Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
crzyhawk

Kii unmasked (Image heavy)

57 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

4,728
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
17,538 posts
12,810 battles

I ran into Kerensky in a match tonight in his shiny new Kii.  I figured the IJN fans might appreciate these.  Note the tail stingers in the back, I think this ship is going to be very very good, depending on how the guns work.  She's a very nice looking ship, for an IJN ship.

 

shot-17.09.02_22.20.09-0575.jpg

shot-17.09.02_22.19.39-0113.jpg

shot-17.09.02_22.19.29-0778.jpg

shot-17.09.02_22.19.13-0653.jpg

shot-17.09.02_22.18.37-0648.jpg

shot-17.09.02_22.18.52-0602.jpg

shot-17.09.02_22.19.59-0310.jpg

shot-17.09.02_22.19.23-0168.jpg

  • Cool 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
86
[-BN-]
WoWS Community Contributors
311 posts
14,717 battles

Look at those 8 100mm AA guns... that alone will guve her somewhat good AA... on a Japanese BB!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
438
[PROJX]
Members
1,120 posts
42,813 battles

Stuntman posted a YouTube video that showed her preliminary comparative stats.  She seems to trade off some armor vs gun performance & gets her torps which are a more useful configuration than the Mutsu's - should be an interesting alternative to the Amagi!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,247
[SCCC]
Members
1,137 posts
9,687 battles

I wonder if a secondary build would work on her, with all those 100mm guns. I'll bet they'll have horrible range though because the Amagi's secondaries do. I wonder what other gimmicks WG might add to the Kii.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
650 posts
1,842 battles
1 hour ago, crzyhawk said:

I ran into Kerensky in a match tonight in his shiny new Kii.  I figured the IJN fans might appreciate these.  Note the tail stingers in the back, I think this ship is going to be very very good, depending on how the guns work.  She's a very nice looking ship, for an IJN ship.

 

She looks pretty much like Amagi. But Amagi does have pretty nice lines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,043 posts
10,248 battles
Just now, Middcore said:

She looks pretty much like Amagi. But Amagi does have pretty nice lines.

She at least has an original funnel shape, that doesn't scream "THE DEVELOPERS HAD NO IDEA WHAT TO PUT HERE, SO THEY TOOK THE YAMATO'S FUNNEL INSTEAD!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,244
Alpha Tester
4,156 posts
8,061 battles

The Akizuki guns and/or the torpedoes need to go.  WG needs to either stick with the original 1920s plan(which is already pretty spot-on for a tier 8 premium) or go for a full what-if 1944 refit(which means NO TORPEDOES and adding the proper torpedo defense she was designed to have.)  Don't mix the two into a Frankenstein ship, because right now this is not a Japanese battleship in build or spirit.

 

What drags it down even further is the 35-second reload and terrible dispersion, both of which are also very un-Japanese qualities in their battleships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,894
[HINON]
[HINON]
Wiki Lead, Beta Testers, Privateers
6,801 posts
5,248 battles

Kii is a assured purchase from me. I love the IJN designs and this is no exception.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,728
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
17,538 posts
12,810 battles
30 minutes ago, Middcore said:

 

She looks pretty much like Amagi. But Amagi does have pretty nice lines.

It's a related design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,662
[CALM]
Beta Testers
6,838 posts
6,088 battles

I'm still having reservations. She's still a heavily nerfed T9 in her preliminary stats.

  • 35s Reload
  • 55s Traverse (worse than Amagi's 42s; same traverse as buffed Warspite)
  • Near-nonexistent TDS (25%; barely at KM BB levels; but without the extreme turtleback, fast RoF, or fast traverse that makes it less of an issue on KM BBs)
  • Purposely weakened armor
  • Weaker secondaries (Low HE Alpha due to increased shatters combined with any AP casemates bouncing off any target not straight broadside or head-on)

 

All in exchange for only:

  • Better AA (borderline T9 level)
  • Half-decent torpedo arcs (but only 6km torpedo range)

 

Unless WG unnerfs the RoF 30s Reload, traverse to at least 45s, and unnerfs the armor, she's not a worthwhile purchase.  She can keep the KM BB TDS in exchange for the torpedoes and for a proper sister ship at T9.

 

Or just rename her Ashitaka, remove the torpedoes; mirror Amagi 1:1 but with the sole change being the 10cm DPs. Better AA at the cost of worse secondary performance. Done.

 

Or better yet, scrap it at T8, place it at T9, with a proper modernized hull.  Mirror Amagi's stats but with torpedoes, 10cm DPs, and higher speed. Make it FXP like Missouri.

XHWI1EE.jpg

Edited by YamatoA150
  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,728
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
17,538 posts
12,810 battles

Because a 1920's design should be competitive with an Iowa.

Edited by crzyhawk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
6,670 posts
3 hours ago, crzyhawk said:

I ran into Kerensky in a match tonight in his shiny new Kii.  I figured the IJN fans might appreciate these.  Note the tail stingers in the back, I think this ship is going to be very very good, depending on how the guns work.  She's a very nice looking ship, for an IJN ship.

If you have the mod for the extended tech-tree you can see Kii, and the upcoming Pan-Asian destroyer tree in-game in the tech tree, and get a look at them.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
706
[BROOK]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
3,164 posts

Going to get the Kii, easily. Mostly for well protected torps with good punch and surprisingly great launcher arcs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
943
[NUWES]
Members
3,849 posts
16,416 battles
2 hours ago, Goodwood_Alpha said:

Nice.

I bet she'll have horrible arcs, though... :Smile_trollface:

I was in a game with one yesterday. He was right alongside me for most of the fight.  It has the same issue that I dislike about Amagi. It has to show too much of the ship's side to get all of the guns in arc. I didn't see him launch torpedoes but they look like a similar rear-bias arcs that most of the Japanese CAs have which again forces you to expose the ship's side. The torps also encourage you to get close but unlike Scharn and Tirp, Kii can't survive being that close very well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
640
[THREE]
Members
2,151 posts
11,537 battles
1 hour ago, crzyhawk said:

Because a 1920's design should be competitive with an Iowa.

She probably would have been in most areas, except fire control. In regards, to deficiencies would after construction or in light of recent combat needs, a refit could have alleviated those.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
706
[BROOK]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
3,164 posts
9 minutes ago, Tzarevitch said:

I was in a game with one yesterday. He was right alongside me for most of the fight.  It has the same issue that I dislike about Amagi. It has to show too much of the ship's side to get all of the guns in arc. I didn't see him launch torpedoes but they look like a similar rear-bias arcs that most of the Japanese CAs have which again forces you to expose the ship's side. The torps also encourage you to get close but unlike Scharn and Tirp, Kii can't survive being that close very well. 

Her forward arc limit is actually a couple degrees better then the crowded amidships launcher on the Tirpitz and Scharnhorst.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,244
Alpha Tester
4,156 posts
8,061 battles
23 minutes ago, crzyhawk said:

Not bloody likely

But Amagi being balanced with Alabama and North Carolina is OK?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
640
[THREE]
Members
2,151 posts
11,537 battles
48 minutes ago, crzyhawk said:

Not bloody likely

Old weapons systems tend to retain combat effectiveness long past the design and build dates. for example, lee Enfield still used to great effect against our troops in Afghanistan despite being nearly 60 years between the m4 and the enfield respective design date. Example 2, the t34 can penetrate the frontal armor of the M2a3 Bradley, despite a nearly 40 year difference in between design and manufacture dates. Its not hard to seeing a ship with a proposed of 30kt speed and a throw weight of 10x16in guns being able to compete with the Iowa's 34kts speed and throw weight of 9x16 guns. The Iowa's have things going for them, but they would not completely be immune from an hypnotical Amagi, if it had been built.

Edited by Cpt_Cupcake
grammar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,728
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
17,538 posts
12,810 battles
25 minutes ago, Seraphil said:

But Amagi being balanced with Alabama and North Carolina is OK?

No, I've been [edited] about that for a long time.

 

1 minute ago, Cpt_Cupcake said:

Old weapons systems tend to retain combat effectiveness long past the design and build dates. for example, lee Enfield still used to great effect against our troops in Afghanistan despite being nearly 60 years between the m4 and the enfield respective design date. Example 2, the t34 can penetrate the frontal armor of the M2a3 Bradley, despite a nearly 40 year difference in between design and manufacture dates. Its not hard to seeing a ship with a proposed of 30kt speed and a throw weight of 10x16in guns being able to compete with the Iowa's 34kts speed and throw weight of 9x16 guns. The Iowa's have things going for them, but they would not completely be immune from an hypnotical Amagi, if it had been built.

Completly immune?  No.  Obsolete?  Certainly She was inferior in everything but number of barrels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×