Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'super cruiser'.
Found 4 results
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.
I am a great fan of the Super-Cruisers in game, especially the American cruisers Alaska and Puerto Rico. Before you, I humbly submit a proposal for a branch split from the American Heavy Cruiser line, starting from Tier VII. Names of the tier VII & VIII ships are randomly generated and checked with a list of USN Cruisers from WWII to avoid repeats. Pros: +Big Guns +Large Health Pools Cons: -Large Size -Poor Concealment The line is initially entered by researching the FCS for the New Orleans, and is a same-tier side-hop, similar to how the Battleship and Destroyer lines branch off. Tier VII Heavy Cruiser Study, Scheme 2 (Alaska Preliminary Design) USS Arlington Displacement: 15,750t Health Points: ~34,250-39,200 Length: 700ft at waterline Beam: 72ft Speed: ~32-34 kts Belt: ~6-inches (152mm) Main Armament 4x3 8"/55 Mk 15 (w/o super-heavy shells) AP: 4,600 dmg HE: 2,800 dmg, 14% Fire Chance -Longer Reload and Turret traverse than New Orleans, worse dispersion Secondary Armament 6x2 5"/38 (127mm) Additional AA Guns Consumables Damage Control Party Defensive AA Fire -or- Hydroacoustic Search Scheme 2 was the smallest of the Alaska-Class premils. She's about 20% larger than the New Orleans-Class and represents the player's first forays into the Large Cruisers of the USN. While similar to the CA-B, which is the Baltimore-Class in-game, she still a different ship. Without the Super-Heavy AP and certain balancing choices, she should be able to feel like her own ship. Her inclusion is by no means mandatory, though she is meant as a transitional ship. She represents the difference between the traditional USN CA line and the Large Cruiser, in that they get bigger, quicker. Tier VIII Heavy Cruiser Scheme 4-A "Convertible" (Alaska Preliminary Design) USS Montgomery Displacement: 17,500 Health Points: ~37,500-42,500 Length: 710 ft at Waterline Beam: 74.5 ft Speed: 33.1 kts Belt: ~7.5-inches (190.5 mm) Main Armament 4x3 8"/55 (w/ super-heavy shells, 203mm) AP: 5,000 dmg HE: 2,800 dmg, 14% Fire Chance Upgradeable: 3x2 12"/50 Mk 8 (305mm) AP: 8,900 dmg HE: 4,300 dmg, 27% Fire Chance Secondary Armament 6x2 5"/38 Additional AA Consumables Damage Control Party Repair Party Defensive AA Fire -or- Hydroacoustic Search Radar This is probably the most interesting ships in the line for me, as there are two ways to play her, depending on which gun you choose. If you stick with the stock 8", she'll play like a traditional USN CA, just bigger. She should have similar DPM to Baltimore, but she should still edge her traditional cousin out just slightly. Something around a 15 second reload, more or less, though I am always willing to change this. To avoid completely overshadowing the Baltimore, this ship will be more sluggish on the helm, slightly slower start/stop and a wider turning circle, coupled with a slower turret traverse and some other factors, which will hopefully make the Baltimore feel better closer in, though the exact details would need to be done in play-testing. The neat trick with this this ship is that there are 2 ways to play her. The second way is unlocked with her upgraded guns, switching from four turrets, each armed with three 8-inch guns to three turrets, armed with dual 12". These guns are the same found on Alaska, just with less of them. The arrangement is still AB-X, like on the Alaska, just with one barrel less per turret. The cost of mounting these guns will be a loss of DPM. Potential damage per salvo drops from 60,000 to 53,400, which might be enough justification to keep the reload the same, but if the ship performs too well, the reload can be increased to 20 seconds. These guns should allow for this ship to hit harder, but there should still be merit to taking the 8-inch guns, leading to a diversity of gameplay within the same ship. -Premium- Tier VIII Heavy Cruiser Scheme 3 (Alaska Preliminary Design) USS Akron Displacement: 17,500 Health Points: ~37,500-42,500 Length: 710 ft at Waterline Beam: 74 ft Speed: 32 kts Belt: ~7-inches (177.8mm) Main Armament 3x2 12"/50 Mk 8 (305mm) AP: 8,900 dmg HE: 4,300 dmg, 27% Fire Chance Secondary Armament 6x2 5"/38 Additional AA Consumables Damage Control Party Repair Party Defensive AA Fire -or- Hydroacoustic Search Radar This is much like her tech tree counterpart, but without the convertible feature, she is just a straight 12-inch gun cruiser. A possibility is to give her a gimmick, like removing Radar for smoke or something, but she is largely there as a trainer for this line of ships and as for something to buy to support the game. She should be slightly worse than a fully upgraded Montgomery. Tier IX 12" Gun Cruiser Study CA2-A USS Samoa Displacement: 25,600 Health Points: ~49,300-57,500 Length: 800 ft Beam: 85.1 ft Speed: 33.5 kts Belt: ~7-inches (177.8mm) Main Armament 3x3 12"/50 Mk 8 (305mm) AP: 8,900 dmg HE: 4,300 dmg, 27% Fire Chance Secondary Armament 6x2 5"/38 4x4 1.1"/70 Mk 1 AA Numerous 20mm Consumables Damage Control Party Repair Party Defensive AA Fire -or- Hydroacoustic Search Radar -or- Catapult Fighter -or- Spotter Aircraft Bad news first: This ship is inferior to Alaska. This, however, is not only by design, but desired, as Alaska is more of a Tier 9.5, while this ship can be properly balanced for Tier 9. She has less HP and armor, but she still has the same hard-hitting 12" guns (reloads adjustable for balance), and her AA has taken quite a bit of a hit to her med-range AA, having only 4 quad 1.1" instead of the 14 quad 40mm Bofors of Alaska, but that can be fixed with a Hull B, if need be. All-in-all, she should be a nice ship for the tier, without the hang-ups that nerfing a premium like Alaska could bring. Tier X USS Guam [Insert Alaska Here] Displacement: 34,803 Health Points: 60,800 Length: 808.5 ft Beam: 91 ft Speed: 33 kts Belt: 9-inches (228.6mm) Main Armament 3x3 12"/50 Mk 8 (305mm) AP: 8,900 dmg HE: 4,300 dmg, 27% Fire Chance Secondary Armament 6x2 5"/38 (127mm) 14x4 40mm Bofors 34x1 20mm Oerlikans Consumables Damage Control Party Defensive AA Fire -or- Hydroacoustic Search Radar -or- Catapult Fighter -or- Spotter Aircraft Alaska, but better. That is how this ship should be described. Slightly faster guns that are slightly more accurate, among other things to make up the .5 tier difference between Guam and Alaska. A possibility is to give her a 'what-if' weapons overhaul, replacing her 40mm bofors with the twin 3" mounts seen on Worcester and Des Moines. She won't have the raw tankiness of Puerto Rico, but she shouldn't, she is a different ship. Where Puerto Rico, with her 12 guns and BB dispersion, relies on weight of fire to hit targets, Guam can more comfortably rely on her Cruiser dispersion to achieve hits. Below are now defunct stats, preserved for reference sake. Next on my list are: USN Battleship Cruisers USN Secondary-Focused Battleships USN Anti-Aircraft Cruisers USN Battle Scouts RN Battlecruisers KM Battlecruisers KM Panzerskiffe Redux (Again) Prelim Investigations: (Don't expect anything to come of these, they are more to see if I can get enough information to build these) USN Torpedo Destroyers USN Hybrids IJN Battlecruisers IJN Secondary Battleships IJN Light Cruisers RN Alt. Destroyers KM Light Cruisers
Hello, I am trying to find good captain builds for my Alaska/Aegir/Azuma/Yoshino/Kronshtadt and am having minor difficulties. CE and Superintendent and standard on everything I play that can take them. The heavy AP shells skill seems good, as well as Grease the Gears and Adrenaline Rush. Is there any advice out there for good builds?
Introduction: Well Yoshino is finally here, the replacement of the old T10 Azuma that will be released for coal in the Arsena- I mean Armory, in the near future. Seeing the very mixed reaction to the initial stats of the Yoshino, I have decided to delve deeper and actually compare Yoshino’s current iteration (as of March 31, 2019) to the single iteration of the T10 Azuma’s stats. Yoshino is designed to be an enhanced T10 Azuma, as Azuma was down-tiered to T9 due to a lack of comfortably. Hopefully this analysis will bring light as to whether or not Yoshino will currently succeeds in filling that role. Spreadsheet comparison: Direct link to public spreadsheet This is a personal spreadsheet I made, comparing the Yoshino (left) to T10 Azuma (right). Hopefully it is simple enough to be understood; grey means they are equal, green is better, and red is worse. I’d like to say that for AA and torpedoes, it’s a simple Yes/No, as Yoshino outclasses T10 Azuma in both of these - unless you prefer having no torps over torps, but you do you. The big “if” - the guns: There is one custom statistic I have put into the spreadsheet: Dispersion/Range. This is meant to show the average increase in dispersion per kilometer - hence the title of maximum dispersion being divided by range. I would like to state that I am aware that there is a minimum firing range, and as such these values would be slightly lower, however the point should still stand. Yoshino actually has, if my math is correct, a 0.05m advantage per kilometer, meaning that her shell groupings will in fact be very slightly tighter than the old T10 Azuma’s, which already had better dispersion than other super cruisers. While this will likely be minimal and possibly unnoticed, it is still an interesting difference. Yoshino also has a 0.05 sigma buff when compared to the old T10 Azuma. This will be noticeable, as over time more shells will likely hit due to sigma influencing how close shells group towards the center of a firing circle. Now, with these incremental changes in mind, it is time for the big question that I cannot answer - the dispersion formula. Azuma has been tested with her T10 formula, which was changed to cruiser levels at T9, which was then nerfed - whether T9 Azuma’s release state has the old formula is yet to be seen. IF Yoshino has the same formula as the old T10 Azuma, then this will be a fairly balanced tradeoff for the loss of 2s of reload. People following the development process of Montpelier may be familiar with this design choice: as she has lost 0.5s of reload in exchange for 0.15 sigma, to a fairly pleased audience reception. Once again, IF Yoshino has the same formula as T10 Azuma, then a reaction comparable to that towards Montpelier’s guns can be expected - slightly slower but with slightly more reliability, a balanced trade off. Should Yoshino have cruiser accuracy, then I will be thoroughly surprised, although this was not mentioned in the Dev Blog post. If Yoshino has a normal Graf Spee formula, then prepare yourselves for a wave of controversy. The torpedoes: As a quick note, Yoshino has received one choice for torpedo armament. These torpedoes are exact clones of the 12km Zao torpedo option in every way except reload, due to the fact that Yoshino has quadruple (4) launchers rather than Zao’s quintuple (5) launchers. With a base reload time of exactly 2 minutes (120 seconds), these torpedoes will likely be very potent, especially when the firing angles are taken into consideration. The above image depicts the firing angles of Yoshino's and Atago's torpedo tubes from left to right respectively. The inner circle represents the angles needed for a single torpedo set to be fired, with the outer circle representing a full broadside. Atago is well known for her forward torpedo angles, which, even though outclassed by French torpedo angles, still work extremely well in the current meta. Take note of how the cones for both circles on Yoshino's arcs are larger than Atago's. Yes, that does in fact mean that Yoshino has superior angles in every form when compared to Atago's. Couple this with the fact that Yoshino has exact copies of Zao's 12km torpedoes, and you begin to see just how potent these torpedoes can be when used effectively. The AA: I will not delve deep into this topic, as AA is still changing with updates in light of the CV rework. In short, the old AA on T10 Azuma was perfectly fine for self defense in a pre-rework meta as seen in Flamu’s video, and it would likely have been perfectly usable in the post-rework meta as well. Vomiting, as I like to call it, extra triple and single mounts of 25mm AA guns on the deck of Yoshino will only help to enhance her own personal AA aura. I will leave it at that, Yoshino’s buffed AA is certainly a quality of life improvement to the ship, whether or not it was needed is open to debate, as the IJN dual “bofors” were already packing quite the punch. Although I think at least one Midway bomber squadron will be able to get through to enlighten you with a perfectly balanced 15k damage drop. No I’m not salty, I swear. The armor: Oh boy. Oh boy oh boy oh boy. This one is fun, and I will admit I fell for this one as well. I’ve seen people claiming that Yoshino has nerfed armor when compared to the old T10 Azuma. Fortunately for us, Flamu showed every piece of armor of the T10 Azuma in his video (source below), and guess what: 30mm plating and center deck with 25mm nose and stern. I don’t know where the idea that T10 Azuma had a 30mm fore and aft came from, but it’s apparently a thing that’s believed. But no, Yoshino has the exact same armor as the old T10 Azuma, perfectly serviceable and good for tanking against BB shells 406mm in size or smaller. The model: The above image shows the models of Yoshino and T10 Azuma, Yoshino can be distinguished by the inclusion of white tarps on her rails and far larger quantity of 25mm AA guns on her main deck. I got quite lucky with 0.8.3 being delayed until April 1, allowing me to compare the 0.8.1 model of Azuma (before her 40mm guns are removed) to the 0.8.3 ST version of Yoshino’s model. A list of differences in Yoshino’s model when compared to T10 Azuma’s are: Far more 25mm AA guns Presence of sand bags all over the deck and superstructure as makeshift defense against small arms fire from planes Torpedo tubes slightly aft of the catapult in the main hull Different lifeboat configuration Spare wings for float planes by the catapult “Tarps” (I don’t know what these are called, canvas?) that cover over the railings amidships Various little details on the deck Truth be told, nothing special has really been done, you can tell that this is clearly a late war version of a sistership to Azuma, much like when you compare a 1942 Yamato to her final version in 1945 (bless WG for changing the model on Yamato). All in all this is passable for being a new model, although I wish WG did do some changes that were unique and not just the usual for sister ships. My main wish was for the inner secondaries to be given barbettes sticking out of the deck, akin to the French battleships, that allow then to superfire over the lower secondary batteries. This is a massive nitpick but it is something I’ve noticed with sister ships. I’m a little irked by the inclusion of the canvas tarps as a means to add color to emphasize a difference between ships, this was done when Anshan’s model was reused to make Fushun (Fushun lost the tarps), and when Mikhail Kutuzov’s model was reused to make the Irian. While this is very minor, I do wish more was done to differentiate sister ships rather than a little splash of color. /rant Does Yoshino fulfill her role?: Yoshino is meant to be a modestly buffed replacement of the original T10 Azuma. As outlined by the developers themselves in their Dev Blog post, “...Cruiser [Azuma] moved to tier IX. This reallocation will allow the ship to feel more comfortable in battle…”, the T10 Azuma was thus not well suited for T10 due to a lack of comfortably. Because of this, Yoshino is meant to be, by design, a more comfortable (and thus a very slightly more powerful) version of T10 Azuma. Do I think Yoshino fills this role? No. Yoshino is so damn close to fulfilling her potential, but she’s not quite there. She has gained situational advantages in the form of AA and torpedoes with extremely good angles, which is a plus. But this comes at a direct cost to consistent DPM in the form of a 2 second reload nerf. A 1.1 second rudder shift nerf which came out of left field does not aid in making her more comfortable to play as a mid-to-long range HE and AP spammer either. It feels like Yoshino’s current iteration leans less towards being more comfortable than T10 Azuma, and more towards relying on unneeded crutches at the cost of gameplay aspects that were actually contributing to a comfortable play style - losing exactly 10k hit points on a whim to the Balance Gods did not help this case either. Conclusion - What I would personally like to see changed: For extremely basic changes to make Yoshino more comfortable, it is an easy route: her slow turrets should be changed from 5 to 6 degrees of rotation per second - dropping the 180 degree rotation time from 36 to 30 seconds, the rudder should also be looked into, as there is no real reason why an already slow rudder should be 1.1s slower. Yoshino’s guns will likely have better shell groupings over T10 Azuma as well, due to the increased sigma and slightly lower increase in dispersion per kilometer. However, this only applies if Yoshino uses the same dispersion formula as T10 Azuma. The biggest gripe that the community has with Yoshino right now is her survivability. When compared to the release version of T9 Azuma, she has 30mm armor (thank the lord), but at the cost of 10k health when compared to the original Azuma. Yoshino also lacks the enhanced heal of the T9 Azuma, it’s perfectly standard. I’d like to see Yoshino either get her health buffed into the higher range of the 60,000’s, or receive the heal of T9 Azuma (extra charge with faster cooldown) to maintain the flavor that has been set with Japanese super cruisers. What are your guys’ thoughts on Yoshino? Do you believe she achieves the set goal of being a proper replacement for the older T10 Azuma? Sources used: Yoshino Dev Blog - https://medium.com/@devblogwows/new-ships-9fab6b188e90?fbclid=IwAR2pNYlHHcz-9j3sUi6zYTcc0g6fzeNyydILTtemN3vNfqDDLPYoIdz0QGU T10 Azuma Dev Blog - https://www.facebook.com/wowsdevblog/photos/a.1914529002206771/2228614504131551/ Flamu (T10 Azuma Video) - https://youtu.be/Tnzq4cgD694 Game Models 3D - https://gamemodels3d.com/games/worldofwarships/vehicles/pjsc520 https://gamemodels3d.com/games/worldofwarships/vehicles/pjsc034 https://gamemodels3d.com/games/worldofwarships/vehicles/pjsc038 https://gamemodels3d.com/games/worldofwarships/vehicles/pjsc510 T9 Azuma and T10 Yoshino purchasing methods (Dev Blog) - https://www.reddit.com/r/WorldOfWarships/comments/aofu5u/azuma_yoshino_neustrashimy/ Azuma down-tier Dev Blog - https://medium.com/@devblogwows/test-ship-changes-bc8825f30d1c Wow the forums are difficult to use to format text...