fnord_disc

Weaker than Fubuki? (No...) You mean weaker than other DDs, right? I understand the concern about radar and planes, though.

I use 8km torpedoes on Fubuki and imo 8km should be usable on Kagero too. But maybe I'm wrong.

We don't have enough tiers, then. The game should include the most iconic ships of the dreadnought era, but it can't skip Yamato at the top of the tree. Fitting HMS Dreadnought -> IJN Yamato into eight tiers inevitably leads to what we have now. I don't really see how what you want (more unaltered WW1 ships) can be balanced in a user-friendly way.

It has accuracy about halfway between the lower-tier USN and IJN ships. Considering USN gets improved accuracy later, Tirpitz has below average accuracy.

Sounds like a real plan with 4 mediocre forward facing guns.

Armor is known (if it is historically accurate) H39 has 150-300 belt from deck to waterline increasing with 120 behind it with 50+100 deck. That's more or less the same as Bismarck with better deck armor. H41 has 150-300 belt from deck to waterline increasing with 150 behind it and 50+150 deck. Basically, the 33% dmg orgy will continue. I can upload pictures if wanted.

I know how krupp works, roughly. It's a constant to modify the shape of the e^-kx distance curve together with the mass and the muzzle velocity. The lower krupp is compensated for by the higher weight and velocity. I meant that from T9 to T10 the krupp gets worse, and since the velocity also decreases, the higher weight isn't really going to cut such a dashing figure.

The krupp is low, but it's not extremely low considering the caliber. Warspite has almost the same value. It's basically Ishi/Warspite/Arkansas Beta tier. But yeah long range will be tough. With the concealment skill and camo you're down to 13km so you might want to play it as a stealthy cruiser hunter using your cruiser captain.

Well, the krupp gets worse at T10, so maybe. 2400 krupp is lower than Japanese 35.6cm btw.

A few spots? Did you look at the picture? There are like 5-6 large and easily visible rust spots in a 30m segment of the ship and the rest of the ship is obscured by the lighting. Sakawa was probably much more decrepit than the ships you just linked from the game. If I ran a few filters over the pictures you posted, you wouldn't be able to see the rust anymore, but on Sakawa it's easily visible even in a bad, ancient photograph. The thing was a rathole and in a way worse state than what you're complaining about.

Yeah, I agree with this. The ship would have to be at least twice as tanky to perform similarly to Yamato, and Yamato is already quite tanky.

Historically accurate Long Lances on the things that carried it holy crap

Well if you think wartime service ships didn't look like hellbarges then you should take a look at some old photographs. Sure, when they were still properly maintained, they all looked really nice in the 30s. But later? Sakawa at the end of the war Lighting is bad but you can clearly see the vertical rust stains on the hull midships and the large discoloration (=rust) on the hull under her torpedo launchers.

I like the rust... It's realistic. I wish the camos kept some of the rust.

Okay, you're right. Technically they are equally hard to aim, but you can achieve similar HE damage from almost any angle. You have to be patient and wait for the right moment with AP, and you have to pick your battles better. HE is still easier and more comfortable to use.

The shell behavior was changed during CBT. Not at the end, during. I'm very sure of that. A lot of lighter shells used to have flatter trajectories than they do now, and the striking velocity at long range used to be higher for all shells.

I don't feel like Russian ships are easier to play, but I haven't played them myself. It's just my observation based on what people in them have been doing to me. I would personally argue that Japanese cruisers are the easiest to play due to the stealth, the HE (no need to aim) and the crisp handling. Especially Russian DDs don't seem easy to me at all.

USS Atlanta is CL-51 And no. All this is your own fantasy classification. Nothing of this is true. It's all in your own head. Light and heavy cruisers as distinct notions didn't exist until the London Naval Treaty. They were created due to a struggle of interest between Britain and the others and resulted in ship number and tonnage being split across heavy (>6.1" main guns) and light (<=6.1" main guns) cruisers, with both limited to a displacement of 10.000t. It's a purely legal category and has no other qualifiers. This was intended to provide Britain with the ability to build a lot of lighter, smaller cruisers to protect its Imperial shipping lanes. The concept of the light cruiser distinct from the heavy cruiser then becomes pointless around the beginning of the war with the introduction of the 155mm Mogamis or the 1938 St. Louis' (CL-49 and CL-50), both of which were just as large as contemporary heavy cruisers. tl;dr if it has 155mm or less, it's a light cruiser. Nothing else matters.

Light cruisers have nothing to do with AA. Does heavy AA make a heavy cruiser? Explain Atlanta. Furutaka is a heavy cruiser, and when she was built, she had a whopping four AA guns.

What's your definition of a light cruiser, then? This is a trick question so I apologize in advance.

It says armor models how hard is that to read. Armor model doesn't change how the ship looks one iota.

Only the early tier Soviet DDs have slow turret traverse. The line as a whole has faster traverse than the Japanese. And USN BBs will not be significantly slower than same-tier British BBs for example. It's not a national trait. The Japanese BBs are just unusually fast on average.

If they were in the PT, the ships and not just the textures, someone would have probably milked the stats by now. But maybe not.

Yup, looks like you're right. It's one of those two batteries.