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

British "Treaty" Cruisers

21 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

4
[BNKR]
[BNKR]
Members
52 posts
1,002 battles

Just something I figured would be interesting to see complementing the Light Cruisers we have already. Not necessarily a "new tree", just a couple additional ships and premium vessels.

And really, it looks it might be "just a couple". The two primary classes I'm thinking of are the County-class treaty cruiser, and the lighter York-class (County-B). Additionally, a Hawkins-class could show up somewhere. Apparently Hawkins-class treaty cruisers were developed from the Birmingham, developed from the Town, of which our Tier II Weymouth apparently originates. Though 7x 190mm guns may be much too much for tier 3, or even tier 4.

The lighter York-class cruisers were not much better armoured (in terms of armour thickness) than the Emerald-class, but carried 6 8-inch guns in an AB-X format. The County cruisers had armour belts up to 114mm thick and armour up to 102mm elsewhere along the vessel, with areas of 1.5-2.5" thickness. This class carried 8 guns of 8 inches calibre in AB-XY format. Speed is comparable to other British CLs, north of 30kts.

 

The two York-class vessels, York and Exeter, offer an opportunity for a premium, or simply a hull upgrade. York carried the MkII gun mounting for her guns, offering 80 degrees elevation for anti-aircraft use. Exeter had a MkII* mounting limited to 50 degrees only fit for artillery fire. Either vessel could appear separately as a premium to the other TT variant (York having main-battery AA, or Exeter without albeit with main battery enhancement), or simply a stock hull featuring the MkII* mounting, upgrading to the MkII mount for superior AA performance (effectively adding "+4" AA mounts on its own). Yorks carried two triple torpedo launchers.

 

The County-class was subdivided into three sub-classes that offer a lot of choice for upgrades, a premium selection, and flavour overall. The initial "Kent" class, the subsequent "London" (which, aside from the eponymous lead ship, removed the X turret and all eight torpedo tubes) and the "Norfolk". Norfolk, along with her sister ship Dorsetshire, both participated in the sinking of the Bismarck.

County-class ships carried two quadruple torpedo launchers. Kents had these launchers totally removed in 1939; Londons (as above) also lost these launchers with the exception of Shropshire, who retained her tubes and was transferred to Australia in 1943 - another Commonwealth ship?

The Norfolks had at various different times, UP rocket launchers, Bofors guns and the MkII gun mounts installed which would impact their AA capabilities. In 1944 Norfolk lost her X turret, but was finally fitted with a radar fire director, allowing for accurate AA fire from her main battery and AA suite (including Bofors guns, though not many). Another UP lolboat with Defensive Fire does sound very fun.

The MkI mountings of the Kent, London and (Dorsetshire) were also capable of anti-aircraft fire, at an angle of 70 degrees.

 

And on the note of fun, a Warrior-class "armoured cruiser"? 1907 vintage, 13,000t, 23 knots, and fitted with 6 234mm guns and 4 190mm guns. Pretty please. Make it a BB if you have to :Smile_great:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
103
[PVE]
Members
512 posts
4,332 battles

I like the idea of having RN CAs (without the rockets). They would need some paper ships to make a line split but I see no problem with that.

I wonder how similar the commander skills would be between these CAs and the existing CLs. I haven't bothered to play RN cruisers yet, I assume you don't use IFHE or DE since you don't have HE.

Edited by MasterDiggs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,461
[-K-]
Members
5,295 posts
9,114 battles

I'd bet money that one day we will see a sub-branch of heavy cruisers added to the British tech tree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,582
[5BS]
Members
4,766 posts

RN ships are notoriously difficult to balance; so the County class, for example, is kind of a T8, but also kind of a T7 and kind of a T6. It carries T8 Torps and RN 8" Guns had a pretty good performance and a blistering RoF of 6 second reloads sustained in a few confirmed examples (Dorsetshire managed 6 second reloads (10 RPM) during the final phase against the Bismarck) but these same guns come in turrets that have effectively 0 armor. Likewise depending on the sub-class, they carried little or actually no belt armor to speak of, meaning DD's could get citadels. They aren't particularly fast *but* had just AMAZING sea keeping, which doesn't translate at all in this game (one of the chief downsides to ships' depictions in game: most ships can only achieve their rated top speed on a glass ocean, whereas RN ships were notoriously lower in top speed, but able to maintain these speeds in the roughest, highest of seas). Likewise they are kind of big for a Cruiser, being ~200m long (a DM is about 210 m long for comparison at T10) and coupled with effectively no armor means this thing will eat citadels for days.

And that's just one example; the rest of the RN CA's have equal issues. And the RN DD's have the same problems; the Darlings are overpowered at T10 without serious nerfs that would render them almost useless (like serious range nerfs, limited to AP, or even an RoF cap), and conversely the Battle Class doesn't really work at any tier; we've pretty well established that the Tribals will be T7 (two already are) but then the T8 is a huge problem as the logical choice is the J, K, or L's but these are quantifibly worse in all respects to a Tribal. And you can't put a Battle at T8.

This balancing issue was reflected in their BB's: the whole Nelson vs. KGV at T7 as the Nelson has some aspects that fit at T8, but many others that don't, and the KGV has aspects that could fit up to even T9, but others that make her almost fit in at T6.

The end result is that adding any RN Heavy Cruisers is unlikely for the time being, as the current primary meta precludes them unless you give them some very odd upgrades: like put a County at T7, give it T6 torps *but* it gets T8+ plating. Or put it at T8 but it gets no citadel like a DD. Or give it insane performing HE and no AP at T7. Something *different* would need to be done to get a County, or a Kent, or any RN CA in game and make them work.

Edited by _RC1138

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,409
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
7,258 posts
2,029 battles

We likely won't see them too soon, we're getting two new cruiser lines this year (American CL and Italian CA), and the year after shoukd be fairly dominated by DDs and BBs... But maybe a 2020 possiblity?

 

As for tiering, it's a bit of a tricky question. The RN CA's as a whole come in a mixed,but typically not great, bag when it comes to armor, and their armament is on the weaker side.

The gun the line would center around is the 8"/50 Mk.VIII - which should be strong on the HE and weak on the AP with light rounds but lots of filler... But the buffs to Japanese HE totally overshadow it. Depending on how WG feels this could get 2800/14% for the HE or 2900/15%.

The AP is a massive meh, and is by a fair margin the weakest 8" AP (excluding the Pensacola stock guns and the Japanese 200mm gun on stock Furutaka) that we'll see in the game - weaker than even that of the Japanese 8" gun. That means on a per-shell basis the RN CA's are packing the least punch.

In terms of RoF... Well, realistically speaking in terms of the game it's basically a soft stat, so it can be buffed to fit these ships at the tier required. But historically speaking RoF in action was no more than 3-4 rpm (no less than 15 sec). The maximum the gun seems to have been capable of was 5.45 rpm, however (11 sec).

Imo the optimal way to approach the tree would be to split off from the CL line at tier V, with the York-class. RoF SE to 4 rpm, and she's an equal to Furutaka will less powerful AP and HE, but on faster traversing turrets, roughly inferior armor, speed, and torpedoes... But better AA and maybe some other bones thrown her way?

County-types would be split in two - lesser armored versions at tier VI with 4 rpm, and the up-armored versions at tier VII with 5 to 5.45 rpm.

Surrey with better armored and the Mk.IX or X guns at tier VIII, and then paper for the next two tiers, with one of the 9.2" cruisers at tier X?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,198
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
6,811 posts
10,336 battles
2 hours ago, _RC1138 said:

And that's just one example; the rest of the RN CA's have equal issues. And the RN DD's have the same problems; the Darlings are overpowered at T10 without serious nerfs that would render them almost useless (like serious range nerfs, limited to AP, or even an RoF cap), and conversely the Battle Class doesn't really work at any tier; we've pretty well established that the Tribals will be T7 (two already are) but then the T8 is a huge problem as the logical choice is the J, K, or L's but these are quantifibly worse in all respects to a Tribal. And you can't put a Battle at T8.

I'm sorry, why do you think the Daring class will be OP at T10 without nerfs? The major shortcomings are a 34.75kt speed, a requirement for IFHE thanks to the pen on their 114mm guns, 1,600 HE damage, poor torpedo options with the Mk. IX** compared to the Fletcher or Gearing and no 21mm armor plate. The major positive is 24 RPM to Gearing's 20, and better likely fire chance but aside from that the class isn't that happy looking by default.

The Battle's can do T9 with 5 guns and even T8 with 4 guns, which is my preference as it minimizes caliber changes within the line. If you wanted another T8, in-game the LM might well be better than the Tribal, especially the 6-gun Tribal version. The JKN is already in-game at T7 in the form of Gadjah Mada, but is hilariously powerful and with simply the concealment module (~5.5km concealment) would look good at T8, you could improve the torpedoes to 10km weapons easily too.

4 hours ago, TehParakitteh said:

And really, it looks it might be "just a couple". The two primary classes I'm thinking of are the County-class treaty cruiser, and the lighter York-class (County-B). Additionally, a Hawkins-class could show up somewhere. Apparently Hawkins-class treaty cruisers were developed from the Birmingham, developed from the Town, of which our Tier II Weymouth apparently originates. Though 7x 190mm guns may be much too much for tier 3, or even tier 4.

I think the best stretch for RN CA would be pretty much as you describe, a T4 Hawkins, T5 York, T6 County and T7 County(mod).

The Hawkins is awkward at T5, it would probably have been ok there when it was just Omaha and 6x1 configuration Furutaka, but with Furutaka's upgraded hull, the introduction of the Konigsberg and now 5-RPM Kirov that looks difficult. Hawkins shares a lot of bad features with Emerald, distributed gun arrangement, poor bow-on firepower, atrocious shell ballistics. She is also slowish, and all her torpedo tubes were fixed so no-go in game. The plus sides are a distributed armor scheme for some HE resistance and AP tanking plus HP.

The County if you down a couple of beers and squint the right way, then plan on a gimmick can go over T6-T7 (though with Pensacola being downtiered...) I think they need a minor gimmick to keep up with the IJN's buffed HE, USN's buffed AP autobounce angles, FR speedboost, German hydro etc. I'd vote for the RN's better cruiser speed retention - it's sometimes hard to exploit sitting in smoke or maneuvering at range with only 6in gun ballistics, if you could really throw the ship around while landing hits at 14-16km it'd be a big buff.

1 hour ago, Phoenix_jz said:

We likely won't see them too soon, we're getting two new cruiser lines this year (American CL and Italian CA), and the year after shoukd be fairly dominated by DDs and BBs... But maybe a 2020 possiblity?

Just a premium Exeter would keep me pretty happy for a long while.

I'm not really sure on Surrey at T8 any more. Her big 'thing' was 150mm of armor in exchange for speed, but since I last thought about her in any detail I think FR cruisers with the monstrous Martel have come out, and now Baltimore (thick belt, low cit, 3x3, SHS undetermined) is getting bumped down to T8...

The other change since I've last really considered RN CA is the RN BB roll-out. The life of a 76mm armored T5-T7 cruiser without either spaced armor, turtleback or torpedo bulge over belt in a world of 89-100mm of pen is now significantly more unpleasant. I can take being a T5 and getting pounded on, but HE cits from an Orion...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,409
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
7,258 posts
2,029 battles
19 minutes ago, Airglide2 said:

Proof?

Q&A from 2017, and has been mentioned on blogs at this point. The plan is that they're the line for the last quarter of 2018, apparently WG is looking to introduce Italian lines to all of their titles at the same time (marketing strategy, I suppose).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,582
[5BS]
Members
4,766 posts
1 hour ago, mofton said:

I'm sorry, why do you think the Daring class will be OP at T10 without nerfs?

If we use the Minotaur, recent changes to IJN torps for cruisers, and Khab as guides, we see that the Daring's are a tough fit anywhere: their RoF would be unparalleled in the game, with an ~3.5 second reload in 3 duel turrets AB-X, and 2 quint Torp launchers, which are the same variant as those present on the Mino, would make her close the fastest firing, both of torps and guns, at it's tier range, with only the Z52 beating torp reload speed by a few seconds (6), and being a full minute faster than the other T10 DD's. Even with a shorter range of 10km, these torps would be the spammiest of the spam, made worse by the (likely fairly assumed) single shot ability, will make this a serious problem to deal with. Additionally, as it stands, range is determined largely by height of the ship's FCS and detectability largely (but not solely) determined by mast height. The Darings are relatively tall by both standards, meaning she will have range above the Khabs, and a detectability to match.

And at 3800 tons to say, a Gearings 3500 tons, she's going to heft in at a healthy HP. But Arcs are going to resemble that of a Gearings.

So all said and totaled you have a super long ranged (for a DD) spammer with insane RoF of both Torps and Guns, and the HP to last. Add in that so far RN smoke is towards the high-end quality, and you'll have a DD that sits at 14 km spamming HE for dozens of hits per minute. Even at low Fire%, this thing will be a nutsy Flame thrower. And if you have to nerf that RoF to compensate, it will be the worst T10 DD instantly.

1 hour ago, mofton said:

The Battle's can do T9 with 5 guns and even T8 with 4 guns

The Battles are a mess at T9 as well, being oversized compared to their competitors, and a bit overgunned at T9, with effectively the same torps as the TX. Other than missing 1 gun barrel and a little bit of mass, the Battle and Daring will be, for game purposes strikingly similar, to a degree that one or the other will be either over or underpowered at its tier.

Also I thought the Gadjah was a sold-off modified Tribal, not an N. At any rate it proves the point then that balancing even the Tribals is difficult, as which 'hull' they get, 4x2 or 3x2 + 1 secondary, makes them a bit of a mess as it would be a rare example of a ship functioning better in it's OLDER state than it's newer one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4
[BNKR]
[BNKR]
Members
52 posts
1,002 battles
1 hour ago, mofton said:

I think the best stretch for RN CA would be pretty much as you describe, a T4 Hawkins, T5 York, T6 County and T7 County(mod).

The Hawkins is awkward at T5, it would probably have been ok there when it was just Omaha and 6x1 configuration Furutaka, but with Furutaka's upgraded hull, the introduction of the Konigsberg and now 5-RPM Kirov that looks difficult. Hawkins shares a lot of bad features with Emerald, distributed gun arrangement, poor bow-on firepower, atrocious shell ballistics. She is also slowish, and all her torpedo tubes were fixed so no-go in game. The plus sides are a distributed armor scheme for some HE resistance and AP tanking plus HP.

The County if you down a couple of beers and squint the right way, then plan on a gimmick can go over T6-T7 (though with Pensacola being downtiered...) I think they need a minor gimmick to keep up with the IJN's buffed HE, USN's buffed AP autobounce angles, FR speedboost, German hydro etc. I'd vote for the RN's better cruiser speed retention - it's sometimes hard to exploit sitting in smoke or maneuvering at range with only 6in gun ballistics, if you could really throw the ship around while landing hits at 14-16km it'd be a big buff.

Just a premium Exeter would keep me pretty happy for a long while.

I wouldn't have thought of putting them that low. I freely admit no experience, even on paper, of the high tiered heavy cruisers, but why would County or York be so bad at higher tiers? I was thinking tiers 7 and 8 rather than 6 and 7, especially considering upgrade options. After all, York is basically a CL by the standards of high-tier protection schemes.

 

Well, doesn't it already have a gimmick from being an RN ship, that being short-fuse, high-autobounce AP and hilarious fire chance? I actually considered of dropping the "high acceleration" gimmick for these heavy cruisers, personally, to tradeoff their increased firepower. Why is everyone saying the RN 8-inch shells would be so weak? Naval gunnery is not my forte.

I'd have considered Hawkins as like an alternate Tier 3 battleship, maybe as a Premium curio. Less firepower per shell than other BBs, better rate of fire and "coverage" of guns, perhaps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,198
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
6,811 posts
10,336 battles
4 minutes ago, _RC1138 said:

If we use the Minotaur, recent changes to IJN torps for cruisers, and Khab as guides, we see that the Daring's are a tough fit anywhere: their RoF would be unparalleled in the game, with an ~3.5 second reload in 3 duel turrets AB-X, and 2 quint Torp launchers, which are the same variant as those present on the Mino, would make her close the fastest firing, both of torps and guns, at it's tier range, with only the Z52 beating torp reload speed by a few seconds (6), and being a full minute faster than the other T10 DD's. Even with a shorter range of 10km, these torps would be the spammiest of the spam, made worse by the (likely fairly assumed) single shot ability, will make this a serious problem to deal with. Additionally, as it stands, range is determined largely by height of the ship's FCS and detectability largely (but not solely) determined by mast height. The Darings are relatively tall by both standards, meaning she will have range above the Khabs, and a detectability to match.

And at 3800 tons to say, a Gearings 3500 tons, she's going to heft in at a healthy HP. But Arcs are going to resemble that of a Gearings.

So all said and totaled you have a super long ranged (for a DD) spammer with insane RoF of both Torps and Guns, and the HP to last. Add in that so far RN smoke is towards the high-end quality, and you'll have a DD that sits at 14 km spamming HE for dozens of hits per minute. Even at low Fire%, this thing will be a nutsy Flame thrower. And if you have to nerf that RoF to compensate, it will be the worst T10 DD instantly.

The Battles are a mess at T9 as well, being oversized compared to their competitors, and a bit overgunned at T9, with effectively the same torps as the TX. Other than missing 1 gun barrel and a little bit of mass, the Battle and Daring will be, for game purposes strikingly similar, to a degree that one or the other will be either over or underpowered at its tier.

Also I thought the Gadjah was a sold-off modified Tribal, not an N. At any rate it proves the point then that balancing even the Tribals is difficult, as which 'hull' they get, 4x2 or 3x2 + 1 secondary, makes them a bit of a mess as it would be a rare example of a ship functioning better in it's OLDER state than it's newer one.

The  gun ROF is unparalleled, but not insanely out of spec, it's 20% higher than Gearing if they go with 24 RPM, but in HE DPM it's only 6.6% better. Add in that you need to waste 4 sorely needed skill points for IFHE just to penetrate the hulls of destroyers and it's not that impressive. I also just doubt the utility of the range, with USN shell arcs and flight times you're going to struggle to hit if you do get 14km range, and you'd have a massive downside of being spotted far out if engaged up close with a destroyer. A lot of players don't take the range mod on ships like Fletcher and Yugumo for that reason.

Minotaur reloads quads in 96s, which is the 'standard' 24s/tube. Daring's pentads should get a pretty standard 120s reload (as Gadjah's British-built pentads do now), better than Gearing's unusual 136s but worse than Fletcher's 106s. The Germans get slightly better per-tube reload, 22.5s/tube instead of 24, but Z-52 only has quads. I wouldn't expect a Daring to deviate from that reload given that Gallant, Gadjah and Cossack seem to stick to it.

Otherwise compared to Gearing/Fletcher torpedoes the 10km @62kt for 16,767 damage torpedoes of the Minotaur look pretty poor. Gearing gets 16km @66kts for 17,900 damage weapons, perfect for TA. The Fletcher gets 10.5km @66kt for 19,033 damage. Gearing gets hugely more range, 10% more speed and more damage, Fletcher gets 14s faster reload, a bit more range and again 10% faster, a tier lower.

For the Battle's you can take a soft-stat approach, it's easy to justify lower ROF. The Daring has the Mk. V gun with best-case 24 RPM. The 1943 Battle has the Mk. IV and the 1942 Battle the Mk. III. The Mk. IV should do no better than 20 RPM, at which point you have slightly better ROF than Fletcher's 18 RPM, but with lower HE damage, the same IFHE problem etc. On the plus side you'd have a 4-forward gun chase armament so in a pursuit you'd be a terrier after a rat, kiting away you'd be stuffed.

With a potential difference in torpedoes, gun arrangement, gun ROF, HP it seems pretty easy to differentiate the two ships. That's at least as much difference as between Fletch/Gearing or Z-46/Z-52. So far RN smoke has been entirely pedestrian, the middle-ground with RU and IJN. The USN gets better smoke, the PA better still, and the Germans trail. It's not a major strength.

 

Balancing the Tribal, well Cossack at least has seemed difficult because by removing the 4th 4.7in twin they've pulled its teeth too much considering it has only a single quad TT compared to the two pentads of a JKN. It is a bit weird that the older hull is in-game better, but that's mostly due to how CV's work in-game. I'd say older hulls being generally better in game are relatively rare, but there are other examples - Benson B hull with 20% more firepower in Randon is better than the -1 gun but +DFAA C hull. Pensacola might be better in an earlier configuration with torpedoes. Kidd is in a later configuration than Fletcher but a tier lower. Belfast, well lost torpedoes. Fubuki's kinda similar, she used to be T8 in early-war 6-gun configuration, now T6 is later-war 4-gun. C-hull Nurnberg with a TT for AA trade is also questionable.

The other point Cossack brings up is that WG will quite happily ignore size for concealment determination when it suits them. Grozovoi, Z-52 and now Cossack have all had their concealment improved either during testing or post-release. Cossack in particular looks quite silly with a 6.0 to 5.7km buff just to improve her.

28 minutes ago, TehParakitteh said:

I wouldn't have thought of putting them that low. I freely admit no experience, even on paper, of the high tiered heavy cruisers, but why would County or York be so bad at higher tiers? I was thinking tiers 7 and 8 rather than 6 and 7, especially considering upgrade options. After all, York is basically a CL by the standards of high-tier protection schemes.

Pensacola's dropping to T6 and she's got 10 guns and some plus points over a County. Algerie has plus points and she's barely ok-ish.

The County class' problems include being a huge slab-sided, high freeboard target. The guns aren't that good by game metrics on ROF, armor penetration (which WG rarely change) and for determining HE damage they're very middling.

Gimmicks are available, the light cruisers get weird AP but no HE, the battleships do get HE pen, HE damage. You could look at something like that but it'd probably have to be fairly significant. The German CA already get 1/4 HE pen, the IJN already get high HE damage/fire chance. The USN already get better AP angles. You need to more than match that to compensate for the County class being poor hulls.

The York is a close contemporary of the Furutaka, or Furutaka's over-buffed sister the Aoba. That's T5-T6 range pretty much locked in, probably more like T5.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,641
[KNMSU]
Members
3,368 posts
3,996 battles

The British had two problems (and this affected cruisers, battleships, and carriers designed in the 1930s): 1) they were strict adherents to the Washington/London Treaties long past the point when everyone else had acknowledged that the treaty had been violated/was falling apart, and 2) they always favored numerical superiority over individual unit performance (which is in direct contrast to the Japanese [especially], Germans and Americans, who crafted designs intended to fully obsolesce anything the they/the enemy possessed).

This puts Wargaming in a bad position, because the "numbers game" doesn't work in WoWs. And Britain's individual units that were actually built (battleships [with the exception of Vanguard] and cruisers) peter out with a very unimpressive thud in tier 7. None of the county class cruisers - due to their combination of size, unimpressive ordinance, and armor - really warrants consideration for tier 8. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,198
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
6,811 posts
10,336 battles
19 minutes ago, Battlecruiser_Kongo said:

This puts Wargaming in a bad position, because the "numbers game" doesn't work in WoWs. And Britain's individual units that were actually built (battleships [with the exception of Vanguard] and cruisers) peter out with a very unimpressive thud in tier 7. None of the county class cruisers - due to their combination of size, unimpressive ordinance, and armor - really warrants consideration for tier 8.

It's not a huge problem.

  • The French cruiser branch peters out at T7 with Algerie.
  • The German cruiser branch needs an unbuilt Yorck at T7, a poorly performing Hipper at T8 but is then paper-fantasy.
  • The IJN get to T8 with Mogami, but Ibuki is an unfinished repeat class just uptiered and Zao is paper.
  • The USN used to do well with Baltimore-DM but now they're adding in the unbuilt Buffalo and in the CL line the unbuilt Seattle and Dallas
  • The Russian line ekes into T8 using a 1954 completed (though late-30's lain down) ship and then goes paper-paper, while being paper at T6-T7 too

For battleships WG have just put out the French line which is full of incomplete ships T3, T6, T7, T9 and T10.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
508
[WOLFD]
[WOLFD]
Beta Testers
4,962 posts
1,487 battles

 

6 hours ago, _RC1138 said:

(Dorsetshire managed 6 second reloads (10 RPM) during the final phase against the Bismarck)

 

Source please i've never heard anything close to this, Navweps claims the achieved was 5rpm.

 

1 hour ago, _RC1138 said:

If we use the Minotaur, recent changes to IJN torps for cruisers, and Khab as guides, we see that the Daring's are a tough fit anywhere: their RoF would be unparalleled in the game, with an ~3.5 second reload in 3 duel turrets AB-X, and 2 quint Torp launchers, which are the same variant as those present on the Mino, would make her close the fastest firing, both of torps and guns, at it's tier range, with only the Z52 beating torp reload speed by a few seconds (6), and being a full minute faster than the other T10 DD's. Even with a shorter range of 10km, these torps would be the spammiest of the spam, made worse by the (likely fairly assumed) single shot ability, will make this a serious problem to deal with. Additionally, as it stands, range is determined largely by height of the ship's FCS and detectability largely (but not solely) determined by mast height. The Darings are relatively tall by both standards, meaning she will have range above the Khabs, and a detectability to match.

And at 3800 tons to say, a Gearings 3500 tons, she's going to heft in at a healthy HP. But Arcs are going to resemble that of a Gearings.

So all said and totaled you have a super long ranged (for a DD) spammer with insane RoF of both Torps and Guns, and the HP to last. Add in that so far RN smoke is towards the high-end quality, and you'll have a DD that sits at 14 km spamming HE for dozens of hits per minute. Even at low Fire%, this thing will be a nutsy Flame thrower. And if you have to nerf that RoF to compensate, it will be the worst T10 DD instantly.

 

They're going to have awful arcs. So no problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,504
[AHOY_]
Beta Testers
6,491 posts
3,435 battles
52 minutes ago, mofton said:

Gimmicks are available, the light cruisers get weird AP but no HE, the battleships do get HE pen, HE damage. You could look at something like that but it'd probably have to be fairly significant. The German CA already get 1/4 HE pen, the IJN already get high HE damage/fire chance. The USN already get better AP angles. You need to more than match that to compensate for the County class being poor hulls.

The York is a close contemporary of the Furutaka, or Furutaka's over-buffed sister the Aoba. That's T5-T6 range pretty much locked in, probably more like T5.

I wonder if WG may just copy over parts of the RN BB gimmicks; big HE AoE (but probably no 1/4 HE pen bonus), short-fuse AP (effective really only against CLs and DDs), and maybe either the Hyper Heals or the 60% Repair Heals (slotting between the RN CL and RN BB line in terms of healing rate). To be fair, I'm not as well-versed with their cruiser caliber guns, so it might be that their HE isn't as fill-heavy as other nations' HE shells of similar caliber (unlike their RN BB HE shells; which have high filler, but their AP conversely had very little).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
712 posts
9,924 battles
4 hours ago, Phoenix_jz said:

Q&A from 2017, and has been mentioned on blogs at this point. The plan is that they're the line for the last quarter of 2018, apparently WG is looking to introduce Italian lines to all of their titles at the same time (marketing strategy, I suppose).

Dude I went to reddit and spent 10mins looking through 5 Q&As.  I couldn’t find it.  I do remember them saying they might “try” next year, but it more likely will be 2019.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,409
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
7,258 posts
2,029 battles
13 minutes ago, Airglide2 said:

Dude I went to reddit and spent 10mins looking through 5 Q&As.  I couldn’t find it.  I do remember them saying they might “try” next year, but it more likely will be 2019.  

how far back was 5? IIRC we knew about it at least as early as August 2017

 

*edit: here you go, one example of it being mentioned - https://thearmoredpatrol.com/2017/08/29/wows-qa-29th-august-2017/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Modder
1,092 posts
1 hour ago, YamatoA150 said:

To be fair, I'm not as well-versed with their cruiser caliber guns, so it might be that their HE isn't as fill-heavy as other nations' HE shells of similar caliber (unlike their RN BB HE shells; which have high filler, but their AP conversely had very little).

IIRC Royal Navy 8" HE followed the same pattern as the larger calibre guns in terms of HE performance. The BL 8 inch Mk VIII HE shells had a bursting charge of 23 lbs. or so compared to the 18 lbs. of the IJN 20 cm/50 3rd Year Type mounted on the IJN Heavy Cruisers.

Edited by zFireWyvern

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
712 posts
9,924 battles
42 minutes ago, Phoenix_jz said:

how far back was 5? IIRC we knew about it at least as early as August 2017

 

*edit: here you go, one example of it being mentioned - https://thearmoredpatrol.com/2017/08/29/wows-qa-29th-august-2017/

These 5, have been looking at two more but feel like I’m looking for BigFoot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
508
[WOLFD]
[WOLFD]
Beta Testers
4,962 posts
1,487 battles
30 minutes ago, zFireWyvern said:

IIRC Royal Navy 8" HE followed the same pattern as the larger calibre guns in terms of HE performance. The BL 8 inch Mk VIII HE shells had a bursting charge of 23 lbs. or so compared to the 18 lbs. of the IJN 20 cm/50 3rd Year Type mounted on the IJN Heavy Cruisers.

 

Nah it's above average compared to IJN, but not spectacularly so like the BB HE./ Alpha should be 2900, 15% fire chance. So a 100 alpha advantage over the french.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,739
[INTEL]
Members
8,588 posts
25,732 battles
On 3/5/2018 at 3:46 AM, TehParakitteh said:

 

And on the note of fun, a Warrior-class "armoured cruiser"? 1907 vintage, 13,000t, 23 knots, and fitted with 6 234mm guns and 4 190mm guns. Pretty please. Make it a BB if you have to :Smile_great:

Yes this. We need a whole subgame, A-J Tiers, for this period. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×