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

Why You Won't Get West Virginia '44

94 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

24,156
[WG-CC]
WoWS Community Contributors
9,137 posts
7,663 battles

Y'all asked for it.

USS West Virginia, in her rebuilt state at the end of World War two has long been sought after by the community.  It's no surprise to me that Wargaming has so far avoided including her.  Balancing a late-war West Virginia was always going to be troublesome.  The question on how to introduce this ship and at what tier should would appear has been the subject of lively debate.

There are two main points of controversy.  The first is if West Virginia, an improved Colorado-class, ends up at tier VII, how should she be balanced compared to the lead of her class which lacks her modernizations?  The second, is that if she should appear at tier VIII, how could she possibly be made competitive with her low top speed without a ridiculous helping of gimmicks?

The Core Battleship

To understand the best answers to these questions, we have to look at the baseline version of West Virginia.  We'll be using a fully upgraded Colorado as a basis for this vessel but with any artificial perks Wargaming has added stripped away.

Hull

Hit Points:  58,600hp
Armour Profile:  As per Colorado with enlarged torpedo bulges but with improved horizontal citadel protection over the magazines and machine spaces.
Anti-Torpedo Defense:  45% to 55% (estimated)

AA1-1024x576.jpg
We can only estimate the protection provided by her anti-torpedo bulges. There isn't any real form of consistency that I can ascertain in how Wargaming determines the damage reduction provided. This could be as low as 40%, so I'm perhaps being overly optimistic in hoping that she'll have impressive values.

Armament

Gunnery-1024x520.jpg
There are only a couple of points here worth remarking, otherwise these guns are identical to those found on USS Colorado. First, her sigma is reduced to a "baseline" 1.80 value. This seems to be the value to which Wargaming defaults for most battleships. Second, her range is taken from West Virginia '41 and applying a 10% increase to represent the buff from a fire control module upgrade. Note that range is highly malleable for the sake of balance, so don't take this as absolute.

Secondaries-1024x580.png
No surprises here. USN Battleship 127mm/38s have always been crappy secondaries with artificially low rates of fire for some reason. This just puts West Virginia's secondaries on par with all of the other USN Battleships with the exception of Massachusetts.

Anti-Aircraft

AA5-1024x576.jpg
This is West Virginia's anti-aircraft armament in 1945. It's well documented and easy to find references for this layout. Her 1944 layout had only 50 Oerlikons (instead of a combined total of 64 in 1945) but finding out just where these guns were placed is difficult. This doesn't put the 1945 version of West Virginia automatically in the clear. Her quad Oerlikon "Thunderbolt" mount hasn't yet been rendered in the game which leads to further modelling complications for Wargaming. So it becomes a choice as far as I see it -- fudge the placement of her 50 Oerlikon mounts for a WV'44 or get stuck building a brand new AA gun for WV'45.[

Manoevrability

Top Speed:  20.5kts
Turning Radius:  640m
Rudder Shift Time:  16.5s
Turn Deceleration Type:  Standard (25%)
Approximate Maximum Turn Rate:  3.7º/s

Concealment

Surface Detection:  16.74km
Aerial Detection:  11.75km
Smoke Firing Detection:  16.19km

Consumables

Consumables.png

Damage Control Party:  American Battleship Standard
Repair Party:  Standard (Up to 14% health recovery over 28s, 50% penetration queue, 10% citadel queue)
Spotter Aircraft / Catapult Fighter:  Standard with fighter providing 42dps.

What's Missing

We've removed the following perks from Colorado:

  • 1.9 Sigma off her main battery.
  • Improved engine performanceColorado loses only 9% of her maximum speed in a turn.
  • Improved Repair Party. Colorado heals 0.66% of her hp every second for 28s instead of 0.5% like other battleships.

Assessment of the Remainder

We're left with what amounts to a decent but overall unimpressive tier VII battleship.  She presents a reasonable alternative to Colorado without being directly superior to the lead of her class.  If Wargaming wished to implement a late-war West Virginia into World of Warships at tier VII, this is likely the build with which she would appear.  She's slower, less accurate and less agile.  In addition, West Virginia is not as durable to fires, floods and shellfire as Colorado.  The trade off is that she's much more resilient to torpedo hits and she will absolutely trivialize air attacks.

I am of the opinion that this would be a rather dull addition to the game.

Tier VII Late War West Virginia

So let's take a look at what we could add to West Virginia to make her more interesting.

The most obvious perk that West Virginia should probably have access to is Colorado's improved engine performance.  This reduces the amount of speed lost in a turn and will help this ship feel like less of a sluggard.  With the half knot of speed difference between them, tossing West Virginia this trait does not risk her over shadowing her sister-ship as she'll always be the slower of the two.

With this trait, West Virginia would increase her maximum turn speed from approximately 15.4kts to 18.7kts.  This has the side effect of also increasing her rate of turn from a maximum of 3.7º/s to 4.5º/s which is an enormous buff.  Handling wise, this is the difference of how Nagato handles in a turn versus that of Warspite.

From here, things get more difficult.  While I don't believe we could poach both of Colorado's perks, we could steal one and get away with it.  I'm personally in favour of taking her 1.9 sigma and calling this tier VII project done.

In this way, Late-War West Virginia would be very similar to Colorado, but with different levels of durability.  Colorado would have better health recovery.  West Virginia would have better anti-aircraft firepower and torpedo damage reduction.  They would have comparable artillery, concealment and handling characteristics with Colorado enjoying slightly more range.

BAM, project over.  Package this one off and gimme my cookie.

Half Baked & Halfway Done

We'll stop here for now.  This is, in my opinion, the most likely way we'll see a Late-War West Virginia come into World of Warships.  However, I think it's a fantasy to imagine that we'll see this ship anytime soon.  I would not expect her to see the light of day until the year 2020 at the earliest... if at all.

I hate to be cynical, but Wargaming have left them a pretty big 'out' when it came to renaming the upcoming tier VI premium West Virginia '41.  There's no time commitment there and I would not assume that a modernized version of West Virginia will be high on their list of priorities.  We're more likely to see another one of the standard-type battleships modernized before West Virginia sees the light of day.

So I'm of the opinion this is a fantasy for now.  But so long as we're fantasizing...

Next time on the WGNA Forums:
Mouse fantasizes a tier VIII West Virginia proposal.

patreon_shipcomrade.png

Edited by LittleWhiteMouse
  • Cool 28
  • Bad 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,918 posts
1,365 battles

You guys refuse to accept that she could be better CO.  TX is better than NY, AL is honestly better then NC.  It wouldnt be that much of a stretch to say WV would ultimately be buffed to be better than CO.

CO isnt an OP top performing ship.  Its not like were taking Alabama, which is a solid performer and asking to add her sister ship as an improved premium, that wouldnt make sense.  But to be against taking whats already an underperformer and objecting to an improved version just because it would make the original look bad?  That just sounds real goofy.

Take your base line WV and buff secondaries to 13.5rpm, 1km range and a hefty acc boost and you have t7 WV.

Take CO and buff her, or all you CCs are ok with CO being the "you can cut your steak with a spoon if you do it right" ship, rather than turning her into a knife.

At T8, she would be a pushover regardless of buffs.  She still only has her t7 armor, but with better bow.  T6 guns dont have issue pummeling her for 20,000, T8-10 guns are going to demolish her...

  • Cool 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,071
[OPG]
Members
3,983 posts
5,722 battles

I've reached that end game stage where I no longer need premiums for the economic benefits, so now I only look to spend money on the ones that offer truly unique "oddball" game play that I can't find in the regular tree.  While I largely agree with your sentiment about the West Virginia '44 not fitting neatly anywhere in game, not gonna lie, part of me is really intrigued at the prospect of it being a Tier 8.

The interesting thing about ships have monumental weaknesses, is that somewhere else they need to have monumental strengths to offset them. I said much the same thing in your PoW proposal thread about the lack of a heal, but I see the potential slow speed of a Tier 8 WV more as an opportunity than a hindrance.*

*I'm just daydreaming about the prospect of a Tier 8 West Virginia being the most accurate battleship in the entire game with improved sigma and or dispersion.

Edited by yashma
  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
954
[BBICT]
Members
3,380 posts
3,573 battles

So...

Give her the Massachusetts's secondaries, (mostly to deal with cheeky DDs) 

Radar (AAAAA!!! another radar ship!!!! :etc_swear: you Davos!!! Yeah I know, but that was part of her refit...also see all the DDs she really can't run from..) 

Defensive fire? 

If they can make the Vanguard a Tier 8 why not her? 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
362
[5D]
Members
1,246 posts
7,273 battles
9 minutes ago, yashma said:

I've reached that end game stage where I no longer need premiums for the economic benefits, so now I only look to spend money on the ones that offer truly unique "oddball" game play that I can't find in the regular tree.  While I largely agree with your sentiment about the West Virginia '44 not fitting neatly anywhere in game, not gonna lie, part of me is really intrigued at the prospect of it being a Tier 8.

The interesting thing about ships have monumental weaknesses, is that somewhere else they need to have monumental strengths to offset them. I said much the same thing in your PoW proposal thread about the lack of a heal, but I see the potential slow speed of a Tier 8 WV more as an opportunity than a hindrance.*

*I'm just daydreaming about the prospect of a Tier 8 West Virginia being the most accurate battleship in the entire game with improved sigma and or dispersion.

 

Same thoughts here and very much agreed.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
304 posts
4,544 battles

Is that Colorado sigma of 1.9 really a "perk"?  I think 1.8 is the sigma normally given to 10-gun battleships. Many of the 8-gun battleships (QE, Nagato, Republique) get 2.0 sigma.  The fact that the Germans (and Richelieu) get 1.8 sigma seems an intentional nerf for "flavor" or balance reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23,084
[HINON]
Supertester
19,287 posts
12,830 battles

Yeah it's going to be at the very least a year before we get #WV44, if that soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,449
[PVE]
[PVE]
Members
5,966 posts
10,751 battles

Why can't it be a T7 that has improved AA and TDR over Colorado? Everything else is more or less the same. I don't see the problem here? As someone else said Alabama is better than NC in many areas.  Small nerfs to this or that would make up for the improved TDR and AA over Colorado such as a 1.8 sigma. That too is very similar to Bama vs NC. I would say Bama and NC show us how WV and Colorado can exist very well at T7.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36
[BOTES]
Members
162 posts
3,155 battles
6 minutes ago, AdmiralThunder said:

Why can't it be a T7 that has improved AA and TDR over Colorado? Everything else is more or less the same. I don't see the problem here? As someone else said Alabama is better than NC in many areas.  Small nerfs to this or that would make up for the improved TDR and AA over Colorado such as a 1.8 sigma. That too is very similar to Bama vs NC. I would say Bama and NC show us how WV and Colorado can exist very well at T7.

 

22 minutes ago, KnightFandragon said:

You guys refuse to accept that she could be better CO.  TX is better than NY, AL is honestly better then NC.  It wouldnt be that much of a stretch to say WV would ultimately be buffed to be better than CO.

CO isnt an OP top performing ship.  Its not like were taking Alabama, which is a solid performer and asking to add her sister ship as an improved premium, that wouldnt make sense.  But to be against taking whats already an underperformer and objecting to an improved version just because it would make the original look bad?  That just sounds real goofy.

Take your base line WV and buff secondaries to 13.5rpm, 1km range and a hefty acc boost and you have t7 WV.

Take CO and buff her, or all you CCs are ok with CO being the "you can cut your steak with a spoon if you do it right" ship, rather than turning her into a knife.

At T8, she would be a pushover regardless of buffs.  She still only has her t7 armor, but with better bow.  T6 guns dont have issue pummeling her for 20,000, T8-10 guns are going to demolish her...

Alabama only wins in terms of turning circle, and marginally, while losing some of that yummy concealment and sigma that make NC so appealing. As well, the WoWs team has been trying to avoid "X but better/slightly different" premiums over the past year, with the major exception being the downtiered IJN BBs with hefty nerfs.

I agree with Mouse and Yashma, getting more novel hulls and concepts, both as premiums and line ships, into the game would be better then rehashed ideas and remodeled hulls.
If anything, WG could see about introducing WV '44 as the final hull for Colorado.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
592
[KWA]
Beta Testers
1,787 posts
3,899 battles

I see two possible treatments. One as a tier 7 given the "Massachusetts" treatment. Take away the artificial buffs (improved heal, sigma, and speed retention, maybe other gun adjustments as necessary) and give her the same secondary stats as the Mass. Option 2 is as a tier 8. Granted, 20 knots at tier 8 is going to be hard, but the buffs that could be given to her as a result of her low HP and low speed could be quite fun (high sigma, low dispersion, better secondaries, etc.) It would be different, but could be rewarding.

 

I definitely agree that the WV'44 is hard to put into the game. Part of the problem is that the Colorado is.. well, pretty lackluster. Giving her the Maryland's late war upgrades would certainly help. All in all, I do think that WV'44 could be in the game. It will take time, but it definitely could be done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,449
[PVE]
[PVE]
Members
5,966 posts
10,751 battles
6 minutes ago, HP_Lovesauce said:

 

Alabama only wins in terms of turning circle, and marginally, while losing some of that yummy concealment and sigma that make NC so appealing. As well, the WoWs team has been trying to avoid "X but better/slightly different" premiums over the past year, with the major exception being the downtiered IJN BBs with hefty nerfs.

I agree with Mouse and Yashma, getting more novel hulls and concepts, both as premiums and line ships, into the game would be better then rehashed ideas and remodeled hulls.
If anything, WG could see about introducing WV '44 as the final hull for Colorado.

Actually Bama has better armor than NC (slightly) and a huge improvement in TDR compared to NC (50% vs 21%).  Yes Bama has the maneuverability edge while NC has the gunnery edge and concealment edge. I would say the AA is a draw more or less. This could be the blueprint for adding WV44 at T7.  Nerf a little here buff a little there. WV44 would have better AA and armor but could take small nerfs to gunnery and concealment. WV44 could easily be a T7. Makes far more sense there than at T8 IMO.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
404
[WOLF5]
Members
1,543 posts
2,154 battles

I don't understand why people insist on a late war WV. I mean it's not like we need another USN BB, much less a slow one. 

That aside, I don't care how many gimmicks it has, a 21 knt ship at T8 is a no go. That's just not fun unless one of the gimmicks is a 10 min speed boost (+30%) on a 1 min cooldown (balance it by only giving two charges:Smile_Default:). 

Then there's T7. You can't make it better than the CO (not that it would be hard). Someone brought up how that's been done with the TX being better than the NY. The only thing better about the TX is the AA, which is situational. The AL is a different class than the NC, and the MA is a South Dakota with a different twist, none of the three are downright better than the others. As Mouse said, the most likely and easiest thing for WG to do is to just make the WV a AA spec CO. Like the TX, it's different, but not always better. There is no reason to buy a mediocre T7 BB if that is WV. Not sure why people are so worked up about it, because it's boring as all getout.

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,827
[SALVO]
Members
17,156 posts
17,832 battles
40 minutes ago, Sir_Davos_Seaworth said:

So...

Give her the Massachusetts's secondaries, (mostly to deal with cheeky DDs) 

Radar (AAAAA!!! another radar ship!!!! :etc_swear: you Davos!!! Yeah I know, but that was part of her refit...also see all the DDs she really can't run from..) 

Defensive fire? 

If they can make the Vanguard a Tier 8 why not her? 

 

Ummm, because the Vanguard really should be a tier 8 BB, regardless of the initial mediocre stats  we've seen to date.  And the West Virginia as a 21 kt BB (regardless of all the other stuff) would be a rather weak tier 8 that would be boring for many to play with that horrible speed.

I think that the best way to get the historical WV 44 into the game might be to make her the Massachusetts to the Colorado's Alabama.  In other words, give her good secondaries, weaken her main gun accuracy (ugh.), and let her AA be a bit better (though probably not as strong as it arguably should be).  No radar.  No DefAA.  This tier 7 version of the WV44 would probably end up with rather strong AA when matched up with a strong secondary build captain simply because it would probably have BFT and AFT. 

Would this WV44 concept be stronger than the Colorado?  Probably.  But perhaps the Colorado could get a little bit of a buff too, to offset this.  Perhaps a little AA buff, or a main gun accuracy buff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,489
[O_O]
Members
4,433 posts
9,620 battles

If WG hints that a WV '44 might be coming, who would spend money on a WV '41???

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
954
[BBICT]
Members
3,380 posts
3,573 battles
36 minutes ago, Crucis said:

Ummm, because the Vanguard really should be a tier 8 BB, regardless of the initial mediocre stats  we've seen to date.  And the West Virginia as a 21 kt BB (regardless of all the other stuff) would be a rather weak tier 8 that would be boring for many to play with that horrible speed.

I think that the best way to get the historical WV 44 into the game might be to make her the Massachusetts to the Colorado's Alabama.  In other words, give her good secondaries, weaken her main gun accuracy (ugh.), and let her AA be a bit better (though probably not as strong as it arguably should be).  No radar.  No DefAA.  This tier 7 version of the WV44 would probably end up with rather strong AA when matched up with a strong secondary build captain simply because it would probably have BFT and AFT. 

Would this WV44 concept be stronger than the Colorado?  Probably.  But perhaps the Colorado could get a little bit of a buff too, to offset this.  Perhaps a little AA buff, or a main gun accuracy buff.

I see what you are saying, but the Colorado is already in a tough place...why make her totally a non factor by making the WVA yet another Tier 7 that kicks her butt? Yes they would see lots of each other, but at least there would be a difference  between the two. 

Yes, the WVA would be the slowest Tier 8 BB. Would she be for everyone? Oh hell no. Not me. I bite off more than I can chew too often.  But I bet she would sell....all that being said, like Mouse is saying, it will be years before we see her... 

 

Edit: I would take the WVA over the Vanguard right now... Yeah that could change, but as of right now, at least I could brawl without getting citadeled by freaking everything. 

Edited by Sir_Davos_Seaworth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34
[KSC]
[KSC]
Members
212 posts
7,891 battles

I posted this as a separate topic but i feel this will still apply, also Colorado is one of my favorite ships with about 342 games in it as of this post and i want what is best for the class.

I would recommend the following:

1: Give the Colorado the Marylands 1945 Hull with the 5'38"s and buff the sigma back to 2.0 instead of 1.9/1.8.

2: Add WV-44 as ether a Free XP ship or a Premium ship and give it the Massachusetts Treatment, this would be the following: Give it a lower Sigma of ether 1.8 or 1.7 and also raise the reload to 32 seconds instead of Colorado's 30, Give it a Slightly weaker heal then Colorado only with a 60-40 second cooldown instead of the 80 seconds on Colorado and give it the same Damage control party, Give it better performing secondaries with the +40% to Accuracy and a longer range, Give it an Improved Torpedo Belt as that was one of the main reasons it is so much wider, (I'd say around 45-50% instead of the 37% or so of Colorado)

3 Make the current WV-41 be Maryland 1941, I understand this means some Changes to the 3D Model but this would work best because then the whole class would be in the game instead of 2 of the same ship. (but honestly WV-41 Works just fine)

I may have missed some things here but I feel this would make the Colorado and West virginia-1944 Balance Pretty well as they would have the Same secondaries and would have Comparable AA with these hulls.

 

this would be the Colorado C hull:

image.png.387b578d0ac35bced48105a3b5b2c039.png

image.png.ea02fe12545b2f4bc988a176444bed62.png

and this would be West Virginia-1944 (Obviously)

image.thumb.png.8af89669996ee03558d6003736dbb9b9.png

image.thumb.png.e59f23563c3e6eed0f714592aaf3c44f.png

Edit: Honestly, Even if you don't add WV-44 Give the Colorado ether Maryland's or WV's hull as she needs a AA buff when you consider the fact that Most other lines in this game have better AA at tier 7 then Colorado and the AA is Supposed to be the US's thing

Edited by Admiral_Reeves
  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,211
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
6,827 posts
10,390 battles

If WG can make a different and popular Massachusetts to Alabama I don't see any fundamental problem with making a corresponding T7 WV to Colorado.

The leap to T8, where you'll end up stumbling around on fire at 20.5kt with a Zao mostly in danger of laughing itself to death doesn't sound workable.

 

Either way, the USN has tons of premiums, tons of battleship premiums and WV'44 isn't that interesting, exciting or historically relevant. I can't get het up because I won't buy her at any tier, from 6 to 8.

  • Boring 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
74
[AAA]
Members
443 posts
5,505 battles
1 hour ago, KnightFandragon said:

You guys refuse to accept that she could be better CO.  TX is better than NY, AL is honestly better then NC.  It wouldnt be that much of a stretch to say WV would ultimately be buffed to be better than CO.

CO isnt an OP top performing ship.  Its not like were taking Alabama, which is a solid performer and asking to add her sister ship as an improved premium, that wouldnt make sense.  But to be against taking whats already an underperformer and objecting to an improved version just because it would make the original look bad?  That just sounds real goofy.

Take your base line WV and buff secondaries to 13.5rpm, 1km range and a hefty acc boost and you have t7 WV.

Take CO and buff her, or all you CCs are ok with CO being the "you can cut your steak with a spoon if you do it right" ship, rather than turning her into a knife.

At T8, she would be a pushover regardless of buffs.  She still only has her t7 armor, but with better bow.  T6 guns dont have issue pummeling her for 20,000, T8-10 guns are going to demolish her...

No.

TX has improved AA at the reduction of main battery range from the NY. I could argue TX is the better choice simply because of the higher prevalence of CV at t4/5.

AL/NC are pretty much clones. AL has very good torpedo protection and better turning circle. NC has the better sigma and AA. Turning circle and AA differences are marginal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,225
[-TAB-]
Alpha Tester
4,093 posts
7,667 battles

Well, it's not like Colorado couldn't use a buff or two to stay relevant...

 

Though I personally would rather have Tennessee/California as the tier 7 premium over WV, but the masses have spoken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
475
[WOLF5]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
2,286 posts
25,423 battles

I still don't understand why a tier 7 WV 44 being better than Colorado is a big deal.  Colorado is the worst performing tier 7 BB in game.

Also, we have Texas in-game.  And she is better than the New York.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59
[TEARZ]
[TEARZ]
Beta Testers
337 posts
7,504 battles

My suggestions: WV44 

Tier 8

Wider Colorado hull

Hit points 58,000

Speed 25 knots, range 24km, reload 25-26 seconds, secondary range 8.4km max 10.3km

Improved AA but not NC level, lets say 80 overall

 

Tier 7

Hit points More than Colorado, wider hull, better torp protection

AA 75 rating

Choice in modules better sigma or improved secondaries, no range. A new module for secondary specific role or choice of hulls. Kind of like Herakaze one for AA one for secondary spec...

Range 20km 24-26 second reload

Speed 25-26 knots 

  • Bad 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
475
[WOLF5]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
2,286 posts
25,423 battles
4 minutes ago, wstugamd said:

No.

TX has improved AA at the reduction of main battery range from the NY. I could argue TX is the better choice simply because of the higher prevalence of CV at t4/5.

AL/NC are pretty much clones. AL has very good torpedo protection and better turning circle. NC has the better sigma and AA. Turning circle and AA differences are marginal.

Take a look at stats for the RU server.  In all time stats, Texas is #2, only behind the GC.  Texas is dead last.  And Alabama is performing head and shoulders above NC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34
[KSC]
[KSC]
Members
212 posts
7,891 battles
1 minute ago, Condor_Legion said:

My suggestions: WV44 

Tier 8

Wider Colorado hull

Hit points 58,000

Speed 25 knots, range 24km, reload 25-26 seconds, secondary range 8.4km max 10.3km

Improved AA but not NC level, lets say 80 overall

 

Tier 7

Hit points More than Colorado, wider hull, better torp protection

AA 75 rating

Choice in modules better sigma or improved secondaries, no range. A new module for secondary specific role or choice of hulls. Kind of like Herakaze one for AA one for secondary spec...

Range 20km 24-26 second reload

Speed 25-26 knots 

Both those throw Realism Out the window...

 

the Designs are capable of that speed however as the Colorado's make 21knots on like 28,0000 HP or something low like that... but still.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×