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

Tier 7 USN BB proposal SD(1920)

40 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Alpha Tester
3,666 posts
7,457 battles
Just now, Lert said:

She'd be ok at T5 / T6 I think.

But this thread isn't about Alaska, it's about SoDak '20.

I know, but the idea is still the same, a massive pain in the [edited]trying to find a place for her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26,589
[HINON]
Supertester
21,227 posts
14,826 battles
1 minute ago, Fog_Repair_Ship_Akashi said:

I know, but the idea is still the same, a massive pain in the [edited]trying to find a place for her.

Truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
995 posts
1,871 battles

SoDak '20 just shouldn't be added to the game the lexington class BC would make a better tier VII battleship having the same armement as the Colorado but on a faster less armored hull as for the Alaska I think she would make a great tier II DD:cap_haloween:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,915
[SALVO]
Members
21,359 posts
21,595 battles
55 minutes ago, _Maho_Nishizumi_212 said:

Yeah. Some say a BB at t7 cause guns, others say cruiser at t9-10 cause guns and AA. Hard to say.

Meh.  Easy to say.  Tier 10 cruiser, as a second option off of the tier 9 heavy cruiser ... after the line split.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
176
[SPTR]
Members
2,282 posts
1,271 battles
8 minutes ago, Crucis said:

Meh.  Easy to say.  Tier 10 cruiser, as a second option off of the tier 9 heavy cruiser ... after the line split.

There's an idea...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
97
[WM]
Members
354 posts
2,497 battles
3 hours ago, Lert said:

Alaska doesn't need extreme massaging and paper modernizations to fit in the game. Her problem is more where to put her.

I'd honestly say T8 or T7 as a cruiser class ship, premium. Her speed and armament aren't unprecedented at that tier, and if the Graf Spee has shown us anything it's that big guns don't always work to a cruiser's advantage. Her protection is outright not going to be enough to qualify as a BB at any tier, even the Dunkerque or Kongo look sturdy by comparison. Her size at 800f is just a bit shorter than the Moskva, and without the prow armor to compensate for that, it leaves us with a high HP, very accurate, high AA and high alpha cruiser with mediocre DPM, a fairly normal top speed and maneuverability, and very little armor.  I would give her a very long range, similar to a battleship, but her 45 degree firing angle would give her a very high shell arc. She'd play like a bit like a cross between a Kongo and an Atlanta. Her high pen, range and precision would let her strike targets far outside of standard cruiser range. The moonshot shells would give her the ability to take advantage of plunging fire like no other ship, and she'd also be able to use islands to her advantage. The downside would obviously be that showing her sides or closing range would be suicidal. Battleships would strike her giant citadel with ease, cruisers would DPM her down, and destroyers would torp her into oblivion. 

Edited by amaROenuZ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
211
[70]
Members
1,102 posts
5,697 battles

I actually would argue for an Iowa with laser gunnery and deceleration (the infamous "closing the doors" ability) being made a Tier 10 of the US Fast BB line given all the historical geeks' Yamato vs Iowa debates. And the Montana would be on top of the US Slow BB line.

Tier 9 fast: South Dakota 1939

Tier 9 slow: a fantasy modernization for the South Dakota 1920.

Tier 8 fast: North Carolina, the historical predecessor of the South Dakota 1939

Tier 8 slow: South Dakota 1920 as designed (worse gunnery at range, but close up it can out-DPS the NC)

Tier 7 fast would be a (possibly frankenship) version of Lexington, probably with the heaviest armour ever potentially considered for the class, but if Hood in-game is as-built Admiral class then the final Lexington design would be acceptable.

Tier 7 slow would, of course, be the Colorado, and that line would otherwise be as present

Tier 6 fast would then be an earlier Lexington draft, say the 1916 version

Tier 5 fast would be an even earlier battlecruiser proposal, from this page it says https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexington-class_battlecruiser

Quote

while the Navy did not react as Germany and Britain built increasing numbers of battlecruisers, it took a very different tack when Japan laid down its first ship of this class, Kongō, in Britain on 17 January 1911. On 13 June, U.S. Naval Intelligence confirmed she was to be the first of four ships, the other three to be built in Japan, which would form a fast division for the IJN. The following day, the Secretary of the Navy asked the General Board to consider the construction of American battlecruisers for Pacific service, as the Pennsylvanias and Tennessees would no longer be viable units in the face of such opposition. The General Board, not willing to forego battleship construction in favor of auxiliary types such as battlecruisers, balked. On 29 August, it suggested that C&R research a ship under 30,000 tons that could steam at 29 knots (54 km/h), carry eight 14-inch (360 mm) and twenty-four 5-inch (130 mm) guns and have a protective system comparable to the Nevada-class battleships. In other words, the board requested an American version of the Kongō.[11][12][A 4]

In view of the board's lack of urgency, C&R took nearly a year to research this project. The proposed main battery of eight 14-inch guns was kept constant while other factors were calculated—speeds of 26, 29 and 32 knots; operating ranges of 5000, 7000 and 8000 miles; and belt armor of 8, 11 and 14 inches

Tier 4 would be a Wyoming with two turrets traded for speed.

Tier 3 could in theory be more or less made up from the intermediate proposals of 1909 according to the above wiki page, intermediate armour and 4 turrets, or decent armour (Wyoming level historically) with three turrets, none of which were superfiring. Or it could also stem from the South Carolina.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,530
[AXANR]
Members
3,417 posts
18,329 battles
On 1/26/2018 at 4:12 PM, landedkiller said:

Well I am going to gather some outside opinions in some games and see what other people think. If your against that's fine put up a proposal for another Italian BB or better yet a Russian BB. If anyone has anything to add constructively then I am all for it negative nellies I am just going to ignore

It's not exactly being a negative nelly when experienced players are giving you constructive and reasoned advice as to why your idea is tiered wrong. There is no way, period, you can balance a tier 7 with 12x16" guns without being so punitive elsewhere that she'd be no fun to play. 

 

I think we'll see her in an eventual 2nd USN BB line or subline.  I can see her as a tier 9 with an 18" paper Montana-variant as the tier 10. But, as others have noted, there's really no need for that right now; maybe in 2-3 years after they've exhausted other BB lines. As it is, we still need Italian BBs and we'll likely see a Russian BB line because of course we will. Plus French, Italian, British, and Commonwealth DD lines, British CV line, Italian cruisers, British heavy cruisers, etc. There's plenty of more unique content to add before a 2nd USN BB line that won't be that different from the current line (with exception of maybe the original Lexington BC design, and the Alaska if they choose to use her in a 2nd BB line and not as a premium cruiser. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,530
[AXANR]
Members
3,417 posts
18,329 battles
22 hours ago, Guardian54 said:

I actually would argue for an Iowa with laser gunnery and deceleration (the infamous "closing the doors" ability) being made a Tier 10 of the US Fast BB line given all the historical geeks' Yamato vs Iowa debates. And the Montana would be on top of the US Slow BB line.

Tier 9 fast: South Dakota 1939

Tier 9 slow: a fantasy modernization for the South Dakota 1920.

Tier 8 fast: North Carolina, the historical predecessor of the South Dakota 1939

Tier 8 slow: South Dakota 1920 as designed (worse gunnery at range, but close up it can out-DPS the NC)

Tier 7 fast would be a (possibly frankenship) version of Lexington, probably with the heaviest armour ever potentially considered for the class, but if Hood in-game is as-built Admiral class then the final Lexington design would be acceptable.

Tier 7 slow would, of course, be the Colorado, and that line would otherwise be as present

Tier 6 fast would then be an earlier Lexington draft, say the 1916 version

Tier 5 fast would be an even earlier battlecruiser proposal, from this page it says https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexington-class_battlecruiser

Tier 4 would be a Wyoming with two turrets traded for speed.

Tier 3 could in theory be more or less made up from the intermediate proposals of 1909 according to the above wiki page, intermediate armour and 4 turrets, or decent armour (Wyoming level historically) with three turrets, none of which were superfiring. Or it could also stem from the South Carolina.

You don't even need to do the t3-5 just to fill them out...I'd say branch the line off at t6 and avoid using paper proposals or outright fictional ships like your Wyoming with two turrets left off for speed (and let's face it, Wyoming's inaccurate enough that it wouldn't be worth giving up two turrets for a few extra knots.)

Edited by poeticmotion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,336
[DRACS]
Members
4,734 posts

There's already a ton of premium USN BBs in the game, with another one coming up soon. We really don't need any more and should focus on other ship lines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,747 posts
3,864 battles

Funny I searched USS Alaska tech tree proposal and my thread on SD 1920 came up how odd. Anyway feedback is great so far a lot of great ideas being passed along.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23
[PHD]
Beta Testers
225 posts
4,995 battles

Ehh. Maybe it could work at T8 even with good gun handling, using the poor survivability at that tier as the balancing aspect. Extremely good guns on an extremely bad hull. I don't know if it would be fun to play like that though. At T7 though it outclasses Colorado in pretty much every category except AA. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
211
[70]
Members
1,102 posts
5,697 battles
On 1/26/2018 at 4:40 PM, Lert said:

She'd be ok at T5 / T6 I think.

But this thread isn't about Alaska, it's about SoDak '20.

DM sustained ROF was designed for 7,  but 10 was achieved.

Alaska could pull 2.5-3 ROF, and given the much better guns? At least Tier 9 material. Buff it up a bit to 3.5 or more ROF and that's a Tier 10 easily.

On 1/26/2018 at 4:41 PM, Fog_Repair_Ship_Akashi said:

I know, but the idea is still the same, a massive pain in the [edited]trying to find a place for her.

Alaska paper proposals ranged from Atlanta to a 38,000-ton mini-battleship with 4x3 12-inch, I smell a Tier 10 there if Alaska's only Tier 9 for whatever reason...

On 1/29/2018 at 12:26 AM, poeticmotion said:

You don't even need to do the t3-5 just to fill them out...I'd say branch the line off at t6 and avoid using paper proposals or outright fictional ships like your Wyoming with two turrets left off for speed (and let's face it, Wyoming's inaccurate enough that it wouldn't be worth giving up two turrets for a few extra knots.)

The Wyoming proposal WAS a paper proposal from a study on BCs in the US (see Wikipedia page on Lexington-class battlecruiser) so it's not outright fiction.

Edited by Guardian54

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
374
[A-I-M]
Members
1,582 posts
16,740 battles

Very interesting post. These ships would have been very useful in the battles around the Solomons had they been completed as intended. 

The balancing problems have been sufficiently covered by others,  but If these could be solved, I think they would probably have unique enough playstyle for the US line to be worth including. 

Edited by Pugilistic
Clarification

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×