piritskenyer

Would say T7 or 8 premium much like HMS Blake. Old Pepsi? You mean the one with the exact same capabilities of the current one but with a huge det range? If your answer is yes, my answer is still no. Admittedly, I could do much better in Pepsi, but in a tier 6 match with two T7's, one being me, I bumraped the enemy team in the old Pepsi. Like I said: you'd need to gimp her substantially to fit her at T6 Also, Spee isn't exactly a hard counter to a good cruiser player. Just the other day I had my sweet time with a Spee division. Yes, they put me down, but not before I sunk one of them and cripled another. Again, 1-on-1 the old Pepsi would still be more than a match to those ships.

First, summoning @Trainspite Second: [edited]no. I saw Pensacola listed as tier six, and just... no. Whoever came up with that is a [edited]idiot. At T6, even with a 20sec reload that ship would wreck any other cruiser. You'd have to hopelessly gimp the ship in order to make her fit for T6 and then what even is the point. Also, if you think Pensacola isn't good enough for T7, what makes you think Portland is gonna be any better? It only has marginally better armour with a thicker belt but not better overall protection. If we really were to rearrange CA's then it'd go T7 NO T8 Wichita T9 B-more TX DM Pepsi being turned into a T7 prem as USS Salt Lake City (as that's the historical hull in game) Third: Problem with the CL's is that you're basically putting up modifications: St. Louis is an AA-improved re-run of the Brooklyns and Fargo is an AA-improved re-run of Cleveland. You gain better AA, but not much else. Okay, in game terms that doesn't matter because you can balance around it, but still, that's just waste of space. For a lack of better alternative, okay, sure, do it, but then here's a question: Why do a split right down at T6, having to cover 5 tiers twice?

hmm, I didn't think about that. That said: Okay, it places last 2/3, but only by a very small margin according to the other two "normal" ships. The fact that in all three cases she brings in the second best damage (best if we discount the stupid ship) makes it seem that the main reason for her losing over and over is more to do with players than with actual ship characteristics (muh range, muh overmatch)

no.

"Luck" and "skill" are not contrary terms tho [disclaimer for Marvin: yes, I am joking]

A little addition there: Despite looking similar, Atago and Myoko are quite different kinds of beasts. Myoko needs a steady position to put out her sustained rate of fire and is thus best suited for support work. Atago has better gun handling, albeit slower reload, which allows her to pull off more agressive plays. Atago also has better and more torpedoes that have better arcs on the ship, which coupled with the stealth potential gives you a slim margin for effective stealtorping. As someone who disliked Myoko very much, but loves the Atago to bits, I'd say don't take Myoko as a basis for Atago. They may look similar, but they certainly don't play in a similar fashion.

Nah. NoCal had its citadel lower by default. When Montana, Iowa and Missouri got their citadels lowered they were lowered exactly because people were crying about how much more vulnerable they were compared to the NoCal.

Oh thanks.

The [edited]is up with this picture? You talk about the Conqueror, but this is the Iowa. It's not even battle damage, it's a [edited]gun explosion.

You guys all assume that during testing we do nothing but spam HE. Newsflash: We're not retarded and thus don't sling HE, unless the target is untouchable with AP.

I don't really get the point of this picture in this thread. Picture: Turret 2 of USS Iowa explodes when propellant is ignited in the open breech of the centre gun of turret 2, 19 April 1989.

I have the strong feeling that Wargaming is strongly catering to BB players and noone else, and that strongly annoys me. BB's lately have become stupid proof and that makes me sad.

That's why I start lines after two others have already come out after it :D

16.5" But yeah.

Yeah. Problem is that before british BB's showed up with their stupidly powerful HE, we had the IJN cruisers with great firechance and KM ships with great HE pen. Now British BB's just have both and made two lines redundant (or semi redundant) in one go.

What if this is all a clever corporate ploy to push the official modpack?

Kongo, simply because you can keep up with higher tier cruisers and switch flanks if you realise you're in the wrong place.

The IJN cruiser thing is supposed to be better than average firechance, with comfortable shellspeeds. Firedensities/rof: T5 Agano: 6 shots / 8 rpm - probably last, but you have great torps and hopefully okay stealth T6 Agano Kai: 8 shots / 8 rpm - same as Leander, but you have HE T7 'Niyodo': 9 shots / 7 rpm (8 rpm) - lower than other CL's, but better firechance me thinks, also highest HE damage/shell in this weapon class T8 Mogami/Suzuya: 15 shots / 6 rpm - lower than other CL's, but highest firedensity. The reason why the same turrets on 'Niyodo' could have higher rof is because Niyodo having never existed, we can assume/imagine that the japanese would have fixed the ammunition hoists that were limiting the rof in the first place on the Mogami class. Also at this point (with Mogami having been rendered useable with 155's) we could abandon Suzuya and make Mogami into the merger between the two lines (a bit like the US HT line at T6/7 in WoT).

I don'T think that would be necessary. You have to remember that the guns themselves weren't any more outdated than, say, those of the Cleveland in core design (Wellin breech type, separate ammunition gun), what would have mattered greatly is firecontrol and emplacement. The twin turrets on Agano allowed for a relatively okay handling arrangement. Gameplay wise, we're probably talking about 7-7.5-8 round/minute, and since we have a firedensity greater than 4 shots/salvo (which is why the module was implemented for the Yubari/Katori/Iwaki), it probably won't be needed. Other ships with firedensity in that region get away with not having it just fine.

According to navweaps tables, the 340 mm gun couldn't penetrate 14" (356 mm) at point blank range... What drag coefficients did you use, what crh, etc?

This appears to be fairly consistent with the tabularised data on navweaps as well as the (slightly different) values displayed on the weapon's main page. All in all, penetration shouldn't really be a concern, lower overmatch values could be, however. (but I for one am not too concerned about that.) http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNFR_15-45_m1935.php http://www.navweaps.com/index_nathan/Penetration_France.htm

Okay, sorry

Ehh. My mental facilities are not up to scratch today :D

AFAIK 1.8

Sometimes there are stat adjustments to supertest ships that happen during the testing period. While regular players don't have access to the ships, the clients still contain their files and thus need updating. Or a minor clipping bugfix is implemented.