Jump to content

rr1774

Beta Tester
  • Content Сount

    17
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    2336

About rr1774

  • Rank
    Able Seaman
  • Insignia
  1. Hakuryu seems to be based on Taiho-Kai but is bigger than her, although quite similar. Alternatively both lines could go over Taiho or we bump the air group of Unryu up to 83….
  2. Thx, tried to find some info and made an addition to the tree. Hakuryū (白竜) means white dragon, if i'm not mistaken.
  3. Yeah, sorry was a typo, changed it now. That would work too, the choice for the Soryu mainly fell cause of here history and my licking of her look. The problem of tier four though is the planes, Kaiyo and Taiyo being finished at the beginning of the 40’s are to new for the biplanes (I mean you could ignore it, but...), one of the main reasons why I left this tier out. Wouldn’t the Tahio successor, more or less be the Hakuryu?
  4. I see were your coming from, and I do have to agree that it won’t fix the mentioned problems but it should milder them to a degree, that more people start to play CVs and so maybe WG will start to do something about those problems, cause at the moment they just seem to ignore the carriers. And if I’m not mistaken tier IV and V carriers have a -1/+1 MM to counter there disability to manual drop, although that doesn’t help a lot when you’re fighting against tier VI CVs. And if you don’t have to play against the Saipan every second game as tier VII CV, it’s already quite an improvement; it’s at least less frustrating and more versatile.
  5. Yupp and the RN carriers. I think adding more CVs will solve quite a bit of the existing problems, especially catching the OP carriers in game with creating a bigger pool of CVs for the MM to grab from. Also new CVs should drag in new CV players. like Seeigel sad.
  6. My idea for an addition to the IJN aircraft carrier tech tree, which includes some (in my eyes) sadly, left out carriers. I think the addition would enrich the carrier game play, you wouldn’t meet the same enemy again and again which is kind a boring sometimes. The numbers besides the name are the number of aircrafts, the bolt one the in game number and the other one the historical, which can diverse. Shinano is a bit a special case although only having an own air group of 47 it was planned to be a forward refuelling and rearming station for planes of other carriers (finally the marking mishmash of the planes would make sense ) and so was able to accommodate up to 120 planes (at least some sources say that, others go with less), so you could easily bump her up to tier X but I didn’t really found another suitable tier IX, to fill the gap. IV 21/24 Hosho V 30/30 Zuiho VI 48/48 Ryujo Hiyo 48 VII 90/85 Kaga 73/72 Hiryu Soryu 71 VIII 84/72 Shokaku Akagi 81 IX 75/83 Taiho Shinano 47/72-83 X 100 Hakuryu The addition would branch of from the Zuiho and start with the Hiyo a converted passenger liner (Kashiwara Maru) commissioned in July 1942 sunk during the battle of the Philippine Sea, June 1944. Next up is the Soryu at tier VII the “sister” ship of the Hiryu, the first IJN carrier to be planed us such from the beginning, commissioned in 1937. She fought, as part of the first air fleet’s carrier division 2 (together with Hiryu) in several battles including Pearl Harbor and Midway where she was sunk, June 1942. Her air group consisted of 63 aircrafts plus 8 in reserve equalling a total of 71. With 34 kts she’s also capable to swiftly reposition, which is always nice. And she just looks great On tier VIII we got the Akagi, which was converted from the battlecruiser Akagi and finished 1927 having three flight decks. In 1937-38 she was reconstructed losing to of the three flight decks and so increasing the aircraft capacity to 66 plus 15 reserve giving a total of 81. Probably being the most famous Japanese carrier of the Second World War, served as the flagship of the First Air Fleet. She led the attack on Pearl Harbor and other battles and was sunk in Midway, June 1942. The Akagi is one of the ships I had absolutely no doubt we would see in the original tech tree. At tier IX sits the Shinano being the conversion of the third Yamato-class Battleship Shinano, probably the most impressive carrier during the Second World War, certainly the largest. Commissioned in 1944 she got sunk only 10 days later hit by four torpedoes of USS Archerfish will traveling from Yokosuka to Kure to finish her fitting (which also included finishing waterproofing and adding missing counter-flooding and damage-control pumps). Not really fast but considering her Displacement (which results in HP) and Armour she should be quite a sturdy ship. As above already mentioned her air group can have a wide range, I would go with something between 72-83 aircrafts, depending how important the sturdiness factor is considered to be (in my eyes rather unimportant at this tier). From the Shinano we would get back to the main line and to the Hakuryu. This addition would in my opinion not only include some interesting ships but also reduce the dullness of having the same CV as opponent again and again. Character wise there wouldn’t be a change from the already included IJN carriers. thanks for reading, tell me what you think about it and don’t hesitate to point out faults. After some responses I made a little Update to the tech tree: IV 21/24 Hosho V 30/30 Zuiho Chitose 30 VI 48/48 Ryujo Hiyo 48 VII 90/85 Kaga 73/72 Hiryu Soryu 71 Unryu 63 VIII 84/72 Shokaku Akagi 81 IX 75/83 Taiho Taiho-Kai 75 X 100 Hakuryu Shinano 47/90-100 It now splits of from the Hosho to the Chitose, a conversion from an auxiliary to a high-speed seaplane carrier. After Midway she was converted to a carrier and commissioned as such in January 1944. She was sunk in the battle of Leyte Gulf in October 1944. She would play pretty similar to the Zuiho. Instead of the Soryu or as a further addition we got the Unryu at tier VII. Being similar to the Hiryu design she was finished in August 1944, with additional AA and protection. She was planned to embark 57 aircrafts plus six in reserve totalling 63, though it’s most likely that she never had a full air group due to shortages. In war she transported aircrafts and high-priority cargo to the Philippines, till she got hit by two torpedoes from USS Redfish and sunk December 1944. Like Hiryu and Soryu she has a nice top speed of 34kts. In game I would give her around 70 planes like Hiryu. At tier IX we got the Taiho-Kai (design G-15) an improved Taiho, mainly better AA and protection, carrying 53 to 75 aircrafts sources differ her. Those ships were part of the Modified 5th Naval Armaments Supplement Programme drawn up in September 1942, the first of the five planned was due to be finished in 1948. After Midway other faster to build carrier programmes got priority and the date got shifted back. In August 1943 all five ships were cancelled. Although similar to the Taiho, surly an interesting ship which allows us to place the Shinano, with a bigger air group, at tier X, were such an impressive ship belongs.
  7. Thank you Captains! Seeing that you guys don’t seem to have a problem with the mechanic (which I still don’t really like), I guess I have to overcome my stubborn ways and give my neat and beloved little section formations up. Advancing into some looser and wilder formations, which are harder to control but maybe bring more success.
  8. The problem isn’t directly that the AS layout is superior to my fighters, I mean it has to be so. My problem is more that my fighters have no chance if they get involved in a dogfight. I basically have to bait the enemy fighters on one site of the map with my fighters, to then, before they get annihilated in some seconds, attack with my uncovered strike force on the other side of the map. Not only is that highly risky you’re also not able to do it a lot, because either he gets it or you run out of “bait”. I think it just makes the AS layout to strong considering that a Saipan or Ranger were, already before able to gain AS against a Hiryu. Well, have to take a closer look at her then.
  9. To clarify I’m at the moment at tier VII with my Hiryu, I was there before they included this new mechanic and I’m still there now ( I know I’m slow ). And I’m sure everyone was already in a position where he was locked up in a dogfight, he just wanted not to be in and disengage from it. So you would say: “cool, now I can!”, but yeah… The problem here is that air superiority CV’s, in my case the USN Saipan and Ranger, can use this new gadget to utterly annihilate your planes and if they slightly know what they’re doing, you won’t have a chance and could just leave your planes in the hangar. It was already a challenge to have a good game against them before but now it’s more or less impossible, except you manage to sneak through and sink the enemy air superiority CV at the beginning or got the luck to play with one. I don’t know how it is at higher tiers, which carriers there profit the most from it or if it evan is a big deal. But let’s take a closer look in case of the Hiryu. For example; what I used to do in my Hiryu was that I mad one big formation with the two Dive bomber sections and the two torpedo bomber sections. That formation got a close cover on one torpedo bomber section by one fighter section. The other fighter section I used as snooper which gave reconnaissance, a wide cover and attacked enemy fighters/bombers when they were in range. Like that my bombers were more or less save, sure my fighters would (except with a good strafing run at the beginning of the dogfight) probable lose most of the dogfights but my bombers got through, because I could bind the enemy fighters in a dogfight away from my bombers. Now they can simply disengage and attack my bombers. Also close cover is more or less useless now, because if the dogfight is too close to your bombers he can make a strafing run across them. So you have to make a wide cover with both fighter sections and hope he doesn’t slips through and finds your helpless bombers. Another problem arises with the weird game mechanic were your planes don’t immediately give chase to the disengaging enemy but wait on spot for 2 sec. You can’t even give them a command to do it, they just sit there. Which not only gives the enemy plans a nice lead, which they can use to attack your bombers or really -although seldom- run away. Some smart players use this now to set strafing runs. They get stuck in with one section, try to bind as many enemy planes as possible, then they disengage wile strafing the helpless enemy fighters still sitting there, with the other fighter section. Those are the major issues with this mechanic. Sure you can say that a CV without air superiority layout could use the mechanic too, and your right but he can use it way less effective not only because he has less or/and inferior fighters but also because gaining air superiority is not his primary goal, he wants to do dmg. and so can/will assign way less attention to his fighter sections compared to somebody who practically only plays with them all game. So what this mechanic basically does; is making the air superiority CVs even stronger at their task and the attacker CVs less effective at what they’re doing and so ultimately ruins the balance between carriers completely. As I sad I’m only at tier VII, so I don’t know how it is at higher tiers but down here it just screws the balance over in my eyes. They sure only wanted the best for the game and maybe even saw this mechanic as an answer to the balance problems of carriers. But what they achieved was giving the air superiority CVs a strong tool, with which they can render an attacker CV useless. Not being able to play every second game shouldn’t be the solution and I would definitely welcome it if they would get rid of this Mechanic. Having not played the higher tiers in carriers I would love to hear how the impact of this Mechanic is for the carrier gameplay at higher tiers. And if one of you guys developed a tactic to counter this, I’m happily listening, cause I don’t really know what to do at the moment in those battles to be effectiv. P.S. sorry fo my english
  10. rr1774

    Royal Navy Tech Tree Proposal

    A little off topic maybe but I thought still interesting, considering it seems going to be the first ex RN DD in game, which is non premium. Saw a datasheet of the KRI Gadjah Mada, which will be the tier VII of the new Pan-Asia DD line. The KRI Gadjah Mada is the Ex HMS Nonpareil which was, bevor being finished, given to the Royal Dutch Navy and entered service in Oct. 1942 as HNMLS Tjerk Hiddes, where she mainly served in Indian and Australian waters. After the war she stayed in the Royal Dutch Navy till she was sold to Indonesia in March 1951, where she was renamed KRI Gadjah Mada the ship we will get in game. Eventually in 1961 she was scrapped. It maybe also means that we are going to see the J/K/N-class in the regular RN DD-line.
  11. rr1774

    Royal Navy Tech Tree Proposal

    Nice work! But like „FireflyActual“ mentioned, I think that the 4.7in. L/M-class DD's should be in the regular Tech tree (tier 7/8) and maybe the 4in. L-class as Premium, although I would rather like the implementation of the L/M-class with two different hull types (4in. and 4.7in. guns) so you can chose on your gamestyle. Then I think that if the 4.7 in L/M-class DD’s get implemented as premium they probably will go for the polish ORKAN. Also if the L/M-class doesn’t show up in the regular tech tree, I have no idea wear to put all the free experience I’m hording for it since release.
  12. rr1774

    RN Destroyers..

    Thx, for the Info. Found my fault, they actually changed the mid-train position to dead astern early in the war, something my usual source: "Destroyers of World War Two" by M.J. Whitley, missed to mention. But the CPXIX mounting could actually only rotate 320 (+160 / -160) degrees on A/B-position and 340 (+170 / -170) degrees on the X-position, or am I wrong again? Slightly confused now Source: http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_47-45_mk9.php
  13. rr1774

    RN Destroyers..

    They definitely should do the L/M-class, although I would favour the ones with 3x2 4.7in Guns or, what would be great, two hulls so you can decide if you want to go with the 4x2 4in or 3x2 4.7in. I also would love to see the N-class which I think is to prefer over the J/K-class just because having the X turret not being able to fire backwards would be so weird to play. They both could be at tier VII or VIII and I would prefer them over the Tribal-class, which they could do as premium at Tier VII/VIII
  14. rr1774

    Royal Navy L/M-class Destroyers (1941)

    @fumtu: First thank you. I agree that it depends on the placing of the J/K/N-class, although considering that the J/K/N-class had 2x5 TT I guess you could place it at the same tier as the L/M-class. I could see the 4in DDs as premiums, even I wouldn’t like it that much, what I fear is that they may decide to bring the ORKAN (ex-MYRMIDON) as Polish premium, and leaving it out, at the Royal Navy tech tree. (Which would frustrate me greatly) The J/K/N-class are great looking ships too, but I just love the looking of the Mk.XX mount. @DreadArchangel: Wargaming, don’t dare you messing with my ships!
×