Andy_Foulds

Players
  • Content count

    67
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    2491

About Andy_Foulds

Profile Information

Recent Profile Visitors

34 profile views
  1. After yesterday's Kraken performance, I didn't expect to better that - then this happened... I'm extremely pleased!
  2. I had noticed the sources (it's online at NavWeapons, after all), but I paid more attention to the part "unlikely that this weapon was ever intended to be used as an actual naval gun", which makes it an experimental weapon that was just attributed to a Naval source (the navy has the biggest guns, didn't you know). H-44 (which was another conjectural study brief from the Schiffsneubaukommission (New Ships Construction Commission), technically part of the Ministry for Armaments & Munitions, not the Construction Office of the OKM that tried very hard to disassociate itself from those incomplete designs) was going to displace 131,000 tonnes, & even that was 'only' intended to mount 2x4 50.8cm guns! The Soviets didn't have any serious plans for guns beyond 456mm either... & they only built a test example of the 406mm. Besides, the Sekretski Sovietski Stalinisverybad Tier X won't need 460mm or higher guns... it'll be armed with 3x4 or 4x3 406/419mm guns with 910mps, 2.25rpm, Stalinium AP & "Rastopite Vas Bystro" HE shells. Shutka na tebe, friends.
  3. Read my lips - NAVAL gun. This was an experimental weapon without any plan to mount it on an actual battleship - floating islands of Napkinwaffe excluded! Roon was based on actual incomplete designs AFAIA. Hindenburg not so much, but the VMF BB line will probably be the most conjectural line yet. Including HSF & the Arpeggio ships! Germany did use triple turrets on it's light cruisers, so it's not totally inconceivable that a later 'Plan Z' vessel wouldn't have had a triple mounting, especially being designed after North Carolina/KGV/Iowa & contemporary with Montana & Yamato. Or that sounds like WG's excuse... beyond 'balance', of course!
  4. Haven't gotten to the Kurfurst yet, but the 42cm guns were paper, obtained by enlarging the bore of the 40.6cm guns on H-39; no larger calibre was ever constructed by Germany. And H-41 was the last completed battleship design of the Kreigsmarine, H-42 onwards didn't get further than preliminary sketches. Using the H-42 dimensions allows WG to slip in the triple turret... yeah, it's a bit of a liberty! If there were no other finished designs available for that Tier in the RN BB branch, I'd have no objection. But both L2 & L3 reached the preliminary blueprint stage before being passed over for G3 & the UK did construct a 457mm naval gun (the US made two prototype guns, only one of which was fired & neither were seriously considered for use on finalised designs). Yammy's 460mm (18.1") guns were the largest naval guns ever constructed, so I can see why WG said enough was enough. L3 would be good, but then so is L2 as the only 4x2 design at that Tier; I'd rather see them worked through than have a new gun calibre that Britain never seriously considered suddenly appear.
  5. Honestly, I would have preferred WG use the L3 (3x3 457mm) design rather than L2, but changing the 4x2 457mm to 4x3 419mm is mixing the L2 with the Lion's supposed upgrade guns. There is no known RN design that uses that main armament layout, so it moves Conqueror from being a 1920's super-battleship as to at least partially a fantasy ship. Give us back our L2 Conqueror; just restore the 4x2 457mm, increase the long-range shell dispersion in small stages until she's better balanced & remove the radar.
  6. Training my 1st IJN DD Captain, struggling to make Isokaze perform properly & getting a little downhearted... & then this happened.
  7. How about Mk. XXVIII Spearfish? 54km range, 80 knot speed... What do you mean it's outside the timeline of the game? *disappointed*
  8. It's possible to split the Interwar Standards to cover two different tiers; A-H with 8-10 rpm & 2x4 533mm torpedoes, then I & Glowworm with 10-12 rpm & 2x5 533mm torpedoes. The Emergency War classes (except the Z-class, C-class & Savage) are basically the J-class hull with A-H's armament, around 37 knots, up to 300 tonnes extra displacement & better AAA, which presents a problem if you're trying to use them to cover a third Tier. Amazon/Ambuscade could manage T5, but you'd have to fudge the RoF to 7rpm at least - but at least they can do 37 knots as opposed to the 32 knots (34 at a stretch) of the Modified W class.
  9. The model might be the A-class, the performance I doubt it. Not with 31 knots & 6km torpedoes, although the A-class would fit in T5? Still meh... the A-class as a silver should get access to the low version of the Mk IX, so it makes sense that these are bots for the scenario.
  10. I'd add to this by saying that Mofton's definitely been polluted! I know a good few people in the US & most of them think mediocre is bad simply because it isn't good either; if pressed for a definition, they almost all say that mediocre & average are one and the same. I'd say that a lacklustre ship needs looking at (it's below average, after all) & a poor ship should probably be buffed at the earliest available opportunity - but in a carefully considered manner. If Cleveland is an example of mediocre, then it's because WG made it that way when they nerfed her to fit at T6 rather than being the T8 in a US CL branch where she should belong. I can't speak for Aoba, I haven't played it - but I have been keeping my trap shut on my results from Furutaka, they seem to be better than the EU server average & lots of players complain about her being underwhelming.
  11. A T8 Battle '42 with Def AA is only just above the Kidd & below the Kutuzov, whilst giving DefAA to Akizuki at T8 would devastate whole strike groups in comparison! If Battle was released as a T8 AA support Destroyer, then she depends on that consumable to be effective in that role; Legion would probably follow the example of Akizuki & not be allowed DefAA lest they make CV players ineffectual & irrelevant. I have to say I'd prefer to see Legion as the AA branch T8 & Lightning as the T8 gunboat DD, but if it's an either/or then I'd choose Lightning & maybe Legion as a specialist AA Premium like Kidd. Battleaxe has exactly half Akizuki's firepower, but with big arcs instead of railguns. T8 Battle has about two-thirds of Aki's firepower; slower RoF & half the guns but higher AP/HE damage. And even bigger arcs. Legion has no RPC, so manual traverse only, meaning roughly 12 degrees per second. Aki herself has 16 degrees per second, which both of the 2 turret designs beat. I see your point about the 2 turreted destroyers, but Battle (& Gael/Late Weapon if added) has two important differences; traverse rate & RoF. Ognevoi has 12prm, manages just over 10 degrees per second traverse, roughly doubling that with the gun upgrade; Fubuki only manages 7.5rpm, with 7 degrees per second traverse which doesn't improve at all (I'm taking it that naming Mutsuki was a typo as she has a 2x1 layout rather than 2x2, although her guns suck anyway). Battle starts with 20 degrees/second, at T8 she should manage 16/18rpm; Battleaxe (with the 2 turret or my preferred 3 turret layout) would be 20rpm with again 20 degrees per minute; Gael should get 24rpm with 25 degrees per second. You're not going to be waiting precious seconds for the turrets to turn while jinking to try & dodge incoming fire in these ships. Well, maybe only a few seconds... if you're against a Benson or a Fletcher. EUmofton, on 24 June 2017 - 06:11 AM, said: To phrase it less politely than Andy_Foulds, Gearing but worse. The torpedoes as Andy mentions are an issue - compare to the similarly gunned Americans with similar 2x 5 tubes at T9-T10 and you'll find the 10km @ 62kt for 16,766 torpedoes look pretty lame compared to Fletcher's 10.5km @ 66kt for 18,033 damage, or Gearing's 16.5km ranged options. They're also behind the non-torpedo focused Z-52, Khaba's something else and Shima gets 3 options and 15 tubes. The 4.5in has the caliber issue (which is an easy fix really) but also will probably have even arc-ier shells than the USN 5in/38 on the basis of lower MV. It should do less damage than the 5in too, though on the plus side it should get 7% vs 5% fire chance. At 24 RPM that could be dangerous - if you can hit anything. HMAS Vampire would suffer if done as a historic premium as she loses half the torpedoes. I think you've spent too much time in the US, Mofton; this is overstating the negatives! All these ships are 3x2 gun layouts, with their attending good & bad points. Khaba, Grozovoi, Gearing & Daring all have 2x5 torpedo launchers, Shima has the VERY heavy 3x5 layout & Z-52 has the lightest with 2x4. So Shima can launch the largest spread. Damage wise, tops is 23766 on the Shima's type 93 mod 3, followed by her F3's, Shima's type 93's, Khaba's 53-knot 6km range ET-46, Gearing, Daring, Khaba's 53-93 mod3 torps, both Grozovoi's torp options with Z-52 bringing up the rear. Unless WG treat the UK like almost every other nation in game & give the T10 DD better torps than the T10 cruiser. Shima & Gearing's range advantage... okay, it allows you to torpedo spam & attempt to collect some random damage, but at that range the main aim is harassment; only someone camping in almost the same place for half the game or stupidly keeping the same course & speed far too long is likely to be hit by a spread or two targeted at that range. As for the speed... just to put this in perspective, 62 knots (Daring) = 114.8 km/h, 66 knots (Gearing/Fletcher) = 122.2 km/h & 69 knots (Z-52's G7 Steinwal torpedoes) = 127.8 km/h. So Daring's Mk IXM torps will get to 10km in 5 minutes 13.6 seconds, Gearing/Fletcher's torps in 4 minutes 54.6 seconds, Z-52's in 4 minutes 41.7 seconds. Oh, and Khaba's 10km torps (53 knots/98.2 km/h) will take 6 minutes 5.9 seconds. All of which are a long time for someone to stay on the same course/speed - unless you're VERY good at guessing where your target is going. Gearing's torps will actually take 8 minutes 6 seconds to reach maximum range - that's nearly half the timed game duration! Overall, I'd rate the torpedo layouts/capabilities as follows; Shimikaze (naturally), then Gearing, Daring, Grozovoi, Z-52 & finally Khabarovsk bringing up the rear unless you're good at short-range attacks using cover. What we don't know is how WG will choose to balance Daring against it's T10 fellows regarding maneuverability & concealment; we know that Daring is slow (30.5 knots deep load unless someone knows different), but her concealment should be good, Gearing or slightly better. We don't know how she's going to maneuver, what her rudder shift or turning circle should be (although her length/beam ratio leans to her being faster turning than Gearing). These are the factors that will make or break her as a T10; if they're good, then she could be the best all-round DD at top tier. If they're not so good... As for Vampire, she might make an acceptable T9, IF WG are planning on releasing any more T9 premiums; her weapons load make her OP for T8. EUmofton, on 24 June 2017 - 06:11 AM, said: Battleaxe and Broadsword have major problems however they're configured. Though A-Y is for Russians and girly amphibians really. Guns on the front, running away is for sissies! If the aft turret has good arcs - still meh unless it can 360' traverse. I was having a dig against WG using worn guns, yeah the cruisers get new (thankfully) though WG also seems to think they forgot how to make that nice SAP ammo for 1950's Belfast so overall... Do you really think the ballistics of the 4.5in will be any good? It's 6% slower MV, about the same weight so better cross-sectional density but overall... super meh. Oh forum tables... As the likely T8 RN DD ship, Battleaxe will probably be an amalgamation of the traits of all the ships in that class similar to almost every other ship in game. So the A-Y layout isn't set in stone, we could see the A-B layout although I'm hoping to see the A-B-Y layout she was designed with; we don't need the Squid launchers after all. And yeah, the aft turret should be able to handle 360 rotation - and so should the Daring's Y turret. As for having all the guns on the front... I can see the attraction when you're attacking, what about when you're beating a tactical retreat with an enemy on your stern? I found it strange that WG used the average MV as well, given almost every other ship uses the 'New Gun' values. But so long as they're only used on those two premium BB's & not the regular silver ships, I can live with that. I also got the dig - badass is exactly what it isn't! I think the ballistics of the 4.5" will be okay out to about 10, maybe 10.5 km. After that, the arcs will be too high to hit another DD without some luck. But given the current mechanics of gun bloom, that's okay; most DD players I've spoken to (bar those that favour VMF DD's) have re-specced to drop AFT, sometimes not even taking the extended range module on DD's because they want to keep their detection down. With a concealment radius around 7.5km, you'd just cease fire & evade until you vanish again. This obviously holds some challenges with certain BB's that can have 10km secondaries... but then you can opt for the extended range to get outside that radius. The 4.5" ought to be able to hit BB's at that range, although whether they'll do any useful damage depends on how WG solve the calibre issue. Obviously it would have been more 'fun' if these were 900m/s semi-rail guns, but they weren't; what they were was solid, dependable, pretty accurate DP guns with a good RoF & penetration/damage capabilities better than their stats suggest. I'm hoping they're going to do these ships right, & not just have more 'challenging' ships that only skilled players can perform in. Fingers crossed.
  12. I can understand the confusion; when the Weapons were converted to Radar pickets in the late 1950's, all four ships had their torpedo launchers removed for a long-range air-search radar & their fire-control was replaced with a more modern system, but Battleaxe & Broadsword also had their Squid launchers moved from the 'B' turret positon to 'Y' turret, restoring all of the Weapons to identical gun layouts with 'A' & 'B' twin 4.5" turrets. The AA destroyers look okay, would they all be fitted with the Defensive Fire consumable? Daring would be the Main RN T10; Good manueverability, not too stealthy but acceptable detection, best RoF at 24rpm but still probably outgunned in DPM by Gearing as well as the Russians but better than the Shimikaze & Z-52, decent but unspectacular torps (if using the Mk IXM & not a fictional upgrade) so better than Khaba, Grozovoi & Shimikaze's F3's, but slower & shorter range than the IJN Type 93's, the Gearing's Mk 10's & the German G7's. Should be a solid all-rounder & a good ship to end the RN DD branch with.
  13. Battleaxe & Broadsword lost 'B' turret to mount 2xSquid ASW mortars, where Crossbow & Scorpion lost 'Y' turret - Gael was designed similar to the first two Weapon-class, so 'A' & 'Y'. Battle was designed from the start with both turrets forward, though. I'm not too concerned either way, the 'Y' turret is close to the stern so shouldn't need much angling to have both turrets firing on a target. Only the two premium RN BB's - Warspite & Hood - use the 'Average Gun' MV, this seems to be because the penetration tables for 15"/42 MkI guns use this rather than the 'New Gun' value. Hopefully a recalculation will be done & the Tech Tree ships will use the 752/749m/s MV. Note that the cruisers all use the 'New Gun' figure, though; this should be true for the DD branch also. No argument from me on game retardation... 4.5" arcs will definitely end up being closer to Minotaur's 6" guns than US 5" ones though, so you're unlikely to be hitting anything reliably beyond 9.5km, more like 8km for DD's. A Radar DD at T10? Hmmm... nah. The KM 1/4 HE pen is definitely preferable though, but let's stick to something more suitable for fire chance, like Gallant's current 8%!
  14. I agree with EUmofton on the T8 Battle, creamgravy; and surely the RoF of the MkIV ought to be 16-18rpm even at T8? Put Battle (Barfleur) at T9 with her full 20rpm, have the 1943 as a B-hull, although the CP MkV* was a rebuilt 4.7" mounting with RP50 Remote Power Traverse & would have a RoF of around 14rpm; average this out to 19rpm in order to have a rear-aspect gun. The 1944 Battle is trickier; Commonwealth Premium or C-hull? Since she reverts to 2x2 layout but with the 4.5/45 MkVI's 24rpm, her total RoF is only 1rpm higher at 96. If you want a 4.5" armed T8, I'd go for the Gael with 18rpm (manual loading burst speed); otherwise, stick with the Battleaxe & her 3x2 4"/45 MkXIX (RP51) at 20rpm per gun. The highlighted passages are relevant; I agree that the overmatch mechanics using rounding out really short-changes the sub-5" guns. However, I'd ask if your results using SAP against DD's are over 8km or under that? The superior normalisation angles on RN SAP should make some difference, although a better solution would be giving the DD guns AP with SAP normalisation. Trainspite, on 21 June 2017 - 06:42 PM, said: Eh, we don't disagree on everything. I mean, Dreadnought & Bellerophon are both tier 3s. Daring is a tier 10 (can't imagine it anywhere else, even if slightly UP without in game editations). Then again, there are lot more people on the NA forums with the opinion that a lot of RN stuff should be down one tier. And then there is me sticking to my guns and insisting that Kent & London can compete with Algerie, Myoko & Yorck. Mid-Early war Norfolk could be tier 6, or an as built Cornwall could be T6 or T5. As for the 114mm, you could go the route of the German HE on the cruisers and give it 1/4 overmatch capabilities. That is something to make up for a lack of power, though it won't save the entire ship. Also, Kidd isn't released yet. I think. That sounds like a damn good idea to me, it would better represent the gun's qualities than letting them fall victim to the game's lazier mechanics.
  15. Well, despite the possibility of trolling from SEA group, let's hope these reflect the final Tier placements, although I'm hoping WG will switch L2 to L3 for Conqueror before final Super & Public testing. Interesting that KGV has the BL15" MkII's in a 2/4/4, the original plans for those guns were 3/3/3; it's still an anachronistic upgrade if it goes through. I also find myself wishing they'd apply the RNCL's Repair Party stats throughout the line if Conqueror is indicative of the HP values through the branch, Looks good to me too, I'll take the fleet!