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

Facts, Speculation, and Fixes: The USN Battleship Split

182 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
1,045 posts
4,367 battles

Hello Everyone!

As you all know, the next introduction to World of Warships is going to be the American Battleship Split, starting from Tier VIII onwards. The original line will progress untouched, while the new line will feature three brand new supersized dreadnoughts that promise to pack a massive wallop in both primary armament striking power and AA defense capabilities, with supposed downsides in terms of armor, maneuverability, and concealment, not to mention an interestingly long reload time. 

Now then, I should also point out that a LOT of people, and by a lot I do mean a LOT, seem to be panicking over the fact that these ships are coming with the statistics as shown, and that of course, as is usually expected with a bunch of people still salty over the Puerto Rico, means that said people have also become rather enraged at these new ships as well. I'll simply answer that with:

"THESE SHIPS ARE IN TESTING AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE"

Also, why you heff to be mad? It's only a video game, not your whole life.

Another note, I'll only be covering the points of greatest contention, which are the Armor and the Armaments. The maneuverability parameters should be around the same as the mid-tier super-dreadnoughts, only a little bit faster. 

Here is the original DevBlog: https://blog.worldofwarships.com/blog/45


ARMOR

What we know so far

  • These ships will conform to USN All-or-nothing armor standards. 
  • Relatively large HP pools.
  •  USN Standard citadel spaces ( similar to Colorado, California, New Mexico )
  •  Chonk-tacular torpedo belts are going to be a standard feature
  • Large Superstructure areas to farm HE damage and fires
  • USN Battleship Repair Party consumable is standard.

What we don't know

  • Exact specifications of the armor profile
  • Exact values of the Torpedo Defense System
  • Damage Control Party Specifications ( Standard, USN, or something different, like the Soviets )
  • What the citadel size, shape, and location will actually be.

My Speculations

  • Torpedo Protection could be anywhere between 40%-55% on these ships, perhaps even higher.
  • Ships will receive a 38mm or thicker deck profile that resists HE shells, or perhaps even thicker.
  • Ships will receive a boosted Damage Control Party to compensate for the armor shortcomings.
  • Armor profile is going to be weird-as-heck for a USN battleship, like, Italian levels of weird.

So far, this is what we know and don't know about the armor profile. While Wargaming stated that these ships would be receiving relatively light armor for a battleship, that's not really anything new, and it's safe to assume that this statement is misleading. If you want to talk light armor, just look at the French or the British Battleships, with their 32mm thick coating and the Brits having to suffer an exposed citadel area that can lead to sudden ( and very violent ) deletions.

We tend to get this notion of "light armor" on a USN Battleship from playing the mid-tier Standards, which are coated in 25mm plating and are actually not that hard to citadel at medium ranges. This changes from the North Carolina onwards, as the USN Fast Battleships are somewhat more difficult to put a round into and actually deal damage if they are relatively well angled, even at medium ranges, thanks to an improved upper belt armor scheme that also has the ability to ricochet and shatter more AP ammunition than you might expect ( of course, unless you wanna talk Minotaur ). It would be reasonable to assume that these ships will also receive similar treatment, with improved deck armor areas that can shatter and bounce or shatter most HE and AP shells at medium ranges.

Something else interesting, of course, is the torpedo bulge. I mean, all we need is one good look at the sides to see that these ships will indeed be well protected against underwater warheads. What we don't know, however, are the exact numbers that these torpedo bulges will bring to the table. Based upon past experiences with USN Standards, the torpedo protection can range between 30 to 40 percent, and with the Massachusetts and the Alabama, it's even higher. While it would be reasonable to assume the same thing with these new standard type battleships, given the fact that they are still essentially standard type battleships, which are big, lumbering gun platforms, the number will have to be even higher than the values that we already have for the standard types, perhaps even higher than the benchmark torpedo defenses, i.e the Yamato-class and the Kremlin. 

One last thing we don't know is what the Damage Control Party is going to look like. Will it be USN Standard, perhaps, perhaps not. My guess is that it's going to be an improved version, though what it will look like is anyone's guess.  If I had to put some numbers down, I'd say a 25 second action time and a roughly 90 second cool-down. 


ARMAMENTS

What we know so far

  • Massive AP alpha strikes from each of these ships.
  • Long reload times on primary armaments
  • Slow shell arcs
  • Extreme firing range
  • Main Battery Accuracy is similar to Massachusetts.
  • Relatively quick turret traverse
  • Light secondary armaments
  • Tier VIII uses 406mm/45 Mk.5 guns, Tier IX uses 406mm/50 Mk.7 guns, and Tier X uses 457mm/48 Mark 1/ Mark A guns.

What we don't know

  • Vertical Dispersion curve
  • Accuracy and RoF parameters of secondary armaments
  • Whether the armament parameters will be tweaked or not

My Speculations

  • Reload could be chopped down to around 34-37 seconds during testing
  • Secondaries could have a similar dispersion curve to Massachusetts without the range or rate of fire.
  • Vertical Dispersion could be extremely good at longer ranges, similar to normal USN Battleships

The gunnery of these ships takes the example set by the USN Battleships to the extreme: heavy broadsides with relatively good accuracy, though balanced by a sluggish reload.

The main battery firepower on a per-tier basis beggars belief in terms of raw striking power. Even Amagi cannot compare with the sheer broadside firepower that the Kansas can bring to the table, as it boasts 148,800 damage for it's Alpha strike, a number that outstrips even Tier IX ships and compares favorably against Tier X ships. The Tier IX, the Minnesota, packs the same amount of firepower as the Montana and the Grosser Kurfurst equipped with 420mm guns, with a 162,000 damage alpha strike, which comfortably puts the Musashi in it's place. And with the Tier X, the Vermont, there isn't even any competition. With a 189,000 damage Alpha strike, it outpaces the Montana by 27,000 damage, or, to put it in simple terms, a well roasted Nurnberg. Suck on that, Russia! 

Of course, there are issues. For starters, given the Sigma and dispersion parameters we have to work with, the gunnery is going to look something like the gunnery on the Massachusetts, though with even heavier broadside firepower, thanks to an increased number of shells flying through the air. However, as we have seen with ships like the Grosser Kurfurst and the Lyon, shell volume does not necessarily make up for wonky dispersion. ( If it does with these ships, I sincerely hope the person who receives that 12-shell delivery has Trauma Insurance on hand, because those AP damage numbers are NOT messing around. )

Another thing to consider is the long shell flight time. These are American Piercing shells, which means that, despite the fact they hit like a Union Pacific freight train loaded with high explosive, the shells take a long time to come down on their target. That, however, leads to a point of speculation. If these are American Piercing numbers that we are seeing, and not some fantasy numbers generated by the Balance Department, then these guns are going to have a very low vertical dispersion pattern, similar to the North Carolina or either of the SoDaks. So yeah, trauma insurance...

Then, there's the reload. 40 seconds is a long time. In fact, that's about how long I take to use the throne in the morning. Of course, when you're dealing with massive damage numbers like this, you gotta balance it somehow. Keep in mind, however, that these numbers are just the preliminary statistic, and it is possible that the reload could be cut down. By how much is, again, anyone's guess. If I had to take a stab at it, I would say down to around 35 or 36 seconds, around the same amount of time as the lower-tier standards.

Another point of contention is the secondary armament. The low barrel count, especially compared to other warships, is a bit of a sticking point when it comes to destroyers. Dealing with DDs in a battleship is always a nightmare, unless you happen to be a German battleship not named Tirpitz. This is even worse for these new USN battleships, as they have no real way of actually dealing with DDs as far as we are concerned, short of Halsey's improved Expert Loader skill. However, there may be some silver lining in this. Since we do not know what accuracy parameters these secnondary guns have, it could stand to be reasoned that the secondary armament may receive some slight buff to deal with DDs, whether it be in rate of fire, range, or accuracy. Who knows, maybe all three.


Welp, that's all I got for you folks today. I apologize for the briefness of this article, as I had not really planned to do anything on Sunday ( though given that this is a new line release, it's rather important )

On another note, I will be offline and unavailable for questioning or comments from tomorrow until the 14th of July, due to contention with online coursework. Until then, I'll catch you guys later.

Also, @Hapa_Fodder, @Kalvothe, @Gneisenau013, @ITZ_ACE_BABY, @DolphinPrincess, @Ensign_Cthulhu, @Lert, @LittleWhiteMouse, I'm curious about your thoughts.

-Shrayes

Edited by Shrayes_Bhagavatula
Grammar, REEEEEEEEEE!!!1!!!!11!. Also, 16"/45 Mk.5, not 50 cal rifles.
  • Cool 11
  • Boring 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32,442
[HINON]
Alpha Tester
24,093 posts
18,935 battles

My thoughts?

  1. They haven't even gone into testing yet and people are crying about the numbers like they're finalized.
  2. People say they're too slow and the reload is too long, they just want more of the same, more of what's already there
  3. I'm actually looking forward to these

In short, people whine too much. They say they want something new, but they don't. What they want is a repeat of what's already there. More of the same. Know what? The ships they want are already in the game, go play those.

  • Cool 20
  • Boring 7
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
590
[SVF]
Members
1,709 posts
2,254 battles
8 minutes ago, Lert said:

They haven't even gone into testing yet and people are crying about the numbers like they're finalized.

It's likely because a fair amount of the playerbase has no faith/confidence in the competence of WG's balancing team. 

  • Cool 12
  • Thanks 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32,442
[HINON]
Alpha Tester
24,093 posts
18,935 battles
Just now, landcollector said:

It's likely because a fair amount of the playerbase has no faith/confidence in the competence of WG's balancing team. 

People have been crying about this for as long as the game has existed. It's even funnier when they whine and cry and bawl about a ship being nerfed into uselessness and why would you ever drive this over its Russian counterpart, then it comes out and everyone raves about how good a ship it is and how it's much better like the Russian counterpart. Like with Alaska.

Bunch of crybabies all of them.

  • Cool 8
  • Thanks 1
  • Boring 4
  • Meh 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
702
[SOV]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
1,868 posts
8,476 battles

I'm in the "eyebrow raised" column on these ships. No matter how they turn out, I will pick up the line and play it because 'Murica. That said, it's a rather radical departure from the speedy botes they've been cranking out lately, and certainly from any current battleship line. It's really hard to wrap one's head around very slow speeds, very long reloads and a gargantuan size. I'm one of the few who enjoyed the Colorado, so I'm sure I can make it work no matter how they end up. 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Banned
627 posts
3 minutes ago, Lert said:

People have been crying about this for as long as the game has existed. It's even funnier when they whine and cry and bawl about a ship being nerfed into uselessness and why would you ever drive this over its Russian counterpart, then it comes out and everyone raves about how good a ship it is and how it's much better like the Russian counterpart. Like with Alaska.

Bunch of crybabies all of them.

Well, that and Wargaming's latest drunk decision making. It's a cumulative effect Lert. I mean you are completely correct here, but the other guy does have a point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,316
[WOOK3]
Members
4,213 posts
3,235 battles

Still early to get worked up. I know this. They will change before they go live.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,747
[KWF]
Members
4,363 posts
6,405 battles

Who knows at that point, by that time tomorrow the new ships could get improved autobounce angles, Speed Boost, Mass secondaries and Thunderer accuracy. Long way to go.

That said, my main gripe as is, are the gun angles, and with that much clutter they don't look good. Having a large number of barrels means nothing if you can't fire them effectively without minimizing your exposed broadside.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
696
[UFFA]
Members
2,095 posts
75 battles
8 minutes ago, Neko_Ship_Akashi said:

Well, that and Wargaming's latest drunk decision making. It's a cumulative effect Lert. I mean you are completely correct here, but the other guy does have a point.

He’s generally quick on the trigger to attack anyone who questions the integrity of Lesta. Like eyebrow raising questionably quick. Nor would this be the first time Lesta kicked something out relatively unchanged from original form despite general dissatisfaction. If that is indeed what happens. 
 

Low speed and low armor is a weird combo. Hopefully it means just extremity armor and they have good internal armor profile. 

  • Cool 5
  • Thanks 1
  • Boring 2
  • Meh 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
787
[IND8]
[IND8]
Members
919 posts
10,127 battles

It's not the numbers I am pissed about, it's the laziness. The Golden age of battleships was at tiers 5-7, and this tech tree split is ignoring that era in the sense that they are inserting battleships that should have been appearing that low, but like Yamato, were just too offensively potent to put that low. In doing so they are ignoring ships that were real and have been requested for a long time at those 5-7 tiers, especially Nevada which probably should have been in the tech tree from day 1. I admit that California does nullify the viability of Tennessee in the tech tree, but Pennsylvania saw upgrades that premium Arizona never did and could easily fit this line quite well. A friend of my clan made the comment that this feels like they had planned on bringing the Italians instead, but realized after the past clan battle season that a battleship version of Venicia was a terrible idea, so they decided to drop in a half [edited]unfinished line concept as a filler. If they could give us a little more meat in the middle tiers, I personally would have been okay with this. Conventional gaming wisdom states there are three types of gamers: The power gamer, the innovator, and the hey look at my big shiny thing. That last group is deceptively hard to please, because it splits into two separate sub groups in this game: The Historical geeks, and they big ship lovers. While this line appeals to the sub group of big shiny ship lovers, the historical, the power gamers, and even most of the innovators want nothing to do with them, because they greatly do not live up to their expectations. The fact is this group of ships, as presented, just have far too narrow of an appeal factor. Realistically, there is no way to make these appeal to a power gamer with that low speed unless an innovator proves they can break it first. To make it appeal to an innovator, something has to be done to make these ships insane enough to warrant being outraced by snails. To appeal to Historical buffs, two more ships, at least one of which was actually finished, need to be added to the bottom end of the line, splitting off mush earlier than it currently breaks off.  If it were me, I would move the Colorado to the new line, put a lexington class battlecruiser in the line to replace it, and add Nevada 1944 at tier 6 in the new line, then make these tier 8-10 ships as tanky as the Germans. That would probably be enough to greatly increase the appeal of this line to many different people and generate a lot more positive hype for the product.

Edited by Shannon_Lindsey
  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
696
[UFFA]
Members
2,095 posts
75 battles

Kansas kind of has New Jersey’s original bridge vibe that I like. But then Minnesota goes and has its own armored conning tower/bridge evolution that is different from the NC/SD/Iowa family heritage. Imoo. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
548
[UN1]
Members
1,210 posts
3,638 battles

They are definitely a mish-mash of various designs with differing parts, but I'm excited. It's like Wargaming looked at a shelf and said, "I want that, and that, and that, but not that," and boom we got American battleship souffle. 

They look gorgeous though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
530
Members
558 posts
5,048 battles

While I appreciate that some people want something "new", I think this concept is trash. You know these are never leaving spawn - just the type of BB that everyone loves. 

 

Untitled2.png

  • Haha 7
  • Boring 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Banned
627 posts
30 minutes ago, Sparviero said:

He’s generally quick on the trigger to attack anyone who questions the integrity of Lesta. Like eyebrow raising questionably quick. Nor would this be the first time Lesta kicked something out relatively unchanged from original form despite general dissatisfaction. If that is indeed what happens. 
 

Low speed and low armor is a weird combo. Hopefully it means just extremity armor and they have good internal armor profile. 

Lert is no Wargaming white knight, don't accuse him otherwise. Lert just dosen't like people whining about things that were literally just shown yesterday. 

  • Cool 3
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,832
[GWG]
[GWG]
Supertester
26,411 posts
14,163 battles

To echo @Shrayes_Bhagavatula & @Lert, it is far to early to panic over the stats which will be in flux for some time. I don't care for the play in the upper tiers but I am looking forward to testing them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32,442
[HINON]
Alpha Tester
24,093 posts
18,935 battles
2 minutes ago, Neko_Ship_Akashi said:

Lert is no Wargaming white knight, don't accuse him otherwise.

Meh, I know who's saying those things.

2 minutes ago, Neko_Ship_Akashi said:

Lert just dosen't like people whining about things that were literally just shown yesterday. 

^

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,174
[HINON]
[HINON]
Members
7,897 posts
11,584 battles

2 things im hoping for, 1.) they buff up the speed juuuuuust a bit, like to 25 knots, that way they arent left behind as quick, and 2.) bringing the reload down a tad, like maybe 2 or 3 seconds

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
281
[XXX]
Members
520 posts
923 battles

You know what...just started on the New Mexico because...even if they're trash...I want to give them a go, see what they're like. The Musashi has equally bad Sigma and is workable with only 9 guns. Yes they're 460mm not 457mm but hey on my EU account she works just fine. Secondly I am hopeful that, like tcbaker77 says, they'll buff the speed to 25 knots (it's workable, not great but workable) and add in the USA trait of not bleeding speed in turns. Plus I'm hoping they'll drop the reload to 38 seconds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,614
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
15,711 posts

From what we've seen... they're going to have to change a lot to be worth bothering with. 

Plus they just seem like a hodgepodge.  Just because it's different doesn't mean it's the right different. 

(Never mind that "it's too soon to complain" is just half of the catch 22, the other half of which is "it's too late to change anything.)

 

Edited by KilljoyCutter
  • Cool 2
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
362
[-ARM-]
Beta Testers
997 posts
10,834 battles

I personally am not upset over these ships, or their stats. I'm just upset over the fact that we haven't gotten Tillman IV-2 as the tier X.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
894 posts
3,445 battles
3 minutes ago, Yandere_Roon said:

You know what...just started on the New Mexico because...even if they're trash...I want to give them a go, see what they're like. The Musashi has equally bad Sigma and is workable with only 9 guns. Yes they're 460mm not 457mm but hey on my EU account she works just fine. Secondly I am hopeful that, like tcbaker77 says, they'll buff the speed to 25 knots (it's workable, not great but workable) and add in the USA trait of not bleeding speed in turns. Plus I'm hoping they'll drop the reload to 38 seconds.

Going to put a captain back on Colorado and run up some XP in Narai and daily bonus. The Tier VIII should at least be okay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
702
[SOV]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
1,868 posts
8,476 battles

What if they gave them reload and speed boost? :Smile_hiding:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,614
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
15,711 posts
2 minutes ago, sulghunter331 said:

I personally am not upset over these ships, or their stats. I'm just upset over the fact that we haven't gotten Tillman IV-2 as the tier X.

Or better yet, keep the damn Tillmans out entirely, they were an exercise in politics, not a serious design.

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
144
[WOLF9]
Members
648 posts
18,812 battles

Well, I have all the other BB tech trees done, so these ships will be in my fleet.  I will play them some, because I play all my techies some (depending on the mission / need).  

I am assuming that there will be one month of early access and then one month of grinding, just like the Russian CAs.  That gives me time to rebuy the Colorado and get use to rowboats passing me by (again).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,684
[INTEL]
Members
13,042 posts
35,988 battles

 I'm looking forward to them. I expect with some intelligent positioning they'll be a lot of fun to play and very powerful. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×