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

ST 0.9.10, Tone, Ise, Werner Voss

24 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

831
[KIA-T]
Members
2,237 posts
9,838 battles

phpgooLGg
Please keep this ship how she is, the no-rust look is so clean and pretty.

  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
610
[GRAVE]
Members
1,410 posts
19,878 battles

Is Ise having 360mm guns a typo or something? Because if not, that’s huge because 360 overmatches 25mm plating, 356 does not, allowing OM on T6 and 7 US/German Heavy cruisers, and most T8 cruiser bows 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,045
[IND8]
[IND8]
Members
1,115 posts
11,056 battles
39 minutes ago, tfcas119 said:

Is Ise having 360mm guns a typo or something? Because if not, that’s huge because 360 overmatches 25mm plating, 356 does not, allowing OM on T6 and 7 US/German Heavy cruisers, and most T8 cruiser bows 

Yeah, Ise had 356mm. Not sure what is going on with this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
333
[TDR]
[TDR]
Members
1,047 posts
11,140 battles
1 hour ago, tfcas119 said:

Is Ise having 360mm guns a typo or something? Because if not, that’s huge because 360 overmatches 25mm plating, 356 does not, allowing OM on T6 and 7 US/German Heavy cruisers, and most T8 cruiser bows 

This is not a high caliber necessarily for that tier if that’s the concern. Tho I’d prefer the original caliber guns noted above

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
610
[GRAVE]
Members
1,410 posts
19,878 battles
19 minutes ago, ditka_Fatdog said:

This is not a high caliber necessarily for that tier if that’s the concern. Tho I’d prefer the original caliber guns noted above

True, with 15in and even some 16in guns at T6, 14.1in is quite average. However, a normal 14in shell (356mm) cannot overmatch 25mm plating, which due to the cruiser armor changes, became far more prevalent. 360, on the other hand, is able to overmatch 25, so now only most T8 cruisers can effectively angle against Ise. Note that 360s also CANNOT overmatch 26mm plating, you’ll need about a 373mm fun to do that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
333
[TDR]
[TDR]
Members
1,047 posts
11,140 battles
10 minutes ago, tfcas119 said:

True, with 15in and even some 16in guns at T6, 14.1in is quite average. However, a normal 14in shell (356mm) cannot overmatch 25mm plating, which due to the cruiser armor changes, became far more prevalent. 360, on the other hand, is able to overmatch 25, so now only most T8 cruisers can effectively angle against Ise. Note that 360s also CANNOT overmatch 26mm plating, you’ll need about a 373mm fun to do that

I see, unless my math is wrong I think 356 still overmatched 25 mm plating but I could be wrong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,300
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
5,199 posts
12,101 battles

Why a Manfred clone when of 4 nations in game already - it's one of the 2 nations that didn't use it? Why not a UK or USN clone seeing as they actually did. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[IJN]
Members
315 posts
14,765 battles
1 minute ago, WanderingGhost said:

Why a Manfred clone when of 4 nations in game already - it's one of the 2 nations that didn't use it? Why not a UK or USN clone seeing as they actually did. 

If you talking about the skip bombs I think initially Wargaming was testing in on the FDR before she was released.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,300
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
5,199 posts
12,101 battles
12 minutes ago, IJN_Yamato_BB17 said:

If you talking about the skip bombs I think initially Wargaming was testing in on the FDR before she was released.

I am, and I don't recall that. Then again it may have been during one of my periods going dark because of late this dev team makes me insane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
733 posts
61 battles

Hybrids will cause plenty of salt. Slow speed of their small air groups will not matter when they are used to dislodge ships that are camping the other side of an island, or to finish an enemy ship that is beyond gun range/too fast to catch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
733 posts
61 battles
1 hour ago, WanderingGhost said:

Why a Manfred clone when of 4 nations in game already - it's one of the 2 nations that didn't use it? Why not a UK or USN clone seeing as they actually did. 

so we don't realize until it is too late, that a Russian CV tech tree is ready for release :cap_haloween:

(I have no idea, honestly)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[IJN]
Members
315 posts
14,765 battles
4 hours ago, WanderingGhost said:

I am, and I don't recall that. Then again it may have been during one of my periods going dark because of late this dev team makes me insane.

I think it was what they were doing when they first announced the concept about three weeks ago. Then FDR was released so testing went to a new carrier. 

 

Edit I just checked and the announcement from September 4 did use the German carrier not the FDR. 

Edited by IJN_Yamato_BB17

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,300
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
5,199 posts
12,101 battles
7 hours ago, hateboat said:

so we don't realize until it is too late, that a Russian CV tech tree is ready for release :cap_haloween:

(I have no idea, honestly)

You mean the RU CV's that they have likely been working on for about 3 years, maybe more, considering they tested guided missiles just to add those RU DD's I think they were if not cruisers (and the CV rework is likely a by product of those failures along with subs - as they talked of self guiding the missiles like planes in the rework and pinging a target to lock on like subs).

Pretty sure most of us older players are more surprised at the restraint to not make them the 3rd CV line than any 'sudden appearance'. It's also not hard to piece together the fact that only 2 other nations likely to get CV's in a tech tree that used skip bombing and don't have ships in game are Italy and Russia, and while after putting GZ as a premium even under RTS I'm sure they will gladly screw over an Italian tree and make the couple well known ones premiums, meaning that RU is the most likely as they need a gimmick. 

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,497
[HINON]
[HINON]
Members
8,427 posts
12,353 battles

i can already tell you Ise and Tone are going to be easy targets if they send up planes and they arent sitting behind a island

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
705
[UFFA]
Members
2,116 posts
75 battles
1 hour ago, WanderingGhost said:

they will gladly screw over an Italian tree 

In this case there are two possible hulls already in game. Caracciolo and Littorio hulls. So there is that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,300
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
5,199 posts
12,101 battles
12 hours ago, Sparviero said:

In this case there are two possible hulls already in game. Caracciolo and Littorio hulls. So there is that. 

True, but when you look at the existing trees and what they've done - how much does it mater to them?

  • USN between actual built ships and several considered on paper conversions (Iowa, Alaska, and Baltimore [that isn't Saipan]) can form two 5-10 branches with a fake Montana conversion and a 6/8/10 ASW line with actual ASW ships. But is forced to evens only that aside from having material then for 4-5 lines, completely shanks on CV development as is, as the more direct line is Ranger-Yorktown-Essex-Midway or at minimum, those last 3 as 6/8/10 as opposed to say 6-9 (with the original non-supercarrier and straight decked version of Forrestal at 10)
  • IJN similarly -though needing to add I think one additional fake due to Kaga's premium status (said fake being an upgraded Kaga essentially bumped up a tier) can also put out at minimum two full branches of 5-10, and once again they shanked on development.
  • UK can field 2 full 4-10 lines and a line of Medium CV's/ASW CV's, and done everything they can to screw that with premiums that they can't even get right - such as Ark Royal which aside for some insane reason NOT releasing her as she was when she chased down Bismarck because the Skua's had been replaced by Fulmar's, Skua's never carried rockets because RP-3's were actually slightly heavier than the mount points for practice bombs were rated for - but it was an almost purpose built DB while conversely while not at that time - Swordfish did in fact over their career carry RP-3 rockets.
  • Germany, other than needing a tier 10 and tier 4 unless like Italian BB's they just started it at 5 (which I'd have been fine with due to Germany's development lagging behind), could field 5-9 off ships that started construction/conversion, and one paper design (GZ's 2nd redesign with 15 cm guns removed and more 10.5's added). Tier 4 isn't even a CV design - it's a 'Flight deck Cruiser' which is drastically different from a CV, in reality it's really more a Hybrid like Tone or Ise but can better recover the couple planes it has since it has an actual flight deck and all but use of planes is not it's primary function. Tier 6 is the only ship 100 confirmed to be real, 8 is either a fake or a design with several details gotten wrong, and then of course 10 is a fake. With salt in the wound being that the 'new' tier 6 premium they released is Graf Zeppelins design as intended in 1938 (different bow/bow armament/etc) but with an incorrect name, incorrect ordnance, etc. 

Go past CV's and look at subs - USN can field 2 full branches - one of which could be dedicated to say more anti-cruiser work while the other could actually be a sub-hunter (as the only sub based homing torp USN had in that time frame was a small anti-sub torp that wouldn't do much against anything tougher than at best a DD otherwise) to say nothing of Germany and the line it can field, and giving it active rather than passive homing which would be correct - even though the original Halloween test had passive homing (the second type that knocked out engines) that did not have a 100% hit rate and because it seemed to track to engines, hit for less damage at times and still took skill unlike the ping system nonsense. How launching 1/2 torps at a time to try and make a spread is less skilled than when DD's literally do the same thing but with at times 5 per launch or up to 10-15 torps, double-triple what some of these subs can do, is beyond me. Look at the USN BB split - A modified SD 20 design, a fake, and a botched Tillman design because it has almost nothing right, Tillman proper with just a main battery adjustment (because yes some of those were too insane) is an easy tier 10, with SD 1920 updated some a solid tier 9 candidate, at which point they already had SD 39 (Bama and Mass), Tennessee (California), and Pennsylvania (Arizona) right there for 6-8, and as shown, they were working on 5/Nevada (Oklahoma) - which is a proper full tech tree split, and what we've actually been asking for for years regarding a USN BB split if they didn't want to give us a full 3-10 one. Developing 2 ships and a premium reward tied to the split, and the other half of it literally implemented in game already as premiums - and they gave us this farce of a split?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,112
[TARK]
Members
7,331 posts
2,837 battles

I was disappointed to see FDR using my ideas for Russian CV plane gimmicks...

...which would fit with ACTUAL soviet air ordinance delivery doctrine...

...but yeah. Screw history. Just go with political / business convenience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
705
[UFFA]
Members
2,116 posts
75 battles
2 hours ago, WanderingGhost said:

True, but when you look at the existing trees and what they've done - how much does it mater to them?

  • USN between actual built ships and several considered on paper conversions (Iowa, Alaska, and Baltimore [that isn't Saipan]) can form two 5-10 branches with a fake Montana conversion and a 6/8/10 ASW line with actual ASW ships. But is forced to evens only that aside from having material then for 4-5 lines, completely shanks on CV development as is, as the more direct line is Ranger-Yorktown-Essex-Midway or at minimum, those last 3 as 6/8/10 as opposed to say 6-9 (with the original non-supercarrier and straight decked version of Forrestal at 10)
  • IJN similarly -though needing to add I think one additional fake due to Kaga's premium status (said fake being an upgraded Kaga essentially bumped up a tier) can also put out at minimum two full branches of 5-10, and once again they shanked on development.
  • UK can field 2 full 4-10 lines and a line of Medium CV's/ASW CV's, and done everything they can to screw that with premiums that they can't even get right - such as Ark Royal which aside for some insane reason NOT releasing her as she was when she chased down Bismarck because the Skua's had been replaced by Fulmar's, Skua's never carried rockets because RP-3's were actually slightly heavier than the mount points for practice bombs were rated for - but it was an almost purpose built DB while conversely while not at that time - Swordfish did in fact over their career carry RP-3 rockets.
  • Germany, other than needing a tier 10 and tier 4 unless like Italian BB's they just started it at 5 (which I'd have been fine with due to Germany's development lagging behind), could field 5-9 off ships that started construction/conversion, and one paper design (GZ's 2nd redesign with 15 cm guns removed and more 10.5's added). Tier 4 isn't even a CV design - it's a 'Flight deck Cruiser' which is drastically different from a CV, in reality it's really more a Hybrid like Tone or Ise but can better recover the couple planes it has since it has an actual flight deck and all but use of planes is not it's primary function. Tier 6 is the only ship 100 confirmed to be real, 8 is either a fake or a design with several details gotten wrong, and then of course 10 is a fake. With salt in the wound being that the 'new' tier 6 premium they released is Graf Zeppelins design as intended in 1938 (different bow/bow armament/etc) but with an incorrect name, incorrect ordnance, etc. 

Go past CV's and look at subs - USN can field 2 full branches - one of which could be dedicated to say more anti-cruiser work while the other could actually be a sub-hunter (as the only sub based homing torp USN had in that time frame was a small anti-sub torp that wouldn't do much against anything tougher than at best a DD otherwise) to say nothing of Germany and the line it can field, and giving it active rather than passive homing which would be correct - even though the original Halloween test had passive homing (the second type that knocked out engines) that did not have a 100% hit rate and because it seemed to track to engines, hit for less damage at times and still took skill unlike the ping system nonsense. How launching 1/2 torps at a time to try and make a spread is less skilled than when DD's literally do the same thing but with at times 5 per launch or up to 10-15 torps, double-triple what some of these subs can do, is beyond me. Look at the USN BB split - A modified SD 20 design, a fake, and a botched Tillman design because it has almost nothing right, Tillman proper with just a main battery adjustment (because yes some of those were too insane) is an easy tier 10, with SD 1920 updated some a solid tier 9 candidate, at which point they already had SD 39 (Bama and Mass), Tennessee (California), and Pennsylvania (Arizona) right there for 6-8, and as shown, they were working on 5/Nevada (Oklahoma) - which is a proper full tech tree split, and what we've actually been asking for for years regarding a USN BB split if they didn't want to give us a full 3-10 one. Developing 2 ships and a premium reward tied to the split, and the other half of it literally implemented in game already as premiums - and they gave us this farce of a split?

I feel that you are getting lost in the weeds.

Hulls done cheap are Lesta's motto at this time. Under that mantra lets look at re-use.

  • Tier IV: Probably a new hull. Big negative. Let's not be shocked and say Lesta skips this one. 
  • Tier VI: Options - Caracciolo hull. Somewhat positive. SS Roma Mid-30s conversion variant. Neutral to slightly negative.  
    • Caracciolo hull. Somewhat positive as based off existing hull. Not much superstructure probably a plus.
    • SS Roma emergency conversion circa Abyssinia crisis as the war project would be rather different to allow two different versions of SS Roma to be in game.
  • Tier VIII: Aquila clone. Positive as funded by premium. Impero conversion. Somewhat positive as based off existing hull. 
    • Keep Aquila as a premium and have a tech tree clone. Self funded tech tree ship positive.
    • Impero hull. Two options early work based off hydro model in Venice or later work based of Stefsap's book. Hull already in game.
  • Tier X: Impero conversion. Somewhat positive. Lepanto/Colombo c/p of Impero conversion.
    • Impero conversion late war form.
    • Lepanto/Colombo conversion: The interpretation of Impero's late war plans by Stefsap was rather modern looking so a larger hull might be more fitting.

Planes  as well thought out pieces of a puzzle do not matter post re-work. As seen with army prototypes being used as tier X planes, so on and so forth. In this case there are several options from each of the major manufacturer including prototypes at the time of the armistice and even just plane drawing board variants. With Lesta choosing to turn 533mm torpedoes into Long Lance equivalents and giving rockets to everyone, even justifying armament is not needed. You have two or even three reused hulls, one new hull and a premium. This would possibly require less resource use than the German carrier line if Lesta took the three conversions and skip a tier route.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,300
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
5,199 posts
12,101 battles
3 hours ago, Sparviero said:

I feel that you are getting lost in the weeds.

Hulls done cheap are Lesta's motto at this time. Under that mantra lets look at re-use.

  • Tier IV: Probably a new hull. Big negative. Let's not be shocked and say Lesta skips this one. 
  • Tier VI: Options - Caracciolo hull. Somewhat positive. SS Roma Mid-30s conversion variant. Neutral to slightly negative.  
    • Caracciolo hull. Somewhat positive as based off existing hull. Not much superstructure probably a plus.
    • SS Roma emergency conversion circa Abyssinia crisis as the war project would be rather different to allow two different versions of SS Roma to be in game.
  • Tier VIII: Aquila clone. Positive as funded by premium. Impero conversion. Somewhat positive as based off existing hull. 
    • Keep Aquila as a premium and have a tech tree clone. Self funded tech tree ship positive.
    • Impero hull. Two options early work based off hydro model in Venice or later work based of Stefsap's book. Hull already in game.
  • Tier X: Impero conversion. Somewhat positive. Lepanto/Colombo c/p of Impero conversion.
    • Impero conversion late war form.
    • Lepanto/Colombo conversion: The interpretation of Impero's late war plans by Stefsap was rather modern looking so a larger hull might be more fitting.

Planes  as well thought out pieces of a puzzle do not matter post re-work. As seen with army prototypes being used as tier X planes, so on and so forth. In this case there are several options from each of the major manufacturer including prototypes at the time of the armistice and even just plane drawing board variants. With Lesta choosing to turn 533mm torpedoes into Long Lance equivalents and giving rockets to everyone, even justifying armament is not needed. You have two or even three reused hulls, one new hull and a premium. This would possibly require less resource use than the German carrier line if Lesta took the three conversions and skip a tier route.

Throwing aside that some of us argue against some of those army prototypes and the ordnance used and would rather they use historical options and what not that would actually add some variety to CV play, I think you miss a point in my wall. Hulls done cheap has always been Lesta's model - reusing any and all resources is something every game does to keep development cost down while adding 'new' content. 

But they already had the resources for the USN and IJN full CV tech trees - yet went with the even only garbage and have only shown that what they gave for reasoning was as some of us said at the time naught but excuses. Arizona, California, and Bama/Mass - 2 of which have been in game for 2+ years, even without Oklahoma/Nevada, would have been reusing hulls they made money on, removed the development ground up of a ship hull, and ticked off way less players by giving us the line split we've asked for for years and not the joke they are giving us. Even looking at some of the subs the way some progressed they wouldn't change much visually and would be relatively basic model adjustments. Even with planes they added new models like with IJN that were unneeded using existing, more accurate planes. 

Overall, but specifically with CV's - what Wargaming will and won't add even when already existing resources are in play can best be described as chaotic and it's questionable what, if any research they are actually doing. Aside from just how dumb 3 inch AP rockets are against anything that isn't a submarine - they used the German word for High-Explosive' to name them as opposed to the one for AP,  they used the wrong bomb designation, the number of boneheaded mistakes 5 minutes on google or google translate could fix let alone actual knowledge of the German language and aircraft ordnance.

Personally - I expect more of them. They want to have CV level bombers - give them to the IJN tech tree because they actually used them. Give UK planes that carry more smaller bombs sort of like now that are regular DB's - or even remove them, and just have rockets and lets start using some of those crazy numbers they could use along with TB's. Germany had very little in the way of real TB development, lets leave it to GZ 1 and 2 and have the tech tree focus on 21 inch rockets, and AP and HE DB's. Balance, historically accuracy, and 'flavour' don't have to be 'either/or', they can co-exist if they are thought out and the people doing it actually give a damn.

But they couldn't even hit the easy T-Ball of a USN BB split with literally 3 out of minimum 5 ships existing already as premiums, with number 4 if we wanted to go to 6 in development alongside the split. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
705
[UFFA]
Members
2,116 posts
75 battles

You are arguing a point that is separate from resource allocation and a new tech tree introduction. Cheers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,303
[SIMP]
Members
1,610 posts

Please, please, PLEASE give Ise and Tone their historical aircraft loadouts - i.e. dive bombers.

The recent Dev Blog say they are beginning testing with torpedo planes (https://blog.worldofwarships.com/blog/75).

Please don't throw in non-historical loadouts for these ships when they go live (torp planes). They carried E13A (Tone) and E16A+DY4 (Ise) floatplane/dive bombers. I wrote a very in-depth thread detailing them; pertaining to how they should be set up and how they can be adjusted easily for balance - https://forum.worldofwarships.com/topic/213261-historic-ijn-hybrid-aviation-vessels/

Again, please don't assign them some kind of fantasy ordnance/aircraft loadouts. They will work just fine with their historical dive bomber set ups. :cap_like:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
831
[KIA-T]
Members
2,237 posts
9,838 battles
2 hours ago, capncrunch21 said:

Again, please don't assign them some kind of fantasy ordnance/aircraft loadouts.

Soviet Naval Paper-engineering best in world comrade.

Iz only fair we share with world yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×