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

[Reddit][Player Made] Russian / Soviet Battleship Line - Tier X

24 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Beta Testers
2,817 posts
3,945 battles

thread originally done by godzilla5549,i'm just posting it here because not everyone that visit wows forum watch reddit.

ladies and gentleman,i present you the blueprints from The Supreme Soviet Department of Ultimate Weapons or SSDUW

all credits goes to godzilla5549 and his friends that helped with translation. 

Spoiler

 

Tier X: XXX or project 24 - Scheme XIII ( also know as the weapon to surpass metal gear,or the third red scare)

RopAj8i.png

 

Edited by Cruxdei

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
855 posts
3,430 battles

When they release Russia BBs there gimmick should be one hit kills, that's right! They move like slugs, slow, prone to engine failures and have a reload on par with torps, but if one shell hits you instant kill....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
898
[LEGIO]
Members
2,956 posts
5,370 battles

A few thoughts,

- I don't think the 9x 16" gun armament will cut it without being given an absurdly fast reload rate or other unusual buffs. Performance stats for the Russian 18" gun have already been data-mined which suggests we will see this behemoth armed with 18" guns.

- What information points to the 18" gun being 55 caliber length? What I've read in the past suggested 50 caliber length.

- Any of the balancing problems with the 18" guns (and this applies for the Conqueror too) can be fixed simply be making 18" guns behave the same as 18.1" guns on the Yamato. The way overmatch works in game is entirely fictional anyway.

- The raw amount of armor is impressive but any idea what angle the belt is sloped at? Project 23 was 5 degrees from vertical.

- The Montana was designed with a 57mm weather deck but in game it got nerfed, so it's possible the Project 24 gets a similar nerf, although it's also possible they keep it at 60mm because Stalinium.

- The level of firepower on the final design with 16" guns really isn't that impressive for a battleship that weighs more than Yamato or the Montana.

- Also 280,000 shp for 30 knots isn't all that impressive in terms of efficiency. Though it's more realistic than the Kurfurst doing 30 knots.

- Most of the real design work took place in a time when if war occurred aircraft would be lobbing nuclear bombs at it. It's amazing work went on as long as it did. But what Stalin says goes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
340 posts
2,096 battles

 

And I gotta agree with Lampshade, even with slightly higher RoF 3x3 16" guns is a bit too weak for Tier X.

I feel 18" are highly possible for this ship since russian 18" guns were datamined a while back.

  • Angry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,579
[E-E]
[E-E]
Members
15,579 posts
14,010 battles
9 minutes ago, Phaere said:

 

And I gotta agree with Lampshade, even with slightly higher RoF 3x3 16" guns is a bit too weak for Tier X.

I feel 18" are highly possible for this ship since russian 18" guns were datamined a while back.

That's why they'd have high pen values, high accuracy, and good ROF to offset the 3x3 406mm issues.  If this ship goes down with that armament, I'm betting that's what we'll get.  WG finally showed atypical BB gun setup with Republique's 430mm 2x4's.  I can easily see fast shooting, laser accurate Russian 406s if the ship is stuck with 3x3 in Tier X.  Republique only has 8 guns, but they're 430.  So these RU 406s will definitely be made to be enticing guns as the crown of a RU BB Line.

 

It's just I wish they learned that lesson earlier for Conqueror's 457mm guns.

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
340 posts
2,096 battles
46 minutes ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

That's why they'd have high pen values, high accuracy, and good ROF to offset the 3x3 406mm issues.  If this ship goes down with that armament, I'm betting that's what we'll get.  WG finally showed atypical BB gun setup with Republique's 430mm 2x4's.  I can easily see fast shooting, laser accurate Russian 406s if the ship is stuck with 3x3 in Tier X.  Republique only has 8 guns, but they're 430.  So these RU 406s will definitely be made to be enticing guns as the crown of a RU BB Line.

 

It's just I wish they learned that lesson earlier for Conqueror's 457mm guns.

Pfft, no need to worry Komrade stronk Soviet Stalin-guided anti-capitalist, anti-fascist, anti-imperial 457mm shells will have 1:1 overmatch and always fuse inside the ships citadel / hull.

 

And well on the Russian 16" /50 according to navweaps the gun has less penetration then the USN 16" /50. Although the number is a estimate according to the site, it could be attributed to bad quality of steel used to make the shell. If better quality steel / powder was used the gun could theoretically have better characteristics.

I can't find any info if Russia had any sort of better 16" gun even on a napkin drawing, so assuming this is the gun we're gonna get it doesn't sound appealing even with ~2.4rpm and high accuracy.

Edited by Phaere

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,042
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
6,662 posts
9,977 battles

The 3x3 457mm must be within the realm of possibility for inclusion. If Republique can reload 430mm guns in 24s while Conqueror/Montana take 30s for 419/406's and GK 32s for 420's, then all bets are off (similarly British 14/15in in 25s...).

So far I believe both Okto Rev and Nikolai have had dispersion on the 'German' axis - i.e. pretty poor at long range, ok up close. That's a pattern shared with the French and Italian battleships. While not mandatory (I remember a Conqueror test iteration with something ridiculous like 50m dispersion at 30km) it's probable that the RU BB line will be on that slope. Vertical dispersion depends on velocity which seems unknown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,476
[AHOY_]
Beta Testers
6,410 posts
3,410 battles

Personally, I don't see an issue with either the 3x3 406s with a 2.4 RPM firing rate, or 3x3 457s with a flat 2.0 RPM firing rate. With the 406s, it's not much more than playing against a bow-on GK with 16". With the 457s, the 457 AP would be pretty punchy on broadsides, and unlike 457 Conqueror, can bring 6x of them to bear while minimizing her profile thanks to the forward armor. She's definitely not going to be a front-line battleship, but rather hang out alongside her Japanese cousin Yamato as they leisurely advance. If a buff to her main guns has to be given at all, it should be a slight normalization buff on the 457s only. Not as much as USN cruisers, but just enough to let her bite in a bit more.

The ship is suitably well armored bow on and from modest angles giving Yamato a run for her money, likely would have a solid long-range AA output that could put Jean Bart to shame, and being a Russian line, probably get a gimmick like Radar to compensate, if not something like better DCP. Unlike the RN BB line during testing however, the VMF BB line won't have the stealth or maneuverability to make effective use of Radar should they give it to Project 24. If it's better DCP however; it probably would be an set of 4 options between regular but infinite DCP and limited but plenty of use Gangut DCP. For example; Normal and Premium Standard DCP, and Normal and Premium Super DCP with say, 7 base charges, maxing out at 9 with SI + Premium Super DCP. Enough to survive the onslaught of being HE snipe-focused by enemy Stalingrads, Moskvas, Henris, Zaos, and Conquerors in an average match assuming appropriate use, but if combined with FP + BoS + Duration Reduction Module, can become extremely tanky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
228
[NGA-B]
Members
1,195 posts
7,604 battles

What really kind of annoys me about Soviet-designed BBs is that they had a flawed armor scheme that benefits from the game's mechanics, since it just uses flat values and doesn't take into account the quality of the steel. The Sovetsky Soyuz-class (and likely any other designs that we see among the higher tier Russian BBs) were forced to use two separate layers of steel because the Soviet industry lacked the capacity to forge plates thick enough to meet the design specifications. This meant that they had to use inferior plating and layer it, meaning what was, on paper, thicker armor, was inferior to the "thinner" armor of their counterparts. And considering they were armed with 16" guns, their firepower was pretty much the same as the older Nelson and North Carolina-class, which were much smaller.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
898
[LEGIO]
Members
2,956 posts
5,370 battles
36 minutes ago, JediMasterDraco said:

What really kind of annoys me about Soviet-designed BBs is that they had a flawed armor scheme that benefits from the game's mechanics, since it just uses flat values and doesn't take into account the quality of the steel. The Sovetsky Soyuz-class (and likely any other designs that we see among the higher tier Russian BBs) were forced to use two separate layers of steel because the Soviet industry lacked the capacity to forge plates thick enough to meet the design specifications. This meant that they had to use inferior plating and layer it, meaning what was, on paper, thicker armor, was inferior to the "thinner" armor of their counterparts. And considering they were armed with 16" guns, their firepower was pretty much the same as the older Nelson and North Carolina-class, which were much smaller.

I don't know if they had to use two layers of laminated armor but I think they used an inferior grade of face-hardened armor compared to the standard sort of cemented armor the rest of the world used.

Not to turn this into "who has the biggest baddest battleship" argument but realistically I doubt the armor of the Project 24 at its max thickness of 17.7" (450mm) would have been any better than the 16.125" (410mm) of armor the Montana when you factor in the quality difference and angle 19 degrees from the vertical on the latter. I'm not certain what the Soviets used for backing but the Montana used an 1" (25mm) of STS which also has properties of armor.

Of course in game it will be a very tough nut to crack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24
[ALPHA]
Members
180 posts
4,214 battles

All i can say is joyous days ahead. Nothing like a 98% fictional line.... I am sure these will be insanely good ships... Just why, why put in an almost total fictional line that was never laid down, I can understand a couple, say two to finish out a line, but this is insane. Also, if these fictional boats have anything better than German dispersion, it will confirm bias and here is why: most all of Soviet large caliber naval guns were designed in Germany for them. Anyways, WG, please, no, but if you do: I am a naval engineer, so give them German dispersion and according to the above blueprint, she would have a citadel above the waterline so that should be reflected in game as well.

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
124
[UFFA]
Members
525 posts
29 battles
8 hours ago, mofton said:

The 3x3 457mm must be within the realm of possibility for inclusion. If Republique can reload 430mm guns in 24s while Conqueror/Montana take 30s for 419/406's and GK 32s for 420's, then all bets are off (similarly British 14/15in in 25s...).

So far I believe both Okto Rev and Nikolai have had dispersion on the 'German' axis - i.e. pretty poor at long range, ok up close. That's a pattern shared with the French and Italian battleships. While not mandatory (I remember a Conqueror test iteration with something ridiculous like 50m dispersion at 30km) it's probable that the RU BB line will be on that slope. Vertical dispersion depends on velocity which seems unknown.

On what I believe is probably an older chart now LWM had the Russians in their own bracket closer to an IJN style tight horizontal/long vertical.  I have my doubts on WG giving the home team the derpy continental penalty. :crab:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,042
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
6,662 posts
9,977 battles
50 minutes ago, Sparviero said:

On what I believe is probably an older chart now LWM had the Russians in their own bracket closer to an IJN style tight horizontal/long vertical.  I have my doubts on WG giving the home team the derpy continental penalty. :crab:

Ah, seems you are right. More like USN though:

image.thumb.png.0683824380fb52883c20d8166dba3da0.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,344
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
7,177 posts
2,029 battles
6 hours ago, Lampshade_M1A2 said:

I don't know if they had to use two layers of laminated armor but I think they used an inferior grade of face-hardened armor compared to the standard sort of cemented armor the rest of the world used.

Not to turn this into "who has the biggest baddest battleship" argument but realistically I doubt the armor of the Project 24 at its max thickness of 17.7" (450mm) would have been any better than the 16.125" (410mm) of armor the Montana when you factor in the quality difference and angle 19 degrees from the vertical on the latter. I'm not certain what the Soviets used for backing but the Montana used an 1" (25mm) of STS which also has properties of armor.

Of course in game it will be a very tough nut to crack.

Hmm, I'm forgetting the exact values, but off the top of my head the belt armor was 250mm FH with 200mm Homogenous applied directly over it - which, if treating as a laminate, is only equal to 410mm anyways. Thus, assuming equal quality to Class A resistance against 16" shells (which is not great compared to other types), that should be inferior protection anyways because of the inclination. 410mm Class A @ 19º should protect against the 16"/50 Mk.7 out just past 20000 yards, but at 5º inclination this should only be true just under 26000 yards and beyond. IN fact, even if it was 450mm thick in effective thickness, it would still only resist past 22000 yards with such an inclination, making it inferior to Montana's belt layout anyways (this is without the 1" backing, but that won't change things much).

Of course, this does depend on plate quality, which isn't exactly known with Soviet plates, as that can make quite the difference - for example, if we were assuming the quality was equal to British Cemented - 410mm/5º would still work at just over 20000 yards, and 450mm at about 17000 yards.

9 hours ago, mofton said:

So far I believe both Okto Rev and Nikolai have had dispersion on the 'German' axis - i.e. pretty poor at long range, ok up close. That's a pattern shared with the French and Italian battleships. While not mandatory (I remember a Conqueror test iteration with something ridiculous like 50m dispersion at 30km) it's probable that the RU BB line will be on that slope. Vertical dispersion depends on velocity which seems unknown.

 

28 minutes ago, Sparviero said:

On what I believe is probably an older chart now LWM had the Russians in their own bracket closer to an IJN style tight horizontal/long vertical.  I have my doubts on WG giving the home team the derpy continental penalty. :crab:

As I recall, the dispersion of Russian BBs is the same used by the Americans and the British, excluding Warspite and Hood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2
[KENT]
Beta Testers
4 posts
1,384 battles
15 hours ago, agrims said:

All i can say is joyous days ahead. Nothing like a 98% fictional line.... I am sure these will be insanely good ships... Just why, why put in an almost total fictional line that was never laid down, I can understand a couple, say two to finish out a line, but this is insane. Also, if these fictional boats have anything better than German dispersion, it will confirm bias and here is why: most all of Soviet large caliber naval guns were designed in Germany for them. Anyways, WG, please, no, but if you do: I am a naval engineer, so give them German dispersion and according to the above blueprint, she would have a citadel above the waterline so that should be reflected in game as well.

Not 98% fictional a good breakdown is like this 
T3- Pre Gangut Design study (paper design that lead to Gangut)
T4- Sevastopol WWI (fully built and operational, 1914-1945 service life)
T5- Imperatritsa Mariya (fully built and operational 1915-1916 service life)
T6-Izmail (incomplete ship but still existed in steel)
T7- Post Jutland Black Sea Dreadnought (Fully designed but not laid down)
T8-Preliminary Project 23 - TsKBS-1 Design (1936) (Design Study for Soyuz class)
T9-Sovetskiy Soyuz (Laid down but not completed due to German invasion of Russia, existed in steel so not a Paper ship)
T10- Project 24 (Improved Soyuz design, Not laid down due to Stalin's death)
So only 4 fully designed Paper ships and no Fictional designs Like GK, Hindenburg, Roon, Zao, etc

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24
[ALPHA]
Members
180 posts
4,214 battles
53 minutes ago, jon_man0499 said:

Not 98% fictional a good breakdown is like this 
T3- Pre Gangut Design study (paper design that lead to Gangut)
T4- Sevastopol WWI (fully built and operational, 1914-1945 service life)
T5- Imperatritsa Mariya (fully built and operational 1915-1916 service life)
T6-Izmail (incomplete ship but still existed in steel)
T7- Post Jutland Black Sea Dreadnought (Fully designed but not laid down)
T8-Preliminary Project 23 - TsKBS-1 Design (1936) (Design Study for Soyuz class)
T9-Sovetskiy Soyuz (Laid down but not completed due to German invasion of Russia, existed in steel so not a Paper ship)
T10- Project 24 (Improved Soyuz design, Not laid down due to Stalin's death)
So only 4 fully designed Paper ships and no Fictional designs Like GK, Hindenburg, Roon, Zao, etc

I see what you state, however, the issue remains: many of these boats are paper designs, and even the ones that won’t be, only two actually sailed, so again: fictional ships. Also, you fail to acknowledge that all of these will get fictional refits for hull upgrades and will probably receive hull impunity to all calibers, below the waterline cits, fast reload, fast hard hitting shells, tight dispersion, and radar. I personally believe WG should have made the game based off top built boats as T10. If your favored nation has holes in a line, well I’m sorry about your luck.. USN should have stopped at Iowa. KMS, Bismarck, etc. especially if you have to create frankensteins monster to create a T10 (GK) at least FDG is based off actual paper plans...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2
[KENT]
Beta Testers
4 posts
1,384 battles
20 minutes ago, agrims said:

I see what you state, however, the issue remains: many of these boats are paper designs, and even the ones that won’t be, only two actually sailed, so again: fictional ships. Also, you fail to acknowledge that all of these will get fictional refits for hull upgrades and will probably receive hull impunity to all calibers, below the waterline cits, fast reload, fast hard hitting shells, tight dispersion, and radar. I personally believe WG should have made the game based off top built boats as T10. If your favored nation has holes in a line, well I’m sorry about your luck.. USN should have stopped at Iowa. KMS, Bismarck, etc. especially if you have to create frankensteins monster to create a T10 (GK) at least FDG is based off actual paper plans...

I fail to see how a ship that never sails is fictional, being fictional would imply it never existed in any way shape or form, you must remember when a ship is laid down it is no longer a paper ship, in terms of fictional refits not all of them will get Fictional refits because not all need them, and even with a Fictional refit that does not change that they were all fully designed ships. In regards to T10s the H-39 was laid down and had 3500 tons of her completed before being scrapped. In terms of using only ships that were built for WoWs, the game would have died off pretty quickly with huge gaps in the lines and many lines would not have been able to be implemented. As for the GK, WG chose to make a fake ship for some odd reason over actually designed ships that Fit T10 well such as the H42 or H43 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,042
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
6,662 posts
9,977 battles
7 minutes ago, jon_man0499 said:

I fail to see how a ship that never sails is fictional, being fictional would imply it never existed in any way shape or form, you must remember when a ship is laid down it is no longer a paper ship,

There's not a vast difference between some metal on a slipway and a set of detailed builders plans, building that much at least of the ship isn't remarkable. Good plans exist for both, but neither is a ship. Ships float, have engines, crews, sea trial data, problems in development, history and character. Steel on a slip does none of those things. Only when ships are finished will some things be revealed - real speed, seaworthiness, real refits etc.

My benchmark for 'real' would be commissioned/not commissioned which I think is the only one that matters. The other division as I see it is between 'fabricated' and 'blueprinted'.

I definitely agree with you that the game has needed a variety of ships including fabrications, blueprints and commissioned ships. My regret is that I think commissioned ships should have been better prioritized, but that's in part because the navies I'm more interested in had more game-worthy ships commissioned. Putting out two lines of Russian ships soon after launch with only a handful of commissioned ships between them was frustrating if you like British, French or Italian ships - which went hungry. The first non Japanese or US carrier in the game is... the disastrous Graf Zeppelin. WG have just used two never-commissioned ships to give Japan a 39th and 40th tech tree ship while France, Britain and Italy have 36 combined.

 

To me this proposed Russian line has two commissioned ships and six not, which isn't fantastic. On the other hand the French battleship line is only three and five by that metric so it's hardly excessive.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2
[KENT]
Beta Testers
4 posts
1,384 battles
25 minutes ago, mofton said:

There's not a vast difference between some metal on a slipway and a set of detailed builders plans, building that much at least of the ship isn't remarkable. Good plans exist for both, but neither is a ship. Ships float, have engines, crews, sea trial data, problems in development, history and character. Steel on a slip does none of those things. Only when ships are finished will some things be revealed - real speed, seaworthiness, real refits etc.

My benchmark for 'real' would be commissioned/not commissioned which I think is the only one that matters. The other division as I see it is between 'fabricated' and 'blueprinted'.

I definitely agree with you that the game has needed a variety of ships including fabrications, blueprints and commissioned ships. My regret is that I think commissioned ships should have been better prioritized, but that's in part because the navies I'm more interested in had more game-worthy ships commissioned. Putting out two lines of Russian ships soon after launch with only a handful of commissioned ships between them was frustrating if you like British, French or Italian ships - which went hungry. The first non Japanese or US carrier in the game is... the disastrous Graf Zeppelin. WG have just used two never-commissioned ships to give Japan a 39th and 40th tech tree ship while France, Britain and Italy have 36 combined.

 

To me this proposed Russian line has two commissioned ships and six not, which isn't fantastic. On the other hand the French battleship line is only three and five by that metric so it's hardly excessive.

I can agree with your assessment, In terms of incomplete ships it gets further complicated when incomplete ships are actually launched, for example here is Izmail being prepared for her Launch in 1916, Her turrets had actually been assembled and were awaiting delivery but the revolution happened

Spoiler

IzmailConstruction.jpg
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45
[RLGN]
Members
210 posts
4,056 battles
2 hours ago, mofton said:

There's not a vast difference between some metal on a slipway and a set of detailed builders plans, building that much at least of the ship isn't remarkable. Good plans exist for both, but neither is a ship. Ships float, have engines, crews, sea trial data, problems in development, history and character. Steel on a slip does none of those things. Only when ships are finished will some things be revealed - real speed, seaworthiness, real refits etc.

My benchmark for 'real' would be commissioned/not commissioned which I think is the only one that matters. The other division as I see it is between 'fabricated' and 'blueprinted'.

I definitely agree with you that the game has needed a variety of ships including fabrications, blueprints and commissioned ships. My regret is that I think commissioned ships should have been better prioritized, but that's in part because the navies I'm more interested in had more game-worthy ships commissioned. Putting out two lines of Russian ships soon after launch with only a handful of commissioned ships between them was frustrating if you like British, French or Italian ships - which went hungry. The first non Japanese or US carrier in the game is... the disastrous Graf Zeppelin. WG have just used two never-commissioned ships to give Japan a 39th and 40th tech tree ship while France, Britain and Italy have 36 combined.

 

To me this proposed Russian line has two commissioned ships and six not, which isn't fantastic. On the other hand the French battleship line is only three and five by that metric so it's hardly excessive.

I agree with the general distaste for paper ships, but some leniency has to be made for ships that were ready to go but were destroyed in construction or the war ended during it or the like.  I mean, we on the one had you earlier praise the FDG for at least being based on paper plans, but then ignore the Montana was not only fully designed but ready for construction but would have been started save for the Essex being (wisely) prioritized.  It wasn't just "based" on paper plans, the plans existed.  Being that these ships are often altered significantly from the "character" of their real-life counterparts I'm fairly amenable to the digital world where ships that almost were can finally be.  I just wish we had less of things like the Zao that were basically made up whole cloth.

 

Furthermore if lines stopped with the largest commissioned ship we'd either have Yamato as the only tier 10 battleship (which is obviously undesirable) or a world where the performance of the Yamato, Iowa, and Bismark would all have to be balanced to be equal.  If we had the latter I'm fairly certain you'd be upset at the buffs and nerfs that would have to go around to make those ships competitive with each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,579
[E-E]
[E-E]
Members
15,579 posts
14,010 battles

It would be entertaining to think how this game would be with zero paper ships, zero incomplete ships.  We'll see which real navies would exist and some interesting gaps.  Which navies start disappearing :Smile_teethhappy:

 

IJN BBs:  Fuso - Nagato - Blank - Blank - Yamato (the only Tier X BB)

USN BBs:  New Mexico - Colorado - North Carolina - Iowa - Blank

German BBs:  Bayern - Gneisenau - Bismarck - Blank - Blank

IJN Cruisers:  Aoba - Myoko - Mogami - Blank - Blank

USN CAs:  Pensacola - New Orleans - Baltimore - Blank - Des Memes (the only Tier X CA)

:Smile_popcorn:

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24
[ALPHA]
Members
180 posts
4,214 battles
7 hours ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

It would be entertaining to think how this game would be with zero paper ships, zero incomplete ships.  We'll see which real navies would exist and some interesting gaps.  Which navies start disappearing :Smile_teethhappy:

 

IJN BBs:  Fuso - Nagato - Blank - Blank - Yamato (the only Tier X BB)

USN BBs:  New Mexico - Colorado - North Carolina - Iowa - Blank

German BBs:  Bayern - Gneisenau - Bismarck - Blank - Blank

IJN Cruisers:  Aoba - Myoko - Mogami - Blank - Blank

USN CAs:  Pensacola - New Orleans - Baltimore - Blank - Des Memes (the only Tier X CA)

:Smile_popcorn:

The USN and RN would be the only nations with whole lines. You missed a lot of ship classes for the USN: namely: You could do a line like this: Florida, Wyoming, Nevada, Tennessee, Colorado, North Carolina, South Dakota, Iowa. The ships in the USN line are more bland as they get incremental upgrades in game. BTW, I wish ships like Bismarck, Iowa, Yamato would have faced off in some way during the war. This wouldn’t be an issue, however, seeing battle records and damage taken a point could be made an Iowa would have had her hands full with Bismarck, as Bismarck took an incredible amount of damage. Yes, she was fully disabled and unable to defend herself before scuttling, but she also faced down how many planes, ships, and shells? One on one engagements, Bismarck had the capacity to take on an Iowa, just like an Iowa could have taken on Yamato. Since it didn’t happen, we will never know. I think having incomplete lines would have made the game interesting. Hell, as it is now we have to face off against Yammies in Iowa’s, and Bismarck’s, so, would the game really have changed that drastically to make lines tailored to real ships? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
2,708 posts
3,444 battles

I have no problem with paper ships to be honest, if only because most of them are usually more interesting to play given the experimental specs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×