Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
Admiral_Thrawn_1

Should Kitakami Be a CL or DD?

58 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

3,497
[RKLES]
Members
12,551 posts
14,267 battles

Given the fact Kitakami will be the Kuma hull at tier X, and torpedoes aside the guns will be on par or even less than X DDs, the same can be said about AA. For that matter pretty much everything about the ship is a DD. I was wanting to propose for everyone’s consideration the idea of making Kitakami a DD and removing the citadel from it. The thing is going to be easily sunk with the weak armor, AA, and gun armament without adding a very high citadel on top of everything else.

While historically the Kitakami and Kuma were small CLs, they were meant to serve in IJN DD squadrons. So really it’s not all that far fetched to call them DDs in game. Or we could set a new precedent in WOWs by having it be the only CL without a citadel but one way or the other that citadel needs to be dealt with. And before a few BB players that want to citadel Kitakami object to this idea, consider that by getting it reclassified as a DD will mean that it will have the DD soft limit applied to it. Meaning that instead of essentially having extra DDs in battles via the  Kitakami, you will instead see it’s numbers and the amount of torpedoes in a battle semi restrained.

  • Funny 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32,619
[HINON]
Alpha Tester
24,185 posts
19,044 battles

CL speed, CL size, CL concealment, CL handling.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,189
[SIMP]
Members
1,522 posts

Its a CL.

Regardless of 'game' considerations. Otherwise you start on a slippery slope... What's next? A Yamato DD because Wee Gee found sekrit soviet dokuments saying there was a Russian captured one that they took the main guns off and loaded up with nothing but torps.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,763
[SALVO]
Members
2,026 posts
6,200 battles

CL so that it can be citadelled

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,129
Members
6,860 posts
15,357 battles
16 minutes ago, Admiral_Thrawn_1 said:

Given the fact Kitakami will be the Kuma hull at tier X, and torpedoes aside the guns will be on par or even less than X DDs, the same can be said about AA. For that matter pretty much everything about the ship is a DD. I was wanting to propose for everyone’s consideration the idea of making Kitakami a DD and removing the citadel from it. The thing is going to be easily sunk with the weak armor, AA, and gun armament without adding a very high citadel on top of everything else.

While historically the Kitakami and Kuma were small CLs, they were meant to serve in IJN DD squadrons. So really it’s not all that far fetched to call them DDs in game. Or we could set a new precedent in WOWs by having it be the only CL without a citadel but one way or the other that citadel needs to be dealt with. And before a few BB players that want to citadel Kitakami object to this idea, consider that by getting it reclassified as a DD will mean that it will have the DD soft limit applied to it. Meaning that instead of essentially having extra DDs in battles via the  Kitakami, you will instead see it’s numbers and the amount of torpedoes in a battle semi restrained.

Imagine wanting these things to be hard to kill. 

Imagine that this thing will be the smolensk of torps. It will be hated more than smolensk. Not only will there be 3 man divs with it chucking 120 torps on a flank keeping bbs and cruisers further back and further tucked being islands, dds will refuse to cap open caps and it will also be killing your team mates all the while when the majority of the player base gets it, they won't be able to leverage it like skilled players and get killed way too easy. 

This ship will be awful for the game. 

Edited by Ducky_shot
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Banned
627 posts
18 minutes ago, Admiral_Thrawn_1 said:

Given the fact Kitakami will be the Kuma hull at tier X, and torpedoes aside the guns will be on par or even less than X DDs, the same can be said about AA. For that matter pretty much everything about the ship is a DD. I was wanting to propose for everyone’s consideration the idea of making Kitakami a DD and removing the citadel from it. The thing is going to be easily sunk with the weak armor, AA, and gun armament without adding a very high citadel on top of everything else.

While historically the Kitakami and Kuma were small CLs, they were meant to serve in IJN DD squadrons. So really it’s not all that far fetched to call them DDs in game. Or we could set a new precedent in WOWs by having it be the only CL without a citadel but one way or the other that citadel needs to be dealt with. And before a few BB players that want to citadel Kitakami object to this idea, consider that by getting it reclassified as a DD will mean that it will have the DD soft limit applied to it. Meaning that instead of essentially having extra DDs in battles via the  Kitakami, you will instead see it’s numbers and the amount of torpedoes in a battle semi restrained.

Kitakami was a cruiser before her conversion, as such she should remain a CL, her designation wasn't changed after her conversion to BDD, it was changed to CLT. She is still an old light cruiser and should be treated as such. No amount of tangential reasoning changes the fact she is a light cruiser.

Edited by Neko_Ship_Akashi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,497
[RKLES]
Members
12,551 posts
14,267 battles
3 minutes ago, eviltane said:

CL so that it can be citadelled

Lol then you will have to face battles where you BB faces 3-6 Shimakaze, 3+ Kitakami, and maybe some submarines. Do you really want to have that happen? Because you know it will happen just like this often enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Banned
627 posts
19 minutes ago, Admiral_Thrawn_1 said:

While historically the Kitakami and Kuma were small CLs, they were meant to serve in IJN DD squadrons. So really it’s not all that far fetched to call them DDs in game. 

By that logic Haidia should be a CL as well, and every single IJN CL should be called DDs. This line of reasoning makes absolutely no sense. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Banned
627 posts
5 minutes ago, Admiral_Thrawn_1 said:

Lol then you will have to face battles where you BB faces 3-6 Shimakaze, 3+ Kitakami, and maybe some submarines. Do you really want to have that happen? Because you know it will happen just like this often enough.

So what? I've been in a Yamato with 6 Shimas on the enemy team with a few Gearings for extra troll. Survived the match and blapped 4 DDs. You're way to pessimistic here and have a way overinflated opinion about the Kitakami. 

Edited by Neko_Ship_Akashi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
124
[ASRN]
Beta Testers
662 posts
6,278 battles

The Kuma-class started out at 5500 tons and then later exceeded 7000 tons full-load displacement.  (from The Imperial Japanese Navy In the Pacific War, pg 201-202, Mark E. Stille)  And that was before Kitakami was converted into a torpedo cruiser.

Specs:

5100 tons standard, 7094 tons full load

length 532 ft, beam 46.5 ft., draft 29ft  (pg 204) 

 That would be one massive DD.

Edited by Ann_Darrow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,772
[KWF]
Members
4,387 posts
6,405 battles

Personally Kitakami should be a far off memory of early game shenanigans instead of a real possibility...

Edited by warheart1992
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,846
[GWG]
[GWG]
Supertester
26,433 posts
14,165 battles
23 minutes ago, Admiral_Thrawn_1 said:

While historically the Kitakami and Kuma were small CLs, they were meant to serve in IJN DD squadrons. So really it’s not all that far fetched to call them DDs in game. Or we could set a new precedent in WOWs by having it be the only CL without a citadel but one way or the other that citadel needs to be dealt with. And before a few BB players that want to citadel Kitakami object to this idea, consider that by getting it reclassified as a DD will mean that it will have the DD soft limit applied to it. Meaning that instead of essentially having extra DDs in battles via the  Kitakami, you will instead see it’s numbers and the amount of torpedoes in a battle semi restrained.

They were simply CL's until later in life when the IJN gave them the DL job.

2 minutes ago, Neko_Ship_Akashi said:

By that logic Haidia should be a CL as well, and every single IJN CL should be called DDs. This line of reasoning makes absolutely no sense. 

The Japanese used older CL's as their DL's because of the small size of most of their DD's which limited them on how much radio gear they could carry where the CL's didn't have that limitation. The US because of its much larger DD's didn't have to use CL's although they would.

2 minutes ago, Ann_Darrow said:

The Kuma-class started out at 5500 tons and then later exceeded 7000 tons full-load displacement.  (from The Imperial Japanese Navy In the Pacific War, pg 201-202, Mark E. Stille)  And that was before Kitakami was converted into a torpedo cruiser.

Specs:

5100 tons standard, 7094 tons full load

length 532 ft, beam 46.5 ft., draft 29ft  (pg 204) 

 That would be one massive DD.

But small by modern standards. I foresee a Smolensk like ability to shrug off AP because of the extreme number of over penetrations.

1 minute ago, warheart1992 said:

Personally Kitakamj should be a far off memory of early game shenanigans instead of a real possibility...

I agree but like with subs someone at WG changed their mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,953
[TBW]
Members
10,291 posts
17,484 battles

Kitikami in the Research Bureau, I'll start saving now and get it in 4 seasons. Yes, it's true, it sounds like Research bait to me.

Edited by Sovereigndawg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,190
[HINON]
[HINON]
Members
7,934 posts
11,605 battles

what it should be is out of the game where it belongs, itll only cause trouble as long as team damage is a thing that can happen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,892
[SYN]
Members
15,862 posts
12,803 battles
23 minutes ago, capncrunch21 said:

Its a CL.

Regardless of 'game' considerations. Otherwise you start on a slippery slope... What's next? A Yamato DD because Wee Gee found sekrit soviet dokuments saying there was a Russian captured one that they took the main guns off and loaded up with nothing but torps.

Sorry, but that argument went out the window with Khab, Okhotnik and the in testing Emilio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
124
[ASRN]
Beta Testers
662 posts
6,278 battles
4 minutes ago, BrushWolf said:

They were simply CL's until later in life when the IJN gave them the DL job.

The Japanese used older CL's as their DL's because of the small size of most of their DD's which limited them on how much radio gear they could carry where the CL's didn't have that limitation. The US because of its much larger DD's didn't have to use CL's although they would.

But small by modern standards. I foresee a Smolensk like ability to shrug off AP because of the extreme number of over penetrations.

I agree but like with subs someone at WG changed their mind.

An Arleigh Burke is massive compared to this thing, definitely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,594
[-BUI-]
Members
2,034 posts
5,697 battles

CL, but I do think it should get closer to DD levels of concealment, like 8.5 KM base.   The current concealment just seems too high for the ship to get into effective ranges without it getting blapped from being spotted so early.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
990
[RKLES]
Members
808 posts

This thing will be available if you fork over enough $. If they release it it shows a lot of desperation.

This thing will be very very bad for the game.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,928
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
14,128 posts
19,226 battles
23 minutes ago, Lert said:

CL speed, CL size, CL concealment, CL handling.

and, with a 140 mm main battery, CL guns!

24 minutes ago, eviltane said:

CL so that it can be citadelled

combined with paper thin armor fore and aft, so it can't! (just overpenned!)

21 minutes ago, Ducky_shot said:

It will be hated more than smolensk. This ship will be awful for the game. 

This is truth! (let the salt flow begin, spurred on by the tears of the recently team-killed!)

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Banned
627 posts
15 minutes ago, BrushWolf said:

The Japanese used older CL's as their DL's because of the small size of most of their DD's which limited them on how much radio gear they could carry where the CL's didn't have that limitation. The US because of its much larger DD's didn't have to use CL's although they would.

I know the reasoning, I was responding to his silly idea that the conversion somehow made them large DDs and not just simply Torpedo Cruisers (as they were designated).

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,846
[GWG]
[GWG]
Supertester
26,433 posts
14,165 battles
5 minutes ago, Umikami said:

and, with a 140 mm main battery, CL guns!

combined with paper thin armor fore and aft, so it can't! (just overpenned!)

DD class guns should citadel like crazy and maybe even 6" CL guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,640
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
8,666 posts
14,778 battles

From a balance perspective it might be needed. I'm honestly not sure if she looks good or bad at the moment, because overall she looks insanely asymmetric. 

Destroyer Leader I think is used as something of a misnomer. I see it as a role rather than a class for the most part, with exceptions for some slightly larger but still very destroyer-ish destroyers such as the British 5-gun interest standards or some US classes. The Treaty loophole for 1850t 'leaders' used to build ships like the Tribals didn't really generate leaders. The larger cruiser like 'destroyer 'leaders' are just cruisers doing a job. The British had C class cruisers acting as both destroyer flotilla leaders and as cruisers at the same time, that didn't make half of them a different type of ship. 

Given Khabarovsk and Paolo Emilio have armor, I wouldn't say that her having it discounts her from being a destroyer, though at 5,500t standard or more she is a step up above them again on size. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,846
[GWG]
[GWG]
Supertester
26,433 posts
14,165 battles
5 minutes ago, mofton said:

From a balance perspective it might be needed. I'm honestly not sure if she looks good or bad at the moment, because overall she looks insanely asymmetric. 

Destroyer Leader I think is used as something of a misnomer. I see it as a role rather than a class for the most part, with exceptions for some slightly larger but still very destroyer-ish destroyers such as the British 5-gun interest standards or some US classes. The Treaty loophole for 1850t 'leaders' used to build ships like the Tribals didn't really generate leaders. The larger cruiser like 'destroyer 'leaders' are just cruisers doing a job. The British had C class cruisers acting as both destroyer flotilla leaders and as cruisers at the same time, that didn't make half of them a different type of ship. 

Given Khabarovsk and Paolo Emilio have armor, I wouldn't say that her having it discounts her from being a destroyer, though at 5,500t standard or more she is a step up above them again on size. 

Correct, DL was a role and not a class and the ship retained it's original class.

Edited by BrushWolf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,535
[SYN]
Members
8,236 posts
13,957 battles

Even as a CL it's rediculous, making it a DD would be completely absurd. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×