Standard-type battleship secondaries and balancing

[icyplanetnhc]

So far, there are three classes of Standard-type battleships that are missing in the USN battleship tree: the Nevada-class, Pennsylvania-class, and Tennessee-class. While many are expecting that they would eventually be added to the game, there are potentially balancing problems regarding the secondaries and AA capabilities of these ships in their post-Pearl Harbor configurations. More specifically, let's look at the secondary and AA armament. I'll also include the USS West Virginia, a potential tier 7 premium USN BB.

 

Nevada post-1942

 

8x2 5"/38 Mk.12 dual purpose gun

8x4 40 mm Bofors AA gun

40x1 20 mm Oerlikon AA gun

 

Pennsylvania post-1942

 

8x2 5"/38 Mk.12 dual purpose gun

10x4 40 mm Bofors AA gun

51x1 20 mm Oerlikon AA gun

 

Tennessee post-1942

 

8x2 5"/38 Mk.12 dual purpose gun

10x4 40 mm Bofors AA gun

41x1 20 mm Oerlikon AA gun

 

West Virginia post-1942

 

8x2 5"/38 Mk.12 dual purpose gun

10x4 40 mm Bofors AA gun

50x1 20 mm Oerlikon AA gun

 

One thing that immediately stands out is that all of them, even the Tier 5 candidate Nevada, sports sixteen 5"/38 Mk.12 DP guns, as well as at least 8 quad 40 mm Bofors mounts (for comparison, the Tier 8 North Carolina has twenty of the 5"/38 Mk.12). All the modernized standards are equipped with the Mk.33/37 fire control system and SK air search radars. The 5"/38 Mk.12 in particular would have full benefit of AFT and manual AA captain skills. At Tier 5 and 6, this kind of AA would be obscene and nigh impenetrable, making the current Texas look like a joke. Their AA potency will surpass the current Cleveland as well. Furthermore, while the 5"/38 Mk.12 in game is a mediocre secondary weapon by Tier 8+ standards, they will be quite fearsome at the lower tiers.

 

At Tier 7, the sixteen 5"/38 Mk.12, while still potent, will no longer vastly outstrip every other ships, especially with the Gneisenau and her fictional refit in the game. Still, this kind of AA power even at Tier 7 will be lethal to any carrier.

 

Note that the New Mexico-class battleships was only the class of Standard-type battleships that never received the 5"/38 Mk.12 dual purpose guns (aside from the Idaho, but that particular ship isn't represented in game); coincidentally (and perhaps because of this), this is the ship that is the Tier 6 battleship of the American tech tree. It strongly suggests that WG has strong reservations about having mid-tier ships have such potent AA and secondary power, and in some ways I can understand their concerns.

 

So how do you think these ships, if they are added, should be handled? Should their final refit form be represented in game? Or should some be kept in pre-Pearl Harbor configurations, especially Tier 5 and 6? It's perhaps the post-Pearl Harbor refits to most of the Standard-type battleships that makes them difficult to balance and include in the game right now.

 

EDIT: As pointed out by Lord_Magus, one of the New Mexico-class battleships, the Idaho, did receive the 5"/38 Mk.12, ten of them in single turrets.

 

EDIT 2: Below are some more of my thoughts about balancing these ships.

 

On 5/15/2017 at 2:11 PM, icyplanetnhc said:

After giving this a bit more thought, there can be several solutions to balancing the mid-tier Standard-types. Let's start with the Nevada.

 

Nevada represents a very large performance gap compared to the New York; even her pre-Pearl Harbor configuration offers very strong advantages over the current New York. Consequently, I suggest that the final hull upgrade of the tech tree Nevada (perhaps named Oklahoma) should be in her pre-Pearl Harbor configuration; the New York should then have her AA buffed to be competitive with Texas along with buffs in soft stats. This would present some gameplay distinction between the two classes, with the tech tree Nevada/Oklahoma having superior armor, while the tech tree New York would have better AA. The only danger is that the post-buff New York will encroach on the Texas' role, but maybe some adjustments in soft stats can help with that. See below for the Oklahoma's configuration.

 

Oklahoma (Pearl Harbor)

 

12x1 5"/51 Mk.7 secondary gun

8x1 5"/25 Mk.10 AA gun

2x1 3"/50 Mk.10 AA gun (lol...)

 

Finally, the Nevada's post-1942 configuration can perhaps appear as a Tier 6, in order to do the real USS Nevada justice. Compared to the Arizona, the premium Nevada can offer superior AA and secondaries (and possibly even better accuracy) in exchange for lower alpha strike.

 

The Pennsylvania in her post-Pearl Harbor configuration can be balanced at Tier 6 in a conventional, albeit boring method. Her main batteries would have the same sigma as the New Mexico (1.5 rather than the Arizona's 1.8). Compared to the New Mexico, she would have superior AA and secondaries in exchange for lower muzzle velocity and penetration and maybe rate of fire. The Arizona would still have her niche with her higher main battery accuracy. If the performance disparity is still too great, then perhaps the New Mexico's final hull should be the Idaho which would give her ten 5"/38 Mk12 DP guns, which is still less than the Pennsylvania's sixteen. I don't think bumping her up to Tier 7 would be a good idea either, as her firepower, twelve 14"/45 guns, would be quite lacking.

 

Tennessee is another ship that's difficult to balance. In raw stats, she offers little over the Pennsylvania aside from slightly higher muzzle velocity and higher HP. The biggest issue is her main batteries; 14" caliber is quite lacking at that tier. She, like the Colorado, will suffer from the same low speed. Overall I think she can fit into Tier 7, but she'll need some serious advantages in soft stats and perhaps rate of fire compared to her competitors. As an aside, I can see the Royal Navy's 1940 King George V having even more balancing issues with her ten 14"/45 guns, but that's for another topic entirely.

 

Finally, the West Virginia should be a fairly easy ship to balance at Tier 7; the only concern is that she is completely superior to sister ship Colorado. Again, soft stat differences may come into play here. Make the final hull upgrade of the Colorado the Maryland instead, and give it some soft stat advantages over the West Virginia. Admittedly this will still greatly water down any playstyle distinctions between the two, but I believe this should still be the way to go, as I think balance should always have priority.

 

All these are longer term considerations; I don't expect to see a USN battleship tree split until 2018 at the earliest, as I think other nations deserve more attention at the moment. Nevertheless, fun thought experiment.

 

[SgtBeltfed]

Who knows, might be that the Nevada and Tennessee end up at tier 6 and 7 respectively with the AA fire consumable or something like that in a second US tree.

[Lord_Magus]

If AA is the "national flavor" of USN BBs, make it actually be the flavor.

 

BTW one of the New Mexico class did get 5"/38 DP secondaries.

 

[hoom]

I really think at least the mid-high tier US 2ndaries should at least get improved RoF, currently they have a measly 10rpm tops while similar mounts on DDs go up to 20rpm yet other nations have 2ndaries with faster rpm than their DD equivalents.

[Lampshade_M1A2]

Considering how the stats of the 5"/38 are nerfed the whole excuse that "it would be overpowered" is laughable.

[Lord_Magus]

I really think at least the mid-high tier US 2ndaries should at least get improved RoF, currently they have a measly 10rpm tops while similar mounts on DDs go up to 20rpm yet other nations have 2ndaries with faster rpm than their DD equivalents.

 

15 RPM was the minimum for base ring mount 5"/38s. And also for the 5"/25 AA guns. That's a buff that really needs to happen.

[UrPeaceKeeper]

Nevada is a solid T5 candidate in her pre-Pearl Harbor configuration.  Pennsylvania in her post Pearl configuration would be insanely powerful at T6 but Tennessee at T7 in full post Pearl would work find because of the power creep that is Gneisenau.  I do think that T6 is the real contention point.  It used to be that "powerful secondaries" were not allowed and "too powerful AA" was not allowed.  Well, you have a lot of really powerful German BB's at T6 and T7 with potent AA batteries plus the Texas exists now at T5.  I'd love to see them come into the game so all the Standards are represented.  I'd also love to see the WeeVee as a T7 Premium ship!

[Spooooooooooooooooooooon]

Even the WW1 Arkansas was sporting a heavy AA armament by 1943, 9 quad 40mm bofors, 26 20mm and 10 3inch/50 AA.  If only I could get these on my Arkansas B  :o

[Raulmacca]

All aa is far too effective, us aa doesnt need a buff but german aa and so on needs a big nerf, german aa couldnt hit biplanes flying at what 80mph

[Hurlbut]

All aa is far too effective, us aa doesnt need a buff but german aa and so on needs a big nerf, german aa couldnt hit biplanes flying at what 80mph

 

Try Channel Dash. Anyway, Bismarck failing to shoot down Swordfishes is explained IN part by having two different models of the 105mm mounts that conflicted the fire control director for them. And in another part, her fricking 37mm mounts were HAND-LOADED one shell at a time! The deck on the german warships were crowded because they didn't go for Dual Purpose secondary, so they have to get 150mm for anti boat, 105mm for heavy anti air.

[Montana_Prussian]

Nevada is a solid T5 candidate in her pre-Pearl Harbor configuration.  Pennsylvania in her post Pearl configuration would be insanely powerful at T6 but Tennessee at T7 in full post Pearl would work find because of the power creep that is Gneisenau.  I do think that T6 is the real contention point.  It used to be that "powerful secondaries" were not allowed and "too powerful AA" was not allowed.  Well, you have a lot of really powerful German BB's at T6 and T7 with potent AA batteries plus the Texas exists now at T5.  I'd love to see them come into the game so all the Standards are represented.  I'd also love to see the WeeVee as a T7 Premium ship!

 

I agree,anything to get my beloved USS Nevada in game.

[Fletcher7_1944]

  It would be nice to see those ships in the game!   I'm not especially worried about the refits for two reasons:

 

1)  As someone else said, AA is supposed to be the US "flavor".  Make it so.  If the AA power is a bit overwhelming, so what?  It's a situational boon- it's only worthwhile when carriers are present AND if that carrier is coming too close to you.  Otherwise it just looks pretty,lol.  It's not like other BB lines don't get advantages that make them overwhelming at times.   ALL surface ships have to deal with opponents that can utterly blast them out of the water if they aren't careful or paying attention- why should CV's be any different?   Sure dealing with that US Standard would cost you a bunch of planes- but it's also painfully slow and easy to avoid.  You could also try to overwhelm that AA with more planes than it could deal with- and those bombs and torps that get through deal big damage.  It costs US big to deal with certain enemy ships, too- that's the nature of the game.

 

1a) I would support some downward adjustment to other lines' AA- both to slow down AA power creep, and to emphasize AA as a USN strong point.  For instance, rein in the 105mm damage a bit.  Or keeping the Defensive fire consumable for US BB's only.  (cruisers could still mount it, I'm only speaking of BB's here)  IJN AA is fine where it is.

 

2)  Those refits DID exist, and were done in response to the real conditions the ships faced in the WW II theater.   IJN and KM will still have better secondaries than we do, they'll still be faster than us,  IJN will still outrange us, and be more accurate, and KM will still have that much better armor- and in the case of three of them WHICH THESE SHIPS WILL ALL SEE- have torpedoes.  In some cases, the german BB's will have bigger guns, too.   Thus, I'm really not seeing how this would unbalance the game terribly.  Cause players to have to readjust their tactics in some cases? Certainly.  But that's true of every update and game addition as well.   And it isn't like the US Standards are top of their class right now.

[Tzarevitch]

Nevada is a solid T5 candidate in her pre-Pearl Harbor configuration.  Pennsylvania in her post Pearl configuration would be insanely powerful at T6 but Tennessee at T7 in full post Pearl would work find because of the power creep that is Gneisenau.  I do think that T6 is the real contention point.  It used to be that "powerful secondaries" were not allowed and "too powerful AA" was not allowed.  Well, you have a lot of really powerful German BB's at T6 and T7 with potent AA batteries plus the Texas exists now at T5.  I'd love to see them come into the game so all the Standards are represented.  I'd also love to see the WeeVee as a T7 Premium ship!

 

​I think we will see WeeVee as a T7 premium eventually because there is no US T7 premium BB. I don't think we will see the others though except maybe as premiums if they can think of something different to give them.  The downside of the standards game-wise is there is so little difference between them that would play out in the game. The Nevadas, Pennsylvanias, and Tennessees are basically the same ship. Especially in final war refit form.

 

What I would really like to see is the 1920 South Dakota design. That would be a nightmare to tier though. It is really powerful firepower-wise at T8, but its speed makes it harder to put it higher on the huge high-tier maps.  

[Lord_Magus]

​I think we will see WeeVee as a T7 premium eventually because there is no US T7 premium BB. I don't think we will see the others though except maybe as premiums if they can think of something different to give them.  The downside of the standards game-wise is there is so little difference between them that would play out in the game. The Nevadas, Pennsylvanias, and Tennessees are basically the same ship. Especially in final war refit form.

 

What I would really like to see is the 1920 South Dakota design. That would be a nightmare to tier though. It is really powerful firepower-wise at T8, but its speed makes it harder to put it higher on the huge high-tier maps.  

 

I'd like to see West Virginia as a T7 premium and then Maryland as the final hull for Colorado. That would solve the problem of Colorado's bizarrely low HP and the fact that her supposed AA "flavor" has been power creeped by Gneisenau, while WeeVee would have upgraded armor TDS. Colorado/Maryland would actually have slightly better AA (more 40mm Bofors, less 20mm Oerlikons), WeeVee would just be more durable.

 

As for South Dakota, given that Montana already has a 2 knot speed buff beyond what the actual design was supposed to reach I don't see why 1920 SoDak could've be given 25-26 knots (with the design speed of 23 knots as the stock engines). That combined with a B hull based on the Standard Type rebuilds should be enough to make 1920 SoDak (Indiana?) workable as a T9 of a BB line split.

[Fletcher7_1944]

 

I'd like to see West Virginia as a T7 premium and then Maryland as the final hull for Colorado. That would solve the problem of Colorado's bizarrely low HP and the fact that her supposed AA "flavor" has been power creeped by Gneisenau, while WeeVee would have upgraded armor TDS. Colorado/Maryland would actually have slightly better AA (more 40mm Bofors, less 20mm Oerlikons), WeeVee would just be more durable.

 

As for South Dakota, given that Montana already has a 2 knot speed buff beyond what the actual design was supposed to reach I don't see why 1920 SoDak could've be given 25-26 knots (with the design speed of 23 knots as the stock engines). That combined with a B hull based on the Standard Type rebuilds should be enough to make 1920 SoDak (Indiana?) workable as a T9 of a BB line split.

 

   I like this idea!

 

To go a step further, perhaps a future split where we can choose between Standards and fast BB's.  I know I'm biased, but I really like the "Standard" playstyle, and would love a couple more to grind through.    Say start at tier 8, with one branch being exactly what we have now. and the other being more Standards, like the 1920 SoDak at 9.   Dunno what they'd do for a tier 10.  Are there any that might fit?  Or would they need to work up an old school paper ship with, say 4x3 16", a fat hull with thick armor all the way down the citadel, great rudder shift and turning radius, a healthy torpedo bulge etc but relatively slow speed, and old school guns.  (Co's 16"ers, 5"/51 secondaries, etc.)    An " I may be slow, but God help you if I get in range!" ship.

[Lord_Magus]

For T10 my best guess is they'd fish out some Montana-like design using the 18"/48 gun without the artificially boosted speed Montana gets now (her design speed was 28 knots).

 

But for what you're talking about, Tillman I seems to fit the bill in most regards. 4x2 16"/50 guns, 21x1 6"/53 secondaries, 457mm belt armor, 26.5 knots top speed, 70000 tons standard displacement. When adding in 1930-40s type upgrades (a giant BB with no AA isn't going to work at T10) you'd lose at least some of the casemate secondaries in favor of AA and get big torpedo bulges added, and the extra weight would probably bring the HP pool upward of 110000. By comparison Kurfurst is 105800 HP. The downside would be that no matter how good a rudder you put on it a 300m ship will have a giant turning circle. And a huge HP pool means you burn real good since fires do damage by percentage.

 

While the Tillman series were drawn up just to show the largest and most powerful BBs that could possibly be built within the limits of being able to go through the Panama Canal, Tillman I could sort of be considered a preliminary design for the 1920 South Dakota. 1920 SoDak ended up with the same main armament and similar secondaries, but the size was reduced to a more reasonable level and the belt was reduced to 343mm. At the time that was considered the thickest cemented plate that could be produced with any sort of consistent quality. Thicker plating was doable over small areas like turrets faces, but not for the very long armor pieces needed to make a battleship's belt. Not with 1920 technology anyway.

[Fletcher7_1944]

  I'd forgotten all about the Tillman designs...

 

 I was thinking along the lines of a logical progression- with the tier 10 being the ultimate expression of the "standard type".    a 16" armed New Mexico, kinda.  (that's a rather terrifying thought isn't it?)

 

 Agreed on the AA. A tier 10 ship has no business having bad AA- esp a USN ship,lol.   It shouldn't completely overpower Des Moines, either- 8" machine guns and God mode AA are all it really has, lol.   If it were up to me, to outfit the beast of the fleet with AA- I'd go for a combination of Des Moines' 3"/55's and Montana's 5"/54's for the high end.  Dunno how balanced that'd be though. (I'm sure the CV players would be a touch unhappy with that...)   The lighter guns would, of course, be Oerlikons and Bofors.

[Phaere]

The Tillman designs are quite honestly completely ridiculous and in no way viable to build. For a Tier 10 i'd rather see the April 1938 Iowa preliminary design: 

 

 

 

9x 457mm /47(48) caliber guns in 3 turrets firing a 3800lb shell. 375mm belt angled at 19 degrees. 27.5 knts (can be buffed to 30 like montana). In all honesty the design is impossible as is, as its the same size as the Iowa. To fit those guns it would need to be bigger and have a greater displacement, but it's still much more practical then any Tillman design.

 

On topic of standard battleships I would definitely like to see Nevada at Tier 5, New Mex with Idaho refit or Tennessee at Tier 6, with Colorado receiving either the West Virginia or Maryland refit at tier 7.

 

Having the 5" /38 secondaries would really put that AA "national flavor" back into early USN battleships since AA pretty much got usurped by the german battleships until you finally get the NC at tier 8. Doesn't help that the "brawling" role WG originally designed the standards around also got usurped by the Germans and they don't have enough accuracy to effectively fight in mid-range so better secondaries would give them a bit more bite at the ranges you need to fight in.

 

I'm a real fan of the standards, especially in looks after the 1940's refits. I'm not a major fan of how they are in game currently. The current game meta has just made them a bit meh compared to everything else.

[hoom]

How did this get to Tillmans?

It was about 5" DP 2ndaries...

[icyplanetnhc]

How strictly do the developers adhere to having a specific armament deal identical damage regardless of the ship they're mounted on? For instance, does the 5"/38 Mk.12 have the same AA DPS per gun regardless of the ship it's mounted on, be it a Cleveland or an Iowa or a Gearing? If not, the long range AA DPS from the 5"/38 Mk.12 on the lower tier Standard-types like Nevada or Pennsylvania can be tone down so that they won't be completely immune to any carrier strikes.

[icyplanetnhc]

After giving this a bit more thought, there can be several solutions to balancing the mid-tier Standard-types. Let's start with the Nevada.

 

Nevada represents a very large performance gap compared to the New York; even her pre-Pearl Harbor configuration offers very strong advantages over the current New York. Consequently, I suggest that the final hull upgrade of the tech tree Nevada (perhaps named Oklahoma) should be in her Pearl Harbor configuration; the New York should then have her AA buffed to be competitive with Texas along with buffs in soft stats. This would present some gameplay distinction between the two classes, with the tech tree Nevada/Oklahoma having superior armor, while the tech tree New York would have better AA. The only danger is that the post-buff New York will encroach on the Texas' role, but maybe some adjustments in soft stats can help with that. See below for the Oklahoma's configuration.

 

Oklahoma (Pearl Harbor)

 

12x1 5"/51 Mk.7 secondary gun

8x1 5"/25 Mk.10 AA gun

2x1 3"/50 Mk.10 AA gun (lol...)

 

Finally, the Nevada's post-1942 configuration can perhaps appear as a Tier 6 premium, in order to do the real USS Nevada justice. Compared to the Arizona, the premium Nevada can offer superior AA and secondaries (and possibly even better accuracy) in exchange for lower alpha strike.

 

The Pennsylvania in her post-Pearl Harbor configuration can be balanced at Tier 6 in a conventional, albeit boring method. Her main batteries would have the same sigma as the New Mexico (1.5 rather than the Arizona's 1.8). Compared to the New Mexico, she would have superior AA and secondaries in exchange for lower muzzle velocity and penetration and maybe rate of fire. The Arizona would still have her niche with her higher main battery accuracy. If the performance disparity is still too great, then perhaps the New Mexico's final hull should be the Idaho which would give her ten 5"/38 Mk12 DP guns, which is still less than the Pennsylvania's sixteen. I don't think bumping her up to Tier 7 would be a good idea either, as her firepower, twelve 14"/45 guns, would be quite lacking.

 

Tennessee is another ship that's difficult to balance. In raw stats, she offers little over the Pennsylvania aside from slightly higher muzzle velocity and higher HP. The biggest issue is her main batteries; 14" caliber is quite lacking at that tier. She, like the Colorado, will suffer from the same low speed. Overall I think she can fit into Tier 7, but she'll need some serious advantages in soft stats and perhaps rate of fire compared to her competitors. As an aside, I can see the Royal Navy's 1940 King George V having even more balancing issues with her ten 14"/45 guns, but that's for another topic entirely.

 

Finally, the West Virginia should be a fairly easy ship to balance at Tier 7; the only concern is that she is completely superior to sister ship Colorado. Again, soft stat differences may come into play here. Make the final hull upgrade of the Colorado the Maryland instead, and give it some soft stat advantages over the West Virginia. Admittedly this will still greatly water down any playstyle distinctions between the two, but I believe this should still be the way to go, as I think balance should always have priority.

 

All these are longer term considerations; I don't expect to see a USN battleship tree split until 2018 at the earliest, as I think other nations deserve more attention at the moment. Nevertheless, fun thought experiment.

[YamatoA150]

How strictly do the developers adhere to having a specific armament deal identical damage regardless of the ship they're mounted on? For instance, does the 5"/38 Mk.12 have the same AA DPS per gun regardless of the ship it's mounted on, be it a Cleveland or an Iowa or a Gearing? If not, the long range AA DPS from the 5"/38 Mk.12 on the lower tier Standard-types like Nevada or Pennsylvania can be tone down so that they won't be completely immune to any carrier strikes.

 

WG mostly keeps to AA mount damage consistency.  However, AA mounts can be added or omitted as necessary for the tier, as far as line ships go.  Since it's technically "not" the exact ship, just "a" representative of the class.

 

See Kongou being Hiei in order to avoid the T7+ levels of AA the other 3 sisters got.  Colorado herself is some weird fusion of Colorado and Maryland, IIRC.  New York is really Texas w/o her full AA, and Texas herself is sold with her full AA.

 

Premiums get trickier, as they normally would get most of their AA, barring certain exceptions.  Namely Atago, as WG said adding her proper AA would force them to classify her as OP and either remove her from the shop or bump her to T9 and tweak her for that tier.  Thus, WG omits some AA at first on some Premiums, then adds them in if the ship still needs it and it won't be OP by their standards.

 

That said, I'm all for giving the USN Standards stronger AA, but it's pretty likely that the heaviest AA variants will be restricted to Premium status, much like Texas, while the line variants have some AA omitted on their final hulls.

[Rowstralker]

I love my AA build US BBs. I think every one them is spec'd for AA but even talking about AA with the current state of CV play seems pointless. I know I have take a break due to surgery on my arm but I don't see enough CVs anymore to really warrant an AA build. So if the US flavor is AA then that is almost useless at this point.

Of course this could change once the future CV revamp is implemented.

 

Row

[DeliciousFart]

Since the discussion of USN standard BBs have cropped up in one of the other topics, might as well revisit a thread that's dedicated to that. I'll try to throw in some post-Pearl Harbor displacement values to see how their HP stacks up. These numbers are from Friedman p.439-445.

 

Nevada 1942:

33,747 long tons (34,288 metric trons) full load, 51,339 HP

 

Pennsylvania 1943:

38,659 long tons (39,279 metric tons) full load, 57,233 HP

 

Tennessee 1943:

40,750 long tons (41,607 metric tons) full load, 59,983 HP

 

The Nevada's HP would be only slightly more than Kongo's, while Pennsylvania will be almost the same as Arizona and rebuilt Tennessee would be comparable to the current Colorado in terms of HP. They're all still disgustingly slow at 20.5 to 21 knots full speed.

 

There's still the question of how suitable the Nevada is for tier 5, and whether it should be pre- or post-Peal Harbor configuration. I suppose one way to make sure it doesn't completely overwhelm the New York is to give that ship a 30 second reload, while giving the Nevada the New York's current 34 second reload.

 

It's been mentioned before; if WG is really concerned about the 5"/38 Mark 12 being overpowered at lower tiers, simply have different ROF for different mounts. The fast battleships (NC, SoDak, Iowa) had the Mark 28 mounts, while cruisers had the lighter Mark 32 mounts. I don't know what mounts the rebuilt Standards have, but they can easily give a different mount or mod of mount to adjust the rate of fire.

 

Right now, the Des Moines main battery fires faster than its secondaries.

[FlashTX]

On 4/9/2017 at 6:03 AM, Spooooooooooooooooooooon said:

Even the WW1 Arkansas was sporting a heavy AA armament by 1943, 9 quad 40mm bofors, 26 20mm and 10 3inch/50 AA.  If only I could get these on my Arkansas B  :o

YES, YES, YES!!!!