Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
RadioFighterYR

USS Tennessee BB-43, 1944

9 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Players
30 posts
595 battles

There probably are more topics on ''will you please add this ship? thx a lot'' but in this case I want to be more elaborate, so...

9614915Y.jpg


I'd start again with '''will you please add this ship?'' Thx a lot. Specifically her 1943 refit would be an interesting idea to see in-game as a tier 6 battleship.


Survivability: I'd suggest giving it a health pool of around 54 000-54 500, especially as it's obviously going to be a really good brawler judging by the picture. The armor would be the same as any Standard type BB - 203-343mm belt, thickest in the middle, 330mm barbettes, 457mm turret face, 406mm bridge and conning tower and decks up to 89mm - or basically, its historical armor scheme -- with 25mm extremities like on any tier 6 battleship. Superstructure armor of 19mm, like on any other battleship, excluding the conning tower (which is 406mm thick as we mentioned)


Primary firepower: triple 356mm/50 Mark 11 as of 1942, in four turrets. The turrets were originally designed to elevate further (up to 30 degrees) to give better range and that should be available in-game too; I'd suggest maximum range of 17.5 km without Artillery Plotting Room upgrade. The dispersion problems existing on earlier Mark 4 and Mark 6 were rectified and I suggest implementing this in-game slightly differently; like on the Soviet BB line accuracy must be better under 12km, but with certain changes, for example, accuracy under 12km could be 15 or 20% better on the Tennessee than on any Soviet BB, while accuracy above 12km could be 15 or 20% worse. I feel like rate of fire should also be touched and brought down to 30 or 31 seconds instead of 34, because as I mentioned, the Mark 11 guns were changed a lot. To balance out the generally OP statistics of the guns that I've given, I'd suggest cutting down on the turret traverse by making it 65 or 70 seconds for traversing 180 degrees.

The choice of ammunition would be the same, except that I am thinking to further balance the guns by giving them AP only. Battleships outside of the RN line are mostly AP-based and very rarely use HE, and having HE this accurate under 12km is quite a bit too OP.
 


Secondary firepower: double 127mm/38 Mark 38 as of 1943 in eight turrets, four per side. These secondaries can recieve great rate of fire, the equivalent of the Gearing's main guns when using Main Battery modification 3 (2.4 sec.) and be given a range similar to a Bayern with secondary build. That would balance out the low number of secondaries per side, as usually found on American battleships, and give them more dakka so that they are actually able to hurt destroyers and still start some fires.


AA firepower: Not much to say here... maybe that'd be the balancing point of the ship. My idea is the vaporize its long-range AA out of existence by simply not making the 127mm guns dual-purpose.


Mobility. Standard mobility, so standard, just like a Standard type battleship. Only thing I'd do is maybe slow the rudder shift down, about 18 seconds seems okay. Speed stays the same, 21 knots, but an interesting gimmick would be to give it extremely quick acceleration so that with the relatively weak secondaries it still has a decent chance to survive rushing destroyers, or be able to dodge out shells slightly faster than usual.


What do you think about my idea? Please comment, or suggest changes.

Thanks!  And let's hope this ship (possibly my favorite American battleship) gets implemented.

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TTTX]
[TTTX]
Players
4,608 posts
8,081 battles

error 404 not even an attempt at balance found. You want upsides pretty much everywhere.

 

And despite that, your concept with all its imbalances doesnt even seem fun - 21kts no turret traverse and it's supposed to be a brawler? U wot m8?

 

Plus which, we already have the NewMex and Arizona, so how would you justify the need for a third clone?

 

 

So overall, nope to the content of your suggestion. Thumbs up for the effort put into it though - very easy and convenient to read, even if I dont agree! :Smile_honoring:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[JRM]
Players
5,425 posts
22,529 battles

Maybe at T7 as a freexp or something

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
30 posts
595 battles
3 minutes ago, Tyrendian89 said:

error 404 not even an attempt at balance found. You want upsides pretty much everywhere.

 

And despite that, your concept with all its imbalances doesnt even seem fun - 21kts no turret traverse and it's supposed to be a brawler? U wot m8?

 

Plus which, we already have the NewMex and Arizona, so how would you justify the need for a third clone?

 

 

So overall, nope to the content of your suggestion. Thumbs up for the effort put into it though - very easy and convenient to read, even if I dont agree! :Smile_honoring:

Wow, you actually found imbalance in the guns. If not the turret traverse, then maybe something else, the reload, or the range could be cut down significantly. Besides, New Mexico and Arizona have the same top speeds of 21 knots, and their turret traverse is not that much better and they are still mostly brawlers, especially the New Mex.

The need for a third clone? Not really a need for it. It is just a slightly different Standard-type that could be even more close-range focused whilst still keeping some of their well-known characteristics (speed, or lack thereof, and armor)

As for my style of writing, thanks. I love that I could be understood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
30 posts
595 battles
4 minutes ago, Yedwy said:

Maybe at T7 as a freexp or something

Tier 7 could do, as the really bad turret traverse that I suggested would simply not be needed as a balancing point. In fact, it can actually be better, at about 50 or 45 seconds.
The problem is, the guns I suggested would be AP-only and for Tier 7, where it can't overmatch anything (but be overmatched itself), it would either have to fire at the superstructure or just have HE added.

If there is still no HE for a tier 7, then it'd have to focus cruisers, which is also not an option, as it is huge and slow, and cruisers can just run circles around it. It couldn't wait for cruisers to come too close either, because if they know about its accuracy under 12km that I suggested, they simply wouldn't come so close.

So if it'd be a tier 7, maybe just add HE, and preferential matchmaking like in WoT so it doesn't see tier 9s which it can't penetrate at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[MORIA]
Players
7,142 posts
33,525 battles
34 minutes ago, Tyrendian89 said:

Plus which, we already have the NewMex and Arizona, so how would you justify the need for a third clone?

It can be on T7. DoY and KGV also have 356mm guns. Why not a T7 slow Massachusetts? Or simply AA build would be fine too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BIF]
Players
281 posts
4,073 battles

Would be nice to see her ingame, i always liked her 1944 refit look. She saw alot of combat in the Pacific, so she has historical value too.

 

Maybe as a T6 coal ship ? We dont have anything between T5 and T9, except Aigle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
6,316 posts
245 battles

I would have her as a tier 6 coal ship with 60 sec turret traverse with 6km secondaries (so mini massa basically). Her sis california with regular bb accuracy thingy, giving it better sigma than new mexico but worse dispersion and maybe 63 turret traverse (or 50 sec turret traverse for a more brawling theme) and 31 sec reload with similar secondaries and maybe 56k hp (make her a bit moar tankeh) give noice turning speed and better AA as well. Maybe shell velocity and weaker armour or worse torpedo belt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SINT]
Players
684 posts
19,093 battles
1 hour ago, K82J said:

Would be nice to see her ingame, i always liked her 1944 refit look. She saw alot of combat in the Pacific, so she has historical value too.

 

Maybe as a T6 coal ship ? We dont have anything between T5 and T9, except Aigle.

 

We need some extra FXP/COAL premium ships in the range of tier 6 and tier 7 since we only have Aigle and Nelson. There are some nice US BB's that received a post Pearl Harbor refit.  Either a VW 1944 or Tenessee 1944 at tier VII or a Tier VI Nevada post 1942 (more aa then New Mex, but loses 2 main guns).

 

But if you hate sloooow boats, these are not your friends..

 

Share this post


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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×