Sea_viper

Looking at the Texas, I think ships like USS Maryland will come eventually. But RN got Warspite already, so most of us are expecting QE herself to be in the tech tree. OTOH if you are correct, The next in line of the Queen Elizabeth class would be HMS Malaya. When compared to other T6 BB it got Worst AA Worst deck armor Worst range Worst torpedo damage reduction How about NO?

I think we need to consider that Warspite is NOT a fully upgraded Queen Elizabth class battleship. The QE and Valient got a even more extensive rebuild, which includes more deck armor around A and Y barbett, better boiler room arrangement and subdivision. (Which basically subdivided one extra watertight compartment along all the boiler rooms) More AA director with 10x2 4.5" dual purpose gun. Combine with better close and mid range AA. With all these in mind, a fully upgraded QE would be quite comparable to the Bayern now.

I know full well how superstructure evolve. The size keep increasing because more and more weapon system needs to be director controlled, which have to be mounted on elevated positions. As the platform hold so much fire control gear, more sturdy superstructure becomes important. Anyway I am not even arguing that speculative rebuilt shouldn't be in game. All I am saying is that 1. Stock hull should be a historical configuration and they should do fine 2. Someone ask for a 'what if' in which HSF survive, so I propose one. Out of my own interest in the topic. And what I suggest includes ships getting upgraded, since one way or other German is to be in some sort of naval treaty, which means some old ships would have major/minor rebuilt depending on ship class. Bayern got full rebuilt, I agree. Konig should get a rebuilt closer in scale with New York but not the Kongo(The Lutzows could get full rebuilt though) . The only ships that I didn't mention that is in game is the tier 3 and tier 4 Kaiser. I feel pretty meh touching the Kaiser though, at most It could get an enlarged superstructure with a few AA strap on form the few years after WW1 (Karlsxxx style AA) ie. 1920s configuration. looking at its states, I don't think it will underperform. 3. I am not sure about how to feel about the torpedo damage reduction. You see, that only tells you the damage number reduction, but didn't tell what's behind the torpedo belt. Take Fuso as example, having the best torp protection doesn't stop it getting detonated... My experience in Warspite tells me that it won't be that bad. I also found that air-drop torpedo damage are repairable like shell damage regardless of where it hits. While DD torps damage are not repairable if it hit close to the citadel. So there is penetration value for torps too! But I don't know how it is calculated.

That post also shows that navies did considered 'armor angling' lol

I am in no way suggesting Konigs should not have AA. I explicitly stated that if Konig would survive WW1 and participated in WW2, it would have refit similar to New York, how is that unbalanced? I also want to argue that the original hull of WW1 German battleships are generally very well armored, so even without AA, they can do fine as stock hull. (Look at the NM stock hull at tier 6, or Kongo at tier 5) The low torpedo protection of the German line really surprised me though, since historically they are rather good (but often WW1 ships suffer from progressive flooding) So Perhaps it is better to improve the damage reduction but increase flooding chance?

A remotely plausible way for WW1 to end and have Germans too keep a few ships require the German government to collapse during the stalemate and make some secret political deal with Britain to restrict their navy to about a quarter of Britain's (And give the land back to the French). Which is about 2 Bayern and 2 Lutzow plus may be 1 more konig for training. So the only ship that would have been fully modernize would be the Bayerns and Lutzows which actually have lots of potentials, similar to the Queen Elizabeth class and Renown. What Konig get would resembles to what the New York gets: new, but simple superstructure, bulge and many light AA (if they end up serving ww2) Side notes:The Kongo is always slightly better than other tier 5 BBs because it received more extensive reconstructions, while its contemporaries didn't.

Well it is funny consider that the horrific stock hull of risk didn't got modernisation. I am not too familiar too the details if the German dreadnaught, but the same treatment were given to existing BBs in the game. Stock NY, Wyoming, Kongo were not in their initial configurations. As for the reconstruction of Bayern, since they are the only 15" ships before the Bismarks, a full reconstruction is certain if they survived WW1. Many of the weight and space saving would come from changing to modern boilers and turbine. The perfect parallel would be the queen Elizabeth class battleships. They have enough space and stability to mount full dp batteries, full suites of radar, improved deck armor, more subdivision etc. The greater efficiency of the machinery also greatly extended their range. The QEs also got a totally new superstructure that resembles the KGVs' and Nelsons.

I am not sure how much the dev have updated the armour model, but now that the ship finally looks like it is not empty, getting citadel should be a rare occurrence. It doesn't happen all that often to begin with. From the 5.2 armor model, the belt armor and armored slop are both thicker than in reality. Getting penetration and HE damage is an entirely different issue though. Which have more to do with module placement than the armor itself. It is easy to tell when you got citadel in Warspite. Just look at how much HP you can regenerate! If you really got citadel, you should barely able to regenerate any HP, while if you got hit by a bunch of normal pen, 60% of the HP lost could be recovered.

http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/56598-skill-ceiling-of-ships-in-ranked/ From the stat provided in the link, top players perform better in Hiryu than Saipan. Even for my low time Hiryu captain (and average player myself) with no AS, I still find 2/2/2 set up very competitive against any setup. Having enough sniping pressure, tackling power of the fighters and spotting from the DBs, I find Hiryu flexible enough to always have some counter play against both Saipan setups.

Double post

Ranger captains will want to have a word with you...

The major issue of the 340mm is that it only have two historical AP shells. The first one is a WWI soft cap projectile that will have slightly more penetration,then Ishizuchi's 12" guns, which also use soft cap AP The the second one introduced in 1920s is a contemporary of the 14" type 5 shell used by Myogi and stock Kongo. So 340mm will still have the least penetration of a T5 battleships even with this shell. And it is not sure which ships are modified to take this "new shell" at all! If this gun have to be used in T6, fictional shells will be a must, otherwise you may consider HE against other battleships...

There is a table of penetration value that considered the different testing method by different navies. For example, a test with vertical plate and 30 degree plate at 20000 yards by different weapons are basically not comparable. Due to three reasons. 1. Different angle of fall which screws with the apparent thickness of the test 2. Different shell shape (different normalization ) further complicate the angle difference 3. AP Cap design/armor face interaction That is why using semi-empirical formulae to extrapolate the shell performance from existing test data and known design is so important for comparing big guns of different navies. There will of course be error involving such an undertaking but it certainly is better then comparing the raw testing data without proper analysis. http://www.navweaps.com/index_nathan/Penetration_index.htm P.S. That pen of French 330mm though LMAO 15.7" British vertical cemented armor at 20k yards? 17.8" of Jp Vickers armor? That means no battleship EVER built have IZ under 20k yards against it lol Note: Someone up there mixed up 13" gun with the 13.4" gun which still use soft cap... WWI gun?

Now, back on the topic itself. The Statistic itself is a excellent piece of work! But I do have a few comments on the conclusion you draw. First, the unusually high win rate of Blys and Mahan might have something to do with the MM -- They will get match with Hatsuharu and Mutsuki, which are relatively weak but still being played in higher rank. It is very unlike CV, BB and CL's case, since Ranger is basically extinct, Colorado and Nagato is relatively balanced and USN cruisers are also (nearly) extinct. If we try to cancel the bias due to MM and how people select ships, we can look at ship class average CV: 61.75 BB: 62.4 CL/CA: 58.88 DD: 60.083 Which kind of suggest BB and CVs can make a bigger impact to the games, even though BB and CV are polar opposite in terms of game play style. But more importantly, Cruisers are struggling. The reason why Myoko have higher win rate is very likely because it is better then other CL/CA in the rank meta, but the class have issues influencing the outcome of the match. Obviously the problem is not because of the RNG involve, if I am going to make a guess, the reason lies on the job of the Cruisers T7 Cruisers cannot do their jobs by themselves, for the most part, they help others do their job better e.g. Engage DDs, without radar, DD hunting is risky and difficult. The risk of getting wrecked by BB didn't make their job easier. AA escort, It helps reduces pressure of friendly CVs, but staying close to important targets are often dangerous Engage BB and Cruisers, it is best to not do it alone So cruisers are very much dependent on their teammates doing their job in the first place, that is quite different from other ship classes where jobs could be done alone. CV will try to control the sky/spot/deal damage most of it is a solo effort BB will engage deals damage/tank damage most of if is also a solo effort DD will contest caps/spot/area denial most of it is also a solo effort Having a coordinated team makes them do their job better and create favourable tactical situation, but bad teammates shouldn't stop them from trying to do their job in the first place. CV will keep fighting for spot/ deals damage even the team collapse BB will keep returning fire and tank damage even when a flank collapsed and have to run DD will keep trying to approach the caps at different angle even when it got push off during the first encounter While a cruisers can't even get into position to do their job if the teammates are not doing their job. Camping BB = cruisers have to fall back Suicidal DD = cruisers can't spot DDs themselves Trash CV = cruisers can't be everywhere to stop strikes AND spot My 2 cent

@Sky$uckflying I sincerely hope that you are trolling... First thing first: Nagato do fine when angled properly and staying at medium range. Please do not assume that BB players don't understand the basics... THEN I will explain ONE MORE TIME why Strike Ranger doesn't work even with AA escort. The Ranger strike with 0/1/3 will face at least 2 fighter squad unless you meet another Ranger in 1/1/1 or 0/1/3. Let say you meet a Saipan Even 2/2/0 setup have enough FT that are fast enough to stop your TB from going through by simply ignoring the DBs, which are not great on Ranger. While Saipan only got 6 torps from two squad, they are faster AND operating in a secured airspace. Technically, you can snipe him, but 1 Saipan FT is enough to save him. What makes matter worse is that sometimes you have no idea where his ship and his fighter is until your bombers reach the target (more on that when I talked about the Hiryu) , which often equals to lots and lots of dead bombers. A 3/0/1 Saipan can create a no-fly-zone on his fleet with ease. (Note: If you think you can snipe a 3/0/1 Saipan...) Against a Hiryu, the problem of squad getting slaughtered reduces BUT the spotting disadvantage becomes ridiculous. A good 2/2/2 Hiryu take scouting very seriously (#NOT_MIDWAY_AGAIN) , just the 2 DBs can provide vision on most of the objective areas and the strike Ranger have 0 counter to it, which means that your DDs will either leave cap or die. Since most of the spotting are done by DBs, the Fighters can intercept much more efficiently and the TBs can attack from good angles because time and vision control allows it to do so. The most funny thing that can happened is that a Strike Ranger finally manage to get a TB through... then you know what? DEFENSIVE FIRE and the fighters are on the way ... What you have to keep in mind is that a 0/1/3 Ranger are always fighting blind, 2 DB and 2 FT can spot and deny what a strike Ranger can spot, which makes most of his strikes... seems like a bunch of headless chicken trying to find some corn AND force it down their throat . If you ask a cruiser for AA, and the dds to spot targets for you, A 2/2/2 Hiryu will happily slaughter those dds (which have shells raining on them already) by TBs. A 3/1/2 Hiryu have stronger no-fly-zone but less strike potential (Note: Good luck sniping!) Against A Hiryu, you will not even know are the fighters until you actually run into something important and got the bomber slaughtered. All your teammates will hate you with passion if you act like CinC with strike ranger. An even more important aspect of this discussion is that, in all the cases discussed, the enemy CV can shut you down without EVER SNIPING YOU! Then, what is the point of AA escorts? Enlighten me if you can, shame on you if you can't

What book? I heard that story in "The Rules of The Game: Jutland and British Naval Command"by Andrew Gordon. The book talks more about the command structure and the people who make those fateful decision in Jutland rather then the technical details.

That is Sir Robert Arbuthnot. He was in command of 1st Cruiser squadron (compose of old armoured cruisers) on HMS Defence in Jutland. His ship blown up spectacularly when he YOLOed his ship in between the Grand fleet and High sea fleet battleships..

I am not sure about the numbers either, but I notice that it works quite well on NM and Colorado, It is actually the first time I heard complains about their armor. In game, NM and Colorado blackened from the main deck up is rather common too, so I suspect the HP pool there is not too large. Regarding the Yamato：Is it not tanky enough? LOL Seriously though, the main advantage of all or nothing lies in the really well protected citadel, NM and Colorado can survive alright even when showing broadsides. The secondary advantage is large AP often just overpen at unimportant places.

All or nothing armor scheme works fine in game... Modules outside of the citadel have a limited HP pool, so it is impossible to sink a AorN ship without getting through the main armor (shots will do 0 damage pen). The main problem for AorN is that fire will eventually sink the ship regardless of armor

@SkybuckFlying Do you realise that there are many things you don't know at the start of the game? You don't know whether your cruisers have defensive AA or Hydro.You don't know what deck the enemy CV is using. And you want to give detailed orders in your specialise setup? Let me tell you one thing, most player here knows what you WANT just by the fact that you are running a strike Ranger ie need AA, no combat air patrol , need DD to do most of the spotting. Doesn't mean your teammates will always do what you want though, and it is COMPLETELY CORRECT! You are asking the team to basically not contest cap at the start of the match, what kind of points lead you want to hand to the enemy? And you are trying to convince everyone that you can strike an AS Saipan? Who on the water would believe you, Even an Atlanta/Cleveland would try to support the dds instead of you in this situation ( provide AA and fire support). Your strike is not likely to get through, No matter how much your teammates help you! In short: Why help a teammate who is likely to be absolutely useless?

Today's joke: The camo is historical!

How about Propulsion mod 2? I find it keeps my speed higher when I am in a zigzag which makes the turn quicker.So if you can plan ahead when to turn, propulsion mode 2 seems more effective. If you run premium damage control, DCS mod 2 is not necessary. Since there is rarely a case when the fire/flood last for full duration

The issue of waterline protection of Warspite is a bit complicated. The belt of Warspite is only around 15ft tall， with the top 6ft linearly reduced from 330mm to 152mm and the bottom 3ft linearly reduced from 330mm to 203mm. The armoured slope should only be 25mm (legend missing in the armor plan posted previously) So currently the waterline protection of Warspite is too thick. If the ship is at standard displacement, the historical configuration would still offer decent protection, but it would be a disaster at current displacement. So my bet is the dev team will roll out the correct armor scheme at the waterline and lower the ship to standard displacement at the same time. And the 51mm torpedo bulkhead is correctly modeled. The torpedo bulge is given 25mm to compensate for the lack of the original hull plating. It seems rather sufficient to me. P.S. Revenge class battleship have a taller belt with uniform 330mm thickness... but that's all the good news they got...

Let me clarified a few things 1. Those weak AA ship can't do jack even when group up. If I give you a choice of two Atago with hydro plus a B hull amagi or a single Cleveland as AA escort, I think no one will choose the former. I don't think this promote team work. If let say cruisers and BB can disrupt one squad each, it makes coordinated AA meaningfully strong while not necessarily melting planes 2.wasd help yourself from being damged， not your teammate. Plus you see dds being the prime target of CV now shows that wasd is often not enough at higher tiers. 3. Defensive fire is a problem because of the lack of counter play. It is not like any plane would survive a well timed defensive AA from USN CA/CL, regardless of what CV player do.

Just playing with the dps number is not enough. What is needed is some disruption Mechanic for all ship. So even ship with weak AA could mitigate some damage if they play well. Why not allow ships to disrupt the drop of the squad that get designated? This way ships doesn't need to be a fly swatter to have some effective AA (Although the switch time will become a very important stat that could distinguish good AA ship) Then there is more interplay between AA and CV, which is more interesting for both side. And the no-fly zone by AA cruisers is absolutely disgusting, why should there be a magic button to simutaniously disrupt and destroy my entire deck of planes? Barrage should reduce the damage to any particular squad to gain disruption of every squad. Which is more realistic and less balance headache