byronicasian

So if somehow the Mogami wasn't finished until the 1950s, it'll somehow be OP by the virtue of being built late? That's the logic you're using. The Kutuzov is an improved Chapayev (laid down right at the outbreak of the war in 41 but several were not finished until the end of the because of the invasion, or outright destroyed in the yards), which means it is just a marginally improved 30s/40s design based off of an INTERWAR Italian cruiser. I mean, chronological order already matters little in game as our T1s are almost always more modern than the T2s and T3s.

But back on topic, I would much rather have the Kutuzov's AA overmodeled than give it better damage HE on its flat shooting 152s.

As mentioned in my post, you have a net difference of 20 or so tons excluding radar equipment (-32 for the twin turret, + 12 for the additional AA). Mind you 250 tons brought Fubuki down from 38kt to 35kts. You're not going to get any meaningful speed increase from that.

Why? The C hull is post 4th Fleet refits, which means the class is noticeably heavier due to the ballast (close to 250 tons IIRC). The gun mount itself is only 32 tons replaced with quite a few AAA mounts http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNJAP_5-50_3ns.htm http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNJAP_5-50_3ns.htm while depending on the Type 96 mount, it would've added close to 17000 lbs/8.5 tons (7 Twin Type 96 mounts) or 24,000 lbs/12 tons (if 14 single mount 25mm) . So a net of loss 20 tons excluding the 13mm mounts and radar additions.

Not a problem mate. If my linked sources are wrong after you take a good look, I would gladly retract (if possible could you scan it also? so I can bring it over to NA forums). I understand having brain-farts once in a while

The Aoba sub class still had hoists issues in their turrets, making it 3 RPM at best. (http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNJAP_8-50_3ns.htm) . I doubt any bit of the 5.5 RPM is historical especially when all later IJN cruisers can only historically make 4 RPM with newer hoists and improved turrets (shown in game with most of the post Myoko turrets, exception being Myoko getting 4.3 RPM, which was even faster before the nerf close to 5 rpm IIRC). Furutaka's was barely 2 rpm before its refit to Aoba configuration (http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNJAP_79-50_3ns.htm)

WG probably looked at how some of the Yugumo class ships that got a turret removed for AAA and figured , well that is a logical endpoint for how the Fubukis will become towards the tail end of their service. Correction by nechrom, looks like the surviving Fubukis like the Hibiki of the Akatsuki subclass did have their AAA augmented at cost of primary battery in the last year of the war.

Out of everything they could buff, I'm glad its the AA. So far, its HE is sub-par compared to the Mogami because of the absolute shite Krupp values, unlike the Cleveland the cit profile is large. The only thing it has on it is the flatter arcs. I mean the you could downtier it, but people are already complaining about the Kutuzov being in game as it was finished close to the 50s even though the design was an older 30s/40s design. Improve the HE? Well you just inserted a CBT Cleveland into T8. Leave it as is with "unmodified" AA? Then you have a terribad T8 premium that no one will buy. I mean, look at what WG did for other underperforming ships. Furutaka, buffed the ROF from historical 2 to 3.5 and increased the traverse far above historical values. Aoba gets a similar ROF buff from 3 rpm to 5.5 rpm. Yorck just got a massive turret traverse buff also. I would much rather have a one off premium getting overmodeled AA than have anything done to its guns.

Wasn't this question asked an answered in CBT? http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/16036-are-ships-scaled-correctly/page__pid__290075#entry290075 http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/16036-are-ships-scaled-correctly/page__st__20__pid__290310#entry290310 Also, IIRC some SEA coordinator on reddit mentioned that port views are all scaled for viewing purposes.

Just stop buying these bundles....complaining ain't gonna work. Start some outreach movement against bundle, you know...actual stuff. No reason to have a conniption over this stuff.

Putting a 28kt CA with 2 turrets and 2.5 RPM in mid/high tier cruiser play is pretty jarring also (and unlike the Aoba, you can't just buff the RoF to compensate b/c of the shell caliber). Just saying. Dispersion too tight? Nudges out the other CAs too much. Dispersion too loose? You hilariously overtiered a poorly armored BB. Putting the D-land in as a low tier BB is not particularly elegant, but its something.

Or maybe we could get an incomplete Panzerschiffe tree since the guns on the Scharnhorst were also meant to be mounted on the P-class. Then again, we could still be missing additional/more stuff so I doubt the tree is completely finalized.

Probably b/c of the DM disparity.

The arcs on the USN 5"/38s temper that theoretical DPM heavily. I prefer the flat arcs on the Nicolas' stock guns, and the IJN DDs.

I mounted the Gun dispersion mod on mine, with the rudder shift mod, I can usually orient the ship plus guns to compensate for the meh turret traverse.

It could very well end up being the Karlsruhe of the German BB line. At least the Scharnhorst had BB rated armor (belt was like 14in thick or something), just slightly undergunned which can be remedied with the potential 15 in upgrades. IIRC, you get the faster firing 11 in guns (3.5rpm iirc) vs the D-land also. The Deutschland though, cruiser rated armor, 28kts. With the original 2.5rpm 11 inch guns and in 2 turret config though..... RIP. I would imagine, WG thought they couldn't stick it into the cruiser line (with 2.5 rpm), but buffing it would make it too strong for a "cruiser". They'd have to tier it low or buff the RoF/Dispersion or something.

The only time the Cleveland truly outperformed the Aoba was in CBT, when it had its ROF and flat arcs. Aoba had its historical 3 RPM (slower than the other No. 2s due to hoist problems) buffed to 5.5 rpm which made her a pretty fun T6 CA. At this point, I don't think the avg damage stats show the Cleveland being too strong against the Aoba.

Mind you, I'm not supporting the fictional speed upgrades (or mounting torpedoes on ships that never had them), I was clarifying your position as it seemed people were confused . My 'buffs" to the USN line are pretty much all soft stat buffs and it wouldn't even be all that much if the avg damage stats on maplesyrup is any indication. I am definitely NOT in support of giving the Standard BBs Fast BB engine upgrades and etc.

I think some of you are misunderstanding OP. He's saying, if we have acceptable breaks from reality for balance reasons, how come WG isn't making up new stats to balance the ships (like making the NY Class BB faster than 21 knots so it'll be closer to Kongo's 30). The answer to that its quite simple, doing so breaks what little immersion is left, and second, the IJN/USN BB balance isn't THAT far off statswise (usually 3k-6k of Avg dmg difference, amounting to 1-2 normal pens). This difference means that the only adjustment required would be a minor survivability, or dispersion buff of 2-10m.

Are you asking that WG just make up torpedo mounts for ships that never had them?

IIRC, there were skins applied to Kongo and Zao that were Arpeggio related in the April 1st event also.

The irony is that the EU is finally getting a synchronized event, but its not an event the main advocates want.

They would have to be dumb to make it enabled by default.

Not to mention, if this was SEA only, there would be salt on the other servers. So good on WG for making this on all servers.

Apparently its in the options when the update gets applied. It says so right in the announcement. The butthurt is real.