fnord_disc

Yamato too.

It's a matter of philosophy whether that deck is counted or not. There is no right or wrong in something abstract like a hit box.

Ah, my bad. I assume all her hit boxes are counted identically to Iowa, then. She's penalized twice: once with a tall citadel and once with getting overmatched on the broadside. It will play like a slow Iowa will lazier guns, then. Just more maneuverable too.

No, the reason North Carolina's citadel is so low is because Lesta didn't count one entire deck. Technically NC should have the same citadel height as Iowa, but it doesn't for balancing reasons. Unless you have access to the armor model somehow and I'm not seeing it... South Dakota has a very similar armor scheme to Iowa, but that doesn't mean the citadel will be just as high. It could end up being the same as NC. The problem is more whether the area between the hull and the belt counts as ship in terms of hit box. If it is a legitimate part of the hitbox, then angling the ship to bounce shells is almost impossible because the hull will be overmatched for penetration damage by 406mm. Look at Iowa's armor scheme to see what I mean; she has essentially Iowa's armor.

Sigma is only relevant if you compare it to ships with a similar base dispersion. It doesn't really mean much at all compared to ships with a different dispersion. 1.9 means the ship is slightly more accurate than most American battleships, but less accurate than North Carolina. It's important to remember that SoDak had a very unusual armor scheme and without seeing the armor model in the game, it's difficult to predict how durable the ship is. The ship could be more durable than North Carolina or less durable depending on where the hit boxes start.

What the hell are you talking about? Again, the Minekaze stats are from more than a year ago. The Isokaze stats are from last month except for 5-10 games I played a year ago to get to Minekaze, then Mutsuki, then Hatsu, then Fubuki... Okay, let's do this reeeaaaally slowly, just for you. Maybe you will eventually understand. I have a dream. A year ago, I played up the IJN DD line and got mediocre stats in Isokaze and Minekaze. A month ago I decided to start sealclubbing with either Isokaze or Minekaze, chose (rebought) Isokaze, and the win rate has since risen above 80% (and this includes the poor games I had initially a year ago). Has this nudged your pea-sized brain closer to the truth?

I don't think you know what you're talking about, so you should probably stop talking. Isokaze is T4 with the exact same torpedoes and doesn't see T7 like Minekaze. It's even protected against T6. The ship is completely overpowered.

Yeah, it's sealclubbing. So? How does that invalidate my point in any way? No, they are both overpowered. I just selected Isokaze because it's even more overpowered than Minekaze. I could have done this exact same thing with Minekaze.

The Minekaze statsare are ancient. They're much older than the Isokaze stats save for about 5 games I used to advance up the line.

Maybe you should read what I said. I said I think the ship feels disgustingly overpowered when ***I*** play it. I don't judge ships based on how others play them. I have 80% solo WR in Isokaze from a statistically relevant sample size. Is that balanced?

I have no data to back it up, but when I play Isokaze and Minekaze, they feel disgustingly overpowered. If the ships have a mediocre global WR, then most people must not be playing them correctly. I for one am glad they will be nerfed.

The rumors are conflicting.

Why should you get Shiratsuyu? Hatsuharu is replaced by Akatsuki, and you get Akatsuki. Shiratsuyu doesn't replace anything.

I'll never understand why the British didn't even put RPC on their main turrets. It's such a vast improvement in fire control.

Anshan Seal of Approval ©

Mine/Kami/Fujin... "current".

Old Minekaze was one of the most overpowered ships in the whole game...

One thing to remember is that Lesta can almost arbitrarily down-tier RN ships by giving them Greenboys with terrible ballistics. Bayern with 4x2 38cm has bad ballistics for her tier despite the caliber and if Repulse is not given upgraded shells, she would be balanced at T5 with 3x2 38cm. Just try to recall how much you struggle with Bayern and Yorck AP ballistics. There is so much variety for the RN tiers until T6/T7 that even 3-4 parallel capital ship lines would be trivial to balance IMO.

Storm?

Tiger with (fictional) WW2 upgrade is T5 for sure. Stock it's T4.

I agree. KGV should be put at T8 if it's within reason. I just think the buffs are a little too extensive. I don't feel the ship is greatly superior to a Nagato in game terms. Nagato's citadel armor was recently buffed to something like 400mm composite, and Nagato's guns are powerful and reliable. If we wind back all the buffs that could be made to KGV, like RoF and traverse, then the ship looks like a decent T7 to me. The speed and the large HP pool wouldn't break the ship at T7 for me. Hmm. Hard to say how common it is. I do it a lot in my Hipper at the end of the game, but maybe others don't. The ship is flexible and durable, but König scales much more poorly than a Kongo when it's punching up. When I played through the König, I hated T7 games in a way that I never did in my Kongos. And playing T9 with Scharnhorst is a struggle, to say the least. KGV would be a lot less fun to play in T10 games than a Bismarck or a North Carolina, even if by some artifice it is made balanced within its own tier. I understand the motivation to keep chronology, technology, and speed progression intact, but KGV requires only fairly mild adjustments to make it work as an extremely durable T7. The bigger problem with this is that she would displace Nelson, because Nelson doesn't work at T8 either.

Yes. The armor is fine for T8. Yes. Hm, yes, I know what you mean. But the difference between T6, T7 and T8 battleships is quite stark and I don't think the fact that Scharnhorst works at T7 is necessarily an argument that the same concept works at T8 for KGV. T7 also meets quite different opposition these days. Yes, and KGV is 10m longer than NoCal. It would be fairly agile, but certainly not revolutionarily so. Compared to NoCal you would have, in soft stats: Similar AA Similar or slightly better armor Slightly worse agility And by this time I hope we have sufficiently established that the guns are inferior.

It makes a big difference for cruisers because all T8 cruisers are suddenly overmatched by T6 whenever they are top tier. Atago and Kutuzov couldn't be nerfed and would suddenly be far more tanky in those games than their silver counterparts. Nerfing cruiser bows across the game is very unlikely in my opinion. As for those examples: Dunkerque doesn't effectively have a lower caliber than other battleships at T6 because the overmatch characteristics are the same relative to the armor at the tier Scharnhorst has torpedoes - different offensive tools to compensate for the lower caliber König was buffed with unhistorical shells (WW2 coastal artillery) and would be unplayable at its tier if the players it faces were stronger König performs well statistically, but only because players aren't strong enough to negate its strengths. König desperately needs broadsides to shoot at, because that's where the disadvantages of low caliber disappear. It gets those broadsides all the time at T5 and KGV would get them a lot less at T8. Base on the to-scale line drawings I have, KGV has a 40° angle on its belt armor if it wants to fire the third turret at the best possible angle. North Carolina reaches a 55° angle on its belt armor to achieve broadside fire. KGV 381mm/cos(40°) = 497mm effective NC 305mm/cos(55°) = 531mm effective (not taking into account any internal angle because Breyer is a little unreliable for that) So KGV's belt armor would at best be comparable to NC if you actually want to fire all your guns in a standard engagement. In straight up broadside fire, on the other hand, nobody has enough armor to reliably stop anything at the ranges we're fighting at. I highly doubt that inside the game KGV would be any more durable than NC or Amagi, and it's more likely that bad players will overturn to fire the aft turret and get completely hammered in return. KGV can be made to work at T8, I suppose, but it needs an inordinate amount of buffing to overcome the deficiencies of its guns.

Lesta would have to change the cruiser armor of about a dozen cruisers in the game and completely upend the balance. The chance of this happening to make one ship work at T8 is practically 0. Lesta did not significantly buff the turret traverse of any battleship in the game. The 0.5°/s on Warspite are just about the limit. Arguing that they could buff KGV's traverse more than that is resorting to something without precedent among battleships. Some were buffed more than 0.5°/s. Same argument as above - I could see 28s happening, but not a lot lower than that. There is no precedent for such a large buff among battleships. No, she does not. Historically? Yes. It was a solid design and a worthy contemporary of the other treaty battleships. In the game, with stats near those she would inherit? No. Gun performance and other offensive stats are all that really matters, even if you and a lot of others don't want to admit that. KGV has a great belt, but as sad as it is, what matters isn't the belt once you get above 300mm. What matters is the citadel hitbox. GK is much more durable than Yamato or Montana even though their belt is way better. The size of the citadel hitbox, in turn, is a matter of interpretation and balancing. It's neither an argument for nor against T8, and therefore the armor protection of KGV is neither an argument for nor against T8. The third turret has very bad angles to the front and the ship will have to expose the entire broadside to fire all turrets. I have the line drawings here and the ship exposes 50° to fire the back turret, completely eliminating any advantage its armor would have given it through angling. In most engagements you will be limited to the front 6x14" turrets, which is anemic to say the least. If Lesta gave KGV the guns that it historically had, then their performance would be inferior to a T6 Fuso: Inferior penetration Inferior flight time Inferior in number Inferior traverse ...assuming one ignores areas where Fuso was buffed over historical values like RoF. If the rest of the ship is interpreted very conservatively for the game, it would even be balanced at T6. Now, I can already hear you typing right now. I don't mean this as a criticism of the historical design in any way. If anything, it's proof of how far away the game's dynamics are from the real world. Why? Please argue in terms of game dynamics, not history. And I would prefer an argument centered around the 757m/s ordinary charge, but we can go with the coastal rounds if you like. The way it looks to me, she's a fair bit faster than a Nagato with drastically inferior guns. She has better AA and probably a better heal and that's about it. Sounds pretty balanced to me. edit: As for the citadel hitbox, Breyer's line drawings are contradictory. One drawing shows two decks above the machinery, the other shows only one deck. Since this is the waterline deck, the citadel hitbox would end either a little above or below the water = down to balancing and neither an argument for nor against anything.

Digger mittlere Kreuzer existieren nur in deiner Einbildung.