Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
Fr05ty

Fr05ty's Italian Battleship Tech-Tree

51 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

380
Members
456 posts
4,321 battles

Welcome to my latest tech tree proposal!

Here's the revised version: Read full article
 
This article will touch on both the tech-tree regular ships and premium ships. For each ship, I provide the layout of how the ship's weaponry is distributed, its technical specifications and with the same formulas I used for the ADLA articles, their in-game values. Finally, I provide a small piece of analysis of what I think about the ship and how it'd fit with its tiermates. Essentially, each of the ships gets a mini-ADLA with all the information you might be looking for to compare it to its tiermates that are already in-game. Let's hope we see these ships in the virtual seas soon!
 
Read Full Article... or the Revised Version

Let me know what you think of this! I'm working on the Italian and French CV tech-tree lines so I can incorporate your suggestions for it! All feedback and comments are welcome!

 

IL RISORGIMENTO DI LA CORAZZATA ITALIANA!

 

PS: No ship in this line is 100% fictional, though the T10's both are designs based in part on historical designs.

Edited by Fr05ty
  • Cool 12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11,683
[PVE]
Members
13,902 posts
29,330 battles

I appreciate the well thought out effort. BUT what I am seeing in the mid to upper tiers of the etch tree is just Roma with different names more or less (some different gun calibers but all the cons scream ROMA) and I hate that ship. IF the tech tree BB's have the same poor gun performance as Roma I will pass. I want the tech tree BB's to actually be good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,179
[PISD]
Members
1,921 posts
6,308 battles

What I liked for idea is the SAP secondaries. Despite their citadel, they could be made into great brawler with such secondaries.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
486
[RM-I]
[RM-I]
Members
964 posts
10,428 battles
1 hour ago, Fr05ty said:

IL RISORGIMENTO DI LA CORAZZATA ITALIANA!

You need to work on this. When di and la or il or lo are together in a sentence, they attach I.e. Della del, dello 

delle, dei, degli are the plural. 
then the actual sentence sounds very google translate. 
I would have written “La rinascita delle corazzate italiane. 

i still have to look at the link you supplied and check out what you came up with. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
380
Members
456 posts
4,321 battles
11 minutes ago, pastore123 said:

You need to work on this. When di and la or il or lo are together in a sentence, they attach I.e. Della del, dello 

delle, dei, degli are the plural. 
then the actual sentence sounds very google translate. 
I would have written “La rinascita delle corazzate italiane. 

i still have to look at the link you supplied and check out what you came up with. 

That's what happens when you only know basic Italian. Reading it is easy, writing it up on my own, not so much. I wanted to use Risorgimento due to the actual Risorgimento in the 1800s.

Do check out the ships... T7 is my biggest concern 

51 minutes ago, AdmiralThunder said:

I appreciate the well thought out effort. BUT what I am seeing in the mid to upper tiers of the etch tree is just Roma with different names more or less (some different gun calibers but all the cons scream ROMA) and I hate that ship. IF the tech tree BB's have the same poor gun performance as Roma I will pass. I want the tech tree BB's to actually be good.

A lot of Roma's issues are fixed by the SAP HE ammo, as that means that overpens will be a lot rarer. Having actual usable HE will also help. You should have a much more comfortable experience with this line than with Roma as she is now.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,935
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester
28,325 posts
14,923 battles

Interesting but what about the Conte di Cavour in tier 4 as built and in tier 6 where the Giulio Cesare should have been as re-manufactured. The same could be done with the Andrea Doria in tier 5 and tier 7. Anything that cuts down on paper ie never ordered ships is good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
380
Members
456 posts
4,321 battles
16 minutes ago, BrushWolf said:

Interesting but what about the Conte di Cavour in tier 4 as built and in tier 6 where the Giulio Cesare should have been as re-manufactured. The same could be done with the Andrea Doria in tier 5 and tier 7. Anything that cuts down on paper ie never ordered ships is good.

No. That makes no sense whatsoever in game terms. You're asking to put a Giulio Cesare at T7 when the one at T5 right now is using several overtuning metrics to rule T5. Giulio Cesare doesn't even work at T6 (WG tried to do that before and decided not to), so putting them at T7 (since the Andrea Doria and Conte di Cavour were pretty much the same) is crazy.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11,683
[PVE]
Members
13,902 posts
29,330 battles
37 minutes ago, Fr05ty said:

That's what happens when you only know basic Italian. Reading it is easy, writing it up on my own, not so much. I wanted to use Risorgimento due to the actual Risorgimento in the 1800s.

Do check out the ships... T7 is my biggest concern 

A lot of Roma's issues are fixed by the SAP HE ammo, as that means that overpens will be a lot rarer. Having actual usable HE will also help. You should have a much more comfortable experience with this line than with Roma as she is now.

They won't give HE and SAP. Will be one or the other.

SAP will fix overpens yes but it won't fix the horrible dispersion LOL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,935
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester
28,325 posts
14,923 battles
1 minute ago, Fr05ty said:

No. That makes no sense whatsoever in game terms. You're asking to put a Giulio Cesare at T7 when the one at T5 right now is using several overtuning metrics to rule T5. Giulio Cesare doesn't even work at T6 (WG tried to do that before and decided not to), so putting them at T7 (since the Andrea Doria and Conte di Cavour were pretty much the same) is crazy.

You have the Conte at tier 4 and what I am suggesting is having it using one of the other ships in the class at tier 6 too because the re-manufacturing really did turn them into a completely different ship and tier 6 is where they wanted to move the Giulio Cesare to. I just threw in the Andrea Doria and new ship classes are usually just evolutionary changes, look at the US BB's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
380
Members
456 posts
4,321 battles
Just now, BrushWolf said:

You have the Conte at tier 4 and what I am suggesting is having it using one of the other ships in the class at tier 6 too because the re-manufacturing really did turn them into a completely different ship and tier 6 is where they wanted to move the Giulio Cesare to. I just threw in the Andrea Doria and new ship classes are usually just evolutionary changes, look at the US BB's.

I used the Conte at T4 because the rebuilt Conte is the Giulio Cesare at T5. I used the Andrea Doria as rebuilt at T5 to not do a repeat. They were rebuilt, not new ships, and thus they really don't have the power scaling that you're arguing for. T6 has 12x356mm armed ships with a lot more displacement, armour and AA than any of these ships ever carried. I know what you're arguing, I'm just telling you that gameplay wise and balance wise it makes no sense. T6 is the Caracciolo's which were partially built, T7 might be better served by the rebuilt Caracciolos, but there's no way what you're proposing works.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,935
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester
28,325 posts
14,923 battles
14 minutes ago, Fr05ty said:

I used the Conte at T4 because the rebuilt Conte is the Giulio Cesare at T5. I used the Andrea Doria as rebuilt at T5 to not do a repeat. They were rebuilt, not new ships, and thus they really don't have the power scaling that you're arguing for. T6 has 12x356mm armed ships with a lot more displacement, armour and AA than any of these ships ever carried. I know what you're arguing, I'm just telling you that gameplay wise and balance wise it makes no sense. T6 is the Caracciolo's which were partially built, T7 might be better served by the rebuilt Caracciolos, but there's no way what you're proposing works.

Actually reconstructed is more correct. They went from 25,000 tons and 22 knots to 29,000 tons and 27 knots the ships as built have almost nothing in common with the reconstructed ships and tier 6 is where they wanted to move the Giulio Cesare to.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_battleship_Conte_di_Cavour

Edited by BrushWolf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
380
Members
456 posts
4,321 battles
Just now, BrushWolf said:

Actually reconstructed is more correct. They went from 25,000 tons and 22 knots to 29,000 tons and 27 knots the ships as built have almost nothing in common with the reconstructed ships.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_battleship_Conte_di_Cavour

Mate, I know this. Rebuilt/Reconstructed is the same thing. You can tell I know it since I've used those figures in the article. 29000t is lightweight at T5, not to say anything of T6 and above. I used the original Conte di Cavour at T4 and the rebuilt Andrea Doria at T5; the rebuilt Conte di Cavour is already in game at T5 as Giulio Cesare, and there aren't many significant differences between the rebuilt Conte di Cavour and the rebuilt Andrea Dorias. If WG wants, they can give you Andrea Doria as built as T4. Like I said, what you're proposing doesn't work. 10x 320mm guns, 27kts speed, 29000t and the armour that they carry is good for T5, not for T6 and certainly not for T7. Otherwise, do tell me how you balance those ships at T6 and T7.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,935
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester
28,325 posts
14,923 battles
41 minutes ago, Fr05ty said:

Mate, I know this. Rebuilt/Reconstructed is the same thing. You can tell I know it since I've used those figures in the article. 29000t is lightweight at T5, not to say anything of T6 and above. I used the original Conte di Cavour at T4 and the rebuilt Andrea Doria at T5; the rebuilt Conte di Cavour is already in game at T5 as Giulio Cesare, and there aren't many significant differences between the rebuilt Conte di Cavour and the rebuilt Andrea Dorias. If WG wants, they can give you Andrea Doria as built as T4. Like I said, what you're proposing doesn't work. 10x 320mm guns, 27kts speed, 29000t and the armour that they carry is good for T5, not for T6 and certainly not for T7. Otherwise, do tell me how you balance those ships at T6 and T7.

Yet tier six is where the developers wanted to move the Giulio to so it seems they think it works there. Tonnage/HP wise the 29k tons of the reconstructed Conte's is actually a few hundred tons more than the tier 5 New York and 3000 less than the tier 6 New Mexico. On speed 27 knots is faster than most of the tier 5 & 6 BB's with a few exceptions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
380
Members
456 posts
4,321 battles
55 minutes ago, BrushWolf said:

Yet tier six is where the developers wanted to move the Giulio to so it seems they think it works there. Tonnage/HP wise the 29k tons of the reconstructed Conte's is actually a few hundred tons more than the tier 5 New York and 3000 less than the tier 6 New Mexico. On speed 27 knots is faster than most of the tier 5 & 6 BB's with a few exceptions.

They did that using fantasy shells for the GC (WG gave it the same shells as the Dunkerque). I'm advocating using real shells and they won't make the cut at T6. Funny you should compare it to the New Mexico. The NM has 343mm belt armour, 3000t more displacement, an improved heal, better AA and 12 356mm guns that cross an overmatch threshold. Oh, and the New Mexico isn't even the that heavy for T6. Try the Fuso which even has a comparable speed to the Andrea Doria. Think that's a lot more than the Andrea Doria would have for it. Seriously, crunch the numbers for all ships at T6 and tell me if you think it works, because I did that work before tiering each and every single ship.

Edited by Fr05ty
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,152
[FURIA]
WoWS Community Contributors
2,084 posts
6,309 battles

You know I'm going to steal it and translate it to spanish.

Hell! I even may try mapundungun to add another dimension to the steal

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
705
[UFFA]
Members
2,116 posts
75 battles
16 hours ago, Fr05ty said:

T7 is my biggest concern

Which is really no concern. Caracciolo given the French rebuild method fits. With the proposed 381/45 from the Ferrati projects. Or Lesta has seen no problem upsizing other designs.

If the ship has to dovetail to Littorio at tier VIII one of the 30k projects or Proto Littorio fits. Which I’m honestly not 100% sure of. Even so prewar planners really liked the 4 surface secondary plus 90mm mounts. So that is just going to be the look for mid tiers. 
 

Plus with SAP as an overriding factor we may get a wild acid trip of a line. With 10-12 rifle 305mm - 320mm - 343mm - 381mm to the monster 4 x 4 406mm. We already know if Lesta is committed to SAP the AP performance/dpm  will suffer to keep people preferring that SAP is kept loaded. 


The historic rebuilds are all based off Dreadnought hulls not super Dreadnought hulls. So especially with the proliferation of 16” armed battleships and 40 knot spammy bois at lower tiers Tier VI is a ceiling for a rebuild. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
102
[MHG]
Members
92 posts
4,732 battles

Historically, Italian naval guns had fantastic shell velocity and penetration, but lacked accuracy.

I think something like Roma accuracy with more penetration with SAP would make for a neat gimmick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
705
[UFFA]
Members
2,116 posts
75 battles

Always so cringe. Gunnery exercises show no big differences. Many of the battles sited are not comparable. Not to mention it is a game that has given up on keeping things comparable to reality. 
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
380
Members
456 posts
4,321 battles
7 hours ago, Sparviero said:

Which is really no concern. Caracciolo given the French rebuild method fits. With the proposed 381/45 from the Ferrati projects. Or Lesta has seen no problem upsizing other designs.

If the ship has to dovetail to Littorio at tier VIII one of the 30k projects or Proto Littorio fits. Which I’m honestly not 100% sure of. Even so prewar planners really liked the 4 surface secondary plus 90mm mounts. So that is just going to be the look for mid tiers. 
 

Plus with SAP as an overriding factor we may get a wild acid trip of a line. With 10-12 rifle 305mm - 320mm - 343mm - 381mm to the monster 4 x 4 406mm. We already know if Lesta is committed to SAP the AP performance/dpm  will suffer to keep people preferring that SAP is kept loaded. 


The historic rebuilds are all based off Dreadnought hulls not super Dreadnought hulls. So especially with the proliferation of 16” armed battleships and 40 knot spammy bois at lower tiers Tier VI is a ceiling for a rebuild. 

I just don't like WG's implementation of SAP so I made my own SAPHE. If it was to be a SAP centered line, I'd probably have chosen a different sequence. After feedback, think I'm going to keep the Caracciolo at T6 and a more extensive rebuild of the Caracciolo at T7. The current T7 moves to be a premium.

I was looking to put the 340mm 1928 26500t BC at T6, but the more I look at it and compare it to the Kongo, the more I am convinced it's a T5 at best. Any opinion on that?

 

Version A:

T6 - Original Caracciolo

T7 - Rebuilt Caracciolo

 

Version B:

T6 - 26500t BC with 4x2 340mm guns (modifications would be needed)

T7 - Caracciolo (A hull) / Rebuilt Caracciolo (B hull)

 

What seems more agreeable? A or B?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
133
[TWE]
Beta Testers
314 posts
1,718 battles

I would say that version 'A' would be the more palatable one. I actually really liked your proposal just the was it was (though if I were to pick nits, I'd have had the Dante as the tier 4 line ship but I understand why you did what you did.) Anyway, with that said, given the Caracciolo was to be the answer to Queen Elizabeth, sticking her at tier 6 is the most natural option. I can't imagine that even with the refit, she (he? is it he with the RM?) would be able to jump up a whole tier. If the existing Japanese, German and some of the British ships are anything to go by, it would be fine right where it is. Otherwise great job though! :cap_like:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
705
[UFFA]
Members
2,116 posts
75 battles

The rifles are the issue. Imagine 1st test round Leone rifles even worse. The 381/40 is an outlier. It also depends on what version of the ship you go with. The original is an xp piniata. The proposed 1919 refit sees a lot of extremity armor as the ship was far along in production that they couldn’t put a better deck armor in place. If you go with some form of a in game French rebuild/real life Italian rebuild fusion you can approximate a ship that fits better to game meta. Reduce a citadel footprint that can’t be missed from outer space. Allow for decent efficiency on secondary and aa armaments. Have good 15” rifles and speed. Or go with triple 343mm. 
 

At tier VI it is just a citadel magnet with hard to use guns and speed. The point is to follow a Lyon trend not a QE trend. Using a radical modernization  what if model and then nerfing it hard enough to fit at a lower tier is criminal. The historic rebuilds can fight each other at tier VI for who gets to be the free xp queen. If Lesta would unshackle the gun range being able to dodge and stay at mid range would fit with the SAP theme.  
 

making a gimmick to balance proposal is special. 
 

We’ve already seen Lesta downtier way too many Italian ships. It is a trend I would prefer to disappear. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
380
Members
456 posts
4,321 battles
3 hours ago, Sparviero said:

The rifles are the issue. Imagine 1st test round Leone rifles even worse. The 381/40 is an outlier. It also depends on what version of the ship you go with. The original is an xp piniata. The proposed 1919 refit sees a lot of extremity armor as the ship was far along in production that they couldn’t put a better deck armor in place. If you go with some form of a in game French rebuild/real life Italian rebuild fusion you can approximate a ship that fits better to game meta. Reduce a citadel footprint that can’t be missed from outer space. Allow for decent efficiency on secondary and aa armaments. Have good 15” rifles and speed. Or go with triple 343mm. 
 

At tier VI it is just a citadel magnet with hard to use guns and speed. The point is to follow a Lyon trend not a QE trend. Using a radical modernization  what if model and then nerfing it hard enough to fit at a lower tier is criminal. The historic rebuilds can fight each other at tier VI for who gets to be the free xp queen. If Lesta would unshackle the gun range being able to dodge and stay at mid range would fit with the SAP theme.  
 

making a gimmick to balance proposal is special. 
 

We’ve already seen Lesta downtier way too many Italian ships. It is a trend I would prefer to disappear. 

If only I could find a 1910-1920s design that carried guns between 320-380mm, that'd be a perfect fix for the line. I'll keep looking for it, but I'm not sure I can find one. My last idea for it is using one of the Maricominav designs at T6 but switching out the 305mm guns for 320mm. What would you think of it considering I'm not going for a SAP focused line?

My 3 options right now for T6 are:

https://stefsap.wordpress.com/2015/10/13/regia-marinas-bb-design-p1-by-general-barberis-navy-corps-of-engineers/ <--- Modify to carry 320mm instead of 305mm, though the armour is too thin in my opinion to allow for the ship at T6, I also don't think the step up from 10 320mm at T5 to 12 320mm at T6 is big enough to compete with the monsters at T6 like the Fuso.

https://stefsap.wordpress.com/2015/10/24/regia-marinas-bb-design-s3-by-general-barberis-navy-corps-of-engineers/ <--- Modify to reduce speed to 30kts and use the displacement saved in machinery to improve protection

https://stefsap.wordpress.com/2015/10/18/regia-marinas-bb-design-r2-by-general-barberis-navy-corps-of-engineers/ <---- Modify to reduce speed to 30kts and use the displacement saved in machinery to improve protection (my preferred option for T6)

 

Would you think that 3x3 356mm guns with 30kts at T6 is decent enough? Displacement would actually end up being more than 30,000t after adding in more armour, secondaries, AA, etc. I'm looking at it ending up with ~33,000t at least and a thicker armour belt than 250mm.

Then a rebuilt Caracciolo at T7 (with an even more extreme reconstruction than I proposed at T6), including improvements to the propulsion machinery, armour and lengthening of the hull which should increase displacement and speed up to 30kts.

 

I think this is how it'd end up looking:

T6: R2 design (3x3 356mm, 30kts)

T6 Premium: Caracciolo 1918

T7: Rebuilt Caracciolo (4x2 381mm/45s, 30kts, improved armour)

T7 Premium: OTO Leghorn (Design 45367 BC) https://stefsap.wordpress.com/2015/10/11/oto-lenghorn-battlecruiser-design-for-the-regia-marina-30/

 

Would you agree with such an arrangement for the line? I think it fits better than what I currently have proposed.

Edited by Fr05ty
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,152
[FURIA]
WoWS Community Contributors
2,084 posts
6,309 battles
12 hours ago, Fr05ty said:

 

T6: R2 design (3x3 356mm, 30kts)

T6 Premium: Caracciolo 1918

T7: Rebuilt Caracciolo (4x2 381mm/45s, 30kts, improved armour)

T7 Premium: OTO Leghorn (Design 45367 BC) https://stefsap.wordpress.com/2015/10/11/oto-lenghorn-battlecruiser-design-for-the-regia-marina-30/

This could work. The one design with torps get to be the premiun. This is actually very akin to other lines drawn by wg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
162
[C_NT]
Members
949 posts
2,438 battles

I would make the Regina Elena the T3, have the Dante Aligheri and Cavour at T4/T5 with the Andrea Doria as premiums. 

Upper level stuff agree with, tougher to stretch it to T10 than say the French(prolly why hasn't been done yet). 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×