Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'United States'.
Found 3 results
HNMLS_Bloyesvantreslong posted a topic in General DiscussionThis is a question that keeps popping in to my mind. When you look at the Shimikaze and Akazuki Destroyers they are very large for their classes around 130 meters. The Atlanta is 160 meters officially a flotilla leader in game as a premium cruiser . The Dutch Tromp and the Heemskerk are officially flotilla leaders 130 meters. The amount of guns and size of the guns of these ships would then be one of the more powerful Destroyer classes in game . Or the most stealthy cruisers in game. If classified as Destroyer a destroyer tech tree would be more than possible. Just take a look at the specs of all 3 ship classes and the 2 dutch variants. Let me know what you think, flotilla leader a cruiser or destroyer. Akizuki on trial run off Miyazu Bay on 17 May 1942. Class overview Name: Akizuki class Builders: Maizuru Naval Arsenal Sasebo Naval Arsenal Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Uraga Dock Company Operators: Imperial Japanese Navy Republic of China Navy Soviet Navy Subclasses: Akizuki class (Pr. F51) Fuyutsuki class (Pr. F51) Michitsuki class (Pr. F53) Cost: 12,090,000 JPY in 1939 17,820,400 JPY in 1941 19,194,000 JPY in 1942 Built: 1940–1945 In commission: 1942–1945 (IJN) Planned: 6 (1939) + 10 (1941) + 23 (1942) Completed: 12 Cancelled: 20 Lost: 6 Retired: 6 General characteristics (as per Whitley) Type: Destroyer Displacement: 2,700 long tons (2,743 t) standard 3,700 long tons (3,759 t) full load Length: 134.2 m (440 ft 3 in) overall Beam: 11.6 m (38 ft 1 in) Draught: 4.15 m (13 ft 7 in) Propulsion: 3 × Ro-Gō Kampon water tube boilers, 2 × Kampon impulse geared turbines, 2 shafts, 52,000 shp (39 MW) Speed: 33 knots (38 mph; 61 km/h) Range: 8,000 nmi (15,000 km) at 18 kn (21 mph; 33 km/h) Complement: 263 (Akizuki in 1942) 315 (Akizuki in October 1944) Armament: Akizuki in 1942 8 × 100 mm / 65 cal Type 98 DP guns (4 × 2) 4 × Type 96 25 mm (0.98 in) AA guns (2 × 2) 4 × Type 92 torpedo tubes (8 × 610 mm Type 93 torpedoes) 56 × Type 95 depth charges Suzutsuki in April 1945 8 × 100 mm / 65 cal Type 98 DP guns (4 × 2) 47 × 25 mm AA guns (7 × 3 + 26 × 1), 3 × 13 mm AA guns (3 × 1) 4 × Type 92 torpedo tubes (1 × 4) 8 × 610 mm Type 93 torpedoes 56 × Type 2 Mod.1 depth charges Shimakaze underway. History Empire of Japan Name: Shimakaze (島風) (Island Wind) Builder: Maizuru Naval Arsenal Laid down: 8 August 1941 Launched: 18 July 1942 Commissioned: 10 May 1943 Struck: 10 January 1945 Fate: Sunk in the Battle of Ormoc Bay near Cebu, Philippines, 11 November 1944 General characteristics Class and type: Shimakaze Type: Destroyer Displacement: 2,570 long tons (2,610 t) (standard) 3,300 long tons (3,400 t) (full load) Length: 129.5 m (424 ft 10 in) o/a 126 m (413 ft 5 in) w/l Beam: 11.2 m (36 ft 9 in) Draft: 4.15 m (13 ft 7 in) Installed power: 75,000 shp (56,000 kW) Propulsion: 2 × Kampon impulse geared steam turbines 3 × Kampon water-tube boilers 2 × shafts Speed: 40.9 kn (75.7 km/h; 47.1 mph) Range: 6,000 nmi (11,000 km; 6,900 mi) at 18 kn (33 km/h; 21 mph) Complement: 267 (May 1943) Armament: As Built: 6 × 12.7 cm Type 3/50 cal dual-purpose guns (3x2) 6 × 25 mm (1 in) Type 96 25mm anti-aircraft guns (2x3) 2 × 13.2 mm (0.52 in) anti-aircraft machine guns (1x2) 15 × 610 mm (24 in) torpedo tubes (3x5) 18 depth charges Early 1944 Refit: 6 × 12.7 cm Type 3/50 cal dual-purpose guns (3x2) 16 × 25 mm (1 in) anti-aircraft guns (4x3, 2x2) (increased in June to 28) 15 × 610 mm (24 in) torpedo tubes (3x5) 36 depth charges Tromp in 1936 Class overview Name: Tromp class Builders: Nederlandsche Scheepsbouw Mij. Operators: Royal Netherlands Navy Built: 1936–1940 In commission: 1938–1969 Completed: 2 General characteristics Type: Flotilla leader Displacement: 3,350 long tons (3,404 t) standard Length: 131.95 m (432 ft 11 in) Beam: 12.43 m (40 ft 9 in) Draught: 4.32 m (14 ft 2 in) Propulsion: 2 Parsons geared steam turbines 4 Yarrow boilers 2 shafts 56,000 shp (41,759 kW) Speed: 32.5 knots (37.4 mph; 60.2 km/h) Complement: 380 (Tromp) 420 (Jacob van Heemskerk) Armament: Tromp : 6 × 150 mm (5.9 in) guns (3×2) 4 × 75 mm 8 × 40 mm (4×2) 2 × 20 mm 6 × 533 mm (21 in) torpedo tubes (2×3) Jacob van Heemskerk : 10 × 102 mm (4 in) guns (5×2) 8 × 40 mm (4×2) 4 × 20 mm Aircraft carried: 1 × Fokker C.XIW floatplane (Tromp)
Did you like the clickbait title? I did. Anyways, let's get onto the topic. I want this thread to be easily accessible, so if there's good points in the thread I'll make sure to combine it in the original post so that new viewers could quickly see how and where the conversation went. This is a forum post after all, I should be able to keep up with everyone's thoughts ;) <<<<((<(>_<)>))>>>>> Dive bombers and torpedo bombers Asking all CV captains, would you be willing to trade 2 or 3 of your dive bombers for 1 extra torpedo bomber? Is there anyone who ISN'T willing to make that trade? The results of a poll on that question would undoubtedly be obvious to anyone who plays CVs. Right now, there is a massive imbalance between the field effectiveness of the two squad types are obvious. In most circumstances, only 1 or 2 squads of dive bombers are necessary to perform their job of lighting the enemy on fire. Due to this, I would like to suggest improvements to the mechanics associated with dive bombers in order to give them more utility when compared with the torpedo bombers. USN - give the USN CVs dive bombers some AP bombs. I thought of suggesting this for the IJN but 1) the IJN has bombs with less damage potential both historically and in game and 2) having AP bombs with the precision of IJN bombers will be rather overpowered. This would mean that 1) the USN strike loadouts in the Bogue and the Indy won't be entirely useless and 2) it would give USN carriers another vector of dealing high amounts of damage as deck armor tends to be quite poorly armored and therefore they could potentially even score citadels with plunging fire if they are really lucky. They might not be able to penetrate the citadels of most battleships, but they could retain utility against enemy CVs/CAs and lower tier BBs (relative to the carrier). IJN - improve the precision of the IJN dive bombers, make their circle of no return smaller, and increase the chance of them setting fires and causing module damage. You can scale back the damage output if you want for compensation, 4600 damage per bomb hit is virtually destroyer tier anyways. These changes are suggested both to be used to expand on the points below as well as to give the IJN bombers a different role in engagements. With the increased precision the bombers could target specific modules for destruction/incapacitation and therefore be used to soften up enemy ships for your allies by going after gun turrets or stop them from moving my going after the engine or steering on top of setting the ships on fire. Both nations + future nations - An increase in speed, HP, and DFC resistance. Dive bombers right now quite frankly suck at their job. They're nothing more than an extra 2000-7000 extra damage and fire damage on top of the tens of thousands that dive bombers provide. The changes I will suggest will no doubt be controversial, but we CV players have always liked that don't we ;) I suggest significantly increasing the speed and HP of all dive bombers on all tiers relative to their tiers. They don't need to be as fast as fighters, but bombers that are significantly faster than torpedo bombers would add extra depth to the game. It would mean that whilst a less skilled player would be using a dive bomber like they always have, a more skilled player that can multitask could use the dive bombers far more frequently as a separate strike squad to lethal efficiency. Their extra speed will also provide them with relative resistance to fighters and AA from the enemy team so whilst they can't compete in terms of damage with torpedo bombers they can still strike deep into the enemy fleet at strategically significant targets and therefore may hold a far more significant strategic worth in a future patch instead of being the tag-along to a CV game. This will make USN dive bombers like a single battleship salvo whilst it will make IJN dive bombers more similar to cruiser guns, which will also allow us to preserve the 'national flavor' that War Gaming seems so fond of. The last change will also mean that there are situations where dive bombers are obviously better for dealing with the situations that a torpedo bomber will suffer from. I will expand on the suggested national differences below. IJN vs USN CVs Right now, the tech trees are something of a mess. The IJN tree is advertised as the strike tree whilst the USN tree is advertised as the fighter tree but as many CV captains would attest this is utter tosh. The IJN tree has torpedoes that cause less damage than any US torpedo from t6 upwards to go with their bomb damage that is a tiny fraction of the USN damage potential and from t6 or t7 a USN fighter squad can be held up by the IJN squads as the strike aircraft runs riot around the allied fleet and so the AS loads become mostly an easy way to lose the damage game but is nevertheless something that USN carriers (up until about t8) have to put up with because almost all cruisers are loading deck fighters and they need a way to guarantee a hit. This means that t4-t5, MM decides if an IJN or a strike deck USN carrier will have fun or will have every plane they send up ripped to shreds by enemy aircraft. It's not even that fun to hunt aircraft, I'm sure most carrier players would rather be menacing the entire enemy team instead of just aggravating 1 enemy team member. tl;dr: IJN strike units can't compete with USN in terms of damage. USN is 'balanced' with this by having terrible loadouts. I have many changes that I would like to suggest in altering the current paradigm that I am certain will have an overall positive effect on the game. 1. Speed up IJN torpedoes and speed up the spread convergence. Not long ago, IJN bombers were inferior to USN bombers in every way. They had a massive spread that needed luck to even score 2 hits on even a slow battleship and they had the aforementioned inferior damage output. I welcomed the new converging spread, but the torpedoes were now just as slow as their USN counterparts and converged too slowly to be used even if you angled the drop nearly perfectly. If the torpedoes had a base faster speed(the torpedoes used to have a speed of 42 knots if I recall correctly), with the new captain skill a really skilled carrier captain could actually utilize the IJN bombers in such a way that it could be dropped from 500+ meters away and actually hit someone who isn't braindead/AFK. 2. Give the USN AP bombs and the IJN more effective fire bombs as well as torpedoes that have a higher chance of causing sinking. I suggest this due to the playstyle that is most evident on high tier ships namely the Midway and the Hakuryu. Most Midway players group their torpedo bombers in a group and strike at once to cause maximum damage whilst the Hakuryu players use the faster plane speed and smaller squads to make their enemies die of a thousand cuts. With this system, the two nations can distinguish their playstyle. A USN carrier can cause as much/more damage with their new setting whilst the IJN carrier will be able to guarantee leaking with fewer torpedo hits and fire with bombs and therefore be able to more effectively use their multiple squadrons to inflict damage over time on enemy ships that, if used correctly, could match or even exceed that of the Midway even if the damage isn't necessarily apparent when the strike is over. This would also mean that there is a national 'flavor' to both carrier lines now. 3. Widen the USN torp spread and scale up the damage as the tiers increase. I will expand more on this in the level increase subsection but for now let's deal with US torpedoes. Right now, USN CVs can start guaranteeing that every torpedo will land on target starting at tier 7 battleships and they only get better from there as opposed to the supposed strike focused carriers of the IJN. Due to this, making a full salvo strike more difficult as well as more rewarding might be optimum for US CV drivers who have unchanged potential damage output starting with t5. If we introduce the AP bombs for extra damage, I suggest compensating for the massively increased strike potential of USN carriers by raising the skill slope for USN CV players in order to allow more skilled players to excel and distinguish themselves. Tiers and levels Right now, the Langley starts out with 5900 dmg per torpedo that quickly jumps up to 8500. The Indy further increases the torpedo damage to 9867 and it stays there for the rest of the game, significantly higher than the IJN torpedo damage. Whilst this would be unhistorical, I think that this would be fine if the soft stats for IJN torpedoes were improved i.e. speed, chance of flooding, arming time(mostly for killing destroyers). I also think that the massive damage torpedoes should be reserved for higher tier USN carriers whilst the mid tier USN carriers should be buffed in other ways i.e. giving them more squads. Many will likely say that is insane, but I think that we can make this work if we make USN torpedoes do less net damage in the lower tiers. This, combined with the fact that they have slower torpedoes and are targetting smaller ships with lower speed and smaller turning circles, could be made to work. Here is a table of possible values: 35 knots Torpedoes: Damage/squads(planes)/potential Chance of flooding Speed Damage/squads(planes)/potential Chance of flooding Speed Tier IV 5900 / 1(6) / 35400 40% 35 knots 8000 / 2(8) / 64000 40% 35 knots Tier IV 6300 / 1(6) / 37800 40% 35 knots 8400 / 2(8) / 67200 43% 35 knots Tier V 6800 / 1(6) / 40800 40% 35 knots 8567 / 2(8) / 68536 45% 37 knots Tier VII 6800 / 2(12) / 81600 40% 35 knots 8567 / 2(8) / 68536 45% Tier VIII 7500 / 2(12) / 90000 40% 35 knots 8567 / 2(8) / 68536 65% 42 knots Tier IX 9867 / 2(12) / 118404 40% 35 knots 8567 / 3(12) / 102804 70% 45 knots Tier X 10500 / 2(12) / 126000 40% 35 knots 8567 / 3(12) / 102804 75% 53 knots p.s. I have no idea what the real values on flooding are. These are example values. Yellow is USN, orange is IJN.,green is for the superior stats As aforementioned, the USN carriers could receive a debuff in having more space between their torpedoes (a wider torpedo fan) and a torpedo damage debuff in lower tiers but are compensated by having more torpedo bombers to work with which will reward the better players. The IJN can make up for the difference by their better soft stats like chance of flooding or torpedo speed. Dive bombers: Damage/squads(planes)/potential Chance of fire Chance of module damage Damage/squads(planes)/potential Chance of fire Chance of module damage Tier IV - - - - - - Tier V 5500 / 1(6) / 33000 0 % 12 % 2300 / 1(4) / 9200 40% 12 % Tier VI 7500 / 1(6) / 45000 0 % 12 % 4500 / 2(8) / 36000 40% 16 % Tier VII 7500 / 2(12) / 90000 0 % 12 % 4500 / 2(8) / 36000 50% 20 % Tier VIII 7500 / 2(12) / 90000 0 % 12 % 4500 / 2(8) / 36000 60% 24 % Tier IX 8500 / 2(12) / 102000 0 % 12 % 4500 / 2(8) / 36000 70% 30 % Tier X 8500 / 2(12) / 102000 0 % 12 % 4500 / 3(12) / 54000 80% 40 % Keep in mind that these values are if every single shell fired penetrates the citadel. In most attacks, RNG will likely not give much more than 2 or 3 citadels maximum. Nevertheless, the damage from those hits aren't insignificant for even a high tier battleship or carrier. IJN bombs won't penetrate anything, but has a large chance of fire damage and module incapacitation. I'm not sure where I've heard this, but apparently as you go up the tiers, ships gain natural resistance against fire and flooding. These new values will likely allow carriers to maintain their damage over time tactics even in a high tier environment. Ships in the higher tiers have far higher health to splash around so the steadily rising damage will allow carriers to effectively deal with tougher threats as they advance up the tiers as well as continue to cause them trouble. I.E. A Hiryuu and a Ryujou in this cause cause identical potential damage. Both ships might be able to attack a New York for an average of 8000 damage but if a Ryujou attacks a New Mexico a torpedo might average 5000 damage whilst a Hiryuu, whilst having identical stats, would be able to do 8000 damage. This mechanic would help carriers deal with the often extremely tough ship torpedo bulges as well as encouraging carriers to go after the sometimes harder targets as the same damage against a higher tier ship would usually give them more rewards as well as helping their team against ships they may have problems with. That's what I have for now. Thank you for reading as far as you have. I might have to come back here later to condense this down or add onto the list. Best regards and happy sailing!