Jump to content
ImperialAdmiral

Agano class cruiser proposal

29 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Players
1,020 posts
5,453 battles

Agano class cruiser

 

image.png.229eb83d9204a5c8d1b2ba9b5d2208cb.png

Light cruiser Agano

 

     The Agano class cruisers were light cruisers build for the Imperial Japanese Navy as a replacement for the older classes of light cruisers as a part of Fourth Replenishment Program. Named after Japanese rivers they were beautiful, modern looking ships with a graceful deck lines. Designed as a flotilla leaders for the modern Japanese destroyer squadrons they were fast ships yet at the same time possesed underwhelming main gun armament of only 6x2 152 mm guns and weak armour protection. On the other hand they could be proud of their torpedo armament which featured two quadruple Type 92 torpedo mounts placed on the centerline of the ship which could fire a full broadside on either direction.

 

 

 

 

Agano class construction

Ship

Build at

Laid down

Launched

Completed

Agano

Sasebo NY

6/18/40

10/22/41

10/31/42

Noshiro

Yokosuka NY

9/4/41

7/19/42

6/30/43

Yahagi

Sasebo NY

11/11/41

10/25/42

12/29/43

Sakawa

Sasebo NY

11/21/42

4/9/44

11/30/44

 

Agano class Specifications

Displacement

8,534 tons full load

Dimensions

Lenght:572.35ft overall /beam 49.9ft /draft: 8,5 ft

Speed

35 knots

Range

6,000nm at 18 knots

Crew

51 officers and 649 enlisted personel as designed; Sakawa had 55 officers and 750 enlisted when completed

 

Agano and Noshiro as built:

6 × 152 mm Type 41 guns (3 × 2)

4 × 76.2 mm Type 98 DP guns (2 × 2)

6 × 25 mm AA guns (2 × 3)

4 × 13mm Type 93 AA machine guns (2 × 2)

8 × 610 mm torpedo tubes (2 × 4)

16 Type 95 or Type 2 depth charges

3 Type 88 mines

 

     Completed on 31 October 1942, Agano participated in the battles for Guadalcanal and the Solomon Islands during 1943. Agano was badly damaged in Rabaul harbor by aircraft from the aircraft carriers USS Saratoga and USS Priceton, and in a subsequent attack by aircraft from TF38 on 11 November she received a torpedo hit. Ordered to home waters for repair, she was torpedoed and sunk north of Truk by the US submarine USS Skate (SS-305), on 16 February 1944.

 

 

image.png.0cde62b42a1fa464d2584fd04b1f5f61.png

Light cruiser Noshiro

 

     Commissioned on 30 June 1943, Noshiro participated in operations in the Solomon Islands and was damaged during the US carrier aircraft raids on Rabaul on 5 November 1943. She served in the Marianas in the summer of 1944, and was part of Admiral Kurita's force during the Battle of the Philippine Sea. At the Battle of Leyte Gulf in October 1944. She was west of Panay while withdrawing from the Battle of Samar on the morning of 26 October when she was sunk by aircraft from USS Wasp and USS Cowpens.

 

image.png.11faa1004403c62de1d00f7c4892a5fa.png

Light cruiser Yahagi

 

     Commissioned on 29 December 1943 Yahagi saw action in the Marianas in May/June 1944, during the Battle of the Philippine Sea, and during the Battle of Leyte Gulf. After the US invasion of Okinawa on 1 April 1945, she was ordered to accompany the battleship Yamato on its suicide mission against the American fleet at OkinawaYahagi was hit by some seven torpedoes as well as a dozen bombs, and sank on the afternoon of 7 April 1945.

 

image.png.3c017ed8cc4bde342e1dad2ebbfc9f1b.png

Light cruiser Sakawa

 

     Sakawa was not completed until the end of 1944, by which time there was little fuel available. She survived the war unscratched and was used as a transport to return demilitarized troops from New Guinea and other areas after the war. She was expended in the atom bomb tests at Bikini Atoll in 1946.

 

*Data based on Imperial Japanese Navy Light Cruisers 1941–45 and Wikipedia.

 

 

     In conclusion, I think that it would be nice to see those magnificent looking light cruisers in game at some point. Possibly a tier V-VI ship, with many ways to make it interesting and unique. Torpedo reload booster, higher rate of fire, better aa or maybe Aiming System Modification 0? There is many options to choose from for this class.

  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
404 posts
3,261 battles

I like the look of this ship, and had never heard of it before. It would definitely be nice to see a premium Agano class, and depending on what WG does to the IJN cruiser tree, another one of the class could be a silver ship. This all depends if WG want to split the cruiser trees into CL's and CA's where possible. To balance these ships, the torp reload booster might be nice (makes them play like big destroyers), very good concealment and a high rate of fire. Keep the AA weak and just improve the manoeuvrability, that should help its defence against carriers. There are quite a few ships that have good AA as their gimmick, so the torpedo reload booster would set this apart. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ST-EU]
Supertester
2,835 posts
4,190 battles

I do like these ships and would love to see them in the game. Depending on what WGs plans are, Agano would be a good testbed for the rest of the bigger aviation cruisers. Torpedo reload booster does seem like an interesting choice, but some kind of advanced aircraft related consumable would be my pick. Or even further, an attempt to integrate something of the new CV interface into this ship, to see how a hybrid might really work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UTW]
Weekend Tester, In AlfaTesters
8,072 posts
6,714 battles

As much as I love those ships, I really have big issue with them being in the game.

 

- They were the most modern light cruisers of the IJN.

- Yet their armament would relegates them to a sad tier VI, fighting only Warspites and Aoba ten years younger.

 

Unless they artifically buff their reload rate, they won't fit into higher tier, which is sad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Supertester
3,200 posts
3,240 battles
40 minutes ago, VC381 said:

I do like these ships and would love to see them in the game. Depending on what WGs plans are, Agano would be a good testbed for the rest of the bigger aviation cruisers. Torpedo reload booster does seem like an interesting choice, but some kind of advanced aircraft related consumable would be my pick. Or even further, an attempt to integrate something of the new CV interface into this ship, to see how a hybrid might really work.

 

Oyodo is the one you're thinking of I think. 

 

Anyway, @OP Trainspite and myself have started working some numbers out on Agano for a full fledged proposal :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,020 posts
5,453 battles
12 minutes ago, piritskenyer said:

 

Anyway, @OP Trainspite and myself have started working some numbers out on Agano for a full fledged proposal :) 

 

Well I'm looking forward to seeing it ^_^

 

43 minutes ago, ShinGetsu said:

As much as I love those ships, I really have big issue with them being in the game.

 

- They were the most modern light cruisers of the IJN.

- Yet their armament would relegates them to a sad tier VI, fighting only Warspites and Aoba ten years younger.

 

Unless they artifically buff their reload rate, they won't fit into higher tier, which is sad.

I don't have much issues with the year restrictions in WoWs and I really do think that she would be best at max tier VI being fairly balance and rather unique in playstyle. I'm most opting for a torpedo cruiser variant. Agano class was a flotilla leader first afterall.

Nevertheless, I'm really open to different combinations and variants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ST-EU]
Supertester
2,835 posts
4,190 battles

Well, WG have just given us high tier cruisers that are as close to BBs as can be. Maybe Agano can go the other way, a cruiser that is basically a DD. Slightly buffed RoF, 12km Yugumo torps, 8km maxed concealment, TRB and smoke. That's got to make her at least T8, right?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UTW]
Weekend Tester, In AlfaTesters
8,072 posts
6,714 battles
3 minutes ago, VC381 said:

Well, WG have just given us high tier cruisers that are as close to BBs as can be. Maybe Agano can go the other way, a cruiser that is basically a DD. Slightly buffed RoF, 12km Yugumo torps, 8km maxed concealment, TRB and smoke. That's got to make her at least T8, right?

Yeah, that's the kind of things I'd rather see. It would be very sad to see a Light Cruiser from 1940-41 staying at an uninteresting tier VI.

It would be rather gimmicky, but better than seeing it next to Aoba.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
5,054 posts
2,939 battles
8 minutes ago, ShinGetsu said:

It would be rather gimmicky

 

Seeing what was necessary to make high tier CLs for the British I'd say a CL getting strange gimmicks is not necessarly the bad way to do it.

Now the japanese are a big trouble because the only real option is to make of Agano a premium, thus a lone ship with gimmicks no-one else would have. Putting her in a sub-branch is however nigh impossible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[POI--]
Players
3,886 posts
5,016 battles

Honestly, I cannot envision much of a IJN CL line. Most of the ships just aren't good enough. Agano itself is not even T6 material without some gimmicks, given it is frankly a worse Leander. I'd expect any IJN CL line to only go to T8 at most, Akizuki style.

 

As for gimmicks, I expect no radar, because IJN. I'd guess hydro, smoke screen, defAA and a generous stealth torping window.

T5 Sendai

T6 Agano

T7 Kai-Agano

T8 155 mm Mogami (replaced in main line by Takao) with balance adjustments to fit in line?

 

Best I'd ever imagine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,020 posts
5,453 battles

Sadly I think it was either on a stream or in a Q&A in which WG said there are no plans for a second IJN pure cruiser line.

 

Therey are only gonna introduce some aviation cruisers after the CV rework.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
5,054 posts
2,939 battles
6 minutes ago, Riselotte said:

Honestly, I cannot envision much of a IJN CL line. Most of the ships just aren't good enough. Agano itself is not even T6 material without some gimmicks, given it is frankly a worse Leander. I'd expect any IJN CL line to only go to T8 at most, Akizuki style.

 

As for gimmicks, I expect no radar, because IJN. I'd guess hydro, smoke screen, defAA and a generous stealth torping window.

T5 Sendai

T6 Agano

T7 Kai-Agano

T8 155 mm Mogami (replaced in main line by Takao) with balance adjustments to fit in line?

 

Best I'd ever imagine.

 

Well, to be honest, if you can work you CL Mogami at TIX, you could fill CL Tone at TVIII. But even so the line's continuity is... messed up to say the least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[POI--]
Players
3,886 posts
5,016 battles
1 minute ago, LastButterfly said:

 

Well, to be honest, if you can work you CL Mogami at TIX, you could fill CL Tone at TVIII. But even so the line's continuity is... messed up to say the least.

Tell me about the continuity in the IJN alt DD line...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
5,054 posts
2,939 battles
1 minute ago, Riselotte said:

Tell me about the continuity in the IJN alt DD line...

Eh, in a theorical way (setting aside what failGaming does) it's not too hard to make two absolutely smooth IJN DD lines and one semi-continuous (with one break, at TVIII, obviously).

By using the Fubuki-generation, culminating into either a follow-up on Yuugumo or Shimakaze, you remain coherent - from equal to mild increase - in firepower, speed, defense, anti-air and torpedo power.
The only two break I can imagine would be a very minor one (switching to Shimakaze, implying increasing the torpedo tube number by at least 5 in one go, which isn't that much of a break and is more of big increase, and that can be mitigate by playing on other torpedo stat to make their full power increase less although existant), and obviously switching to Akizuki (implying a break in speed, pretty big, a break in torpedo power, mild, and a complete break of firepower). However, for the second one, it may be possible to play in a way that'd make the purpose of the ships before and after said break similar, and which would have them played in a similar way (such as forcing high-speed, short-range torpedoes at all tiers, similar to the F3, mitigating the impact of having less tubes, giving to previous DDs their AA conversion and ballasted version for reduced speed, denying them special common-like shell stats for less penetrating power of main guns)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ST-EU]
Supertester
2,835 posts
4,190 battles

A gimmicky quasi-destroyer cruiser would only really work as a premium. Having said that, we really shouldn't be thinking of any IJN line split in terms of light/heavy like the others. We currently have no idea how an aviation gimmick might be implemented and how strong it would be i.e. how much higher tier the aviation cruisers could be compared to where their guns alone would place them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UTW]
Weekend Tester, In AlfaTesters
8,072 posts
6,714 battles

Agano-Noshiro-Yahagi-Sakawa weren't aviation cruisers. I think you're mixing them up with other classes there.

 

Aviation cruisers are Tone and Chikuma (sister ships), then Mogami after her Midway refit, and Ooyodo was planned to be one as well. They are the only example.

 

Tone and Chikume could be tier 8 or 9 quite easily. They have eight 203mm guns, the only issue is to assess how much of an advantage will the planes provides.

 

But here we're discussing Agano, and they are 100% pure-bred light cruiser.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ST-EU]
Supertester
2,835 posts
4,190 battles

Agano has fairly extensive aviation facilities for a ship her size. I know she's not one of the full on aviation cruisers with the whole stern dedicated to planes, but she would be a good starting point for that hypothetical line in my opinion, as an option for how to implement her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,020 posts
5,453 battles
27 minutes ago, VC381 said:

Agano has fairly extensive aviation facilities for a ship her size. I know she's not one of the full on aviation cruisers with the whole stern dedicated to planes, but she would be a good starting point for that hypothetical line in my opinion, as an option for how to implement her.

 

True Agano was unique in her design for a light cruiser but I would never cosider her as an aviation cruiser. Even as a starting point for the aviation cruiser line. She will be either premium or could be part of completly new and redesigned classic cruiser split which won't happen at least in the near future. 

Premium ship is the most possible option. If not Agano as the main ship of it's class then you still can use 3 other ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Supertester
3,200 posts
3,240 battles

Well, what we worked out with Trainspite was 

  • Split at T5 from Kuma
  • T5 Agano
  • T6 Agano Kai
  • T7 'Niyodo' - this is a fantasy ship based on Oyodo's hull but with turrets instead of aviation facilities, we considered both 3 and 4 turret versions
  • T8 Suzuya - Mogami class with the same upgrade path as Mogami now, so basicall folding into the heavy cruiser line. Not Mogami outright, because Mogami would be needed in the aviation cruiser line.

Now since we've seen that WG is not shying away from taking liberties, we thought we might as well buff the 155's in term of rate of fire to 7-8 r/m (which with the introduction of Helena at T7 doesn't seem like that much of a longshot, even though herrate of fire is ctually dumbed down compared to history). Suppose the japanese have managed to build proper shellhoists for their 155's.

Also, to anyone saying that the 6"/50 of the Agano and Agano-Kai were old weapons and by extension bad, I say this: no. They were perfectly serviceable weapons with perfectly serviceable shells in a perfectly serviceable turret arrangement that allowed them to remain perfectly effective (ballistically they are roughly comparable to the 6"/50 of the British).

Writeup to follow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
5,054 posts
2,939 battles
4 hours ago, VC381 said:

Agano has fairly extensive aviation facilities for a ship her size.

 

...

she had like 2 seaplanes and one catapult.

 

1 hour ago, piritskenyer said:

Well, what we worked out with Trainspite was 

  • Split at T5 from Kuma
  • T5 Agano
  • T6 Agano Kai
  • T7 'Niyodo' - this is a fantasy ship based on Oyodo's hull but with turrets instead of aviation facilities, we considered both 3 and 4 turret versions
  • T8 Suzuya - Mogami class with the same upgrade path as Mogami now, so basicall folding into the heavy cruiser line. Not Mogami outright, because Mogami would be needed in the aviation cruiser line.

 

You oughta have one of the Nagara super-class at TV instead. Even though I understand the frustration of having to buff all cruisers above to fit one tier higher, I think it's equally as wrong to lower Agano at TV as it is to miss one of thir (very few) crucial CL design.

Besides, that'd allow you to avoid having to completely create a ship that never existed nor was planned which is nice when it can be avoided.

 

If you want to push things further, there's the Tone that was also planned to carry triple 155mm, potentially fitting at TVIII with Mikuma somewhat raisable at TIX. but that's more of a "decent (at most) extension suggestion" than anything else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Supertester
3,200 posts
3,240 battles
6 hours ago, LastButterfly said:

[...]

 

You oughta have one of the Nagara super-class at TV instead. Even though I understand the frustration of having to buff all cruisers above to fit one tier higher, I think it's equally as wrong to lower Agano at TV as it is to miss one of thir (very few) crucial CL design.

Besides, that'd allow you to avoid having to completely create a ship that never existed nor was planned which is nice when it can be avoided.

 

If you want to push things further, there's the Tone that was also planned to carry triple 155mm, potentially fitting at TVIII with Mikuma somewhat raisable at TIX. but that's more of a "decent (at most) extension suggestion" than anything else.

 

I don'T understand the fuss about Nagara. You're not the first to bring her up to me, but every which way I look at her, she's a Kuma with a slightly different protection scheme, and while, I did enjoy Kuma even when she had +2/-2 MM, I can in no way see her work in a T7 match. Now granted, with longer range and better concealment she'd probably make it, but I still have reservations. It'd take quite some faildivisioning to get a sense of how Kuma would perfrom in T7 matchmaking.

 

Another thing that bothers me slightly is indeed trying to fit Agano and Agano Kai into T6 and 7 respectively. While I see how it could work at T6 for Agano (14km-ish gunrange on 7sec reload, 10km torps and sub 9km concealment - basically a Huanghe with worse AA and ballistics in exchange for better torps), Agano Kai would seriously lose steam for T7. Remember, we are talking 8x 6" guns at T7, capable of meeting T9's. While I'm sure it could be balanced accordingly (again, making stealthtorpedoing possible, propping up the range, etc), both ships would fit more naturally one tier down. 

 

The nonexistent ship: I agree, it's a bit of a stretch, and I do feel guilty about it to some extent, but it would make a good transition between Agano Kai and Suzuya. One more gun per turret (and also a slightly bigger gun), then one more turret. Now, when I'm coming up with ideas, I'm trying to get them rooted in reality and looking at the Oyodo hull there is enough space to place two turrets in the rear with conventional aviation facilities (one catapult and two floats) if the extended aviation facilities were to be replaced. A problem that I do have is that phylosophy wise the Japanese never really seemed to go the way of 4-turret ships, and when they did it wasn't like other nations. The only cruiser in a 2F2A configuration that I even know of is Maya which started out life as 3F2A as part of the Takao class, and the only cruisers that were built as 4-turrets are 4F0A in the form of the Tones.

I somehow doubt they would have gone with a 2F2A CL any day of the week, but alas, that is what I'm looking to do with 'Niyodo' (let the record show that Trainspite is very much opposed to a 4-turret variant and insists on a 3-turret one for fear of a 4-turret being OP, which I don'T think would be the case). 2F1A would also be more typical of japanese shipbuilding with long lines comparative to the armament embarked, but again, just 9 guns at T7 seem cringily few for good effect.

Also, just for clarifcation's sake, Niyodo was to be the second ship of the Oyodo class which was cancelled on 6/10/41.

 

Tone preliminaries with their 5 turrets forward would also be interesting indeed, I would probably make that T9, above Suzuya.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
5,054 posts
2,939 battles
49 minutes ago, piritskenyer said:

I don'T understand the fuss about Nagara. You're not the first to bring her up to me, but every which way I look at her, she's a Kuma with a slightly different protection scheme, and while, I did enjoy Kuma even when she had +2/-2 MM, I can in no way see her work in a T7 match. Now granted, with longer range and better concealment she'd probably make it, but I still have reservations. It'd take quite some faildivisioning to get a sense of how Kuma would perfrom in T7 matchmaking.

 

Well it's true that the differences may not be obvious to the untrained eye ; but there are more differences between Kuma and Nagara than there are between Fubuki and Akatsuki.

Excluding all non-game-relevant things like hull shape and boilers and stuff, you may wanna know first and foremost that Nagara was equipped with 610mm torpedo tubes, a MAJOR step into the wonderful land of the Type 8 then type 90 torpedo. Her follow up class Sendai (which I count in when I say the Nagara super-class, so when I'm saying "Nagara should fit at TV" I'm saying Nagara or Sendai depending on your mood) even later mounted tubes capable of carrying the Type 93 (though Sendai herself never did but all her sister did).
Both Nagara and Sendai's torpedo tube layout was first similar to Kuma's, and then evolved from the four double, two per side into the one quadruple per side, so either are a possibility.

 

Besides the whole torpedo business another noteworthy aspect is the presence of a seaplane & catapult, which Kuma carried but lost quickly thereafter and is thus hardly represented on her. Whilst this is by no means a game-winning feature it's nonetheless something worth telling.

 

Depending of if it enters in your formula for calculating HPs or not, you may wanna know that Nagara represents a substancial increase in real displacement at war-time loadout compared to Kuma, gaining more than 1000t - not counting additional ballasts added afterwards.

 

On Sendai, the second AND third turret from aft are now "technically" capable of 360° turns and benefit from better firing arcs, especially backwards. The two lateral turrets at the front also benefit from much better firing arcs, both forward, and backwards compared to Kuma.

 

Speaking about the turrets, Sendai's one had a higher maximum elevation, and as a result could fire almost 2km further than that of Kuma or Nagara.

Whilst not linked to the class itself, it is also interesting to note that these 140mm received new shells in early 30s and once again in 1940, both times increasing power, precision and penetration substancially.

 

There is a rumor claiming that Nagara and/or Sendai enjoyed better turret implementation for an easier access to and transportation of the shells, resulting in increased rate of fire. I have not been able to confirm this one, but sources do list a wide variation within this weapon's rate of fire, that could be explained by an improved variant having been mounted somewhere, possibly on them. But please note that while it may be true, I cannot guarantee it by any means because I haven't found any proof or reliable source about this to this day.

 

I can't deny that the Nagara super-class is not a huge evolution from Kuma. But I believe she has enough tricks up her sleeve to naturally pretend being a tier higher without requiring that we unhistorically upgrade her -  or at least, if Nagara herself does not, one of Sendai's sister issued with 30s shells would totally do the trick. Besides, that'd allow you to raise Agano which, although difficult to place indeed, feels akward so low for such a late design, and also avoid completely inventing a ship for TVIII. Sure, it requires recalculating to know if Agano is worth TVI and C44 is worth at TVII, but I honestly think it looks much swifter as a branch that way,

 

This is just a suggestion tho, I was just curious as to what arguments you'd have that'd explain why you preffered lowering Agano and C44 in tier and put a fantasy ship rather than use a Nagara or Sendai.

 

1 hour ago, piritskenyer said:

Another thing that bothers me slightly is indeed trying to fit Agano and Agano Kai into T6 and 7 respectively. While I see how it could work at T6 for Agano (14km-ish gunrange on 7sec reload, 10km torps and sub 9km concealment - basically a Huanghe with worse AA and ballistics in exchange for better torps), Agano Kai would seriously lose steam for T7. Remember, we are talking 8x 6" guns at T7, capable of meeting T9's. While I'm sure it could be balanced accordingly (again, making stealthtorpedoing possible, propping up the range, etc), both ships would fit more naturally one tier down. 

 

Well, it is a trouble and I can understand why. The thing is, viewing IJN light cruisers with their guns only isn't quite right - in my opinion at least. Yeah, 4*2 155mm is ridiculous at TVII especially considering they aren't very fast or damageful either. But if you take the guns individually or the torps individually, Tenryuu should fit at TII and Kuma at TIII and so on too.
The real challenge, I think, is to find them a gameplay that doesn't rely on one of their asset at a time, but rather finetune them in that perfect way where they could use both their torpedoes AND main guns extensively, bringing out their strength by combining above-surface and underwater attacks. There's only like that that you'd make them good at a reasonnable tier.

Now, that's not easy by any means, but I guess it's that, the FailGaming way (slap a badgzillion of consumables and forget), or the lazy way - lower their tiers so that you don't have to fine-tune too much, and find yourself stuck when you're with an empty tier where no ship seems to fit.

Your choice isn't necessarly bad, it's just a bit... sad. But considering the kind of hard work just coming up with a proper higher-tier version can be, I can't blame ya xD

 

I do wanna point, though, that C44 was meant to lead DD squadrons to new heights. She was supposed to reach near an outstanding 38kn. While this might seem like a not-so-useful stat, sometimes it's around minor assets that can be created an original gameplay.

 

1 hour ago, piritskenyer said:

The nonexistent ship: I agree, it's a bit of a stretch, and I do feel guilty about it to some extent, but it would make a good transition between Agano Kai and Suzuya. One more gun per turret (and also a slightly bigger gun), then one more turret. Now, when I'm coming up with ideas, I'm trying to get them rooted in reality and looking at the Oyodo hull there is enough space to place two turrets in the rear with conventional aviation facilities (one catapult and two floats) if the extended aviation facilities were to be replaced. A problem that I do have is that phylosophy wise the Japanese never really seemed to go the way of 4-turret ships, and when they did it wasn't like other nations. The only cruiser in a 2F2A configuration that I even know of is Maya which started out life as 3F2A as part of the Takao class, and the only cruisers that were built as 4-turrets are 4F0A in the form of the Tones.

I somehow doubt they would have gone with a 2F2A CL any day of the week, but alas, that is what I'm looking to do with 'Niyodo' (let the record show that Trainspite is very much opposed to a 4-turret variant and insists on a 3-turret one for fear of a 4-turret being OP, which I don'T think would be the case). 2F1A would also be more typical of japanese shipbuilding with long lines comparative to the armament embarked, but again, just 9 guns at T7 seem cringily few for good effect.

 

Well, I don't think it matters much if the japanese "would have done" a ABXY light cruiser or not. You're creating something that's between a disguised heavy and a destroyer leader ; something the japanese never even envisionned. They would never have done that in the first place, their light cruisers always having the purpose to lead a smaller fleet, hence their lack of firepower but usually great mobility. You're heading into a concept that's totally wrong philosophy-wise, so I don't think you have to worry about the whole "would the japanese have done that" stuff.

 

Besides, if I might add, this part reinforces what I said earlier. Your view is focused on one element at a time - the guns - to the point you're not mentionning torpedoes at all. As far as I remember Ooyodo wasn't faring great when it comes to torpedoes, carrying a grand total of zero because she was meant to lead submarines. You're using an Ooyodo hull as a basis for a follow-up ship of a line where torpedoes are basically crucial, without ever even mentionning if you plan to add some or not.

 

I think you focus too much on having a ship that makes a correct step in gunpower towards Mikuma, forgetting that this is not everything there is. Even if you could make that amazing step between 4*2 and 5*3 main guns, you'd still have a laaaarge break in terms of armor, for exemple. You can't see one aspect at a time, that's especially crucial with IJN ships and even more crucial with their light cruisers - by studying the combat potential and continuity of your line, I'm honestly convinced you neeed to focus more on balancing torpedoes and guns rather than each individually meeting the standards of the tier, and then equilibrate the rest of the ship as a whole around her offense in general. That way, two sub-par weapons can be used in combination to make the vessel both interesting and useful in combat, because you designed the rest for that purpose ; and it leaves you a leeway in flowing power from one to another without losing balance - allowing a smooth transition towards Mogami on offensive terms, nor where guns increase steadily, but where the increase of gunpower is compensated by a proportional reduction of torpedo power that ends up in a similar, smoothly increasing medium over the tiers.

 

Also - side note -, if you want a 4*3 155mm, once again, you can pick Tone's preliminary design, because she was meant to carry them too. That would give you exactly the amount of guns you need (though in an original placement) and you wouldn't have to make a whole fantasy ship.

 

1 hour ago, piritskenyer said:

Tone preliminaries with their 5 turrets forward would also be interesting indeed, I would probably make that T9, above Suzuya.

... 5 turrets forward ? No, nono, not that. Just the four same turrets, but as triple 155mm. Just imagine it mogami-style completed : the japanese tricked the treaties by replacing the turrets with 155mm ones but the ship remains the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Supertester
3,200 posts
3,240 battles
4 hours ago, LastButterfly said:

 

Well it's true that the differences may not be obvious to the untrained eye ; but there are more differences between Kuma and Nagara than there are between Fubuki and Akatsuki.

Excluding all non-game-relevant things like hull shape and boilers and stuff, you may wanna know first and foremost that Nagara was equipped with 610mm torpedo tubes, a MAJOR step into the wonderful land of the Type 8 then type 90 torpedo. Her follow up class Sendai (which I count in when I say the Nagara super-class, so when I'm saying "Nagara should fit at TV" I'm saying Nagara or Sendai depending on your mood) even later mounted tubes capable of carrying the Type 93 (though Sendai herself never did but all her sister did).
Both Nagara and Sendai's torpedo tube layout was first similar to Kuma's, and then evolved from the four double, two per side into the one quadruple per side, so either are a possibility.

 

Besides the whole torpedo business another noteworthy aspect is the presence of a seaplane & catapult, which Kuma carried but lost quickly thereafter and is thus hardly represented on her. Whilst this is by no means a game-winning feature it's nonetheless something worth telling.

 

Depending of if it enters in your formula for calculating HPs or not, you may wanna know that Nagara represents a substancial increase in real displacement at war-time loadout compared to Kuma, gaining more than 1000t - not counting additional ballasts added afterwards.

 

On Sendai, the second AND third turret from aft are now "technically" capable of 360° turns and benefit from better firing arcs, especially backwards. The two lateral turrets at the front also benefit from much better firing arcs, both forward, and backwards compared to Kuma.

 

Speaking about the turrets, Sendai's one had a higher maximum elevation, and as a result could fire almost 2km further than that of Kuma or Nagara.

Whilst not linked to the class itself, it is also interesting to note that these 140mm received new shells in early 30s and once again in 1940, both times increasing power, precision and penetration substancially.

 

There is a rumor claiming that Nagara and/or Sendai enjoyed better turret implementation for an easier access to and transportation of the shells, resulting in increased rate of fire. I have not been able to confirm this one, but sources do list a wide variation within this weapon's rate of fire, that could be explained by an improved variant having been mounted somewhere, possibly on them. But please note that while it may be true, I cannot guarantee it by any means because I haven't found any proof or reliable source about this to this day.

 

I can't deny that the Nagara super-class is not a huge evolution from Kuma. But I believe she has enough tricks up her sleeve to naturally pretend being a tier higher without requiring that we unhistorically upgrade her -  or at least, if Nagara herself does not, one of Sendai's sister issued with 30s shells would totally do the trick. Besides, that'd allow you to raise Agano which, although difficult to place indeed, feels akward so low for such a late design, and also avoid completely inventing a ship for TVIII. Sure, it requires recalculating to know if Agano is worth TVI and C44 is worth at TVII, but I honestly think it looks much swifter as a branch that way,

 

This is just a suggestion tho, I was just curious as to what arguments you'd have that'd explain why you preffered lowering Agano and C44 in tier and put a fantasy ship rather than use a Nagara or Sendai.

 

Well, it is a trouble and I can understand why. The thing is, viewing IJN light cruisers with their guns only isn't quite right - in my opinion at least. Yeah, 4*2 155mm is ridiculous at TVII especially considering they aren't very fast or damageful either. But if you take the guns individually or the torps individually, Tenryuu should fit at TII and Kuma at TIII and so on too.
The real challenge, I think, is to find them a gameplay that doesn't rely on one of their asset at a time, but rather finetune them in that perfect way where they could use both their torpedoes AND main guns extensively, bringing out their strength by combining above-surface and underwater attacks. There's only like that that you'd make them good at a reasonnable tier.

Now, that's not easy by any means, but I guess it's that, the FailGaming way (slap a badgzillion of consumables and forget), or the lazy way - lower their tiers so that you don't have to fine-tune too much, and find yourself stuck when you're with an empty tier where no ship seems to fit.

Your choice isn't necessarly bad, it's just a bit... sad. But considering the kind of hard work just coming up with a proper higher-tier version can be, I can't blame ya xD

 

I do wanna point, though, that C44 was meant to lead DD squadrons to new heights. She was supposed to reach near an outstanding 38kn. While this might seem like a not-so-useful stat, sometimes it's around minor assets that can be created an original gameplay.

[...]

 

I went out and asked for advice from people that I know are more knowledgeable than me on the subject and what I basically came up with is that while Nagara and Sendai did in fact carry 610mm torps instead of 533mm like Kuma, the step up alone is not significant enough to make T5.

 

It would be possible to balance the ship as a "torpedo cruiser" with long range hard hitting torpedoes and low concealment, but then you end up with an overgrown destroyer with a citadel. 

For cruiser work, I think Agano would be better at T5, basically having the same broadside but heavier, the possibility to put all her torps out in both directions and better AA. I'm not excluding Nagara/Sendai as T5, but I'm not willing to push Agano up to T6. I still think Nagara or Sendai would be better off at T4, as their AA increases brought about the reduction of their main armament, which is problematic with regards to gameplay. I wouldn't even exclude splitting at Tenryu and making Sendai a T4 torpedo-focused cruiser as opposed to Kuma being gun-focused, although then we're back to Nagara being an improvement to Kuma overall. 

 

Agano Kai would also fit T6 very nicely, again, without being overpowered or too weak. I know I seem like somone who pounces too much on gun firepower instead of soft stats, but trust me - as a supertester, I've seen some things. You always have to start from the basic stats to balance a ship, because balancing around a gimmick just leads to headaches, testing cycles and even more headaches.

 

Also, Agano and Agano Kai carried and were supposed to carry refurbished 6"/50 guns from the Kongos and Fusos, not 155's.

 

4 hours ago, LastButterfly said:

Well, I don't think it matters much if the japanese "would have done" a ABXY light cruiser or not. You're creating something that's between a disguised heavy and a destroyer leader ; something the japanese never even envisionned. They would never have done that in the first place, their light cruisers always having the purpose to lead a smaller fleet, hence their lack of firepower but usually great mobility. You're heading into a concept that's totally wrong philosophy-wise, so I don't think you have to worry about the whole "would the japanese have done that" stuff.

 

Besides, if I might add, this part reinforces what I said earlier. Your view is focused on one element at a time - the guns - to the point you're not mentionning torpedoes at all. As far as I remember Ooyodo wasn't faring great when it comes to torpedoes, carrying a grand total of zero because she was meant to lead submarines. You're using an Ooyodo hull as a basis for a follow-up ship of a line where torpedoes are basically crucial, without ever even mentionning if you plan to add some or not.

 

I think you focus too much on having a ship that makes a correct step in gunpower towards Mikuma, forgetting that this is not everything there is. Even if you could make that amazing step between 4*2 and 5*3 main guns, you'd still have a laaaarge break in terms of armor, for exemple. You can't see one aspect at a time, that's especially crucial with IJN ships and even more crucial with their light cruisers - by studying the combat potential and continuity of your line, I'm honestly convinced you neeed to focus more on balancing torpedoes and guns rather than each individually meeting the standards of the tier, and then equilibrate the rest of the ship as a whole around her offense in general. That way, two sub-par weapons can be used in combination to make the vessel both interesting and useful in combat, because you designed the rest for that purpose ; and it leaves you a leeway in flowing power from one to another without losing balance - allowing a smooth transition towards Mogami on offensive terms, nor where guns increase steadily, but where the increase of gunpower is compensated by a proportional reduction of torpedo power that ends up in a similar, smoothly increasing medium over the tiers.

 

Also - side note -, if you want a 4*3 155mm, once again, you can pick Tone's preliminary design, because she was meant to carry them too. That would give you exactly the amount of guns you need (though in an original placement) and you wouldn't have to make a whole fantasy ship.

 

Once again, I consuted people more knowledgeable than mysef. I was under the impression that the Tone preliminaries went from Mogami 3rd batch (more on those later) 5x3x 155mm --> Armaments forward 5x3x 155mm --> armaments forward 4x2x 8". That turned out to not be the case, as with the move of the main armament forward the number of turrets for Tone preliminaries was reduced to 4. I did not know that, but as such, I'd be happy to place it as a T7 instead of 'Niyodo' and just outright ditch the latter. I would like to insist on smaller aviation facilities however and more AA on the quarterdeck in order to set the ship apart from Tone and Chikuma proper, as I would like to see those in a CAV line someday. Trainspite once assigned the name 'Yoshino' to the 4x3x 155 Tone preliminary, I'd like to keep that. 

 

The fact that Tone and Chikuma was originally going to be the 3rd batch of Mogamis also lead to one of the people I talked to to suggest that their original proposed form (better armoured Mogami) could be end up as T9 CL's, which I also included here. I have not given her a name yet, but I'm open to suggestions. Has to be a river.

 

With all that said, this is how the lines would actually look like:

 

Tier\line CA CL CAV
3   Tenryu  
4 Kuma Nagara  
5 Furutaka Agano  
6 Aoba Agano Kai Oyodo
7 Myoko 'Yoshino' (Tone prem) Tone
8 Mikuma Suzuya Mogami
9 Ibuki Mogami 3rd batch preliminary  
X Zao    
       

 

As you can see, I placed Oyodo into the CAV line, as the lowest tier aviation cruiser. Research wise she'd be researched from Agano (this one is actually realistic, as she was developed on the basis of the Agano), would lead to Tone, which in turn would lead to Mogami (as reconstructed into a CAV). Mogami in turn would lead into the 3rd batch preliminary.

Suzuya herself would simply take over Mogami's current research tree but the 8" guns would lead to Ibuki or Mikuma and the hull would lead to the 3rd batch preliminary. the 3rd batch preliminary would lead to Zao.

This way the main battery progression would be 6 --> 8 --> 12 --> 15 --> 15

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UTW]
Weekend Tester, In AlfaTesters
8,072 posts
6,714 battles

Still a shame your proposal makes Agano a tier 5 and 6 for a cruiser class built in 1940-41. They're too beautiful for sitting as the same tier as Aoba. :'(

Gives them 8km concealment, a smoke, 12 km torps, and 6 seconds reload, and you get a very decent tier 8. Actually it's exactly how Iwaki Alpha works at tier 4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
5,054 posts
2,939 battles
12 minutes ago, piritskenyer said:

it'd be too long if I left the text - clarity is important

 

Well, these are valid arguments. Your tree is your concept, so I disagree with your view on the light cruisers and the comparison you make between Kuma and Sendai historically (historically Sendai was far more raffined and workable, so much that she deserves to be called a better vessel, even more than what the Yuugumos are to the Asashios).

But me disagreeing is merely a difference in ideology that the conception of techtrees imply and does not by any mean imply that either you or me are wrong. It's honestly more a matter of opinion as to how one wanna build the trees.

 

I'd be one to criticize. My own trees are far more... eccentric anyway, because I don't write trees only but also the rules of the whole game, so I allow myself far more leeway in both gameplay concept and tiering. I can understand that you wouldn't have this much leeway.

 

Either way, even thou I couldn't convince you, I enjoyed the debate. Don't hesitate coming if you have any other idea for IJN vessels or vessels in general. I'm starting to have quite the large database (and knowledge, if you allow me a split-second of boasting) of real ships from any nations and the most obscure designs from all major ones. I'd love to share my links with you and debate more about these ideas~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×