Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
LegioCI

E Unum, Pluribus: Creating a second battleship line.

18 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

142
[VAS]
Beta Testers
156 posts
10,310 battles

So, I had some thoughts on USN BBs, mainly they're the progression doesn't make sense- you go from the slow, plodding, Super-Dreadnaught New York, to the slow Standard-types (New Mexico and Colorado) and then get dropped immediately into turreted fast battleships- the North Carolina- and Iowa-class, before getting dropped back into the relatively slow Montana-class. The North Carolina and Iowa just don't seem to belong with the rest of the line- their turret layout is different; the 2A1 with two Turrets Forward and One Aft. Their playstyle is differant; they excel at frontal engagements where they show a small profile while bringing the majority of their firepower to bear. Compare this to the other battleships in the line- slow, well-armored, generally with 4-5 turrets that require the ship being broadside in order to full utilize. To me, this tells me that they could add a second USN BB line; Battlecruisers and Fast Batleships; these ships trade weight of fire for speed and maneuverablity. 

 

To start, we need to remove the North Carolina and Iowa from the current battleship line; this leaves a gap at Tier 8 and 9, however. Tier 8 is easy enough- the USS South Dakota, planned to be the ultimate Standard-type battleship, they were scrapped during construction after the signing of Washington Naval Treaty limited the number of battleships the USN was allowed to have. The South Dakota would have had the same heavy armor and slow speed as the rest of the Standard-types, though its armament would have been upgraded to twelve 16"/50 guns, giving them perhaps the heaviest throw-weight of battleships in its tier. Tier IX goes to the "Maximum Battleships"- a paper design from WWI for a battleships that were the maximum size to be able to go through the Panama Canal's locks. Depending on the design (And there were several with varying degrees of insanity for their armaments) you could have a larger, better armored South Dakota or larger and faster. (Economy of size means you can fit a bigger set of engines into a larger ship, giving you better speed.)

 

Now, onto the new Battlecruiser/BB-F line. First of all, we'll branch off at the soon-to-be Tier VI Pensacola; I feel that USN Cruisers are a more natural starting point for the line than the slower USN Battleships. We start the line with the Tier VI Proto-Lexington-class Battlecruisers. They're armed with ten 14" rifles in a turret layout similar to the Pensacola. The Proto-Lex and her big sister at Tier VII, the 18"-armed Lexington-class both trade armor for speed and firepower.

 

At Tier VII we can also add in the Large Cruiser Alaska as a premium battleship. Much like the Scharnhorst and Dunkerque, her light throw-weight of nine 12"/50 rifles would make her relatively poor at combating other battleships in a duel, but 20sec reload and high muzzle velocity would make her excellent at hunting Cruisers and DD. Additionally, her use of 12" "Superheavy" shells would give her a fighting chance against enemy battleships if she maintains range. (Protip: With a 33kt top-speed she can.)

 

At Tier VIII and IX, you upgrade to your proper Fast Battleships; the North Carolina(Balanced much as she is now...) and South Dakota-class Fast Battleships. With these two fast battleships we've added armor back into the equation, thought they still lack the armor of the original dreadnaught line. The South Dakota would be, much like in real life, an upgraded and enhanced North Carolina with improved gunnery, anti-torpedo protection and a new armor layout, incorporating a sloped armor belt to protect the citadel, enhancing protection at shorter range, while also creating a smaller horizontal armor deck to save weight. (Much like the German "turtleback" though, the armor scheme tends to be less effective when dealing with long-range plunging fire.)

 

At Tier VIII, we can add another Premium US Battleship; the 14"-armed North Carolina. Similar in armor and speed to a North Carolina, instead of Nine 16" rifles in triple-turrets, she'd have twelve 14" rifles in three quadruple-turrets. While the 14" guns would likely be less-than-effective against like-tier battleships, the massive throw-weight and fast reload of the 14" rifles would make the 14"-North Carolina terrifyingly effective against Cruisers and even a threat to Destroyers.

 

Finally, at Tier X, we have America's ultimate Fast-battleship: The Iowa-class. The Iowa would, in most ways, need to be buffed heavily. She's already the fastest "true" battleship in the game, with a top speed of up to 35.2kts. Armor protection is sacrificed for that speed, making her the least well-armored of the now-four Tier X battleships. Her guns, however, would see the brunt of the Tier X buff, with enhanced dispersion and sigma representing her advanced radar fire-control- while the other battleships might have bigger guns, or heavier throw-weights, the Iowa could specialize in putting rounds accurately on target even at long ranges.

 

From a strategy standpoint, the "old" Dreadnaught line would excel at the classic Battleship role of moving forward, soaking damage and denying territory to cruisers while slugging it out with enemy dreadnaughts. They'd have thick armor but move at slower speeds until later tiers. They would be fast enough to move up, though like other battleships they'd need to pick a flank and stick with it, requiring good awareness to see where your team is weak in order to pre-position yourself to support that weakness. Their chief advantage would be heavier armor and heavier firepower, allowing them to go Mano-a-Mano with any battleship in their tier and have an expectation of winning.

 

The "new" Fast BBs, however, would excel at maneuver warfare-  Enough firepower and armor to defeat anything that can catch them, but with the speed to run away from anything that can win in a straight fight. They'd able to act as "Cruiser Leaders", ships fast enough to keep up with cruiser pushes and lend their superior firepower towards combating enemy cruisers. Their chief counters would be enemy battleships, which carry equivalent firepower but with enough armor to make a duel a losing proposition, and destroyers, which are still fast enough to keep ahead of the Fast Battleship's slow-firing guns. As you move from the Battlecruisers to the Fast Battleships, you start to see a new playstyle emergy; the ships become more comfortable dueling other battleships with the addition of heavier armor, though they still are less-armored than other battleships in their tier- they rely more on speed and a better ability engage and disengage at will, as well as the ability to quickly shift-flanks as needed.

 

So, in review, the new Battleship lines would be as follows:


 

III IV V VI VII VIII IX X
     

14"-armed

Lexington-class Prototype

16"-armed 

Lexington-class battlecruiser

North Carolina-class South Dakota-class Iowa-class
St. Louis-class Phoenix-class Omaha-class Pensacola-class        
South Carolina-class Wyoming-class New York-class New Mexico-class Colorado-class

Standard-type 

South Dakota-class

"Maximum Battleship" (?)

Tillman I/Tillman III

Montana-class
  USS Arkansas USS Texas USS Arizona USS Alaska 14"-armed North Carolina-class    

 

By creating a separate battleship line, you also create a more unified strategy between the ships- as it stands the USN Line jumps back and forth between Dreadnaught Brawlers and Fast Attack Ships, and the style of play that is used in the earlier Dreadnaughts and Standard-Types does not necessarily lend itself to the faster, less well-armored Fast Battleships. By creating a seperate line for these fast battleships and branching that line you have a more natural, organic learning curve- you've already been playing lightly-armored cruisers to get here, so you'll have a better idea of how and where to fight without relying on your armor. By the time you've made it to the Fast Battleships, you'll have a solid idea of how to avoid damage instead of simply tanking it. The Dreadnaught line also has a more organic start and flows easily to the Montana at Tier X- you'll consistantly be learning when and how to use your rear turrets throughout the line, knowing when its safe to turn broadside and unleash hell, and when its better to stay neutral and rely on your front or rear turrets only. This more natural progression of line-strategy will make both lines easier to learn and more enjoyable to play.

 

Edit: Added the Maximum Battleship "Tillmans" in the Tier IX dreadnaught slot.

Edited by LegioCI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,003 posts
1,451 battles

Meh, give the US a ton of premium BBs named after thier states.

 

USS Missouri, USS Indianapolis, you know, the well known US BBs that served and were well known in WWII....

 

They can give us a T7 South Dakota Class premium while they are at it to. lol. 

 

US line needs more cool premiums....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,053
[SYN]
Members
16,027 posts
12,803 battles

neigh...

 

Iowa would be really weak as a T10.... unless she got harpoons or tomahawks... in which case she would be OPAF

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
201
[DIEBL]
Alpha Tester
730 posts
4,941 battles

Meh, give the US a ton of premium BBs named after thier states.

 

USS Missouri, USS Indianapolis, you know, the well known US BBs that served and were well known in WWII....

 

They can give us a T7 South Dakota Class premium while they are at it to. lol. 

 

US line needs more cool premiums....

 

Indianapolis is a heavy cruiser...and she is already in game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,662
[PVE]
[PVE]
Members
11,848 posts
30,536 battles

Meh, give the US a ton of premium BBs named after thier states.

 

USS Missouri, USS Indianapolis, you know, the well known US BBs that served and were well known in WWII....

 

They can give us a T7 South Dakota Class premium while they are at it to. lol.

 

US line needs more cool premiums....

 

This is a great idea! The ability to play a ship from your state or city is a fantastic idea that would appeal to many people. Renamed standard ships with a premium camo would be easy enough and would help generate funds to keep the game going. I really hope WG sees your post Knight! Does not just have to be BBs either.. Think of the possibilities.
Edited by Taylor3006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,243 posts
1,579 battles

Just keep in mind that Scharnhorst as a tier 7 premium rubs Alaska's face in the dirt while kicking it's ribs in and telling it inappropriate things.  Iowa also does not work as a tier 10, it was tested back in the day and she is not capable of stacking up with Yamato (seriously, Montana has problems measuring up and she has much better armor and 3 more guns).  Sodak is a tier 8 herself, being rather similar in displacement to North Carolina.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
4,982 posts
6,249 battles

It's E Pluribus, Unum. "In many, one." (Best descriptor of the US in my opinion) I swear it was that last time I looked at a US coin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
142
[VAS]
Beta Testers
156 posts
10,310 battles

neigh...

 

Iowa would be really weak as a T10.... unless she got harpoons or tomahawks... in which case she would be OPAF

 

Considering that, historically and according to WG's own mini-documentary she was a match for the Yamato- As the documentary says victory would be determined by the conditions; the Yamato had better range and throw weight, but was limited to visual range-finding since her RFC was relatively primative- at night or in bad weather the Iowa's superior radar and accuracy would allow her to engage the Yamato with little risk to herself. In game terms, the Yamato would likely have better alpha and armor, but is slower while the Iowa would have more accurate gunnery, especially at long range, the Iowa's high speed would also give it the immense advantage of being able to dictate the terms of the engagement; using a concealment build would let it engage and disengage the Yamato at its convenience. In short, the Yamato is more powerful in a straight fight, but the Iowa excells at giving it anything but a straight fight.

 

A Tier X Iowa would probably be a better foil for the Yamato than the Montana. The Montana, I think, is too similar in too many respects to the Yamato- it doesn't have significant enough advantages in speed and maneuverability to make up for its inferior armor and firepower. On the other hand, the Tier-X Iowa's speed and precision of firepower creates an excellent counterpoint to the Yamato's stronger armor and alpha-damage, essentially pitting speed and skill against brute force and protection.

 

It's E Pluribus, Unum. "In many, one." (Best descriptor of the US in my opinion) I swear it was that last time I looked at a US coin.

 

I know, I was going for wordplay to show that I was creating two lines from one- "Out of one, many." 

Edited by LegioCI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,003 posts
1,451 battles

 

This is a great idea! The ability to play a ship from your state or city is a fantastic idea that would appeal to many people. Renamed standard ships with a premium camo would be easy enough and would help generate funds to keep the game going. I really hope WG sees your post Knight! Does not just have to be BBs either.. Think of the possibilities.

 

Thats not exactly what I meant.  I meant that we get premium ships like "USS Missouri", instead of "Iowa", which is just the Class of the ship. 

 

Put like the USS Massachusetts as a T7 Premium, which is a South Dakota Class ship.  It could just be a nerfed North Carolina class. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52
[GSKUL]
Alpha Tester
340 posts

neigh...

 

Iowa would be really weak as a T10.... unless she got harpoons or tomahawks... in which case she would be OPAF

Iowa could easily be made into a soft stat beast. And there are a few other things they could buff:

BBs 63/64 have a 14.5'' Traverse bulkhead instead of the 11.3'' plate that is in the game. 

STS hasn't been included as armor except on her main deck, which means Iowa has a thicker main deck than Montana atm. Deck armor doesn't really mean much though, but the added STS could buff many of her other armor sections by an inch or so.  

IIRC the Mk8s are slightly underperforming. 

Accuracy is easily buffed. 

Rudder shift time is easily buffed

turning radius I think could also be buffed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
105
[_TWP_]
Members
611 posts
6,839 battles

Just keep in mind that Scharnhorst as a tier 7 premium rubs Alaska's face in the dirt while kicking it's ribs in and telling it inappropriate things.

 

I disagree. Alaska's guns are more powerful while still having a rate of fire comparable to Scharnhorst's, and the high shell trajectories give Alaska more flexibility in making use of cover, and a more reliable way to strike at deck armor. While Alaska lacks the misplay-resistant heavy armor of Scharnhorst, her armor compares well to Amagi's - and Amagi is doing fine at Tier 8.

 

I think Alaska will be just fine at Tier 7. If she underperforms badly enough, Radar could be an interesting addition (though I'm not really a fan of adding more radar to the game). Alaska's rate of fire, though high for a battleship, isn't high enough for her to take advantage of Radar in the way cruisers can, so the addition of Radar would kind of position Alaska as a cruiser-leader meant to coordinate closely with allies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,744 posts
8,862 battles

 

I disagree. Alaska's guns are more powerful while still having a rate of fire comparable to Scharnhorst's, and the high shell trajectories give Alaska more flexibility in making use of cover, and a more reliable way to strike at deck armor. While Alaska lacks the misplay-resistant heavy armor of Scharnhorst, her armor compares well to Amagi's - and Amagi is doing fine at Tier 8.

 

I think Alaska will be just fine at Tier 7. If she underperforms badly enough, Radar could be an interesting addition (though I'm not really a fan of adding more radar to the game). Alaska's rate of fire, though high for a battleship, isn't high enough for her to take advantage of Radar in the way cruisers can, so the addition of Radar would kind of position Alaska as a cruiser-leader meant to coordinate closely with allies.

 

This. I could almost see putting Alaska at tier 8 if she got both cruiser and BB consumables. Personally I like having radar in the game though; even in my DDs it doesn't bother me since it's limited duration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
142
[VAS]
Beta Testers
156 posts
10,310 battles

So, I've been doing a bit more digging and I may have a design that would fit into the Tier IX dreadnaught slot- During WWI there was a design study for the "Maximum Battleship"- basically upsized Standard-types designed to be the largest possible ship that could fit through the Panama Canal's locks. There's a number of great choices too- everything from 4x4 16" guns turrets (24 guns total.) to 5x3 18" guns. (A sort of super-New York, with a central turret.) The idea that probably best fits at Tier IX would probably be the Tillman-I or the Tillman III; both had the most sane armament loadout of 4x4 16" guns. The Tillman-I was basically a larger, better protected South Dakota Standard, while the Tillman III was a larger, faster South Dakota. (Designed to reach 30kts- the same as the Montana.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52
[GSKUL]
Alpha Tester
340 posts

So, I've been doing a bit more digging and I may have a design that would fit into the Tier IX dreadnaught slot- During WWI there was a design study for the "Maximum Battleship"- basically upsized Standard-types designed to be the largest possible ship that could fit through the Panama Canal's locks. There's a number of great choices too- everything from 4x4 16" guns turrets (24 guns total.) to 5x3 18" guns. (A sort of super-New York, with a central turret.) The idea that probably best fits at Tier IX would probably be the Tillman-I or the Tillman III; both had the most sane armament loadout of 4x4 16" guns. The Tillman-I was basically a larger, better protected South Dakota Standard, while the Tillman III was a larger, faster South Dakota. (Designed to reach 30kts- the same as the Montana.)

Tillman 3 could work, considering the montana's buffed top speed. Its basically an Iowa with one more turret but worse guns. Tillman 1 would probably be too good to fit at tier 9, considering she would have the thickest belt armor in the game by a good 2 inches. I think a proto-montana or iowa design would probably fit a little better though, and make a Tillman mini branch with tillman 3 at tier 9 and tillman 1 or tillman 4-1(also probably op) at tier 10. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17,272
[WOLF5]
[WOLF5]
Members
38,132 posts
30,890 battles

neigh...

 

Iowa would be really weak as a T10.... unless she got harpoons or tomahawks... in which case she would be OPAF

 

Iowa with a special Premium Consumable, "I'm just a cook."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
142
[VAS]
Beta Testers
156 posts
10,310 battles

 

Iowa with a special Premium Consumable, "I'm just a cook."

 

Actually... That gives me an idea- Consumable: Crash Stop. Drops your ships speed to a stop in 5sec. 

 

Its based on the fact that the North Carolina, South Dakota and Iowa-class battleships were capable of performing what is called a "Barndoor Stop" where full reverse throttle was combined with turning both rudders inward. According to stories it could stop the ship within about 2/3s of its hull length and also sent anything not nailed down against the forward-most bulkheads. Being able to stop almost at will like this could be a huge advantage for dodging torpedoes or incoming fire.

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.

×