Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
VC381

US T7 premium BB options/proposals

Which US BB from my proposals would you pick as the T7 premium?  

39 members have voted

  1. 1. Which US BB from my proposals would you pick as the T7 premium?

    • USS Maryland (the copy-pate)
      1
    • USS West Virginia (the p2w)
      3
    • USS Tennessee (the new class)
      17
    • USS Washington (the downtier)
      4
    • USS Louisiana (the preliminary)
      3
    • USS Constellation (the odd one out)
      11

19 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Players
2,842 posts
4,776 battles

I've been thinking, the US tree is missing a T7 BB premium, and actually there are a LOT of options, real and design ships, to choose from. I'm too lazy to be as thorough in the proposals as @piritskenyer and @Trainspite, but I will set this up as a poll to see what you all think. Without further ado, here are the "contenders" as I see them!

 

The copy-paste: USS Maryland

Spoiler

The second of the Colorado class battleships. She is... erm... basically Colorado. They could do the final AA upgrade where she got 8x2 5"/38s, would bump the long-range aura a bit.

 

Maybe a secondary gimmick based on that?

 

Well what did you expect? It's in the title: copy-paste premium, if you feel like you need a premium Colorado. :Smile_coin:

 

Advantages: very easy to make, will basically be balanced by default

Disadvantages: very boring

 

Uss_maryland_bb.jpg

 

The P2W: USS West Virginia

Spoiler

Now we're talking!

The third Colorado class battleship, heavily rebuilt after being sunk at Pearl Harbour into one of the meanest looking battlewagons to crawl back into action. She would boast almost North Carolina level AA and a Torpedo bulge that would make Yamato blush! ... and a speed that would make the enemy team burst out laughing when they finally see you. Oh well.

 

But, she would still have Colorado's punchy guns, high agility and excellent armour. She would be very strong! Hmm... maybe a little too strong. :cap_hmm:

 

Advantages: gorgeous, interesting new ship in game, will lively be very strong

Disadvantages: it's basically a Colorado underneath, with buffs and no trade-offs, so outright P2W

 

USS_West_Virgina_post-reconstruction,_Ju

 

The new class: USS Tennessee

Spoiler

Another Pearl Harbour rebuild, this awesome looking BB is in my opinion the perfect compromise for the T7 premium slot. She would have great AA, a small turning circle, good armour, BUT, 12 (4x3) 14" (356mm) guns instead of Colorado's 8 (4x2) 16" (406mm). So basically New Mexico armament. Actually, exactly New Mexico armament. So she would not be an outright better Colorado. And we already know 14" (356mm) guns work at T7. They could bump sigma a little to compensate for having "only" 12 guns but overall this could be a very cool premium. :cap_money:

 

As well as looking super awesome (like WeeVee above), she would also represent a whole new class that isn't in the game yet.

 

Advantages: gorgeous, unique new ship, represents a whole new class, different enough to tech tree counterpart to not be straight up better

Disadvantages: ...?

 

014316.jpg

 

The downtier: USS Washington

Spoiler

Isn't that just a North Carolina a tier lower?

Yes, yes, please hear me out. They could use the stock hull, strip the AA back to 1942 level (no bofors) and lose the super-heavy shells to balance the guns. Please don't kill me... :Smile_hiding:

 

Thing is, the North Carolina class was a treaty design. King George V is at T7. Nelson is at T7. Washington is in theory the same size and overall power as those.

 

Washington is also a famous ship that deserves to be in the game, and she's famous for something that happened early in the war so an early war hull makes sense. Sure she has 16" guns at T7 but that's nothing new. She's not spectacularly fast, she'll lose the ability to bow tank other 16" BBs. That should work, right?

 

And, bonus of all bonuses, she would be in the same matchmaking spread as Kirishima! That battle could actually happen in WoWs! (yeah... it will go about as well as it did IRL, sorry Kiri-kiri).

 

Advantages: real ship, fought in a famous battle, easy to make because model already exists, higher tier fast BB playstyle brought down to T7

Disadvantages: a bit boring, nerfed sister ship, unpopular way to make a premium

 

015607.jpg

 

The preliminary: USS Louisiana

Spoiler

Yes, I picked a random name.

 

Washington too OP for T7? Well what do you know, the design process for the North Carolina class actually had a plan for a ship with 14" (356mm) guns.

 

12 of them to be precise, in 3 quad turrets (Lyon eat your heart out). These are, again, basically New Mexico guns (some technicalities, they would be slightly stronger) on a slightly smaller NC hull. Yes, it's a paper ship when we don't really need one, plenty of real US battleships to fit in. But it's a direct counterpart to King George V and is an interesting concept that I think slots exactly at the T7 power level. :fish_book:

 

Plus, it's a fast BB at T7, which IS different to the silver Colorado and most of the above proposals. So it would be a bonus for US captains looking for a mid-tier trainer that doesn't get sucked into T10 games, and that also actually moves!

 

Advantages: can be more balanced at T7 than Washington, still a more unique fast BB at T7 compared to the slow Colorado

Disadvantages: preliminary project, will trigger people who hate paper ships

 

north_carolina_class_scheme_xvi.jpg

 

The odd one out: USS Constellation

Spoiler

And now for something...

 

COMPLETELY DIFFERENT

 

USS Constellation was to be the second of the cancelled Lexington class battlecruisers. When the US tried to copy the British battlecruiser idea, they did. Not. Hold. Back. 33 knots and armed with 16" (406mm) /50 guns (same caliber and shells as Colorado but longer barrel = higher muzzle velocity).

 

Yes, her IJN counterpart Amagi is T8 but I don't think Constellation can cut it up there. She's really more equivalent to Hood in overall size and design. In the simplest way, she would be a Colorado that got a whopping 50% speed boost at the cost of being enormous and armoured... erm... more like not armoured (180mm belt armour).

 

What she would be though is an absolutely gorgeous and unique ship that would bring true battlecruiser playstyle charging in to the US tech tree. Hoo-rah! :Smile_izmena:

 

Advantages: totally unique ship, brings a completely new playstyle to the line, huge and gorgeous

Disadvantages: totally different to the rest of the line, might be a bad captain trainer or just unpopular to US BB captains, BB with basically no armour

 

H41961.jpg

 

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Supertester, Players, Sailing Hamster
3,419 posts
4,384 battles

Very nice writeup, mate, but I'll jave to react tomorrow, I'm dead tired right now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
1,102 posts
2,731 battles

I think, all of those could be turned into an interesting premium choice. Maryland with a 1945 setup could probably be turned into some kind of brawler, West Virginia and Tennesse would make great AAA platforms. Considering their low speed, i would not expect any of them to come out as op/p2w, since the can easily be outrun by basically any other ship.

Washington and the design ships are a different story though. A downtiered Washington would still be a tier 8 BB, just with less AAA, though it´s AAA might still be in acceptable regions. It would most likely outclass the Colorado in almost all aspects, with exception for AAA and turning circle. It would maybe turn out like a tier 7 Musashi with better AAA and "balanced" guns...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BYOB]
[BYOB]
Players
4,723 posts
21,077 battles

Forced to pick only one I would go for USS Tennessee, as the ship would offer an interesting game experience.

I would also love to see USS Maryland turned into C Hull for the Colorado, as that ship needs a buff.

 

While USS Louisiana looks good, it's still a paper ship quite similar (12x356mm) to USS Tennessee. The rest is just not interesting to me.

 

As a bonus a better image of USS Tennessee:

1920px-USS_Tennessee_(BB43)_1943.jpg

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weekend Tester
805 posts
4,494 battles

As much as I would love to have a Lexington at T7, I feel it'd simply be too strong. Perhaps it could work at T7 with its originally planned armament of 10 x 14" guns, but I really feel it's more T8 material with the 16" configuration. Two premium versions of the same ship in consecutive tiers would be a little odd, so I think we'll eventually see it at T8.

 

Of the others, I like the idea of the Tennessee best. Different to but without being stronger than its tech tree counterparts. The only issue might be if WG are planning to hold that class back for a second US BB line at some point in the future, if so maybe use the name California for the premium instead.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,842 posts
4,776 battles

@Aragathor yup, as I said Tennessee is my pick as well but I thought it would be fun to brainstorm a bit. Nice idea that Maryland could be used for a new Colorado C hull, I agree actually! I know there are better pictures of Tennessee, I just wanted a colour one with the camo :fish_cute_2: I think this is my favourite picture, really shows off that beam and all those guns. Just guns, everyhwere!

 

Spoiler

USS_Tennessee_BB43.jpg

 

@Vaderan I didn't mean P2W like the ship will be OP, you're right with the slow speed it probably won't be. WV would have no downsides compared to Colorado, just straight up better, so people will accuse it of being P2W just because of that.

 

Yeah, Washington is probably too strong but I thought it was a nice idea to explore. If you think about what makes it a T8 BB, it's really just the super-heavy shells and the bow plating that lets it tank. With the original lighter shells 16" guns at T7 are nothing special, and with T7 nose plate all other 16" BBs will overmatch it anyway so it won't be the crazy tank NC is at T8. Still, you're right, as a whole she would still outclass Colorado by so much it would spawn even more P2W accusations!

 

@rvfharrier maybe, I was torn with that ship but ultimately she is so badly armoured while having a huge hull I think T7 makes sense. She won't be like Hood, with the different strakes of armour up the hull. Even if her belt can defend the citadel she will take normal penetrations end to end from every AP and HE in the tier spread, and be permanently on fire. I imagine she would make Ashitaka look tanky. I wouldn't mind the original 10x 14" version either though, if only for the sake of SEVEN FUNNELS!!! :Smile_glasses:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weekend Tester
805 posts
4,494 battles

As a straight up comparison to its tech tree counterpart it would be far too strong. Less well armoured on paper perhaps, but in practical game terms there likely won't be a significant difference as the armour on the Colorado is pretty poor as it is. Yet the Lex would have the same armament with slightly better guns, would have more than a 50% speed advantage and, due to its greater displacement, would have a lot more health as well! I think the advantages the Colorado has in armour and AA would be pretty inconsequential as far as actual in-game performance goes and not even close to enough to make it competitive against the Lex, which isn't what we want to see with premiums.

 

While its armour would certainly be found lacking against T10 guns, I think it could genuinely stand as a T8 on its own merit. Give it access to its four above-water torpedo tubes and it could be great fun!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DREAD]
Players
667 posts
13 hours ago, rvfharrier said:

As much as I would love to have a Lexington at T7, I feel it'd simply be too strong. Perhaps it could work at T7 with its originally planned armament of 10 x 14" guns, but I really feel it's more T8 material with the 16" configuration. Two premium versions of the same ship in consecutive tiers would be a little odd, so I think we'll eventually see it at T8.

 

Of the others, I like the idea of the Tennessee best. Different to but without being stronger than its tech tree counterparts. The only issue might be if WG are planning to hold that class back for a second US BB line at some point in the future, if so maybe use the name California for the premium instead.

 

 

Lexington at Tier 7 would probably be like a murican Ashitaka.... except with even less armor. :P

Seemingly America didn't get the memo, when building Lexington about Jutland, and what happens if battlecruisers with cruiser armor face ships with bitter sticks. The British and Germans built battlecruisers before the end of WW1 with 300+ mm of armor... Even Amagi got 250 mm... And then came America with their 178mm armor...

It would be very fast, like Gneisenau and Hood, next to none Anti Air, terrible armor, OK firepower, similar to Colorado, and dreadful torpedo protection. But speaking of torpedos: She could use the 2 surface at the rear.

And she would be completely different than Colorado, which is nice,. Removed Colorado's weakness, but also her strengths. Sounds ok for me, and IMO there is no reason for getting Lexington with an extensive "What if-What- if"-modification. Good speed, heavy guns... but that dreadful armor and selfdefense. Sounds fair to me.

 

 

Tier 8 would only work with very fictional modifications.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,842 posts
4,776 battles
6 hours ago, josykay said:

Lexington at Tier 7 would probably be like a murican Ashitaka.... except with even less armor. :P

Seemingly America didn't get the memo, when building Lexington about Jutland, and what happens if battlecruisers with cruiser armor face ships with bitter sticks. The British and Germans built battlecruisers before the end of WW1 with 300+ mm of armor... Even Amagi got 250 mm... And then came America with their 178mm armor...

It would be very fast, like Gneisenau and Hood, next to none Anti Air, terrible armor, OK firepower, similar to Colorado, and dreadful torpedo protection. But speaking of torpedos: She could use the 2 surface at the rear.

And she would be completely different than Colorado, which is nice,. Removed Colorado's weakness, but also her strengths. Sounds ok for me, and IMO there is no reason for getting Lexington with an extensive "What if-What- if"-modification. Good speed, heavy guns... but that dreadful armor and selfdefense. Sounds fair to me.

 

 

Tier 8 would only work with very fictional modifications.

 

Yes and no. I did envisage an "as built" hull for balance at T7. But @rvfharrier does have a point that belt armour doesn't really mean much in game. Colorado had one of the thickest belts of BBs from that period but is still considered super squishy when broadside in game. Lexington could angle, still use all her guns with the excellent firing angles, and bounce on her very thin belt same as Amagi does. Also, submerged citadel and lots of HP. Her main issue, as I said, would not be big BB guns but rather being shredded by cruisers because unlike Hood she doesn't have the 152mm armoured belt on the upper hull to stop small AP and HE.

 

As for T8, the refit need not be crazy extensive. Just look at Colorado. Still preserves most of the look of the original bridge, keeps one cage mast at least. That's the "what-if" refit Lexington would get. Given the ship is what-if anyway, and we know exactly how similar American ships of the period were upgraded, any refit would have a lot of historical basis so would be acceptable in my eyes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ST-EU]
Supertester, Players, Sailing Hamster
1,920 posts
4,037 battles

Apologies for not being around, slacked off forum activity because of real life things (exams etc.)

 

Personally I think Maryland is an option that should be eliminated from the start, a straight clone isn't too appetising, and the Colorado sister most famous anyway is WeeVee. Which brings me to her, as she is awkward. With no disadvantages over Colorado, but with better gun performance and AA, she could potentially make tier 8, but 21 knots at tier 8 would be almost unbearable. She is an awkward one to balance, so until things sort themselves out, I would leave her on the substitutes bench.

 

Tennessee I would imagine is a very good tier 7 regular for a second USN BB tree when the time finally allows it to happen. California is slightly more famous, and a bit better adapted to be a premium over her sister, but if Tenn ends up being the regular, California would just end up being a clone, albeit a slightly more famous one than Maryland. 

 

Washington at tier 7 is an interesting concept, it has potential to work, and is interesting and unique enough, while using a relatively well known ship. However, down-tierring stock hulls is unpopular, and would likely cause much contempt. I'm also still not convinced KGV will be staying at tier 8 (Nil desperandum), and she would move in the future to where she belongs. Much the same applies to the 14" NoCal preliminaries, they are unique, but paper, and with enough USN BBs as it is, it is hard to see them being a priority, or popular.

 

Finally Lexington. Although there is potential for an USN BC line, composed of entirely paper ships, mostly USN 1910s-1920s era BC designs, such as (6x 16", 10x 14", 8x 14" and 12x 16"), such a line can be considered unlikely, and with what has been done to the German CVs with Zeppelin, could be repeated with USN BCs and Lexington BC Constellation. I guess this therefore is the option that I would prefer the most. However, being another USN BB after all the others, even if filling a gap, there should be premiums that should take priority, like a new RN Cruiser premium. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,842 posts
4,776 battles

Thanks for your input @Trainspite. I agree with most of what you said but I don't think potential tree splits should factor into the argument. They may or may not come (didn't WG say the US cruisers would be the last?) but in any case they would only come when there can be two lines of different but individually consistent playstyles. A US split tree that included Tennessee (and would therefore be a slow BB progression up to T7 similar to the current one) would not offer that. In fact, Tennessee and Nevada are the only real WWII US battleship classes currently not represented in game, hardly a solid basis for a split line and pure premium material in my opinion (Nevada obviously T6).

 

That aside, good to see your support for the battlecruiser :Smile_honoring:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Supertester, Players, Sailing Hamster
3,419 posts
4,384 battles

I don'T think Maryland would offer much if anyhing over Colorado, therefore I'd say there's not much oint to adding her at T7 as a premium.

 

WeeVee could be considered, but my issue is similar, I donT think whatever she brings to the table is going to be better enough over Colorado to justify a gold price. I also think that she could be folded into Colorado as her C hull.

 

Tennessee looks like she could have potential, but if weare going the 14" route, I'd prefer Louisiana (voted for her), as I can't suffer slow BB's. Louisiana seems to be unique enough yet familiar to the remainder of the line. 

 

Downtiering existing stock hulls and puttinga pricetag on them doesn'T seem to be a very good idea so far.

 

No idea how Constellation would fare either as 10x14" on 8x16" but 179mm's (7") of belt armour seems a tad weak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ST-EU]
Supertester, Players, Sailing Hamster
1,920 posts
4,037 battles
6 hours ago, VC381 said:

Thanks for your input @Trainspite. I agree with most of what you said but I don't think potential tree splits should factor into the argument. They may or may not come (didn't WG say the US cruisers would be the last?) but in any case they would only come when there can be two lines of different but individually consistent playstyles. A US split tree that included Tennessee (and would therefore be a slow BB progression up to T7 similar to the current one) would not offer that. In fact, Tennessee and Nevada are the only real WWII US battleship classes currently not represented in game, hardly a solid basis for a split line and pure premium material in my opinion (Nevada obviously T6).

 

That aside, good to see your support for the battlecruiser :Smile_honoring:

 

Pas de probleme.

I believe what WG said was that the USN Cruisers would be the last until the main nations all had a complete tech tree, which means that no more splits until we see British DDs, French DDs, Russian BBs, Italian Cruisers, Battleships and Destroyers, and probably the RN CVs as well. Which is likely to keep WG busy for some time, but is finite number, and therefore excluding any further splits would be a rather disastrous move in terms of content.

 

Given how WG managed to split Asashio, Yugumo and Kagero apart into different tiers etc. - I have to disagree on the USN BBs, it is perfectly capable to form an alternate line, perhaps following a different playstyle as the devblog has been announcing with Massachusetts (dodgy area to talk about :Smile_hiding:). In which case, you could potentially have a line like this;

 

III: Delaware
IV: Florida

V: Nevada

VI: Pennsylvania

VII: Tennessee

VIII: Ohio (Modernised Design 164 10x 16")

IX: Indiana (Modernised South Dakota 1920)

X: Nebraska ( Modernised Tillman IV-1)

 

Alternatively, a split can be made using the more modern designs, which are not as different, but do include the Battleship X which I don't really feel is that good a fit inbetween the 1910s era designs, or as a premium.

VIII: South Dakota

IX: Kentucky (Iowa alternate)

X: New Hampshire (Montana scheme 8)

 

There are problems obviously, Nevada is about the only ship to really contend for tier 5, but she can easily push on tier 6, especially with her comprehensive refit, and therefore would need a bit of toning down (artificially nerf the value of the 5"/38 on these ships), same applying for the Pennsy and Tenn.

 

Compared to a BC line, which has gaps at tier 3, 4, 5ish, 8ish and 10 and would require ships made by the WG design bureau, a second BB line is easier to make. Hence I would support the more 'real' line at the expense of Constellation having any of her brethren, however much a 12x 16" BC sounds fun. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,842 posts
4,776 battles

I agree that similar ships can be split to different tiers or made to play differently by tweaking all sorts of soft stats and gimmicks. But the core themes of various lines and split lines are rooted in fundamental differences in those ships IRL (e.g. light vs heavy cruisers). I don't think a secondary flavour would cut it.

 

Much as I would love to see Washington treaty and other 1920s what-ifs, it's pretty clear from how WG has handled Conqueror that these are at best "inspiration" but really have no place in game even if they theoretically meet the power level for T9/10. Plus you said it yourself, a 21 knot BB at T8 would be borderline unplayable. 23 knots at T10 isn't much better. Although given how much people camp and generally play statically at those tiers... hmm...

 

Anyway, something I do see as a viable US BB flavour split would be power vs. finesse. The power line would have tough 12-gun ships at basically every tier ending with current Montana. The finesse line would have fewer guns at most tiers but some combination of bigger guns, better accuracy, better stealth and better handling. Top this line with a 4x2 18" Montana variant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Players
1,099 posts
10,057 battles

That's a cracking, well thought out OP.

 

To be honest I like them all (and would buy them all) but it would come down for me to either speed - a faster T7 option - or the ship being sufficiently unique - like the Tennessee. The thing is, you'd have to have something whose characteristics complemented a higher tier captain set-up, so (sadly) a secondary monster would be out of the equation unless they gave it accurate, long ranged (even 8-9km) secondaries as its gimmick regardless of skills.

 

As I said, would buy them all but I really WANT Tennessee or Washington

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Supertester, Players, Sailing Hamster
3,419 posts
4,384 battles
9 hours ago, VC381 said:

Well, seems Tennessee is the clear winner :Smile_honoring:

 

@piritskenyer @Trainspite how do you feel about working with me on a fully specced out detailed proposal?

 

I'm up for it, although it's prolly more @Trainspite's area of expertise

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ST-EU]
Supertester, Players, Sailing Hamster
1,920 posts
4,037 battles
On 01/06/2018 at 5:48 PM, VC381 said:

I agree that similar ships can be split to different tiers or made to play differently by tweaking all sorts of soft stats and gimmicks. But the core themes of various lines and split lines are rooted in fundamental differences in those ships IRL (e.g. light vs heavy cruisers). I don't think a secondary flavour would cut it.

 

Much as I would love to see Washington treaty and other 1920s what-ifs, it's pretty clear from how WG has handled Conqueror that these are at best "inspiration" but really have no place in game even if they theoretically meet the power level for T9/10. Plus you said it yourself, a 21 knot BB at T8 would be borderline unplayable. 23 knots at T10 isn't much better. Although given how much people camp and generally play statically at those tiers... hmm...

 

Anyway, something I do see as a viable US BB flavour split would be power vs. finesse. The power line would have tough 12-gun ships at basically every tier ending with current Montana. The finesse line would have fewer guns at most tiers but some combination of bigger guns, better accuracy, better stealth and better handling. Top this line with a 4x2 18" Montana variant.

Generally they should be rooted in the differences in those ships, but this is a game, and WG do make the balancing decisions, they can tone things up and down. Light Cruisers vs Heavy Cruisers is made a bit more extreme in game by things like IFHE etc. Personally, I think a second USN BB line formed of these ships is too big an opportunity for WG to turn down. They show no qualms in using the stats to differentiate things, so it might not be just secondaries, but there would be other factors to give such a line a selling point.

 

Conqueror has no relation to the 1920s designs, other than that she uses the same guns as those projects in the same turret arrangement as L2. Everything else is mecha-Vanguard. And I guess WG made Mega-Vanguard because the other options didn't fit as well. The 1945 designs for Lion are a bit quirky, though I would like to see them topping the line still (With Republique having 24s reload from Alsace at 30, I see qualms for Lion at 30 to jump to 20 with a 1945 design with the same firepower), and the 1920s designs are just a bit too slow, and better suited elsewhere. The 23 knot ships like L3 are at best going to get 26 or 27 knot rebuilds to push them to tier 10 standard. All you really need to do is apply the modern superstructure, AA and a reasonable engine rebuild, and you have a capable ship on your hands*. (Normandie, Lyon - those engine refits are right out). The problem comes with a ship that survived to the period and got the AA, but never the engines, i.e; West Virginia. Theoretically tier 8 standard, in everything but speed, and armour in some way. WG can't magic the problem away like with Normandie, or even be reasonable with it. It's a tricky problem, OP at T7, or, infuriatingly frustrating at T8. 

 

*= The Nelson's were proposed to have a rebuild to bring their speed up to 25.5 knots, so for a potential RN BB 'slow' line;

T3-5 St Vincent/Orion/Centurion: 21 knots

T6 Revenge: 21/22 knots

T7 Nelson/Rodney: 23 knots
T8 M2 'Ocean': 24.5 knots

T9: N3 'Albion': 25.5 knots

T10: L3 'Vengeance': 27 knots

 

These speeds seem reasonable enough given the size differences roughly. Orion would be moved across (replaced by Colossus) as she fits the slow armoured and well armed brick style of the line.

 

Power vs Finesse mirrors what I would see for the RN BBs, just without the BC line which is the even more finesse driven line. For ships that have the same number of guns, dispersion and sigma can make the difference to enforce the playstyle to some extent. Sort of like how New Mexico is the shot gun compared to Arizona being more precise, which can be mirrored by Pennsylvania. I'm not quite sure of any 4x 2 18" Montana variants around though. 

 

On 04/06/2018 at 11:52 AM, VC381 said:

Well, seems Tennessee is the clear winner :Smile_honoring:

 

@piritskenyer @Trainspite how do you feel about working with me on a fully specced out detailed proposal?

 

I have no problems, although if I have any input, I would request that consideration for California, since I am fairly certain Tennessee will be a regular. Or at least should be. As much as Tennessee is my favourite USN Standard BB, California is the more famous of the two just about, and unless WG wants to pull another Nelson/Rodney blunder, is better suited for premium duty. 

 

The only difference would be visual, (California using Measure 32/16D, while Tennessee using Measure 32/1D camouflage), and California having a stronger AA suite;

Tenn: 8x Dual 5"/38, 10 Quad Bofors, 43 Single Oerlikons

Cali:  8x Dual 5"/38,  14 Quad Bofors, 52 Single Oerlikons

 

Or you can use 1945 condition California and replace the 52x 1 20mm with 40x 2, but that seems very excessive, especially for a tier 7. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,842 posts
4,776 battles

I'm cool with California, that 32/16d camouflage is one of the most awesome of the US splinter schemes. Not that Tennessee is bad, as you say. And if the plan is for AA to be the defining strength I see no problem with maxing it out.

 

I don't know how much real proposal basis a 4x2 18" Montana has, perhaps not much. But it's a configuration I have seen several times in the scale modelling community and there is even a kit. So it might be fictional but it's not implausible, and it's in the popular perception already. It would be a bit like Zao in that sense.

 

I like your slow RN BB line but I don't believe WG would implement something like that. They have clearly decided T9 and T10 are a late-war and alternate reality post-war/1950s fantasy land. They would want designs that look like they originate in that time period, not 1920s stuff, irrespective of how heavily modernised. You said it yourself, that's why Conqueror is "mega-Vanguard". Anyway, decisions have been made and we can disagree with them but we have to tune our proposals to how WG have shown us they handle things rather than trying to swim against the tide.

 

Just to flesh out my vision of two US lines:

 

Power line:

T3 - Delaware (WWI fit, give it bad turret angles and longer reload to balance 10 gun broadside at T3)

T4 - Wyoming (unchanged)

T5 - New York (unchanged, maybe needs some small buffs e.g. reload)

T6 - New Mexico (unchanged)

T7 - Tennessee (as discussed)

T8 - North Carolina (buffed reload, nerfed accuracy) OR Louisiana (12x 14" BB-55 preliminary)

T9 - Kentucky (BB-65 Scheme 4. Smaller Montana preliminary before BBs 65 & 66 were re-ordered as part of the Iowa class. 12x 16"/45, longer reload for balance, 27 knots)

T10 - Montana (unchanged)

 

Finesse line:

T3 - South Carolina (unchanged)

T4 - Florida (1930s refit based on Utah but obviously keeping main battery instead of becoming an AA ship)

T5 - Nevada (1930s fit for balance. Slower reload than NY but more accurate for flavour)

T6 - Pennsylvania (wartime refit)

T7 - Colorado (C-hull based on 1945 Maryland)

T8 - South Dakota (silver Alabama) OR North Carolina (unchanged) - choice depends on other line

T9 - Iowa (unchanged)

T10 - Ohio (4x2 18" Montana variant)

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×