Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'proposal'.



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 11 results

  1. CaptainKreutzer

    Large gun Großer Kurfürst Proposal

    Well again another German proposal, I already can see WG doing this one because they done similar things to Montana,Conquerer,Republique and Kremlin,Yamato(Ohio,Thunderer,Bourgogne,Slava,Shikishima). Only Germany left without their own large gun T10. But anyway i gonna do proposal even though we already knew this is coming. Continuing from Pommern T10 doesn't have catapult but she has torpedo and hydro as gimmick. Superstructure doesn't get huge change especially the middle part where Torps and liveboats are, unlike Pommern so guns can have similar firing angles to atleast FDG. Guns are up to WGs choice with 450 mm L/60 C/42 guns with Ohio accuracy and 26 seconds reload or 480 mm L/52 SK C/42 guns with slightly worse Ohio accuracy with 28 seconds reload. As secondaries difference she has 6 dual 150 mm guns and 8 dual 127 mm guns similar to other German BBs not GK. As her AA, multiple Gerat 58s and multiple 30 mm Flak 103/38 is onboard this ship but tbh i want this ship to have great AA better AA then GK. Armor is same as GK. For names there's 2 name Ulrich von Hutten or Götz von Berlichingen, "These names are not connected to Third Reich or Country itself so the loss wouldn't affect that much and wouldn't become progopanda tool"- This is coming from documented unofficial talks. If This gets created into game it can be changed by WG, Im just imagining initial design. Anyways lets get to details Tier:-10(X) Class:-Großer Kurfürst class Battleship HP:-102,300 overall armor:-19mm~600 mm Torpedo protection damage reduction:-25% Armaments and shells 4 x dual 480 mm L/52 SK C/42 Max range:- 21.3 km Reload:-28 seconds 180° turret rotation time:- 36 seconds Maximum dispersion:- 282 meters Sigma:- 2.00 AP damage:- 15,600 Shell travel time:- 820 m/s HE damage:- 6,000 HE shell penetration:- 120 mm Chances of causing fire:- 44% Shell travel time:- 820 m/s 6 x Dual 150 mm L/55 SK C/38 Same as other German ships. 8 x dual 128 mm L/61 SK C/42 Same as Großer Kurfürst. Or for main gun! 4 x dual 450 mm L/60 SK C/42 Max range:- 21.3 km Reload:-26 seconds 180° turret rotation time:- 36 seconds Maximum dispersion:- 272 meters Sigma:- 2.00 AP damage:- 14,600 Shell travel time:- 820 m/s HE damage:- 5,800 HE shell penetration:- 112 mm Chances of causing fire:- 42% Shell travel time:- 820 m/s Torpedos 2 quad 533 mm Torpedo with 6 km range similar to other German BBs Anti-air 11 x dual 55 mm Gerät 58 vierling(extra 3 on the bow like Hindenburg) 20 x quad 30 mm Flakvierling 103/38(4 extra on the stern, 2 on the second 150 mm turrets on each side, 4 is just below the B turret front of the Gerat 58 AA gun like how Bismarck B hull has 2 small AA gun found on each side of under the B turret front of the 37 mm Flak LM/42) Avarage continues damage:- 392 per second Number of explosion:- 6 Damage of explosion:- 1610 AA starting range:- 6 km Maneuverability Speed:- 31 knots Turning circle radius:- 1050 meters Rudder shift time:- 17 seconds Concealment Surface detectibility:- 17.2 km Air detectibility:- 14.9 km Detectibility after firing in smoke:- 17 km Consumables Box standard German BB consumable setup. That's it i guess thanks for reading all these.
  2. Finally! My latest fork on this scheme. Proposal for full European tech tree! There were many unique destroyers in Europe. It would be nice to see them in large numbers in the game. Having only 4 nations, mostly with Swedish destroyers in the game, is not the solution. Also, it is not a solution to put 10 British and 10 American destroyers that those nations used. Only the British and American branches would be copied as was done with the Pan-Asian Tech Tree. We would have too many Jervis, Lightning, Fletcher and Gearing destroyers (The exceptions are the Greek destroyers T9 and T10, as well as the Polish premium destroyer T8). That is not the solution. The goal is to bring many different ships into the game, and European nations had unique destroyers, such as the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, the Netherlands and Poland (and Sweden, which has already been inserted). I had a lot of destroyers, a lot especially for tiers 4-6, but this is compromise solution. I compared Burza with Bourrasque, so it's in that place. But, in my opinion, the proposal is really good.
  3. A while ago I copied a proposal by Lert on the NA forum. He made a proposal for HNLMS De Ruyter as well, arguably the most (in)famous Dutch ship that would be suitable for the timeframe of WoWs, and so I copied it here as well. So again, credits go to Lert since he did all the work and I merely copy-paste it to EU. ------------------------- Ok, some real talk. Although I would love for an actual Dutch nation to be in the game, chances of that happening are slim. Especially a cruiser line, which we just plain can't fill without resorting to a lot of theoretical designs, never-builts. This limits us to either a cameo or two in a pan-european cruiser tree, or a few premium ships. In this thread I would hope to present my argument for inclusion of the famous unique light cruiser de Ruyter as tier 4 premium, though with minimal tweaks she could just as easily work as a tier 4 in a pan-european cruiser tree. So without further ado, HNLMS de Ruyter In the 1930s the Dutch government saw the need for a new cruiser to supplement the aging Java class cruisers operating around Indonesia, which was at the time a Dutch colony. The theory was that with three cruisers operating in the area, we could guarantee two at sea, even if a third was in for repairs or service. However, the Netherlands was suffering a great depression at the time, and a very strong pacifistic movement further complicated matters. As such, one heavily restricted 'flotilla leader' was planned and finally authorized. The designers were held back by lack of funds as well as political pressure, and the resulting ship was under-powered, under-armored and under-gunned, due to extreme cost-saving measures and pacifist pressure. She was laid down at Wilton-Fijenoord dockyards at Schiedam on September 16th, 1933 and commissioned on October 3rd, 1936. She served the war in the Netherlands East Indies, now Indonesia, in fruitless attempts to thwart Japanese invasion. Invariably finding herself outmatched, she still fought for what she was worth, showing Dutch fighting spirit. She fought in the battle of the Bali Sea, where an air attack damaged her, but she survived. She also survived the battle of Badung Strait, and entered the battle of Java Sea as flagship, under Admiral Karel Doorman's command. It was here she found her demise. She was hit by a Long Lance torpedo from the Myoukou class Hagurowhich caused a fire and a flooding, and shorted out her electrical systems. Due to the lack of electricity, damage control efforts were severely hampered and the crew was unable to stop the fire and the flooding. De Ruyter sank the next morning at 2:30 AM, with the loss of 345 men out of 435 crew, including Admiral Doorman and Captain Lacomblé. Luitenant ter Zee Eugène Lacomblé. Schout-bij-Nacht Karel Willem Frederik Marie Doorman. Her wreck was discovered in December 2002 and declared a war grave. However, in 2016 it was discovered that illegal salvage had led to the complete disappearance of de Ruyter, along with the wreck of the light cruiser Java and much of the Admiralen class destroyer Kortenaer. But how would she work in game? Tonnage: 7822 ton full load. This would give us 24400 hit points. This puts us slightly ahead of Phoenix, with her 24000 hit points and slightly behind Svietlana with her 24600 hit points. Nothing remarkable here, just a tier appropriate chunk of hit points. Armor: De Ruyter would be very soft indeed. Boasting only a 50mm armor belt with 13mm weather deck, 6mm splinter deck and 30mm citadel deck, with a 30mm bulkhead between the outer hull and the machinery space. The turrets also had 30mm of armor. This armor profile wouldn't stop anything substantial, and with an above water citadel she'd be very prone to instant deletions from battleships, cruisers and defecating seagulls. Main armament: De Ruyter saying 'hello'. 7x 150mm /50 Mk 9 & 10. These are Bofors designed guns built under license at Wilton-Fijenoord. The ship carried seven of these guns in four turrets, two twins superfiring aft and a single superfiring a twin, afore. Single mount superfiring a twin. These guns aren't in the game yet but we have most of the data about their performance, and what we don't have we can estimate by looking at similar mounts on ships that are in the game. To start with these were fairly slow firing guns, with a cited rate of fire of between 5 and 6 rounds per minute. If we go by best case scenario we get a 10 second reload cycle per barrel. They fired a 46kg projectile at 900 meters per second. Unfortunately I don't have any data on the bursting charge carried by these shells, but if we look at very similar guns firing very similar weight shells, like those on Phoenix, we can make an educated guess about what damage and fire chance these shells would very likely get. I would give de Ruyter the following numbers: 10s reload 30s traverse time 900 mps muzzle velocity 2200 HE dmg, 12% fire chance 3100 AP dmg 16.6k range 149m dispersion This gives us a broadside DPM of 130k with AP, compared to 132.8k on Phoenix. A bit lower, but still competitive. But will 130k DPM be enough? Phoenix is faster, better armored (yes, really) and as we will discuss later, more stealthy too. Plus, she has torpedoes. In fact, most if not all of the tier 4 cruisers have torpedoes, and competitive DPM. Except de Ruyter, which does not have torpedoes. So, no, I don't think 130k DPM with nothing else going for it will be sufficient. But how to buff de Ruyter's damage output without straying from historical gun performance? One option would be to buff her reload. I'm not a fan of this. I'd like to stick to the historical numbers as much as I can. Another option would be to buff her shells. Maybe inflated AP damage, like the Germans? Hmmm. Maybe. Or what about enhanced AP dynamics, like the British? If we look at the Navweaps page for these guns, it states that "Surviving ships were supplied with British-built munitions during World War II". Maybe we're on to something here. I think it would be perfectly reasonable to say that if the ship used British ammunition, though 150mm instead of Royal Navy 152mm, it would still come from the same factories and design philosophy, to give de Ruyter's AP shells the improved ricochet angles and shorter fuse time of British cruiser AP. 5ms fuse time (compared to 33ms on normal cruiser AP) 60 ~ 75 degree ricochet angles before normalization (compared to 45 ~ 60 on normal cruiser AP) This I think would make her unremarkable DPM easier to apply, while still giving her a fall back shell with normal performing HE. What de Ruyter lacks in armor, speed or concealment she makes up for in ease-of-use of her main guns. Auxiliary armament: 10x 40mm Bofors Carrying 5 dual Bofors mounts, de Ruyter sports a very impressive AA suite for her tier at 117 dpm at 3.5km. Of course this AA suite is mostly useful for self defense and though it leaves room for buffing with captain skills, this would require a fairly hefty investment of captain points. Another problem is that all five dual Bofors nests are clumped together, making them vulnerable to a single HE impact. Maneuverability: Top speed: 32 knots. Not bad for a tier 4 cruiser, towards the faster side, but definitely nothing impressive either. The other cruisers at this tier are all close to this speed as well, except for outliers like Karlsruhe which manages only 27.5 knots. As for her agility, she's a fairly standard light cruiser, comparable in size to the others. As such I would give her middling agility as well. Let's say a 610 meter turning radius with base 6.1 second rudder shift. Concealment: De Ruyter has a very tall and prominent mast, which is both a boon and a hindrance. It helps give her very good gun range for her tier, but also makes her very visible. For concealment I would give her: 15.4km by sea 8km by air Consumables: Standard T4 cruiser. Damage Control Party, Hydro Acoustic Search. For added flavor we'll add Defensive Fire. Finally, de Ruyter carried provisions for a scout plane, so we'll give her one of those as well. No option for a fighter; between five Bofors nests and DFAA she doesn't need the additional AA DPS. Upgrade slots: Standard Tier 4, two slots, up to the 250k credit option. Play style: She wants to stay at the rear, where her bad concealment and worse armor are less of an issue. Modern fire control and a tall mast give her the range to reach out and touch someone. A potent AA suite, the DFAA consumable and Hydro give her the tools to function as fleet escort and support ship, and the combination of HE for at range and enhanced AP for close by helps her to damage at any range. She'll play like a the love child of Phoenix and Danae, being a squishy support cruiser with tools to help her do her job for the team. It's only her lack of torpedoes and mediocre ballistics that makes her stand out from the pack, but the enhanced AP helps off-set those drawbacks. Elephant in the room: I know many people want her at T5, but she simply doesn't have the legs, armor or DPM to be competitive at that high a tier. Omaha for example is faster, more heavily armored (yes, really), has more barrels to a broadside, faster reload and torpedoes. In fact, I was appalled to do the numbers on de Ruyter's guns and realized that, lacking torpedoes, I had to do something to enhance her gunnery to make her competitive at tier 4. Enhanced British AP is my choice, based purely on a throwaway line on the navweaps page about her weapons. De Ruyter under construction So, in short: Pros: Historical pedigree Powerful AA suite Plane Lots of design blueprints available (see gahetna link in sources) uhm ... Fast ... ish? Cons: AA is all mid range Bofors nests all clustered together Softer than a wet newspaper Uninspiring design, underpowered for her vintage Low tier (Limited public interest, low return on investment for modeling a whole new ship) Dutch nation not in game / limited captain training appeal What would she cost, if implemented at T4? $13 USD, for the ship and the slot. What camouflage would she wear? Best I can find out, this is what she was wearing when she was sunk: The camouflage would have the normal T4 premium camouflage bonuses: -3% detectability by sea +4% dispersion of incoming shells -10% cost of post-battle service +50% to XP At the end of this thread, de Ruyter waves goodbye as she sails away. In closing: Though I think it very likely that we'll eventually see her in the game, I'd rather they pick any other of a large selection of Dutch ships. While I fully acknowledge de Ruyter's place in history, she's just not a very interesting ship to me, design wise. A squishy, highly visible light cruiser with middling DPM, seen it before. Plus, I think she looks a bit clumsy with that straight bow and gigantic, prominent tower. That said, I won't complain if / when we do get her and I'd be first in line to buy her. I want to thank @LittleWhiteMouse for helping me nail down some of the intricacies of this proposal, @snowyskies for his help in finding detailed plans, and @fr05ty for his help with formulas and crunching numbers. ..... Odd, their @ mentions don't want to work for some reason. Sources used: @Pigeon_of_War ------------------------- End quote. Again, not my idea, but an idea by NA user Lert, who gave me permission to post it here. Like with the Witte de With proposal I'm all in for this idea. This might be a less unique ship compared to the destroyer, but she might be easier to balance. On top of that, she's a well-known ship that was built in real life ánd saw action, and that is something that can't be said from a lot of recent additions to the game.
  4. Moin Moin, nach meiner Idee des Splits für die deutschen Zerstörer möchte ich mich heute mal einer anderen durchaus für WoWs interessanten Nation widmen - Italien. Die Briten werden später genau wie die Franzosen auch noch etwas Aufmerksamkeit bekommen, wobei hier noch etwas Recherche ansteht. Im Gegensatz zum vorherigen Topic möchte ich hier wenn möglich die einzelnden Schiffe mit Rumpf- und Bewaffnungsoptionen detailiert darstellen. Premiumkreuzer und -schlachtschiffe haben die Italiener ja schon ingame, aber diese Schiffe waren nicht alles, was die italienische Marine im Mittelmeer zur Hand hatte. Bereits zu Zeiten des 1. Weltkrieges besaß Itallien eigene Zerstörer, deren Nachfolger in den 20er Jahren extrem moderne Schiffe darstellten und auch bis 1943 in den Seegefechten im Mittelmeer eine nicht unwichtige Rolle spielten. Für die Vollständigkeit werde ich hier auch meinen T1-Kandidaten der Italiener (ingame ein "Kreuzer") aufführen. Tatsächlich bin ich auf derart viele Schiffe gestoßen, dass es mir verlockend erschien, die italienischen DDs in zwei seperate Linien aufzuteilen... obs over the top ist oder nicht, auffühhren kann man es hier ja mal Doch genug soweit - jetzt was zu den Schiffen: *Es heißt C.M.d.O. ...mist :/ Wie hier zu sehen sind zwei seperate Linien von T2 an möglich und die Anzahl der Papierschiffe ist vergleichbar gering (zumindest bei den Nicht-Premiums). Die Esploratori-Linie ähnelt hier am ehesten den russischen DDs, hat jedoch erst ab T8 ein bemerkenswert hohes Kaliber von 135mm und sticht vorher ab T5 durch 120mm-Doppeltürme hervor. Relativ hohe Geschwindigkeit und starke Geschützfeuerkraft sollten hier den Spielstil prägen. Tatsächlich waren es diese Schiffe, die zur Entwicklung der russischen Tashkent führten. Die zweite Linie enthält relativ kleine Schiffe, die weder durch große Kaliber oder starke Torpedos herrausstechen, jedoch mit guter Maneuvrierbarkeit und Tarnwerten zu flexible Support-DDs werden könnten. Schnell nachladene 120mm-Doppeltürme und ein relativ lang lastender Rauch würden diese Identität sehr unterstützen. Um nun einen genaueren Eindruck zu bekommen, stelle ich hier die Schiffe der beiden Linien detailierter vor: Wie hoffentlich sichtbar habe ich versucht, "Papierschiffe" wenn möglich zu vermeiden, jedoch passten hin und wieder Entwürrfe und/oder Studien am besten, um die Linien sinnnvoll auszugestalten. Wenn historische Verbesserungen nicht gegeben oder für das gameplay nicht sinnvoll waren, wurde auch hier etwas "nachgebessert": Zusammengefasst charakterisieren sich die Linien folgenderweise: Esploratori Support-DDs - gute Bewafffnung - kleine Schiffe (-> Stealth, wenig HP?) - hohe Geschwindigkeit - konzentrierte Feuerkraft (Zwillingstürme) - große Asumaße - wenige Torpedos (wenig Alpha, schnelles nachladen?) Verbrauchsmaterialien wären für die Esploratori die Standard-Consumables (Rauch+Speed), für die Support-DDs wäre zusätzlich oder anstelle des Speedboosts eventuell noch der Torpedo-Reload-Booster interessant, so dass sie Japaner mit mehr Kanonen-DPM, weniger Alpha und schwachen Torpedos, aber gutem Rauch wären Über die Premiumschiffe und das Tier 1-Kanonenboot Eritrea werde ich noch einen Post nachliefern, damit alles komplett ist. Wenn ihr eine Meinung und/oder Anmerkungen habt, sind wie immer Kommentare willkommen MfG & Schiff ahoi! Tom
  5. 'lo all. This is my first time on the forums, but as a regular WoWS player, I'm one of the many who would like to see HMS Vanguard introduced into the game. I know this discussion has been recycled, a lot, but I haven't seen any really detailed threads. Maybe there are and I've just missed them! People want Vanguard. The problem is balancing it. She was the last and most modern battleship, ever built, so she has to be of a relatively high tier. The game already has four Tier 7 Royal Navy "battleships" (air quotes for Hood), so T7 is oversaturated. Her 8x 15" guns sound fine on T6, but there's no way Vanguard should be down in T6, she's way too modern and was the successor to the T7 KGV class! So... T8 is the best fit, but balancing an eight-gunned 15" battleship at Tier 8, save from turning her into a Bismarck clone, would be challenging. I've been thinking on this and have a few ideas. I would like to hear what other people have to say and give their input. What is needed, I believe, is to make the under-gunned Vanguard feel modern. I'm not talking about skipping around at high speed, avoiding any kind of detection, twirling around her clunky opponents, all while laughing and flicking the two-fingered salute... no, I'm talking about a ship that feels unique and enjoyable to play, offers a little something different, is free from any game-breaking buffs and is strong and competitve, without ruining the enjoyment for the opposing team. I believe this ship can be made viable, while maintaining historical accuracy (which is something that matters to me), with every characteristic being based off of real world stats (as much as possible, at least!). I'll be quoting a lot from Wikipedia. ARMAMENT -Primary Battery Eight (4x twin) BL 15" Mk1 guns. Same as Warspite & Hood. This is the first hurdle: Warspite is to be feared in T6 matches and respected when fighting T8's. However, as a T8, Vanguard will have to face T10's... with eight 15" guns (!!). Big problem. What usually happens, in this scenario, is the ship is given an artificially-increased reload speed, to compensate for smaller guns, or lack of, or both (25s for Monarch, 26s for Bismarck & Tirpitz, 28s for Gascogne). It would be easy to slap a 25s reload on Vanguard and hope... but, please, don't!! Stick with the historically accurate 30s! A rate of fire buff is not required, to make this ship competitive. No, seriously, hear me out... The guns are small, for a Tier 8, yes. They are few, for a Tier 8, yes. They don't have a special reload, yes. So her shells don't do a lot of individual damage, she has a relatively small broadside and she doesn't fire that quickly. However... The guns in Vanguard were modernised, to the Mk I(N) RP12 design (more range). She could also utilise supercharges, increasing muzzle velocity, penetration and range. My idea would be to implement Vanguard into the game, so that her main guns are always using supercharges. If implemented properly, this would make Vanguard's guns competitive, despite the reduced number, smaller size and standard reload. An added benefit, is the people at WG could make the firing animation and sound of Vanguard's guns SPECTACULAR, owing to the supercharges! Imagine... a huge, thundering crack, an enormous muzzle-flash and an almighty spit of flame! She would have a badass reputation, from that, alone! Stats are as follows: Firing range- 30.68km (34.63km with supercharges). Now, obviously WoWs doesn't deal with actual ranges, more effective ranges (Warspite hit Giulio Cesare at 24.1km, but her in-game range is only 16.3km, for example), but it would be reasonable to give Vanguard an in-game range of around 20km, give-or-take. Muzzle Velocity- 749m/s (nothing confirmed for supercharges). This isn't enough. Luckily, if we follow the "Vanguard with supercharges" logic, we can boost that. I've seen quoted figues of over 850m/s, but let's say, for the sake of gameplay/balance, that Vanguard's guns have a velocity of around 920m/s. Let's also say, for the sake of balance, that her shells maintain good momentum, with low drag and good arcs (the shells fired are more modern than those of Warspite/Hood). This would give her 15" shells strong punching power. So another string to her bow would be increased penetration and normilisation angles. Krupp value would need to be increased, to make this work properly. "Ahh, but Roma has 15" guns and very good penetration, but suffers from over-pens on cruisers and bounces on battleships"... yes, but carrying-on the WoWs tradition that most British ships have fast-arming fuses on their AP shells, we give Vanguard the same 0.01s fuse times as the rest of the Royal Navy fleet (or similar, anyway). The fast fuses will ensure consistant penetrations -with less over-penetrations-, on cruisers... whereas the fast shells, with good normalisation angles would allow the shells to penetrate Battleship armour, before exploding, ensuring consistant penetrations and less bounces. This would mean that Vanguard would not be a long-range HE spammer and could reliably fire AP at battleships, at medium and long ranges. Obviously, they are still only 15" shells, so proper battleship & heavy cruiser angling & bow-tanking would defeat them, requiring a switch to HE. Proposed AP stats: Around 12k, extremely fast, enhanced normalisation, short fuse. Proposed HE stats: The same as Monarch would be fine. Vanguard has 1 less gun (broadside) and 2 less guns (bow-on), with less DPM, so she wouldn't be the devil fire-starter that opponents hate! Now, this is important: These guns have to be accurate. No, not accurate, but ACCURATE. I would propose WG make Vanguard the most accurate battleship in the game, with brilliant (for a battleship, we're not talking cruiser, here) horizontal & vertical dispersion and a sigma rating of 2.1. Yes, 2.1. Bearing in mind, this is not only an under-gunned battleship, but also THE MOST MODERN battleship, in the world, with extrordinarily advanced fire control systems: "Vanguard was unique among British battleships in having remote power control (RPC) for her main, secondary and tertiary guns along with the Admiralty Fire Control Table Mk X for surface fire control of the main armament. There were two director control towers (DCT) for the 15-inch guns, each carrying a "double cheese" Type 274 fire-control radar for range finding and spotting the fall of shot." " When the 15-inch gun turrets were modernised, their existing 15-foot (4.6 m) rangefinders were replaced by 30-foot (9.1 m) ones in all turrets except for 'A' and they were fitted for RPC in azimuth only. The turrets were also provided with de-humidifying equipment and insulation to improve their habitability." There is arguement here, to make Vanguard so accurate. Both with historical facts and gameplay balance in-mind. She can't throw as many -nor the biggest- shells down-range, so she needs to make each attack count. She could also be blessed with comfortable gunnery; fast (ish) rotating turrets, which would lend themselves to the more modern feel. Wherever you aim, these shells go! -In short, Vanguard's guns would provide less damage output per-shot, a weaker broadside, an ordinary reload and poor DPM... compared with those of almost all her rivals. But she would compensate, by having hard-hitting, deep-biting, reliable AP penetration and strong, dependable HE shells, both with high projectile speed, good arcs, shorter lead-times and monster accuracy. -Secondary Battery "The secondary armament consisted of sixteen 50-calibre QF 5.25-inch Mk I* dual-purpose guns in eight twin gun mounts. They had a maximum depression of −5° and a maximum elevation of 70°. They fired an 80-pound (36.3 kg) high-explosive shell at a muzzle velocity of 2,672 ft/s (814 m/s). The improved 5.25 turrets on Vanguard were claimed to be fully automatic, with a power-rammed breech and automatic tracking and elevation under radar control enabling a rate of fire of about 18 rounds per minute." OK, so 16 (8x twin) 5.25" rapid-firing secondaries. Not particularly impressive. Good for lightning fires, maybe. Give it a range of around 5km, give-or-take? The automatic tracking and elevation under radar control is interesting, make these the most accurate (if, somewhat weak) secondaries in the game. Dual purpose, also good for AA. Nice and modern! -AA "Short-range air defence was provided by 73 Bofors 40 mm AA guns in a variety of mountings. Vanguard had ten sextuple-barrel power-operated mounts concentrated in the superstructure and stern, a twin-barrel mount on 'B' turret, and 11 power-operated single mounts on the upper deck and rear superstructure. All mounts could depress to −10° and elevate to a maximum of +90°. The 40-millimetre (1.6 in) gun fired a 1.97-pound (0.89 kg) shell at a muzzle velocity of 2,890 ft/s (880 m/s) to a distance of 10,750 yards (9,830 m). The gun's rate of fire was approximately 120 rounds per minute." Pretty monstrous! In addition to the dual purpose secondaries, you have 10x sextuple (that's 60), 1x twin, 11x single 40mm Bofors AA guns! The AA rating on this thing should be pretty high and be very, very good for short-ranged defence. Not so much use for supporting teammates, however. SPEED AND MANEUVERABILITY She has the speed. She was designed to have 130,000shp and reach 30kn, but during trials, she achieved over 136,000shp and reached 31.57kn. In-game, I think the 136,000shp should be quoted, with a speed of 31.5kn. That's fair and would make her a very speedy (but not overly-so) battleship, able to respond to threats and push forward, into position... be the VANGUARD, so to speak! As for maneuverability... well, she's a large vessel (248.2m, or 814ft 4 inch). Almost 50 feet longer than KGV! So this would translate to a large turning circle. KGV's turning circle is 790m, so Vanguard's would have to realistically be nearer 810m, or something. However, due to complaints of the KGV class having poor seaworthiness: "The King George V-class ships had been built with almost no sheer to the main deck forwards to allow 'A' turret to fire straight forward at zero elevation, resulting in a poor sea boat that took a lot of water over the bow. Vanguard was redesigned as a result of this experience, significant sheer and flare being added to the bow. The ship was well regarded as seaworthy, able to keep an even keel in rough seas." This could realistically translate to a ship with a relatively quick rudder-shift time, that answers her rudder quickly (OK, the above has nothing to do with rudder, but we have little to play with, when talking about HANDLING in-game) and maintain good speed in a turn. Again, this will feel MODERN. ARMOUR AND HEALTH As you can see from the above photo, Vanguard is very similar to KGV. In-fact, the armour scheme was based on that of KGV. In-game, that could translate to having almost identical armour and health as Monarch, only slightly better. As wikipedia shall explain: "The ship's armour scheme was based on that of the King George V class with a thinner waterline belt and additional splinter protection. Originally the belt armour was equal to that of the older ships, but it had to be reduced to offset weight increases when the design was modified to reflect wartime experience. The waterline 460-foot (140.2 m) main belt was composed of Krupp cemented armour (KCA) 13 inches (330 mm) thick, but increased to 14 inches (356 mm) abreast the magazines. It was 24 feet (7.3 m) high and tapered to a thickness of 4.5 inches (114 mm) at the bottom edge of the belt. Fore and aft of the 12-inch (305 mm) transverse bulkheads that closed off the central citadel, the belt continued almost to the ends of the ship. Forward it tapered to a thickness of 2 inches (51 mm) and a height of 8 feet (2.4 m) and aft to the same thickness, but a height of 11 feet (3.4 m). At the aft end of the steering gear compartment was a 4-inch (102 mm) transverse bulkhead. After the Battle of the Denmark Strait in 1941, 1.5-inch (38 mm) non-cemented armour bulkheads were added on the sides of the magazines, to protect them from splinters from any hits from plunging shells that might have penetrated the ship's side beneath her belt. When the gun turrets from the First World War-era battlecruisers were modernised, their KCA faceplates were replaced by new ones 13 inches thick, and their roofs were replaced by 6-inch (152 mm) non-cemented armour plates. Their sides remained 7–9 inches (180–230 mm) in thickness. The barbettes for the 15-inch guns were 13 inches thick on the sides, but tapered to 11–12 inches (279–305 mm) closer to the centreline of the ship. The side and roof armour of the 5.25-inch turrets was 2.5 inches (64 mm) thick. Their ammunition hoists were protected by armour 2–6 inches (51–152 mm) thick. Intended to resist the impact of a 1,000-pound (450 kg) armour-piercing bomb dropped from a height of 14,000 feet (4,300 m), Vanguard's deck protection was identical to that of the King George V class. It consisted of six-inch non-cemented armour over the magazines that reduced to 5 inches (127 mm) over the machinery spaces. The armour continued forward and aft of the citadel at the lower-deck level. Forward it tapered in steps from five inches down to 2.5 inches near the bow. Aft, it protected the steering gear and propeller shafts with 4.5 inches of armour before tapering to a thickness of 2.5 inches near the stern. Unlike the Germans, French and Americans, the British no longer believed that heavy armour for the conning tower served any real purpose given that the chance of hitting it was very small; Vanguard's conning tower was therefore protected with 3 inches (76 mm) of armour on the face and 2.5 inches on the sides and rear. The secondary conning tower aft had 2 inches (51 mm) of armour on its sides. Vanguard's underwater protection was enhanced when she was redesigned in 1942 to reflect the lessons learned when Prince of Wales was sunk by Japanese torpedo bombers. It still consisted of a three-layer system of voids and liquid-filled compartments meant to absorb the energy of an underwater explosion. It was bounded on the inside by the 1.75–1.5-inch (44–38 mm) torpedo bulkhead. Her enlarged oil tanks reduced the empty spaces that could flood and cause the ship to list and greater provision was made to pump these spaces out. The longitudinal bulkheads of the side protection system were raised one deck higher to further subdivide the spaces behind the waterline armour belt. The side protection system had a maximum depth of 15 feet (4.6 m), but this decreased significantly as the ship narrowed at its ends. Over the length of the citadel, this system was found to be proof against 1,000 pounds (450 kg) of TNT during full-scale trials." So, a slightly reduced armour belt is the only are that Vanguard would lack, compared to KGV & Monarch. Her increased splinter-protection could translate to extra protection against HE shells and she also has seriously good torpedo protection. More on that: "Vanguard's design was revised again, while the ship was under construction in 1942, to reflect lessons learned from the loss of the King George V-class battleship Prince of Wales and operations with the other battleships. The space between the inboard and outboard propeller shafts was increased from 33.5 to 51.5 feet (10.2 to 15.7 m) to prevent a single torpedo from wrecking both shafts, and watertight access trunks were added to all spaces below the deep waterline to prevent progressive flooding through open watertight doors and hatches as happened to Prince of Wales." This could be reflected in higher torpdedo-damage-reduction, than her contemporaries, which would help, given her large turning circle. It would also make sense if she suffered flooding for a shorter period of time. As the "crew" on your WoWS battleship sealed the various compartments, this shorter flooding time would reflect the thought and design that went into the ship. She also had a double-bottom arrangement (two "skins") and was "divided into 27 main compartments, with water-tight bulkheads". Overall, her armour would be tougher than Monarch, with better torpedo defence and increased damage recovery. She would also have more health. However, she might be slightly more susceptible to citadel damage. CONCEALMENT AND STEALTH OK, she's a big, long, wide ship. However, she does have quite a sleek side-profile/silhouette and looks quite sleek, overall. See below: I would be tempted to reflect this with pretty good surface detectibility. Not Monarch, nor Roma stealth, but better than average. Overall, pretty sneaky, but won't surprise any cruisers. I would also reflect the enormous length and width with pretty average-to-poor air detectibility. Planes will see this thing from above, it's not a Yamato or Grosser Kurfurst, but it's no light cruiser! EXTRAS Now, if... BIG IF... she still wasn't quite up to snuff, there is one other thing I thought of... I don't believe it is necessary, but I'd like to know what people think: Now, obviously, almost all WW2 battleships had radar... WAIT! WAIT! LET ME FINISH!... and Vanguard's would be the best of them... I SAID LET ME FINISH!!... The thing is, I am not a fan of radar in WoWS, certainly not on a battleship (or Belfast) and I know most people feel the same. However, this super modern battleship, last of its kind, does feel a bit blind, with no spotter plane and no hydro. Add hydro, if you want, standard hydro isn't that powerful on a battleship. What if they gave Vanguard a completely unique form of radar, where it is a pulse, or a PING... extremely long ranged, the entire map, even... but it only highlighted every enemy ship for 1 second?? Like the radar gadget thing on Aliens Vs Predator! Or like a real sonar pulse. PING!... every enemy ship is spotted for one second... and they're gone again. This would not allow anyone to fire upon the enemy, there is just no time, but it would allow the fleet to know roughly where the enemies are (I say "roughly", as there's no way the enemy ships would maintain position). It would only have maybe 3 charges and would CERTAINLY not break the game! No-one would get shot, as a result... but it would give a brief glimpse into the enemy's plans. I can see this being quite uselful in clan battles, but not a deciding factor. Basically, that's my idea on Vanguard, it's taken me a LOOOONG time to type this up, but I am keen to know what others think. Thanks for reading (those who have). I'll leave a brief summary: VANGUARD Tier 8 Pros: -Fast battleship -Good armour scheme with additional torpedo & flooding protection -Good AA protection -Comfortable gun handling -Maintains speed in a turn -EXTREMELY accurate guns (for a battleship), with supercharges -Very fast shells, with short lead-times and good arcs -Very good AP penetration, with enhanced normalisation & krupp rating -Good, dependable HE shells, with good damage and fire chance -Pretty good concealment from sea -(possible unique radar pulse) Cons: -Small guns for tier, no overmatch -Normal reload and only 8 guns; gives poor DPM -Lower damage per AP shell, than most rivals -Smaller broadside than most rivals -Pretty lacklustre secondary armament -Large turning circle -Pretty poor concealment from air -No spotter plane Overall, I think this would be a fine ship. Dependable, fun to play, does a good job at maintaining historical accuracy, but still allows for game balance. I think the modern "flavour" would shine through, giving an entirely unique -but still quintessentially Battleship- form of gameplay. It would also NOT ruin the fun for the enemy team, nor would it be any better than the non-premium tech tree ships, which I think is extremely important. Thanks, everyone.
  6. Hi all, This is re-post of my original idea from 2015 - bit it is still relevant and actual! IMHO it is great that WG introduced the change in spring 2016 for top player of losing team not to lose the star (and I hope that my proposal several months earlier played a role there) but I still believe that my original proposal is better because it helps with biggest problem in "Ranked" - the "carry" of not so good players up the ranks due to belonging to winning team... For me, personally, this (the "carry" of not so good players up the ranks due to belonging to winning team) is the biggest problem with "Ranked" and something really should be done about it! Leo "Apollo11"
  7. First a little background discussion or a foreword if you will: Put very briefly, what I'm proposing is this: what if there was a system in-game - it could be either opt-in or automated somehow - which made the game slightly more forgiving for the not-so-good players at the expense of lowered credit and XP gains AND slightly more rewarding for the better players by improved accuracy, credit and XP gains. That's it, that's the core concept. This is what I'd like us to discuss: would something like this help to improve the gaming experience of all players? And what would it take to make it work? Of course I've had some time to think about those questions myself and some potential ways a system like this could be abused and how to counteract that etc. I probably couldn't think of everything but that's where this community comes in . I'll put my initial thoughts in spoilers so as to hopefully not prejudice anyone: Hopefully we can get a good and constructive discussion going.
  8. I think that everyone like the new dynamics of sinking ships, i like them very much,but it would be possible to do not completely sink a ship near the coast? It would be fantastic to have a shipwrecks around........ also if you're the first to sink what do you think? Alessandro
  9. So US CV captains get a comfortable and reliable premium carrier, but what about us IJN CV captains? Last time I checked with WG and premium CVs they said they "don't want to sell the carrier experience as it is now" and I'll say I could agree with that, but I don't really care. Here I'll throw some cash at the screen if only I could get 1 IJN premium CV. My proposal could be called the Japanese Saipan equivalent, yup its the Ibuki-class Light Aircraft Carrier. So Saipan being the Baltimore Conversion, this is the conversion from Ibuki so they're both converted from tier 9 CAs. First off lets get some stats in here shall we, also I will compare with Saipan. Ibuki Saipan Displacement 14 800 tons 14 500 tons Length 200 m 209 m Beam 21 m 23 m Draft 6.3 m 8.5 m Propulsion 72 000 shp 120 000 shp Speed 29 knots 33 knots DP 2x2 Type 98 8 cm DP none AA 16x3 25 mm 5x4+11x2 40 mm (4x4) + 16x2 20 mm (15x2) Aircraft carried 27 42 (48) So of course I find some info to be conflicting with in game stats (in game stats are in the parentheses), but this only proves that they can be adjusted to fit ingame or at a certain tier. So they are equal in most areas, with Ibuki's speed being made up for in better concealment as she's smaller, Ibuki's low AA would be made up by actually having long range AA/DP. The problem lies in the amount of planes carried as Saipan looks a lot stronger. Now this might just mean Ibuki will have to make due with tier 6, but personally I would like the two to be the same tier, for rivalry reasons of course. So I say just buff it up to just short of Saipan, let Ibuki have tier 10 planes or maybe just make up for it in some other stat change/consumable etc. In the end I don't really mind what prem CV arrives with the Japanese flag, but having the two rivals fight both at tier 9 and tier 7 seems like such a cool thing to do. At this point I'd buy any prem IJN CV SO PLEASE LET ME THROW MONEY AT YOU ffs Looking at this picture makes me sad, seeing it in game wouldn't make me sad. Get the hint WG?
  10. CaptainNorse

    Fire Damage - Suggestion

    Seeing someone else post some suggestions on changes to HE vs. AP damage gave me an idea as to how to perhaps balance fire damage a bit more. Suggestion is that a ship can only have 1 Fire debuff at the time. But it can be a grade 1-4 fire. Grade 1 causes X damage Grade 2 causes 2X damage Grade 3 causes 4X damage Grade 4 causes 8X damage Each time a hit's RNG comes up with a positive for fire, a grade 1-4 fire is started onboard the target ship. But the chance of what grade of fire started would vary on caliber. So as an example: 5in guns (i.e destroyers) could have a 3% chance of a grade 4, 7% chance of grade 3, 20% chance of grade 2 and 70% chance of grade 1 fire. 6in guns (i.e Cleveland) could have a 5% chance of a grade 4, 15% chance of a grade 3, 35% chance of a grade 2 and 35% of a grade 1 fire. 16in guns (i.e Yamamoto) could have a 25% chance of a grade 4, 35% chance of a grade 3, 30% chance of a grade 2, and 10% chance of a grade 1 fire. Once a ship is burning, and is hit again, the RNG is once again rolled. If the new fire started is of a lower grade than the one already in place, nothing happens. If the new fire is same grade, it continues to burn and the timer is reset. If the new grade is higher, the fire is upgraded, and timer reset. This would allow ships to have everything from smaller fires (that can in many cases be ignored if you're not at low health or in a DD) to large conflagrations that need immediate attention if they're not to do crippling damage to the ship. In addtion to fire, HE would of course keep a steady explosive damage that is easier negated by armor, while AP will still be the more random damage depending on whether you can hit critical parts/citadel or overpen.
  11. CaptainNorse

    Historical Battle Mode

    My suggestion is an additional Game Mode (like Co-Op and Random Battle), in which one team would only consist of ships related to the Axis powers, and the other side would only be Allies related ships. So in the far suggested future: Team 1: German Kriegsmarine, Imperial Japanese Navy, Italian Navy. Team 2: Royal Navy, US Navy, Russian Navy. Would you like to play such a game mode? I feel it would press players even more to use the strengths of their faction, while trying to find a counter to their team weaknesses.
×