Trainspite

Eh, we don't disagree on everything. I mean, Dreadnought & Bellerophon are both tier 3s. Daring is a tier 10 (can't imagine it anywhere else, even if slightly UP without in game editations). Then again, there are lot more people on the NA forums with the opinion that a lot of RN stuff should be down one tier. And then there is me sticking to my guns and insisting that Kent & London can compete with Algerie, Myoko & Yorck. Mid-Early war Norfolk could be tier 6, or an as built Cornwall could be T6 or T5. As for the 114mm, you could go the route of the German HE on the cruisers and give it 1/4 overmatch capabilities. That is something to make up for a lack of power, though it won't save the entire ship. Also, Kidd isn't released yet. I think.

That is probably just a feeling, considering that aside from being arranged differently, they have the same armour. If anything, Perth is better since the 100m belt covers more of her side, so she can effectively angle/bully other cruisers better. I'm not entirely sure if Perth relying more on her side armour & deck armour to protect her citadel deck is a advantage/disadvantage though. The problem with including the Commonwealth premiums in with the RN is that the RN has enough premium candidates on it's own, if anything, far too many. That comes with being basically the largest navy in the games timeframe. Including the RAN, RNZN & RCN into that fold makes the problem bigger, since you would end up with far too many RN premiums. A Commonwealth line can't really be managed, so I would just expect regular & free XP premiums for them, like with the Polish, or possibly the Dutch if a line is not fleshed out for them.

I believe it is calculated in relation to the bursting charge in a shell. Or so it goes, I can't remember the exact formula, though I should.

Well, Brooklyn would probably have to have it's RoF neutered a bit, from 8RPM to 6RPM or so at tier 7. While Cleveland gets it's historical turret traverse, RoF (10RPM) and AA given back. Possibly that split citadel too. Sure there is. BB reloads or turret traverse etc. can easily make it so unrewarding to play and theoretically balanced at the same time. But it is pointless to discuss since it would just be a Cleveland with a lower RoF and HP etc.

Brooklyn is more tier 7 / 8 material, unless you strap the same nerfs to her as Cleveland has laboured under for the past few years. Anyways, I would imagine it to be in the USN CL when that comes, with Helena as a T8 premium.

I don't really catch on here. Yorck has an entirely reasonable 12s reload. Some time ago 12s was considered excellent for an 8" armed cruiser, even with 8 guns, with 15s nearer to the normal. Now 12s has become more normal. 34s base turret turn time is also not particularly bad, as long as you can pace yourself. I had no problems with that aspect of the ship. There are far worse out there, the 45s of Myoko & Aoba come to mind, which turns a lot of people off those ships, but I manage with them. Then again I never thought Warspite's turret traverse was that bad when with EM, and that was 57s. With so many BBs, I can't expect any cruisers to be tanky anymore, at least below tier 8, and even then those above tier 8 with decent armour can only effective bully other cruisers. And since it is a heavy cruiser, it is not really meant to be running around at close range. Certainly, trying to brawl with ships like Yorck & Hipper is difficult and unfavourable if tangling with a cruiser with a faster RoF or a DD. However, these ships also don't perform very good spamming at the back, since their ideal position is around mid range, putting fire into advancing BBs and alike. I kinda like that flexible role, since while it can do other things, it can excel at mid ranges, and pushes with hydro and torps if timed right.

I would not think I am at that level. Though I do know my way around on the subject, I mostly gather information from whatever sources I have around.

That is intentional, but I am not solely discussing the above, since if I did, it would end up with me explaining my entire view of the situation, and until those BBs are live, I probably should not say anything.

I know stuff that you don't, and a lot of it too, when relating on this matter. But right now I can't say. I wish I could, but nah.

I'm using Penn more as a slot for a P-class as tier 6. Representing the class more than anything else. I did consider Petard as a premium for some time, and I think I eventually settled on her as a top hull for the tier 6. The Hunts are a little slow, but they do have pretty damn good firepower with the 3s reload on the twin 4". They should be decent at around those tiers, certainly unique.

Well, surely by 4'000 games you must have realised that maybe you just don't connect with a ship? Instead of writing it off as absolutely the worst ship ever put into the game, positive. Generally, stats wise it is a toss up between Yorck & Pepsi for worst tier 7 cruiser (excluding premiums). But that is by stats alone, and stats really don't show the whole story. (And I am just going to use this opportunity to correct you that Yorck has 28k average damage, over the more reliable 2 week period - lowest at tier 7, but not by much). And just by checking your stats, aside from W/R which is team reliant in most cases, you are not doing badly with Yorck. What is causing you to hate her so much? And if you think Indianapolis is bad... you clearly have not played the RN CLs T2 to 5. Indy is not great, but at least does the job. There are far worse cruisers out there, let me tell you that. Yorck all in all, is just not as bad as you say, and if you continue on that line then I would think you basically have a vendetta against the poor ship. She is a capable tier 7 cruiser. Much like Indy, she does the job. Not as good as others, but you can get it done. It's not a ship that gets outstanding results, but gets decent results on a frequent basis. Apparently people don't know how to play her, or find her awkward to use, and that is fine. That makes me feel like I am above the plebs playerbase in terms of adaptability. She is getting a buff to her HE, as if she needed any buffs to that excellent HE, so maybe you should factor that in. Or change the playstyle a bit. I had no problems getting damage out of Yorck, achieving a 64% win rate and a respectable average damage, similar to yours. I only recently bought Hipper, and frankly, I would definitely take my upgraded Yorck (just top hull, I don't run with flags, prem consumables or equipment) over the stock Hipper I have. Good HE is much more useful than the AP, though Hipper has some utility now with her HE buff, so I will have to continue working through it.

Nah m8. This is a serious case of git gut m8. This may be Trainspite-the one who likes all the bad ships like stock Fuso- speaking, but Yorck is not bad, and plenty of players agree with that statement (summons mtm). Yorck can easily rack up a fair bit of HE damage and fire damage over a period. Don't touch the AP unless you are in torpedo range. Her torpedoes are decent, and the hydro adds utility against DDs. Sure, she is not the best cruiser at tier 7, and is thoroughly average but she does the job. She needs no buffs in my opinion, and even then, the buff to the German cruisers HE affects Yorck the most in a positive way.

Alternatively, you can get rid of the AP only dragging her down, fix her citadel model, and balance her to be a quirky and unique tier 5 premium with better torpedoes and proper supercharged 6" shells. Arethusa can take her place at tier 5 in the regular line.

Well, I do have Zubian in the premium section to complement Tachi & Smiff, though Mohawk or Tartar is the more likely to appear on account of the armament. I was thinking that maybe the Hunts can be switched in from tiers 3 to 5 if need be, since they have their DP 4" that could work decently against low tier planes. The only problem I have with the WAIR conversions is the lack of torpedoes, which isn't exactly a good thing for a destroyer.

Acasta is an oddball. Included since the class had a fairly major role at Jutland, and because I don't like the idea of the Ms at tier 2. I doubt she would be competitive against the other DDs, but this is tier 2. As long she is playable, then she is alright for newcomers. Matchless is only 2kn slower than Radstock, and loses out on HP. I guess she is slightly more maneuverable, but I would consider this within the scheme of balance-able, given what WG have been doing. I did not count the added 18" torpedoes into this. Venomous is the harder one, being a higher tier where more people care. The difference in speed and HP is more pronounced with little advantage to make up for it. Other than gimmicks, you can either apply buffs to RoF, torpedo selection, or other soft stats to make Venomous a choice over Amazon. Maybe concealment. Otherwise, if that can't do it, then gimmicks it is. I would think that all the RN DDs would get the single fire ability though, if anything is taken from the RN CLs and if WG don't want to expand it to other nations. Maybe WG can create a difference on that. At this point, it comes to the point that WG will freely edit any stats to suit them and what they want out of the ship though. And as for the Thornycrofts, probably not. Maybe WG will include their stats as upgrades, or use them as the occasional premium, though people may not like that as judging by the response to Eugen. I did need something to fill the gap though that was apt enough. Not quite fitting for a DD-AA line however.

The problem is that you think Yorck is bad. That is a severe problem.

Then you are too tank orientated, or got interested in tanks before warships.

I did make a mistake on that list, Howe did not have the 8x 4 Bofors. I started wondering why she seemingly had a lot more than others. Note to self to work during the day and not at night, and not in an exam period either. To be honest, Agincourt would be a tier 4 premium in my mind. Excellent firepower, but her armour is quite flimsy for a BB. I'm thinking of a Wyoming with less armour and more dakka.

Atago: 6 + 1 = 7Kutuzov: 50 - 3 = 47 Ping. Reason this time? I have one version of one and don't have the other .

Nelson is the big 7 dammit. She has the 16" guns. KGV is the equivalent to Bismarck, Littorio, Richelieu & North Carolina in those terms. I could say more, but I won't.

Well, 27.5kn to be really correct. And the proposed refit for the Nelsons reckoned they could bring them up to 25.5kn. The refitted Nelson can probably make tier 8, but I would like a historical premium Rodney at tier 7 (C'mere Bismarck, I have 16" Presents) , and WG have other priorities.

No, they are equal. They are stronger in terms of armour, being smaller and sturdier, with the 13" belt being more extensive. They are also can use the 15" supercharges, giving them a better shell arc than the QE. This can also result in better penetration if WG model it. Effectively, the Rs sacrifice AA and 3kn of speed, and some flexibility in range and alikes to gain an advantage in armour and firepower, the more basic attributes. I would expect QE to appear first and be more popular, but the Revenge is a good counterpart to compliment her. At tier 5 with her excellent 15" guns, is just bringing power creep to a new level, and should be avoided. As for the OP, my thoughts are in my signature thread. Splitting the ships into a BC/Fast BB, Modern Fast BB and Slow BB line based on overall playstyle, instead of the turret arrangement which varied with the interwar studies, so a tree with a sense of progress and improvement is created (hopefully).

Atago: 24 + 1 = 25 - Reason? Eh. Looks nicer. Mikhail Kutuzov: 52 -3 = 49 - Get back below 50 you. Awkward sod, aren't I?

Well, I apologise for rekindling the flames that should be dying out, but I do have a few problems with that. Invincible & Indefatigable are clearly not that modern. 1st Gen BCs, the loss is felt, but not that greatly. No one in the BC force really cast a glance back at the Indefatigable as she went down. Her loss was not that keenly felt, as opposed to the modern, more capable Queen Mary. Lutzow & QM trade even, and losing the two older BCs is a blow, but not a heavy one. Australia was back in service, Renown & Repulse & Resolution were in service by the end of the year. A German Victory in those terms yes, but nothing too major, at least in my obviously biased eyes. If anything the battle proved the German plan to be quite infeasible at this point in WW1, even if they gained a small advantage for a time. Also, 10% of GF capital ships is a false, since GF lost precisely no capital ships, other than the attached Invincible from the BC force. Do you mean the BC force , since out of the 10 BCs around at the time, 3 were gone. Grand Fleet (Scapa Flow I should state) after-all only got stronger itself. Resolution was quickly worked up, and the damage to Marlborough & the QEs was patched up in time. If you combine the BC force into the total of GF capital ships based at Scapa Flow, then the 3 destroyed don't come near 10%, so I don't know where you got that figure from. Carry on discussing.

Using the more representative and reliable 2 week stats, Pepsi beats out Yorck on W/R, XP and damage. She isn't the worst.