1MajorKoenig

Had a stock Amagi yesterday on my team. A shame you never see them in the current game - really would like to make this proposal happen. We would see such beauties every day then!

The IJN battleship branch is currently one of the two implemented BB lines and offers tons of fun due to providing the player both battleships and battlecruisers within the same line. Not all players appreciate the changing gameplay between the two types however but the diversity the line offers is certainly refreshing. My main point of criticism however is the fact that although stock hulls are modelled by WG, they are hardly ever used in game as the stats associated with those are horrible at best. That leads to the situation that the stock hulls are skipped, either through players using free experience or simply dying through them, getting frustrated and striving for the upgraded hull. Therefore the stock hulls in the current game mechanics are effectively a waste of modelling capacity on WG’s side and can hardly be seen in the actual game – although they represent usually the wonderful and unique designs of WW1 and the inter-war period. Considering these two aspects, mixed BB/BC line on the one Hand, and “wasted” stock hulls on the other, the proposal at hand makes a try to make better use of the stock ships at the same time as splitting the IJN BB line into a dedicated battleship and a battlecruiser lines utilizing the stock ships for a separate tier: TIER 3: BB/BC: SATSUMA – Tier 3 is represented by a single ship, the semi-dreadnought battleship SATSUMA. It will replace KAWACHI on Tier 3 as the latter would actually be too strong for that tier if represented without her reduction in capabilities to make her fit (mainly the short gun range). SATSUMA features a similar but slightly smaller HP pool compared to KAWACHI (both ships displaced around 20.000 t) but a significantly thinner main armor belt at 229mm (9 inch). The reason WG rejected SATSUMA in the first place was her mixed main artillery consisting of 2 x twin 305mm turrets fore and aft and 6 x 254mm twin turrets, three on each broadside with limited firing arcs. Her main problem therefore is firing control due to the different calibers and shell arcs. For the game it means a novelty, a non-uniform main battery, relatively short ranged (maybe similar to the current KAWACHI version), different firing arcs and penetration for the two calibers and pretty low accuracy. Her secondary battery is pretty strong though at 8 x single 152mm and 12 x single 119mm guns secondaries are close to being useless in the current meta so it is more of a side note. All in all SATSUMA may not be the strongest ship but sufficient for Tier 3. The line then spits into two lines, battleships and battlecruisers. TIER 4: BB: KAWACHI – the good old KAWACHI would be moved up a Tier as part of the split. Her HP pool would more or less stay the same and her main armor belt of 305mm is still decent at T4. Her major drawback, the ridiculous short firing range would be increased to a reasonable level to make her competitive at Tier 4, proposal would be around 13.5km. The different main guns could be modelled now in a way that the firing arcs and penetration values would be different. To keep aiming still manageable however, the maximum firing range needs to be identical. The reworked KAWACHI after would be closer to the Wyoming and become a slow but capable brawler. BC: MYOGI – the Myogi would stay pretty much as she is today and would be the first ship on the battlecruiser line. BC – PREMIUM: another Kongo preliminary, the ISHIZUCHI can stay as and where she is. She is actually a hidden gem J TIER 5: BB: YAMASHIRO – on tier 5 we would see a Fuso-class super dreadnought in the original WW1 configuration – so no pagoda mast, etc. The upgrades would be limited to some AA upgrades and a little extra speed in form of an upgrade to the engines. The ship would be pretty much a stock Fuso, still offering a lot of raw firepower but not the ridiculous range of the T6 ship. The beauty of this would be that the player would be able to enjoy this ship in her dreadnought configuration and use it as a brawler. BC: KIRISHIMA – same pattern for the Kongo-Class. The Tier 5 Kongo would stay in the WW1 battlecruiser configuration with moderate firing range, similar to the stock Kongo. However, to make her competitive her stock-weaknesses, such as rudder shift time, AA, shell performance and dispersion would still be upgradeable to an acceptable level. However the ship would stay as a WW1 style battlecruiser with medium range though. TIER 6: BB: FUSO – the Tier 6 ship would stay as it is with the exception that the stock hull & configuration isn’t needed any more (as covered by Tier 5). Therefore even the stock T6 Fuso would already feature a pagoda mast and single funnel. Stat wise the fully upgraded version shouldn’t be any different to the current one. BC: KONGO – on Tier 6 we would see the upgraded KONGO class fast battleship in her late 30s version with the pagoda mast. The ship would need some minor enhancements to her capabilities to stay competitive on T6 such as a slight dispersion upgrade and a potential review of her AA capabilities. Important to consider that her role in the game would change from a best-in-tier ship on T5 to a true battlecruiser on T6 seeing higher tier competition and relying on good range, accuracy and high speed to pick the right battles and survive. TIER 7: BB: NAGATO – the mightiest battleship of its time could pretty much stay as she is. The upgraded hull isn’t a problem either as the general appearance is kept. BC: ASHITAKA – an AMAGI class battlecruiser in her planned original configuration with two funnels, the characteristic bow section and a heavy armament of 10 x 41cm guns. The upgraded B/C-hull would be the stock hull of the current Amagi in WoWS, featuring the trunked funnel design and a moderate upgrade to the AA. The ship would feature good speed but rather short range and squishy armor. A true battlecruiser, intended to get in close and fast and deal a huge amount of damage at the cost of armor. BC – PREMIUM: B-65 – a more modern fast cruiser-killer design along the lines of the Alaska class and actually classified as a cruiser. The design would have looked pretty much like a Yamato without armor (210mm max) and 3 x triple 310mm L/50 high velocity guns. In WoWS it deviates quite a bit from the rest of the BC line as she would be way faster, less armored and would carry relatively small but high velocity guns. Therefore she would make for an ideal premium ship and would feature a very different and unique gameplay experience. TIER 8: BB: TOSA – the battleship version of the Amagi-battlecruiser and similar in design. This ship would need a fictional upgrade to represent a version that could have been used in WW2, such as a pagoda mast superstructure. The ship in WoWS would be a logical progression from the preceding Nagato class featuring an additional twin turret of 41cm gun. BC: AMAGI – the current T8 IJN Battleship AMAGI could stay pretty much as it but again losing its stock hull in the Tier 8 version. TIER 9: BB: IZUMO (A-140) – the Yamato preliminary and current T9 can stay as is. Not really loved by anyone but so what. BC: KII – an improvement over the preceding Amagi class with a slightly heavier belt around 300mm (opposed to Amagi’s 250mm). Designed as a “fast battleship” for roughly 30kn top speed the KII class is only a moderate improvement over the T8 battlecruiser and would likewise receive some fictional upgrades such as a pagoda superstructure and an enhanced AA suite. I features a similar main armament as the Amagi class and is a logical continuation in play style. TIER 10: BB: YAMATO – the queen of WoWS keeps her crown. BC: NUMBER 13 – an advanced “fast battleship” design that evolved from the Amagi and Kii designs. In short it is an enlarged version of the former, featuring an impressive main battery of 4 x twin turrets of the monstrous 457mm L/45 gun. Designed for roughly 48.000 t and 30 knots top speed this design is a worthy Tier 10 battlecruiser for the new IJN line. In WoWS her appearance is somewhat similar to the stock Amagi in the first place but she would receive some fictional upgrades such as pagoda style platforms in her tripod mast and a lot of AA emplacements. Still target would be to keep the changes to a reasonable level so her beautiful design can still be recognized. The ship that never received any name continues with the characteristics established throughout the line and marks the climax of the branch with her huge guns.

It is all about balancing certain attributes against others. Same logic why a single destroyer can fight a battleship single handed and win. This proposal potentially strengthens secondaries so the devs would need to consider to weaken a different aspect instead, depending on how much of an advantage the proposed change would be bottom line.

Ich finde ehrlich gesagt auch die russischen Tree Kreuzer immer ein Tier zu stark. Nicht, dass es keinen Spaß macht mit solchen Monsterkänen umherzufahren aber für ein Onlinespiel trotzdem fragwürdig. Bin zwar erst bei der Kirov aber die Gute ist mindestens so gut wie Aoba und Nürnberg ein Tier höher (Nürnberg war in der GER Line bisher mein Lieblingsschiff). Aus meiner Sicht kein Zufall, dass die russischen Kreuzer statistisch auf warship stats immer in top mit dem höchsten Schaden und der höchsten WR herauskommen. Merkt WG das wirklich nicht oder ist das gewollt?

Hell no! Not all this fictional "reconstruction"! I agree that WG needs to slap on some auto cannons and 88s but please keep the appearance as it is supposed to be

Und? Fand die Kirov schon extrem stark und die Molotov nochmal besser :-) Bei russischen Premiums kann man wenigstens sicher sein, dass sie mindestens so stark sind wie die Tree Schiffe ...

I would be happy if we see one of them! It's not like WG appreciates this era of true ship vs ship clashes...

I would be happy if we see one of them!

Awesome! So we just Need to rename: - Karlsruhe to Cöln (mrawesome explained Why and this would be a proper class name) - Hindenburg to Rommel. Better fit for a ww2 cruiser. Hindenburg was a suitable cruiser name in ww1 as cruisers are usually named after generals. By the time of ww2 however Hindenburg became a statesman. Therefore his name would have been used for a capital ship instead such as the Bismarck successor H39. Cruisers would carry the names of generals and war heroes so Rommel would be a better fit.

Hi fellow sailors, The appearance of the soviet cruisers sparked some ideas with regards to the cruisers already in the game. While the current cruisers have been somewhat comparable in layout and size the new Russian large (but still medium armed) cruisers are nothing less than a little revolution. They clearly demonstrate that a larger displacement can (or will need to) be balanced to create a new and unique flavor to the cruiser class. Therefore I appreciate WG’s courage to leave known territories and explore new ways. Looking into the future it is not impossible any more that the nations’ specific flavor can be further developed (eg. the already rumored USN split in light and heavy cruisers with an emphasis on strong AA). I also see an opportunity to revise the German cruiser tech tree which is subject to this post. Historically, the German Navy had a large number of light cruisers up to the end of WW1 that where modern but late in adopting the bigger 15cm guns, by then already standard in foreign navies. In parallel, a heavy armored cruiser line evolved into the German interpretation of the “battlecruiser” which where rather fast battleships in reality. A German ship designer famously summarized the difference in philosophy: “Battleship-Cruiser” vs. “Cruiser-Battleships”. In the interwar period, the German Navy strived for making the most out of the limitation with regards to displacement, number of ships, etc. Result was a cruiser type with unusual heavy main artillery which became a trademark of the navy. Only very late a true heavy cruiser (“Admiral Hipper”) was designed, similar to other navies’ ships. The proposed revision entails two cruiser line, a “lighter” and a “heavier”, further developing the unique flavor of good AP and, in the case of the panzer cruisers, bigger but slower firing guns. Light cruisers à heavy cruisers: the lighter tree starts with WW1 light cruisers (15cm MA and below) as in the game today and merges into heavy cruiser line (20cm MA). This general setup would be kept but: the improved M/Q-Type cruiser “Magdeburg” originating from the Z-Plan would replace “Yorck” on T7. The M/Q brings very high speed (close to 36kn), good agility and stealth as well as four reasonable fast firing twin 15cm guns to the table. The heavies start then with “Admiral Hipper” on T8 with her 15cm variant “Lützow” as a premium. The fantasy T9 ship “Roon” would need to be replaced by a different design, still armed with 8 or 9 x 20,3cm MA – not sure if anyone has a more suitable design? I could either imagine a lighter M-like type with 8 x 20cm or slightly a heavier “mini”-Gneisenau with 9 x 20cm… but not sure yet. The T10 ship would be renamed as “Hindenburg” would be a better choice for the H39 battleship Armored cruisers à Panzer cruisers: the second line is the “big gun” cruiser line. It starts with WW1 armored cruisers up to T5 which are heavily armed with 21cm MA and a good HP pool, but slow and with a low ROF. This is totally opposite to the light German CLs on the lower tiers. T6 brings a swing to the line towards lightly armored, agile ships with big guns and we will start seeing torpedos – representing the panzer cruiser idea of the interwar period: T3 and 4 are the armored cruisers “Roon” and “Scharnhorst”. Both are similar in appearance, but Scharnhorst is much bigger (approx. 5000t) and carries 8 instead of only 4 x 21cm SK L/40 guns of lower velocity shells. Strengths would be a lot of HP (remember St. Louis?), reasonable AP and the larger caliber, cons are speed (21 / 23 kn), being a big target and low stealth. T5 would be “SMS Blücher”, a ship that came at a time her technology was already outdated. In the game “Blücher” would bring 12 x 21cm SK L/45 guns (known from the “Yorck”) in a Kawachi layout, armor comparable to Kongo, lots of HP (roughly 17.000 t displacement) and reasonable 26 knots speed to the table. However, on T5 it is kind of late as it will face more modern opponents, cruisers that go 30 knots and more and battlecruisers such as Kongo and Myogi are the next step in evolution. An very interesting ship to balance. T6 sees an old friend, the proposal “I/10”, known to us as “Yorck”. The poor ship was not really up to the T7 challenge and was put there rather due to a lack of alternatives. It was buffed on soft stats to make it playable, however, T6 is a much better and more natural fit. The artificial buffs can be removed when down-tiering it of course. T7 is the “Deutschland” class cruiser. It can be researched from both T6 cruisers (“Nürnberg” and “Yorck”) and connects the two lines. The ships has only average survivability and HP pool and moderate speed at 28 knots. The advantage however are the bigger and harder hitting 28cm guns that can hurt cruisers and battleships alike. Plus, she finds her intended pray on T7, the “treaty-cruisers”, such as “Pensacola”. The further tech tree path splits again at this ship to either continue on the panzer cruiser line (“Admiral Zenker”) or return to the “lighter” line (“Admiral Hipper”). T8 would be the “Schlachtkreuzer concept 1928”, envisioned by Admiral Zenker. Therefore the ship could carry his name. It was intended as a cruiser killer of roughly 17.000t, equipped with steam turbines for high speed (35 knots) and the good old 8 x 30.5 cm SK L/50. In the game the ship would be fragile and fast. The somewhat dated guns and turrets would mean that either an (hypothetical) upgraded shell would be needed or that it would be a major drawback. Potentially a candidate for some balancing on soft stats. T9 is the P-Class proposal which was a projected improvement of the “Deutschland” class. 12 ships where intended to be built but never completed. In the game, the P-Class is a lot faster (33 knots) and has armor comparable to the current T10 Hindenburg and more HP due to higher displacement (24.000 compared to the 15.000t of the “Deutschlands”). The 28cm guns are also of an improved model, being the same as on the T7 battleship “Gneisenau”. Even though the (6) guns are decent and pack quite a punch, a RoF around 3/minute is still a major balancing factor against the much faster firing competing cruisers. And finally T10 – the O-Class monster cruiser. Armed with 6 x 38cm SK L/47, 35.000t displacement and 35 knots top speed these monsters will be the equivalent to the “Moskva” in terms of size and fragility. Instead of the smaller guns of the latter they pack a massive punch of the 38cm but at the cost of a much lower RoF (2 – 2,3) and lower volume of fire. Stealth again would be poor and the ship would make for quite a large target. Please also check out the explanations for the BB/BC line here: http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/46929-proposal-full-german-capital-ships-line-bbbc/page__p__915118#entry915118 And the destroyers here: http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/47541-proposal-full-german-destroyer-line-dd/

C'mon no Risk no fun! It's not like releasing redicoulously STRONK & overpowered ships would be a problem... *mk* Sarcasm aside - we freakin need a Jutland ship! It's been the most significant Battleship clash of all time and nothing is going to happen in WOWS???

Equally good marksmen indeed ;-) OT: The ST only shoot like drunken sailors in case the heroes are involved. Strange...

Kolberg ... It's been a while;-) Unfortunately still no official word on German BBs. C'mon WG give us a little cookie

Which bug?

Hi WestyII! It would not be so much of a Problem to add KGV into the poll but there are more than 500 votes already so some of These votes would probably Need to be revisited (shame on me I forgot her in the first place). I hope you put your vote on the BB line at least? :-) I would say chances are extremely high that KGV will be in the release line for the British battleships (whenever that may be...)

Das klingt ja ermutigend. Ich wollte sie eigentlich gegen die Hindenburg tauschen. Aber lohnt sich das dann überhaupt? EG. Reparaturkosten usw.

There is some interesting speculating on the US forum on which line is the fourth one to be released in 2016. Hot candidates seem to be British battleships and German destroyers. The latter would be awesome! I hope WG takes a look at this proposal just in case:-)

Bin irgendwie ganz froh, dass ich nicht der einzige bin, der sich mit der Hipster schwer tut. Die Nürnberg fand ich persönlich am besten im Deutschen CA Baum und hätte gern die Hindenburg. Aber eher wegen der Optik, vom Gameplay erhoffe ich mir nicht viel mehr als vom Admiral. Bin aber auf die neuen HE Shells gespannt. Vielleicht lösen die ja schon den Frust bei AP Minischaden und DD Jagd.

Wo hast Du das her, Trigger??? Oder ist das nur wishful thinking...?

Apparently another (!) russian Premium cruiser is on sale now, The Molotov. Anyone any insights if it is equally insane overpowered as Kutuzov and Murmansk? Why can't WG release premiums from other Nations? Molotov seems to be premium kirov which is already pretty damn strong in the tree on T5. Is Molotov a "yay or nay "?

The release of the Battleships will give us a pretty solid picture of how much WG is willing to mess with the older designs. Tier 5 and 6 certainly need a solid upgrade to their AA capabilities. But beyond that I hope WG will not change the overall appearance of the old ships. Even if I hope that they respect the wonderful purist WW1 lines I fear the worst!

Great minds think alike:-) That would be awesome!

Sure but still the stock hulls are somehow wasted. You can keep the upgrading of course anyway to keep the current grinding model. But you don't really need a separate 3D Model.

Habt ihr eigentlich alle schon die Hindenburg? Lohnt die sich? Finde die Hipster bisher irgendwie nicht sooooo aufregend.

An additional minor improvement to the lighter line would be to replace the Karlsruhe with the slightly newer Cöln (2). Almost the same ship but better name.