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

ST 0.10.1, ZF-2 and Z-31

59 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[ALYEN]
Players
2,601 posts
4,358 battles

Ah, excuses in a devblog ... How do you excuse the 3.1 vs 3.3 smoke firing detection between Z-31 and the existing German 150mm DDs ? That's one of the major weaknesses for them ...

 

And by the looks of it, Z-31 will be an even worse DD than Z-23 which is quite the achievement ... but the last 2-3 German DDs were total crap anyway (T-61 being the only exception).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,322 posts

Oh how convenient for WG. The only DD that looked like Z31 is Z39. No other DD of the 1936 A Mob class had this configuration.

 

Ohhh and how convenient that WG already has the Z39 model available.

How convenient indeed......

 

tenor.gif.7b46f6ddf040f55967388754d1f70b49.gif

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
241 posts
8,067 battles

So with Z31 my first impression about this new line-

 

They are garbage- I was sure that at T7, Z23 without conealment mod, Smoke and speed boost would do very decent job thanks to huge HP pool and decent guns despite the bad concealment of 8 km. But this Z31 (which is copy of Z39 but worse) is so bad, No DPM, No torp, No AA and questionable concealment with all those considered.

 

Also talking about consistency while Z23 makes main line inconsistent, I don't understand anymore.

 

Only Maerker in this line is good because of workable DPM,AA,HP and maneuvarbility.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BLITZ]
Modder
5,213 posts
9,490 battles
2 hours ago, Hugh_Ruka said:

T-61 being the only exception

And I would not be surprised at all, when one day Wargaming decided that this dutch design is better suited in the Pan-EU tech tree.

Not at all...

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
31 posts
17,173 battles

Z39 also has 4 150mm guns, same as z31 but has a higher ranger (and a worse dispersion) , a better torp with longer range(8.5 against 8.0) and higher damage (14400 against 13700), a better detectability, a better hydro, an engine boost and among all, a smoke. The maneuverability of two ships is almost same. And also, z 39 has a higher hp. I dont think this is balanced. Z39 is really a strong ship in tier 7, but in another hand, z31 will be a weakest ship among her tier. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SHAD]
Players
3,787 posts
15,168 battles
50 minutes ago, CacciatorpediniereArmato said:

Z39 also has 4 150mm guns, same as z31 but has a higher ranger (and a worse dispersion) , a better torp with longer range(8.5 against 8.0) and higher damage (14400 against 13700), a better detectability, a better hydro, an engine boost and among all, a smoke. The maneuverability of two ships is almost same. And also, z 39 has a higher hp. I dont think this is balanced. Z39 is really a strong ship in tier 7, but in another hand, z31 will be a weakest ship among her tier. 

Z-39 does not have high pen or improved ricochet angles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
31 posts
17,173 battles
22 minutes ago, gopher31 said:

Z-39 does not have high pen or improved ricochet angles.

Maybe you are right, but as the development blog shows, these two ships share the same ammo, we dont know yet if z31 has really got magical buff like better pen or improved angles (Elbing really has an amazing ap). Even if z31 really has a magical ap as Elbing, she has already lost too much

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CR33D]
[CR33D]
Players
3,303 posts
30,633 battles

Seems like only T9 and T10 get improved pen angles. T7 and T8 have standard 45 - 60 degree.  There are some differences in armour between Z-31 and Z-39. As being downtiered from T8, Z-39 kept 19mm hull compared to usual 16mm of T7 DDs. Z-31 has 16mm bow and stern but middle section of hull, both belt and deck, is 25mm. Maerker and Schulz both have 25mm belt and 19mm deck, while Elbing, just like Z-31, has 25mm both belt and deck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quality Poster, In AlfaTesters
1,873 posts
14,712 battles

I don't accept the excuse for the laziness of Z-31, just copy and paste the Z-39 like so many other ships.

 

Despite the reason given, the choice to implement Z-31 in its current form is only laziness.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,575 posts
17,990 battles
Vor 8 Stunden, principat121 sagte:

And I would not be surprised at all, when one day Wargaming decided that this dutch design is better suited in the Pan-EU tech tree.

Not at all...

Well, then at least one could run that boat with the PEU special commander. :cap_rambo::Smile_trollface:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[THESO]
Weekend Tester, In AlfaTesters
4,208 posts
9,991 battles
19 hours ago, _FrostVortex_ said:

Clarifications regarding the models of ZF-2 and Z-31, changes to ZF-2, and the characteristics of Z-31.

 

Read more here: https://blog.worldofwarships.com/blog/115

 

So Basicly you removed one of the Rear Turrets of Z-31 so that it has one less Gun than the Next Ship in the Line. Thus making the next Ship an actual Upgrade.

I mean. I guess thats fine.

 

Albeit. Your Description Sounds like this would have been some Blueprint or Prototype Ship.

When this was actually an Existing Class of Ships which were Finished and even saw Combat.

So I am not sure what all this talk about Protoype Design is supposed to be about. A Series of 7 Finished Ships in Service is hardly a Prototype or Blueprint Design

 

 

Also,

Why did you Remove one the Rear Guns. Thus making a Setup which was in Fact never used ?

If you just wanted to Reduce the Number of Guns down to 4. You could have used the Early Variant when the Twin Turret wasnt Finished and thus the Z31 was Fitted with a Single 15cm Gun Turret for the Forward Turret.

This would also have given the DD a bit of a Uniqueness as it would have had a Single Front Turret. But 3 Rear Turrets. Making it more Suitable to Kiting,

 

 

I actually tought you would go for a Hull Upgrade here.

Basicly having the Twin Turret as an Researchable Upgrade.

 

 

 

 

Oh. And since I am Asking Questions anyways.

Any Info on when we get a Type 1945 Destroyer as T10 Freemium ? :)

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-TPF-]
Players
4,669 posts
19,137 battles
6 hours ago, Sunleader said:

This would also have given the DD a bit of a Uniqueness as it would have had a Single Front Turret. But 3 Rear Turrets. Making it more Suitable to Kiting,

But that would have involved doing something other than copying and pasting Z-39. I agree that making Z-31 more interesting would be a good thing, but corners are being cut in ship design of late....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ZEN]
Players
1,446 posts
14,982 battles
5 hours ago, invicta2012 said:

But that would have involved doing something other than copying and pasting Z-39. I agree that making Z-31 more interesting would be a good thing, but corners are being cut in ship design of late....

Yeah just look at how many Romas we have (Putting the awful balancing of the tech tree ships aside...) WGs art department that carries the game the most is starting to slack by cutting corners, if it wasn't for them the messes made by the marketing and gimmicks(balance) departments would have been far worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quality Poster, In AlfaTesters
1,873 posts
14,712 battles
On 1/30/2021 at 5:52 AM, Sunleader said:

So Basicly you removed one of the Rear Turrets of Z-31 so that it has one less Gun than the Next Ship in the Line. Thus making the next Ship an actual Upgrade.

Even if Z-31 had 5 turrets, Maerker has faster reload (6.5s vs 7.5s), noticably more HP (25k vs 19.4k) and DFAA among other things.

 

On 1/30/2021 at 5:52 AM, Sunleader said:

Also,

Why did you Remove one the Rear Guns. Thus making a Setup which was in Fact never used ?

But this setup was used, with Z39.

 

The Type 1936A (Mob) destroyer class (Z31 to Z39, excluding Z35 and Z36) was designed to have 5x 150mm guns, a twin turret at the front and 3 single turrets at the back. Almost all of the ships of this class used this setup.

 

There were two exceptions.

  • Z39, the last of the class to be constructed, received some Plan Z modifications before her launch, most notably a significant increase in the amount of AA guns present with some AA guns replacing one of her 3 rear turrets.
  • Z31, the first of the class to be constructed, was ready sooner than the twin turret was, so she was launched with a single in the forward gun position instead of a twin turret, although she did receive the twin turret later on.

There are a number of other examples among the 1936A (Mob) class of armament changes, for example Z31s twin turret was destroyed in battle and later replaced with a single 105mm gun. Z34 also lost a turret and for a short time a turret was taken from Z33 to replace the one Z34 had lost, and as a result Z33 also received replacement AA guns much like the armament Z39 had when she was launched. Most of them received additional AA guns during their careers but only two of them had a rear gun replaced with AA (Z33 and Z39).

 

If Z-31 is supposed to be a representation of the Type 1936A (Mob) class it is a failure, it does not represent the average ship of this class as most of the ships had 5 guns.

If Z-31 is supposed to be a representation of the lead ship Z31 then it is again a failure, Z31 kept all 3 of her rear single turrets throughout the war.

The only possible explanation is that Z-31 is supposed to be a Plan-Z version of the 1936A class, assuming that they would all have their No 3 turret removed and receive additional AA, because she has 8x 3.7cm guns and 20x 2cm guns which is more than most ships of the class received in total after their refit (if they got one).

 

Conveniently, option 3 allows them to use the model of Z-39 and just replace 4 of the AA mounts and ta-da! New ship.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,113 posts
On 1/29/2021 at 3:48 PM, Hugh_Ruka said:

Ah, excuses in a devblog ... How do you excuse the 3.1 vs 3.3 smoke firing detection between Z-31 and the existing German 150mm DDs ? That's one of the major weaknesses for them ...

 

And by the looks of it, Z-31 will be an even worse DD than Z-23 which is quite the achievement ... but the last 2-3 German DDs were total crap anyway (T-61 being the only exception).

Do you mean by tier last 2-3, or the premiums they released last 2-3?? Becoz if you say Z-23, Z-46, and Z-52 are bad, i will vomit lol. I used to play them on my NA account and i love them. The Z-46 and Z-52 are monsters if you play them right. And Z-46 has american/british concealment lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,113 posts
On 1/30/2021 at 12:07 AM, fumtu said:

Seems like only T9 and T10 get improved pen angles. T7 and T8 have standard 45 - 60 degree.  There are some differences in armour between Z-31 and Z-39. As being downtiered from T8, Z-39 kept 19mm hull compared to usual 16mm of T7 DDs. Z-31 has 16mm bow and stern but middle section of hull, both belt and deck, is 25mm. Maerker and Schulz both have 25mm belt and 19mm deck, while Elbing, just like Z-31, has 25mm both belt and deck.

How do yo know this, like is their any link to this source of info where yo got this info??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,113 posts
On 1/30/2021 at 11:22 AM, Sunleader said:

Oh. And since I am Asking Questions anyways.

Any Info on when we get a Type 1945 Destroyer as T10 Freemium ? :)

Its gonna be a German halland or a crap DD anyway. No question about it. I mean look at Z-44

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CR33D]
[CR33D]
Players
3,303 posts
30,633 battles
5 hours ago, totally_potato said:

How do yo know this, like is their any link to this source of info where yo got this info??

 

Gamemodels3d site

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[THESO]
Weekend Tester, In AlfaTesters
4,208 posts
9,991 battles
20 hours ago, Astolfo_Is_My_Waifu said:

Even if Z-31 had 5 turrets, Maerker has faster reload (6.5s vs 7.5s), noticably more HP (25k vs 19.4k) and DFAA among other things.

 

But this setup was used, with Z39.

 

The Type 1936A (Mob) destroyer class (Z31 to Z39, excluding Z35 and Z36) was designed to have 5x 150mm guns, a twin turret at the front and 3 single turrets at the back. Almost all of the ships of this class used this setup.

 

There were two exceptions.

  • Z39, the last of the class to be constructed, received some Plan Z modifications before her launch, most notably a significant increase in the amount of AA guns present with some guns replacing one of her 3 rear turrets.
  • Z31, the first of the class to be constructed, was ready sooner than the twin turret was, so she was launched with a single in the forward gun position instead of a twin turret, although she did receive the twin turret later on.

There are a number of other examples among the 1936A (Mob) class of armament changes, for example Z31s twin turret was destroyed in battle and later replaced with a single 105mm gun. Z34 also lost a turret and for a short time a turret was taken from Z33 to replace the one Z34 had lost, and as a result Z33 also received replacement AA guns much like the armament Z39 had when she was launched. Most of them received additional AA guns during their careers but only two of them had a rear gun replaced with AA (Z33 and Z39).

 

If Z-31 is supposed to be a representation of the Type 1936A (Mob) class it is a failure, it does not represent the average ship of this class as most of the ships had 5 guns.

If Z-31 is supposed to be a representation of the lead ships Z31 then it is again a failure, Z31 kept all 3 of her rear single turrets throughout the war.

The only possible explanation is that Z-31 is supposed to be a Plan-Z version of the 1936A class, assuming that they would all have their No 3 turret removed and receive additional AA, because she has 8x 3.7cm guns and 20x 2cm guns which is more than most ships of the class received in total after their refit (if they got one).

 

Conveniently, option 3 allows them to use the model of Z-39 and just replace 4 of the AA mounts and ta-da! New ship.

 

Yes. Z39 which is already in the Game. Not Z31.

Z31 is an already Existing Ship. So according to WGs own Statement to their Doctrine. They should have Chosen a Certain Date and basicly Model the Ship to that Date.

Instead they went with a Setup not actually found on that DD. But on another DD of the same Class which is already in the Game.

 

Z39 made alot of Sense as a Premium DD. Because it was a Ship with a Unique Refit inside that Class. Which the other Ships didnt have.

But if they now use exactly that Unique Setup for the Main DD of the Class. Then it makes no sense at all....

 

 

 

 

6 hours ago, totally_potato said:

Its gonna be a German halland or a crap DD anyway. No question about it. I mean look at Z-44

 

Unlikely to be a Halland. German AA is Heavy AA Based.

Which is why German AA is Generally Great against Noob CVs that havnt learned to Dodge Flak yet. But useless against anything else.

 

However. Zerstörer 1945. Which in Navyfield was Named Z99 and will in World of Warships likely get its own Name instead.

Would make for a Pretty Good Gun DD.

 

4x2 128mm Guns. 2x5 Torpedo Launchers. And a bit Bigger than Z52.

They can basicly Give it the same Reload and Damage as Z52 but make the Torpedoes 6km Range.

 

That would put it at a DPM Value of 180k for HE Shells. Meaning that its basicly a Daring but with weaker Guns and instead a better Hydro.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CR33D]
[CR33D]
Players
3,303 posts
30,633 battles
Just now, Sunleader said:

Z31 is an already Existing Ship. So according to WGs own Statement to their Doctrine. They should have Chosen a Certain Date and basicly Model the Ship to that Date.

Instead they went with a Setup not actually found on that DD. But on another DD of the same Class which is already in the Game.

 

It doesn't matter if it is existing ship. If it is a regular tech tree ship than it represent a combination of the whole class, not a particular ship. I'm not saying that is right thing to do, or that is the way it should be, but that is the way it is, that is a WG doctrine. They stated it over and over every time they were criticised why some ship is not correctly representing its historical model, like the most recent case of Vittorio Veneto.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[THESO]
Weekend Tester, In AlfaTesters
4,208 posts
9,991 battles
8 minutes ago, fumtu said:

 

It doesn't matter if it is existing ship. If it is a regular tech tree ship than it represent a combination of the whole class, not a particular ship. I'm not saying that is right thing to do, or that is the way it should be, but that is the way it is, that is a WG doctrine. They stated it over and over every time they were criticised why some ship is not correctly representing its historical model, like the most recent case of Vittorio Veneto.

 

Which means. In the end. Its just WG being Lazy.

So instead of Modeling the Extra Turret they just Copy Paste Z39.

Job Done....

 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ALYEN]
Players
2,601 posts
4,358 battles
7 hours ago, totally_potato said:

Do you mean by tier last 2-3, or the premiums they released last 2-3?? Becoz if you say Z-23, Z-46, and Z-52 are bad, i will vomit lol. I used to play them on my NA account and i love them. The Z-46 and Z-52 are monsters if you play them right. And Z-46 has american/british concealment lol

T-61 should be a hint what I was talking about ...

Share this post


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

×