Historynerd

Well, apart from Ruggerio di Lauria, which I mentioned before, all the other historic admirals are pretty much taken. That is, if we don't want to get into some personalities closer to us, like Paolo Thaon di Revel (leader of the RM during WWI, but potentially controversial since his ties with fascism), Enrico Millo and Luigi Rizzo; a more neutral personality could be Vittorio Emanuele Cuniberti, perhaps (first to publish the idea of "all big-gun battleship"). The first seems to me a bit meh... it doesn't say much, and it clashes a bit with the Impero. The second would have been an ok name for a further ship of the Soldati-class, but here we talk about DDs, and given that for high tiers we have only one undetermined spot (the Maestrale potenziato for Tier VIII), as Tier 9 (Comandanti Medaglie d'Oro) and Tier 10 (Capitani Romani), there is little space for new names.

Really constructive... The first doesn't have much sense to me. It would be like naming a British BB after Trafalgar Square... For the second, first of all, it was taken by a Francesco Caracciolo-class battleship, second, it's "Cristoforo Colombo".

Har har.

That's why I specified "institutions of civilian government", while the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force is a military institution.

Probably, yes. But yet, neither of these symbols are currently used by institutions of civilian government, are they? But I think it's better not to dwell on this, since the mods might feel this is too political. If it means that at Tier 8 we'll find the Vittorio Veneto instead of the Littorio... well, I'll try and live with it.

Yes; and the incomplete Squadrista was renamed Corsaro. However, don't get me wrong with this, I don't wish to express any sympathy or adhesion of sorts towards any kind of fascist ideology or movement, but I feel that any potential issue there might be over the Littorio's name is kind of ridicolous, considering that the object it references is still very much present in the seals of public institutions of countries like the United States or France...

The Capitani Romani, as the name implies, was more about great Roman military leaders than emperors, and only in three cases (Ottaviano Augusto, Claudio Tiberio and Ulpio Traiano) these overlapped. Galileo was taken, together with most scientific Italian personalities. Apart from Dante (whose name was used for a dreadnought), no literary or artistic names were chosen, but I'd be careful about using them. We can dig in names used in the pre-WWI Regia Marina, such as Re d'Italia (name of the armoured frigate sunk at Lissa in 1866), Carlo Alberto (this might be a bit controversial, but it could have been in line with naming conventions), Ruggero di Lauria (name of a predreadnought, we might re-use it for a drednought perhaps). Deamon93 said that the Tier 10 BB design he found and he's digging into kinda already has a name, i.e. Marco Aurelio, which in my opinion works nicely.

You lost me at this. If one is playing singleplayer, well, he can do whatever he wants. If one is playing together with other persons... well, sorry, but he has to behave, or else be sanctioned if he breaks the rules he agreed to follow when he began playing that game.

Nah, don't worry. It was just me being a bit precise, nothing else.

A very interesting factor; you have my thanks. It's neither a RN nor a VMF naval shell, so I won't ask you to predict a Model 1934's APC shell drag cohefficient, but I am not too worried about it...

I agree on it not being equivalent, just that it was "rather similar", as it was in the same area, with a warhead of comparable effect. One might perhaps theorize that the VV was saved by the fact that the outermost shaft simply gave way, while the one of the PoW held on, with destructive results. Still, I'd like to point out that, from what I know, it's not like the VV's crew had it particularly easy. The containment of the flooding, the restarting of the two other shafts and the maintaining of a considerable speed while having quite some water onboard took some strenuous efforts; the officer in charge of damage control (Ruggero Vio, to which we owe the picture of the damage) was promoted for his actions afterwards.

I feel I should put this here, just for reference... On his Reddit Q&A, this was asked to Sub_Octavian: Q: What is the situation with the Italian ships? Can we hope in at least a premium ship soon? A: There will be SOME Italian ships - this is logical and expected. But...no leaks on that from me. Sorry.

Errr.... Guys, I don't want to incite a discussion or anything, but I want to point out that a battleship did survive a rather similar torpedo hit: the Vittorio Veneto, during the battle of Cape Matapan. True, she didn't suffer any more air attacks after this, so it was not the same situation as the PoW ('cause if it had been, I acknowledge the VV would have gone to Davy Jones' locker as well), yet to me it seems significant that the VV was able to restore engine power quickly (fifteen minutes at most), to not lose (AFAIK, I might be wrong tough) electrical power and to contain the flooding, and to move away from the area at a respectable speed (16, ant later 19 knots), while the PoW's damage proved less controllable.

There is no need for me to say anything further. You have exposed your prejudices, your ignorance and your shallowness for all to see; anyone can judge the depth of your suggestion, and what lies behind it, so that they know how they should take any further interventions from your part, on this or in other discussions regarding history. Enjoy your trips to these places. I think this might be one of the few things you might be qualified to speak about.

Nice, focusing on the lesser aspect of my intervention and being silent on all others. Again, a very favored tactic by someone who cannot reply to the other points. And it's incredibly shallow of you to talk of countless people emigrating to other countries to escape poverty and build a decent life, as "changing sides". It must be easy for you to throw these jokes around about the plight of such persons, when you are sitting behind a keyboard, well fed and with a house around you. It only shows even further that your "wittiness" hides only ignorance and lack of empathy towards what has happened in history, and what lies behind ancient tragedies and conflicts, to talk about them with such lack of respect and understanding.

It's not, because I don't approve of anything like that, aimed at anyone. But it's normal that you tried to imply I was ok with that. My life is fine, thank you. But again, it's normal for you to imply I don't have one. Same ol', same ol'; the guys like you always discuss in the same way, and use the same logic in trying to fight back. Boring and predictable. Also, FYI meatballs are largely an American addition to pasta, they are rarely used that way in Italy, and only in some places. Again, you show your stereotypical and superficial knowledge, in this like in other things. Proving once more (not that it was needed) what is the entity of your "suggestions"... Epic fail. There is no Italian speaking forum for WoWs. But even if it were, it would be wrong for me to go there, allowing you to make these kind of jokes as much as you want, just because you think you look funny and witty, while instead you're only making a fool of yourself, and you're not contributing anything of value. All of the above points to why we would be better off with less forum users like you, or why you could be making a better use of your time educating yourself instead of making these kind of threads. Have a nice day.

Very constructive and funny. Now that you've got your laughs, can we forget about this and go back at discussing something meaningful and not based on ages-old stereotypes? ​Also, FYI your justification is nothing new, and it's the usual retort given to someone who is irritated about people not laughing at his joke. If someone gets angry or irritated, it's not your fault, it's ours because we need to "grow up", because we are too sensible, yadda yadda yadda. Nice excuse. The perfect way to respond to objections, the silver lining to backpedaling, when you have to cover up your own ignorance about what history really means, and your insensibility towards what other people might feel about this, shifting the blame on others.

I choose to believe he meant what you said first. Because otherwise...

Did you expect something more definite? It's clear they are still far away from doing work. I'd bet no WG researcher has looked at a detailed plan for an Italian ship, yet. I repeat, I know the difficulty in accessing such archives is not helping, but they still ought to get a move on, if they want to release a RM premium before the very end of 2017.

Here. It was some thirty minutes ago. Really hope he means some Italian ships in the near future (i.e. a few premiums), to be followed by the tech tree, btw... And I wish they'd start pounding at the doors of the archives and get through the red tape (I know it's an issue, but this is yet another reason to start doing the grunt work).

I doubt that the late Counties can fit Tier 8. The Surrey in my opinion is a better option. Trainspite knows designs for heavy cruisers that ought to be fit for Tier 9 and 10

Well, you did say that it was quoted, among the others, as the most balanced treaty cruiser design, without the "some", if I'm allowed to point it out. Also, by the time the design for the Duca degli Abruzzi the priority of speed had fallen somewhat, I think. They are kind of the proof of that, trading knots of speed for a more consistent and more logical main armament, and a thoroughly decent degree of protection. But you're right, I realize now that I had somewhat confused the standard and normal displacement for the La Galissonière... Still, while you're probably right about the cheaper construction and maintenance, for the maneuverability there might be other factors besides the size. As for docks, the difference of some 8 meters doesn't seem that relevant to me. One thing you wrote seems significant to me. The ability to "safely engage smaller warships". Does this mean that they were not meant to primarily fight other cruisers? Of course, it doesn't mean that they were incapable of doing so, but it seems relevant to me. Especially considering that, wishing it or not, given that several navies built large 152-mm cruisers, and therefore somewhat increasing the likelihood of an encounter with ships of the same class. It might be a provocative question, but would their combar capacity proven adequate to this task in that case? Would in the long run their capabilities make them obsolescent earlier than their bigger counterparts, perhaps, in the face of the relative decline of the 203 mm cruiser in favour of 152 mm ones? Moreover, it is somewhat implied in your reasoning that ships such as the Abruzzi were too costly for their own good. Do we know that? After all, an Italian historian did say that, considering the needs of the Regia Marina, the Italian shipping industry was excessive, after the acquisition of what would become the CRDA complex, following World War I. The issue was not one of facilities, but on availability of resources and on priorities to new buildings. Had they chosen to, I have little reason not to believe that more units of the same class could have been built; in practice, the rebuilding of the four old dreadnoughts between 1933 and 1940, together with the building of the four new Littorio-class, plus the great increase of the submarines, prevented such a thing. But again, had resources been redirected towards more Abruzzi, do we have reason to believe they couldn't have been launched and completed? Also, I want to observe that your reasoning may be somewhat off. You are very much right when you say that bigger is not necessarily better, nor that a bigger ships has automatically better survivability over a smaller one (especially in the light of the fact that shellfire turned out to be a lesser threat to cruisers, compared to airborne and underwater threats, but it's easy to state so with hindsight). However, if we talk resources, I don't think that cheaper ships would allow for an economy in the absolute, it would merely entail a readjustement of said resources, financial and industrial, to different goals. My reasoning above leads me to a consideration, which I believe points to the real discrepancy at the bottom of all of this. We may be comparing apples to orange. After all, navies such as the British and the French ones had imperial requirements that led them to value cheapness and numbers over single ship qualities. In that case, it's clear that "polyvalent" ships (although I don't quite like this term, since it kind of implies that the Italian ships were single-mission ones, while they quite didn't, as their minelaying activity alone might prove) were the better answer. The Regia Marina, despite its late oceanic dreams (which, had they been given more time, might have spawned a smaller, longer-ranged ship after all, as the Ciano-class might have turned out to be), didn't have these concerns. The nature of the Mediterranean theater emphasized ship fighting qualities over issues such as range and cost. If your aim is to establish superiority in a determined area of operations closer to home ports, and there is little chance that power projection with major surface forces could be achieved in the near future, is it more logical to invest in more ships, or better ones? However, there might be an ironic twist in this, since given that the early Condottieri proved too fragile and were expended pretty easily, and the Abruzzi were somewhat spared, the Italians too relied very much on their middle-sized cruisers (the Montecuccoli- and D'Aosta- classes) for first line roles which saw significant fighting. Sorry for the lenghty reply. We might be turning into the same reasoning and questions all over again, but it's just because I find it intriguing and rewarding to discuss these things with you. Your points of view give me new perspectives to look at what I already now, and so I am pushed to try and reply in kind, hopefully with some meager success. Oh, and you other guys? You can tell us to take our exchange out of here, before we derail this topic like sirs.

Italy Special function: Manned Torpedoes Function: All BBs on enemy team lose power (incapacitation of main, secondary and AA guns) and are subject to flooding and loss of half of their HP.

About the Algerie, no discussion, since it managed to achieve a very good degree of protection (also against underwater threats) with decent speed and firepower, all while keeping with the treaty limits. About the La Galissonière, I am not sure wheter they can claim a significant edge over their nearest competitors, the Italian Duca degli Abruzzi; after all, the latter kept to the 10'000 t limit (with a modest increase compared to their French opponents, all in all), their protection concept may be controversial (based on the "decapping plate" concept) but I think that at worst it would not have entailed a disadvantage, while if effective it might have given them an edge, their top speed was a bit lower, and they had an additional 152 mm barrel. But given that your knowledge of the French cruisers is definitely superior to mine, maybe the La Galissonière have advantages that I am not aware of. Sorry for the OT.