Trainspite

Well, second forum member I recognised. Also, despite dying within 4 minutes, I still came top of my team. Put 3 torpedoes into my numerous assailants. Apparently that was more than the rest of my team could manage.

Praise be to the lord!

Smith & Katori are my targets since I have the other two. But Port slot first, and then I will probably aquire a second Tachibana for it's slot as well, since WG are quite reluctant to give me a port slot sale... I'm not sure how well Katori works, I don't think it can be used as an AA escort, so I'm guessing second line support, similar to how Yubari plays (a style of play I seem to excel at), just slower.

This. Poor Warspite missed a Broadside Colorado at similar range. I was not impressed. That following on from similar results made me relegate Warspite to the beauty queen of the port.

Having 3 Town classes that can fit in the game can get confusing. Town Class CL 1910 - Tier 2/3 Town Class CL 1936 - Tier 7/8 Town Class DD 1940 - Tier 3 Then again with the RN, naming themes will be repeated. Edit: This thread is almost a year old now. Huh, I did not realise that. Happy Birthday to the thread I guess.

Marblehead me thinks.

If good accuracy is representative of the RN ships being good sea-boats, then yes.

Tier 7 Premium CA, most likely. Indianapolis was mentioned was before, at the same time as 2 others, USS Flint, and another I can't remember.

Or just to get a RN ship in the game without the need to model a whole new ship. Thus saving time. Plus, Campbeltown. I loved Wakatake, and I still have Wickes in port, but the torpedo reload may kill Campbeltown for me.

Lexington has worse armour than Alaska :v Tier 7 is better for Lexington really, compared to Hood, she has far worse armour, is slightly faster, but has better guns (accuracy depending). I don't think Lexington compares well to Amagi, or J3, which both have substantially better armour.

What? Portland & Indianapolis are tier 7s at best, given how the next member of that family of cruisers, New Orleans, is already struggling at tier 8.

Well, you can if they have similar performance. As a gun for a battleship at tier 7, they do not perform too badly, considering ships like Scharnhorst. But using the same logic of everything getting bigger, Alaska is more comparable to ships of 10 years before her, not 30. Scharnhorst, Dunkerque etc. , as Alaska really had no other like her, it is hard to say if she is a scaled down Battleship or a Heavy Cruiser on steroids. Ideally the battlecruiser role fills this gap, a super cruiser etc. - The nearest contemporaries to this are the inter-war ships, of similar displacement and armament, from similar backgrounds like Scharnhorst, developed from taking D Klasse, and adding a lot of armour and an extra turret. Depends if you class Alaska as the first of a new type, or an extension/develop of a class not too long before when comparing them. Which is exactly why I quoted them. It would be pointless trying to discuss how Alaska would fit in game without comparing to the ships in game already. I'm already well aware of the things you mention, but it doesn't hold much when comparing the armour values of ships, seeing whether players see any noticeable difference. Whether Alaska is a capital ship or not is another thing entirely. Hood to me is the logical improvement upon the QEs, while keeping the same armament and roughly the same armour. This makes Hood to me a Fast BB, just a faster one than QE. The same really applies to SoDak and Iowa. However it does become increasingly irrelevant as the battleship died out in it's traditional role, and the one speed really became that if it could keep up with a carrier group. I'll sit on the Fast BB side of the fence for Iowa etc. as to me the Battlecruiser evolved into the fast BB after Hood in most senses, but aspects of the battlecuiser turned up in later ships like Alaska, Dunkerque and Scharnhorst.

Yubari + 3000 gold = £14 5'500 gold for Warspite = £15 Tachibana came with a magazine I bought occasionally anyway, but purposes: £5 Circa: £34 - Maybe more if I have forgotten some gold.

That is contrary to what I have read before, although looking at the sources I had before, it could be possible in terms of passing just above the main belt 12", through the 7" section.

I would disagree that Hood was sunk due to her deck armour, the range was really too short for that, hence why Holland had starting turning at that point. Hood was just as well armoured as QE in practice, Hood only sacrificed size for her attributes, making her the largest Warship afloat, and thus famous, perfect for showing the flag during the wars, where she acquired her reputation. Due for refit in Late 1941, which would have rectified some of the known flaws with the original design, and which made the ship increasingly vulnerable as times progressed.

"Her firepower isn't battleship grade, it's exactly intermediate between the standard 16" capital ships of the USN and the 8" guns of the CAs" Well, I don't think that being better than the 14"/50 of New Mexico in terms of RoF and Armour Penetration is in the middle of 8 to 16" guns. With the added flexibility of a 36s 180 turret turn time and a good range, Alaska is quite well suited to a Battlecruiser style of play, quite similar to how Amagi plays currently. "Pretty much identical AA to the Baltimores and Clevelands, only with slightly more light AA guns, much less than the NoCals" Ship 20mm Oerlikon 40mm Bofors 5" (127mm)DP North Carolina 48 40 20 Alaska 34 56 12 Baltimore 23 48 12 Cleveland 13+ 12-28+ 12 I would not say Identical, in the middling maybe, but overall AA should be similar to the North Carolina. She is going to need it as well, if any torpedoes do hit her, they will do large damage, compared to NorCar. "Being similar in armour to early WWI battlecruisers isn't saying much, and the Amagi was noted to be quite lightly armoured for the time, notably thinner armour than the G3s, F3s and Admirals" Well it is enough if people regard Amagi as a battleship. I don't think many people are arguing for Amagi to be a tier 10 cruiser. "size is almost exactly intermediate between the 14,500 ton displacement of the USN CAs of the time and the 45,000 ton USN capital ships of the time" And her displacement is also very close to ships like Kongo, Scharnhorst, Dunkerque or Mackensen. Timescale isn't everything, because she hails from WW2 doesn't especially mean that she outclasses those that came before. The game also doesn't revolve around the USNs building program. You could argue that, but a battlecruiser, typically is a capital ship that forgoes armour for speed, and is usually intended to hunt down and destroy enemy cruisers, exactly how Alaska would. Iowa being a fast battleship shares many qualities, but has a substantial advantage in armour, however you could argue that any Fast BB was a battlecruiser if you tried. As for another class, I highly doubt it would be implemented, because WG do not want to confuse players by overwhelming them with classes. Not entirely sure if I agree with it, but given that nothing seems to changing, and battlecruisers come under battleships in game, Alaska really belongs as a "BB" since she like most large cruisers are an evolution of the battlecruiser. Panzerschiffes are different, mainly because they lack the armour, and have a low number of large calibre guns, compared to battlecruisers/large cruisers which generally have more of both. The "large cruisers" don't really have contemparies, so it is hard to say where they would belong without but seem to fit reasonably well amongst tier 7-8 BBs/BCs, which is a lot better to me than trying to expand the role of cruiser into cruiser killer(Battlecruiser). Alaska, B65, Stalingrad all are relatively balanced at tier 7-8, which doesn't exactly inhibit them much, in terms of their gameplay, or their role (Still can kill Cruisers easy enough). More classes would be the elegant solution but impractical for WG given the situation, so I'm guessing none of these will turn up any time soon, except maybe Alaska if demand is sufficient enough.

May/June if WG want to be on time. Maybe they will do a better job with it than Campbeltown, Caroline should not be too hard to balance at tier 3.

But she is not even in the game yet, how could you say that about her! Either way, despite me getting along alright with most ships, and hating none. (Yes even Pre-buff Furutaka and Yubari Post-nerf) there are a few ships that were troublesome, notably more so than others. - Novik - Hatsuharu - New York - Emden

Not likely, Caroline for Jutland 100 is far more likely.

- San Fran is famous, so would sell rather well. - Cleveland is moving to tier 8, so Fargo with few differences is ideal for a tier 8 premium alongside her. - Helena CL-50. Also relatively famous, represents the St Louis class from 1938. - Hence why I said design. Charleston is a name I gave to it. - Wichita is a nice candidate, but either Wichita or a design like the 12 gun Pensacola should go in another US Heavy Cruiser line. - Musuem ship = Premium - Same as above - See Below - Colorado with excellent AA and gun fire control. With improved accuracy, she can work at tier 8. Her drawback is her speed, but several high tier ships would suffer from this (N3, SoDak 1920) Personally, I think she should be tier 7, Tier 8 at a push. I just included her above because Battleship of course, since Alaska is for all intensive purposes, a Battlecruiser. A cruiser killer. - AA is similar to North Carolina's. It's decent enough for tier 8, and very good at tier 7. No defensive AA though. - The 12" guns are actually more powerful than the 14" guns mounted on New Mexico. With a better RoF (2.4-3 RPM) That is battleship firepower. At tier 10, not so much, but at tier 7 and 8, it is adequate. Also, Scharnhorst. 9x 11" at 3-3.5RPM. Doesn't make it a tier 10 Cruiser does it? A very good tier 7 Cruiser Killer, which is basically the role of a battlecruiser. In short, Alaska has in favour of being a Battleship: - Battleship Standard Firepower (Tier 7-8 suitable) - About the rough armour of Amagi, Kongo, or Renown. - Good AA. Similar to NorCar. - Huge Size. Poor Maneuverability. Poor Concealment. And in favour of being a Cruiser: - Poor underwater protection, vulnerable to Torpedoes. Sums it up well.

I like all the damn maps. (And most of the ships too) And Ocean is quite a nice change once in a while from the cluttered archipelagos which sort of ruins the historical immersion for me. Had a nice game of clubbing BBs and DDs with Yubari earlier on ocean.

I haven't forgotten that, but I doubted it in the first place considering from when they announced RU CA/CL and HF/KM BBs, and when they actually came out/are coming out. That was probably when they started work on the RN CLs though.

Trainspite's very totally neutral opinion of prospective tier 8 premium USN Cruisers and Battleships: Cruisers: - San Francisco - Fargo - Helena - Charleston (12 gun Pensacola Design) or - Wichita Battleships: - Massachusetts - Alabama - Alaska - West Virginia

Also, this. (Shameless self promotion) So yes, the RN is coming, it just takes months to model the ships.

I had a dream for Caroline, Queen Mary and Seydlitz all at the same time once. Well, maybe we could get a German cruiser involved in the battle. And one that can represent it's class at the same time Stuttgart/Stettin, maybe Rostock or Wiesbaden. Or maybe Pillau/Elbing. There are a lot to choose.