The wonky British BB designs we didn't receive (sadly) at tier X.

[Battlecruiser_Siegfried]

 

Disregarding L2, of course.

 

I'm personally particularly partial to the oddball L^II and L^III designs - the non-super imposed turrets would have been a strange mechanic in high tier play, but at least something a bit different. What we're getting with Conqueror doesn't just feel like the most ham-fisted, upsized-clone-of-Vanguard option imaginable (and thus the least visually distinct when the tree is already concluding with potentially 3 ships with near-identical silhouettes), but also isn't even the never-built ship the British eventually settled on: the N3.

 

Frankly, I feel like we got robbed by the art department. 

[AyanoMidori]

Wonky designs you say? I tried the wonky-[edited]never built Izumo. I still hate it. I'd prefer to play a battleship without restricted gun arcs. L3 isn't so bad though.

[GeneralVeers]

N3 looks like a fun ship especially with that name, I'd have liked her. Maybe we'll get a less modernized prem of her later. As for the other designs I like the M3 and M2 looks as well.

[GeneralVeers]

Wonky designs you say? I tried the wonky-[edited]never built Izumo. I still hate it. I'd prefer to play a battleship without restricted gun arcs.

 

I like having one gun facing rear, it's why I won't buy the HMS Nelson when she releases. I will enter a contest, because yay unique ship though.

[AyanoMidori]

Yeah I'd prefer the rear turret to be positioned aftward, not facing the forward superstructure. That's a really dumb design idea.

[dbs1701]

I agree we should have one of the wonky designs! Maybe at Tier IX, obviously with weaker than 18" guns, and have something like conqueror at Tier X.

[ArmouredCarriers]

And then there were the hybrid carrir battleship designs. Ill post some outlines later.

Point is, like other nations, RN designers were encouraged to try and break the mould when it came to conceptual designs.

They were testing ideas on how to reduce citadel size, separate mqchinery spaces etc.

These were then argued out at 'staff' (senior captains etc) level.

Most didnt leave the back of a napkin and none went to constructors drawing stages.

[MaliceA4Thought]

If it had nbeen the N3  (and preferably called HMS St. George), then I would have worked towards getting a T10  as it is, with the enlarged Vanguard, I can't see me breaking my normal play style of a max T8

 

M

[DoomStomper]

I like having one gun facing rear, it's why I won't buy the HMS Nelson when she releases. I will enter a contest, because yay unique ship though.

 

I too like rearward-facing turrets, as long as they can fire directly astern like the conventional AB-X (Iowa/Yamato) or AB-XY (Hood/Bismarck) arrangements.

 

From a gameplay ergonomics standpoint, designs like Izumo or N3 represent the worst of both worlds; their rearward firing arcs are obstructed by the superstructure, yet they also can't fire all guns directly forward like Dunkerque or Richelieu.  While Nelson can't do this either, she can at least get all guns on target from a very shallow (most likely autobounce) forward angle, then easily switch to a target on the other side without the third turret needing to take the long way around.

 

With that in mind, F3 is one design I'd very much like to see; basically a 30 knot, 9 x 15"/50 Nelson battlecruiser.

 

 

[Cruxdei]

basically trash the entire line with a izumo as tier X?

 

[ArmouredCarriers]

Because battleships needed their own fighter escorts!

(Staff discussions settled on escort and light fleet carriers instead)

[MaliceA4Thought]

 

 

I'm personally particularly partial to the oddball L^II and L^III designs - the non-super imposed turrets would have been a strange mechanic in high tier play, but at least something a bit different. What we're getting with Conqueror doesn't just feel like the most ham-fisted, upsized-clone-of-Vanguard option imaginable (and thus the least visually distinct when the tree is already concluding with potentially 3 ships with near-identical silhouettes), but also isn't even the never-built ship the British eventually settled on: the N3.

 

-snip-

 

Frankly, I feel like we got robbed by the art department. 

 

It's an "interesting" choice the K2  (NOT L2 as WGEU seem to think)  as it was a design that was immediately abandoned because with the 4 twin turret and the required speed consideration, even as a Battlecruiser, it was considered to have armour that was to weak and be too slow to be useful.

 

Heres a great site with line drawings of ALL the possible T9/T10 ships that could have been chosen by WG with basic stats and info.

 

http://www.shipbucket.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=5705

 

M

[Middcore]

Most of these are, frankly, ugly. The Nelrods are kind of lovable oddballs because they're unique but I wouldn't want more ships that look like them. The TX Conqueror we're getting is a little generic (or perhaps I should say repetitive) but at least its handsome. 

[EmperorMaxwell]

basically trash the entire line with a izumo as tier X?

 

 

Praise be to WG for not adding some fugly abomination at the end of the line.

[Carl]

 

I too like rearward-facing turrets, as long as they can fire directly astern like the conventional AB-X (Iowa/Yamato) or AB-XY (Hood/Bismarck) arrangements.

 

From a gameplay ergonomics standpoint, designs like Izumo or N3 represent the worst of both worlds; their rearward firing arcs are obstructed by the superstructure, yet they also can't fire all guns directly forward like Dunkerque or Richelieu.  While Nelson can't do this either, she can at least get all guns on target from a very shallow (most likely autobounce) forward angle, then easily switch to a target on the other side without the third turret needing to take the long way around.

 

With that in mind, F3 is one design I'd very much like to see; basically a 30 knot, 9 x 15"/50 Nelson battlecruiser.

 

 

 

AFAIK th arcs need a 60 degree angle to each side IRL, though i belive that was blast considerations so maybe WG'ing will cut the angle down.

 

@Battlecrusier_Tiger:

 

And what world made you think the superstructure wouldn;t resemble a modified Vanguard pattern whatever we got? Even the Lion where getting has a modified Vanguard pattern, that was the gold standard of later era UK B's. ANy hypothetical late war refit of any of the 20's designs would have resembled that. Certainly N3 would have been "interesting" and i'd have liked her, but if the superstructure even then didn't resemble Vanguard aft of the third turret with the bridge being a Nelson/Vanguard hybrid i'd have been VERY surprised.

[MaliceA4Thought]

AFAIK th arcs need a 60 degree angle to each side IRL, though i belive that was blast considerations so maybe WG'ing will cut the angle down.

 

 

When the first test firing took place on HMS Nelson, the firing of X turret ( which was at 90 degrees to the ships side for testing ) was accompanied by EVERY wondow in the forward superstructure being blown out and shattered glass flying everywhere..  after that they fitted strengthened and laminated glass in all areas and still suggested that the guns were only fired in a 1 then 2 barrel pattern rather than all 3 at once

 

M

[Carl]

Actually the firing pattern wasn't for blast. They never fitted the guns with delay coils so if all 3 where fired together the shells interfered with each other producing awful dispersion. And the Laminated glass still blew out next time they tried firing the guns. They did eventually mostly fix the issue, but it took a few swings to do it.

[DoomStomper]

 

Because battleships needed their own fighter escorts!

(Staff discussions settled on escort and light fleet carriers instead)

 

 

AFAIK th arcs need a 60 degree angle to each side IRL, though i belive that was blast considerations so maybe WG'ing will cut the angle down.

 

True.  Though I'm unaware of how well the average turret interior was sealed off from external overpressure, since WG has so far allowed every superfiring turret to fire while their guns directly overlap the one below, I expect the NelRods will get the same treatment.

[1nv4d3rZ1m]

Wow that is something to complain about "this ship is too generic". I guess WG was never going to please everybody with the RN line, if they went with some special design people would complain about its in game limitations and this thread is what happened because WG went with a generic model. 

[Battlecruiser_Siegfried]

 

 

 

 

True.  Though I'm unaware of how well the average turret interior was sealed off from external overpressure, since WG has so far allowed every superfiring turret to fire while their guns directly overlap the one below, I expect the NelRods will get the same treatment.

 

I honestly would not mind the art deco BB being a thing.

[Middcore]

What we're getting with Conqueror doesn't just feel like the most ham-fisted, upsized-clone-of-Vanguard option imaginable (and thus the least visually distinct when the tree is already concluding with potentially 3 ships with near-identical silhouettes)

 

I also just want to point out here that all the KM battleships from T7 and up and cruisers from T8 and up look basically the same already.

[Battlecruiser_Siegfried]

 

I also just want to point out here that all the KM battleships from T7 and up and cruisers from T8 and up look basically the same already.

 

I get the feeling WG thinks that some kind of a 'national flavor' - and I guess it is - but I don't find it to be an appealing one. And I particularly don't like the dual turrets, when all modern British designs had adopted the triple mount by that point. I would have much preferred a 1944 super Lion (even with the same essential silhouette) with a 9 x 16" auto-loader arrangement, because at least the playstyle would have been radically different from the other tier Xs. As it stands, this comes out looking like some overstuffed Friedrich der GroBe. 

[YamatoA150]

The designs with the split citadel setup (engines to the rear, guns to the front) would have been interesting, such as N3 or M2/M3 designs, but due to their durability, would have likely ended up using the lighter 18" shell to offset their high survivability.

 

L3 would have been a more comfortable and conventional 3x3 setup, only having the weakness of less angled armor and a conventional box citadel, but would have had a tiny bit more alpha than the Yamato on pens and citpens.

[Lampshade_M1A2]

I must admit I'm somewhat disappointed we won't be seeing the N3 anytime soon. It's a strange configuration to be sure but it's what the British had selected and intended to build.

 

The L3 is another option I would have liked to seen although WG would have had to make some adjustments to reflect changes that would have likely occurred as the design was finalized. For example a main belt sloped at 25 degrees was found to be too ambitious so the slope was reduced to 18 degrees on the N3 and G3.

 

I don't mind the Conqueror design as the British certainly could have built such a ship were they not totally bankrupt yet I find the use of two-gun turrets rather odd. In reality the British were looking for a capable yet more "economical" battleship than some "super-battleship" with 18" guns, hence all of the later variations of the Lion class.