Jump to content


An analytical look at Duca d'Aosta(see disclaimer)


  • Please log in to reply
76 replies to this topic

creamgravy #61 Posted 22 April 2017 - 05:55 PM

    Midshipman

  • Players

  • 1,262
  • Member since:
    08-18-2015

View PostilDuca, on 22 April 2017 - 09:02 AM, said:

I'm just having trouble with CVs besides the AA consumable (which is a mandatory asset for her) her AA defences are so poor that made me seriously thinking about going full AA build even considering the low numbers of CVs(which is a thing I never ever thought for any ship I own).

 

Here's the base probability for shooting down a Nakajima B5N2 per second (average tier 6 plane)

 

Range (Km) Base prob with dAAF
4 1.57% 4.72%
3.5 5.19% 15.58%
1.2 6.45% 16.84%

 

A 2-5% chance at 4km is... rubbish. Maybe you'll shoot down 1 or 2 dive bombers before they wreck your AA? :teethhappy:

 

Add AFT, BFT, flag, AA guns mod 2 and Auxiliary Armaments Mod 1 (don't forget to focus/select squads)

 

Range (Km) Buffed prob with dAAF
5.8 2.70% 8.10%
5.1 8.91% 26.74%
1.7 11.08% 28.90%

 

Your still not fantastic at protecting others but a 9 - 27% chance at 5km is decent self defence. They'll loose quite a few planes and should think twice before striking you again.

 

Full captain skill analysis.

Spoiler

 

A good hybrid build might look something like this. > http://shipcomrade.com/captcalc/1000001000000010000010000010100119

 



phoenix_jz #62 Posted 22 April 2017 - 06:48 PM

    Seaman

  • Players

  • 30
  • Member since:
    12-06-2014

View PostHistorynerd, on 22 April 2017 - 12:04 PM, said:

 

I didn't propose them to work as DP mounts, in fact.

It seems that both the Japanese 100 mm and the Italian 90 mm mounts were used, other than against aircrafts, against ships as well, IRL, but them and the German gun you mentioned is where it should stop, I agree.

 

If WG wants to go in a semi-historical way about this, the 120 mm may be an issue, as AFAIK the DP mounts being studied were enlarged versions of the gyro-stabilized mounts of the 90 mm gun, and merely single mounts. Therefore, either they put on a ship a buttload of those, or they have to come up with fictional twin mounts.

 

Oops, sorry about that. I misinterpreted what you said, my bad!

 

I honestly wasn't aware that the Italian 90mm guns were used as anti-ship weapons as well. I knew the French used theirs in that manner, but I thought the Italian one was AA-use only (aside from the anti-tank role on land).

 

As far as the 120mm mounts, if they're just bigger versions of the 90mm mount... Then yeah, that probably wouldn't work...

 

So that only really leaves the 90mm/50's, which could probably replace the 100mm/47's one-for-one (19 metric tons vs 15 mt 100mm twin mounts...)... Or the 135mm/45 mounts (42 mt for the twin mounts, I have no idea how much the DP versions would weight, however. Then again, on the Brooklyn-class CL's, the USN managed to replace 8x 5"/25 single mounts (about 10 mt each) with 4x 5"/38 twin mounts (about 60 mt each) when they built the last two ships of the Brooklyn-class).

 

I have no idea what dps the 135mm mounts would have, but I think the range would likely be 5.2 km. 

 

So perhaps either a 6x1 90mm battery, or 4x2 135mm for the long-range AA?


 


phoenix_jz #63 Posted 22 April 2017 - 06:54 PM

    Seaman

  • Players

  • 30
  • Member since:
    12-06-2014

View PostExocet6951, on 22 April 2017 - 12:37 PM, said:

 

 

Considering that the twin 37mm mount on the Duca has the same dps per mount as the twin 57mm on the Henri IV, I'm assuming that they calculate dps values at complete random.

 

57 mm Mount has more dps; 11.6 dps vs 12.1 dps.

 

The 57mm mount still mystifies me... I've heard some people mention a theory that there's a typo in the code, as the 57mm gun has the exact same stats as the 37mm/70 ACAD (12.1 dps @ 3.51 km). It should be so much better than that. As in, it should have the same 5 km range as the German 55mm gun, and have way more dps than it does now.

 


 


Historynerd #64 Posted 22 April 2017 - 07:34 PM

    Commander

  • Beta Tester

  • 3,704
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View Postphoenix_jz, on 22 April 2017 - 07:48 PM, said:

Oops, sorry about that. I misinterpreted what you said, my bad!

 

I honestly wasn't aware that the Italian 90mm guns were used as anti-ship weapons as well. I knew the French used theirs in that manner, but I thought the Italian one was AA-use only (aside from the anti-tank role on land).

 

As far as the 120mm mounts, if they're just bigger versions of the 90mm mount... Then yeah, that probably wouldn't work...

 

So that only really leaves the 90mm/50's, which could probably replace the 100mm/47's one-for-one (19 metric tons vs 15 mt 100mm twin mounts...)... Or the 135mm/45 mounts (42 mt for the twin mounts, I have no idea how much the DP versions would weight, however. Then again, on the Brooklyn-class CL's, the USN managed to replace 8x 5"/25 single mounts (about 10 mt each) with 4x 5"/38 twin mounts (about 60 mt each) when they built the last two ships of the Brooklyn-class).

 

I have no idea what dps the 135mm mounts would have, but I think the range would likely be 5.2 km. 

 

So perhaps either a 6x1 90mm battery, or 4x2 135mm for the long-range AA?

 

Nothing special, mind you. I was skeptic as well, but it looks like in the Second Battle of the Sirte, when the British charged towards the Italian force to try and keep them away, the battleship used, other than its primary and secondary armament, even the 90 mm guns to discourage them.

Technically, there was no issue with that, since the gun had a range of elevation from -3° to +75°, so, if they wanted to fire them at ships, why not?

 

What probably killed those mounts, weight-wise, was the stabilization mechanism. Ingenious, perhaps, but too far ahead for its own good.

 

The 135 mm might be, all in all, the most promising features, for high-tier ships. I don't know much about 'em, but I do know that they were putting together some designs for a DP twin mount.

 

But I admit I may be biased, since I believe that the latter option would carry more punch than the former, and I'd hate to spend all my time with high-tier Italian ships running from airplanes! :rolleyes:


"We'll go and get ourselves killed for the King and for the country; but that does not give us victory, and win we must." - Carlo Pellion di Persano

FAN MADE ITALIAN TECH TREE!


SparvieroVV #65 Posted 22 April 2017 - 07:44 PM

    Leading Rate

  • Players

  • 123
  • Member since:
    10-01-2015

One is basically becoming a British CL without the smoke if AFT/BFT and mods are taken. *stares angrily at inop smoke generators*:teethhappy:

 

When it comes to AA guns I think we've covered most of the options.

 

135/45 - Etna/Vesuvius. Post war Garibaldi aa gun refit out of time span?

120/40? - I think this was the pre-war test caliber? Stefsap mentions on his site that a request for a 120/50 dual purpose mount was flat out rejected. 

100/47 - post war ammo?

90/50 dual mount.

90/71 - On the German thread this is mentioned. As I've seen this weapon mentioned in WoT, otherwise I'm not familiar with anything besides what was posted in that thread.

65/64 - This can come in two flavors. The manual feed that is what was going to be introduced in 1943 due to all the issues and powered version. For game play mechanics 65/64 with gunshield would be nice.

37/54 - Quad mount. Probable for UP.41? I do want to say there was an improved Breda 37mm in the works however as previously discussed it may have just been Breda starting to build Bofors copies.

20/65 quad and sextuplet mounts.

 

 



SparvieroVV #66 Posted 22 April 2017 - 07:46 PM

    Leading Rate

  • Players

  • 123
  • Member since:
    10-01-2015

View PostHistorynerd, on 22 April 2017 - 07:34 PM, said:

 

Nothing special, mind you. I was skeptic as well, but it looks like in the Second Battle of the Sirte, when the British charged towards the Italian force to try and keep them away, the battleship used, other than its primary and secondary armament, even the 90 mm guns to discourage them.

Technically, there was no issue with that, since the gun had a range of elevation from -3° to +75°, so, if they wanted to fire them at ships, why not?

 

What probably killed those mounts, weight-wise, was the stabilization mechanism. Ingenious, perhaps, but too far ahead for its own good.

 

The 135 mm might be, all in all, the most promising features, for high-tier ships. I don't know much about 'em, but I do know that they were putting together some designs for a DP twin mount.

 

But I admit I may be biased, since I believe that the latter option would carry more punch than the former, and I'd hate to spend all my time with high-tier Italian ships running from airplanes! :rolleyes:

 

We will pay for the sins of the Germans. They received AP bonus for poor HE. We get AP as is and poor HE(Proper values). WG went overboard on German AA, we pay the price. :teethhappy:

Historynerd #67 Posted 22 April 2017 - 08:18 PM

    Commander

  • Beta Tester

  • 3,704
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostSparvieroVV, on 22 April 2017 - 08:46 PM, said:

We will pay for the sins of the Germans. They received AP bonus for poor HE. We get AP as is and poor HE(Proper values). WG went overboard on German AA, we pay the price. :teethhappy:

 

The AP on the Aosta may look good but nothing special, but tell me that again once we get the Roma as a premium. Her AP shells are going to be second to none, caliber-wise. :trollface:


"We'll go and get ourselves killed for the King and for the country; but that does not give us victory, and win we must." - Carlo Pellion di Persano

FAN MADE ITALIAN TECH TREE!


phoenix_jz #68 Posted 22 April 2017 - 09:07 PM

    Seaman

  • Players

  • 30
  • Member since:
    12-06-2014

View PostHistorynerd, on 22 April 2017 - 02:34 PM, said:

 

Nothing special, mind you. I was skeptic as well, but it looks like in the Second Battle of the Sirte, when the British charged towards the Italian force to try and keep them away, the battleship used, other than its primary and secondary armament, even the 90 mm guns to discourage them.

Technically, there was no issue with that, since the gun had a range of elevation from -3° to +75°, so, if they wanted to fire them at ships, why not?

 

What probably killed those mounts, weight-wise, was the stabilization mechanism. Ingenious, perhaps, but too far ahead for its own good.

 

The 135 mm might be, all in all, the most promising features, for high-tier ships. I don't know much about 'em, but I do know that they were putting together some designs for a DP twin mount.

 

But I admit I may be biased, since I believe that the latter option would carry more punch than the former, and I'd hate to spend all my time with high-tier Italian ships running from airplanes! :rolleyes:

 

Interesting, I wasn't aware of that. I think it would give us a lot more breathing space when it comes to AA if they were modeled as DP guns, as that's always my worry with them. They take the same role as a DP gun in the AA umbrella, but don't add to the secondary battery... and having 6x 90mm guns per side on a Littorio would be a nice boost, as otherwise you've only got 6x 152mm guns per side... and looking at the French gun... it has -5º of depression, so I can't imagine that extra 2º is so important as to rule out the possibility of using the 90mm/50's as secondary (tertiary, in this case?) guns. The 135mm gun will probably end up on a lot of the higher tier ships. I've go no doubt that on a ship like the Ansaldo cruiser for Russia, the Italianized armament would replace the 130mm guns with 135mm guns, and such.

 

View PostSparvieroVV, on 22 April 2017 - 02:44 PM, said:

One is basically becoming a British CL without the smoke if AFT/BFT and mods are taken. *stares angrily at inop smoke generators*:teethhappy:

 

When it comes to AA guns I think we've covered most of the options.

 

135/45 - Etna/Vesuvius. Post war Garibaldi aa gun refit out of time span?

120/40? - I think this was the pre-war test caliber? Stefsap mentions on his site that a request for a 120/50 dual purpose mount was flat out rejected. 

100/47 - post war ammo?

90/50 dual mount.

90/71 - On the German thread this is mentioned. As I've seen this weapon mentioned in WoT, otherwise I'm not familiar with anything besides what was posted in that thread.

65/64 - This can come in two flavors. The manual feed that is what was going to be introduced in 1943 due to all the issues and powered version. For game play mechanics 65/64 with gunshield would be nice.

37/54 - Quad mount. Probable for UP.41? I do want to say there was an improved Breda 37mm in the works however as previously discussed it may have just been Breda starting to build Bofors copies.

20/65 quad and sextuplet mounts.

 

 

 

pretty much. We can kind-of guess the stats for some of them.

 

We know the stats for the twin 100mm/47 (6.6 dps @ 3.99 km), twin 37mm/54 (11.6 dps @ 3.51 km), and twin 13.2mm MG (4.1 dps @ 1.2km).

 

Taking advantage of the way other AA guns scale up in damage when they add guns to the mounts (40% increase in dps each time you double the number of barrels);

 

Single 13.2mm/76 - 2.9 dps @ 1.2 km

Single 37mm/54 - 8.3 dps @ 3.51 km

Quad 37mm/54 - 16.2 dps @ 3.51 km

Single 100mm/47 - 4.7 dps @ 3.99 km <-- not that anything we'd see in game would use this

 

The 20mm cannons will probably get the same 2.01 km range as ever other 20mm gun. As I already mentioned, the 135mm guns should get 5.19 km range, while the 90mm guns I'd hope would have somewhere from 4.5 to 5.01 km range. The 65mm/64 I think should get 5.01, given that the 76mm and 55mm guns get that range.

 

Oh, and if anyone is wonder why the ranges are all funky and have an extra .01 km of range and such... I don't know why, but that's what's up on the wiki, and those are the most exact values we get.

 

So, for example, if we were to take a Zara, and do a refit partly inspired by Gorizia (6x 37mm mounts)...let's say;

 

4x2 135mm/45 or 6x1 90mm/50

6x4 37mm/54

8x2 20mm/65 <--- according to wikipedia (I know, I know) Gorizia had her 13.2mm mounts replaced with eight 20mm mounts, six twins and two singles. Why not make them all twins?

 

So that should give us;

 

4x2 135mm/45 (??? dps @ 5.19 km)

6x4 37mm/54 (97.2 dps @ 3.51 km)

8x2 20mm/65 (??? dps @ 2.01 km)

 

or

 

6x1 90mm/50 (??? dps @ 4.5 - 5.01 km)

6x4 37mm/54 (97.2 dps @ 3.51 km)

8x2 20mm/65 (??? dps @ 2.01 km)


 


phoenix_jz #69 Posted 22 April 2017 - 09:10 PM

    Seaman

  • Players

  • 30
  • Member since:
    12-06-2014

View PostHistorynerd, on 22 April 2017 - 03:18 PM, said:

 

The AP on the Aosta may look good but nothing special, but tell me that again once we get the Roma as a premium. Her AP shells are going to be second to none, caliber-wise. :trollface:

 

I've had a lot of success with her AP, to be honest. Within 10 km it shreds other cruisers, and I managed to citadel a Shchors at 16.8 km (max range with a spotter, I only know it was said range because  I couldn't aim any further :D )... so it must have at least 75mm of penetration at that range.

 


SparvieroVV #70 Posted 22 April 2017 - 09:37 PM

    Leading Rate

  • Players

  • 123
  • Member since:
    10-01-2015

I'm still kind of wishing either the AP didn't bounce or break up. It's a faster, heavier shell than the Germans however as stated you have to get within ridiculous range to be effective. Otherwise it's plink, plink at ~500 a pop if it doesn't shatter, over pen or bounce. And that's what people are starting to figure out. They see d'Aosta they just go the other direction and make you give chase.

 

ps

 

Had a couple of good games where I was actually able to hunt down destroyers not so salty now. :hiding:



Pivke #71 Posted 23 April 2017 - 09:52 PM

    Chief Petty Officer

  • Beta Tester

  • 414
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

what is this thing just above the name? a smoke generator perhaps?

 


つ ◕_◕ ༽つ FIX MATCHMAKING! つ ◕_◕ ༽つ

つ ◕_◕ ༽つ OR RIOT! つ ◕_◕ ༽つ


SparvieroVV #72 Posted 23 April 2017 - 10:46 PM

    Leading Rate

  • Players

  • 123
  • Member since:
    10-01-2015

View PostPivke, on 23 April 2017 - 09:52 PM, said:

what is this thing just above the name? a smoke generator perhaps?

 

 

yes it is. 

Mucker #73 Posted 24 April 2017 - 04:55 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Players

  • 745
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostSparvieroVV, on 22 April 2017 - 09:37 PM, said:

I'm still kind of wishing either the AP didn't bounce or break up. It's a faster, heavier shell than the Germans however as stated you have to get within ridiculous range to be effective. Otherwise it's plink, plink at ~500 a pop if it doesn't shatter, over pen or bounce. And that's what people are starting to figure out. They see d'Aosta they just go the other direction and make you give chase.

 

ps

 

Had a couple of good games where I was actually able to hunt down destroyers not so salty now. :hiding:

 

Yeah, that pretty much sums up my experience in her. Either you citadel a cruiser or you do practically nothing. BB superstructure? The shells frigging bounce off! Very frustrating, Looks like IFHE is the way to go. :(

ilDuca #74 Posted Yesterday, 10:36 AM

    Able Seaman

  • Beta Tester

  • 59
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

I'm near the 4th row skill and I'm still not sure between IFHE or CE....

I have abandoned thie idea of going full AA build.

 

What do you suggest?



SparvieroVV #75 Posted Yesterday, 12:16 PM

    Leading Rate

  • Players

  • 123
  • Member since:
    10-01-2015
If you have the doubloons to spare for a reset maybe try IFHE first if you lob a lot of HE. Otherwise can't go wrong with CE.

Exocet6951 #76 Posted Yesterday, 01:27 PM

    Midshipman

  • Weekend Tester

  • 1,685
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012
I tried IFHE, and while the additional HE damage is acceptable on basically anything that's not German, you start really feeling the lack of fires (6% base with DE+IFHE) whenever you see a Bayern, Konig, or even a Bismarck/Gneisenau + premium variants that aren't showing nice juicy broadside.

CE isn't bad, but it's mostly a by default thing. You could try to turn the Duca into a late game pseudo-DD by having CE, I suppose.
I wouldn't mind a slight increase in base fire chance though. As it stands, it extremely low. 

SparvieroVV #77 Posted Yesterday, 04:42 PM

    Leading Rate

  • Players

  • 123
  • Member since:
    10-01-2015
Fires just aren't going to be an Italian strong suit. I'd rather drop the ratio of shattered shells and get some base damage. 




3 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users