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

Idea to give some love to the IJN

10 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

824
[PISD]
Members
1,280 posts
5,274 battles

Give them radar.

 

 

Jokes aside, IJN ships tend to be some of the more power crept (with German's) in the game. Outside of their DD and CV, the BB and Cruisers tend to be lacking for different reasons. For the BB, a lack tankiness, DPM and AA make them sub optimal choice. For Cruisers, a lack of utility, tankiness and AA make them probably one of the worst line at higher tier.  Yet, they are ''close'' to be competitive and wouldn't need a huge push to be in again. And looking at history, there is 2 particularities that Japan had during WWII that could be implemented in the game, even if both were not that effective in reality.

1: San Shiki shell

Probably not a new idea, but it is an easy way to boost their AA a little bit. Give them some kind of special DFAA that, when activated, will throw 30% more flack on the first barrage (with the glorious fire work effect that it should have). Will it make them great AA platform? No. But it will help them get those pesky plane away a little bit. That type of shell was used on almost anything, even if only on sporadic event, and should be given from tier 5 to tier 10 bb and all IJN CA. And for those who says that it was useless, sure it was. But Hood get to have it's rocket so...

 

2: Type 91 armor-piercing shell

Basically, give them shells with longer arming fuse, but that can travel a certain distance underwater. That would open the door for IJN CA and BB to have a edge with AP rounds in some circumstances, especially against underwater citadel or turtle back armor.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,123
[CVA16]
Members
5,391 posts
16,202 battles
5 minutes ago, Y_Nagato said:

2: Type 91 armor-piercing shell

Basically, give them shells with longer arming fuse, but that can travel a certain distance underwater. That would open the door for IJN CA and BB to have a edge with AP rounds in some circumstances, especially against underwater citadel or turtle back armor.

Wouldn't this would require a whole lot of new modelling by WG for how much water slows the shell before striking the belt? Might have another plus if it COULD cause flooding too. It would also have a huge downside in producing a lot more overpens for a slight increase in citadels

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
824
[PISD]
Members
1,280 posts
5,274 battles
1 minute ago, Sabot_100 said:

Wouldn't this would require a whole lot of new modelling by WG for how much water slows the shell before striking the belt? Might have another plus if it COULD cause flooding too. It would also have a huge downside in producing a lot more overpens for a slight increase in citadels

Not really modelling, but to add an other drag coefficient on the shell once it hit the water. Ships already have their full armor designed so it would not change that much in that regard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,123
[CVA16]
Members
5,391 posts
16,202 battles
14 minutes ago, Y_Nagato said:

Not really modelling, but to add an other drag coefficient on the shell once it hit the water

Pretty much what I meant.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,274
[META_]
Members
2,195 posts
7,302 battles
27 minutes ago, Sabot_100 said:

Wouldn't this would require a whole lot of new modelling by WG for how much water slows the shell before striking the belt? Might have another plus if it COULD cause flooding too. It would also have a huge downside in producing a lot more overpens for a slight increase in citadels

if it's slowed down, how could it produce more overpens?  also, with slow moving shells, and overpens, wouldn't the exiting shell be at or near the water line, and causing some flooding?

personally, i think it's a good idea. don't agree with the OP that IJN DDs are ok, they were hurt badly in the first supernerf, and many have not been buffed since (shima 1.8 km torp detect)

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,123
[CVA16]
Members
5,391 posts
16,202 battles
17 minutes ago, Spud_butt said:

it's slowed down, how could it produce more overpens? 

The increased overpens are from when you don't hit the water first. Your BB shell hits the side of a cruiser which has enough side armor to arm the shell but is skinny enough to pass thru before it detonates. (this might have been an IRL problem for the IJN, I remember something about it long ago) The "hitting the water just before the ship" seems a much rarer occurrence than engaging skinny targets. It would also be interesting to see how WG makes these interact with torpedo belts.

Maybe things would balance out and you would end up with more citadels on ships with very low citadels. If it also gave a low chance of flooding when it hit the water first, that would be another bonus.

Edited by Sabot_100

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,274
[META_]
Members
2,195 posts
7,302 battles
1 minute ago, Sabot_100 said:

The increased overpens are from when you don't hit the water first. Your BB shell hits the side of a cruiser which has enough side armor to arm the shell but is skinny enough to pass thru before it detonates. The "hitting the water just before the ship" seems a much rarer occurrence than engaging skinny targets. It would also be interesting to see how WG makes these interact with torpedo belts.

Maybe things would balance out and you would end up with more citadels on ships with very low citadels.

good points!! been getting a staggering amount of overpens lately, and can't image more. that could result in more than ALL overpens for multiple battles.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,123
[CVA16]
Members
5,391 posts
16,202 battles

Not saying it couldn't work. Just that their might be trade-offs and drawbacks.

They might allow short range citadels on ships with very low citadels or turtleback armor for example. Maybe they would be better at penning thru the torpedo bulge. Really depends on what WG decides they can do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53
[JSG]
Members
35 posts
14,401 battles
49 minutes ago, Spud_butt said:

if it's slowed down, how could it produce more overpens?  also, with slow moving shells, and overpens, wouldn't the exiting shell be at or near the water line, and causing some flooding?

personally, i think it's a good idea. don't agree with the OP that IJN DDs are ok, they were hurt badly in the first supernerf, and many have not been buffed since (shima 1.8 km torp detect)

I agree that ijn dds have been power crept but until they give ijn  cruisers radar they are realistically useless as well

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
824
[PISD]
Members
1,280 posts
5,274 battles
4 hours ago, Spud_butt said:

don't agree with the OP that IJN DDs are ok, they were hurt badly in the first supernerf, and many have not been buffed since (shima 1.8 km torp detect)

IJN dd aren’t in such bad spot yet. Sure CV is an issue, but it is for all DD except Pan-European one. Having more AA like a Daring or a Z52 will not help you. Shima retain her god tier concealment and area denial capacity, even if Somers can do the same, while Harugumo is still the king of DPM. 
 

Meanwhile, IJN cruiser are concealment dependent with poor AA. They cannot sneak anymore and disengage like they did before against CV, and as long range fire starter the French and now the Russian CL can challenge them while being either more armored or swifter. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×