Deamon93

Also the Brits tried with them as far as i recall. It would be nice to have them as option, although they weren't that useful(i may be wrong).

To be useful Yamato requires all the modules to increase the RoF but those cost a lot. Considering how much Yamato costs it takes a lot of games to make her worth playing.

The LSTs modified with rockets on would be useless. Those are landing crafts were used as support for amphibious assaults, in a naval engagements those would be useless. Besides with the speed they have they would be ganked by DDs in no time

Devantejah, on 02 April 2015 - 01:52 PM, said: Link isn't working, but I assume you mean that for example the Baltimore with upgraded hull have pretty much twice the AA dps compared to Des Moines? 355dps for the Baltimore (115 + 216 + 24) and the Des Moines have 180 (60 + 96 + 24) but with Baltimore only having one point more in AA rating. My theory is that larger guns do more damage but not as often while the small ones relies on high rate of fire with a small amount of damage. But if this is wrong, I think AA needs some tweaking. Ups, i'll fix the link. The issue isn't only the AA rating(which doesn't make much sense) but also the different DPS values some guns have. EDIT: i finished the check with all the lines(finally!) From what i gathered here are some more specific questions: 1)Why does the dps values per gun are so inconsistent? Some guns have a crap load of values, best example being the 25/60 which has a large variety of dps values. 2)Why the dps are set that way? For example the Japanese 40/39 has a dps of 6 while the US 40/56 has the most recurrent dps of 4.5 By the way if the 40/39 has indeed 6 dps per gun it means that the manliest mount of all times(8x40/39) should deal 48 dps per mount. If that's the case UK would have the most OP AA ever and switching to the 40/56 would be a nerf.

Well beating France would be relatively challenging, still we'll see since it won't happen anytime soon regardless. At tier 7 it was proposed a proto-Littorio, overall it's a safer bet. Caracciolo is fine at tier VI and even there she'll require some what-if modernization(modernized secondary and AA armament). The BC project 1930 is fairly similar to Littorio but i don't have any first hand info(when i went to La Spezia the part in which the model is kept was close, sadly). The Cassone seems so unrealistic that at the moment i prefer not to consider her. I also had a parallel mini line considering what Ferrati did but again those ships are complicated stuff to work with(since all are contemporaries of the Caracciolo and they will require substantial redesign). I haven't found any tier III cruiser yet, at least without considering the armored cruisers. If those get implemented would be so much easier: II)Garibaldi III)Pisa IV)San Giorgio (from V on would be the same) Sadly i posted all i have on those on the post with their dedicated part on. I hope to get more info on them eventually but i don't think it will happen anytime soon. Yeah the carriers are complicated, that's why i haven't worked on them yet ^^

I was going to upgrade New Orleans and i noticed the improvement in the AA value is marginal(34 from 30). I checked the details to see why the improvements is marginal and i saw something odd 1942: -26x1 20/70: 130 dps -6X2 40/56: 108 dps -8x1 127/25: 16 dps 1944 -9x1 + 17x2 20/70: 45 + 170 dps = 215 dps -6x4 40/56: 108 dps -8x1 127/25: 16 dps If the dps takes into account the amount of guns in the 1944 configuration the dps should be 216 and not 108, because it doesn't make sense that the twin mounts can have the same dps of the quadruple ones.

Myoko and Ibuki have a higher potential alpha damage(one more gun compared to New Orleans and Baltimore), they are less visible as far as i recall(i have to check the stats). They have worse AA but you can still use the torpedoes since sure they have relatively "bad" range but their speed is high. Regarding Senjo that's due to Des Moine and until she's around it's pointless to compare tier X cruisers(since there's not a single cruiser capable of defeating DM in a 1 vs 1 engagement)

Blake: difficult to judge since she's so different from Erie/Katori. I think WG would pick something more similar to the current tier Is so Blake would be excluded Cressy: All depends if armored cruisers get implemented or not. Monmouth: It makes sense since she's more or less comparable to St.Louis. Duke of Edinburgh: As Cressy. Moreover could be overtiered Minotaur: As Cressy. Moreover could be overtiered Hawkins: She's more or less similar to Furutaka so she should be a tier V Corageous: BCs are classified as BBs so Corageous is misplaced(tier III BC at best) York: She's more or less similar to Aoba so she should be a tier VI County: More or less comparable to other early Washington Treaty cruisers(Northampton/Pensacola and so on) so she should be at tier VII

The line which needs the most rework is the US one, not the Japanese. The Japanese line is kinda messed up because of misplacements in the US line, not because there are issues in the line itself.

It's difficult to have traits for the whole line since the lines change traits a lot while you go up. At tier II the two are pretty much even(Chikuma has more guns while Chester is a bit faster). At tier III they are totally different: St.Louis is pretty much an armored cruiser: slow(ish) cruiser armed to the teeth and well protected. On the other hand Tatsuta is faster, lightly armed and armored but with torpedoes At tier IV they are pretty even: Phoenix has more guns overall(considering the actual project which is the 10 gun configuration) but Kuma has more torpedoes(in theory even better if she gets the 610 mm torpedoes). At tier V without Furutaka ingame(yet) it's difficult to judge. At tier VI it's pointless to judge since Cleveland is misplaced At tier VII Mogami and Pensacola are evenly matched. Pensacola can win against Mogami but the JP cruiser is a force to reckon with, both with the 203 mm gun and with the 155 mm gun At tier VIII and IX they seem even although i haven't tested them(yet) At tier X it's pointless to compare since in a strait 1 vs 1 DM wins against any cruiser due to her 8" automatic freedom dispenser.

They take liberties regarding the planes on them but those were proper carriers while Miraglia isn't a carrier. She wasn't even used that way(she ended up as tender for the Italian sub fleet after 1943). Personally i would avoid using her since it would be a nightmare to place her and make her a viable option.

The problem is that there aren't seaplane tenders ingame. Besides i haven't worked on CVs yet. It's quite complicated to work on them because the few actually under construction(Sparviero and Aquila) were supposed to carry fighter-bombers only. In theory that would be an interesting feature, in practice who knows if WG will actually do that. Regarding Miraglia herself i don't think we'll see her since there are no seaplane tenders ingame, besides the M.18 and the Ro.43 won't be that useful since both were primarily scout planes and(at least for now) they just circle around the ship when launched. It would be a wasted slot pretty much.

Yeah we made awesome looking ships and they were appreciated by other nations: Russia and Sweden had a fair number of ships related to Italy in some way(either designed or, like in case of Tashkent, even built). Considering historical relevance alone Italy should be a bit higher than either 6th or 7th in line. Then again i don't mind all too much since there will be Italian ships within the Russian tree(with some more which are pretty much Russian modifications of the original design). Thank you!

There aren't exactly ships comparable to Erie/Katori. There's Campania, which would require a speed buff, there's Libia, which would require a properly functioning secondary armament(although as it is right now it isn't that bad) and finally there's Eritrea, which doesn't exactly have a strong armament. All of these would require some WG love

But Libia has 8x120 mm guns as secondary armament which compensates.

It could be. I chose Libia primarily because she should be able to handle Erie and Katori while Eritrea may not(without any buff). Still if WG buffs her in some way it should be possible.

Bismarck got removed from that article though.

Personally i'm against DM but either you move all the cruiser lines up by one(and that would still require some paper) or you replace DM with a more conventional project made by the US. That would be another paper but it would be less extreme and overall easier to balance

The project got scrapped because the war ended and the development of the gun was delayed as a consequence. Not a single nation, excluding the US, will have a tier X cruiser(if DM stays) which was actually built

Because it's a nerf to balance her out with Aoba, otherwise Aoba wouldn't have a chance. Besides 10 rpm at tier VIII would work and there won't be a huge jump between her and Worchester in terms of firepower(which has a RoF of 12 rpm per gun). Minor optical differences in them? The Pz.IV changed drastically over time: originally it was an infantry support tank and evolved over time. You can't say the A and the H have just optical differences since the H >> A. Same goes for the other tanks. That's what i said all along. No that's not the Minotaur i meant, the Minotaur i meant has this guns

There are missing slots because the models aren't ready yet.

Cleveland is nerfed because of her placement, if brought to tier VIII there's no need to have such nerf. Hence a better placement = absence of nerfs. Besides Fargo and Cleveland are basically the same ship so it would look odd to have the two present in two different tiers. The British have Neptune/Minotaur as tier X material

Cleveland has a RoF of 10 rpm, Brooklyn 8 rpm. Both fire 120 rpm in broadside per minute, hence they have the same DPM considering broadside(in other scenarios Cleveland > Brooklyn). Overall Cleveland is superior because she retained the same RoF on broadside with one less turret which granted displacement for much better secondary and AA armament. As such there's no reason why the two have to stay on the same tier since Cleveland is clearly superior. Cleveland will have Fargo as preset, there aren't many differences between the two other than AA and other minor changes(like St.Louis is for Brooklyn and many other cases). Worchester as tier IX is fine and that's where she should be(especially assuming the British will get their 20 rpm 6" gun of doom for their tier X CLs) Regarding the CAs i think Pensacola and Northampton could coexist at tier VII, the problem is it may be a bit exp heavy to make the tier VI elite(with three ships to research). In case having both as standard is found redundant either one could become premium(most likely Pensacola since she was pretty much a stand alone development while every CA developed by the US is based on Northampton)

She isn't that much different from Pensacola, with the advantage of being faster. At the moment Pensacola vs Mogami isn't bad(i rekted a lot of Mogamis with my Pensacola without any issue and without the speed advantage). Considering the fact that Pensacola is at tier VII it doesn't sound that weird to have her at tier VI. Sure she'll be a pain to play due to the inability to tank damage but she's a glass cannon(literally), she isn't supposed to. Cleveland and Brooklyn aren't comparable. Brooklyn has a heavier broadside but they fire the same amount of shells per broadside(hence same potential DPM). When the ship isn't capable of firing the whole broadside Cleveland is superior as far as firepower is concerned(plus Cleveland has better secondary and AA armament). Brooklyn is tier VII material and there are multiple topics regarding moving Cleveland up. Myself and others(Mr3awsome is one of them) suggested to move her up to tier VIII where she belongs

Duquesne similar protection? What? There's nothing as bad as her in terms of protection. Still there's a reason why i placed Trento at tier VII(ie above Aoba) It isn't premium material. Most likely the French CA would be like these: VI)Duquesne VII)Suffre VIII)Algerie IX)St.Louis X)??(i don't know any tier X material capable of facing DM) It's a solid line overall, of course based on how the lines currently look like