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

What happened to Furutaka’s 140mm gun layout?

39 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1
[USMC2]
Members
7 posts
395 battles

I’m new to the game but I’ve watched world of warships videos since closed beta and know the existence of the Kitakami. But somehow, I missed the update where WG removed the 140mm guns on furutaka and was confued when the upgraded hull looks like an Aoba. What actually happened to Furutaka’s 140mm dual gun layout?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
301
[CK5]
Members
806 posts
6,586 battles

The Furutaka always had 203 mm guns.  They are just arranged in single turrets in the A and B hulls and get dual gun turrets in the C hull.  Are you thinking of the Kuma?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
351
[ZIPPO]
Members
1,559 posts
3,539 battles
1 minute ago, PrairiePlayer said:

The Furutaka always had 203 mm guns.  They are just arranged in single turrets in the A and B hulls and get dual gun turrets in the C hull.  Are you thinking of the Kuma?

Back in alpha the Taco had the 140s for its stock guns, I don't remember why they got rid of it though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
764
[ARS]
Beta Testers
2,252 posts
1,851 battles

Those didn't even make it to closed beta.  My best guess is that they wanted to do a more historical ship and decided that moving to 200/203mm guns at Tier V would work after all, even though it is a drastic play style change from Kuma.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,264
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
8,803 posts
15,265 battles
41 minutes ago, PrairiePlayer said:

Are you thinking of the Kuma?

Probably Yubari, two turrets with twin 140 mm guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
712 posts
9,924 battles

They got rid of it after Alpha I think.  Helstrem makes a good point about historical preference.  I also think that 12 guns at T5 would have been overkill on a Cruiser.  

HOWEVER!  I have spoken with someone on Reddit who made up some great ideas on how to introduce this as a premium:

Personally, I would love this at tier 6 (think uptiered Krispy Kream).  We desperately need a new IJN Cruiser Premium, it’s been to long.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,421
[DAKI]
[DAKI]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
12,539 posts
4,419 battles
1 hour ago, Gelo_rules said:

I’m new to the game but I’ve watched world of warships videos since closed beta and know the existence of the Kitakami. But somehow, I missed the update where WG removed the 140mm guns on furutaka and was confued when the upgraded hull looks like an Aoba. What actually happened to Furutaka’s 140mm dual gun layout?

The answer to your question is: Nothing.

Yes really, nothing happened to them because it's never been released, and thus could not have anything happen to them.

Back in alpha (and maybe closed beta, but I forget)  if my memory serves, for a very long time there was simply a gap at tier 5. The alpha tester went from Kuma to Aoba. When the Furrytaco eventually came out it already had 8 inch guns in single turrets as stock. It never had 140mm dual turrets.

What you are thinking of is this thing:

lcxNlV2.jpg

Called by some as the 'Prototaka'. WG released one image of it, and it hasn't been heard of since afaik.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
764
[ARS]
Beta Testers
2,252 posts
1,851 battles
41 minutes ago, Airglide2 said:

They got rid of it after Alpha I think.  Helstrem makes a good point about historical preference.  I also think that 12 guns at T5 would have been overkill on a Cruiser.  

HOWEVER!  I have spoken with someone on Reddit who made up some great ideas on how to introduce this as a premium:

Personally, I would love this at tier 6 (think uptiered Krispy Kream).  We desperately need a new IJN Cruiser Premium, it’s been to long.

 

30 minutes ago, Super_Dreadnought said:

The answer to your question is: Nothing.

Yes really, nothing happened to them because it's never been released, and thus could not have anything happen to them.

Back in alpha (and maybe closed beta, but I forget)  if my memory serves, for a very long time there was simply a gap at tier 5. The alpha tester went from Kuma to Aoba. When the Furrytaco eventually came out it already had 8 inch guns in single turrets as stock. It never had 140mm dual turrets.

What you are thinking of is this thing:

lcxNlV2.jpg

Called by some as the 'Prototaka'. WG released one image of it, and it hasn't been heard of since afaik.

I could see that showing up in a IJN CL cruiser split.  Maybe as a Tier VI or Tier VII.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,833
[WOLF3]
[WOLF3]
Members
16,155 posts
14,555 battles

Furutaka / "Furry Taco" used to have smaller caliber guns.  Here's a video of her in such a configuration in August 2015, the game went Live September 17.

I was actually pretty fond of her in this configuration, but the state of the game was vastly different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
764
[ARS]
Beta Testers
2,252 posts
1,851 battles
13 minutes ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

Furutaka / "Furry Taco" used to have smaller caliber guns.  Here's a video of her in such a configuration in August 2015, the game went Live September 17.

I was actually pretty fond of her in this configuration, but the state of the game was vastly different.

She still has those guns.  The A hull has six 200mm guns in 6x1 turrets, the B hull has six 203mm guns in 6x1 turrets (one of those two are shown in the video, most likely the 203s) and her C hull was changed to have six 203mm guns in 3x2 turrets.  The smaller guns asked about by the OP are the 140mm guns as found on Yubari, not the crappy 200mm guns found on Furutaka's A hull.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,128 posts
4,750 battles

They gave her the gun configuration she had in World War 2, 3x2 203mm guns. This allows her to play more aggressively because she can still have 2/3 of her firepower without showing the broadside that would be required with her original gun layout.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,507
[AHOY_]
Beta Testers
6,497 posts
3,435 battles

Prototaka or 140 Furutaka would work fairly well as a T6; just with the (old) CA hull C rather than the stock CL hull. AA would be identical to current Furutaka C, since the old hull just had the AA placed differently.

Great RoF and conveniently can benefit from EM+BFT+AFT+IFHE for better traverse, reload, and range, and HE pen and still have access to torpedoes and Hydro (for smoke diving with full concealment). But the AP is absolute dogcrap (it was already rather crappy at T3/T4; what more at T5~T8, the tiers it'd see as a T6?)

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
712 posts
9,924 battles
27 minutes ago, YamatoA150 said:

Prototaka or 140 Furutaka would work fairly well as a T6; just with the (old) CA hull C rather than the stock CL hull. AA would be identical to current Furutaka C, since the old hull just had the AA placed differently.

Great RoF and conveniently can benefit from EM+BFT+AFT+IFHE for better traverse, reload, and range, and HE pen and still have access to torpedoes and Hydro (for smoke diving with full concealment). But the AP is absolute dogcrap (it was already rather crappy at T3/T4; what more at T5~T8, the tiers it'd see as a T6?)

Well I don't know much about 140mm IJN shells, maybe they had another version that was better that WG can find out.  If they decided to keep the same shell then I'd just do what I normally do in German DDs: Pull out the AP when I'm 7(+)(-)km within range.  In other words, when I need it.  Otherwise I'd just stick to IJN specialty, highest fire percentage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,507
[AHOY_]
Beta Testers
6,497 posts
3,435 battles

On second thought; BFT+AFT was reduced to only affect up to 139mm guns, I think. So that leaves Prototaka out cold without the benefit of BFT and AFT, but also frees up 7 skill points.

On the other hand, this gives more expansion room for maybe giving her the Aim Mod 0 Module, or better base range + better AP shells. I'm of the opinion that better AP, even if semi-fictional, and decent base range rivaling Aoba's max range is reasonable at T6, rather than the special module, due to the fact that at least with better AP she can better hunt and harass CLs and some CAs.

She could be pushed up to T7 if they also give her better concealment and maybe the RoF booster similar to the Halloween Chapayev (say only 30s duration; 180/120s CD depending on Standard/Premium). But no special gimmicks like Radar, or Smoke, or TRB, or RNAP, or RNHE, or USNAP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
712 posts
9,924 battles
58 minutes ago, YamatoA150 said:

On second thought; BFT+AFT was reduced to only affect up to 139mm guns, I think. So that leaves Prototaka out cold without the benefit of BFT and AFT, but also frees up 7 skill points.

On the other hand, this gives more expansion room for maybe giving her the Aim Mod 0 Module, or better base range + better AP shells. I'm of the opinion that better AP, even if semi-fictional, and decent base range rivaling Aoba's max range is reasonable at T6, rather than the special module, due to the fact that at least with better AP she can better hunt and harass CLs and some CAs.

She could be pushed up to T7 if they also give her better concealment and maybe the RoF booster similar to the Halloween Chapayev (say only 30s duration; 180/120s CD depending on Standard/Premium). But no special gimmicks like Radar, or Smoke, or TRB, or RNAP, or RNHE, or USNAP.

I have an idea.  How about trying out an idea that WOWS developers hasn't tried in 3 years? 

Yes, literally 3 years. 

How about letting Furutaka have access to Tiers 8 and 9 upgrades?  At Tier 8 upgrades, I can see her using SGM3 to dodge better and CSM1 to lower her concealment further.  And then in the Tier 9 upgrades, I mean it's a buffet of multiple choice setups!  Fire faster? Fire more accurate? Launch faster torps? Increase range? Increase lackluster AA?

This idea would definitely alleviate unnecessarily forced gimmicks on her she wouldn't otherwise need.  I think it will work :)

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,507
[AHOY_]
Beta Testers
6,497 posts
3,435 battles
48 minutes ago, Airglide2 said:

I have an idea.  How about trying out an idea that WOWS developers hasn't tried in 3 years? 

Yes, literally 3 years. 

How about letting Furutaka have access to Tiers 8 and 9 upgrades?  At Tier 8 upgrades, I can see her using SGM3 to dodge better and CSM1 to lower her concealment further.  And then in the Tier 9 upgrades, I mean it's a buffet of multiple choice setups!  Fire faster? Fire more accurate? Launch faster torps? Increase range? Increase lackluster AA?

This idea would definitely alleviate unnecessarily forced gimmicks on her she wouldn't otherwise need.  I think it will work :)

That would work. The last time they permitted it was Arkansas Beta. But that was technically to help her out and make her special enough for CBT players.

I'd assume T7? That would make her reasonable. T5 levels of AA and Armor, T6-ish levels of HP (based on displacement + tier correction, or just T5 HP), but able to build for different playstyles via the T8 and T9/10 modules. No new gimmicks, no super special module (aside from SC modules), and it already has worked in the past; Ark.Beta, but Enterprise too got an extra module slot to help her out, and so did one of the other Premiums; I forget which, but it was just the additional T8 module.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
712 posts
9,924 battles
17 minutes ago, YamatoA150 said:

That would work. The last time they permitted it was Arkansas Beta. But that was technically to help her out and make her special enough for CBT players.

I'd assume T7? That would make her reasonable. T5 levels of AA and Armor, T6-ish levels of HP (based on displacement + tier correction, or just T5 HP), but able to build for different playstyles via the T8 and T9/10 modules. No new gimmicks, no super special module (aside from SC modules), and it already has worked in the past; Ark.Beta, but Enterprise too got an extra module slot to help her out, and so did one of the other Premiums; I forget which, but it was just the additional T8 module.

Great!  I'm very happy we can agree on this.  Giving her T6 HP like Aoba would probably be the only "fake" thing they'd have to do to her in order to make her work at that tier. 

This is just assuming but if they decide to keep her AP the same as well as keep her T5 HP, I don't think even the modules are gonna convince people to buy this ship unless they give this ship Smoke...which means...(GASP!) WE GET IWAKI ALPHA VERSION 2!!!!  OOOOOOOH THE IDEAS!!!!!!!

 

About the extra module comments, that's why I said T8 and T9 modules, to cover my bases.  I knew if I were to say "high tier modules", then I'd just set myself up for correction XD.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,507
[AHOY_]
Beta Testers
6,497 posts
3,435 battles
2 hours ago, Airglide2 said:

Great!  I'm very happy we can agree on this.  Giving her T6 HP like Aoba would probably be the only "fake" thing they'd have to do to her in order to make her work at that tier. 

This is just assuming but if they decide to keep her AP the same as well as keep her T5 HP, I don't think even the modules are gonna convince people to buy this ship unless they give this ship Smoke...which means...(GASP!) WE GET IWAKI ALPHA VERSION 2!!!!  OOOOOOOH THE IDEAS!!!!!!!

About the extra module comments, that's why I said T8 and T9 modules, to cover my bases.  I knew if I were to say "high tier modules", then I'd just set myself up for correction XD.  

People would definitely buy her. Just off the theoretical DPM of her HE, she'd be rivaling T8 Cleveland at almost 29k damage per broadside (ignoring saturation). However, this is counterbalanced by the fact that her ABC-XYZ turret arcs only allow a practical 3-4 turrets to be active at any time lest she take a broadside full of citpens and be sent back to port (esp. as a T7 with only T5 or T6-ish HP), which puts her 3-4 turret "practical" DPM almost even or slightly inferior to Atlanta's practical DPM (7 turrets to either side and better overall angles).

She also again has virtually no AA at T7 (what with only having the same amount of AA as T5 Furutaka C), T5 armoring, and being a CA, is more likely to retain unfriendly AP instead of it completely overpenning (though some of the higher velocity guns may end up overpenning her like they do CLs, considering). She also doesn't get the benefit of Radar, Smoke, or fancier gimmicks; just being a straight CA with CL weapons. So having the T8 and T9 modules won't unbalance her any. She could buff her range but likewise also be seen more often from her gun spam, or choose the RoF boost, but have limited range that could be suicidal. She could artificially buff herself with Concealment, or give it up for TASM and work with DDs on smoke diving or cap contesting, where her guns can be just as deadly as USN CL guns.

If they do give her smoke instead of both modules though, then yeah, we got ourselves Super Iwaki. Now players wouldn't be as upset about missing on Iwaki, as they get a better, meaner version.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
712 posts
9,924 battles
23 minutes ago, YamatoA150 said:

People would definitely buy her. Just off the theoretical DPM of her HE, she'd be rivaling T8 Cleveland at almost 29k damage per broadside (ignoring saturation). However, this is counterbalanced by the fact that her ABC-XYZ turret arcs only allow a practical 3-4 turrets to be active at any time lest she take a broadside full of citpens and be sent back to port (esp. as a T7 with only T5 or T6-ish HP), which puts her 3-4 turret "practical" DPM almost even or slightly inferior to Atlanta's practical DPM (7 turrets to either side and better overall angles).

She also again has virtually no AA at T7 (what with only having the same amount of AA as T5 Furutaka C), T5 armoring, and being a CA, is more likely to retain unfriendly AP instead of it completely overpenning (though some of the higher velocity guns may end up overpenning her like they do CLs, considering). She also doesn't get the benefit of Radar, Smoke, or fancier gimmicks; just being a straight CA with CL weapons. So having the T8 and T9 modules won't unbalance her any. She could buff her range but likewise also be seen more often from her gun spam, or choose the RoF boost, but have limited range that could be suicidal. She could artificially buff herself with Concealment, or give it up for TASM and work with DDs on smoke diving or cap contesting, where her guns can be just as deadly as USN CL guns.

If they do give her smoke instead of both modules though, then yeah, we got ourselves Super Iwaki. Now players wouldn't be as upset about missing on Iwaki, as they get a better, meaner version.

Now, how you were speaking about her, was this in the T7 setup or the T6 setup?  I was confused.  Never thought that far about the penetration value due to CA hull, I'm already picturing dark thoughts about LittleWhiteMouse's "Skill Floor/Skill Ceiling" portion in my head, lol.  I mean I wouldn't have a problem with it, at T6 or T7 it's going to get the T6 and/or T8 modules that will help improve it's Rudder Shift Time.

Moving on, if the developers decide to keep Prototaka traditional and use her IJN-flavored stealth instead of smoke, what do you think of adding Defensive AA fire in it's place? 

Hear me out; I was thinking about the Molotov when I said that because it is largely said the Defensive AA fire on that ship really only "panics" the planes.  The AA it's equip with, while numerous in different sized calibers, really aren't that effective at taking out planes (if your lucky, you might take out 1-2 planes.  IF your lucky).  In the same way, since Prototaka only has T5 AA, it would help it's survivability without it being OP because again, T5 AA.

Lastly, the only other ship that has ABC-XYZ is Flint and I don't own that ship, so I can't say with practice what turrets are used the most.  Atlanta doesn't count because it has turrets on the sides of it, increasing it's own use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,507
[AHOY_]
Beta Testers
6,497 posts
3,435 battles
54 minutes ago, Airglide2 said:

Now, how you were speaking about her, was this in the T7 setup or the T6 setup?  I was confused.  Never thought that far about the penetration value due to CA hull, I'm already picturing dark thoughts about LittleWhiteMouse's "Skill Floor/Skill Ceiling" portion in my head, lol.  I mean I wouldn't have a problem with it, at T6 or T7 it's going to get the T6 and/or T8 modules that will help improve it's Rudder Shift Time.

Moving on, if the developers decide to keep Prototaka traditional and use her IJN-flavored stealth instead of smoke, what do you think of adding Defensive AA fire in it's place? 

Hear me out; I was thinking about the Molotov when I said that because it is largely said the Defensive AA fire on that ship really only "panics" the planes.  The AA it's equip with, while numerous in different sized calibers, really aren't that effective at taking out planes (if your lucky, you might take out 1-2 planes.  IF your lucky).  In the same way, since Prototaka only has T5 AA, it would help it's survivability without it being OP because again, T5 AA.

Lastly, the only other ship that has ABC-XYZ is Flint and I don't own that ship, so I can't say with practice what turrets are used the most.  Atlanta doesn't count because it has turrets on the sides of it, increasing it's own use.

Either. I used used T7 as an example, in a "worst case uptier" based on her theoretical DPM* rather than her practical. I maintain she's a better fit as a T6 if she can get both the T8 and T9 module slots (2m and 3m modules), but otherwise be pretty vanilla as the rest of the line. No other gimmicks, just standard Hydro and maybe separate AADF. Plus the usual DCP + Catapult Plane.

And yes, Molotov is a reasonable example in regards to splitting off AADF from Hydro and allowing it to have both, in addition to DCP and Catapult Plane. I say it's a better choice than smoke, despite smoke being more convenient. For one, T6~T8 CVs would likely love to hunt her down, and can also manual drop into smoke, which defeats one advantage of smoke. Moreso when you consider that IJN cruisers don't accelerate well unless they have the acceleration module, and are long and not super maneuverable enough to avoid a half-competent cross drop or staggered drop.


*DPM Comparison: (Redid the math, because I read the charts wrong)

Prototaka's theoretical HE DPM is 44160 per turret, assuming the same base 9.2 RPM as Yubari. So 264960 across all 6 turrets. 13.88km range, based off upgraded Furutaka C.
Prototaka's practical HE DPM is limited to 3-4 turrets, assuming sufficient angling. 2 turrets if she has to go bow on for whatever reason. So 132480~176640 across 3-4 turrets.

Cleveland's theoretical HE DPM is 60720 per turret, assuming the base 9.2 RPM on the wiki is correct. So 242880 across all 4 turrets. 15.62km upgraded range.
Cleveland's practical HE DPM is 2 turrets worst-case (can't hug an island to fire over and has to peek out, or caught out and being evasive). So 121440 worst case, but that isn't often, considering her maneuverability.

Atlanta's theoretical HE DPM is 43200 per turret, assuming the base 12 RPM on the wiki is correct. So 302400 across 7 turrets. 11.12km base range.
Atlanta's practical HE DPM is 3 turrets worst-case, but can usually bring more in with a bit of wiggling. So 129600 worse case, and that isn't often, as she's usually less-angled to bring in 4 to all 7 turrets on a side up, esp. when camping.
Additionally, Atlanta can further boost her RoF and range via BFT and AFT, something 140mm "Firetaka" cannot as she's just 1mm above the cutoff.


All in all, T6 seems an ideal fit. Strong HE performance, crippling AP performance, but pretty much T5 stats (with only T4 level turret armoring). Despite being a CA, she's highly vulnerable to citadels like all IJN cruisers, so she can't always bring the full brunt of her firepower. Especially with the terrible arcs on turrets 3, 4, and 5 while trying to keep some angling against other cruisers (at least, I vaguely remember it being turrets 3, 4, and sometimes 5). Also, assuming no wild buffs or gimmicks beyond having the full 6 modules (or at least 5, having the T8 module slot for Rudder/CSM/TASM), would be surprisingly flexible to build around without unbalancing anything.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
712 posts
9,924 battles
12 hours ago, YamatoA150 said:

Either. I used used T7 as an example, in a "worst case uptier" based on her theoretical DPM* rather than her practical. I maintain she's a better fit as a T6 if she can get both the T8 and T9 module slots (2m and 3m modules), but otherwise be pretty vanilla as the rest of the line. No other gimmicks, just standard Hydro and maybe separate AADF. Plus the usual DCP + Catapult Plane.

And yes, Molotov is a reasonable example in regards to splitting off AADF from Hydro and allowing it to have both, in addition to DCP and Catapult Plane. I say it's a better choice than smoke, despite smoke being more convenient. For one, T6~T8 CVs would likely love to hunt her down, and can also manual drop into smoke, which defeats one advantage of smoke. Moreso when you consider that IJN cruisers don't accelerate well unless they have the acceleration module, and are long and not super maneuverable enough to avoid a half-competent cross drop or staggered drop.


*DPM Comparison: (Redid the math, because I read the charts wrong)

Prototaka's theoretical HE DPM is 44160 per turret, assuming the same base 9.2 RPM as Yubari. So 264960 across all 6 turrets. 13.88km range, based off upgraded Furutaka C.
Prototaka's practical HE DPM is limited to 3-4 turrets, assuming sufficient angling. 2 turrets if she has to go bow on for whatever reason. So 132480~176640 across 3-4 turrets.

Cleveland's theoretical HE DPM is 60720 per turret, assuming the base 9.2 RPM on the wiki is correct. So 242880 across all 4 turrets. 15.62km upgraded range.
Cleveland's practical HE DPM is 2 turrets worst-case (can't hug an island to fire over and has to peek out, or caught out and being evasive). So 121440 worst case, but that isn't often, considering her maneuverability.

Atlanta's theoretical HE DPM is 43200 per turret, assuming the base 12 RPM on the wiki is correct. So 302400 across 7 turrets. 11.12km base range.
Atlanta's practical HE DPM is 3 turrets worst-case, but can usually bring more in with a bit of wiggling. So 129600 worse case, and that isn't often, as she's usually less-angled to bring in 4 to all 7 turrets on a side up, esp. when camping.
Additionally, Atlanta can further boost her RoF and range via BFT and AFT, something 140mm "Firetaka" cannot as she's just 1mm above the cutoff.


All in all, T6 seems an ideal fit. Strong HE performance, crippling AP performance, but pretty much T5 stats (with only T4 level turret armoring). Despite being a CA, she's highly vulnerable to citadels like all IJN cruisers, so she can't always bring the full brunt of her firepower. Especially with the terrible arcs on turrets 3, 4, and 5 while trying to keep some angling against other cruisers (at least, I vaguely remember it being turrets 3, 4, and sometimes 5). Also, assuming no wild buffs or gimmicks beyond having the full 6 modules (or at least 5, having the T8 module slot for Rudder/CSM/TASM), would be surprisingly flexible to build around without unbalancing anything.

Had to think a little hard when you said 2m and 3m modules and full 6 modules, but I gotcha.

Course now there's the name of this ship, I don't think Prototaka will cut it.  Of the two choices off the top of my head is:

1.  They copy Iwaki and Arkansas and call it "Furutaka Proto" or "Furutaka Prototype".

2.  They give it her sister's name, "Kako".  It won't be the first time WOWS has named a ship that doesn't match hull design, for example, the Wyoming hull is actually the Arkansas hull.

 

NINJA EDIT:

 

I also just realized that Katori and Yubari don't have the same reload speed, which is weird considering their shell and gun are the same.  Since the average reload speed for 152mm's is 7.5 seconds,  6 seconds just like the Tenryu, Kuma, and Iwaki Alpha would be efficient for reload speed.

Edited by Airglide2
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,375
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
21,447 posts
3,875 battles
On 7/14/2018 at 10:17 AM, Helstrem said:

 

I could see that showing up in a IJN CL cruiser split.  Maybe as a Tier VI or Tier VII.

Furutaka's hull does not belong in tier 7. Tier 6 is the 4-turret "Agano Kai" blueprint ship that I would pitch be named Yahagi, tier 5 is the original 3-turret Agano, and I'd split it off at 4 with Nagara or Sendai (take your pick). Tier 7 is the only real opening with nothing else that fits. Tier 8 would be 15.5cm Mogami with Takao taking Mogami's tier 8 place in the CA line.

 

Honestly, tier 7 would probably be better fit by swapping the Yahagi's 15.2cm twins for 15.5cm triples in the same 3x4 layout she'd already had, beefing up the armor and soft stats a bit, and naming the result Noshiro.

 

I'd roll out the 14cm-armed Furutaka as a tier 5 or tier 6 premium, Kako, as mentioned by others above me.

Edited by KiyoSenkan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
472
[QNA]
[QNA]
Members
1,838 posts
5,881 battles
1 minute ago, KiyoSenkan said:

Furutaka's hull does not belong in tier 7. Tier 6 is the 4-turret "Agano Kai" blueprint ship that I would pitch be named Yahagi, tier 5 is the original 3-turret Agano, and I'd split it off at 4 with Nagara or Sendai (take your pick). Tier 7 is the only real opening with nothing else that fits. Tier 8 would be 15.5cm Mogami with Takao taking Mogami's tier 8 place in the CA line.

 

Honestly, tier 7 would probably be better fit by swapping the Yahagi's 15.2cm twins for 15.5cm triples in the same 3x4 layout she'd already had, beefing up the armor and soft stats a bit, and naming the result Noshiro.

  1. N/A
  2. N/A
  3. Tenryu
  4. Kuma
  5. Nagara/Sendai
  6. Sendai/Agano
  7. Agano/Oyodo

This is how I see a potential tree

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,375
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
21,447 posts
3,875 battles
Just now, Vangm94 said:
  1. N/A
  2. N/A
  3. Tenryu
  4. Kuma
  5. Nagara/Sendai
  6. Sendai/Agano
  7. Agano/Oyodo

This is how I see a potential tree

Eh. I don't think there are any CAs early enough to split the line a tier 3 with Tenryu.

 

Hashidate  
Chikuma  
Tenryu  
Kuma Nagara (C hull Isuzu to differentiate from Kuma?)
Furutaka Agano
Aoba Yahagi (Agano Kai)
Myoko Noshiro (15.5cm Yahagi)
Takao 15.5cm Mogami (20.3cm option removed)
Ibuki TBD
Zao TBD

 

That's how I see it playing out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
472
[QNA]
[QNA]
Members
1,838 posts
5,881 battles
7 minutes ago, KiyoSenkan said:

Eh. I don't think there are any CAs early enough to split the line a tier 3 with Tenryu.

 

Hashidate  
Chikuma  
Tenryu  
Kuma Nagara (C hull Isuzu to differentiate from Kuma?)
Furutaka Agano
Aoba Yahagi (Agano Kai)
Myoko Noshiro (15.5cm Yahagi)
Takao 15.5cm Mogami (20.3cm option removed)
Ibuki TBD
Zao TBD

 

That's how I see it playing out.

Main reason I had it as it is was to not be repetitive with the classes. Mogami might work because I think I know that there is a CA counterpart to Cleveland but I am not sure. Then having 3 variations of Agano would... probably piss some people off. Then again, having the same 203mm gun from Furutaka already does that. It's up to debate and to the developers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×