Affeks

yes ofc I mixed up Kii and Roma there. Actually also Colorado sigma was recently nerfed to 1.9 with the HP buff. So actually two mistakes in my post

So now that we know the RN Light cruiser is just beyond the horizon, I felt it was time to take another look at the British machine gun... namely the Tiger-class. The Tiger isn't in the upcoming tech tree (as expected), so I figured this ship would have to be a premium if anything. As this game won't have missiles, I'll only be looking at the ship as it was built. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger-class_cruiser So as we can see the ship was armed with 2x2 6" guns, not that impressive untill we take a look at the guns themselves. http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_6-50_mkN5.htm Yep you read that right, 15-20 rpm. From what I've heard, The upcoming tier 10 Minotaur will have 5x2 6" with a rof of 15 rpm, so from that info I can imagine this ship becoming a tier 8. The 6" guns also had a 180 degree traverse of 4.5 seconds!!! Edit: The 6" guns are the same as those on the upcoming Minotaur and Neptune classes. Edit: Lets compare this to current tier 8s, Mogami, Chapayev, Mikhail, upcoming Edinburg are all able to put out 90 shells a minute with 4 turrets on most plus 5 on Mogami. Compare this to Tiger which can put out 60-80 shells per minute (depending on what rpm figure WG uses). What this means is that they have big citadels. From base we know Mogami has over 50 sec 180 degree traverse time and the russians having 25. Tiger is also shorter than all tier 8 cruisers we know of so that tells us that she'll probably turn really well. My question is; is it worth giving up 10-30 shells aminute to have a smaller citadel, better turning circle, faster traverse speed and better AA? Tiger was also armed with 3x2 3" guns with a rof of 90 rpm, so they will most likely be AA only (though it would be cool to have secondaries firing that fast ). One of these were mounted superfiring A turret as seen on the picture, with the other two being wing mounted abaft the rearmost turret. http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_3-70_mk6.htm Edit: These are the same AA guns the upcoming Minotaur has. Armor and speed is not this ships strenghts. It would be fun seing this ship having the fastest firing 6" guns in the game, with the help of smoke I can see this ship creating a lot of funny moments. I'm not sure, but I Tiger is was the last all gun cruiser built by Britan, so it also has quite the symbolic value. I'll list some stats based on what we see on the test server on Minotaur's 6" and 3" guns Main Battery 152mm / 50 XXVI (5 x 2) Reload : 4 seconds Turret rotating speed : 4.7 seconds / 180 degrees HE shells : Mark V Standard, damage 2200, initial shell velocity : 768 m / s, fire chance : 11% AP shells : Mark V standard, damage 3200, initial shell velocity : 768 m / s AA 152 mm / 50 Mark XXVI (2 X 2) : DPS = 47.2 : Range = 6 km 76.2 mm / 70 Mark VI (3 X 2) : DPS = 118.125 : Range = 5 km

Ehhh what? USN BBs and IJN BBs are the BB lines that are the oldest AND most focused around gunpower and accuracy? NC 2.0 sigma as well as Iowa, Montana and Colorado with 1.9 sigma not to mention their super low min V-disp values. Look at any accuracy table and youll see USN ships have the highest hit rates. Also Yamato 2.1 sigma and all IJN ship's super low H-disp values? You have no idea what youre talking about... On the other hand you have the KM BBs with lowish sigma and dispersion patterns and RN BBs that have insanely high H-disp values (making them unreliable at hitting angled targets). ofc not to mention Kii which is just straight up less accurate than Amagi and Roma which has 1.8 sigma AND one of the highest V-disp in the game afaik. Dont say that others are disconnected from reality when it seems you know nothing of whats actually going on please. edit: fixed wrong information

My intention was only DCP as it seemed you had already gone through Repair party. To me though I wouldnt mind if Vanguard took both Warspites DCP and RP. The thing with Vanguard is that despite the 72k HP pool, her all or nothing design doesnt make it very tanky at all ingame. I kinda want Vanguards flavor to be tanky as its the heaviest ship at that tier (so far) yet it has worse guns than her competition. Then again going with 2% (40%) heal is too much so the 0.6% (16.8%) is a nice half measure. After Warspite came out I always imagined that the RN line would have the same gimmicks as Warspite. Good turnin circles and good DCP/RP. So if Vanguard is anything like Warspite consumables crossed with Hood tankiness and Lion hull I'm gonna be real happy alright.

How about Warspite dmg con? Cruiser dmg con? Seems like a nice and lowkey gimmick in my eyes.

Wow thats a better comparison the longer I think about it... Luckily Kronny has actual usable pen values.

Remember the dps aura for 5km and 5.2 km are still 160. So even on France the increase in dps is better than the few seconds extra inside the 4.5 km and 5.2 km aura. Not to mention that Alsace gets 200 extra from MFCAAA, Gascogne benefits from MFCAAA and almost all of Dunkeks AA is in the 5.2 km aura. Remember when a CV in top tiers go for you 1km is closed in by aircraft in a very short time and a lot of the time CV captains remaneuver within 5km to get a better drop angle, in which MFCAAA is much more valuable than extra range. Not to mention cyclones where planes are spotted well inside 4.5 km.

Well for Charles or Sain Louis EM is a waste, but on Henri EM is more less a must. The insanely good AP means its a waste to spend the opening parts of tve match tickeling targets with HE. I likr to scoot over to a flank, create a crossfire and demolish cruiser broadsides. Ofc this means heavy maneuvering and tanking some incoming damage. Meaning I often spend the majority of matches at sub 50% HP. Ofc this playstyle might not click with everyone, but if not the impact Henri has is way too low to carry matches.

But weight is a value right? I mean logically it should be.

Henri has just a tiny bit too bad turret traverse, meaning if youre turning at full rudder the turrets cant always keep up. The upgraded EM should help overcome that theshold of faster turret traverse than ship turning, at least in some situations. Also in cruisers (especially french) you are constantly throwing your ship around and due to faster reload you constantly change targets, resulting in spending much more time traversing the turrets over the course of a match. Also I find that high tier cruisers are better at staying alive on low HP. People might disagree, but I find that the speed and concealment that cruisers has makes it easier to survive and fire from behind islands or on preffered engagement ranges. So while AR is debatable, I find that EM on BBs is highly overrated.

Expert Loader is a must. You cant go into CW in a cruiser and not use EL. Learn to use it and youll see that you can snapshot so many cruisers or even BBs at times. Also direction centre helps a lot when using both spotter and fighter plane. Especially usefull for Zao since she doesnt have radar or a good Hydro likr hburg This is the build Id use most of the time, switching out Direction centre and Survivability Expert for RPF if we only have 1 DD or only 1 radar cruiser. Before anyone starts crying over SE its actually very good. Zao has very good stealth, but low HP. Meaning SE actually equals almost 9% more base HP, might not sound like much, but that extra HP can be the difference in some engagements during CW. The job of Cruisers in CW is staying alive so I dont mind picking this skill in CW. That 9% extra HP can often let you survive that extra second or two before slipping into stealth. PM is more or less a waste in CW, sub 10 KM is not Zaos favored engagement range VS. Any cruiser or BB in CW. You should only face DDs at that range and they cant shoot out your turrets either. Also torpedoes arent really that usefull in CW for Zao. So no reason in getting PM for those either. Vigilance is close to useless for me. In CW you use Hydro 100% of the games and should have it off cooldown when needed. Anyways the impact it has is often minimal and since Zao is a roaming cruiser youre not going to be the main target for enemy DDs either. Thay will much more likely want to torp the static Cruisers or other DDs. Remember the main counterplay against torps is dodging them BEFORE they are even launched. If you manage speed and sailing direction to dodge enemy long range artillery fire like a roaming cruiser should do anyways, you will already be very hard to land torps on anyway. Priority target is also kind lf a waste, if youre spotted you should know whether or not you are heavily targeted. It has some use like for example knowing when a DD is targeting you, but even that is super situational and unreliable. looking at my previous point it should not happen anyways.

Yup, if not mistaken its better than Moskva, in addition Kronny has heavier shell than Moskva meaning even less speed loss. To put that into perspective Moskva has better time to target on 20km than Yamato.

This is the build Ill be dying to try first. Ill also be trying to switch CE for FP, or both CE and EL for BoS and EM My reasoning for skippinh AFT is that I habe both manual secondaries and MFCAAA for defensive purposes. Meaning secondaries will mostly carry their weight through shooting at DDs and I need to be able to shrug off as many planes when they attack me, something AFT doesnt do as well as MFCAAA. Other than that I have no issue giving up survivability skills on them as Ill be playing them mostly on flanks and good positions. This is because unlike lets say a Yamato or GK frenchies can move around much more freely, meaning I dont have to force myself to tank that much... Well its not like frenchies would be good at it anyways. But I wont be using the unique commander on my BBs, using him on my cruisers seem like a much better idea.

31 dps @1.2 km... Also Kronny has one of the lowest shell drag values in the game

Edited topic title

STILL NO RUMORS OF THIS SHIP?! I want it man cmon, dont leave me hanging.

Idk, but for me the 2 RN ships I am the most hyped for are HMS Tiger/Blake and ofc this beauty. Sucker for late/post war ships if this wasnt evidence enough.

None taken, I do not have any real sources on this other than my own experience when playing with numbers. I use the 18.588*((MV*AP shell weight)^0.4787) and I always come up with a number close to ingame values Example: Charles Martel Mle 1931 and 1934 gun shoots the exact same 134 kg projectile, but at 820 m/s and 845 m/s respectively yet AP alpha increases from 4800 to 4900. With that formula I get 4812 with 820 m/s shell which ofc is rounded down to 4800 and 4882 for the 845 m/s shell which can be rounded up to 4900. Thats the most convincing example I can bring up, but I have always landed close (within 200) of the ingame values so I just assumed that MV and projectile weight forms the AP alpha. If you take the values from ingame then it rounds up or down the dps values. I use the WoWs wiki as it takes a decimal into account, which is important when finding the DPS for a single mount the multiplying it by something like 44 (in the case for oerlikon guns on USN ships at least). The wiki also uses 2 decimals for AA range, though I never bother to write 5.19 instead of 5.2 since I dont have to multiply this. Same here, I just think that WG will overly compensate Vanguard for lacking a plane and having "underwhelming" main guns.. Personally I agree with you, I just want Vanguard to be a solid old school battleship. I dont want no Hood AA button or Nelson heal... but hey I just have to mentally prepare for the worst when it comes to a ship like this... waited too long for it Sounds like a really nice way to do it. I do something along those lines to find missing info on bursting charges for HE shells. All in all though youve really catched everything I want this ship to be, youre giving me too high hopes since as with Hood and Kii they will always find some spectacular way to mess up and dissapoint me.

Why everybody got their panties in a twist over this ship? Played correctly its the BY FAR most tanky tier 8 BB without trading any concealment or maneuverability for it. Ofc gun dispersion suffers, but in general I found the guns to perform really well, super short time to target, high pen and turret traverse makes for a suprisingly comfy gun to shoot. As long as you dont let the occasional bad dispersion go to your head youll realize dispersion really aint as bad as you make it seem. AA is somewhat bad, but is balanced by a torpedobelt that will help you out a lot.

Very nice, gonna give you my input on some stuff though I always expected range to land closer to 20km. Vanguard is based on Lion if I remember correctly and Lion has a 20.7km range so Im imagining something closer to that. Monarch is basically a KGV hence the 18 km range. Also compared to Monarch Vanguard doesnt have a catapult plane, so no shame in giving Vanguard that 20+ km range. AP alpha for Vanguard with SCs are indeed around 11 800, muzzle velocity does directly influence AP alpha. From calculations AA is: 8x2 133mm, 68dps@5.2km 10x6+1x2+11 40mm, 413.1dps@3.5km I dont remember the value I used for the individual AA mounts but they are based of values I found on CQ. From what I could find Vanguard uses the same 133mm mounts that CQ uses that reach out to 5.2 km. Other than that your numbers landed right where mine landed, with the exception of HP which I rounded up to 72 500 and AP alpha that I rounded down to 11 700 On another note though I think we are very likely to see a 2.0 sigma and if earlier WG practices are any indication then the 2% heal is very likely in an attempt by WG to balance lack of catapult plane. I do like the concealment and maneuverability stats that are just a teeny bit worse than Lion. Vanguard (in gameplay terms) is a weird hybrid between Lion, CQ and Hood after all.

Known since long ago that WG is rather lacking in both knowledge about naval architecture, history and gameplay design. I think I first realized when I saw a 55mm AA between the anchor chains on Hburgs bow or when Izumo was first released. Edit: I took a look at Hburg now and it STILL has a 55mm mount between the anchor chains... Tbh you dont even have to be a naval expert to see whats wrong with it. Like take a look at US ships and youll see there are a lot of AA mounts on their bows, BUT NEVER close to where the chains are supposed to flail all over....

This! I mean even IJN cruisers have less practical torps than RN CLs, KM CAs and MN CAs... I remember back in the day when I was hoping IJN Cruiser flavor was gonna be torpedoes, then whoa its HE spamming and concealment...

Now this is a good argument. I actually did post in a seperate thread that I wanted a unique designation for these ships (CB/Large cruisers), because the health pool confuses the average player. So on this one I agree 100% This is where you lost me. If you need numbers on this then I can see that you are maybe one of the players that are confused by a cruiser with such high HP. On the other hand though providing "figures" for effective HP is a daunting task considering all the factors to take into account. Ammo types, fires, torpedoes, angle vs no angle, player skill, enemy skill, hull form, turret layout, superstructure size, secondary barbettes etc etc. It would have become a number with an endless list of footnotes.

German cruisers are okay-underwhelming up to tier 9. Once you get to Roon youll fall in live unless you only have 1 intact braincell. Then when you get to Hindy... oh god what a lovely cruiser it is. Hipper and Kberg are the only two "okay" cruisers in the line, Yorck and Nberg does nothing that other cruisers cant to better. So get your grind on and keep fighting till Roon.

Even CQ has 32mm, Kronny has 25 That alone is gonna sting