Jump to content
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
missile742

USS Florida -- Tier VII Premium BB

31 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

325
[S0L0]
Beta Testers
812 posts
6,570 battles

During the almost two year design period for the North Carolina class the USN produced 16 different designs, with many variants, all within the constraints of the London Naval Treaty which was in negotiation at the time.  Looking at Norman Friedman's big book of US Battleships, appears the Florida is based on initial specs for Scheme XVI, delivered in Aug 36.  Design called for twelve 14in guns in three turrets, and a mixed secondary battery of dual and single 5in/38 guns.  This design also had a 11.2 inch belt, about 2 inches less than NC and Washington, so when Hapa says she is squishy, there you go.  NC and Washington were built from a modified version of Scheme XVI, with more belt armor at an increased slope angle, replaced single 5in with duals, and 16in main battery when the London Treaty escalator clause was invoked in 1937.   

IMG_0625a.jpg

  • Cool 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,410
[POP]
Members
2,847 posts
22,808 battles
14 minutes ago, missile742 said:

During the almost two year design period for the North Carolina class the USN produced 16 different designs, with many variants, all within the constraints of the London Naval Treaty which was in negotiation at the time.  Looking at Norman Friedman's big book of US Battleships, appears the Florida is based on initial specs for Scheme XVI, delivered in Aug 36.  Design called for twelve 14in guns in three turrets, and a mixed secondary battery of dual and single 5in/38 guns.  This design also had a 11.2 inch belt, about 2 inches less than NC and Washington, so when Hapa says she is squishy, there you go.  NC and Washington were built from a modified version of Scheme XVI, with more belt armor at an increased slope angle, replaced single 5in with duals, and 16in main battery when the London Treaty escalator clause was invoked in 1937.   

IMG_0625a.jpg

So your happy to have a PAPER over the more numerous actual built USN Battleships.

  • Boring 1
  • Meh 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
325
[S0L0]
Beta Testers
812 posts
6,570 battles
8 minutes ago, Shrayes_Bhagavatula said:

Is this Friedmans?

:SerB:

Yes

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
325
[S0L0]
Beta Testers
812 posts
6,570 battles
2 minutes ago, tm63au said:

So your happy to have a PAPER over the more numerous actual built USN Battleships.

Where did I say I was happy?  Just providing some background info.  Out of the four BBs show today this one at least looks playable.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,410
[POP]
Members
2,847 posts
22,808 battles
1 minute ago, missile742 said:

Where did I say I was happy?  Just providing some background info.  Out of the four BBs show today this one at least looks playable.

I didn't I'm asking a question not quoting you, so no need to get upset either since I assume that's your down vote you gave me for my post.

cheers

  • Meh 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,008
[RLGN]
Members
14,306 posts
25,241 battles
11 minutes ago, tm63au said:

So your happy to have a PAPER over the more numerous actual built USN Battleships.

 

7 minutes ago, missile742 said:

Where did I say I was happy?  Just providing some background info.  Out of the four BBs show today this one at least looks playable.

It at least has a stronger basis in reality, with two variants actually getting built, than certain other vodka fueled fantasy ships.

Edited by Estimated_Prophet
typo
  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42
[PVE]
Members
288 posts
2,796 battles
2 minutes ago, Estimated_Prophet said:

It at least has a stronger basis in reality, with two variants actually getting built, than certain other vodka fueled fantasy ships.

Pardon me while I laugh hysterically at this bit of truth.

:Smile_teethhappy:

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
627
[POP]
Members
1,084 posts
9,395 battles

All ships in this game are mere pixels, none of them are real.  Disliking a ship because it is not modeled after a ship that existed is silly.

  • Cool 3
  • Boring 1
  • Meh 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
803
[WOLFC]
Members
1,664 posts
9,483 battles
4 hours ago, missile742 said:

Where did I say I was happy?  Just providing some background info.  Out of the four BBs show today this one at least looks playable.

This one looks interesting. In regards to the three tech tree ships introduced alongside her... I don’t understand why WG decided to go this route. The combination of long (40s) reload, low speed, and “relatively light” armor described in the dev blog has me worried. These ships need to be super tanky, since they are going to be completely unable to dictate the terms of their engagement. Even if they have good armor, I’m extremely skeptical about the viability of a ship that sees tier X battles that can’t go at least 25 knots.

4 hours ago, tm63au said:

I didn't I'm asking a question not quoting you, so no need to get upset either since I assume that's your down vote you gave me for my post.

cheers

Nope, it was mine. The issues I have with the new ships are not that they are paper ships, it’s that I don’t agree with the design direction WG has chosen for this branch, for the reasons stated above. Without “paper” ships, the choice of ships in this game would be much less diverse. I understand why WG didn’t start this branch at lower tiers with the built-in-steel US standards - they’re just that: standard. They would all either play very similar to the ships currently in the tech tree, or they would have to be so altered that it would defeat the point of including them. I’m only mildly disappointed that neither the tier VIII or IX is a hypothetical refit of Indiana, the only one of the 1920 South Dakota’s (which were actually laid down, btw) whose name wasn’t used for a subsequent battleship, either built or planned. Edit: Nevermind, my sleep-addled brain forgot about BB-58, which I have a tendency to do.

Cheers. :Smile_coin:

Edited by Nevermore135
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
976
[KAPPA]
Members
3,110 posts
8,239 battles
20 minutes ago, tm63au said:

I didn't I'm asking a question not quoting you, so no need to get upset either since I assume that's your down vote you gave me for my post.

cheers

I'd suggest phrasing it differently next if that was your intent. One doesn't generally end a question with a period. With a period, it comes off as a statement or even accusation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
92
[KAPPA]
Members
178 posts
6,476 battles
9 minutes ago, Nevermore135 said:

Nope, it was mine. The issues I have with the new ships are not that they are paper ships, it’s that I don’t agree with the design direction WG has chosen for this branch, for the reasons stated above. Without “paper” ships, the choice of ships in this game would be much less diverse. I understand why WG didn’t start this branch at lower tiers with the built-in-steel US standards - they’re just that: standard. They would all either play very similar to the ships currently in the tech tree, or they would have to be so altered that it would defeat the point of including them. I’m only mildly disappointed that neither the tier VIII or IX is a hypothetical refit of Indiana, the only one of the 1920 South Dakota’s (which were actually laid down, btw) whose name wasn’t used for a subsequent battleship, either built or planned.

 

 

Perhaps we can get Indiana as a non-refit version of the T9 and be the Musashi of the line - but with much better sniper performance.  Essentially acting as an Arizona at her tier.  

10 minutes ago, Nevermore135 said:

This one looks interesting. In regards to the three tech tree ships introduced alongside her... I don’t understand why WG decided to go this route. The combination of long (40s) reload, low speed, and “relatively light” armor described in the dev blog has me worried. These ships need to be super tanky, since they are going to be completely unable to dictate the terms of their engagement. Even if they have good armor, I’m extremely sceptical about the viability of a ship that sees tier X battles that can’t go at least 25 knots.

Honestly, They need to be reasonably accurate, be fairly mobile (perhaps even better rudder shift than they have currently), probably have improved acceleration through turns, and have good armor in general.  I think they'd have to play with a bias towards control of the center of the map - they can't allow themselves to get pushed to the edge so they'll have to contest center so they'd need everything to go along with it.

Decent secondaries could help as they'd not have many per side, especially bow-on.  It wouldn't be much, just enough to make people wary of rushing the vulnerable and slow BB with torps.  And, when the inevitable torps come, it needs to be able to dodge, hence the maneuverability.  

None of that matters if the thing can be set ablaze and eaten alive with HE, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
274
[ALWC]
Members
1,180 posts
14,070 battles

Biggest question for me at least. California and Florida are almost the same ship save Florida's better RoF, HP, Speed, AA. California has better range by a little over 1 km, and was a real ship. Why would I spend money on Cali?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,410
[POP]
Members
2,847 posts
22,808 battles
23 minutes ago, Nevermore135 said:

This one looks interesting. In regards to the three tech tree ships introduced alongside her... I don’t understand why WG decided to go this route. The combination of long (40s) reload, low speed, and “relatively light” armor described in the dev blog has me worried. These ships need to be super tanky, since they are going to be completely unable to dictate the terms of their engagement. Even if they have good armor, I’m extremely sceptical about the viability of a ship that sees tier X battles that can’t go at least 25 knots.

Nope, it was mine. The issues I have with the new ships are not that they are paper ships, it’s that I don’t agree with the design direction WG has chosen for this branch, for the reasons stated above. Without “paper” ships, the choice of ships in this game would be much less diverse. I understand why WG didn’t start this branch at lower tiers with the built-in-steel US standards - they’re just that: standard. They would all either play very similar to the ships currently in the tech tree, or they would have to be so altered that it would defeat the point of including them. I’m only mildly disappointed that neither the tier VIII or IX is a hypothetical refit of Indiana, the only one of the 1920 South Dakota’s (which were actually laid down, btw) whose name wasn’t used for a subsequent battleship, either built or planned.

Cheers. :Smile_coin:

Fare enough at least you owned up to the down vote plus 1 for that since then I have got 4 more oh well such is life. 

cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
268
[GC]
Alpha Tester
821 posts
3,959 battles
11 minutes ago, wstugamd said:

Biggest question for me at least. California and Florida are almost the same ship save Florida's better RoF, HP, Speed, AA. California has better range by a little over 1 km, and was a real ship. Why would I spend money on Cali?

Take your pick:
1.) It's gorgeous
2.) It fills a gap left by the omission of the Tennessee class
3.) It represents the only late-war configuration of a standard-type battleship we have in the game at the moment or are likely to get in the foreseeable future
4.) It was actually built and fought in WWII

Unfortunately these are about the only things it has to recommend it, as it is diabolically bad in terms of actual gameplay. I will never understand why they thought it was necessary to slap California with a 34-second reload when it wasn't even that great with a 30-second reload. It's slow, it has bad firing arcs that make it very vulnerable to return fire, and 14" shells ricochet off everything that isn't giving you flat broadside.

--Helms

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
274
[ALWC]
Members
1,180 posts
14,070 battles
3 minutes ago, thehelmsman said:

Take your pick:
1.) It's gorgeous
2.) It fills a gap left by the omission of the Tennessee class
3.) It represents the only late-war configuration of a standard-type battleship we have in the game at the moment or are likely to get in the foreseeable future
4.) It was actually built and fought in WWII

Unfortunately these are about the only things it has to recommend it, as it is diabolically bad in terms of actual gameplay. I will never understand why they thought it was necessary to slap California with a 34-second when it wasn't even that great with a 30-second reload.

--Helms

I'm all about real USN ships, but this one is a stretch too far without the Florida coming. 34 second reload at t7 and 20 knots. Give it to me free. Sure . Pay for it. Not happening

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
803
[WOLFC]
Members
1,664 posts
9,483 battles
45 minutes ago, wstugamd said:

Biggest question for me at least. California and Florida are almost the same ship save Florida's better RoF, HP, Speed, AA. California has better range by a little over 1 km, and was a real ship. Why would I spend money on Cali?

They are very different ships. California is a Tennessee-class American standard. In game she is essentially a buffed Arizona/New Mexico (although not nearly enough to justify being tier VII). Florida is based on one of the preliminary designs for the North Carolina class. I suspect her armor scheme will be similar to, but thinner than, NC since they are essentially the same hull. Furthermore, FL will go 27 knots vs California’s 20.5.

Florida will have 25mm plating (vs California’s 26mm) which will make her more vulnerable to 152mm HE, but in regards to BB AP there is no difference in regards to overmatch (both are overmatched by 15” but not 14” AP). I’d rather have the 6.5 knots of extra speed, as this will allow her dictate her enagements. California and Colorado are both very vulnerable to being farmed if you overextend or get caught out of position.

I wouldn’t spend money on California. The version that was released is deeply flawed and can’t do anything another tier VII can’t do better, except shoot down planes.

Edited by Nevermore135

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
268
[GC]
Alpha Tester
821 posts
3,959 battles
9 minutes ago, wstugamd said:

I'm all about real USN ships, but this one is a stretch too far without the Florida coming. 34 second reload at t7 and 20 knots. Give it to me free. Sure . Pay for it. Not happening

Oh, I agree with you. Those are some reasons why you might buy it, but they really REALLY need to buff it significantly in order to justify the price.

--Helms

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
274
[ALWC]
Members
1,180 posts
14,070 battles
3 minutes ago, Nevermore135 said:

They are very different ships. California is a Tennessee-class American standard. In game she is essentially a buffed Arizona/New Mexico (although not nearly enough to justify being tier VII). Florida is based on one of the preliminary designs for the North Carolina class. I suspect her armor scheme will be similar to, but thinner than, NC since they are essentially the same hull. Furthermore, will go 27 knots vs California’s 20.5.

Florida will have 25mm plating (vs California’s 26mm) which will make her more vulnerable to 152mm HE, but in regards to BB AP there is no difference in regards to overmatch (both are overmatched by 15” but not 14” AP). I’d rather have the 6.5 knots of extra speed, as this will allow her dictate her enagements. California and Colorado are both very vulnerable to being farmed if you overextend or get caught out of position.

I wouldn’t spend money on California. The version that was released is deeply flawed and can’t do anything another tier VII can’t do better, except shoot down planes.

My point exactly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
325
[S0L0]
Beta Testers
812 posts
6,570 battles
2 hours ago, Nevermore135 said:

. I’m only mildly disappointed that neither the tier VIII or IX is a hypothetical refit of Indiana, the only one of the 1920 South Dakota’s (which were actually laid down, btw) whose name wasn’t used for a subsequent battleship, either built or planned.

Cheers. :Smile_coin:

The tier VIII does in fact look like the 1920 So Dak.  Won’t know til we get more details but the planned funnel is pretty distinctive and the model shown has it.  Why WG chose Kansas as the name is a good question.  Same for Florida. USN tended to name BBs after states that didn’t have one recently, and Florida was a WW 1 era dreadnaught.  Would go to any of the Iowa or Montana class state names before Florida

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
803
[WOLFC]
Members
1,664 posts
9,483 battles
50 minutes ago, missile742 said:

The tier VIII does in fact look like the 1920 So Dak.  Won’t know til we get more details but the planned funnel is pretty distinctive and the model shown has it.  Why WG chose Kansas as the name is a good question.  Same for Florida. USN tended to name BBs after states that didn’t have one recently, and Florida was a WW 1 era dreadnaught.  Would go to any of the Iowa or Montana class state names before Florida

The only connection I can see between the three names chosen for the tech tree ships is that all three also belonged to Connecticut-class pre-dreadnaughts. Not sure about Florida, though. Maybe someone at WG just threw a dart at a map. It’s as good a method as any, I guess :Smile_teethhappy:

As for why WG didn’t use Indiana - I forgot about BB-58. My guess is WG didn’t use it to avoid confusion with the 1939 USS Indiana, even though I doubt she will ever be in the game, given we already have two of her sisters and South Dakota herself is still absent (and likely to remain so, I’m afraid).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42
[PVE]
Members
288 posts
2,796 battles
11 hours ago, red_crested_ibis said:

None of that matters if the thing can be set ablaze and eaten alive with HE, though.

That is a main consideration at those tiers.  If they are to slow to disengage then there are real issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
92
[KAPPA]
Members
178 posts
6,476 battles
12 minutes ago, Duma said:

That is a main consideration at those tiers.  If they are to slow to disengage then there are real issues.

Exactly.  They need to be slow bricks that are hard to damage.  But based on LWM's comments on the California, WG seems to want to make them slow snipers instead of brawling capable.  So, any initial enthusiasm I had is getting dashed.

8 hours ago, missile742 said:

The tier VIII does in fact look like the 1920 So Dak.

Not quite.  Those are Colorado's guns on the T8.  The T9 has the Iowa's guns.  Neither of the ship has the guns the South Dakota class was designed to use - the 16"/50 Mk 2.  These have a nominal 853 m/s shell velocity.

The model of the T9's guns are correct, but again, shell performance is that of the Iowa, so...  these are not South Dakota in terms of gunnery.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42
[PVE]
Members
288 posts
2,796 battles
22 minutes ago, red_crested_ibis said:

Exactly.  They need to be slow bricks that are hard to damage.  But based on LWM's comments on the California, WG seems to want to make them slow snipers instead of brawling capable.  So, any initial enthusiasm I had is getting dashed.

9 hours ago, missile742 said:

Brawling is fun.  Sniping is nice.  Wargamings strict adherence to "historical" accuracy concerning the speed of American standard BB's is silly.  Given the utter "historical" inaccuracy of a majority of recent fare and any number of buffs/nerfs that have been handed down in the couple of years I've been playing one has to wonder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
92
[KAPPA]
Members
178 posts
6,476 battles
Just now, Duma said:

Brawling is fun.  Sniping is nice.  Wargamings strict adherence to "historical" accuracy concerning the speed of American standard BB's is silly.  Given the utter "historical" inaccuracy of a majority of recent fare and any number of buffs/nerfs that have been handed down in the couple of years I've been playing one has to wonder.

I'd honestly like if they stuck to the speed and instead put buffs elsewhere.  Instead you get slow ships which don't really have too much of an advantage.  

Granted I've not played much recently so I'm really not used to this current meta, so grain of salt and all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×