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

ST 0.9.10, Italian Battleships

84 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

181
[WOLFO]
Members
590 posts
5,485 battles

Are the ballistic characteristics of the ITN BB's similar to the cruisers? I see it says they are not highly accurate at range.... just curious, one of the best features of the ITN cruisers is the fluid beautiful silky smooth report and dynamics... mmmm <3 :cap_fainting:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
272
Members
359 posts
4,319 battles

@Hapa_Fodder Might I ask why the Italian battleship line seems to have been researched so poorly? The Italians had a T3 battleship that could've been done (Cuniberti's initial idea crossed with the design for the Regina Elena), as well as plans for battleships beyond the Vittorio Veneto which proposed upgunning to 406mm guns instead of keeping 381mm. This is the second line where the Italian ships have been poorly researched and the Italian design progression been disregarded for monstrosities that the Regia Marina would've never built. The T10 is yet another design trainwreck like the Venezia is, the RM thought that instead of having larger numbers of a gun type that it'd be better to increase gun caliber as that made more sense for gun control for example. Can we please get some proper research done on Italian ships? There's plenty of people in the community that actually have conducted research on this and there seems to be unanimous agreement that both this line and the cruiser one have been terribly researched at the top tiers (T10 for CAs and T9-10 for BBs).

Here's how the T3 could've looked like: 

@Phoenix_jz @SparvieroVV Are some of those who could've aided you.

Edited by Fr05ty
  • Cool 6
  • Thanks 3
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,107 posts
4,792 battles
9 minutes ago, Fr05ty said:

@Hapa_Fodder Might I ask why the Italian battleship line seems to have been researched so poorly? The Italians had a T3 battleship that could've been done (Cuniberti's initial idea crossed with the design for the Regina Elena), as well as plans for battleships beyond the Vittorio Veneto which proposed upgunning to 406mm guns instead of keeping 381mm. This is the second line where the Italian ships have been poorly researched and the Italian design progression been disregarded for monstrosities that the Regia Marina would've never built. The T10 is yet another design trainwreck like the Venezia is, the RM thought that instead of having larger numbers of a gun type that it'd be better to increase gun caliber as that made more sense for gun control for example. Can we please get some proper research done on Italian ships? There's plenty of people in the community that actually have conducted research on this and there seems to be unanimous agreement that both this line and the cruiser one have been terribly researched at the top tiers (T10 for CAs and T9-10 for BBs).

@Phoenix_jz @SparvieroVV Are some of those who could've aided you.

Aaaand he's mad. Called it

-Shrayes

  • Confused 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,622
[KWF]
Members
5,201 posts
6,659 battles

Why stick to just Roma for trollish accuracy? Better have a whole tech tree based on it. 

These ships will end up rollercoasters I reckon; capable of the absolute worst and best performance depending on how much RNG likes you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,613
[WOLF5]
Supertester
4,571 posts
4,223 battles

Colombo has 381mm guns at T10 with 1.6 sigma and someone thought a 38sec reload was a good idea? I'll withhold judgment until we see gameplay, but I really don't see how that works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
97 posts
7,202 battles

Other than the beauty of the models themselves I remain unimpressed. 

That Sigma and reload? Accurate and/or fast secondaries dont mean much when they're small and/or short ranged. 

I look forward to seeing how they develop though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
104 posts
7,366 battles

Where is the tier 3 one? And why is the Dante in a fictional refit? Just put the historical Dante at tier 3 if you can't make up a better alternative.

We already have enough fantasy refits and made up ships on high tiers, can you at least keep the lower tiers safe from that?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
104 posts
7,366 battles
45 minutes ago, Fr05ty said:

@Hapa_Fodder Might I ask why the Italian battleship line seems to have been researched so poorly? The Italians had a T3 battleship that could've been done (Cuniberti's initial idea crossed with the design for the Regina Elena), as well as plans for battleships beyond the Vittorio Veneto which proposed upgunning to 406mm guns instead of keeping 381mm. This is the second line where the Italian ships have been poorly researched and the Italian design progression been disregarded for monstrosities that the Regia Marina would've never built. The T10 is yet another design trainwreck like the Venezia is, the RM thought that instead of having larger numbers of a gun type that it'd be better to increase gun caliber as that made more sense for gun control for example. Can we please get some proper research done on Italian ships? There's plenty of people in the community that actually have conducted research on this and there seems to be unanimous agreement that both this line and the cruiser one have been terribly researched at the top tiers (T10 for CAs and T9-10 for BBs).

Here's how the T3 could've looked like: 

@Phoenix_jz @SparvieroVV Are some of those who could've aided you.

Have any info on the abominations they used for the higher tiers here?

And I guess the cruiser line is also poorly researched on T9, since they had to scale up a different design to fit the guns they wanted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
272
Members
359 posts
4,319 battles
1 minute ago, Ortheki said:

Have any info on the abominations they used for the higher tiers here?

And I guess the cruiser line is also poorly researched on T9, since they had to scale up a different design to fit the guns they wanted.

They explained on Discord what the design process was for the T10:

 

"The main prototype is Vittorio Veneto, also some elements from UP41 were used. Our project is possible variation of evolution of Italian BBs, which, in reality, stopped on Vittorio Veneto battleship-type.

We've increased a number of turrets and guns, number of secondaries turrets, changed dual-purpose single-gun mounts for double-barreled. The hull was based on Veneto's hull."

 

Copied verbatim from their reply on Discord. So yea, they didn't even bother with proper research as there were designs after Vittorio Veneto for an Oceanic Battleship as part of the plan to turn Regia Marina into an Oceanic fleet.

 

Regarding the T9 cruiser, at least it had a basis on something that existed, as it was an enlarged Ansaldo for Spain design (it originally was meant to mount 4x3 152mm, they just upgunned it to 4x3 203mm). For the battleships, they didn't bother with doing research, as their assertion that Italian battleships development stopped on Vittorio Veneto is contradicted by historical sources. They really just decided not to research anything for this line and went with "I'm going to just make up ships with no basis on what the Italian Navy would've done", just like with the Venezia.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
552
[TIMT]
Members
1,105 posts
4,457 battles

Anyone paid attention to the insane SAP values?

SAP outperforms AP in raw damage, and the penetration is pretty high too. Here are the values for T6:

Quote

Main battery - 2x3, 2x2 320 mm. Firing range - 17.2 km. Maximum AP shell damage - 9,700. AP initial velocity - 830 m/s. Maximum SAP shell damage - 10,250. SAP initial velocity - 830 m/s. Penetration of SAP shell - 82 mm. Reload time - 30.0 s. 180 degree turn time - 36.0 s. Maximum dispersion - 235 m. Sigma – 1.60.

This just eats any cruiser alive, be it T6 or T8. except for maybe the citadel/main belt nothing on these can withstand that. At T7 you already have this:

Quote

Main battery - 4x2 381 mm. Firing range - 17.0 km. Maximum AP shell damage - 12,000. AP initial velocity - 850 m/s. Maximum SAP shell damage - 14,050. SAP initial velocity - 880 m/s. Penetration of SAP shell - 96 mm. Reload time - 28.0 s. 180 degree turn time - 30.0 s.

I know this is all still in testing and subject to change but those initial values look like a nightmare to balance and might turn these BBs in the SAP equivalent of HE spamming BBs.

Not saying I don't like the idea of ITA BBs with different ammo and smoke, but balancing will be required.

  • Cool 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,041
[PISD]
Members
1,658 posts
5,832 battles

Instead of fuel smoke, Italian BB should have the real trademark of Italy:

 

 

 

 

a consumable to change side when your team is loosing.

  • Funny 7
  • Haha 2
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
729 posts
10,104 battles
1 hour ago, AJTP89 said:

Colombo has 381mm guns at T10 with 1.6 sigma and someone thought a 38sec reload was a good idea? I'll withhold judgment until we see gameplay, but I really don't see how that works.

They can't exactly get 16 guns with no downside. 381 mm caliber is less of a weakness for them than other BBs, since SAP compensates for the lack of overmatch (70-80 degree pen angles) and alpha damage (14050 is more alpha damage than GK or Montana).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
608
[GRAVE]
Members
1,408 posts
19,840 battles

So after 5 years, Italian BBS are finally announced. However, some concerns/observations:

1: why are we not being Dante, Conti, or Lepanto? Are they not ready yet or what?

2: No T3?

3: It appears FR BB dispersion on 1.6sigma, which might make Francesco even Trollier than Gnesieau
 

4: the new Marksman skill in the skill rework might be extremely good in these ships.

5: How accurate is accurate in terms of secondaries? If Zeppelin accurate, then they’ll be short range firecrackers that won’t pen anything

6: SAP on BBs will be nuts at T6 and 7, and damn good at T8-10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
44 posts
16,904 battles
59 minutes ago, Fr05ty said:

They explained on Discord what the design process was for the T10:

 

"The main prototype is Vittorio Veneto, also some elements from UP41 were used. Our project is possible variation of evolution of Italian BBs, which, in reality, stopped on Vittorio Veneto battleship-type.

We've increased a number of turrets and guns, number of secondaries turrets, changed dual-purpose single-gun mounts for double-barreled. The hull was based on Veneto's hull."

 

Copied verbatim from their reply on Discord. So yea, they didn't even bother with proper research as there were designs after Vittorio Veneto for an Oceanic Battleship as part of the plan to turn Regia Marina into an Oceanic fleet.

 

Regarding the T9 cruiser, at least it had a basis on something that existed, as it was an enlarged Ansaldo for Spain design (it originally was meant to mount 4x3 152mm, they just upgunned it to 4x3 203mm). For the battleships, they didn't bother with doing research, as their assertion that Italian battleships development stopped on Vittorio Veneto is contradicted by historical sources. They really just decided not to research anything for this line and went with "I'm going to just make up ships with no basis on what the Italian Navy would've done", just like with the Venezia.

The laziness doesn't stop there. Just look at Vittorio and compare the model to Roma's in-game model. You'll quickly realise that they couldn't even be bothered to properly model the appropriate superstructure or bow for Vittorio.

Edited by The_Communist_Tsar
  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
560
[VVV]
Members
2,762 posts

With as long as it's taken for Italian BBs to be introduced (and the likes of Soviet BBs and all-paper German CVs coming first), it's quite disappointing how little effort seems to have been involved. 

No T3 is just lazy, and the fact that WG seems to think Italian BB design ended in the mid-1930s indicates that almost no research was done. Using quad turrets for the T10 is also weird. Certainly can't say that no Italian naval designer ever considered quad turrets, but upgrading to 406mm guns just would've made far more sense. Or even 456mm guns.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
82
[-K-]
[-K-]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
187 posts
9,719 battles

During the stream it was stated that the 10% damage cap for SAP shells of large calibers had been removed when shooting at destroyers.  

Was that confirmed, or a mistake by the dev team?  Prior communications about SAP shells had said large caliber SAP followed battleship AP damage formulas vs destroyers. 

I'm guessing it was just a mistake on the part of the stream? (would be nice to clarify)

  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19
[WSUND]
[WSUND]
Members
40 posts
9,253 battles
1 hour ago, AJTP89 said:

Colombo has 381mm guns at T10 with 1.6 sigma and someone thought a 38sec reload was a good idea? I'll withhold judgment until we see gameplay, but I really don't see how that works.

Add to that it has a 1.3km band of concealment when firing in smoke. The detection range of firing in smoke is 15.1km. It's detection range is 16.4km. Why even bother with smoke at all? At Tiers 7 and 8 the differential is actually WORSE than Tier 10.  :fish_palm:

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,068
[SALVO]
Members
25,807 posts
28,077 battles
2 minutes ago, Big_Blue_Gunner said:

Add to that it has a 1.3km band of concealment when firing in smoke. The detection range of firing in smoke is 15.1km. It's detection range is 16.4km. Why even bother with smoke at all? At Tiers 7 and 8 the differential is actually WORSE than Tier 10.  :fish_palm:

Firing stealthily in smoke is not the end all and be all of smoke.  For exhaust smoke on cruisers and BBs, sometimes it's darned useful for simply reversing course to disengage from an uncomfortable situation.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,484
[HINON]
[HINON]
Members
8,419 posts
12,305 battles
17 minutes ago, Big_Blue_Gunner said:

Add to that it has a 1.3km band of concealment when firing in smoke. The detection range of firing in smoke is 15.1km. It's detection range is 16.4km. Why even bother with smoke at all? At Tiers 7 and 8 the differential is actually WORSE than Tier 10.  :fish_palm:

smoke for BBs isnt for stealth firing, its for going dark when the fecal matter hits the rotary impeller

Edited by tcbaker777

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,107 posts
4,792 battles
2 hours ago, Fr05ty said:

The Italians had a T3 battleship that could've been done (Cuniberti's initial idea crossed with the design for the Regina Elena),

From what I have heard from the Potato King, from what Wargaming has told him, the Tier III is not there because people FXP past Tier III so often that there is no worth in putting it there.

Or that's the TL;DR I have been given, at least. Maybe the Tier III isn't ready yet, who knows

-Shrayes

  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,114
[WOLFC]
Members
2,162 posts
10,522 battles
1 hour ago, The_Communist_Tsar said:

The laziness doesn't stop there. Just look at Vittorio and compare the model to Roma's in-game model. You'll quickly realise that they couldn't even be bothered to properly model the appropriate superstructure or bow for Vittorio.

This isn’t anything new, though. Tech tree ships have never been modeled on a specific ship, but are meant to represent a class as a whole. For example, Kongo is actually modeled on Hiei. It’s not a surprise that they would base the model of the tech tree Vittorio on the most modern member of the class, since it’s meant to represent a Littorio/Vittorio-class battleship, not Vittorio herself.

Edited by Nevermore135

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,800
[1984]
Members
4,456 posts
21,487 battles
15 minutes ago, Shrayes_Bhagavatula said:

From what I have heard from the Potato King, from what Wargaming has told him, the Tier III is not there because people FXP past Tier III so often that there is no worth in putting it there.

Or that's the TL;DR I have been given, at least. Maybe the Tier III isn't ready yet, who knows

-Shrayes

Nobody fxps fast tier 3, wg gives out tier 5 during the release week box giveaways.

who wants to bet all these bbs get he rather than sap after testing? 

If not expect massive nerfs following the first clan battle season to include them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×