velocity WG used for Devonshire). This is the definition of glass cannon cruiser. At one point I would've put Canberra in the tech tree at T6 and Australia at T7, with the Cockatoo heavy cruiser as a T7 premium. But cruiser powercreep starting with the USN cruiser split meant that ceased to be viable. And a no-belt-armor CA in the tech tree would've been awkward anyway. I didn't include the Dido class cruisers PNS Babur and HMNZS Royalist in my premium ideas because @Commissar_Carl already covered them in detail (the links are to his posts). There's also 1944 Australian light cruiser design that's essentially a mini-Neptune (4x3 133mm guns instead of 152mm) that would fit at T8. But aside from not being thematically related to the CA line, in the event that suitable T9-10 designs can be found other than copy-pasting Neptune and Minotaur she'd be a good fit for a Commonwealth CL split. Such a split could consist of T4 HMS Dunedin (a Danae clone representing the New Zealand Division of the Royal Navy; the Royal New Zealand Navy proper didn't come until 1941), T5 HMNZS Achilles/INS Delhi (the same ship, a Leander with 1 turret removed), T6 HMCS Quebec (ex-HMS Uganda, a Fiji with 1 turret removed like the premium Mysore) and T7 HMCS Ontario (an improved Fiji but still with only 3 turrets, could get buffed reload to fit into the tier). While the CL line would have fewer paper ships, it would also be less unique so I went with CAs. I would like the CL line to happen as well, maybe even just stopping at T8 until proper top-tier ships can be found like WG initially did with the IJN DD split. In the unlikely event that WG ever expands low-tier in the way I've proposed before by redesignating the T1 ships as "Tier 0" and putting small turn of the century cruisers and destroyers at T1 along with pre-dreadnought BBs at T1 and 2 (so that T1 would become part of the normal tiers instead of a walled-off training area) I'd put the small protected cruiser HMS (later HMNZS) Philomel at that new T1.
  12. Here we go! This is a complete rework of my previous USN CB Line, this time starting from tier 5. The only ship to not be reworked is the Tier 10, USS Guam. Tier V USS Memphis Last of the Big Armored Cruisers, the Tennessee-Class were the largest and most powerful class of armored cruisers built by the USN. The four ships of the class were initially named after states, but were named after cities in those states in the 1920s, when they were reclassified as heavy cruisers to free up those names for battleships. The ship, as presented stock, is based off of the Memphis (ex-Tennessee) as she was commissioned. In this configuration, she’ll mostly play as a battleship, except with fewer guns and weaker armor, those with subsequent upgrades, she will start playing close to a battlecruiser or supercruiser. The most visible change, of course, would be the Hull B upgrade, which would reduce the funnels for 4 to 3 and change the bow from a ram bow to a flared bow similar in design to the one found on the Lexington-Class Battlecruiser (modeled in-game as Constellation). It would also eliminate the lower 6” casemates and 3” sponsons, while adding some of those 6” guns as open mounts on the upper decks. It would also add in at least some anti-air in the form of 5”/25 and .50 cal guns. While I’d want the funnel change to be reserved for the engine change, I do not know of any ships that have such a feature. Speaking of engines, it was found that they could install a power plant similar to that found on USS Ranger into the 3 remaining ships of the class without having to reshaft the ships, which would give the ships (USS Memphis having earlier being destroyed by a tsunami) a speed of 26 knts. This was never carried out. As part of the various modernization plans, where was discussion of replacing her aging twin 10”/40 main battery with newer triple 8”/55 guns, which I believe would appear similar to the B and X turrets of the Pensacola. Tier VI “Reciprocal Cruiser” USS New York City [Picture Not Available] A follow-up design to the Tennessee-Class, this ship was proposed by the Naval War College and was favored for a time, before losing out in favor of the battlecruiser. The idea of the “Reciprocal Cruiser” was to trade armament for speed, as opposed to the battlecruiser, which traded armor for speed. This cruiser was supposed to be powerful enough to fight through a screening element and survivable enough to comeback to report what intelligence was gathered. At this moment, I have been having difficulty getting hard numbers for this ship, but what is known is that it would have been similar in size to the Tennessee, but would trade the latter’s 6-inch battery for heavier armor and 12-inch guns. For armor, I looked to period USN battleships and used their upper belt for the main belt and the casemate armor for the upper belt, while the deck armor was kept the same (meaning a vulnerability to plunging fire). The turret armor is off of the USS Connecticut (1906), which also used the same guns. The speed is based off of the fact that the USN wanted ships 20% faster that battleships to handle this role (this was shortly after the battlecruiser won out over the reciprocal cruiser, but they were two different ways to do the same job, so I thought it appropriate). The upgrade from Hull A to Hull B will follow the same idea as the previous class, with a more modern bow being added, as well as sacrificing the lower casemates and sponsons, which would be wet, anyway, for better compartmentalization. Tier VII Heavy Cruiser Scheme 3 USS Sacramento One of the designs leading up to the Alaska, this scheme was rejected, as it was seen as "unbalanced". That is, this design was meant to stand up only against 8" gun fire, and not 12" guns. I feel that the Sacramento would be a good transition from the Armored Cruisers to the Large Cruisers, without being too over powered. She introduces the three turret layout and the speed, while missing the overall heavy armor of the preceding ships. Tier VIII CA2-E USS Samoa While at first glance, the Samoa might look like a Congress with one less gun, but the Samoa follows the armor profile of the actual CA2-E, meaning that the main deck is 51mm, as opposed to the 38mm of Congress. Overall protection from bombs should be the same, as the main deck is thicker, the armored deck is thinner. This is will give some protection from HE spammers. Tier IX CA2-G USS Philippines While the CA2-G lacks a barrel when compared to the Alaska, she makes up for this in armor. The turret layout has a 3-gun turret fore and aft, with the two-gun turret superfiring over the forward turret. Tier X USS Guam Instead of trying to pare down the Alaska to a Tier 9, it seemed easier to push her up to Tier 10. Increased reload, better range, better turret rotation, and increased health are some of the things that have been improved. CA2-H would be a more consistent choice with the line, but the Guam was a 'Real Steel' ship and so I chose her. Premium Tier VIII “Improved Wichita” armed with 12” guns USS Madison [Picture Not Available] The “Improved Wichita” would eventually become the Baltimore-Class. There was discussion on what it would take to equip this ship with 12” guns. Mostly this entailed increasing the length by some 6 feet in order to make room for the ammunition. She should handle much like the standard Wichita, for the most part, just with bigger guns.
  13. Overestimating WG's ability to adding new ships to the game, here's some Canadian light cruiser line suggestions (then again, a commonwealth line would be easier to do probably but idk). This is a bit of a pipe dream as most of these ships are fictional. Anyone with more experience can hop in and give input of you want. Saw some people proposing lines and thought it would be fun to try adding my proposal ideas. Gimmicks (gimmicks are average and subject to change, the higher the tier) Basic Stats: Low detectability Average speed High maneuverability High HE pen Mediocre AP pen Poor armor Consumables: Torpedo Tubes [available at III and beyond] Crawling Smoke [available at VI and beyond] Hydroacoustic Search [available at VII and beyond] Fighter and Defensive AA Fire [available at VIII and beyond as options over Hydro] Surveillance Radar [available at VIII and beyond as an option over Smoke] Repair Party [available at IX and beyond] Specialized Repair Teams [available exclusively to premium IX Edmonton] Spotting Aircraft [available exclusively to premium VII Quebec] Ships (w/ main battery armaments) {reimagined = adjusted armament to fit the line) I Sackville (reimagined) (4x1 120mm) II Niobe (reimagined) (8x1 152mm) III Aurora (reimagined) (8x1 152mm) IV Moncton (3x2 152mm) V Ottawa (4x2 152mm) VI Montreal (4x2 152mm) VII Ontario (3x3 152mm) VIII Halifax (4x3 152mm) IX Vancouver (5x3 152mm) (similar turret layout to Mogami) X Victoria (4x4 152mm) (similar to Plymouth) Premiums: II Rainbow (reimagined) (8x1 152mm) VI Toronto (4x2 203mm) (imagined CAN CA of the UK County-class heavy cruisers) VII Quebec (3x3 152mm) (Surveillance Radar is available as well as Spotting Aircraft, but no Smoke) IX Edmonton (3x4 152mm) (Victoria with one less turret, but with exclusive Specialized Repair Teams) It's really late as I'm making this post so add and take what you want from this. IMAGES OF EXISTING SHIPS: I Sackville II Niobe III Aurora VII Ontario Premium II Rainbow Premium VII Quebec
  14. In light of the fire over CVs and Subs, as well as the lack of game modes, maybe a new game mode can be implemented as a random battle subcategory. You can choose to play regular random battle with all ship categories, or you can choose another random battle option that excludes, CVs, Subs, or even both. Then those who are willing to face CVs and Subs can play with them while those who wish not to play with CVs and Subs can play without them. This can bring back the old strategic gimmicks of WoWS pre-CV while still keeping CVs (and Subs) in the game. Thoughts?
  15. I am a huge fan of the super cruiser playstyle. I have been since the Admiral Graf Spee came into the game, and I have enjoyed the playstyle that the other super-cruisers have had to offer. Some, I'll admit, are harder to love than others (looking at you, Azuma), but I do like them all, none-the-less. Therefore, I have taken it upon my self to do research and see if it was possible to bring a tech tree line of super-cruisers into the game. Here, I present the USN Larger Cruisers. My next project will be the KM Panzerschiffes, which I am currently sources for. Tier VIII Heavy Cruiser Scheme 4-A “Convertible” (Alaska Preliminary Design) USS Montgomery Perhaps my favorite design in this line, the Montgomery is based off of Scheme 4 in a series of designs that lead to the creation of the Alaska-Class large cruisers. At this time, the USN is trying to decide if a 12” gun cruiser was viable or even needed. One of the ideas was to build 8” gun cruisers that could later be converted into 12” gun cruisers if/when it was needed. This is one of the designs used to investigate the feasibility of this. Turrets A, B, and Y sit on barbettes designed for twin 12” turrets, while turret X sits on a much smaller inverted conical barbette, which is common for triple 8” turrets. When installing the 12” turrets in-game, the X barbette will be deleted, allowing for the Y turret to freely rotate 360 degrees. While the Montgomery has the 12" guns, for health and fire duration it is a cruiser. Tier IX 12” Gun Cruiser Study CA2-A USS Samoa One of the CA2 series of designs that would yield the Alaska-Class. Samoa is named for one of the canceled Alaska-Class, and is an attempt to make an actual Tier 9 Alaska, instead of the Tier 9.5 that that ship currently is. Samoa has super-cruiser health and fire duration. Tier X USS Guam Instead of trying to pare down the Alaska to a Tier 9, it seemed easier to push her up to Tier 10. Increased reload, better range, better turret rotation, and increased health are some of the things that have been improved. The idea is to make a balanced tier 10 Alaska, without being too strong or too weak. Premium Tier VI-VII Heavy Cruiser Scheme 3 USS Sacramento Similar to Scheme 4, but with the 12" guns mounted, when using the super-cruiser formula, the Sacramento's health drops considerably. Because of this, I think she would make a good Tier 6 or 7, depending on balance of consumables. She'd be roughly analogous so Graf Spee in terms of both health and dpm, but with slightly larger guns. With the Mk.7 12" guns, she'd have the same AP DPM that Graf Spee, but better HE. She'd also be more accurate, but lack the torpedoes of the Spee. Since Radar is rare at Tier 7, I figured I'd force the play into a tough choice of either Radar or Repair party. As Sacramento uses the super-cruiser health formula, she also burns like one. Tier VIII “Improved Wichita” armed with 12” guns USS Madison [Picture Not Available] The “Improved Wichita” would eventually become the Baltimore-Class. There was discussion on what it would take to equip this ship with 12” guns. Mostly this entailed increasing the length by some 6 feet in order to make room for the ammunition. She should handle much like the standard Wichita, for the most part, just with bigger guns. Madison uses cruiser health and fire duration. Tier IX CA2H USS Phillipines Where the Samoa is a faster, more lightly armored Alaska, the Philippines is a slower, more heavily armored one. CA2-H featured deep torpedo defenses, fashioned in the same style as USN Battleships, as well as thick armor. While I do not have deck plans of her, I believe she would look similar to the other CA2 designs, and a cross-section can be seen above. Possible Tier VI or VII Premium In 1929, when the details of the Deutschland-Class became available, there was a proposal to rearm USN CA with twin 10”/50 in place of their triple 8”/55 turrets. To reflect this in game, a Northampton, Portland, or (more probably) New Orleans could get a turret swap. The new turret should fit on the old barbettes, meaning little new modeling would need to be done. The biggest mystery at the moment, and the reason I haven’t drawn up stats for such a ship yet is that I cannot find any additional information about these guns. While they were not made, there was preliminary design work that was done, as these theoretical guns were used as stand-ins for the Deutschland’s guns while preparing the CA2’s Immunity Zone calculations. I have tried approximating these guns by up-scaling 8” ammo (Mark 8 and Mark 9) and down-scaling 12” ammo (Mark 12 and Mark 13). All designations are made up by me, as I have just about zero information on this weapon. 254”/50 Mark 4 Ammo: 254mm HC Mk.9 Max Damage: 3,050 Fire Chance: 16% Shell Pen: 42mm Muzzle Velocity: 808m/s 254mm HC Mk.13 Max Damage: 4,250 Fire Chance: 24% Shell Pen: 42mm Muzzle Velocity: 808m/s 254mm AP Mk.8 Max Damage: 5,500 Muzzle Velocity: 762m/s 254mm AP Mk.12 Max Damage: 8,150 Muzzle Velocity: 762m/s There is also mention of a study for a 15,000t cruiser with either six 11”/50 or 12”/50 guns, though I have not been able to find any more information on these, and I down even less work was done on the 11” guns than on the 10”. Thank you taking the time to read this and feel free to ask question or critique my choices. I enjoy the discussion about as much as doing the research for these ships (which I do, or else I wouldn't do it).
  16. While the Atlanta is not generally my cut of tea, I know that a lot of people enjoy playing her and Flint. As I am currently working on USN Large Cruisers (spoiler alert), I felt it would would be nice to make their polar opposites, the Anti-Air Cruisers. The line will start at tier 6, branching off of the engine of the Omaha-Class. I was not entirely satisfied with my previous USN CLAA line, and I am using this as a chance to make up for that. With additional information now at my disposal, I am able to make this line more like how I originally envisioned it, with a split into 5”/54 and 6”/47 DP armed guns, while still trying to keep that authentic Atlanta feel. These ships, despite being CLAA, have fairly poor inner AA auras. What they excel at is flak, and at higher tiers, boosting the AA of their allies. This makes them better for protecting other ships with their larger numbers of flak bursts at a further distance from themselves than most ships are able to do. This is particularly evident in the 6” line, that can cast it’s long range aura out to 6.9km. A note about the naming: I used a random US city generator to pick which cities to name these cruisers after, and then checked them against a list of USN Cruisers, so there shouldn’t be any naming conflicts. Pros: +Lots of Flak for their tier +Rapid Fire guns +Air-Search Radar +USN DD Smoke +Decent Torpedoes +Below Water Magazine Cons: -Poor Concealment -Floaty Shells -Next to No Armor -Poor Concealment -No Surveillance Radar -Relatively Poor Medium and Short AA Auras Tier VI Scheme IA, 1936 Arlington-Class One of the designs from the Light Cruiser Studies of the mid-1930, this design came about because the Navy wanted a light cruiser to work with the destroyer force. The requirements were rather vague, with the first round trying to mount a usable mix of 6” and 5” guns, preferable all dual-purpose, on as small a ship as possible. Later designs, of which this is a part, decided to go with uniform dual-purpose guns of either 5” or 6”. Tier VII Oakland-Class The namesake of the Oakland sub-class. While I had originally designed to go with the Juneau II-Class, I settled on the Oakland sub-class after finding the design that I based the Arlington-Class on, despite the Oaklands being already represented by the Flint. This is because I felt that it would tie the line together better, as she was armed with torpedoes and had a different (and weaker) AA armament, which, again, helped tie in with the rest of the line. 5”/54 DP Cruiser Line The 5”/54 Mk.16, mated to the excellent Mk.41 DP turret defines this line of ships just as the 5”/38 Mk.12 guns in the Mk.29 DP turret defined the Atlanta and her half-sisters. While the later gun produced floaty shells that took their time reaching their targets, the new projectiles out of this newer gun, with it’s higher muzzle speed, produces a much more level flight, cutting out much of the hang time. Also, these shells hit harder, round-for-round, and advancements in design allow for higher rates of fire. To assist in their survival, these ships are given a Specialized Repair Team consumable to stretch their limited life farther. Specialized Repair Teams Heal Rate: 2.0%/s HP Restored: 50% Citadel Restored: 33% Duration: 20s Cooldown: 80s Charges: 3 American Cruiser Smoke Radius: 0.45km Emission Time: 30s Dispersion: 104s Cooldown: 160 Charges: 3 American Tech-Tree Destroyer Defensive Fire – Anti-Air Duration: 40s Effect: +100% Continuous Damage, all ranges. Damage from flak bursts is Quadrupled. Cooldown: 80s Charges: 4 Air Search Radar Duration: 30s Effect: All allies within 6km have their AA continuous damage hit chance set to 100%. All enemy planes within (Tier 8: 15km; Tier 9: 20km; Tier 10: 25km) are spotted. Cool Down: 90s Charges: 3 Tier VIII 5”/54 Cal. D.P. Cruiser – Design Study “A” Jersey City-Class Essentially, this was an Atlanta hull, fitted with the new 5”/54 guns in the twin turrets that had been developed and ordered for the Montana-Class battleships. Ultimately, this design, as well as the others in it’s series, weren’t ordered, and instead a new run of Atlantas were. Tier IX 7500 Ton Cruiser Orlando-Class A smaller version of the 8100t CLD that sits as the crowning jewel of this line, the Orlando was designed without torpedoes or depth charges as weight saving measures. A fantasy Hull B can reintroduce those into this design to help unify the line. Tier X CLD, 8100 Ton 5” Cruiser (Double Purpose) Colorado Springs-Class Basically, an enlarged Atlanta, the Colorado Springs is a high DPM fire breather. This is the finished CLD design. 6”/47 DP Cruiser Line A split from the 5” gun-armed Atlanta style ships, these try to replicate that play style while using the larger 6” DP developed by the USN. Compared to the 5”/54 ships, these are larger, but with fewer turrets and no torpedoes. In return, these ships don’t suffer from as severe of a health handicap and the 5”/54s, and so receive less in the way of consumables to keep them alive, like having a normal Repair Party, for one, and lacking smoke, for another. American Tech-Tree Destroyer Defensive Fire – Anti-Air Duration: 40s Effect: +100% Continuous Damage, all ranges. Damage from flak bursts is Quadrupled. Cooldown: 80s Charges: 4 Air Search Radar Duration: 30s Effect: All allies within 6km have their AA continuous damage hit chance set to 100%. All enemy planes within (Tier 8: 15km; Tier 9: 20km; Tier 10: 25km) are spotted. Cool Down: 90s Charges: 3 Tier VIII 6” A.A. Cruiser Scheme “C” - 4 Twin Turrets Tampa-Class A preliminary design for the Worcester-Class armed with 4 twin 6” turrets. While, the ship only has 8 guns, it still has a tremendous DPM. With Armor Piercing, the Tampa ranks 3rd out of all Tier 8 Light Cruisers, behind the Cleveland and Mainz. With High Explosive, the Tampa takes the top spot. Note: Jersey City beats the Tampa out in both category. Tier IX 6” A.A. Cruiser Scheme “D” – 5 Twin Turrets Scottsdale-Class Another preliminary design for Worcester, this one mounts 5 turrets and mounts it’s aviation facilities amidships. Scottsdale, again, ranks high with both AP and HE, losing out only to Seattle and Neptune (in AP DPM, obviously), so long as you don’t count Orlando. Tier X 6” A.A. Cruiser Scheme F – 6 Twin Turrets (Revised of 30 Dec `42) Anaheim-Class Yet another Worcester preliminary design, and part of the same design series as the others, Anaheim ties with Worcester in terms of DPM, which is not surprising as they use the same guns. While she is armed similarly, the Anaheim can be told apart at a glance. Her turrets are placed such that they are super-firing over each other, meaning that all the forward or rear turrets can be brought to bare while nose in, though this really only works with 8” guns or smaller, as her 16mm plating has an overmatch threshold of 229mm. While Anaheim can (barely) deflect Russian 220mm, anything 9.1-inches or larger, the British 234mm or French and Dutch 240mm guns can punch through. In terms of DPM numbers, Anaheim falls behind other top tier Light Cruisers, losing to the Minotaur, Smolensk, and Colbert.
  17. It's only right: FXP earns (base rate) at 5% of XP. Shortly, ECXP will earn at 5% of CXP. FXP has a Papa Papa signal -> +300%, plus a bunch of similar buffs. ECXP should get a Mama Mama signal -> +300%. Etc etc. Still room for a Baby Baby signal...
  18. spmdougherty

    Commonwealth DD tech line proposal

    A modest DD tech line proposal for the Commonwealth. Wild polar bears, wallabies, and kiwis on the loose! :D. Play style/consumables/gimmicks/etc similar to HMCS Haida. Tier 2 HMCS Patrician https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Patrician_(1916) Tier 3 HMAS Tasmania https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_Tasmania Tier 4 HMAS Voyager https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_Voyager_(D31) Tier 5 HMCS Saguenay https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMCS_Saguenay_(D79) Tier 6 HMCS Saskatchewan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Fortune_(H70) Tier 7 HMAS Arunta https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_Arunta_(I30) Tier 8 HMAS Queenborough https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_Queenborough_(G70) Tier 9 HMCS Algonquin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMCS_Algonquin_(R17) Tier 10 HMAS Vendetta https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_Vendetta_(D08)
  19. With a hat-tip to Lert's Dutch suggestions...Any thoughts on potential play style/gimmicks/consumables greatly appreciated Tier 2 Yugoslav cruiser Dalmacija https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMS_Niobe Tier 3 SMS Admiral Spaun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMS_Admiral_Spaun Tier 4 SMS Novara https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMS_Novara_(1913) Tier 5 HLMNS Java https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HNLMS_Java_(1921) Tier 6 HLMNS De Ruyter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HNLMS_De_Ruyter_(1935) Tier 7 Spanish cruiser Almirante Cervera https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_cruiser_Almirante_Cervera Tier 8 Greek Cruiser Elli https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_cruiser_Eugenio_di_Savoia Tier 9 HLMNS De Zeven Provincien https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HNLMS_De_Zeven_Provinciën_(C802) Tier 10 I'm stumped here...any suggestions?
  20. with a big hat-tip to the other players on their suggestions. Similar to Vibirus Unitis, (good but not crazy good accuracy, low detection for a BB, slightly lower HP pool, maybe add a better than average heal and good damage control at tier 6+ to buff) but with vastly improved AA above tier 5. More sneaky sniper than muh brawler with decent HE and AP damage output at medium and long-range because of more guns per ton than other BBs in tier. Higher tiers (7 and up) with above average speed, tier 6 and below average to below average speed. Tier 3 Spanish dreadnought Espana https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_battleship_España Tier 4 SMS Tegetthoff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMS_Tegetthoff_(1912) Tier 5 Spanish dreadnought Reina Victoria Eugenia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reina_Victoria_Eugenia-class_battleship Tier 6 SMS Monarch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ersatz_Monarch-class_battleship Tier 7 Turkish dreadnought Reşadiye https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Erin upgraded for WW2 service. Tier 8 Spanish battleship Jaime I https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Littorio-class_battleship with slimmed-down stats to fit into the overall play style of the line. Tier 9 Turkish dreadnought Sultan Osman I https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Agincourt_(1913) with extensive upgrades for WW2 era service, but you could also use this design as the basis for a fictional up-gunned Agincourt successor of 1920s-1930s standards. Tier 10 'Greek battleship Vasiliefs Nikephoros Fokas' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota-class_battleship_(1939) with nerfed secondaries, lower detection, no American super-heavy AP, and a low for tier HP pool. If Wargaming decides to use the Turkish ships in the Pan-Asian tech tree instead of pan-European, replace Resadiye with Vasilefs Konstantinos (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretagne-class_battleship with similar upgrades to the Bretagne's upgraded module as stock) at Tier 7, and maybe an upgraded version of the Littorio design for Spanish service replacing the Sultan Osman I (or up-gunned successor) at tier 9.
  21. spmdougherty

    Commonwealth BB tech line proposal

    Here is my view of what a Commonwealth BB line should look like. An interesting feature could be more AP focused, fast for their tier, but with a better than average heal a la higher tier UK ships and American style AA at tier 8 up. weaknesses could be poor torpedo protection, especially lower tier as all are WW1 era designs, and meh secondaries. Fast long-range sniper-style gameplay. starting at Tier 4 HMAS Australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_Australia_(1911) Tier 5 HMS New Zealand. Slightly tougher than Australia. Maybe with fictionalized post-Jutland 'what if no Washington Naval treaty' upgrades. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_New_Zealand_(1911) Tier 6 HMS Malaya https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Malaya Queen Elizabeth in her 1915 as built configuration as it's stock module, but with Queen Elizabeth stock module as an upgrade. Tier 7 HMCS Acadia This was a proposed Queen Elizabeth variant offered to Canada that was voted down by Ottawa in 1913. Uptiered fictional Warspite upgrade for WW2 service. Tier 8 uptiered Hood variant. Call it 'HMS Erin'. Tier 9 possible name could be 'HMS Newfoundland'. The Renown as rebuilt for WW2 service. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renown-class_battlecruiser Tier 10 possible name could be 'HMS South Africa'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G3_battlecruiser what say you?
  22. So with 3 steel ships being removed from the armory and only 1 being added, I think we need to add more than just the Yashima. Especially since 2 of the ships being removed are destroyers, I think there should be at least 1 destroyer added. I propose that the USS Johnston be added as a T9 steel ship. Seeing as it had better aa in IRL, it could have better aa in game but it's tradeoff would be losing a couple knots in speed and perhaps lose access to speed boost and have permanent access to Def AA. People don't like steel ships being unique classes or being super different than ships already in the game at that tier. This proposal would address those concerns. It is a class that's already in the game and it would just be a side grade fletcher, nothing game breaking in its play style. Most of the model is already in game, just different aa load out and set up. It would be quite easy for WG to add it into the game for steel. Let's make this happen, WG.
  23. I know this may seem very irrelevant or even out of the left field here, but just in case if we used all of the 50 state names, I have an idea in where we could use proposed state names like Cascadia, Absaroka, Jefferson, Columbia, West Florida, Delmarva, Superior, Lincoln, Sequoyah, and Cimarron. Now I know these states do not exist and only exist on maps ,but in case if we run out of names for other USN BB designs that never received official names, I think these names would be very useful for them. Maybe they could be premiums or something akin to that. Tell me what y'all think about this idea?
  24. Hello everyone. I occasionally write some ship proposals of ships i'd love to see in the game, and today i'm going to do over HSMS Tre Kronor, a late-war Swedish Light Cruiser. HP: 27,300 Armor: 20-25mm belt+70mm vitals (citadel) Turrets 125/30/80/50 F/S/B/R 130mm total deck (30mm outer) 127mm conning tower 16mm plating 13mm superstructure Source: Conway's fighting ships 1922-1948 27,300 is very low for T7 cruisers and isn’t great even against T6 cruisers either. The citadel does stick a fair bit above the waterline, according to this blueprint (7819x2906, had to photoshop 2 pages together), so you’ll have to use your rudder shift and to try and avoid incoming fire. The turrets themselves are quite well protected as well. Length 182m Beam 16.45m SHP 90,000 Speed 33kts Rudder Shift: 4.9s Turning Circle: est 670m With a maneuverable rudder, you should be able to bob and weave between enemy shells pretty well, considering you have a high effective range. Still, be wary of overmatch. WEAPONRY 1x3 152mm/53 Bofors model 1942 2x2 152mm/53 Bofors model 1942 10 rpm (70rpm from all guns) MV: 900mps TT: 20 deg/s IN GAME RANGE: 16.3 km (~10.5s shell travel) Firing Angles: 30 degrees front and rear, 360 degree traverse These guns are comfy. 360 degree traverse, and a very fast traverse speed, AND gun angles that allow you to stay in autobounce range should make a very comfortable experience. The 6s reload is also quite nice at this tier. AP 3200 AP Alpha Shell weight: 45.8kg AP Krupp: 2280 Drag: .348 224,000 (336,000) AP DPM Fuzes: Standard AP flight time and pen would be comparable to Duca Delgi Abruzzi (pen difference <15mm at nearly all distances, time to target within ~.7s to max range *note: couldn’t find an AP shell for this gun, so I played create-a-shell with supercontroller9 using the noted HE and AA muzzle velocities, and the similar characteristics to Italian cruisers, but Krupp and drag are values that are often used for balancing, rather than for historical performance. As you can see, the performance is very similar to the Italian 152mm guns currently in game. HE 2200 HE Alpha HE: 45.8kg *Similar weight to USN 152/47 HE shell* Fire Chance: 11% HE flight time would be better than USN at all ranges (11.3s to 16km compared to 14.1 for USN 152mm/47) 154,000 (231,000) HE DPM Krupp: 1100 Drag: .348 154,000 is on the low side for T7 cruisers- this is, after all, the tier with Boise and Helena. However, this is workable for one reason……. Well, I won’t spoil the surprise just yet. It’s coming though. This is the parabolic table for this gun (in Swedish). While these arcs aren't exactly what will be seen in game, they give a pretty good idea of the performance. 2x3 Torpedo Launchers Torped 14 12km range 62 knots 12,800 alpha Detect: 1.4km Flood Chance: 215% Reload: 69s Sweden really only used one torpedo throughout WWII, the Torped 14. The torpedo itself was quite nice, though it did have a small charge (248kg), which is similar to the Mahan’s Mk 15 mod 0 torpedo, which has a 224kg charge. Therefore, the torpedo would have just under 13k alpha, which is make up for by the competitive speed and quick reload. While I’m not certain of the exact angles the tubes would have, they should be quite good forward, but a bit lacking to the rear, due to the design having cranes on it. AA Weaponry 1x3 152mm/53 Bofors model 1942 30.9 dps @6km 2x2 152mm/53 Bofors model 1942 50.4 dps @6km 10x2 40mm/70 Bofors Model 1948 270 dps @4.2km 7x1 25 mm L/64 Bofors Model 1932 ~29.9 dps@2.0km I almost considered not doing this section considering it will be pointless before this ship will ever be in game, but i figured that I should add it in just so you could get an idea of how insane the AA is. The Bofors that litter most ships above tier 6 are the 40mm/60 caliber bofors, but the mounts on the Tre Kronor are the 40mm/70 cal model 1948. Well, so what? They’re a few years newer, sure, but that doesn’t explain the insane range and DPS boost compared to the standard. Well, the rate of fire of the 40mm/70 was double that of the standard 40mm/60 Bofors gun currently found in game (240 as opposed to 120rpm)-AND the range was also better than the predecessor. I estimated a bit for the 25mm gun, as the gun was said to be more effective than the 20mm oerlikon, so i estimated about 1.2x the dps of a single mount of that, but info about this specific gun is hard to find-not that it realistically matters, considering the insanity of the 40mms. Just be glad I’m not proposing the refitted version which saw those 25mm guns replaced with 7 more 40mm Bofors. Either way, you’re going to BULLY T6 Carriers, and you should be able to at least hurt the T8s. CONSUMABLES Slot 1: Damage Control (standard Slot 2: Hydro (standard Slot 3: Radar (25s, 8.49km) OR MBRB (-33% to reload speed, 45s duration, 180/120s cooldown, 1/2 charges) No DFAA. CVs are going to suffer enough trying to touch this thing. I’m not that evil. >T7 Premium CL >Late War I-think-we-all-know-where-this-is-going.jpg I know, I know, another T7 premium CL with Radar. But realistically, if Tre Kronor is going to survive at T7, she certainly needs the radar…..or does she? I’m also proposing that Tre Kronor have the option to fit a unique MBRB. Now, the 152mm gun that Tre Kronor has could fire 10 RPM at surface targets and 15 RPM in an AA function. What this unique MBRB does is allow Tre Kronor to have a 45 second period in which she has a 4 second reload against surface ships. In case you’re wondering why I had a second DPM number in parenthesis when discussing those numbers earlier, that’s why. Why does Tre Kronor need these powerful consumables? Well, you’ve probably noticed that I drew a lot of comparisons to Duca Delgi Abruzzi, another T7 cruiser. The issue with that is that the Duca is pretty underwhelming at T7, and is generally regarded as one of the worst T7 cruisers. However, Tre Kronor fixes major issues that the Duca has (mainly, range). The problem is that Tre Kronor is a perfect T6.5- it would need nerfs to fit into T6, and needs some help fitting into T7. I chose the latter option. The door is always open to giving it a heal. I didn’t want to make it more gimmicky than it already is, though. Thanks for reading. I look forward to and appreciate your feedback! ccccccc https://imgur.com/a/ZMN54AR https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/424389257818275843/534135447136239641/Tre_Kronor_Blueprint.jpg
  25. I see that about 80-90% of the possibilities to play this game involve aircraft carriers. So, basically if you don't want to face aircraft carriers you have only 2 options: (1) Tier I, (2) Tier II and if you are really lucky (that usually doesn't happen to me) some Tier III. Unfortunately, Tier I and Tier II are isolated with long queues and sometimes it's just 1 vs 1 ship that makes it a little boring. My proposal is, instead of growing high tier ships, why don't you offer as an alternative, older ships to play in Tier I, II and III? I think would be amazing to include pre-dreadnoughts, ships built between 1890 and 1905 and other ships in this period. There were several ships built in this period so there would not be needed to make up ships never existed. Also, I don't see the point to match St. Louis, Varyag, Bogatyr with aircraft carriers, makes no sense. Those ships were built in around 1900, aircraft carriers started to be built in 1920s, by that time those ships were completely obsolete and also in the naval warfare of this period (1890-1905), planes were not available (First Sino-Japanese War 1894-1895 and Russo Japanese War 1904-1905). This makes the game inconsistent. My proposal is to offer an alternative to play the game in a period where ships were indeed the key in naval battles, instead of forcing the player to play against aircraft carriers if is not interested. This can be achieved by adding more ships in tiers I and II, the higher tiers can remain the same, the game can be the same from tiers IV to X. There are tons of fascinating ships to explore in 1900s, but very few has been added to the game. I think that having flexibility to play is a good thing in a game, both worlds can coexist, why not? after all if we have even fantasy stuff... I think I am not asking too much...