Jump to content
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
Red_Hammer_Fleet

UK DDs, a theoretical tree

21 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

35
[GULAG]
[GULAG]
Members
149 posts
1,372 battles

I really don't get why the UK line is only half-filled and WG is working on new lines. I would be grateful if WG explained why they aren't fleshing out the UK line. I've only been playing for a little over a month, I've seen a bunch of posts about the Pan-Asia line and the Italians.

A week or so ago, I looked up the historic DD classes that were put to sea by the UK during the war. There wasn't that much variation between the lines. Almost all of them were carrying some number of 4.7" or 4" guns and two quad torpedo launchers. Some classes (like the I-class) had two quintuple torpedo launchers.

The UK trick of ripple-firing individual fish sounds awesome in a DD. It could make them contenders for best torpedo boats in the game, but with better gun ratings than the IJN. The data I'm finding puts their gun traverse rate around 10 degrees/second. Slightly slower turret traverse rates than the Americans (a stock Nicholas does 180 degrees in 12 seconds), but far more control over firing your fish.

So, what would it look like?

  • T2: Vanquisher-class. 4x QF 4"/102mm guns, 2x twin torpedo launchers. 1x 76mm AA mount. 35kt max speed. Essentially a faster Sampson with British torpedo launchers.
  • T3: Ardent-class. 4x QF 4.7"/120mm guns (12rpm, less damage per shell than a Wickes with worse dispersion), 2x quad torpedo launchers. 2x 40mm AA mounts. 35kt max speed. The Derpski, but less derpy.
  • T4: Daring-class. Improvement over the Ardent-class. Better AA, slightly faster, and better dispersion/range/DPM than the Ardent.
  • T5:  Imperial-class. 4x QF 4.7"/120mm guns (12rpm), 2x quintuple torpedo launchers. 2x quad .5"/12.7mm AA mounts. 36kt max speed. The space between a Nicholas and a Minekaze. Nice guns, nice torpedoes. Can't hit as hard as the Nicholas with its guns, but its torpedoes aren't as good as the Minekaze.
  • T6: Lance-class. 4x twin QF 4"/102mm guns (15rpm, less damage than a Farragut per shell), 2x quad torpedo launchers. 1x 4"/102mm AA mount, 4x 40mm gun mounts, 2x quad .5"/12.7mm AA mounts. 36kt max speed.
  • T7: Onslaught-class. Essentially a straight upgrade from the Lance-class. Gets four quad 40mm AA guns and six single 20mm AA guns with Defensive Fire, so it's a tiny Atlanta without the ridiculous HE spam.
  • T8: Savage-class. An Onslaught-class with almost no shell dispersion, built to take on a Benson in a gunfight and have at least some chance at winning.
  • T9: Whirlwind-class. Another straight upgrade, this time adding radar to the mix. Yes, a DD with access to radar.
  • T10: Cavalier-class. 4x QF 4.5"/113mm guns, 2x quad torpedo launchers. 2x twin 40mm AA mounts, 2x single 40mm AA mounts, 2x 20mm AA mounts. 36kt max speed. Something like a Z-52.

The lower third (T2-4) will carry roughly the same fish as the Caledon (53kt speed, 6km range, 10k max damage) with with a longer reload, probably in the 50-60 second range. The middle third (T5-7) get the Leander's 59-knot terrors, but keep the 96-second reload time. The upper third (T8-10) get the 10km range, 15k-damage hitters from the Neptune. As a player progresses up the line, shell dispersion and sigma values slowly decrease, making them rather American in style while still being better torpedo boats. They lack the high DPM that the Americans do, but compensate with better torpedo ranges and smaller detection circles. As for maneuverability, I've got nothing. They'll probably fall somewhere around the Germans or Russians for rudder shift and turning radius while keeping that 36 knots of speed for almost the entire line. Not the fastest, not the best at torpedoes, not the toughest or most maneuverable, and lacking the best guns. The dead center of the spectrum.

All these ships will get the same access to consumables and upgrade as the other DDs, with some outliers. All ships will have Damage Control, Speed Boost, and Smoke Generator as consumables. Higher tiers will obviously get other fun toys.

At the very least, it's an interesting thought experiment. I've probably missed a lot here, so criticism is very much welcome.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,976
[SYN]
Members
14,461 posts
10,475 battles

With 102mm and 113mm guns, IFHE becomes mandatory T8 and upwards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
133
[VVV]
Members
359 posts
2,271 battles

Well how would you say they play? Are they somewhere between US and IJN DDs (like how Germans DDs are like a mix of US and RU destroyers)? Or do they compare more to RU DDs crossed with IJN DDs?

Point is, how would they play? Like a mix of some classes? Similar but not a copy of another line? Or a whole new playstyle?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22,944
[HINON]
Supertester
19,248 posts
12,800 battles

Needs moar Tribal.

  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,338 posts
2,701 battles
1 hour ago, Lert said:

Needs moar Tribal.

 

Tribal's should be premiums tbh, they don't fit with the rest of the tech tree with their single torpedo tube, something like the J-class would fit Tier 7 much better.

 

Something like Haida and maybe Cossack. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,710
[HINON]
Modder, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
6,498 posts
3,751 battles

Also, no Daring class (1949)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,207
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
6,819 posts
10,379 battles
3 hours ago, Red_Hammer_Fleet said:
  • T2: Vanquisher-class. 4x QF 4"/102mm guns, 2x twin torpedo launchers. 1x 76mm AA mount. 35kt max speed. Essentially a faster Sampson with British torpedo launchers.
  • T3: Ardent-class. 4x QF 4.7"/120mm guns (12rpm, less damage per shell than a Wickes with worse dispersion), 2x quad torpedo launchers. 2x 40mm AA mounts. 35kt max speed. The Derpski, but less derpy.
  • T4: Daring-class. Improvement over the Ardent-class. Better AA, slightly faster, and better dispersion/range/DPM than the Ardent.
  • T5:  Imperial-class. 4x QF 4.7"/120mm guns (12rpm), 2x quintuple torpedo launchers. 2x quad .5"/12.7mm AA mounts. 36kt max speed. The space between a Nicholas and a Minekaze. Nice guns, nice torpedoes. Can't hit as hard as the Nicholas with its guns, but its torpedoes aren't as good as the Minekaze.
  • T6: Lance-class. 4x twin QF 4"/102mm guns (15rpm, less damage than a Farragut per shell), 2x quad torpedo launchers. 1x 4"/102mm AA mount, 4x 40mm gun mounts, 2x quad .5"/12.7mm AA mounts. 36kt max speed.
  • T7: Onslaught-class. Essentially a straight upgrade from the Lance-class. Gets four quad 40mm AA guns and six single 20mm AA guns with Defensive Fire, so it's a tiny Atlanta without the ridiculous HE spam.
  • T8: Savage-class. An Onslaught-class with almost no shell dispersion, built to take on a Benson in a gunfight and have at least some chance at winning.
  • T9: Whirlwind-class. Another straight upgrade, this time adding radar to the mix. Yes, a DD with access to radar.
  • T10: Cavalier-class. 4x QF 4.5"/113mm guns, 2x quad torpedo launchers. 2x twin 40mm AA mounts, 2x single 40mm AA mounts, 2x 20mm AA mounts. 36kt max speed. Something like a Z-52.

I'm afraid it would not look like that in my (semi) informed opinion, you're falling into an age distribution trap. The better benchmarks we have are existing RN destroyers in-game and a closer comparison with other ships.

Your line under-tiers the early ships a lot, then over-tiers the later ones considerably.

  • The Cavalier most closely resembles the T7 US destroyer Sims, she can't work at T10. If you compare them they have 4 fast firing guns and 8 torpedoes each on similar hulls.
  • The Onslaught is a step down from the Lance in main armament which is what matters. She's T6-T7 having effectively Gallant's armament on a bigger hull
  • The Lance with 4x 2 4in is in essence a 'British Akizuki' trading better speed, handling and a second torpedo launcher for better guns on the IJN ship. That would make her T8.
  • The Savage is about as dangerous as the USS Sims again - T7
  • The Imperial is the same class as in-game T6 HMS Gallant - T6
  • The Daring (1932) is very slightly different to Gallant, maybe a tier lower, probably the same tier. The 'Interwar standard' classes are all very similar.
  • The Ardent is in the T5 range, similar again to Gallant but the guns have lower ROF and she has weaker torpedoes, the Pan-Asian line uses a modified British Scott class here which is a decent call
  • The Vanquisher is more equivalent to the USS Clemson at T4

We already have several solid attempts, see:

My personal tree would be -

T2 Laforey  http://www.navypedia.org/ships/uk/brit_dd_laforey.htm

T3 Radstock http://www.navypedia.org/ships/uk/brit_dd_admiralty_r.htm

T4 Vanoc http://www.navypedia.org/ships/uk/brit_dd_admiralty_v.htm

T5 Scott http://www.navypedia.org/ships/uk/brit_dd_scott.htm

T6 HMS Glowworm http://www.navypedia.org/ships/uk/brit_dd_g_h_i.htm

T7 HMS Jervis http://www.navypedia.org/ships/uk/brit_dd_j_k_n.htm

T8 Battle (Group 1 w 4x 4.5in) http://www.navypedia.org/ships/uk/brit_dd_battle_1.htm

T9 Battle (Group 2/3 w/ 5x 4.5in) http://www.navypedia.org/ships/uk/brit_dd_battle_2.htm

T10 Daring 6x2 4.5in, 2x5 torpedo tubes (think Gearing only with arc-ier but higher ROF guns) - http://www.navypedia.org/ships/uk/brit_dd_daring.htm

 

Honestly the Pan-Asian tree putting a JKN class at T7 messes up what I would have liked to see, which would have been a GHI at T6, a War Emergency (Cavalier) with 4.5in at T7, the JKN at T8, only one Battle at T9 and then maybe Daring at T10.

These days I fear Daring (1949) as a T10 is getting power-crept pretty hard, and would be the fifth A-B-Y turreted T10 DD after Gearing, Z-52 and the unnecessary Grozovoi and Yue Yang.

 

The RN line should also get 1/5 HE penetration to obviate the concern that a 55lb British 4.5in shell can't damage a destroyer that a USN 55lb 5in shell can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35
[GULAG]
[GULAG]
Members
149 posts
1,372 battles

I'll take a whack at replying to what's been said so far, can't get everyone at once.

7 hours ago, MrDeaf said:

With 102mm and 113mm guns, IFHE becomes mandatory T8 and upwards.

Pretty much, yeah.

 

7 hours ago, AtlanticRim said:

Well how would you say they play? Are they somewhere between US and IJN DDs (like how Germans DDs are like a mix of US and RU destroyers)? Or do they compare more to RU DDs crossed with IJN DDs?

Point is, how would they play? Like a mix of some classes? Similar but not a copy of another line? Or a whole new playstyle?

I sort of see them as the center point of the spectrum. Not as shooty as the USN DDs, torps not quite as good as the IJN DDs. They aren't cap-contesting knife-fighters like the Russians, or German cruiser-hunters.

As a caveat to that last: I have reached T5 on all four current lines, so I'm not completely talking out of my:Smile_hiding: here.

 

6 hours ago, Lert said:

Needs moar Tribal.

I'll agree with @xX_Critical_ClopOut69_Xx that the Tribal feels better as a premium. It doesn't really fit with the other classes.

 

5 hours ago, Doomlock said:

Also, no Daring class (1949)?

I stopped at the Battle-class ships. My criteria for the tree were: it existed, was fielded in significant numbers, and fits with the overall progression of the other DD trees as well as within the tree I built. I really should look at the immediate postwar ships, as a lot of these feel a bit repetitive. There wasn't a huge amount of change from one class to the next, so I shall expand my search. Now that I think on it, I feel like a bit of an idiot.

 

The original post was a bit of a hip-shot effort, something I've been mulling over a bit for a couple weeks but without as much research as I usually do.

For @mofton, I need to look more intently at what you've written before I can make an answer. I'm a bit too tired right now to even attempt a worthy reply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,025
[ARGSY]
Members
6,388 posts
4,293 battles

I am hoping they stick to historical classes, with a turtleback at Tier 2 and going up from there. The early turtlebacks had a really weird torpedo tube arrangement; their twin launcher at the back spat out one each side. Then there was the nose tube, which ought to give the early German V class a run for their money.

 

As things stand, the closest thing we currently have to the first-generation pre-war British destroyers is probably the Umikaze, bearing the same relation to them that Mikasa bears to British pre-dreadnoughts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
0
[_NAS_]
[_NAS_]
Members
11 posts
8,527 battles

It makes no sense that one of the preeminent destroyer designs of WW II the Tribal Class would not be figure prominently in the RN destroyer tech tree. The fact that the N Class is being included in the pan-asian tree proves it is feasible

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,207
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
6,819 posts
10,379 battles
32 minutes ago, The_Fighting_J said:

It makes no sense that one of the preeminent destroyer designs of WW II the Tribal Class would not be figure prominently in the RN destroyer tech tree. The fact that the N Class is being included in the pan-asian tree proves it is feasible

The N Class gets 6x 4.7in guns and 10 torpedo tubes.

The Tribal gets 8x 4.7in guns and only 4 torpedo tubes. It doesn't fit the line and it's not that analagous to the N class.

The Tribal is to the RN line somewhat like the Akizuki is to the IJN line, better split off, great history, hopefully a worthwhile ship in game, but doesn't fit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
0
[_NAS_]
[_NAS_]
Members
11 posts
8,527 battles

I disagree entirely the Tribals were in fact historically possibly the most important destroyer class of World War II. Certainly they took part in most of the major naval engagements at least in Europe. For a game that is centered around naval warfare of World War II it would be unforgiveable not to include it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,207
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
6,819 posts
10,379 battles
57 minutes ago, The_Fighting_J said:

I disagree entirely the Tribals were in fact historically possibly the most important destroyer class of World War II. Certainly they took part in most of the major naval engagements at least in Europe. For a game that is centered around naval warfare of World War II it would be unforgiveable not to include it.

Yes, they should be in. But not in a main line. They might be included as premiums (maybe FXP premium too) or in a side-branch like the Japanese and Russian destroyers have.

WG will remove famous ships with good history from main lines - see recently the Nelson's omission from the RN battleship main branch, that's despite being one of only 2 complete classes of RN BB designed post 1920.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,266
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
8,804 posts
15,310 battles
On ‎10‎/‎14‎/‎2017 at 4:28 PM, MrDeaf said:

With 102mm and 113mm guns, IFHE becomes mandatory T8 and upwards.

I can see making a strong case for this; especially in light of the success of Akizuki and her 100 mm guns with IFHE.

On ‎10‎/‎14‎/‎2017 at 5:38 PM, Lert said:

Needs moar Tribal.

Always a must have for any situation!

On ‎10‎/‎14‎/‎2017 at 6:40 PM, xX_Critical_ClopOut69_Xx said:

Tribal's should be premiums tbh, they don't fit with the rest of the tech tree with their single torpedo tube, something like the J-class would fit Tier 7 much better.

OK; I can live with this, SO SHUT UP AND TAKE MY MONEY ALREADY!

On ‎10‎/‎15‎/‎2017 at 0:18 AM, Red_Hammer_Fleet said:

They aren't cap-contesting knife-fighters like the Russians

Neither are the Russians, LOL!! (not with their detection values!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
214 posts
12 battles
On 03/11/2017 at 11:06 PM, mofton said:

The Tribal is to the RN line somewhat like the Akizuki is to the IJN line, better split off, great history, hopefully a worthwhile ship in game, but doesn't fit.

 

Who want's a line of Kidd with crap AA but better torpedoes?? :cap_like:

 

Tier 2: Talisman - Talisman class leader

Tier 3: Parker - Parker class leader

Tier 4: Valkyrie - V class leader

Tier 5: Scott - Admiralty class leader

Tier 6: Exmouth - E class leader

Tier 7: Afridi - Tribal class

Tier 8: Lightning - L Class

Tier 9: Saracen - V leader design.

Tier 10: Meteor - L.72 design.

 

https://forum.worldofwarships.eu/topic/64198-royal-navy-tech-tree-proposal/?do=findComment&comment=2153860

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,207
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
6,819 posts
10,379 battles
2 hours ago, creamgravy said:

Tier 7: Afridi - Tribal class

Tier 8: Lightning - L Class

Tier 9: Saracen - V leader design.

Tier 10: Meteor - L.72 design.

Inclusion of repair party on Kidd (or previously the Russians) as a concept for a destroyer leader line does shake things up a bit, I'd still prefer the repair to the torpedo reload on a historic basis.

Even with that bonus leading into a gameplay of 'destroyer bully, accepting some knocks to kill 'em' - I'm not desperately convinced that the L&M can do T8 in it's 4.7in/50 guise, I'm not convinced that the V leader can do T9 when it's a small improvement over the Tribal, and I'm not convinced on the L.72 at T10 unless it gets mega-ROF-buff.

I also don't really like the idea of going /45 on Tribal, to /50 on LM, back to /45 on V Leader, then up to /50 again on the L.72. That said, if the never-built V leader was ahistorically equipped with the /50 that wouldn't be a problem, and in-game you don't have to worry about capsize.

I also don't really like going 4-8-5-8 on torpedoes overly much. Maybe make up some kind of V Leader with another set of tubes.

 

Have you done comparative shell flight time calculations for the 5.25 and 4.7in/50 compared to existing in-game guns, or am I imagining something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
214 posts
12 battles
4 hours ago, mofton said:

I also don't really like going 4-8-5-8 on torpedoes overly much

 

There's no jumping, all tech tree ships get a 1x4 launcher from tier 6. Even the tier 10! :cap_cool:

 

Historic premiums, like Orkan or Hardy, get 2x4 torpedoes but no heal.

Historic J/K/N premiums with 1x5 torps, like Piorun, can be grouped in either the leader or torpedo line (swap heal for reload booster etc)

 

4 hours ago, mofton said:

I'm not desperately convinced that the L&M can do T8 in it's 4.7in/50 guise,

 

Don't forget these guns have a crazy high fire chance (8 to 9%) Giving them 12 RPM for tier 8 is fine, HE output is almost identical Kiev.

 

5 hours ago, mofton said:

I'm not convinced that the V leader can do T9

 

Your not convinced a destroyer with 10 guns, 4.4s reload, smoke and super heal can do tier 9? :cap_fainting:

That's similar DPM to Gearing but almost double the number of fires, yikes! Placing the 5th turret between the smoke stacks with terrible firing arcs would be the best idea for balance, that Dido/Atlanta layout looks a bit OTT.

 

4 hours ago, mofton said:

I'm not convinced on the L.72 at T10 unless it gets mega-ROF-buff.

 

Khaba only gets 12 rpm. L.72 is just a smaller version that does ~39 knots with smoke, super heal, good shell arcs and a 1x4 launcher. Sounds fun right? :Smile_honoring:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,207
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
6,819 posts
10,379 battles
14 minutes ago, creamgravy said:

There's no jumping, all tech tree ships get a 1x4 launcher from tier 6. Even the tier 10! :cap_cool:

 

14 minutes ago, creamgravy said:

Don't forget these guns have a crazy high fire chance (8 to 9%) Giving them 12 RPM for tier 8 is fine, HE output is almost identical Kiev.

Oh, you're keeping the deleted torpedo launcher on those which did have a pair? Ah, makes more sense with the Kidd comparison now.... duuh.

Yeah, I still don't buy the L&M at T8, I buy it more with 12 RPM than 10 RPM, if you want an a-historic 25% increase, but that's a big solid buff. Fire chance is one thing, HE DPM and shell arcs are another. Kiev gets 1,900 instead of 1,600 HE damage and just synergizes as a gunboat better - faster ship (42.5 v 36), flatter shell arcs.

Whatever the shell 'cross-sectional density', I just don't see the 774m/s 28.1kg 4.7in/50 competing with the Russian 870m/s 34.4kg shells. If you can graph it up...?

20 minutes ago, creamgravy said:

Your not convinced a destroyer with 10 guns, 4.4s reload, smoke and super heal can do tier 9? :cap_fainting:

4.4s? 12 RPM for 5s. Sure you'll want BFT but the same goes elsewhere. Super heal helps but it has very little torpedo threat, poor shell arcs, sure 120 RPM is good (Akizuki doing 160 though), poor traverse.

Put another way, if this ship is good at T9, then surely the Tribal which only loses the less-value amidships turret is far too strong at T7? Myself I think the Tribal will be ok/middling.

27 minutes ago, creamgravy said:

Khaba only gets 12 rpm. L.72 is just a smaller version that does ~39 knots with smoke, super heal, good shell arcs and a 1x4 launcher. Sounds fun right? :Smile_honoring:

It can't Khaba as well as Khaba, that's still 4kt slower, with less HP, no 50mm plate of immunity to most cruiser HE, destroyer HE and autobounce AP. The guns will be nothing like as good - 300 less HE damage, same fire chance, inferior traverse (10'/s to 20'/s), 774m/s vs. 900m/s muzzle velocity. Same ROF if you buff the L.72 by 25%. Torpedoes on both pretty situational - L.72 because 4 torps at T10 is weak, Khaba because of the range.

If you make the super heal super enough - which I think is a bridge too far on a citadelless destroyer - then maybe, at least you have smoke and heal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
214 posts
12 battles
21 hours ago, mofton said:

I still don't buy the L&M at T8, I buy it more with 12 RPM than 10 RPM

 

Many ships in the game, like Leningrad, have buffed ROF for balance.

 

Spoiler

 

Tier 8 destroyers Tier Guns Reload (s) HE Alpha Fire chance (%) Hit rate (%) Broadside HE DPM Fires per minute DE
Akizuki 8 8 3 1200 5 50% 2,400 24,000 2.4 3.4
Kidd 8 5 3.3 1800 5 50% 2,250 20,455 1.4 1.9
Tribal 4x2 Mk XII 8 8 5 1700 8 50% 3,400 20,400 2.3 2.9
Kiev 8 6 5 1900 8 50% 2,850 17,100 1.7 2.2
Lo Yang 8 4 3.3 1800 5 50% 1,800 16,364 1.1 1.5
L Class 3x2 Mk XI 8 6 5 1700 9 50% 2,550 15,300 2.0 2.4
Z-23 8 5 6.6 2200 12 50% 2,750 12,500 1.6 1.9
Kagero 8 6 7 1800 7 50% 2,700 11,571 1.1 1.4
Ognevoi 8 4 5 1900 8 50% 1,900 11,400 1.2 1.4

 

 

p545EbG.png

(Guess using 0.313 for Mk XI air drag, it could be more but they shouldn't be worse than IJN 127mm shells past 10km)

 

8 gun Tribal = Similar to Kidd.

L/M = Mix between Lo Yang and Kiev.

 

Both will have a 5.6km to 5.7km surface detection at tier 8.

 

 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,207
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
6,819 posts
10,379 battles
10 minutes ago, creamgravy said:

Many ships in the game, like Leningrad, have buffed ROF for balance.

Leningrad's a good example, true. I was thinking more of Aoba and Omaha when I was being critical of big chunky buffs.

In short your calculation has the 4.7/50 as worst in tier range to about 4km (which doesn't matter too much, still easy shooting) getting a bit better until it's as good as the IJN at 8km, which is ok, and then getting a bit better after that. At range where it very much matters it ends up about 1.5s faster than the worst, but crucially to me >1s behind the Russian gun, which is kind of the be-all/end-all of long range destroyer gunnery.

I know there's not a perfect way to compare playstyles, but the Kiev just has a nice little niche to live in compared to the L&M, with even better shell trajectories on a faster hull. More HE DPM, fewer fires/min.

On the other hand if you went with a Kidd-style heal and playstyle you might do well, just without USN smoke, or the AA. Torpedoes could be better. Kidd out DPM's you and has the heal, but with your better trajectories at range you have an edge there which is balanced.

If I merge those two together in my head then I'm struggling to see how it'd play, but 'maybe' Color me intrigued.

 

I'd still be a little concerned about jumping from the /45 to the /50 and back a couple of times. Maybe a V-Leader with the /50?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×