Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
__crazy8s_

Akizuki Pitch Deep Water Torpedoes Researchable.

25 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
3,774 posts
8,328 battles

  Well now, we all know that with the on coming of Kitekaze and Harugmo our Akizukis are no longer in elite status.  At the moment Akizuki has the ability of two different torpedo launchers.  First the Type 90 mod 1.  Reload time 101 seconds damage 17233 speed 62 knots.  Basically Akizuki's stock torpedoes.  Now with the upgraded torpedoes via research, the Type 93 mod 2.  Reload time 112 seconds Maximium damage 20967 speed of 67 knots and a range of 10 kilometers.  These are great.  Even though it's only 1 set of 4 tubes.  Why am I bringing this up?

 

 Well I would like to throw this pitch.  Asasho (or how ever you spell that). She has the Type 93 mod 2 but with this spec deep water torpedoes.  Now if Wargaming ever did this highly unlikely but they could.  They could actually add in to the Akizuki research modules for torpedoes and add the charlie torpedo tubes.   They could do the Type 3 mod 2 deep waters.  How ever their range would or could be limited to 10 Kilometers.  Still with a very low detectability range.  It would probably give the Akizuki a different style of play if players decide to go this route and research and upgrade to that Type 93 Mod 2 DW if it would ever get added to Akizuki.  They already exist in game why not increase their population.

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
472
[QNA]
[QNA]
Members
1,838 posts
5,881 battles

I'd just prefer her to be able to launch her torpedoes individual like Royal Navy ships.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39
[ARP]
Beta Testers
815 posts
3,783 battles
1 minute ago, Vangm94 said:

I'd just prefer her to be able to launch her torpedoes individual like Royal Navy ships.

Yeah, but that kind of defeats the point of giving the Royal Navy a gimmick like that. Besides, Akizuki and that line are gunboats through and through. The torpedoes and reload booster are nice, but they're more of a convenience than a necessity. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,149 posts
3,141 battles

Akizuki, Harugumo, and Kitikaze are fine in terms of torps. They aren't intended to be torpedo boats. What they need is Defensive AA, and possibly a heal for Kitikaze and Harugumo. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


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

Yeah, but that kind of defeats the point of giving the Royal Navy a gimmick like that. Besides, Akizuki and that line are gunboats through and through. The torpedoes and reload booster are nice, but they're more of a convenience than a necessity. 

Something like that. Having a single turret launcher just sucks. Having a single turret launcher that can launch from each turret is useful. Haida is a good example. While she is not that nice to me, I tend to do pretty decent with her torpedoes when I launch them one at a time.

  • after the grey
  • in the grey
  • before the grey
  • further after the grey
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39
[ARP]
Beta Testers
815 posts
3,783 battles
1 minute ago, Vangm94 said:

Something like that. Having a single turret launcher just sucks. Having a single turret launcher that can launch from each turret is useful. Haida is a good example. While she is not that nice to me, I tend to do pretty decent with her torpedoes when I launch them one at a time.

  • after the grey
  • in the grey
  • before the grey
  • further after the grey

I see what you mean. Quite honestly wide spread is so useless I wouldn't mind too much if it was replaced by firing individual torpedoes, but I still like the Brits having that as a unique feature on their ships. Same with deep water torps and pan asia DDs. (Asashio's don't really count because they are REALLY gimmicky)

Share this post


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

I see what you mean. Quite honestly wide spread is so useless I wouldn't mind too much if it was replaced by firing individual torpedoes, but I still like the Brits having that as a unique feature on their ships. Same with deep water torps and pan asia DDs. (Asashio's don't really count because they are REALLY gimmicky)

Overall I am okay with the wide spread as long as there are multiple launchers. Asashio has done fine for me. Whenever the next update happens, I am probably gonna be uploading 15 Asashio battles with maybe 5 of those being "Accomplished".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
444
[INTEL]
Beta Testers
1,602 posts
4,025 battles
2 hours ago, torpsRus said:

They already exist in game why not increase their population.

Because they have always been a wholly unnecessary gimmick?  Just my humble opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,370
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
21,428 posts
3,875 battles
2 hours ago, CarbonButtprint said:

Akizuki, Harugumo, and Kitikaze are fine in terms of torps. They aren't intended to be torpedo boats. What they need is Defensive AA, and possibly a heal for Kitikaze and Harugumo. 

I kinda agree with the Defensive Fire consumable, but what these two ships really need is a speed indicative of the fact that they have the exact same powerplant as Shimakaze.

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
875
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
3,449 posts
8,107 battles

I'd rather just see them remove the detection range nerf on all the IJN torps save maybe Shima's 20 km wall or if need be it's others, so that they have the same relative 1.4 km spotting range as the similar speed and range torps of Fletcher and pretty much every other DD, including the DWT's that have even less. 

Share this post


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

how about all IJN long lance be made hard to detect as IRL they were?

Would it help? Yes. Enough to care? No. I got the range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,411 posts

range don't help you if they can be seen from orbit and dodged with ease.

I would rather they get the low detect range AND be made slow and with lower damage per torp to compensate.

Share this post


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

range don't help you if they can be seen from orbit and dodged with ease.

I would rather they get the low detect range AND be made slow and with lower damage per torp to compensate.

Radar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,411 posts
5 minutes ago, Vangm94 said:

Radar

So? what use is firing a torpedo outside radar range if the ship can VISUALLY see the torpedo so far out it will dodge it with ease?

Its like saying you're safe in a trench because you can fire your rifle into the air while being safe. Chances of firing upward hitting an enemy are laughable .. oh but hey, you're 'safe'.

Change the 20km torp to 55kn, 12k damage per torpedo, 1km detect range. That makes the torpedoe's advantage BE the range AND the stealth. Its long range and high hit rate makes it work. It would have the same output as gearing's full salvo of 16km torps so its not 'uber wall of death'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
472
[QNA]
[QNA]
Members
1,838 posts
5,881 battles
Just now, Skyfaller said:

So? what use is firing a torpedo outside radar range if the ship can VISUALLY see the torpedo so far out it will dodge it with ease?

Its like saying you're safe in a trench because you can fire your rifle into the air while being safe. Chances of firing upward hitting an enemy are laughable .. oh but hey, you're 'safe'.

Change the 20km torp to 55kn, 12k damage per torpedo, 1km detect range. That makes the torpedoe's advantage BE the range AND the stealth. Its long range and high hit rate makes it work. It would have the same output as gearing's full salvo of 16km torps so its not 'uber wall of death'.

I rather have the range and power to choose between shooting from long range or short range. They will see my torpedoes either way because the ship I am not trying to hit will spot the torpedoes and that means that the ship I am trying to hit will see them. Asashio had done fine and Shimakaze is doing fine with their long range torpedoes.

I used to use long range torpedoes and I sucked. So I used shorter range torpedoes and I sucked just as much. After playing with Asashio and having multiple good battles, I started using what I learned with her with Shimakaze. Shimakaze using what I learned with Asashio has changed the way she played and she fares better than before.

Like I said, would it help? Yes. Enough to care? No. I got the range. I also got the high damage. Get as close as possible and launch, if it is too dangerous, you can make use of that range and drop. Will it hit them? Probably not. Will it scare them? That is the plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
490
[NWNG]
[NWNG]
Members
2,035 posts
3,543 battles
3 hours ago, Capt_Barkhorn said:

Yeah, but that kind of defeats the point of giving the Royal Navy a gimmick like that. Besides, Akizuki and that line are gunboats through and through. The torpedoes and reload booster are nice, but they're more of a convenience than a necessity.

Akizuki is not supposed to be a gunboat. She was a dedicated built  AA boat. So DFAA would be far better than firing torpedoes individually.
 

1 hour ago, KiyoSenkan said:

I kinda agree with the Defensive Fire consumable, but what these two ships really need is a speed indicative of the fact that they have the exact same powerplant as Shimakaze.

Shimakaze, standard Displacement: 2570 long tons. Full Load: 3,300 long tons.
Akizuki, standard Displacement: 2,700 long tons. Full Load: 3,700 long tons.

So Akizuki is already heavier than Shimakaze, hence why the calculated speed with Shima's powerplant, was 36.7 knots for the Super Akizuki, especially since it was going to have 5-tube turret, or 6-tube turret (6 in game). Harugumo having a 5th turret, maintaining the 6-tube turret, would most certainly be heavier still... So 35 knots for Harugumo, is acceptable to me.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,370
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
21,428 posts
3,875 battles
37 minutes ago, Counter_Gambit said:

Shimakaze, standard Displacement: 2570 long tons. Full Load: 3,300 long tons.
Akizuki, standard Displacement: 2,700 long tons. Full Load: 3,700 long tons.

So Akizuki is already heavier than Shimakaze, hence why the calculated speed with Shima's powerplant, was 36.7 knots for the Super Akizuki, especially since it was going to have 5-tube turret, or 6-tube turret (6 in game). Harugumo having a 5th turret, maintaining the 6-tube turret, would most certainly be heavier still... So 35 knots for Harugumo, is acceptable to me.
 

According to someone who claimed to be an expert, the power plant should be able to go at its rated speed regardless of weight/displacement. The differences would come in accel/deceleration.

 

Then again, it came up in a conversation about Khabarovsk.

 

So I guess that logic only applies to Russian engineering.

Edited by KiyoSenkan
  • Cool 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39
[ARP]
Beta Testers
815 posts
3,783 battles
53 minutes ago, Counter_Gambit said:

Akizuki is not supposed to be a gunboat. She was a dedicated built  AA boat. So DFAA would be far better than firing torpedoes individually.

AA boat is pretty useless when there are no planes. How is she not a gunboat when her guns have a ridiculous fire rate, traverse speed, and initial shell velocity? That thing can mulch BB superstructure like it's tin foil.

Share this post


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

AA boat is pretty useless when there are no planes. How is she not a gunboat when her guns have a ridiculous fire rate, traverse speed, and initial shell velocity? That thing can mulch BB superstructure like it's tin foil.

IRL = AA Destroyer

WoWS = Gunboat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
490
[NWNG]
[NWNG]
Members
2,035 posts
3,543 battles
16 minutes ago, KiyoSenkan said:

According to someone who claimed to be an expert, the power plant should be able to go at its rated speed regardless of weight/displacement. The differences would come in accel/deceleration.

 

Then again, it came up in a conversation about Khabarovsk.

 

So I guess that logic only applies to Russian engineering.

Shaft Horsepower will be the same, but the speed that shp produces, will most certainly be different. Displacement, ship's beam, Ship's draft, length of the ship at water line, and the shaft horsepower, together, determines the speed of the ship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,370
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
21,428 posts
3,875 battles
8 minutes ago, Counter_Gambit said:

Shaft Horsepower will be the same, but the speed that shp produces, will most certainly be different. Displacement, ship's beam, Ship's draft, length of the ship at water line, and the shaft horsepower, together, determines the speed of the ship.

Yeah in Khab's case, having the exact same power plant as Tashkent while having an inferior hull shape and a lot more weight translates to higher top speed and better accel/deceleration.

 

Once again, the logic of Russian engineering doesn't apply to Japanese ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,411 posts
40 minutes ago, KiyoSenkan said:

Yeah in Khab's case, having the exact same power plant as Tashkent while having an inferior hull shape and a lot more weight translates to higher top speed and better accel/deceleration.

 

Once again, the logic of Russian engineering doesn't apply to Japanese ships.

especially when its done by soviet devs who still feel Tsushima's  IJN boot on their rear ends and must 'make it right'. For Russia. XD 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
490
[NWNG]
[NWNG]
Members
2,035 posts
3,543 battles
1 hour ago, KiyoSenkan said:

Yeah in Khab's case, having the exact same power plant as Tashkent while having an inferior hull shape and a lot more weight translates to higher top speed and better accel/deceleration.

 

Once again, the logic of Russian engineering doesn't apply to Japanese ships.

that's Russian bias for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×