Deamon93

That would be really nice! By the way do you know her armor scheme? I assume it is somewhat similar to Caracciolo although that's just an assumption

10 rpm is the theoretical RoF and the French are known to eff up sometimes(Richelieu before the fixes, Mogador etc). I'm not saying it's not true or implausible but Richelieu as originally constructed had massive issues in the feeding system(which were somewhat fixed over the years, also thanks to Uncle Sam) and Mogador had similar issues as well. Regarding the secondary armament i found this picture and i don't see eight turrets, in any case also Des Moine can fire with eight turrets on broadside so she won't be that much different regarless. Speed wise one knot faster isn't much and, in a strait up fight, it won't give you a definitive edge. Fixed a typo(you missed the final o in Littorio). Anyway yeah Alsace is a nice ship but she won't be able to stay at tier X(assuming the HP pool is somewhat linked to the displacement). In any case we'll see

You're welcome!

Here are my opinions: Cruisers I)Should be fine as tier I II)It's unclear if armored cruisers will show up. If they do tier II may be fine although i'm not 100% sure(since there are no counterparts ingame) III)She doesn't fit tier III at all since she's slower than St.Louis without her level of protection and armament. IV)In terms of firepower and speed is good but her protection(or lack of) would balance her out. Overall she should be fine at tier IV V)In my opinion it's fine VI)As above From VII to X: they are overtiered by one, all of them. At least they are overtiered compared to the heavy cruisers we currently have available. Battleships: III)Overall she should be balanced at tier III with a heavier broadside but worse protection IV)Should be fine V)She has a lot of guns but she should be balanced with New York, in theory at least. VI)She may work although i don't know her protection VII)I'm not sure about this placement mainly because there are two BCs in the lines(Kongo and Amagi) and, using these two as benchmark, Dunkerque is more similar to the former than the latter. VIII)Should be fineIX)Should be fine X)I wouldn't use a ship which was designed from scratched by Tzoli. Not that the design is bad but at least you should ask him first Destroyers: II)Should be fine III)I think she would be a bit weak compared to the counterparts but overall should be fine IV)Should be fine V)Why Le Hardi already? She was pretty much one of the last destroyers developed in France and it's odd to see her at tier V. She should be a bit higher, i think tier VII/VIII at least. From VI to IX: they should be fine although there aren't any large destroyers at the moment(ingame i mean) so it's difficult to judge X)I'm not sure since her artillery armament sucked really bad. She may be fun though Carriers: Difficult to comment on those since their balance is weird and it's difficult to anticipate how they will be. In any case i wasn't aware of differences between Joffre and Painnlevé. Cruisers: I)Should be fine II)Should be fine III)Should be fine although she's quite similar in terms of capabilities to Coln(and pretty much every other CL developed on those years). I would see them at tier IV more than tier III but i guess a split is doable IV)Should be fine V)Should be fine VI)Should be fine although she would require some tuning in terms of stats most likely VII)I agree on the placement although i'm not sure if WG has decided where to put them already. VIII)Should be fine IX)Same discussion of Deutschland. By the way i don't see how the P-class would be placed two tiers higher. Granted is faster but in all the other aspects there are many similarities with the older design(as far as i know at least). X)I don't know this design so i can't say for sure. Battlecruisers: III)Should be fine IV)Should be fine V)Should be fine VI)Should be fine VII)Should be fine VIII)Should be fine and interesting pick against Amagi. In theory the two should be able to coexist in the same tier without any issue(since Scharnhorst is better protected while Amagi is overall better armed). IX)I don't see how the O-class would be able to compete at tier IX. Overall Scharnhorst is much better that her(slightly slower but better protected and with the same armament) X)Should be fine Battleships: III)Should be fine IV)Should be fine V)Should be fine VI)Should be fine VII)A ship armed as the tier Xs at tier VII? Isn't that a bit extreme? VIII)Should be fine IX)Should be fine Destroyers: II)Should be fine III)Should be fine IV)Should be fine V)Should be fine VI)Should be fine VII)Should be fine VIII)Should be fine although i'm not sure IX)Should be fine X)Should be fine Carriers: As for the French tree is difficult to judge, we'll see.

Ferrati made a lot of designs other than Caracciolo(D, F and G with some iterations). Here you can find some images of them.

The info is there, the problem is that the ship is a bit unrealistic(hence why in the tree i'm making she's just a placeholder for now).

Hood had design flaws though since she was a pre-Jutland BC which got hastily modified after what happened there. Besides KGV and Vanguard would roflstomp her without many issues

The US cruiser line currently has some possibly game breaking features which would pretty much kill the hope of having other cruiser lines without warping reality too much. There are two main issues at the moment: Cleveland(subject of multiple discussions) and Des Moine. Cleveland Issues: -Her existence at tier VI makes every effort of making a CL line pointless since most CL development from every other nation is compressed between Omaha(developed at the end of WWI) and her(developed in the late '30s) -She had to be nerfed considerably(losing 2.5 rpm plus multiple AA guns) not to be OP(meanwhile WG buffed Aoba to level the field) -She makes Pensacola look silly causing reaction like "let's swap Pensacola and Cleveland" Solution: the solution is simple but time consuming(hence not a priority): making a parallel CL line. VI)Preliminary Brooklyn VII)Brooklyn VIII)Cleveland(without the current nerfs so the original 10 rpm RoF and all her AA mounted) IX)Worchester It will add another paper ship but that's required since the US doesn't have anything else between Omaha and Brooklyn. Des Moine Issues: -A single DM has the firepower of 2.5 Baltimores, making a tier IX vs tier X battle quite one sided. Sure the tier X has to be stronger to make people want her but that's just silly. -DM is so strong that finding reasonable counterparts is pretty much impossible. DM vs Senjo would end up with DM winning most of the times Solution: Sure DM was built and so on but she can't stay without causing issues. The solution is to replace her with paper designs made in the early '40s which are similar to Baltimore but with four triple turrets instead of three triples. It would be somewhat comparable to Senjo giving to the JP counterpart better chances. Of course all this is based on my personal opinion on the current state of the game. Feel free to comment! Have a nice day! Deamon93

Midway will come but there will be the original design without the angled deck and so on.

In theory yeah. I will spend more time on that idea further down the road since first i have to guestimate the planes and the loadout. Most likely will be the most painful task of all but has to be done <.<

You're welcome, glad you people appreciate my work! I avoid the whole plane issue because of that reason. Moreover i would love to see if the idea of having fighter bombers only is feasible since a more versatile air group(although less powerful compared to specialized planes) would compensate the lack of numbers. Of course that's just an opinion/wish

As far as tonnage is concerned the original project is similar to Ranger so she may potentially be a tier VII, considering the ship alone. The number of planes and, more importantly, which planes will be carried is a whole new issue which would be quite complicated to deal with. Regarding the variants i don't really know. For the variants my estimated guess is: A: tier VI B: tier VI(since she's comparable to A) C: tier V D: tier V(since she's comparable to C) Based on the ships alone they may potentially work although i'm not 100% sure.

Too little too late, just like other things. Anyway i found an interesting document on the multiple carrier designs developed by Bonfiglietti. It's in Italian but i'll translate the most important parts eventually(although it will take forever <.<). http://www.avia-it.com/act/Editoriali/Editoriali_ottobre_2008/16_Il_Progetto_Bonfiglietti.pdf

Well those are the two "easy" carriers, i will have to work on the other projects which would be more complicated. Anyway that's an interesting story although, as you said, i don't know how successful those guns would have been due to the nature of the mounts. Still it was worth a shot, even though nothing came out of it.

CARRIERS NOTE: i will consider the ship themselves alone without considering the planes. I will make another topic on the planes themselves, guestimating which planes would be used for which ship. IV: emergency liner Roma conversion It was a project developed in 1936, during the Italo-Ethiopian war. It was designed to be a fast conversion of the liner Roma. Nothing came out of it but the design was then reused for the final conversion project of her sistership, liner Augustus(RN Sparviero). Here are all the pieces of info i have regarding the ship: Hangar dimensions: 145x27,4 m Flight deck dimensions: 195x27 m(reduced to 5 m over the bow to make room for the armament) Number of planes: around 30 Protection: // Armament: 4x1 heavy AA guns(the author assumed 100/47), unknown AA armament V: Sparviero Story For quite some time both Mussolini and Supermarina never considered the carriers as useful asset, considering the land bases sufficient. After the victories achieved by the British thanks to their carriers(Taranto and Matapan the two with the biggest impact) finally they decided to develop carriers to support the fleet. Since there wasn't time to build a carrier from scratch the engineers had to develop designs from existing hulls. Two liners were chosen to be converted: Roma and Augustus. Augustus, renamed Falco and then Sparviero, had a more conservative conversion in the end, based on the previous emergency conversion of Roma developed back in 1936: the propulsion system remained the same(based on four diesel engines generating 28.000 hp in total) while the superstructure was removed to make room for the flight deck. She had only one hangar and two elevators and no island was placed. The construction started in September 1942 and very little was done by the time of the Armistice. She was then captured by the Germans to be scuttled in 5/10/1944 in the port of Genoa. After WWII she was raised and scrapped. Technical data Standard displacement: 23000 tons Full load displacement: 28000 tons Length: 202.4(water line), 216,65 m(overall) Beam: 25 m(water line), 30 m max Draught: 9.2 m Installed power: 28000 hp Maximum speed: 18 knots Number of planes: 35 Protection: 60-80 mm(belt) Armament: -Original armament: 6x152/45, 4x1 102/45, some AA -Reworked armament: 8x1 135/45, 12x1 65/64, 4x6 20/65 VI: Project Gagnotto Technical data Full load displacement: 25630 tons Lenght: 235,4 m(overall lenght), 215,4 m(between perpendiculars) Beam: 29 m Draught: 7,5 m Installed power: 65000 hp Maximum speed: 26 knots Number of planes: 48 Protection: // Armament: 4x2 120/50, 4x2 100/47, unknown AA VII: Project Bonfiglietti (to be updated) Technical data Standard load displacement: 15240 tons Full load displacement: 17540 tons Lenght: 220 m(overall lenght), 210 m(between perpendiculars) Beam: 23 m Draught: 5,55 m Installed power: 70000 hp Maximum speed: 29 knots Number of planes: 47 Protection: 60 mm(citadel), 50 mm(fuel tanks), 20 mm(hangar belt), 35 mm(flight deck), 15 mm(splinter deck), 40 mm(hangar deck) Armament: 4x2 152/53 Mod 1926, 8x2 100/47, unknown AA VIII: Aquila (to be updated) Story The origin of Aquila is in common with the Sparviero. Originally Aquila was the liner Roma but the conversion was much more drastic compared to the sister ship. There were many changes structurally speaking to improve stability and protection(clipper bow, increased ship length, torpedo bulges filled with concrete, the bulkheads were rearranged). Another improvement over the half sister is on the machinery which was changed and replaced by the machinery of two Capitani Romani-class(Cornelio Silla and Paolo Emilio), although the combined output was toned down to 151000 hp. Other advantages Aquila had over Sparviero are the presence of the island, a higher amount of planes carried and a high number of AA guns. The conversion started in 1941 and by the time of the Armistice she was pretty much complete(the work on her was slowed down due to Allied air raids). Shew was captured by the Germans, damaged multiple times(by Allied bombers and Italian frogmen) and finally scuttled at the end of the war. She was raised in the late '40s and then sold for scrap. Technical data Standard displacement: 21230 tons Full load displacement: 28350 tons Length: 207.4 m(water line), 232.5 m(overall length) Beam: 29.4 m(water line), 30.1 m max Draught: 7.31 Installed power: 151000 hp Maximum speed: 30 knots Number of planes: 51(fixed wings), 66(folded wings) Protection: 60-80 mm(magazine and fuel tanks), 400-800 mm(torpedo bulges) Armament: 8x1 135/45, 12x1 65/64, 22x6 20/65 IX: Falco (to be updated) Basically she is an iteration of the previous RN Aquila but with improvements: 1)Larger hangar capable of holding some more planes 2)Larger torpedo bulges to improve stability 3)Machinery arranged on three shafts instead of four Other than these changes the rest should be the same of the sister ship X: Impero source: https://stefsap.file...11/hpim0813.jpg (to be updated) Technical data Full load displacement: 45075 tons Lenght: 231 m(between perpendiculars), 238 m(overall lenght) Beam: 32 m(water line) Draught: 10.4 m Installed power: 130000 HP Number of planes: between 50 and 60 with fixed wings Maximum speed: 30 knots Protection: identical to Littorio(belt armor), unknown(deck armor) Armament: 4x3 152/55 Mod 1934, a number of 65/64(from the images is hard to count), unknown AA

Scharnhorst is more armored than the O-class yeah. I haven't noticed that immediately, thanks! Anyway here are the protection values of both from Navypedia.org Scharnhorst O-class In a 1 vs 1 Scharnhorst should get the edge in theory since she was also supposed to get the 380 mm guns. Still placing the O-class between the battlecruiser is complicated since the WWI ones were better protected than the O-class. Personally i don't really know where to place her since she hasn't the strongest primary armament(only six guns isn't great), the strongest protection and so on. More or less like the pocket battleships: too high and they get raped but the newer heavy cruisers, too low and they become OP.

Understandable . Still that's a very minor detail so don't bother changing it. Anyway do you have details on the carriers? Since, other than Weser and Graf Zeppelin, i don't know anything about them.

The question was why BCs are classified as cruisers and not as battleships(the icon on the tree).

The tree looks interesting although i have some doubts regarding certain placements: -Panzerschiff-Entwurf 1928: i'm not sure about this ship as tier X cruiser since similar designs(Alaska, B-65 etc) aren't classified as such. -Projekt L 20 e α: this ship is armed as the tier Xs with the difference of being placed at tier VII. I think it should be a bit higher although where exactly i don't know Other than that would be nice if you guys share some info also in here for whomever doesn't know German, would be an interesting read.

Regarding Ciano i based my info on what the MMI site has to offer so if it's wrong it's their fault . Would be interesting to see if both are right, if so the most different variant could be a premium yeah.

Rebuilding the Cavours made some sense, rebuilding the Duilios wasn't exactly great(they could have focused on completing Littorio and Vittorio Veneto which both were launched around the same time the reconstruction of the Duilios started). Anyway i improved the layout of the tree(making the links between ships visible) and opened a different page for the potential premiums. I listed all the ships i consider potential premiums following these criteria: I)Italian designs actually completed but which don't have room in the lines II)Italian designs which remained on paper and don't have logical links with the lines III)Foreign designs which entered service with the RM If i forgot to mentioned some ships please let me know!

I think it would have been better, technically speaking, a brand new ship instead of rebuilding the old ones. Regarding the guns with single cradle yeah that was bad and we kept on using them until very late(the 135/45 and the 152/55 plus of course the large caliber guns). Yeah the destroyers are able to catch a lot of eyes. Thanks anyway!

So the increased longitudinal dispersion of the 320/44 was a desired feature. Would be interesting to see how WG implements that into the game, i guess we have to wait for Giulio Cesare to find out(since the Russians didn't bother changing the primary armament). Nice find though!

After the UK but yeah Italy will come. Still my point is that HMS Incomparable(and equivalent designs) are unrealistic and would require a lot of WG attention to make them competitive at higher tiers where they should be placed considering displacement, firepower and so on(although WG said multiple times the only possible exception to the maximum caliber rule will be H-42 if H-41 won't suffice at tier X)