piritskenyer

Well, the three funnels do look pretty, esp the refit ones, but I think London's look is more in line with the rest of the cruisers. Also, those structural issues are not going to be present in game. All in all, London would better fit (imo) aesthetically into the British lines. Another thing: Trainspite to the rescue, he has deduced that the 4.5" belt value was based on the armour thickness and the backing plate added up. It seems that WG sometimes adds the backing plate to the armour value and sometimes they don't, so the ingame belt thickness could be either value. Also (and this is going to make Trainspite roll his eyes), HMAS Australia for T7 Commonwealth CA?

I know what Stage 5 is (was), it's just what it sounda like if one is from the oitside :D

I for one would rather go for this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-class_cruiser She'd be a fine T6 prem cruiser for the Germans, one very different and yet very familiar.

I might even be interested in it despite it being German tbh...

"Stage 5" (with capital S) sounds like - a form of cancer or other bad disease - a secret (sikrit) organisation - a secret weapon - a mysterious serum

I don't really know where you get this expensive failure thing. London was the only one rebuilt in the way that she was because the war broke out before her sisters could be taken in for similar modernisation. She ended up being similar to Fiji in more than one way. She also was the only one of her class to have twin 4" secondaries. The entire original London-class was by the way a modification on the County class, namely moving the bridge structure back to clear B turret's firing arc. I agree that in terms of belt armour she'd be rather weak (3.5" or 88.9 mm) (although one source states that London had a 4.5" (114.3 mm) strip at the waterline as well) but I don't think she'd be a bad ship by any stretch. I for one love her blocky bridge look (a bit more than the earlier look of the others, although they do look nice too). In my opinion London would be the perfect candidate for T7 because of her extensive rebuild. A-hull would be the traditional 3-funnel CA, B-hull would be the Fiji-looking thing. For T6 I think Exeter would be a prime choice with her noted upgrade to armament (after the River Plate), and generally similar looks to Leander. T5 would pretty easily be Hawkins with her 7.5" rifles that had terrible enrgy retention. For T8 there would be Surrey https://forum.worldofwarships.com/topic/86716-a-detailed-look-at-surrey-design-y-trainspites-drawing-board/ T9 would be Benbow a 1940 proposal, 3x3x 8" TX would be Drake (aka my precious), a compact heavy cruiser proposal carrying 3x3x 9.2"/47 Mk X's, firing 5/10crh shells. Here's another link (shameless self promotion is shameless) scroll down to Train's and my replies.

I found the guns pretty solid. They are no russian lolcanons, but the HE is very painful to be on the recieving end of, no matter the angle. If you invest in IFHE, you can in fact fire nothing but HE amd lolpen any BB deck (including Moskva's). The AP is strong in penetration, however it gets no bounce angle favours, so you have to choose yoir moment to use it wisely. If you do so, you can delete lesser cruisers (like a Minotaur, huehuehue), and even seriously damage battleships at close range. The guns are not railguns, however. They have respectable velocity (845 on both shells) and not very high dropoff, but at extreme range the lead takes some getting used to. The armour, apart from the plating (27mm I think) is solid. Don't let the armour viewer fool you, yoir belt is hidden inside the armour model. Getting into a straight fight with another cruiser is gonna leave you on equal-ish terms, but you should leave that for the end of the match when you can best exploot your speed. Speaking of which: your top speed with flag and boost is 43kts, so you can reinforce flanks as needed during the battle, and the sheer speed is going to throw off quite some people's aim. The maneuverability isn't bad, but it's a big cruiser, so you won't be turning on a dime. The torps are mainly brawling weapons, they are pretty average at 9km/60kts/15-odd k damage with 3/side. Survivability is okay, again, you're a big ship, so you get a bunch of hitpoints (not as much as Moskva, we can't have that). Concealment is again, that of a big ship, but that was, again, to be expected. About Algérie: she is a very solid ship. She has good speed, good armour, good RoF, good handling and good enough concealment. I for one like her and going to keep her.

There was a penetration curve added in the second page of the thread, you can compare that. The krupp on the pencurve isy estimation for the Cardonald shells.

Old Vickers Mark M guns that fired 6 crh shells at a velocity of 850 m/s. Perfectly fine ballistically, no need to panic. Rate of fire of 7-8 on Agano, again,perfectly workable in game.

That looks familiar. Also, don't worry about Agano, those guns are perfectly fine for T5

Shameless self-plug: I invite you to check out the link in my signature pertaining to my Vanguard write-up, I think you will find it satisfying :)

A well driven Pepsi can easily shrug off a Fiji from the front, while a Fiji can't do the same to a Pepsi's shells. Also, a Pepsi can delete a Fiji with a well placed salvo, while a Fiji meeds at the very least two full salvoes to do the same to a Pepsi (or any T7 ship really). I agree that Fiji is a very good ship, but still have great confidence in my Pepsi. I

I really don't blame you, Bretagne is one of the more mediocre ships in the line. It's like a New York, but a tad weaker.

Fair enough. Ome thing though: don't underestimate the Pepsi, as a well driven one can most certainly kill you.

I hope not :|

I disagree. If you aim for or under the waterline on underwater cit BB's, your chances to put a cit in is actually now generally higher than before, so in a way less RNG dependent. Before you needed to get lucky (blessed by rngsus) to score cits on some of the BB's.

I think there is nothing to fix. This is a global change that affects everyone.

Probably because they are idiots.

Hmmmm, let me think No.

Have you considered getting better? Also, since when is 30 seconds base turret traverse considered bad?

You have to admit tho, the irony is delicious

*edited*

*edited*

Does not agree ---> must be wrong, stupid or a WG mercenary. Classic politics rhetoric. You, my good sir, are an... *bleeped by built in WG merc' automated censoring algorithm*

Same. First time hearing it.