Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
Hot_tamale25

Royal Navy DD split tech tree proposal

12 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
230 posts
1,949 battles

Recently I stumbled across Trainspite’s Royal Navy Tech Tree proposal again (https://forum.worldofwarships.com/topic/67246-royal-navy-a-la-trainspite/) and funnily enough the last comment is me asking about one of his proposed destroyer sub lines. I made that comment and then moved on with my life, but obviously I still think in the same manner as I did a year ago so I have decided to explore this idea a bit more. This line will be a full on addition branching off from Medea and going from tier III all the way to tier X. The vast majority of these ships were real and served, I have used Trainspite’s tree as a foundation however there are key differences. It should be noted that I didn’t actually ask him permission to use his tree as a baseline, so Trainspite, if I offended you by using your idea let me know and I’ll find a way to delete this post.

Tree Outline 

III. Lightfoot

IV.  Parker 

V.  Keppel 

VI. Exmouth 

VII. Norman 

VIII. Eskimo 

IX. L-72 Design (Ardent)

X. L-90 Design (Endeavour) 

Paper or Fiction?

Only the tier IX and X ships are paper, the rest are real steel ships so any fears of another all paper super duper wth is this supposed to be line are unfounded. It even has less paper than the RN Heavy cruiser line.

Commonwealth Note

It should be noted that this line could serve as a Commonwealth DD line, but I have doubts as to there ever being a Commonwealth line and quite frankly I don’t want there to be one. Simply let the “Commonwealth” ships be able to train RN captains and allow people to switch out the White ensign for the equivalent. For example, Norman is an RAN ship so if you wanted you could equip the Royal Australian Naval ensign instead of the standard White ensign.

The Ships Themselves

III-Lightfoot

2Z-TsTEy729qH-CDE-p_ZXTHNPO7ONAlajoTAaQLnnSCeySRgQ8q4QAt9k18Q_Nn2GXqzwx4SYBUf9pXB91NC_Y4Bz2a52CfuloqOF9TzDU7VIayVPTcDw0ctKC45fnD1aPSF-u4

(This is Ithuriel, one of Lightfoot’s sisters)

Lightfoot is a 1600 ton, 34 knot flotilla leader completed in 1915 and armed with 4 102mm MkIV guns in single mounts as well as 2 twin torpedo launchers. Lightfoot is very comparable to Valkyrie. Lightfoot should have higher detection, but more health than Valkyrie as well as better gun handling and worse trop handling.

IV-Parker

WV-NOSc83a29CMl2YyKEpmkCKqYWkIqedNpMdN5YBSY2rabElGRcMjOdtmBeamORutpNvBRv2ZgdlAm4vD8mhlYGIuIlKXV5OlhpFVaqqiOmI9_9LQ8l8zDLmoOEZBdvdRlf_yl3

(Pictured here is Anzac, who is Parker’s sister)

Parker is a 1600 ton 34 knot flotilla leader completed in 1916 and armed with 4 102mm MkIV guns in single mounts as well as two twin torp launchers. Parker will have more health and slightly better stealth than Wakeful. Parker gains health and small gun improvements over Lightfoot. The big benefit is having faster reloading torps than Wakeful although these will have less range and are mostly suicide torps or area denial torps in a cap. Parker is the first DD in this line with access to DFAA. Parker will have better DPM than Wakeful (slightly).

V-Keppel

s0U6br4_ixuT0Nx9stTFhjATq3U6ACgy873bO36YQyLaHt-KRws7FpymkDnpHN79kjLQdtVwwLay3zfJflf-_-gIuURJXlB2Lft72f3r9I2qCZwWjDHZ6vleTROUQ0a-DC6xBkKZ

(Keppel is pictured above)

Keppel is a 2000 ton 38 knot Thornycroft flotilla leader armed with 5 120mm MK1 guns in single mounts as well as 2 triple torpedo launchers. Keppel is the first ship in this line where the differences between the two lines start becoming apparent. Keppel has an additional gun, but has 2 less available torpedoes compared to Acasta. Keppel is a pure gun boat whose torpedoes should really only be used in ambush or suicide run scenerios. I chose Keppel as she was the leader of the close escort for doomed PQ17. Keppel should be one of the best gunboats at her tier, but one of the worst torpedo boats.

VI-Exmouth

boXMlZawM8xI64_r5im7Q5ojfNon2Xiys-ixaEfTpFSOUiPsZGYC4u0hkHKxNgF5pt5B4CQ-3Qbi0qdNIZvmVNqPSWXYVpBwmh2j5MeNz_x26oBTw6qWpwcC2FWTyY64xq5b31jo

(Exmouth is seen above)

Exmouth is a 2000 ton 36 knot E class flotilla leader armed with 5 120mm MkIX guns in single mounts as well as 2 quadruple torp launchers. Exmouth gains health, torpedo characteristics and gun improvements over Keppel. Exmouth will still have the same torpedoes as Acasta and Keppel meaning she can not stealth torp like Icarus can. Her torps will also have slower reload and damage than Icarus’s. I would have liked to have put Electra or Encounter here, but they only have 4 120mm guns so Exmouth it is. Exmouth is the first ship in this line with shorter duration British DD hydro.

VII-Norman

pIBUwWwk9bTTx92-_ViaT32NIglmoMah-qLm65Z5KUmlDCCf2yK_dSFshkGRCXBff3Jk831nj1WIDTsPSrTNYUvaAqkkHlh7huGSe-50toh3LbAzCs9ukxShDyrqfEFBnuIXt3AN

(N class Destroyer above)

Norman is a 2400 ton 36 knot N class destroyer armed with 6 120mm MkXII guns in 3 triple mounts with a single quintuple launcher amidships. Norman gains a gun, stealth and health upgrade over Exmouth. Norman is about as stealthy as Jervis and has reasonably better DPM and health as well in exchange for half the torp armament. Norman will have the same torps as Jervis and is the first ship in this line that can stealth torp somewhat. Norman is also one of the better AA DDs of tier VII only losing out to the Pan EU DD. Norman can quip the Australian ensign if desired,

VIII-Eskimo

jwF0qNB0QwcYCDs2Af8u5VSz7rP4vRpbwEsCBCdflZj-aI7uP2UELZv72Skyv0x31a5cZIp_F0uLslJo-FywhzT9stolDo-OKdRXzKhiWyd8kowina04sgSWsmXhI-qifszIc8WN

 

(Eskimo seen above)

Eskimo is Cossack with Haida style smoke, DFAA and the shorter duration British DD hydro (discussed later). Eskimo also gets access to “Quick-Shot” which is like a toned down reload booster that affects all friendly ships in a 6km bubble around you. Basically it’s a Cossack that swaps speed boost for DFAA and has Haida style smoke instead of British DD smoke and has this unique consumable. I am personally of the opinion Eskimo should have slightly better DPM and slightly more health while losing out on concealment and torp reload compared to Cossack.

IX-Ardent(L-72) and X-Endeavour(L-90)

Tiers 9 and 10 are a bit wonky and I admittedly needed help. This line is heavily influenced by Trainspite’s wonderful Royal Navy Tech Tree proposal as I said earlier so I am taking these from there. He has L-72 and L-90 designs at tiers 9/10 respectively. Finding information on those designs however has proven more challenging. As far as I can tell L-72 would have been a 72,000 SHP destroyer armed with 2x4 torp launchers on the quarterdeck. L-72 could make 40knts fully loaded down. She’d have 4x2 120mm turrets similar to the ones on Lightning. These guns work for tiers 9 and 10 and will ensure this tier 9 could out gun an already mediocre Jutland and at the very least compete with Daring. L-72 would have good AA, but would be a big ship with an increased length needed for the engines. Think of it like a smaller, stealthier Mogador. L.90 at tier 10 is much like the Mogador/Kleber comparison with improvements in speed, but also being a bigger ship. Adjustment to stats will be needed, but admittedly there is wiggle room. As a side note there was also a proposal for L-72 and L-90 to be outfitted with the dual purpose 5.7” guns in 3x2 mounts. These are the same guns found on Dido, and could be a potential coal/steel shop I’d imagine. Replace smoke with radar and you’d have a mini cruiser killer I think. Either way if anyone has anything else to add about these two designs please let me know.

Playstyle and Consumables

The main idea of this line is as an offshoot of the main British DD line that trades torpedo power for gun power. As these ships are supposed to be flotilla leaders I would suggest the Haida style smoke from tiers 3-8 and Venezia style smoke at tiers 9 & 10. These DDs will be able to use the smoke with hydro combo in addition to DFAA. The Italian smoke allows you to advance or retreat at full speed undercover while still firing allowing the L-72 and L-90 to make use of their improved speed. Hydro would be somewhere between German hydro and existing RN DD hydro to allow for better torp spotting for your teammates. I also think these DDs should have a unique ability which when activated offers a certain reduction in reload for all ships in a certain area (say 7km bubble around ship). This encourages you to lead the way and bully other DDs as well as offering incentive for other DDs to push a cap with you, also this further rewards team play. They will in theory have a Haida type play style. Compared with the Main line RN DDs they will have more health, comparable speed and better guns in exchange for worse torps, worse concealment at lower tiers and lack of rapid access to smoke (thus DFAA). I see smoke starting at tier 3, DFAA at tier 4, hydro at tier 6 and the unique consumable at tier 8.

Consumable wrap up

III has Haida style smoke

IV and V have Haida style smoke and DFAA. DFAA makes dealing with planes a tad easier due to the long cooldown between smokes

VI and VII have Haida style smoke, DFAA and hydro 

VIII has Haida style smoke, DFAA, hydro and “Quick-Shot”

IX and X have Venezia style smoke, DFAA and “Quick-Shot” 

Consumables Explained

Quick-Shot: Is a reload bubble effect. Essentially it offers a 25% reduction in main battery and secondary battery reload for all ships within its activated bubble. It should be noted that this perk does help you, however, it only reduces your reload by 12.5%, This perk is active for 15 seconds and has a bubble of 7 km for tiers VIII and IX and 8km for tier X. This’ll need balancing, but I think it could be a fun idea to encourage teamwork. Note: This does not affect torpedoes.

Hydro: Torpedo detection is 3.25km and ship detection is 3.5km with an active time of 130 seconds. Essentially it sits between German DD and current British DD hydro

DFAA: Standard DD DFAA. I’m only putting this here as these DDs will have long smoke cooldowns and due to the aggressive playstyle these ships support, some AA help vs CVs was justified.

Smoke: From tiers II-VIII is Haida smoke with the radius of the bloom slightly increasing as tier increases, Tiers IX and X get the Venezia style smoke allowing them to go full speed and make use of their improved top speed. This smoke will have 1 less charge and a longer cooldown.

 

Sources: It’s basic info so I used the Wikipedia stat card for tiers III-VIII

My limited info on L-72/L-90 is from an excerpt of Norman Friedman’s book on British DDs

NOTE: I have no idea why, but I can't unbold the text

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,942
[SYN]
Members
9,038 posts
16,350 battles

It's an approach, one I'm not particularly keen on, perhaps in part because I have my own competing suggestion.

The main points for me are -

  • Creeping smoke and some of the consumables put this squarely in a Commonwealth wheelhouse, and if that's what it's meant to be, that's what I think it should be
  • DFAA is not really in keeping, or that useful - these are weak AA ships, no matter that they trade in a TT for a bit more AA in some cases
  • Consumables affecting friendlies is a bold idea, interesting but dangerous
  • Stealing Italian smoke... feels all over the place and will probably fit better on the Italian destroyers
  • The line doesn't really coherently keep a flavor in my opinion

As for the ship choices -

  • To me, putting Lightning (the 4.7in/50 armed quite-fast T8) in with the 4.7in/50 armed L.72 and L.90 makes a lot of sense, you're twisting between 'Leaders' and then 'Fasts'
  • A tree Tribal and JKN are starting to oversaturate the market there, Cossack-Haida-Eskimo, Gadjah-Jervis-Norman, plus neither is particularly leader-ish in doctrine. Norman is Australian, and not the N class leader (Napier was)
  • Bouncing up and down on TT count is odd, Exmouth had she survived and not been turned into an LRE like Faulknor may well have landed a set of tubes for a 3in/12lb AA gun like many other RN DD (similarly Keppel)
  • If you want a line focused on 'low torpedoes, heavier ships with some leaders' then the V-Leader design may be a better fit up high, single torpedo launcher, 5x2 4.7in, a decent follow-on from a Tribal. Might need a similar to but invented T10

 

In general - I very much like the idea of seeing L.70/L.72 and L.90 in-game, I don't particularly think they fit here, they might have to be a small split, say Lightning-L.72-L90 and you could probably imagine a 3 or 4x1 4.7in/50 WEP-type design at T7 to add a 4th.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
133
[TWE]
Beta Testers
315 posts
1,736 battles

I agree overall with @mofton's assessment. It's interesting...but it is rather inconsistent. I personally have felt that a 2nd British DD line, while technically feasible given just how many different Classes existed during that era, would be faced with an issue far greater than coherence: relevancy.

As WeeGee starts to flesh out more and more nations in this game for content, destroyers are going to end up being the most numerous ship class bar none. But there are going to be a lot fewer nations who built truly unique DDs that can bring something new to the table. We have Sweden now, soon Italy and then... what, The Netherlands? Spain to a lesser extent? The random one offs that various nations built? Oh sure, they'll show up sooner or later and contribute but the rest are mostly going to be derivative, and most of them will be British designed. So what gimmicks do those DDs get? Similar ships across multiple trees; be it Pan European (as we've now started to see with Orkan), Pan American, and probably (eventually, hopefully) Commonwealth too. So after all that, what would even more straight up British DDs have left to offer gameplay wise? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
230 posts
1,949 battles
4 hours ago, mofton said:

It's an approach, one I'm not particularly keen on, perhaps in part because I have my own competing suggestion.

The main points for me are -

  • Creeping smoke and some of the consumables put this squarely in a Commonwealth wheelhouse, and if that's what it's meant to be, that's what I think it should be
  • DFAA is not really in keeping, or that useful - these are weak AA ships, no matter that they trade in a TT for a bit more AA in some cases
  • Consumables affecting friendlies is a bold idea, interesting but dangerous
  • Stealing Italian smoke... feels all over the place and will probably fit better on the Italian destroyers
  • The line doesn't really coherently keep a flavor in my opinion

As for the ship choices -

  • To me, putting Lightning (the 4.7in/50 armed quite-fast T8) in with the 4.7in/50 armed L.72 and L.90 makes a lot of sense, you're twisting between 'Leaders' and then 'Fasts'
  • A tree Tribal and JKN are starting to oversaturate the market there, Cossack-Haida-Eskimo, Gadjah-Jervis-Norman, plus neither is particularly leader-ish in doctrine. Norman is Australian, and not the N class leader (Napier was)
  • Bouncing up and down on TT count is odd, Exmouth had she survived and not been turned into an LRE like Faulknor may well have landed a set of tubes for a 3in/12lb AA gun like many other RN DD (similarly Keppel)
  • If you want a line focused on 'low torpedoes, heavier ships with some leaders' then the V-Leader design may be a better fit up high, single torpedo launcher, 5x2 4.7in, a decent follow-on from a Tribal. Might need a similar to but invented T10

 

In general - I very much like the idea of seeing L.70/L.72 and L.90 in-game, I don't particularly think they fit here, they might have to be a small split, say Lightning-L.72-L90 and you could probably imagine a 3 or 4x1 4.7in/50 WEP-type design at T7 to add a 4th.

Admittedly my original idea for this was simply to have L-72/L-90 branch off from Lightning, but then I thought about what happened with Benham/Somers (I strongly dislike the steel barrier) and decided to try and expand and maybe have an alternate line. So then I began looking at other DD spits and had to find a ship that led into a 4x2 tier IX and well a tribal seemed the logical conclusion given how well Cossack works. I thought about stopping there, but then a part of me wished to include all these pre-war British designs that have yet to show up and well, I am very intrigued by the arctic convoys and adding Keppel seemed like a good idea so I made it work. The problem was at this point I simply had no idea what to do about tier VII so threw in Norman (I have no idea why I decided on Norman and not Napier thinking back on it). I also admittedly was terrified about my sub line surpassing the main line so made sure to only focus on number of guns as well as health. So what the end result was in my mind was a hodge podge of ships that seemed well balanced in my mind with the main British DD line in terms of gun firepower vs torp firepower without paying attention to class type or role. As far as consumables are consumed, DFAA was thrown in there out of frustration due to rocket planes and could easily be cut. As far as the smokes go, I like the idea of a Commonwealth line, yet don't see the practicality of it. It feels like a ploy to get another nation added for marketing purposes. My initial plan was to have Commonwealth smoke for the whole line, then I realized that by having that smoke L-72 and L-90 couldn't take advantage of their speed. At this point I was so far down the rabbit whole I decided to keep going, at the very least I figured I'd get people talking about a British DD split which in my mind is a good thing. You mentioned you had an idea, I'd be interested in hearing it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,918
Alpha Tester, Alpha Tester
11,451 posts
1,963 battles
8 hours ago, mofton said:

you could probably imagine a 3 or 4x1 4.7in/50 WEP-type design at T7 to add a 4th.

The early War Emergency Programme destroyers were intended to get the 62pdr at a later point, but because of the war situation they never did. So its more realistic than a load of ships we currently have in game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,942
[SYN]
Members
9,038 posts
16,350 battles
10 hours ago, Trophy_Wench said:

I personally have felt that a 2nd British DD line, while technically feasible given just how many different Classes existed during that era, would be faced with an issue far greater than coherence: relevancy.

Thanks for agreeing, now allow me to disagree with you!

There are lots of British classes not in game, but lots of them do add very little it's true. The O, Q, R, S, T, U, V and W classes for instance are all pretty much the same hull as the JKN (with some modifications) with the same approximate gun armament as Gallant/Icarus, if on different mounts. Not at all interesting, not really worth adding just because you can, and I'm a big RN fan.

On the other hand, I like to think that at least one split bringing some new ships into the game - T7 and T8 4.5in guns, L.72/L.90 and maybe some 4in-armed ships has some value even though some niches are contested.

The L.90 for instance with 4x2 4.7in/50 doing pretty high speed is contesting with designs like Marceau, Khabarovsk etc. Yet I still think the ship is unique enough to be a bit different from those inherently (slower, stealthier, different torps), and is readily placed to be more different with suitable use of consumables and traits - without going into creeping/Italian style smoke.

There is still space to do new things, and even with for instance Orkan being mostly a clone of Lightning she still looks remarkably different in style thanks to the less-core attributes and equipment.

8 hours ago, Hot_tamale25 said:

You mentioned you had an idea, I'd be interested in hearing it.

Well, it's fairly old - predates the actual line release:

If I were to update it now, I'd potentially take Zephyr out and give up on some of the 4.5-ness of that line to put Jervis in, then maybe switch Jervis with a 4x1 4.7in/50 designed WEP. WG didn't go with a very 'homogeneous' starting line in my view.

I'd also look again at completing the T9-T10 of the 4in split. Not quite sure with what, but with a bigger hull I'd guess you could bodge on a 5th 4in turret a la Harugumo.

Despite having 3 branches I kept a Tribal out of all of them, they can be quite awkward - a direction the RN went in only briefly.

Throwing ships into tiers is one thing, trying to draw out a good progression is hard - WG even struggle themselves as their planned rectification of the RU cruiser line shows, going to Kirov and then back down to 6in guns, and then throwing Moskva on top to be completely unlike anything in the line was not great design. They've gotten much better since, and splits help.

 

4 hours ago, mr3awsome said:

The early War Emergency Programme destroyers were intended to get the 62pdr at a later point, but because of the war situation they never did. So its more realistic than a load of ships we currently have in game. 

My reservation, and I'll need to re-read Friedman was that due to the 62lb gun being bigger and heavier, with a probable heavier mounting they looked at a WEP and thought it could probably only mount a battery of 3 guns, which was considered too light. I think a 4th would be an in-game necessity, but I wouldn't want to lose a set of torpedo tubes. That pushes them a little more 'fiction' in my view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
230 posts
1,949 battles
54 minutes ago, mofton said:

If I were to update it now, I'd potentially take Zephyr out and give up on some of the 4.5-ness of that line to put Jervis in, then maybe switch Jervis with a 4x1 4.7in/50 designed WEP. WG didn't go with a very 'homogeneous' starting line in my view.

I'd also look again at completing the T9-T10 of the 4in split. Not quite sure with what, but with a bigger hull I'd guess you could bodge on a 5th 4in turret a la Harugumo.

Despite having 3 branches I kept a Tribal out of all of them, they can be quite awkward - a direction the RN went in only briefly.

Throwing ships into tiers is one thing, trying to draw out a good progression is hard - WG even struggle themselves as their planned rectification of the RU cruiser line shows, going to Kirov and then back down to 6in guns, and then throwing Moskva on top to be completely unlike anything in the line was not great design. They've gotten much better since, and splits help.

So you would be saying Jervis-Battle ‘42-Battle ‘43? Then have Jervis’s place be filled by a design? Would Battle ‘42 be more like Jutland’s A hull with the 2x2 and 1x1 guns while Battle ‘43 gets the improved 3x2 layout? That makes sense to me actually. Actually, my main question regarding that (well done) tree is regarding Battleaxe as I’ve always found the Weapons to be a bit wonky. How would a DD with all forward facing guns do? Would it even be able to compete at tier VII? I feel like almost every DD at tier VII would beat it in a gunfight. I question if it could hold its own against Farragut even. Is the 4in line intended more as a stealth boat torpedo heavy line?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,918
Alpha Tester, Alpha Tester
11,451 posts
1,963 battles
1 hour ago, mofton said:

My reservation, and I'll need to re-read Friedman was that due to the 62lb gun being bigger and heavier, with a probable heavier mounting they looked at a WEP and thought it could probably only mount a battery of 3 guns, which was considered too light. I think a 4th would be an in-game necessity, but I wouldn't want to lose a set of torpedo tubes. That pushes them a little more 'fiction' in my view.

Not that I know of. Time was a big consideration, and there was already a 50pdr single mount in production (for the O & Ps, whose finalised design predates the war even if their ordering doesn't). There was no 62pdr single, and it would take time to design one. There is a weight margin in the early ships, but that got eaten up in the later ships. For instance, the mount of the early 4.7" ships is about a ton and half lighter than that of the later ships. Add in all the radar, electricals, AA guns, etc. and what margin there was soon starts to go. Add in the developing war situation, the switch to the 4.5" gun, which already has AA ammunition and calibration with HA gun directors, makes more sense than making a new single 62pdr HA mount (though they did consider it, naturally).   

16 minutes ago, Hot_tamale25 said:

Actually, my main question regarding that (well done) tree is regarding Battleaxe as I’ve always found the Weapons to be a bit wonky. How would a DD with all forward facing guns do? Would it even be able to compete at tier VII? I feel like almost every DD at tier VII would beat it in a gunfight. I question if it could hold its own against Farragut even. Is the 4in line intended more as a stealth boat torpedo heavy line?

Well, the Weapons were originally intended to have 3 x II main gun mounts (AB-X) before it was decided to complete them as radar pickets. In that guise they can definitely compete. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,942
[SYN]
Members
9,038 posts
16,350 battles
7 minutes ago, Hot_tamale25 said:

So you would be saying Jervis-Battle ‘42-Battle ‘43? Then have Jervis’s place be filled by a design? Would Battle ‘42 be more like Jutland’s A hull with the 2x2 and 1x1 guns while Battle ‘43 gets the improved 3x2 layout? That makes sense to me actually. Actually, my main question regarding that (well done) tree is regarding Battleaxe as I’ve always found the Weapons to be a bit wonky. How would a DD with all forward facing guns do? Would it even be able to compete at tier VII? I feel like almost every DD at tier VII would beat it in a gunfight. I question if it could hold its own against Farragut even. Is the 4in line intended more as a stealth boat torpedo heavy line?

Pretty much, seems more likely WG would keep Jervis in the main tree at this point.

The Battle '42 as I'd planned it would be just 2x2 4.5in guns at T8, and the T9 as I planned it would be the '43 with 2x2 1x1. I did this before WG decided the Jutland needed a 'hypothetical upgrade' to a 3rd twin turret.

If it were up to me I'd restore Jutland's ROF - I think it used to be 17.14 RPM, now it's 14.6 - and remove the B hull, using a 4-gun ship at T8 and the 5-gun at T9. I don't think WG would do that. I think a 4-gun ship would be well balanced at T8. Forward facing guns to me is a plus, and rearward firing arcs are pretty good. At 4 guns and 17.14 RPM she'd throw 69.6 RPM, below the US destroyers (96) by a good chunk, but with better fire chance and AP bounce angles.

For Battleaxe, the 3rd turret might be a necessity. Of her class Crossbow had A-B, and Battleaxe actually had A-X arrangement, if you sacrifice the Squid ASW mortar then in theory carriage of an A-B-X set of 3 shouldn't be a huge problem, or at least the physical space is there. The plus side of the 4in is the 20 RPM per gun which would give a 4-gun Battleaxe 80 RPM total, at the time of writing the T7 Mahan had 15 RPM per gun for 75 RPM total, now she's at 18.18 RPM. Battleaxe would have been (and possibly still is) a decent competitor on guns. At 20 RPM on 8-guns the L-class 4in actually out DPM's and out-fire chances Akizuki, just without the higher HE pen.

Of course power creep is relentless, and it's been 2 years since I put that together.

Also (side-rage) the Daring has had the Squid ASW mortar model removed from her quarterdeck, so if WG are going to be like that and not give it any value, might as well remove the same from the Weapon and just cram on more guns and depth charges.

4 minutes ago, mr3awsome said:

Not that I know of.

Hmm, I will re-read that chapter.

Overall with hindsight the entire development of the 4.7in/50 was a waste of time, and an earlier decision to go with the 4.5in almost across the board would likely have been more productive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
230 posts
1,949 battles
On 3/18/2020 at 11:27 AM, mofton said:

For Battleaxe, the 3rd turret might be a necessity. Of her class Crossbow had A-B, and Battleaxe actually had A-X arrangement, if you sacrifice the Squid ASW mortar then in theory carriage of an A-B-X set of 3 shouldn't be a huge problem, or at least the physical space is there. The plus side of the 4in is the 20 RPM per gun which would give a 4-gun Battleaxe 80 RPM total, at the time of writing the T7 Mahan had 15 RPM per gun for 75 RPM total, now she's at 18.18 RPM. Battleaxe would have been (and possibly still is) a decent competitor on guns. At 20 RPM on 8-guns the L-class 4in actually out DPM's and out-fire chances Akizuki, just without the higher HE pen.

Of course power creep is relentless, and it's been 2 years since I put that together.

Speaking of power creep, another question I had would be what to do about Cavalier? It just seems too obvious of a premium to not eventually end up in game, I’m assuming tier VII at this point. However, I have my doubts as to how she would do unless of course she was given day Lightning’s torps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,942
[SYN]
Members
9,038 posts
16,350 battles
13 hours ago, Hot_tamale25 said:

Speaking of power creep, another question I had would be what to do about Cavalier? It just seems too obvious of a premium to not eventually end up in game, I’m assuming tier VII at this point. However, I have my doubts as to how she would do unless of course she was given day Lightning’s torps.

I guess you'd think she'd be a sure-thing, but the RN has a mighty total of... 3 premium destroyers, and not much sign of interest from WG. The Naval Legends look at Cavalier is coming on for 2.5 years old, so I don't think she's that much of a priority to them.

I still see Cavalier at T7 as equivalent to Sims, with inferior gunpower but optionally better torpedoes. The changes to HE mechanics mean she no longer needs IFHE which is a good plus, and particularly useful as AP can still overpen low-tier DD plating. You could go with a range of torpedoes. Gallant has 8km at T6, Cossack has 10km at T8, I think Cavalier could take whichever worked. With 14 RPM, 6.1km (Gadjah) stealth and a decent torpedo fit, Cavalier can still be a decent ship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
230 posts
1,949 battles

I know this is a bit off topic, but since we are getting more and more modern ships into game it got me thinking. Theoretically the Counties (1960s one, not the current in game one) could be added. I mean as built they had 2 of the Daring turrets plus 3x2 launchers. Granted I believe they were ASW launchers, but it’s not too much of a stretch. I feel as though there would be some interesting ways WG could balance them if they so choose to. 
 

 

360E77AC-F234-47EB-9892-90863228D35D.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×