Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'giulio cesare'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Forum
    • English Speaking Forum
    • Deutschsprachige Community
    • Polska Społeczność
    • Česká a slovenská komunita
    • Communauté francophone
    • Comunità Italiana
    • Comunidad de habla española
    • Türkçe Topluluk
  • Mod Section
    • Rules, Announcements and General Discussion (English)
    • Modding Tutorials, Guides and Tools (English)
    • Interface Mods
    • Visual Mods
    • Sound Mods
    • Modpacks
    • Other Mods and Programs
    • Archive
  • Historical Section

Calendars

  • Community Calendar
  • This Day in History

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Twitter


Location


Interests

Found 14 results

  1. I know this has been done already but I would like to make a proposal for the Italian researchable battleships line. Every ship has a blueprint and most have a link to explain what I'm talking about. This post is not about the gameplay features (I hope for SAP on BBs nevertheless), but on which historical or non-historical battleships to put in each tier. T3: "Cuniberti's ideal battleship" 4x2,4x1 305mm The first concept of an "all-big-gun" battleship, basically the dreadnought, was published by the Italian officer Vittorio Cuniberti on the rererence book "Jane's Fighting Ships". This could be the perfect tier 3 Italian battleship. It was armed with 305 mm guns with a broadside of eight guns maximum. The speed is obviously unknown but I think something around 21 knoths woukd be fair. About on how to name this ship I would suggest Francesco Petrarca (Francis Petrarch), since the first real dreadnought was named after Dante Alighieri, another crucial poet for the modern Italian language. I wrote other possible names for Italian battleships at the end of the post. Here are the links to wikipedia for further details; in this particular case search the appropriate paragraph: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vittorio_Cuniberti T4: Dante Alighieri 4x3 305mm 21800t 22kn The Dante Alighieri was the first Italian dreadnought battleship. Since it was launched in 1910 it came after the first generation of foreign dreadnought battleships. It was faster compared to her counterparts, lacked a bit in the armour department and was the first battleship ever to have it's primimary armament in triple turrets. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_battleship_Dante_Alighieri T5: Conte di Cavour (1911) 3x3, 2x2 305mm 25000t 21,5kn The Conte di Cavour class battleships was characterized by an unconventional weapon layout with one triple and one double turret on the bow, one triple and double aft and one triple at the center. It was slightly slower compared to the Dante Alighieri but had better armour. In 1933 the two reaming ships of the class (Conte di Cavour and Giulio Cesare) were refitted to a more modern design. Only 40% of the original ships remained. Such updated design is already present in the game as the premium Giulio Cesare. In my opinion it should be moved to tier 6 with the appropriate buffs, buts it's unlikely Wargaming will such a thing. I think it would be possible considering the 2x3 2x2 320 mm guns and 28 knots speed compared to the 2x4 330 mm guns and 29,5 knots of the existing tier 6 battleship Danquerque. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conte_di_Cavour-class_battleship T6: Caio Duilio (1937) 2x3, 2x2 320mm 29000t 27kn For tier 6 i suggest the refitted Caio Duilio class. It was very similar to the Conte di Cavour class but after the refit it had better secondaries and significantly better AA. It should be able to go to up to 27 knots compared to the 28 knots of the refitted Giulio Cesare at tier 6 (the current Giulio Cesare has 27 as max speed but 28 is the historical maximum speed of the ship). It's sometimes referred as Andrea Doria class, but Caio Duilio class is the correct name: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Doria-class_battleship T7: Francesco Caracciolo 4x2 381mm 34000t 28kn For tier 7 I think the Francesco Caracciolo class would fit perfectrly. Four battleships of the clas were laid down during ww1 but none was completed due to the land conflict priority and the economical crisis in Italy after the war. It's armament was composed of four twin 381 mm guns and the estimated speed was of around 28 knots. Since the ships was "built" in 1914 the AA was very weak. Wargaming could either buff it or make the ships very strong in other departments to compensate. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francesco_Caracciolo-class_battleship T8: Littorio 3x3 381mm 45000t 30kn The Littorio class is the obvious choice for the tier 8 Italian battleship. The Roma, already avilable as a premium, is the third ship of this class. It's a slightly upgraded version of the first two Littorios: a bit longer, with a better targeting system and with slightly better AA. Considering the current WG policy of never changing premium ships I have no idea of what could differ in game between the ships. Ideally the Roma should have a better targeting sistem (LOL) and could even have radar, which was installed on italian battleships only later during ww2. Basically the Littorio is a slightly different Roma, so nothing else to say about it. Only please call it Littorio and not Vittorio Veneto, since Littorio is the real name of the class. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Littorio-class_battleship T9: UP41 3x3 406mm For the tier 9 I suggest the UP41 project, by Umberto Pugliese, the inventer of the Pugliese anti-torpedo system and designer of the Littorio class battleships. Basically it is around 50.000t and was never built, preferring instead two further Littorios. It would have been very similar to those ships and was in fact one of the projects on which the Sovietsky Soyuz class was based of. Regarding the name, I think Vittorio Emanuele (to Victor Emmanuel II, the king who achieved Italy's unification) would be a fitting name, since already an old pre-drednought battleship had that name. T10: Ferdinando Cassone Prototype 4x2 456 This was a project designed around 1920 for a battlecruiser with four twin 456 mm guns. The project came with a ridicolous (for 1920) 216.000 HP giving it speed up to 35-40 knots. Considering this unlikely specifications what could make more sense would be an imaginary modern version of this prototype with modern AA and something like 33-35 knots of speed. Regarding the name, considering that Ferdinando Cassone was the name of the designer, I think Re d'Italia (King of Italy) would be a fitting name, since already an old flagship had that name. ADDITIONAL NAMES In addition to the ones I find more realistic here there are a few more names for un Italian battleship. 1=Luigi Rizzo (Ww1 hero who, beyond several successful daring operations, sank, with a motor torpedo boat, on the 10th of June 1918, the Austro-Ungarian battleships Szent István. The 10th of June is still the celebration day for the Italian Navy) 2=Michelangelo (Beyond being an artist, he designed various fortifications. It's nevertheless superfluous considering that Dante Alighieri, the name of a real battleship, didn't have any relevant military significance) 3=Alfonso La Marmora (He was an important Italian politician and general during the Crimean war and the Italian indipendece wars) 4=Re di Roma (This name could be an alternative to Re d'Italia. No ship with this name ever existed and it could cause confusion with the real battleship Roma, already in the game) 5=Re Vittorio Emanuele (This name simply means "King Victor Emmanuel" , instead of only "Victor Emmanuel" . The real pre-dreadnought was named without the "Re" part) 6=Ruggero di Lauria (a medieval admiral who's name was given to an Italian pre-dreadnought)
  2. Skyee_8492

    Giulio Cesare

    It took Italy 4 years rebuild Giulio Cesare, Makes you wonder why they didn't just start from scratch.
  3. wot_2016_gunner

    Italian ships that became Russian

    Many people don't know this, but we have two Italian ships in game, and they are the most loved ones, that actually became Russian after the war (This seems suspicious ) They were sold to Russia as war depth after WW2 together with some other ships, but the two ships in question are: - Regia Nave Giulio Cesare, which changed name to Novorosiysk. I just want to remind that she was removed from purchase. - Regia Nave Emanuele Filiberto Duca d'Aosta (here anchored at Kerch in the 50s) It's quite suspicious that the two most liked Italian ships in the game also served in Russia (Abruzzi being an exception). So please WG, show some love for the main tech-line too.
  4. Just noticed something odd while I was doing a comparison in port of T5 BBs as I wanted to get a comparison to the new RU BB at tier 5, when I noticed there was a change in the armor scheme in the Giulio Cesare. I noticed that the internal 85mm old bow plate had disappeared from the armor viewer, which would explain the increase in damage taken when bow in. Here is a screen shot of the section from November 2017 Here is a screen shot of the current displayed armor The entire 85mm internal bow has been removed thus it is now possible to citadel the ship through the nose. Note: this isn't a topic about the current balance of the ship, just that we had the whole Pitchforks incident when they were testing the ship at tier 6 with a lot very vocal about not nerfing premium ships and thus just pointing out this change which is a nerf to the ship.
  5. ABED1984

    Tier 6 Giulio Cesare

    Will WarGaming release the T6 Giulio Cesare on sale again after uptiering her ?
  6. Well hello there fellow forumites. Another CV GC thread. To be more precise though an inquiry on what could be a reasonable way to a) rebalance premiumships while b) making sure that at the same time the player base doesn't get alienated. Primarily this thread was inspired by @Verblonde and @Tyrendian89. Also tagging @MrConway in the hope he find something that will help his colleagues resolve the upcoming issues at hand. And while this thread revolves primarily about the Giulio Cesare, it's aimed at being repeatable with other OP premiums. So. Where to start? With a few assumptions! Assuming that the mentioned TESTING (!) of putting a premium back into the game one tier higher ends with a balanced premium. Basically finding a version of the GC at T6 that is... Keep in mind though: This is all still in discussion and - according to Mr Conway, testing GC at T6 won't start before 0.8.1 Assuming that AFTER GC at T6 is balanced and fun WG wants to actually pull through with bringing a premium ships from one tier to a tier higher. Becaus remember: For those that missed it: The "if it happens" part is the relevant one! Further assumptions might follow down the post. Ok, the dreaded idea takes place somewhere down the road! What now? Talking about the two options that are available: Accepting the 'new' GC (then at T6) OR Getting a refund for her T5 dubloon value. And I see (in dozen posts) that - even acknowledging that OP ships must be rebalanced nerfed - neither of these options looks appealing to players. A lot of forumites, redditors or discord discussions revolved around: Getting cash as refund, not wanting to lose a T5 ship (rather nerfing at T5 than rebalancing her at T6), enjoying fighting T7 enemies more than T8 enemies, and so on. You know the common problems players uttered with the two mentioned options. Yeah, yeah, it's all a clown fiesta. We're stuck with something we don't want. Well, this post got me thinkging: Now, I'm not going to reiterate all that has been said (or thought) following this quite, so let me summarize it: It was WGs error that these OP ships found their way into the game in the first place, yet we all want a balanced game (Huh ... maybe that's another assumption I should add). But since it was WG's error it's not the players that should be held responsible for it Most players I've seen so far don't like the dubloon option because dubloons have been devalued rebalanced. WG is aware of that WG has been generous in the past regarding compensation for silver ships, so I see at least a chance that the same is possible for premium ships This one is specifically geared towards the GC: Nerfing her at T5 would gimp her too much Ok, with this in mind, let's think about two possible actions a player has on day X: 1. Accpeting the rebalanced GC at T6: Since most players complained about not having a T5 when they accept the T6 GC, my proposal on this one is rather simple. Give the player TWO ships. The rebalanced GC at T6 (with all the balance and fun WG deems acceptable) AND a (heavily) nerfed GC remaining at T5, that still fulfills her role as a roamer that rewards angling. My take on a nerfed T5 GC would be a +2km concealment nerf, a fire chance nerf from 35% (iirc) to 27%, an AP DMG nerf by 15%, a 3s reload nerf, a turret traverse nerf. Slap a special camo on - to immediately identify her as the T5 version - and rename her to "nerfed Mortadella" (or something more ... fitting like ... I don't know ... Giulio Cesare pre-WWII). Slap some goodies on top and I don't see an issue with that. 2. Declining the rebalanced GC at T6: This one is a bit more tricky since a pure dubloon refund will not cut the crepes. The very least I'd offer would be the nerfed T5 GC + her dubloon value as refund + some goodies on top. Or one of the options given here: Apologies verblonde for altering your quote a bit to match my option 2 (italic font). NOTE: While afterwards the 'new' T6 GC would be available in the shop, the 'old' T5 GC would ONLY be available for those that had her prior to her rebalancing. Creating - yet another - oportunity for ship collectors to distinguish themselves from the masses. As mentioned here: Conclusion: Does this look 'greedy'. I don't know? I tried to be somewhat reasonable, based on what I read from other forumites. I didn't ask for a night with Alena and Dasha coupled with a metric ton of finest Colombian blow, 20kg's of Vodka and Caviar (each) and a chance to whip Putin. For every GC owner. So, you tell me! Tell me what you think? What would you see fit. Especially given the fact that - no matter if a GC at T6 might or might not become reality - WG/Lesta is pushing towards rebalancing OP premiums. Which ... as much as it annoys me to see some favourite ships go, IS BETTER for the long term health of the game. So there might be a few more ships (My guess would be: Belfast, Gremy, Kamikaze sisters, Imperator) that will be rebalanced one way or another. And since cold hard cash is OUT as a possible refund option: We might as well aim for a more achievable solution. To bring a bit of reason in: WG gave away dozens of GCs as a welcome back gift. Sure this in and of itself was botched till kingdom come, but do you really think WG will send players money that never bought this ship in the first place? I highly, highly doubt that. Why should WG do this? Pretty simple. As said above. They botched up. If they manage however to keep players at bay and even bring players to accept to nerf OP ships with a reasonable token of appreciation, then I can see players living with the nerf of a few selected ships and the outlook of having a future where premium ships are frequently nerfed and buffed. Maybe on a more sensilbe basis than silver ships. But overall closer to a balanced approach than the heavy handed OP's we have now. Bascially adhering to a system outlined here: Also a route like the above mentioned is the only that I see fit to avoid setting nasty precedents. Anyways. I've talked ofr long enough, and it's getting late. Let me know what you think. And try to keep it civil!
  7. So, a while back (about a month ago?) we had another Dev Q&A, where, after being asked about the GC, they completely dismissed the question, stumbled towards "it's balanced" and ended up on "we need more time to look into it". Funny how that's pretty much the same answer as we got in February - 4 months earlier. As far as the February Q&A is concerned - GC was released "just" 4 months before it, so despite how balanced the ship is being obvious to everyone and their mother, it's sort of understandable that WG wanted to wait for "more data". But now, with that time doubled, still backtracking to the same answer... cmon I understand that a premium ship, especially one that served in the Russian navy for 6 years, will never get nerfed, but at least be so kind as to admit that whoever was responsible for the balance of this ship massively f**ked up and pull it out of all current and upcoming sales. And since WG seems to struggle with collecting that data (altho getting the data that GC needs to be buffed TWICE [torpedo belt & AP fuze sensitivity] happened surprisingly quickly, didn't it?), I spent an afternoon compiling it myself (yes, it's that easy to do it) All data taken from 1st quarter of 2018 EU server - http://maplesyrup.sweet.coocan.jp/wows/shipstats/eu/ship_20180331.html Instead of listing everything as totals I'm showing the difference in more detail by comparing the GC to the average of the tier. Perfectly average being 0, below average going into negatives, above average going into positives. As for values: GC compared to tier 5 BBs (including GC itself as it's one of them) GC's obviously pulling the averages up quite a bit, so lets now compare GC to average of all tier 5 BBs excluding GC One could say that the Revolution is clearly overperforming compared to others, but GC completely trashes that. Compared to ships of its own tier it's so far ahead in everything this my best conclusion is... this ship can't be compared to tier 5 BBs. Also - Revolution beats it in potential dmg, clearly GC needs a buff there Now when we see that it completely trashes ships of its own tier, lets take it a step up - compare the GC to the average of tier 6 BBs (obviously GC not included in calculating the average) Poor GC, trailing behind in Potential dmg and Spotting dmg, clearly needs an immediate buff!!!! A tier 5 ship, which beats all tier 6s in stuff like average dmg, kills, survival... Hell, GC even beats them all in XP, despite the fact that as the tiers go up you earn more xp by default Clearly that still wasn't a fair comparison, lets take it to the max tier GC can meet in battle: compare to the average of tier 7 BBs (again - obviously GC is not included in calculating the average) This is 2 tiers above the GC, and it's still consistently ABOVE AVERAGE. I mean, seriously, are you blind or what?! At least we finally found a couple of ships that GC can be compared to - Nelson, Scharnhorst, Duke of York... (kind of ironic how all of those are premiums aswell) This bs is exactly why if I'm playing a tier 5 / 6 / 7 ship and I have a choice of fighting against a tier 7 BB like KGV / Nagato or figting a GC I'll go fight the t7 - for some f-ed up reason I stand a better chance against that ship than the god damn tier 5?! And of course the obligatory - GC now clearly lags behind in potential & spotting dmg, needs some serious buffing! And before someone says that this is only bcuz GC stomps on tier 4 ships all the time - have you been living under a rock that you have no idea what the tier 5 MM is like? As an example, since the last November I've played 70 tier 5 non-CV (as t5 CVs get special MM) games - 20 top tier (vs tier 4), 14 tier 6 battles, 36 bottom tier battles. That's 28.6% top tier, 20% "mid" tier, 51.4% bottom tier. I doubt I'm some special case in this regard, so it's safe to say that GC meets 7s about half of the games that ship plays. And it still outperforms most of them despite this @MrConway @Crysantos @Tuccy could we PLEASE finally end this insanity? WG should admit their mistake and pull that stupid ship out of any sales. Tier 5 completely outdoing tier 7s is insane, and that's the best I can say about it
  8. LastBoyKraut

    Premiumvergleich T5 BBs

    Ich überlege mir einen T5-Premium-Schlachter anzuschaffen. Zur Auswahl stehen Oktober Revolution, Texas und Giulio Cesare. Die Stats sind so weit bekannt, meine persönlichen und die der Schiffe. Vielleicht mag jemand seine Erfahrungen, Vorlieben, Abneigungen oder Empfehlungen zu diesen Schiffen mitteilen?
  9. Hello all, Please share experience - I just played two games with GC and I have a feeling that something is badly screwed up. I know that the AP fuse change was supposed to be minimal. Maybe I am just plain wrong, but please explain it to me. I had a lot of pens on T V BBs with no damage whatsoever. I do understand in principle how damage is calculated and this doesn;t make sense. For example, I was engaging medium range Texas and long range Konig. Look at the results. I may be wrong, but I think something has changed. Please comment.
  10. Hello Everyone, The Giulio Cesare is the new tier 5 premium battleship in World of Warships and I can say without a doubt its a diamond in the ruff. And of course this opinion is personal and yes its tier 5 but don't forget it is a popular tier to play so this new premium is justified. My maiden voyage and I had a cracker of a game with a nail biting end. Enjoy watching and don't forget to like it helps my channel out. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfkV0iiZIvc
  11. Na facebooku je info o nove Italske BB https://www.facebook.com/wowsdevblog/?hc_ref=ARTWuC5CuUrO2xp437ruTatYhRbxsVEQcnIvmmVmGzgCfaN3q0mqcaAkeUbZmqIUsyI&fref=nf
  12. stats are here: https://thedailybounce.net/2017/08/29/upcoming-tier-v-italian-premium-battleship-giulio-cesare/ gamemodels3d stats + model details:
  13. Hi all, The "Giulio Cesare" is in "Premium" shop! https://eu.wargaming.net/shop/wows/main/?utm_content=cm-top&utm_source=global-nav&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=wows-forum Leo "Apollo11"
  14. Supersubway

    Mistake on CIULIO CESARE?

    Hello team, did anyone realize that the Giulio Cesare model has got a problem? On the side of the ship you can read its name... CIULIO CESARE. Well, actually, the name of the ship is GIULIO, not CIULIO. That also mean funny things in italian... Please fix it
×