Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
MutsuKaiNi

What exactly is the point of HMS Monarch?

70 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

171
[DAKI]
Members
184 posts
7,134 battles

So thinking about the Brit BB line and how Monarch is basically a KGV with bigger guns, couldn't WG just have put KGV at tier 8 with a 381mm upgrade and left Nelson as the tech tree tier 7...

Monarch just seems kind of a waste to be honest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,118
[NDA]
Supertester
3,896 posts
1,472 battles

No. 

KGV with stock 14" guns would not be competitive at Tier 8.  So Monarch is a 'planned alternate' that was considered for the KGVs before they settled on the 14" guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
2,282 posts
4,358 battles

Paywall ship:)   every line has them.  It's a KGV with pretty much same armour scheme (not correct) and 9 guns not 10 with slightly larger caliber (but not enough) and a small increase in bow armour because it's an 8...  it's worse at tier than KGV.  KGV is maneageble, Monarch is just a waste of port space. 

I would rather play in a T9 battle with KGV than with Monarch.

Of course this is purely my opinion, your mileage may vary. :)

M

 

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,020
[WUDPS]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
4,721 posts
4,522 battles

What is the point: they wanna make a boat load of pounds off the inevitable tier 8 Vanguard premium.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,421
[5BS]
Members
4,477 posts

Monarch was a quick and dirty solution to wanting the Nelson at 7, but not wanting to give an unhistorical upgrade/buff/refit to the named KGV. The original intention, insofar as the pre-release cards are concerned, was in fact to have KGV at 7 and Nelson at 8, but Nelsol fans screamed bloody murder at this. I suspect, had they had more warning, thought ahead, ect, Wargaming would have put Nelson at and KGV at 7 the same way they did, and instead of Monarch, which is basically the same in game model as KGV w/ 15" guns instead of the 14" ones, would have put Vanguard at T8. Instead, rumor mill is Vanguard will be a T8 premium, it's distribution method may be something special as teased by WGing (claiming to have 'something special in mind' for Vanguard). Perhaps it will be a campaign reward ship, or another free XP ship. Or just sold as a T8 premium BB, as if we don't have enough of those already.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
2,282 posts
4,358 battles
5 minutes ago, _RC1138 said:

Monarch was a quick and dirty solution to wanting the Nelson at 7, but not wanting to give an unhistorical upgrade/buff/refit to the named KGV. The original intention, insofar as the pre-release cards are concerned, was in fact to have KGV at 7 and Nelson at 8, but Nelsol fans screamed bloody murder at this. I suspect, had they had more warning, thought ahead, ect, Wargaming would have put Nelson at and KGV at 7 the same way they did, and instead of Monarch, which is basically the same in game model as KGV w/ 15" guns instead of the 14" ones, would have put Vanguard at T8. Instead, rumor mill is Vanguard will be a T8 premium, it's distribution method may be something special as teased by WGing (claiming to have 'something special in mind' for Vanguard). Perhaps it will be a campaign reward ship, or another free XP ship. Or just sold as a T8 premium BB, as if we don't have enough of those already.

INterestingly, the proposal for KGV before the treaty limitations was 9 x 16" guns and at that level she may have been a good ship, but for some reason, WG went 15" which was never an actual proposal :)

M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23,578
[WG-CC]
WoWS Community Contributors
9,038 posts
7,611 battles
1 minute ago, MaliceA4Thought said:

INterestingly, the proposal for KGV before the treaty limitations was 9 x 16" guns and at that level she may have been a good ship, but for some reason, WG went 15" which was never an actual proposla :)

M

Weren't they the same 16" Mk Is that ended up on Rodney and Nelson?  In game they would have the equivalent (lackluster in high tier games) penetration to HMS Warspite's 15" guns but with the advantage of being able to overmatch 27mm of bow armour found on some German and American high tier cruisers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
175
[TF16]
Members
825 posts
4,749 battles

I really enjoy the Monarch and feel that the Nelson was a good candidate for the premium.  I feel that they made the right decisions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23,578
[WG-CC]
WoWS Community Contributors
9,038 posts
7,611 battles
Just now, BartMancuso said:

Have the Monarch and working toward the Lion.  How is the Lion in comparison?

l2iAeIo.jpg

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,310
[CRMSN]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
5,353 posts
3,559 battles
7 minutes ago, Dr_Venture said:

What is the point: they wanna make a boat load of pounds off the inevitable tier 8 Vanguard premium.

And here I am still waiting for a Tier 8 DD that is a regular IJN / USN / KM ship that is actually real and not an Anime ship. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,708
[HINON]
WoWS Wiki Editor, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
6,498 posts
3,751 battles
12 minutes ago, MaliceA4Thought said:

It's a KGV with pretty much same armour scheme (not correct) and 9 guns not 10 with slightly larger caliber (but not enough) and a small increase in bow armour because it's an 8...  it's worse at tier than KGV.

 

Why does that sound like Bismarck?

Same armor scheme? Yep, though with less belt armor and more forward belt.

 

More guns with slightly larger caliber? Bismarck seems to do just fine, and she has less of them, and less accuracy with them.

 

I am seeing the same thing with Gneisenau to Bismarck. Forgive me but I don't see the argument.

 

Plus Monarch has ridiculous concealment getting down to 10.9 km detection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
2,282 posts
4,358 battles
2 minutes ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

Weren't they the same 16" Mk Is that ended up on Rodney and Nelson?  In game they would have the equivalent (lackluster in high tier games) penetration to HMS Warspite's 15" guns but with the advantage of being able to overmatch 27mm of bow armour found on some German and American high tier cruisers.

nope.. they were to be the same 16" guns as were designed for Lion etc so the Mk 2/3/4    The only ship planned to have the Nelsol guns was the G3 class.   Now, there was a development of 15" guns post the QE guns which could have been added to KGV which was design 15C but it was very very short lived and that would have been the new all steel guns 15/45, not the wire wound ones of WW2 of 15/42.

But Churchills origional design for the KGV was the new 16" Mk2 guns which were 16/45 guns.

They would had to have been new as after the Nelsols there weren't anymore of the old 16" available.

M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23,578
[WG-CC]
WoWS Community Contributors
9,038 posts
7,611 battles
Just now, MaliceA4Thought said:

nope.. they were to be the same 16" guns as were designed for Lion etc so the Mk 2/3/4    The only ship planned to have the Nelsol guns was the G3 class.   Now, there was a development of 15" guns post the QE guns which could have been added to KGV which was design 15C but it was very very short lived and that would have been the new all steel guns 15/45, not the wire wound ones of WW2 of 15/42.

But Churchills origional design for the KGV was the new 16" Mk2 guns which were 16/45 guns.

They would had to have been new as after the Nelsols there weren't anymore of the old 16" available.

M

Huh, that would have been a pretty potent armament.  What was the turret configuration?  3x3?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,421
[5BS]
Members
4,477 posts
6 minutes ago, MaliceA4Thought said:

INterestingly, the proposal for KGV before the treaty limitations was 9 x 16" guns and at that level she may have been a good ship, but for some reason, WG went 15" which was never an actual proposal :)

M

It was definitely proposed. But in ship design, 'proposed' doesn't mean what I think most people think it means. Proposals are back of the napkin investigations. Far from a design study which will involve hard calcs. That said I think I remember reading somewhere that design study using 2x3 15" guns had been investigated on KGV long before being finalized in design with the 10 14" but I could be thinking of something else.

Another example of the sheer volume of proposals and even design studies is the development of the North Carolina class. There what? ~18 designs actually taken out to design studies? With everything from 14" guns, to 15" guns, to 16" guns, in double, triple and I think even one set had 2 4x turrets? Some with all forward armament similar to the Nelsons. Some with a 30 knot speed and some as low as 23 knots. The KGV likely would have gone through a similar design process. So the idea that a 15" version was considered at some point would be unsurprising.

Now that all said, in the context of this game, you can't simply implement every 'design idea' of a ship to fill in holes. That's a stupid way to go about it, especially if a real launched ship is available for use. I am thoroughly convinced that Monarch, which was NOT in the initial leaks/proposals for the line, was a VERY quickly hobbled together insert for Tier 8 and given more time and leway, Vanguard would have been the (logical) T8, perhaps with a slight AA nerf just to maintain a degree of balance at tier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
2,282 posts
4,358 battles
7 minutes ago, landcollector said:

NavWeaps seems to say differently though:

http://navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_15-45_mk2.php

very short lived paperwork proposal not ever actually drawn up .. the origional design was 3x3 16" and  the finalised design  10x14"

M.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,708
[HINON]
WoWS Wiki Editor, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
6,498 posts
3,751 battles
10 minutes ago, Cobraclutch said:

And here I am still waiting for a Tier 8 DD that is a regular IJN / USN / KM ship that is actually real and not an Anime ship. 

 

Technically, Harekaze reflects the actual service life/armament of Yukikaze during her post war service.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
2,282 posts
4,358 battles
4 minutes ago, _RC1138 said:

It was definitely proposed. But in ship design, 'proposed' doesn't mean what I think most people think it means. Proposals are back of the napkin investigations. Far from a design study which will involve hard calcs. That said I think I remember reading somewhere that design study using 2x3 15" guns had been investigated on KGV long before being finalized in design with the 10 14" but I could be thinking of something else.

 

No when they laid the ships down they were actually planning to use and had ordered the 16" Mk4.. then the treaty hit and the gun mountings were reduced..  somewhat more than just a proposal in this case.

M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,310
[CRMSN]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
5,353 posts
3,559 battles
1 minute ago, Doomlock said:

 

Technically, Harekaze reflects the actual service life/armament of Yukikaze during her post war service.

Thanks I did not know that.  Appreciate the response. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,708
[HINON]
WoWS Wiki Editor, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
6,498 posts
3,751 battles
9 minutes ago, Cobraclutch said:

Thanks I did not know that.  Appreciate the response. 

No problem. Let me dig up my pictures of her in Taiwanese service here...

 

Edit: @Cobraclutch here we go.

 

GYRAgLv.jpg

EGIp4TI.jpg

 

In her service life she was reequiped with the original. EDIT: 12.7cm/40 Type 89 DP guns and dual 10cm/65 Type 98 DP guns. Then she was rearmed with single open mounted 5"/38 guns and 3"/50 caliber automatic AA guns.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
2,282 posts
4,358 battles
5 minutes ago, _RC1138 said:

It was definitely proposed. But in ship design, 'proposed' doesn't mean what I think most people think it means. Proposals are back of the napkin investigations. Far from a design study which will involve hard calcs. That said I think I remember reading somewhere that design study using 2x3 15" guns had been investigated on KGV long before being finalized in design with the 10 14" but I could be thinking of something else.

 

You remember right, kinda :)   After the dockyard had laid down the first ship but scrapped the 16" because of the treaty, they developed the 14" to fit inside the treaty..   there was a plan.. very short lived for 9 x 15" in triples.. the 15C proposal but that would still have been outside treaty for weight, so although talked about, never even became a real proposal.

M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,421
[5BS]
Members
4,477 posts
Just now, MaliceA4Thought said:

No when they laid the ships down they were actually planning the 16" Mk4.. then the treaty hit and the gun mountings were reduced..  somewhat more than just a proposal in this case.

M

I was talking about the 15". They were proposed, but proposals in ship design is what engineers call 'napkin math' where basically the most important, viability based math is done, just to see under the most simple constraints, can a design be considered physically possible. For example, as a matter of fact, I just did one this morning over a Q-Max carrier to see if a new containment design can even fit on that sized hull. It is by no means definitive nor actionable in any regard other than saying, "Sure under the simplest physical laws, it CAN be done." Whether or not we take it to the next design stage, and IF it can pass that stage, is a WHOLE different ball game.

My understanding is that a similar degree of proposal was done with 15" guns for the KGV's, purely a proposal. I doubt a feasibility study was conducted and an actual design study is unlikely. But at some point someone did put pen to paper to see if it could even be done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×