Shimakaze, a lot of wasted space on deck

[MrDeaf]

I present to you, a two part argument on buffing Shimakaze.

However, unlike most other "buff IJN DDs" type of threads, I will totally ignore the torpedoes.

 

 

What I think Shimakaze really needs, is AA that is not completely obsolete and outdated by T10 DD standards and Gunnery range that doesn't use the "old" scaling values.

 

For AA, simply put, Shimakaze has a LOT of deck space that is wasted by fitting NOTHING at all, or using obsolete equipment. Shima lacks a lot of upgrades the IJN did to their DDs by adding more platforms for AA guns and this is highly evident with the lack of clutter you see on lower tier IJN DDs, particularly in the T7/8 bracket.

Shimakaze was laid down in Aug 1941, launched in July 1942 and has a 1944 refit. Compare this to the only other real T10 DD, Gearing, which was laid down in Aug 1944, launched in Feb 1945 and basically has its "as designed" AA escort armament. Or how about comparing it to Z-52, which gets 55mm Gerat 58. Gerat 58 is in the same category as IJN Chi 40mm Bofors of "far too late in the war to deploy in large numbers" and are "what if" armaments. I don't even know what is up with Khab and Groz, as their armaments are highly modern and highly effective, which is what you can expect with modern AAA.

 

 

For Gunnery, It's pretty simple.

WG/Lesta has not bothered to redo the scaling of the existing IJN DDs when they added a "new" scaling for range. What I mean by "scale" here, is that, on the old scale with range dictated by Range Finder height, Hatsuharu had 9.4km, Fubuki had 10.0km, Kagero had 9.4km and Shimakaze had 9.8km. However, under the "new" scale, Shiratsuyu has 11km, Akatsuki has 10.4km and Yugumo has 11.1km. The bolded is particularly important, which I will explain.

---

Akatsuki is a revised version of Fubuki. Naturally, they are very similar in construction with similar Range finder height. 10.4km vs 10.0km. Okay, that's passable as margin of error, construction differences and balancing.

Shiratsuyu is a revised version of Hatsuharu. Again, they are very similar in construction, including their Range Finder heights. Here we see 11.0km vs. 9.4km, which is well beyond margin of error.

Yugumo is a revised version of Kagero. Unlike the previous two sets, these two are extremely similar to each other. In fact, you would be hard pressed to find any difference at all between them (case example: Akigumo). Now, these two, with nearly clone like differences... 11.1km vs 9.4km gunnery range.

---

Do you see what I'm getting at here? clone ships featuring 1.7km of gunnery range difference, because one uses the old scale and the other uses the new scale.

 

Shimakaze uses the OLD scale, and on that OLD scale and ends up with 9.8km range. This is between OLD scale Fubuki and OLD scale Kagero. This is backed up by Shimakaze's Range Finder sitting higher up than Kagero and Yugumo, which you can check in game.

If Shimakaze used the NEW scale, Shimakaze should have >11km gunnery range

 

 

TLDR: picture worth a 1000 words.

[Lert]

... You know, I can't find much to disagree with here.

[Kuckoo]

The same could be said about "wasted space" on every ship in the game.

 

However, I agree that IJN DDs need some love from the devs.

[Killjoy1941]

Well reasoned on top of a valid argument. +1

[Mesrith]

Well-constructed post.  My only words of disagreement would be that the Shima certainly does not need an extra couple of kilometers of invisifire window, which is what increasing the base range would do.

[IronWolfV]

I can find no faults here. Well done.

[Kevik70]

Needs more guns, said almost every captain/ naval designer ever.

[Naughtius_Maximus]

Well if you want to leave aside the torpedoes.

 

Restore the old fire chance and HE damage. The fact that they kept the DPM the same when they buffed RoF actually hurt the Shima.

 

Firing more often with those turrets just means the Shima cannot maneuver as much in between shots.

 

As such it has to sail straighter to maintain the DPM of the old Shima, which is outright ridiculous since with the current DPM you are usually aiming to get some shots in as you flee, not engage.

[Sethanas]

 

Its one of those ships that I'd be very scared of buffing in any way tbh; While individually maybe the ship needs some help, when we platoon them its not rare to have 100K dmg each before the 3rd wave of torps (6/8 min ingame), The lack of AA is pretty much the only thing about it that can be abused to counter a good platoon of Shimas, if you give it just a bit more AA that adds up real fast in a platoon. If I was to add AA to it itd have to be in short range self defense AA guns imho.

 

Skillmakae 3 way cross drop is a death sentence for anything when the drop is timed correctly, needs some drawbacks.

 

Well if you want to leave aside the torpedoes.

 

Buff the HE damage. The fact that they kept the DPM the same when they buffed RoF actually hurt the Shima.

 

Firing more often with those turrets just means the Shima cannot maneuver as much in between shots.

 

As such it has to sail straighter to maintain the DPM of the old Shima, ehich is outright ridiculous since with the current DPM you are usually aiming to get some shots in as you flee, not engage.

 

A turret rotation buff wouldn't be too game breaking.

[jason199506]

i think she needs at least yugumo level range, and preferably ≤5sec reload, aaaaaand 5.5concealment

 

[ckupf]

The same could be said about "wasted space" on every ship in the game.

 

However, I agree that IJN DDs need some love from the devs.

 

Agreed, but instead were getting VMF DD buffs. Because why the hell not.

[tcbaker777]

Izumo challenges this, as well as many other bbs

[MrDeaf]

Well-constructed post.  My only words of disagreement would be that the Shima certainly does not need an extra couple of kilometers of invisifire window, which is what increasing the base range would do.

 

Right now, Shima gets 100m window from 9.8km gun range and 9.7km detection when firing. It's basically useless without use of smoke, AFT or arty plot room.

Yugumo gets 1.7km window from 11.1km gun range and 9.4km detection when firing.

Shimakaze's guns also fire 0.5RPM slower than Yugumo's

 

Gearing also gets 11.1km, just like Yugumo, and has around 1.3km invisifire window.

11.1km on Shimakaze would still be reasonable, however 12km would be a bit much and unnecessary.

So >11km, but <12km.

[Mesrith]

 

Right now, Shima gets 100m window from 9.8km gun range and 9.7km detection when firing. It's basically useless without use of smoke, AFT or arty plot room.

Yugumo gets 1.7km window from 11.1km gun range and 9.4km detection when firing.

Shimakaze's guns also fire 0.5RPM slower than Yugumo's

 

Gearing also gets 11.1km, just like Yugumo, and has around 1.3km invisifire window.

11.1km on Shimakaze would still be reasonable, however 12km would be a bit much and unnecessary.

So >11km, but <12km.

 

Sure, but AFT exists, so we can't ignore it.  My Shima has a 9.7km detection after firing, with a range of 11.8km, so a 2.1km invisi-fire window right now.  Khabarovsk can no longer invis-fire; Z-52 cannot; and while Gearing can, it's not automatic damage at that range because of the shell velocity.  Shimakaze's shells are very usable at long range, so giving it another 1.5-2km of invisi-fire on top of what it can already obtain with AFT (and GFCS2 if you take it for some reason) is unnecessary.

 

I agree that Shima's garbage-tier AA could use some small buffs due to power creep, as no destroyer should ever be unable to shoot down a zombie scout fighter or whittle down a fighter squadron that hovers overhead for a minute.  I can see making base ranges more consistent and less arbitrary, but the gun bloom would need to go up a bit IMO.

[MrDeaf]

 

Sure, but AFT exists, so we can't ignore it.  My Shima has a 9.7km detection after firing, with a range of 11.8km, so a 2.1km invisi-fire window right now.  Khabarovsk can no longer invis-fire; Z-52 cannot; and while Gearing can, it's not automatic damage at that range because of the shell velocity.  Shimakaze's shells are very usable at long range, so giving it another 1.5-2km of invisi-fire on top of what it can already obtain with AFT (and GFCS2 if you take it for some reason) is unnecessary.

 

I agree that Shima's garbage-tier AA could use some small buffs due to power creep, as no destroyer should ever be unable to shoot down a zombie scout fighter or whittle down a fighter squadron that hovers overhead for a minute.  I can see making base ranges more consistent and less arbitrary, but the gun bloom would need to go up a bit IMO.

 

Well, yes, if you have AFT, you get some excellent range for a DD.

Gearing has the advantage of double RoF.

 

I really think it's contradictory for IJN torp DDs to pick up AFT or GFCS2, and if you spec their captains as such, I think you lose out on the ship's strengths.

I mean, if you wanted to, Yugumo would be better for AFT configuration, as she has 10.5RPM and will beat out a Blyska in HE DPM, without having to resort to MBM3.

Shimakaze on the other hand, with 10.0RPM, has less HE DPM than Blyska, which is 3 tiers lower.

 

And, I tested this, IJN 127mm to 12km is still slower than Blyska's 120mm to 12km, by around 1s. I admit, it's not much, but it does show that IJN shell arcs are inferior to Blyska.

Blyska itself also suffers from shells that are rather lofty beyond 12km.

[yashma]

I suppose there is a slight danger of creating an invisafiring monster, but I like these changes.  The Shima needs some help and this seems as good a start as any.  

 

+1

[Reymu]

All Shimakaze needs (heck, IJN DD line needs this) is useful torps and undoing of all the torp nerfs. I'd be more inclined to play Hatsu more if the 10km torps didn't have that slow speed forcing me take TA just to get usable speed.

 

IJN DD AA is fine as is. Strongest torps, but lame at AA.

 

DDs who die to CV generally need to learn to quit yoloing. But please, do the same thing every time your existence offends a CV and expect WG to cater cause whining shows maturity.

[MrDeaf]

All Shimakaze needs (heck, IJN DD line needs this) is useful torps and undoing of all the torp nerfs. I'd be more inclined to play Hatsu more if the 10km torps didn't have that slow speed forcing me take TA just to get usable speed.

 

IJN DD AA is fine as is. Strongest torps, but lame at AA.

 

DDs who die to CV generally need to learn to quit yoloing. But please, do the same thing every time your existence offends a CV and expect WG to cater cause whining shows maturity.

 

The 12km torps and 8km are perfectly usable.

The AA buff from 5~7 Chi 40mm Bofors and extra 25mm guns wouldn't really stop a T9/10 CV from sinking Shimakaze.

What it will do, is buff its AA enough to shoot down aircraft that linger in its AA ring.

 

The AA buff would still put Shimakaze dead last in T10 DDs, but at least it won't be dead last in T9 DDs either.

[VTAdmiral]

Thought out and sensible improvement for the tier 10 Japanese destroyer.

 

This just means WG will nerf it again.

[Skyfaller]

Why would you want AA on an IJN ship? Didn't you see WG already bent over and spread it for the soviet navy and installed NC-like AA on their new lines of destroyers?

 

More range on Shima guns is useless. The guns are useless. Useless from the turret rotation and useless from the 2~3x slower ROF.

 

Shima torps need to be un-nerfed and un-nerfed in a balanced manner (so they don't go back to being uber OP). Having the 20km torps run at 55 knots, do 12k damage and be 1.2km detection range with a slightly faster ROF would be balanced.. they are very slow torps with very long range and visibility just a nudge lower than Gearing's... but they do the LEAST damage of any nation's torps BECAUSE it has an extra launcher and so much range.

 

Gun-wise I see no issue with Shima retaining its glacial rotation rate and horrid reload rate as long as the damage per shot is increased to compensate for the glacial reload+ROF... the new soviet DD's are being upped to 1900 damage.. why not give Shima a 3200 dmg ... remember Shima gun fire 2 to 3 times slower than other nations so its literally packing the damage other nations do in 2 or 3 shots in one.. if you miss or hit a low damage-inflicting section of the ship the shima loses a lot of punch. Alternatively, just up the fire chance to be equivalent to Kutuzov's flamethrower.

[Skyfaller]

 

The 12km torps and 8km are perfectly usable.

The AA buff from 5~7 Chi 40mm Bofors and extra 25mm guns wouldn't really stop a T9/10 CV from sinking Shimakaze.

What it will do, is buff its AA enough to shoot down aircraft that linger in its AA ring.

 

The AA buff would still put Shimakaze dead last in T10 DDs, but at least it won't be dead last in T9 DDs either.

 

No, they're not. 2km visibility means that even the 8km torpedoes give more time for a target to react than Gearing's torpedoes (slower but much less detection range). 

 

 

I've tested the 8km torps WITH TA .. that's a whopping 81kn on that torpedo. When you time how long it takes from the time you detect them to the time they hit you its LONGER than the Gearing's torps.

 

 

In fact you'd be stupid to use the 8km torp with TA to begin with.. not because of the loss of firing distance but because the 12km does more damage and will give you 9.5km something firing range while having the exact same detect range... and with TA it goes at a speed of 71kn which is a speed difference that is negligible in impact when it comes to hit chance due to detection/speed factor: they both give too much warning ... and that warning enables your targets to turn nose into your torp stream and avoid being hit by all except maybe one or two torpedoes (Avg). A Gearing's torps would have a 5 to 6 torps hitting the target because they give so little warning and are fast enough to reach the target before its nose can be turned into the torp stream.

 

 

Gearing can fire narrow spreads almost stacked upon each other (inner half of the cone overlapping at the middle) and because of the speed+detection range of those torps it has a very high chance of landing many hits on the target (target that spots the torps with his hull not via planes/other ships). Shima simply cannot use any combination of overlapping or side by side or narrow+wide salvos because the torps are detected so far away the target ship can nose into the stream and just avoid them. When you see a Tirpitz/Iowa/Kurfurst go from being 90 degrees flat broadside shot to turning and literally sailing between the gap of your torps and get hit by 1 or no torps... you realize how utterly messed up the IJN torps are. There's simply too much reaction time.

 

 

[Peregrinas]

Sorry but we don't need any further nerfs to CVs.

[WhatIsTheOdds]

Can we just replace Shimakaze with Yuugumo? Yuugumo is a better ship so it should at least be tier 10 as well.

[ArmouredCarriers]

Reality bites.

 

Topweight.

 

A lot of ships had plenty of space for many, many more big heavy guns.

 

Problems is - too much weight too high, and ships tip over.

Big waves. Minor battle damage ... all suddenly become insurmountable.

[Taichunger]

Excellent post. I think Shima could use the extra kms for invisifiring, which would increase its damage ability and survivability. 

 

One option might be a B hull under which players could trade a gun for greater range and AA.