LastButterfly

Every nation has its own lame side. Stop going all ballistic like that, we hear jokes 'bout everything and everyone all the time. If that really pisses you off just type "America joke" in google or any other nation.

Fair enough. I'm just used to always using the class leader for the sake of actually managing to remember a class amongst the hundreds there are.

The lowest caliber so far is V25's 88mm which can be promptly upgraded to 105mm. Besides that, just take a peek at TII destroyers. They're all in the 1000+ tons standard. Most have three to four guns of ~100mm caliber, exception being Umakize, with a lower amount (only two) of higher caliber (120mm) guns. Each can launch broadsides of at least 5 torps (excepted, once again, Umikaze, which can only launch 4), and all could exceed 30kn. With these caracteristics, Husar just doesn't belong anywhere and Tatra certainly nowhere above TII as she'd already struggle to stay decent there, especially considering how light and under-armed they are. TII for Tatra is stretching it too far. You also kept Durmitor and Ciclone. When I said that you were mistaking Ciclone and Cyclone, I wasn't refering to the "y" or "i" bit. But to the fact that Cyclone is a capable fleet destroyer at this kind of tier whilst Ciclone is a small torpedo boat that just doesn't fit there at all. She's 1100t, with 2*1 100mm and 2*2 450mm TT, capable of 26kn at most. A sonar ain't gonna cut it, she's virtually unable to deal any substantial damage at this tier, too slow to chase, too slow to run away, and too weak to withstand any form of offense. And that's not mentionning Durmitor, which is in the same case, though faster but much lighter. They are torpedo boats. If you wanna put them in a destroyer line it's gonna be tier II or III at max, and it's already a large stretch. I'm still dubious about Dubrovnik and Split. Yeah, playable beats RL, but if you're gonna change all the caracteristics, might aswell rename the ship instead of trying to pretend they're still a historical vessel. Also, what Split do you wanna put at TIX ? The original, the post-war version, or Spalato ? I just can't accept a "french type boost" for the post-war version, since post-war split was a US6armed vessel with a British propulsion. If you pick pre-war or Spalato, then why not, but certainly not how she actually turned out. Also you're missing a TX. There's no real full material to make just a Austria-Hungary X Yugoslavia line. The best I can come up with (and it's not good either) looks like that :

Why her and not the lead ship of the class, Vasilefs Georgios ?

I have to second that. The French vehicules could go just as fast forward as backward. I mean, think about it. What if the enemy comes from behind ?

?

The US had adopted a different strategy - that of having auxiliary ships carry spare torpedoes and everything else to service and resupply a destroyer in need. Destroyers would eventually rendez-vous in squads with Destroyer Tenders, which amongst many other things carried spare torpedoes - or at least so I've heard. I don't know any other nation that carrier spares, each had its own way. For example, the polish Grom class had special tubes capable of being loaded with 533mm or 450mm torpodoes - as such, if none of her usual torpedo model was not available in the vicinity, she could borrow older torpedoes and still be combat ready, making her likely to find suitable spare torpedoes at most friendly places, whether meeting with an ally or going back to any port. Since we're on topic, the usual reload time of an IJN quadruple tube was 25min, but most trained crews could lower it to 15 and sometimes even less if the operation went without fault. A triple tube was reloaded in 16~17mins and the best managed to get the reload time close to 10. In trials, the ultimate record (though achived on land only) was 8mins for a quadruple tube. The Long Lance were special, but the launchers and torpedo crew of Japan weren't any less special.

Oh boy BTW, 40 rpm had been achieved by the 50s with the Bofors M50 and the Vickers MkQ.

Je veux probablement encore plus de trucs qui n'ont jamais flotté btw~

Oui, sauf que si chacun y va de sa petite suggestion, moi, j'ai tout ça à proposer : Edsal Rudderow John C. Butler Bristol Mitscher Porter Somers Percival Yamasame Yamazuki Znoki Kawakaze Chidori Ayanami Miranda Wakeful Amazon Anthony Savage Battle Daring Swift Parker Valkyrie Scott Codrington Tribal Legion Oribi Chevron Weapon Gael Le Hardi Surcouf Mogador Le Fantasque Aigle Guépard Chacal Le Fier Aventurier L'Adroit Vauquelin Freccia Folgore Oriani Giuseppe Sirtori Carlo Mirabello Aquila Leone Navigatori Turbine Maestrale Soldati Commandanti Medaglie d'Oro Commandanti Fiorelli Capitani Romani Impetuoso Zerstörer 1945 Spähkreuzer S113 Sergo Ordonikidze Smelyy Neustrashimyy Spokoynyy Alsedo Huesca Marasti Douro Churucca Alava Oquendo Roger de la Lauria Sleipner Erhensköld Klas Horn Visby Stort Öland Östergotland Holland Split Vasilef Georgios I Regele Ferdinand Tatra Gerard Callenburgh Grom Serrano Mendoza Acre Greenhalgh Nueva Esparta Almirante Riveros Veinte de Julio Ottawa Jan Van Riebeeck Athabaskan II Arunta Voyagaer Tan Yang Palacios Uruguay ENSUITE LES CROISEURS ! Colbert Pluton Edgard Quinet Duquesne Portland Oregon City Alaska Northampton Fargo Juneau Worcester Brooklyn Sendai Nagara Agano Ooyodo Tone Guissiano Duca Degli Abruzzi Costanzo Ciano Etna Trento Bolzano Zara Hawkins Exeter London Surrey Arethusa Tiger Dido Abdiel Adelaide Australia Shropshire Sverdlov Deutschland Cöln Pillau Brummer Ning Hai La Argentina Veinticinco de Mayo Midilli Antinavarhos Kontouriotis Principe Alfonse Canarias De Zeven Provincien Tre Kronor Gotland Java Flygia Saida ET MAINTENANT LES BB ! Florida Nevada Dreadnought Colossus Agincourt Canada Vanguard Conte di Cavour Vittorio Venetto Gangut Mackensen Defflinger Seydlitz Resadiye Salamis Viribus Unitis Espana Minas Gereas Rivadavia Almirante Latorre ET MAINTENAT LES CV ! Sangamon Commencement Bay Oriskany Waspe Casablanca Long Island Charger Aquila Sparviero Nairana Hermes Eagle Furious Courageous Colossus Majestic Illustrious Ark Royal Implacable Centaur Unryuu Chitose Taiyo Kaiyo Ryuho Béarn Et là, j'ai mi pratiquement que des navires qui ont existé ! Est-ce que tu veux que je fasse les DESIGN et PAPERSHIP AUSSI ?

I have a couple objections on these First, Ariete/Durmitor - same stuff - hardly belong above tier II, at MOST III. It's fairly slow, with hardly any gun power, it only has old 450mm torpedoes, and most of all, it displaces less than 900t. This thing'll be an underarmed one-shot kill. It's a torpedo boat, if you want it in a line, TII is the most I see. Trigvlav is even worse, in fact, you're confusing the French destroyer Cyclone from the Bourrasque class with the Italian Ciclon-class torpedo boat. It's even slower than Ariete - 26kn -, it has only 4 tubes compared to 6, and has virtually the same firepower - absolutely none. Its only advantage on Ariete is that it displaces 1100t, which still makes it a one or two shot kills, for anyother stats virtually worse. I don't even think it belongs to TII. Dubrovnik is in my opinion too high, and so is Split. The 140mm Skoda wasn't that great a gun, and these ships didn't have much other advantage than their high caliber. Sure, when you look at Split, she was all rounded, with good torpds, decent firepower and good hull and speed, but overall, she hardly goes anywhere above TVIII, mainly because she just lacks what it takes to tackle the higher tier ships. Split "as finished" thus I guess you mean the American version, is slow as hell - 33kn max - with only 4 guns, the same as on Fletcher. She only carries one quintuple tube, and her only really good stat should be her AA power. Virtually, she has worse guns, torpedoes, manoeuverability and speed than Fletcher. I don't think any variant of Split is good enough to fit above TVIII, even the Spalato one. Maybe - just maybe - could Spalato be a TIX, and yet, it's stretching a lot. I had a hard time finding Huszar. Once again, it's a slow as hell, extremely underarmed ship. She couldn't even fit at tier I, with her single 66m and only 2 450mm, she's virtually far worse than Tatra which is no higher than TII material.

Ladies and Gentlemen, good tastes, right here Allow me to add a very random selection : Hm, maybe I shouldn't get carried away like that

Aaah, les mystères de la perception 3D...

This is just a temporary name describing the general geographical region covered by this branch - the big Greece/Slovenia/Romania triangle plus Turkey. South Americans have in my own little world their own little tree of destroyers, which I am very happy of. For cruisers, I paired South-America and Asia/SEA together. I have a 'rest of the world" branch for destroyers which covers nations not present in any other branch. For capital ships, the problem is no atter what you pair together no minor nation has BB capable of tier VIII or above - even with paper. If you search far and wide you CAN find a tier VIII for, like, Spain, maybe. But that's about it. South America is like everywhere else : low tier BBs are extremely easy. Past tier 6/7 it becomes impossible no matter wha you pair them with. I think I have an experimental carrier branch of minor nations all together but it stops at T VIII.

In fact, I personally have four trees of destroyers and two for cruisers. The four DDs trees are as such : -A Scandinavian one, dominated by Norway and Sweden with a hint of Denmark -A North Ottoman one, with vessels from Greece, Turkey, and also one Yugoslavian, Romanian and Bulgarian -A Continental Tree uniting Austria-Hungary, Poland and the Netherland -An Iberian tree nigh full of Spanish but with one or two Portuguese vessels As for cruisers, I combined the four geographical categories in two : -A Norther Force of Swedish and Dutch light cruisers, with a Polish and Austro-Hungarian too -A Mediterranean Force mainly made of Spanish cruisers, but withs a few from Greece and Turkey, with the branch switching from light to heavy at tier 6 I couldn't complete a decent battleship tree without going into too invented designs, but for sure only one branch of BBs can be made in the whole Europe - though lower tiers have a couple choices.

I... Er... Well... Yeah. Let's just say that my stupidity has no bound. I'll correct that...

Let's see. In my entire fantree which covers pretty much the entire world, I have... 7 greek ships including one paper. That's... not much compared to many other larger and/or minor nations. Greeks don't really have the ships it takes to have a flavour of their own, be that unique, or make up even half a branch. Maybe much later but certainly not that early on. Several nations deserve some sort of tree / premiums before Greece - and I'm not talking 'boiut Italy or stuff. More like, Spain, Netherland, Sweden for example. To quote only a few.

Schanks~ Stu veux la full non resized, la vala :

Hm ?

Hey hey hey, there are ! I mean at least, is ! I played Yume Nikki (only the original, no fangame). And I theorized a f lot about everything in it. But to that counter I can only be flabbergasted, cause it's been tne freakin' years we haven't heard a thing 'bout Yume Nikki or the elusive Kikiyama. But I'm hype nonetheless~

My 'pedoes are larger than 400mm... And have more explosive too... Can they nuke stuff too ? =3

I understood your point. And indeed, in a competitive gamemode, picking a combination "just and solely for the funs of it" is not necessarly okay. But as long as the player who picked it was convinced that he did better in it than in any oither possible layout, than whatever's the reality of his choice's tactical value it's not his fault. Because he meant welle, with "aiming at victory" in mind.

If the Kagero picked TRB with the intention to be less efficient in the first place that's indeed shameful. But no-one can blame him for picking TRB if he thought it was better and/or was convinced he performed better with it rather than Smoke. The point is, you can't shame a player for what they bring into play, because a game should be balanced and therefore any of their choice should be viable. IF there's something so unbalanced that it being picked will always cause harm to a team than it's WG cue to either rebalance the thing or at least forbid it to be taken in a competitive mode. tl;dr : Shame the player if WHY they picked something was a detriment to their team, shame the compagny if WHAT they picked was a detriment to their team.

There's a word for that... What was it already... It... started by a C I think... Like, Co... Condensation ? Hmm... No...

I think the very notion of Battlecruiser was obsolete by WWII so I don't think we can call Iowa battlecruisers. Speed isn't the only factor by far. As far as I remember (my speciality are destroyers so I can't promise my knowledge about these larger ships is flawless at all), the two great schools of battlecruisers during the interwar were as follows -British types tended to sacrifice all or a very large part of the armor to achieve great speed whilst keeping the same firepower as a battleship. The old concept behind this was that speed could serve as a subsitute for armor. -German types tended to view battlecruisers as reduced battleships with more firepower than a cruiser. Hence, their draws CCs possessed armor only slightly below or that sometimes rivaled that of contemporary battleships, but had either reduced dimensions or firepower. Basically, the two possibilities are either "high speed unarmored battleship" and "intermediates between heavy cruisers and battleships". But since Germany hardly had any heavy cruiser at this time to compare this drawings to, it can't be entirely sure. Italy and America only draw trials CCs, and Russia and France are still a mystery to me, so I always assumed that all battlecruisers could fall in one the two aformentionned category - and if it did not then it was NOT a battlecruiser. And what spurred me to think that way - and also to think that CCs couldn't be mentionned for post mid-30s ships - were the japanese warships of the 8-8 plans and further. Japan, early/middle in the interwar, had their capital ships separated in thwo types : actual battlecruisers, such as the early Kongos, and actual battleships, such as the Nagatos. But whilst sketching the ships of the 8-8 plan, which clearly aimed at producing 8 battleships and 8 battlecruisers, they realized that the advance of technology made a third type appear. After drawing the Tos and Amagi - battleship and battlecruiser, respectively -, and after some political stuff, they went on to draw the Kii class, which is where thgey realized that they were technically capable of building a battleships with a thicker armore than Amagi, and yet almost quite as fast. This is the point where they decided to abandon the notion of battlecruiser and speak of fast battleships instead. because indeed, there was no reason to classify Kii as a CC like Amagai was, regardless of how minute the difference between the two were (and that shos how minute the difference between CCs and BBs can actually be). As far as I know only Japan "officially" (sorta) dropped the notion of CC since CCs and BBs had basically melted together to make only one type. But it's not because others didn't mention it that it didn't happen. The birth of Richelieu and Vittorio Veneto in Europe shows the exact same development : ships, with the firepower and armor of battleships, could now exceed 30kn. Therefore, the whole reason of the British notion of CCs "to drop armor so as to gain speed" went obsolete, because dropping armor was no longer needed to gain the necessary speed. Remains the German point of building a "smaller battleship". And to differenciate those fast battleships which are battleships in reduced, from large cruisers, I think there is no technical way to do it, but rather, we have to question where the idea came from. Taking Alaska. She originated from american cruisers, as the point of her was to be a next generation heavy cruiser. On the other hand, the very point of Project 1047 was to serve as a powerful, capable capital ship for its nation. The latter is smaller, displaces less, and is - arguably but undeniably - underarmed compared to the former. And yet I think 1047 belongs the to Capital Ship category whilst Alaska should remain what's called a Large Cruiser. Stalingrad ? Originates from a 203mm heavy cruiser replacement design. Large Cruiser. Schanhorst ? Built as a capital ship, evolution of older ones. Capital Ship. Kronshtadt ? Now that's a tricky one. She was born as a cruiser but heavily redisigned when the russians learnt about the Scharhorst. She was even planned for 380mm guns. But it doesn't change the fact that at first, she had a thin armor and low caliber guns, and many things had been sacrificed for her to stay below a displacement. I'd say that the pre-war Kronshtadt design falls in the Large Cruiser category but the redesigned, war-time actuall Kronshtadt is a Capital Ship. B-65 ? That's a very good question. I haven't given much thought and she appears as a large cruiser to me but maybe I should research her origins. I know for a fact she was meant to be a combat vessel and not counter anyone in particular since the proposal to change her when the Japanese heard of Alaska were rejected. tl;dr : I don't think Iowa is a battlecruiser because I think the notion didn't exist anymore and became a type of battleship. Therefore the question I wonder is what makes a very big cruiser with very big guns a Capital Ship, and what does not. And the answer I have is : the point they were supposed to have when their mother country built them.