Bl4ckh0g

I think the ship itself isn't that bad, but it requires quite a high skill ceiling because of the bad turret traverse and placement coupled with the low RoF. But If you can handle the train speed by using your rudder smartly, and have a nice aim, then the traverse, turret placement and low RoF isn't that much of a problem, but this requires some skills and because the ship is at tier 5, a lot of people do not have the skill-set to utilize the strengths of the ship. But overall She is not bad. She's got crap AA, which is an IJN thing, same with the turn radius. But She's got powerful guns and has a high health-pool for a tier 5 cruiser, the armor is enough against the low tier 6" guns and destroyer guns from medium to long range. The Torpedoes are better than the ones on the Omaha and they are really just auxiliary weapons so do not count on them unless the situation presents itself. The single biggest hindrance of the ship is undoubtedly the bad turret train rate which should be raised to be around ~-30-35 sec. But other than that the ship is really good for getting the IJN niche, long range fighting with close range torpedoing. She prepares you nicely for the Aoba and Myoko, I'd say.

The Aoba is the same ship with better armament, it turns the same and have the same armor and even slightly less HP. Nearly every single IJN cruiser turns bad, because they are long ships. The Aoba is overall not better than the Furutaka imho because She's in the same tier as the Fuso and Cleveland. I am just saying that do not really expect anything better. The Furutaka has nearly all the weaknesses of the IJN line in one ship.

That is also true to most cruisers. The Furutaka is good against light cruisers from long range though. She has quite a nice competition in tier 5 compared to ships like the Zao and Aoba

I think the Furutaka could use a little bit better turret traverse, but overall She's not all that bad compared to other IJN ships.

If you do not get the last one

Oh, I the great cruiser patriot, meanwhile I wrote posts like this The only thing that handles Battleships and cruisers equally is the MM system, which is far from complete because of the low player count. But in the tech trees battleships and carriers costs 10-15% more credits than cruisers and destroyers and sometimes even more XP. and In battles like domination the capital ships worth the most amount of points, while destroyers the least. So where did this whole idea that the game treats them or should treat them equally comes from? Edit: but whatever I am finished with this topic and the battleship inquisitors I am outta here and this is my final answer:

So what would you think about making the repair cost of each ship determined by the ship's displacement? Like, I'm not saying that a Yamato should costs 20 times as much credits to repair as a Shimakaze, but you know like 20-40% as much? So you'd need to farm credits in smaller ships, instead of the battleships. It would dwindle the number of the battleships a little. And that's always nice.

The Furutaka and the Aoba, both upgraded are nearly identical ships, same armament, same armor, same AA, same torpedoes, same speed and maneuverability. They'd just look a little bit different.

You pay more for the 122 mm, you pay more for the shells and you get higher damage. You pay slightly less for the 100 mm, you pay slightly less for shells and you do less damage. The 100 mm is cheaper to run than a 122 mm overall I'd say. Smaller is cheaper.

In WoT for a 100 mm medium gun you pay less credits than a 120,150 mm gun on a heavy tank. It is kinda the same here, you pay a slightly less for a ship that is smaller. It adds plus immersion, and Well, the BBs already cost more to buy than cruisers or destroyers, It's not like the devs are trying to imply that they are of equal value(economy wise) Prev post I referred to Sharana and Vanhal, I was just lazy to quote them.

That's fine too actually. Now just something for scale. If you'd give the cruisers for example 10% less repair cost than you'd lose the 900,000 credits- the difference between the buying cost of the Montana and Des Moines- in 36 battles. You'd have play 9 battles then farm some instead of playing 10 battles and then farm some.<-Assuming you have 2,5 million credits and we do not take into account the received credits. And you think that because of this everyone will avoid battleships and suddenly fire starts to rain from the sky?

Pretty much. I still have the common sense one though.

Same idea just 80 times smaller in scale. Hm, Please could you tell me Why exactly does battleships cost 10-15% more to buy with credits than cruisers? That sounds like a limitation to me.

In WoT a medium or light tank can kill a heavy one-on-one, can you say the same here? Can a destroyer win against a cruiser or a battleship in one-on-one? or a cruiser against a battleship? Avoiding the arty and carrier since both are support classes not meant to engage in a direct fight. And I'd like to ask, Where exactly implied that I wish to buff battleships so You need to take 7 cruisers to kill them? More precisely Where exactly implied that the changes I suggest would make this kind of scenario? I thought I was used a manner which suggested that the changes would not cause serious internal game balance changes. Well, I said limitations which this would be, but still I never said that I actually want to decrease their numbers considerably. You guys kind of exaggerated what I said. E.: I actually said that destroyers repair would be much smaller. Well, that was my bad. Though I think after that I tried to imply that the difference would be smaller.

Well, I would actually like to see the classes become important that were actually important. Instead of living in a delusional dream where battleships actually mattered. That is the short version.

I would love that people actually read what I write

And Why would be unfair that you earn less money in a premium battleship compared to a premium cruiser? In WoT a T34 earns more money than a Superpershing because the SP is a bad tank. But, since The SP costs much less than a T34, It is not a problem. so Why would a premium battleship that would earn less than a premium cruiser cost the same? It wouldn't. So It is perfectly fair. You mean How the Shima can be spotted from 7.6 km and the Yamato having 7 km secondary range? Also something from my first post. I think you guys read degenerate and colossal. verb (used with object), dwindled, dwindling. 3.to make smaller and smaller; cause to shrink: adjective, littler or less or lesser, littlest or least. 1.small in size; not big; not large; tiny:

The "badly damaged" is quite an empty phrase, you know..... Do you have any actual numbers, perhaps? This realistic argument is a ridiculous, by the why. You can twist it in any number of ways to prove your argument without much worry that they can actually counter it. The game clearly cares enough about historical accuracy to warrant this change. <-Nice example Common sense and immersion is a bigger factor than trying to balance ship's characteristics which were humongous differences between them in the past.

They have the best long range AAA in the game as well, except for des moines. If we and presumably WG do not care about real life, then could you tell me Why are we playing a game based on WWII, with ships in WWII with most of the time historically accurate hulls, and equipment, confined by real life physics, including ballistics and armor mechanics trying to work similar to real life, with sounds trying to be realistic, with historical information about ships in the game, while publishing video series in social sites about museum ships? Because I guess if someones bloody huge Yamato costs a tiny bit more than a Shimakaze which is 20 times lighter than the ship, that is madness I guess? Like really numbers can be changed, they can be tweaked, I'm throwing around numbers here that I pulled out from a magical hat. Just because a Zao costs 225k to repair and a Yamato costs 250k to repair does not mean that the whole game will be ruined.

Carriers are limited by grouping up, cruisers AA ability and smart maneuvering. Cruisers are limited by the inability to engage battleships. Destroyers are limited by their fragile hull, CV spotting, smart maneuvering, cruisers. Battleships are limited by worse maneuverability. Anything else? Not really. Their counter classes are barely played. They have the best survivability and firepower in the game. They get heals, the best AA, best secondary firepower, main gun firepower and nothing other than the worse maneuverability limits them. In real life battleships were the least numerous classes in a nations fleet. Their single greatest limiting factor was their immense cost. So Why would I not want to implement their greatest limiting factor?

as far as I know torpedoes even now have quite a hefty price and this makes high tier DDs extremely costly to run, for CVs, they have the highest rate of surviving battles because they are a support class and not engaging in direct fire, and for example a Midway has a standard displacement of 45,000 tons a Yamato has 70,000. So they would not cost that much. And again afaik the game rewards the % of HP you removed from a ship, and not the number of HP you removed from the ship, so like you get equal reward for a fully destroyed CA as you get from a fully destroyed BB. but if there are like any staff or supertester who can confirm this or the opposite It would be welcomed. Well, mostly because of common sense, really. Why would you be just as economical in a ridiculously expensive class? And again I can ask If Battleships are just as economical(which were their greatest limiting factors in real life) as other classes, then for example what does a Zao or Baltimore bring to the table which an Iowa or Yamato cannot? Why would I play cruisers again? Oh, They are better off against the least played classes in the game, but are terrible against the most played class in the game? I also welcome any idea which should limit the battleships in the game by the way. refer to previous answer

They really should not. A Zao would like make 10-15% more credits than a Yamato. a Zao would still lose money just not as much. You'd still need to farm in premiums and lower tiers, just in destroyers and cruisers not in battleships. I mean this thing to change the battleship numbers, not farming traditions. Like, Let's say a premium earns flat 30% more than a regular ship. This means a BB prem earns 30% more than a normal BB, but like 15% more than a normal cruiser. A premium cruiser earns therefore 45% more credits than a regular BB.

I am not forgetting that. This isn't about pure numbers. This is about the ratio between classes.

Yeah but where's the sense in making battleships just as economical and numerous as destroyers and cruisers? Like, Seriously what are disadvantages of playing a battleship? Other than maybe an epic Cv player pwnes you? Like, I mean, sure battleships are powerful, but ridiculously expensive to run. Like at least try to appear like we care about real life. Repair cost would be much smaller, but torpedoes are a much more expensive to produce than a 406 mm shell, so they'd balance out.