fumtu

You mean on the previews post where is obvious that you either have no effing clue what did I said in my original post or intentionally taking my words out of context? But instead for some reason you want to lecture me about how SAP works. I'm pretty sure that I know how the SAP works, thank you very much. And you obviously like taking things out of context just to look smart I guess. So why would I waste my time and energy arguing with someone who would rather decide for himself what I had said than actually read or try to understand. So as I said, have a nice day.

What questions?

If taking a things out of context is a point of this game I guess you would be a super uniqum player. Bravo. Have a nice day.

Lol. And why do you think is that? You understand from that that I said that SAP is OP? Wow, just .... wow. So basically you haven't read what I wrote but instead decided that 305mm SAP is all my post is about. Well done. Which flows? Hmmm .... somehow I doubt that is a case. So what is actually wrong about what I said? Are you saying can't citadel T5-T7 with it? Did I said to just use SAP? But if you don't see SAP potential that is your problem not mine.

If SAP bounce from the target is is either because it is too thick or too angled. If SAP bounce because armour is too angled. than AP will bounce too, unless it can overmatch it. London has 25mm upper belt. If your SAP bounce on that than AP will bounce too. But if SAP can pen it, it doesn't mean that AP will pen it too, as SAP has improved penetration angles. Well if you don't want to use SAP that is your problem. If you are limiting yourself to just one shell type just because you don't see advantage of the other that is on you. WTF? Show me where did I said that SAP is overpowered. If you don't understand what are application of accurate T6 BB with SAP shells, shell that would never overpenetrate lightly armoured cruisers at that tier and will deal a lot of damage, than I don't see point of arguing with you . SAP on Italian BBs is not too strong for one reason, a that is accuracy. Why do you think they sigma is so poor? Because great AP?

If SAP bounce than there is a good chance that AP will bounce too, especially if you are hitting a part which it can't overmatch. And difference in the damage is between 305mm AP and SAP is not that big. If you want to use mostly AP than feel free to do it. IMO SAP is more consistent. Of course if you can't pen citadel armour with SAP you will use AP, but if you can, have opportunity and have SAP loaded than there is no reason to switch to AP first is SAP will do the work too. But that is to how you manage your shell types. All this is completely pointless considering this proposal.

Why? Especially if SAP does more consistent damage. 305mm doesn't overmatch every cruiser everywhere and could still easily bounce on anything angled. On the other hand SAP can pen cruisers everywhere. If if you not hit citadel you can easily deal 10k or even more with good salvo which is almost half of the T6 cruiser HP. And here we have proposal for quite accurate BB, so why would it ever use AP vs lightly armoured targets. Even against DD and considering 10% limitation. T6 DD HP pool is really small and if you can land 3 to 4 hits on range, even more at close, and you have quite a fast reload, 10% per shell will hurt a DD quite a lot.

So basically you want a premium that would be much better than regular T6 Italian BBs, trying to justify all the buffs by having 305mm guns instead of 320mm, like there is some big difference between having one instead of other. Truly there is a one, 320mm AP shells have better penetration than 305mm. But beside that there is no difference at all. 320mm can overmatch 22mm, 305mm overmatch 21mm. Considering thresholds we have in the game this 1mm doesn't matter at all. 320mm SAP can pen 82mm while 305mm can pen 79mm. At T6 I couldn't find a single plate where having 3mm less pen on SAP would make a difference. So in regarding of overmatch and SAP pen there is no difference at all. Damage wise, if use Cavour 305mm shells as reference, 320mm shells deal more damage, but as you suggesting a better reload for your new premium, their DPM, both AP and SAP is almost the same. But due much better dispersion Bruto would have much better effective DPM, especially the SAP one. Now lets compare hulls? Bruto would even have 500 HP more health which we could ignore, but basically they have same healthpool. Armour wise, both have 220mm belt, but while Doria has 150mm and 70mm upper belt, GC hull has 130mm universal. So technically GC has better armour. And you replace GC bow with 26mm, same as Doria? And sold it as a BC because ..... 15mm smaller guns? No it would not be worthy but straight better than them. Mostly thanks to SAP ability to citadel almost any cruiser at T6 and even some at T7, and dealing much more consistent damage as its accuracy would be much better than that of Dunq and PEF. So this is basically just sugarcoating a new OP ship request. I doubt that was your intention but in the end your proposal means just that as you are believing that it is such a drawback having 305mm guns instead of 320mm at T6 that it justify having better reload and better accuracy. And last thing that all those poor cruisers at T5-T7 needs is a BB with accurate guns that can blap them with a SAP. So no, I am very against this.

Yes more radar ship, especially more DD radars is exactly what this game need. I can't wait the day when all 24 ships in the match, from DDs to CVs, from all in game nations and tiers, would be equipped with radar. that would be such a lovely day /not

It is a shame that they butchered class like this. I don't understand why they didn't simple replace it with Z-36 as they already have a model of Type 1936C in the game.

Being launched is quite low bar and still very far from being operational. For example 4 ships of he Chapayev class were launched before or soon after German invasion on USSR, but ships were finished only after the war ended. Another Soviet ship which is not even on the list, Kiev was launched in 1940. But because same reasons as Chapayev, Kiev was not finished during the war and was canceled after the end and hull was used for target practice. Unlike Kiev and Chapayev, Graf Zeppelin was in more advanced phase of building but still quite far from being finished.

Chapayev was pre-war design, at least what we have in the game in the form of Lazo. First ship of the class, Frunze, was laid down on August 29th, 1939 and launched on December 31st, 1940. Two more ships were launched before German invasion, Chapayev and Kuybyshev, with another one, Zheleznyakov just three days after German attack on USSR, but due invasion all works on the ships was stopped. On the photo of Leningrad shipyard, from June 26th, 1941, taken by German planes you can see Chapayev sister Chkalov beside hull of Battleship Sovietsky Soyuz Hulls of Ordzhinikidze and Sverdlov were captured by Germans but no work was done on them and were scrapped after the war. 5 ships of the class were finished under revisited design after the war. So yes, what we have as T8 Chapayev represent ship in its post-war configuration. But original design pre-date ww2. But Chapayev was much more than just idea during ww2. I'm not saying that it should be included in this mode, as personally I don't care, but we can at least stick to the fact when we are talking about them.

100k is placeholder for ZF-6, 10k seems more like usual amount of coal for some stage.

Type 23 could fit at T3, T4 is already too high for it, T5 is unreachable. But considering that last T3 added to the game, that is not a copy of already existing ships like that Brazilian T2 cruiser, was Dreadnought, and that since WoWs went live not a single new T4 premium was added, chance for getting one is really, really low. They didn't even wanted to bother with T3 Italian BB for a tech tree. Flottenbegleiter, with only two guns and no torps, can't even be a T2. Second DD in dockyard was probably added for better visual effect, or maybe, in best case, as a tease for some future ship. WG usually announce in front if second ship is available from dockyard. As none was there would probably be no other ship but ZF-6. It is highly unlikely that WG would give T-61 or Z-39, especially as both will be removed in three patches. Most likely there would be none this time just like for Anchorage event. Considering Flamu video about PTS, there is a chance that there could be option for early purchase of first three phases for 5k doubloons. Now this could be only for PTS as it would not be a first time that prices of PTS deffer from those on the Live, but if this would be the case, 5k doubloons are not bad price for a ZF-6 which seems like an interesting ship Good concealment, short range torps but they are fast and hit hard, you can get reload down to 3sec, if you choose Fearless Brawler instead of range, which means that with MBRB it can get 1.5sec reload for period of time. Biggest downside is really poor AP shell penetration. It is even worse then that of Z-46 which is already pretty bad. AP shells also have same fuse time and same threshold of 21mm, but ZF-6 AP does have improved pen angles, same as RN DDs, would could make it better against DD compared to Z-46. HE is also quite bad with 1.45k alpha but it does pen 32mm. So overall not great but IMO there is a potential. For 15sec of MBRB, and full gunboat spec, it can achieve 147.5k AP DPM or 72.5k HE DPM. It with anemic HE damage for duration of the MBRB it can kill or seriously cripple any DD or deal significant damage to CLs. Now this is all WiP, but if anything stays like this I would probably go for it.

Are you sure about that? Did you check ZF-6 stats because that ships looks quite good and unlike the new tech tree ships seem like worth grinding through the dockyard. But it does look ugly tho.

If you think that it is so OP why don't you try it yourself and tell us how strong it is. Also what does that has with Druid?

Do you know how many times Petro was nerfed during the testing? Sure it is still a very strong ship but it is quite changed from its initial stats. In fact the only ship, as far as I know, that passed testing phase without single change to its initial stats is T-61. But also a lot of ships went from really strong initial stats to quite acceptable levels. But if you want to create a drama from everything then feel free to do it.

Druid does not have better pen than Kleber. For example, Druid pen 100mm around 10.2km, Kleber around 13.5km. It has better pen angles tho. Also, unlike Kleber, Druid don't have any meaning of dealing a DoT, or devastating strikes on larger targets, as it doesn't have torps or HE. So it is understandable that its AP potential should be strong to compensate for this. Maybe currently it is too strong, maybe superheal is too much, who knows ... but keep in mind these are just initial test and lot of things could be changed.

Good? Sorry but T-61 is not good, it is too good and of course it was mistake to be released in that state. And if you are expecting that future ships be comparable to T-61 be ready for a lot of disappointment.

Ok, I see now, what they are saying is that they rushed release of T-61 even tho it was too strong, which is completely BS. Not the part that T-61 is too strong, which it is, but the part that WG rushed with release. T-61 was announced almost a year before it was released, and even during the first tests, in November 2017 if I'm not wrong, it was already obvious that it was too strong. And yet WG did nothing for the next 10 months only to kinda rushed that to be ready for gamescom while releasing it in the same state as was 10 months before. So WG didn't even try to balance it and, as usual, ignored all the feedback.

Why is T-61 considered a mistake?

Well if you don't understand what is difference between DM and Baltimore/Oregon City class than how can anyone consider your proposal seriously. No one who is playing competitive games in WoWS would think that 11km radar that last for 60sec and has cooldown on 90sec is a great idea, quite opposite. Also I'm not doing all this "imagining possible stats and playstyle" thing as IMO it is pointless. Yes, but we had it at T9, what I said is putting a Guam on T10. Thing is WG could balance the stats in any way they want so putting another Alaska should not be a problem. And I don't see reason why all SCs would need to be premium ships as sooner or latter all those projects will appear in the game, one way or another.

Not a German hydro. It has same hydro as Mino or DM. German hydro at T10 has 6km range.

How did you put Project CA-C at T9 and Oregon City at T10? First Project CA-C is just one variation of the ship we already have in game, T9 Buffalo. Oregon City is .... well somewhat improved Baltimore. Did you even compare those two ships? Preliminary design plan prepared for the General Board during an examination of heavy cruiser designs with more protection (and in some cases more eight-inch guns) than the Baltimore (CA-68) class. Aircraft are carried amidships. This plan, dated 18 March 1941, is for a faster (35 knot) ship, resulting in a standard displacement of 20,000-tons and waterline length of 770 feet. There are twelve 8/55 guns in four triple turrets. So Project CA-C has same guns as Orgeon City, while at the same time being much bigger, 20k tons to 13.7k tons, faster, 35kn to 32.4kn, and more heavily armed with 4x3 8-inch guns to OC's 3x3 8-inch guns. So where is the logic here that Oregon City, which is basically a Baltimore should be at T10 while much stronger ship would be a tier lower. Cruisers with long range radar, improved AP angles and relatively long reload time (11sec at T10! WT....), that sound somehow familiar and why am I hearing a Soviet Hymn while thinking about it. Hell no. Proposed line is basically just an OP version of the current line and it doesn't bring nothing new considering ships wise. Portland class is already in the game with Indianapolis, Oregon City is very similar to Baltimore, Project CA-C is just a variation of the project we have in the game in the form of Buffalo. Even the Northampton, which would be nice T6 premium is not much different from Portland class. So no this is neither a good proposal for a line nor balanced at all. With available material, to me WG could do a T8 to T10 SC based around 12-inch guns. WG could use Alaska class USS Guam as T9 and use some proposals with lower amount of guns at T8 and T9 like for example these T8 T9 WG could think some way to make them somewhat different than the current Alaska and PR. But I doubt we will see this except maybe as some future premiums.

Are we talking about same company and game? If I had penny every time someone said that only to be proven wrong by WG I would be rich by now.