Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
sulghunter331

A Dissapointment with the new USN BB Line

18 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

380
[-ARM-]
Beta Testers
1,018 posts
12,227 battles

With the recent news of the new USN BB line in the works by the developers, I just wanted to discuss my general attitude in regards to the current content of said line.

Spoiler

tenor.gif

Spoiler

 

Are you kidding me?! Why is Tillman IV-2 NOT in this line?! We're going to be stuck with the absolute slowest BB tier X, and we get some bland design that can be boiled down as an enlarged 1920 South Dakota? I get that having fifteen 18" guns would have been excessive, but I must emphasize just how slow this BB is going to be in comparison to everything in tiers IX and X. I pretty certain that being stuck at 25 knots, AT BEST, when even the Montana, the current slowest BB in tier X, can manage 28 knots, is a sufficient counter-balance to the firepower IV-2 would bring into the match.

Who in their right mind would be willing to sail an evolved Standard Type BB into a high tier match if said BB didn't have enormous firepower?

The Germans get their H-class battleships, the Russians get Stalin's wet dreams manifested in steel, and now the IJN have gotten A-150. With these in mind, can one really keep arguing that Tillman IV-2 would be too much for this game?

I realize that it is in all likelihood far too late to change anything, considering just how far along these ships are in development. There is probably too much momentum behind them now to get Tillman IV-2 as the tier X, but it is simply enormously disappointing to see that it wasn't included in this upcoming line.

Finger's crossed now for Tillman IV-2 coming as a coal ship.

  • Meh 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,197
[SYN]
Members
5,879 posts
13,316 battles

Well, Tillman or not, 23 knots at Tiers VIII - X (a hair over 24 with Sierra-Mike and staying in a straight line long enough - never advisable), is a joke.

Sure, the guns are big, but they will have significantly longer reloads than even the Yamato, and protection will be weaker.  Good luck surviving long enough in something that big and slow at those tiers, to put those guns to good use.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
176
[V1LIN]
In AlfaTesters, In AlfaTesters
615 posts
10,405 battles
3 minutes ago, Kuckoo said:

Sure, the guns are big, but they will have significantly longer reloads than even the Yamato, and protection will be weaker.

That is the thing though, Yamato does not have a long reload. It is a standard 30s, but equip Main Batter Modification 3, and it gets 26.4s. 

There were late war designs that the developers could have used, which would have fit better than the meme of having any of the Tillman studies (which mind you were never serious enough to even have allocated resources for.)

  • Cool 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,015
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
4,874 posts
713 battles

Vermont is a Tillman. 

 

Just a more realistic Tillman.

 

Remember the Tillmans were a design study that focused on "What's the most we can get for X dimensions".

 

Look at the ship. 3 funnels. Flush deck. The Tillmans were the only US battleship designs of the era to have those features. So the design is obviously inspired by the Tillmans. The 12x18" armament is a more realistic armament than the turret farm that was the IV-1.

 

So yeah. Vermont is a Tillman. My biggest gripe is with the Kansas, which is obviously a SoDak20 (that trunked funnel..) but they gave her Colorado's guns? What the af. SoDak20s had their own 16"/50s. You know, the same 16"/50s that were supposed to go on the Iowa. The same 16"/50s that the Iowa's Mk7s were based on. Not Colorado's 16"/45s... Why are they gimping US ships? It's already going to be the slowest ship at it's tier and at tier 8 a 13.5" belt is nothing special. So why give it guns it never would have carried? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
380
[-ARM-]
Beta Testers
1,018 posts
12,227 battles
6 minutes ago, ramp4ge said:

Vermont is a Tillman.

Just a more realistic Tillman.

Remember the Tillmans were a design study that focused on "What's the most we can get for X dimensions".

Look at the ship. 3 funnels. Flush deck. The Tillmans were the only US battleship designs of the era to have those features. So the design is obviously inspired by the Tillmans. The 12x18" armament is a more realistic armament than the turret farm that was the IV-1.

So yeah. Vermont is a Tillman. My biggest gripe is with the Kansas, which is obviously a SoDak20 (that trunked funnel..) but they gave her Colorado's guns? What the af. SoDak20s had their own 16"/50s. You know, the same 16"/50s that were supposed to go on the Iowa. The same 16"/50s that the Iowa's Mk7s were based on. Not Colorado's 16"/45s... Why are they gimping US ships? It's already going to be the slowest ship at it's tier and at tier 8 a 13.5" belt is nothing special. So why give it guns it never would have carried? 

 

 

Spoiler

The only reason the Tillman designs, especially the IV series, was because it was so ridiculous.

If we're going to be stuck with garbage ships, can't we at least have the raw firepower of fifteen 18" guns while we get run down by everyone on the enemy team?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,015
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
4,874 posts
713 battles

 

I mean 12 18" guns is going to be by far the heaviest broadside in the game, and if they do it right it's going to have the heaviest armor in the game with a 16"-18" belt.

 

That's not going to stop the HE spam and a 40 second reload is ridiculous, but..

 

The point of the Tillmans was to see how much you could get within certain dimensional limitations. That doesn't mean that when they'd become a finalized design they'd still meet those same dimensional limitations. But the model's design is clearly based on the Tillmans.

Share this post


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

My main grip is: why at tier 8?

there is a lot of US battleship at lower tier that could have been add to the line, to make it a complete one (Oklahoma at tier 5, Pennsylvania  at tier 6, Saratoga at 7 and Colorado moved in the slow line).

 

design wise: the main concern that I see in them is the weakness to that line to push. Sure they are slow, but the reload make them unable to react to new threat, their armor is said to be weak and they lack the secondaires to complement  the rest. 
 

I would say, give them proper armor and Mass secondaries to deter dd to rush them.  

Edited by Y_Nagato

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,015
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
4,874 posts
713 battles

Yeah they could have easily taken this back to tier 5. Or even further back. The US has an abundance of battleships..

 

Tier 3: Delaware

Tier 4: Florida

Tier 5: Nevada

Tier 6: Pennsylvania (modernized)

Tier 7: Tennessee (modernized. Basically, tech tree California)


Lexingtons should be tier 6 premiums. They're huge and they have absolutely no armor. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,179
[PISD]
Members
1,921 posts
6,308 battles
3 minutes ago, ramp4ge said:

Tier 7: Tennessee (modernized. Basically, tech tree California)


Lexingtons should be tier 6 premiums. They're huge and they have absolutely no armor. 

Lexington could be place at tier 7 with the proper refit. 
 

but an other option could have to use the proto North Carolina with 3X4 14”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,015
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
4,874 posts
713 battles
4 minutes ago, Y_Nagato said:

Lexington could be place at tier 7 with the proper refit. 
 

but an other option could have to use the proto North Carolina with 3X4 14”.

 

They're adding that as a premium ship. Flordia.

 

Even refit, the Lexington isn't tier 7 material. Think Kongo with 16" guns. That wouldn't work at tier 7. Even at tier 6 it's iffy, considering it's competing with other 16"-armed ships like Mutsu and West Virginia with light cruiser levels of armor while being the size of a small moon. It's only advantage would be the best guns at it's tier. I'd almost say tier 5 if the idea of 16"/50s at tier 5 wasn't hilarious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,197
[SYN]
Members
5,879 posts
13,316 battles

Yet we're still waiting on 1945 refit versions of the Colorado/Marylands.

And while the Massachusetts is nice, it is a premium, and an expensive one at that.  When will we ever see proper tech tree versions of the SoDak and/or Indiana, and not in some "Lesta Mod" preemptively nerfed version?

Nope.  Instead go with 1920s proposals whose impracticability all but guaranteed non-consideration - Washington Treaty or not - and shove those in the high tiers to compete with over-performing Russian wet dreams and other boats presumably conceived of "lessons learned" mid-to-late 40s and even 50s designs.

 

 

 

Edited by Kuckoo
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,015
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
4,874 posts
713 battles

To be fair the SoDak20s weren't that impractical. In fact they were funded, ordered, named and laid down. So they actually got farther toward being 'real' than most of the Russian ships..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,179
[PISD]
Members
1,921 posts
6,308 battles
3 minutes ago, ramp4ge said:

 

They're adding that as a premium ship. Flordia.

 

Even refit, the Lexington isn't tier 7 material. Think Kongo with 16" guns. That wouldn't work at tier 7. Even at tier 6 it's iffy, considering it's competing with other 16"-armed ships like Mutsu and West Virginia with light cruiser levels of armor while being the size of a small moon. I'd almost say tier 5 if the idea of 16"/50s at tier 5 wasn't hilarious.

Which would make it quite easy to place Florida in the line instead of a premium.  
 

for the armor: a modernized Lexington could have up to 10” of belt probably, and the way the games work I fail to see how even lower belt would be bad. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,015
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
4,874 posts
713 battles

10" belt at tier 7 is garbage. You'd be getting citadeled at range by light cruisers. Even the Kongos at tier 5 have a 12" belt and they're not exactly poster children for well-protected ships. Then you add in to that that they'd have absolutely enormous citadels and no that's not pretty for tier 7. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
467 posts
8,433 battles

The 24 gun Tillman 2 would be silly fun, and I could buy the long reload time with such a massive turret.  

The triple 16"/50 turrets shouldn't be much over 30 seconds to reload as designed.  America did build those guns and their follow on guns.

The 18" guns in triple turrets warrent a reload between 35 and 40 seconds as designed.

The Tillmans were designed with an average speed of 25 knots.  Now I suppose the torpedo bulges might slow them up, but that should be looked into.

 

As for an earlier split with the rest of the American battleships, the alternative ships from Delaware to Tennessee don't really bring anything really different to the table.  they are just slightly different from the existing ship from Tier 3 to 7.

Now splitting the line at New Mexico and adding the Lexington battlecruisers at Tier 7 in the fast line would also work.   It be horribly under armored, but would have comparable firepower to Colorado (actually better guns), and could be faster than Iowa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
667
[SVF]
Members
1,860 posts
2,438 battles
3 hours ago, ramp4ge said:

10" belt at tier 7 is garbage. You'd be getting citadeled at range by light cruisers.

You're greatly overstating the matter.  152mm AP can pen 254mm armor: at sub-3km only.  At range?  No chance.

 

3 hours ago, ramp4ge said:

Even the Kongos at tier 5 have a 12" belt

No, they don't.  See attached.

shot-20.07.05_18.55.36-0976.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×