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

My California proposal vs WG's preliminary stats

71 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

29,168
[HINON]
Alpha Tester
22,496 posts
16,289 battles

So WG has announced California, a ship I've proposed before. In fact, my California proposal is arguably the most popular proposal that I've written. Now, I'm not going to claim or even imply that I had a lot to do with WG implementing California, one might just as easily argue that she's a bit of a shoe-in, representing what she does. Fact remains though that she is a fascinating ship with a rich history, and the first of the 'Puget Sound refits' to make it into the game.

WG_SPB_WoWs_california.thumb.jpg.8c442aa

Beauty~

But how close did I come with my proposal?

For this I will compare my proposal to WG's preliminary stats as announced. Keep in mind that these stats are WIP and subject to change.

Tiering:

My proposal:

  • Tier 7

WG's prelim:

  • Tier 7

To be fair, this was the easiest thing to predict. There was no other place they could've fit her without either nerfing her into oblivion or completely outmatching her.

Survivability:

My proposal:

  • 59900 hp

WG's prelim:

  • 58300 hp

Eh, close enough.

Armor I'm not going to look at in depth, because WG's preliminary stats don't show armor thicknesses, but I suspect that the main 'hard' armor values of 343mm belt and 25mm plating will hold true. Decks and athwartships may differ.

Main armament:

My proposal:

  • 30s reload
  • 55s traverse
  • 16.3km range
  • 2.0 sigma
  • 243m dispersion
  • 5000 HE dmg
  • 30% fire chance
  • 861 m/s HE velocity
  • 10500 AP dmg
  • 823 m/s AP velocity

WG's prelim:

  • 30s reload
  • 60s traverse
  • 17.0 km range
  • 1.7 sigma
  • 230m dispersion500 HE dmg
  • 30% fire chance
  • 861 m/s HE velocity
  • 10500 AP dmg
  • 823 m/s AP velocity

Now, while my values are very close, I can't claim any sort of victory here, since these are just the stats of the guns as they already appear in the game. I massaged traverse and sigma a bit owing to 'new fire control' from the Puget Sound refit, but WG has elected not to include that. That's fair.

Secondary and tertiary armaments:

My proposal:

  • 8x 2 127/38, 1800 HE dmg, 5km range
  • 54x 40mm Bofors
  • 31x 20mm Oerlikon

WG's prelim:

  • 8x 2 127/38, 1800 HE dmg, 5km range
  • 56x 40mm Bofors
  • 82x 20mm Oerlikon

Ok so, my estimate on the soft stats for the secondaries was spot on, but apparently WG found a refit with a frankly ridiculous amount of 40mm and 20mm AA barrels. Hey, not complaining!

Maneuverability:

My proposal:

  • 21 knot speed
  • 650m turning radius
  • 15.7s rudder shift

WG's prelim:

  • 20.5 knot speed
  • 640m turning radius
  • 14.7s rudder shift

I got pretty damn close here. I'll jot that down as a victory.

Concealment:

My proposal:

  • 15.3 by sea
  • 13.4 by air

WG's prelim:

  • 13.5 by sea
  • 9.7 by air

I was off by a significant margin here, just as in my Friesland proposal comparison. How WG calculates concealment is still a mystery to me.

Consumables:

My proposal:

  • DCP
  • Repair
  • Spotter

WG's prelim:

  • DCP
  • Repair
  • Spotter

Can't really claim a victory here, that's a very standard set of consumables for a standard type. Moving on ...

Conclusion:

I got damn close, apart from concealment values and sigma. However, US standard types are a known quantity in this game, and very easy to predict. Maybe sigma will be increased during testing, I don't know. It's one of WG's go-to things to tweak when an adjustment is necssecary.

I'm just glad they're introducing her, and that I am going to see another one of my proposals making it into the game.

I'll call this a victory for the playerbase. A storied ship with heavy symbolism is coming.

  • Cool 22
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
231
[SUCIT]
Members
658 posts
15,894 battles
4 minutes ago, Lert said:

13.5 by sea

I just noticed that concealment. maxed out and its about 11.8km. That's 1km better than any other T7 BBs and on par with most T8s. Off the top of my head, the only way Stealthier is Monarch and the Italians (Cesar and Roma)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
903
[PVE]
Members
3,969 posts
22,314 battles

Well done...can we see your lottery predictions?

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
386
[SVF]
Members
1,350 posts
1,821 battles
1 hour ago, Lert said:

but apparently WG found a refit with a frankly ridiculous amount of 40mm and 20mm AA barrels. Hey, not complaining!

According to navypedia sometime in 1945, California had her 52x1 20mm mounts removed and was outfitted with 40 twin Oerlikons.  WG gave her an extra twin 20mm mount over that, but that's okay imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29,168
[HINON]
Alpha Tester
22,496 posts
16,289 battles
1 minute ago, lron_Dog_of_Jutland said:

how about dusting off your SMS Lützow (T4) Proposal...?

You mean that Derfflinger class? I'd put her at T5 actually. I've already got another proposal called Lützow, meaning that either it or the Derfflinger would have to get a new name. That's the annoying thing about different interesting ships with the same name.

Love the name Lützow though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
762 posts
62 battles
3 minutes ago, Lert said:

You mean that Derfflinger class? I'd put her at T5 actually. I've already got another proposal called Lützow, meaning that either it or the Derfflinger would have to get a new name. That's the annoying thing about different interesting ships with the same name.

Love the name Lützow though.

 

Ah you mean that planned 15cm Hipper? Honestly I wouldn’t waste such a great name on that proposal (give her to the Russian tree and call her Petropavlovsk or whatever she was named after the sale. I know - not on 15cm but close enough).

 

Nothing beats these old Imperial Battlecruisers! :Smile_izmena:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29,168
[HINON]
Alpha Tester
22,496 posts
16,289 battles
1 minute ago, lron_Dog_of_Jutland said:

Honestly I wouldn’t waste such a great name on that proposal

I don't know man, I love the idea of a CL Hippie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
762 posts
62 battles
2 minutes ago, Lert said:

I don't know man, I love the idea of a CL Hippie.

 

;-)

I know - a German Kutuzov 

 

But it’s paper at the end - a different name wouldn’t kill her. Actually Lützow Is a “Large Cruiser” Name Tradition-wise anyway. So a City or mythical thingy could be picked instead?

 

SMS Lützow though... with her great history of a tragic victory in her first and only large battle ... which by coincidence was the largest Battleship battle of all time. She deserves a spot here I would say 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
438
[KRAB]
Members
877 posts
7,323 battles

A Tier 7 California would need 2.0 sigma to be competitive - it is basically a Colorado (their hull is almost identical) but without overmatch, which is critical at tier 7 due to the large number of 25mm plated BBs and CA's which that tier sees.

Why would anyone play a Tier 7 BB with 14-inch guns that goes 20.5 knots, has a range shorter then some CA's it runs into and poor gunnery to boot. At least the KGV has significantly stronger HE shells and the Lyon is faster/tankier due to the armor scheme. California as presented will be the worst tier 7 BB by a mile. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,157
[5BS]
Banned
8,864 posts
39 minutes ago, Lert said:

How WG calculates concealment is still a mystery to me.

MACK/Significant Super Structure height as a function of horizon, with room for massaging if need be. This is why some older USN DD's had insane base detection radius despite their relative small size.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,514
[S0L0]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
3,596 posts
5,092 battles

giphy.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29,168
[HINON]
Alpha Tester
22,496 posts
16,289 battles
6 minutes ago, _RC1138 said:

MACK/Significant Super Structure height as a function of horizon

Yes, but what's the math? It doesn't really matter anyways, since I often don't have access to those measurements. So I'll just keep guesstimating and usually missing by a country mile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
276 posts
44 minutes ago, Lert said:

Ok so, my estimate on the soft stats for the secondaries was spot on, but apparently WG found a refit with a frankly ridiculous amount of 40mm and 20mm AA barrels. Hey, not complaining!

In 1943-44, the rule was when any Pacific combatant came into port for more than three days, they'd bolt as many 20mm on as they could (or had!) It wasn't until the Kamikaze threat became apparent that they really started removing 20mms in favor of 40mm (and in some cases, 3"/70s") for the knockdown power. Plus, the 20mm didn't have directors, making installing them basically a matter of finding space on a deck strong enough and bolting them down, rather than having to deal with power/comm feeds and space for the directors as well as the gun mount. So it doesn't surprise me they found a California with 90 of them.

(I said they didn't have directors simply so someone will post an example where they were under director control, because I'm honestly wondering if they ever did. Most of them were manually trained and aimed.) 

What this does do is end the ideal of a 1944 West Virgina, because this is basically just that. (A 1944 Nevada would be interesting...if they haven't already done it, I don't recall.) They could also probably drop the 1941 from the West Virgina. 

 

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29,168
[HINON]
Alpha Tester
22,496 posts
16,289 battles
5 minutes ago, User_the_n00b said:

What this does do is end the ideal of a 1944 West Virgina

Not really. WV'44 could be to California what WV'41 is to Arizona, assuming WV'44 be a tier 7.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,636
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
12,508 posts
18,058 battles
1 hour ago, Lert said:

she is a fascinating ship with a rich history

She is also, in this form, a killer with kick-azz dispersion and top of the line AA. This is sweet!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
496
[NUWES]
Members
2,710 posts
8,653 battles
8 minutes ago, User_the_n00b said:

In 1943-44, the rule was when any Pacific combatant came into port for more than three days, they'd bolt as many 20mm on as they could (or had!) It wasn't until the Kamikaze threat became apparent that they really started removing 20mms in favor of 40mm (and in some cases, 3"/70s") for the knockdown power. Plus, the 20mm didn't have directors, making installing them basically a matter of finding space on a deck strong enough and bolting them down, rather than having to deal with power/comm feeds and space for the directors as well as the gun mount. So it doesn't surprise me they found a California with 90 of them.

(I said they didn't have directors simply so someone will post an example where they were under director control, because I'm honestly wondering if they ever did. Most of them were manually trained and aimed.) 

What this does do is end the ideal of a 1944 West Virgina, because this is basically just that. (A 1944 Nevada would be interesting...if they haven't already done it, I don't recall.) They could also probably drop the 1941 from the West Virgina. 

 

They haven't done Nevada at all. A post-Pearl version would be a good candidate for a T6 premium if there weren't so many of those already. Honestly I would be very happy with a pre-Pearl Oklahoma on T5. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,503
[DENY]
Members
8,931 posts
9,944 battles

With that ultra low speed, I really hope they give her 1.8-1.9 sigma. She's going to be out of place often, the shots she gets need to count. Plus, those are only 14 inch barrels that'll face mostly armor much better than they were intended to face, they need some help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54
[NPG]
Members
161 posts
3,257 battles

@Lert correct me if I'm wrong but I'm basically seeing a t7 texas. Monster aa but really short range on it.

Edited by Vengeance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
269
[90THD]
[90THD]
Members
3,054 posts
2,506 battles
19 minutes ago, Vengeance said:

@Lert correct me if I'm wrong but I'm basically seeing a t7 texas. Monster aa but really short range on it.

not with the AA changes and you're looking at the same long range AA firepower as Atlanta.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
791
[MIA-P]
Beta Testers
3,338 posts
5,275 battles

a ship proposal...boring, it'll be made without any basis, and lack of understanding of how.....oh its Lert! something to actually read!

i would just remove dispersion and add the formula, to make it seem you are even more correct.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59
[XBRTC]
Members
210 posts
8,810 battles
2 hours ago, Lert said:

I got damn close, apart from concealment values and sigma. However, US standard types are a known quantity in this game, and very easy to predict. Maybe sigma will be increased during testing, I don't know. It's one of WG's go-to things to tweak when an adjustment is necssecary.

I'm just glad they're introducing her, and that I am going to see another one of my proposals making it into the game.

I'll call this a victory for the playerbase. A storied ship with heavy symbolism is coming.

Do you think they might be releasing gun stats for SuperTest ships lower than the devs actually think they should be so people aren't crying about nerfs? So if the ship proves less than efficient during testing, it can get a sigma boost and people won't lose their minds in the comments like they do when the stat is lowered due to excessive efficiency?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×