Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
invicta2012

Et Tu, Brute?

32 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[-TPF-]
Players
4,649 posts
19,101 battles

Back in the day, WG tested an adjusted Tier VI version of the Guilio Cesare - amusing named the Guinio Bruto.

 

The idea - back then - was that this would be an actual replacement for the GC (i.e. GC would be removed from the game completely, and that you'd get the GB instead).

Predictably the community was outraged and the idea was shelved. But, with the Italian Tech Tree line in play and seemingly doing quite well, I'd quite like the GB back as a Tier VI Premium BC.

 

Basically - take all of the things which are good about GC (dispersion, health, speed, rudder), and all of the bad (weak AA), jack it all up to Tier VI (including improving the plating from 19 to 26 mm), but give the ship Tier V guns (305mm) on a fast reload (25/26s) rather than the 320s/30s on the Andrea Doria. A Dunkerque style penalty to detection (rather than the super-sneaky GC). wouldn't be a bad idea. But you'd still have a fast-firing BC, not suffering *too* much from a small gun calibre (because SAP), and a worthy companion to Dunkerque and PEF in the BC stakes. Anyone interested?

  • Cool 5
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[JRM]
[JRM]
Players
7,766 posts
3 minutes ago, invicta2012 said:

Anyone interested?

nope

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-TPF-]
Players
4,649 posts
19,101 battles
Just now, Yedwy said:

nope

Well, there's constructive. Any reason why not? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
30,911 posts
15,691 battles

A stock WW1 ship has no place at Tier VI.

Even artificially improving it makes her feel out of place. Even Andrea Doria is already a stretch at Tier VI. And she would not be a BC, just a bad fit with 21 knots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DREAD]
Players
10,840 posts
7,470 battles
16 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

A stock WW1 ship has no place at Tier VI.

Even artificially improving it makes her feel out of place. Even Andrea Doria is already a stretch at Tier VI. And she would not be a BC, just a bad fit with 21 knots.

He isn’t talking about Cavour (which is in a WW1 config) but about Giulio which is a full rebuilt 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
30,911 posts
15,691 battles
20 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

He isn’t talking about Cavour (which is in a WW1 config) but about Giulio which is a full rebuilt 

He is talking about 305mm guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[JRM]
[JRM]
Players
7,766 posts
1 hour ago, invicta2012 said:

Well, there's constructive. Any reason why not? 

Many, in short wrong concept of a ship

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-TPF-]
Players
4,649 posts
19,101 battles
46 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

He is talking about 305mm guns.

I'm talking about creating a hybrid Battlecruiser by taking the historic rebuilt hull of the Guilio Cesare, adding a dash of game mechanics (armour plating defined by Tier) and a measure of BC/Super Cruiser principles (that they have an MB calibre equal or below to 12 inches and a faster reload than BBs) and wondering if this might be interesting to play. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
30,911 posts
15,691 battles
1 minute ago, invicta2012 said:

I'm talking about creating a hybrid Battlecruiser by taking the historic rebuilt hull of the Guilio Cesare, adding a dash of game mechanics (armour plating defined by Tier) and a measure of BC/Super Cruiser principles (that they have an MB calibre equal or below to 12 inches and a faster reload than BBs) and wondering if this might be interesting to play. 

In other words: a fantasy ship.

Not interested.

 

I prefer the Francesco with 1.8 Sigma. That is a ship what basicly does what you want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
69 posts
1,447 battles
4 hours ago, invicta2012 said:

Back in the day, WG tested an adjusted Tier VI version of the Guilio Cesare - amusing named the Guinio Bruto.

 

The idea - back then - was that this would be an actual replacement for the GC (i.e. GC would be removed from the game completely, and that you'd get the GB instead).

Predictably the community was outraged and the idea was shelved. But, with the Italian Tech Tree line in play and seemingly doing quite well, I'd quite like the GB back as a Tier VI Premium BC.

 

Basically - take all of the things which are good about GC (dispersion, health, speed, rudder), and all of the bad (weak AA), jack it all up to Tier VI (including improving the plating from 19 to 26 mm), but give the ship Tier V guns (305mm) on a fast reload (25/26s) rather than the 320s/30s on the Andrea Doria. A Dunkerque style penalty to detection (rather than the super-sneaky GC). wouldn't be a bad idea. But you'd still have a fast-firing BC, not suffering *too* much from a small gun calibre (because SAP), and a worthy companion to Dunkerque and PEF in the BC stakes. Anyone interested?

Yes, add to my scenario battle ship line out

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
557 posts
7 ore fa, Yedwy ha scritto:

nope

Really.. Palese... It is enough fill ourselves with ships as if there were no tomorrow.. Force-fed like geese to make WG have its foie gras.

Listen to the palyerbase that is the real value of any company and give us back our beloved game

 

(Sorry for my klingon english... )

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SM0KE]
Players
6,889 posts
15,435 battles
7 hours ago, invicta2012 said:

Anyone interested?

I've always assumed the eventual T6 GC would be the post-war Russian flavoured version with a few tweaks to turn the existing T5 into a T6. If WG were feeling frisky, they could always make it a 'dual nation' thing a la Rudy in Tanks...

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CR33D]
[CR33D]
Players
3,300 posts
30,552 battles
10 hours ago, invicta2012 said:

Basically - take all of the things which are good about GC (dispersion, health, speed, rudder), and all of the bad (weak AA), jack it all up to Tier VI (including improving the plating from 19 to 26 mm), but give the ship Tier V guns (305mm) on a fast reload (25/26s) rather than the 320s/30s on the Andrea Doria. A Dunkerque style penalty to detection (rather than the super-sneaky GC). wouldn't be a bad idea. But you'd still have a fast-firing BC, not suffering *too* much from a small gun calibre (because SAP)

 

So basically you want a premium that would be much better than regular T6 Italian BBs, trying to justify all the buffs by having 305mm guns instead of 320mm, like there is some big difference between having one instead of other. Truly there is a one, 320mm AP shells have better penetration than 305mm. But beside that there is no difference at all.

  • 320mm can overmatch 22mm, 305mm overmatch 21mm. Considering thresholds we have in the game this 1mm doesn't matter at all.
  • 320mm SAP can pen 82mm while 305mm can pen 79mm. At T6 I couldn't find a single plate where having 3mm less pen on SAP would make a difference.

So in regarding of overmatch and SAP pen there is no difference at all. Damage wise, if use Cavour 305mm shells as reference, 320mm shells deal more damage, but as you suggesting a better reload for your new premium, their DPM, both AP and SAP is almost the same. But due much better dispersion Bruto would have much better effective DPM, especially the SAP one.

 

Now lets compare hulls? Bruto would even have 500 HP more health which we could ignore, but basically they have same healthpool. Armour wise, both have 220mm belt, but while Doria has 150mm and 70mm upper belt, GC hull has 130mm universal. So technically GC has better armour. And you replace GC bow with 26mm, same as Doria? And sold it as a BC because ..... 15mm smaller guns?

 

10 hours ago, invicta2012 said:

... and a worthy companion to Dunkerque and PEF in the BC stakes. 

 

No it would not be worthy but straight better than them. Mostly thanks to SAP ability to citadel almost any cruiser at T6 and even some at T7, and dealing much more consistent damage as its accuracy would be much better than that of Dunq and PEF. So this is basically just sugarcoating a new OP ship request. I doubt that was your intention but in the end your proposal means just that as you are believing that it is such a drawback having 305mm guns instead of 320mm at T6 that it justify having better reload and better accuracy. And last thing that all those poor cruisers at T5-T7 needs is a BB with accurate guns that can blap them with a SAP.

 

So no, I am very against this.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,072 posts
4 hours ago, fumtu said:

No it would not be worthy but straight better than them. Mostly thanks to SAP ability to citadel almost any cruiser at T6 and even some at T7, and dealing much more consistent damage as its accuracy would be much better than that of Dunq and PEF. So this is basically just sugarcoating a new OP ship request. I doubt that was your intention but in the end your proposal means just that as you are believing that it is such a drawback having 305mm guns instead of 320mm at T6 that it justify having better reload and better accuracy. And last thing that all those poor cruisers at T5-T7 needs is a BB with accurate guns that can blap them with a SAP.

If the guns are based on the same 12" Italian battleship versions already in the game, those being the ones currently mounted on Dante and Cavour (only an assumption but then that's all we're working with right now), the SAP shells would each be doing 7,850 citadel damage. The AP shells, on the other hand, would be doing 8,100. Those cruisers would have more to worry about from AP citadels especially at slight angles, as would destroyers in most situations (Italian battleship SAP does 10% damage to destroyers, AP overpens do 10% damage, AP having the higher number again makes it the more powerful choice unless hitting between the AP ricochet-check angle and the rather better SAP one). Italian battleship SAP only really gets good from T7 when the shells finally start out-damaging AP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CR33D]
[CR33D]
Players
3,300 posts
30,552 battles
5 minutes ago, NobleSauvage said:

Those cruisers would have more to worry about from AP citadels

 

Why? Especially if SAP does more consistent damage. 305mm doesn't overmatch every cruiser everywhere and could still easily bounce on anything angled. On the other hand SAP can pen cruisers everywhere. If if you not hit citadel you can easily deal 10k or even more with good salvo which is almost half of the T6 cruiser HP. And here we have proposal for quite accurate BB, so why would it ever use AP vs lightly armoured targets. Even against DD and considering 10% limitation. T6 DD HP pool is really small and if you can land 3 to 4 hits on range, even more at close, and you have quite a fast reload, 10% per shell will hurt a DD quite a lot. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,072 posts
12 minutes ago, fumtu said:

 

Why? Especially if SAP does more consistent damage. 305mm doesn't overmatch every cruiser everywhere and could still easily bounce on anything angled. On the other hand SAP can pen cruisers everywhere. If if you not hit citadel you can easily deal 10k or even more with good salvo which is almost half of the T6 cruiser HP. And here we have proposal for quite accurate BB, so why would it ever use AP vs lightly armoured targets. Even against DD and considering 10% limitation. T6 DD HP pool is really small and if you can land 3 to 4 hits on range, even more at close, and you have quite a fast reload, 10% per shell will hurt a DD quite a lot. 

Because of what I pointed out. Italian battleship SAP doesn't do more consistent damage: it can ricochet, it can hit parts that might be too thick for it that the AP would blow through. If you don't hit the citadel then you might deal more damage with a SAP pen than an AP overpen (although that's a quick route to damage saturation so good luck with subsequent volleys), but a) you might not overpen with the AP and b) you were talking about citadels specifically. The answer to 'why would a 'quite accurate'(Italian, SAP-armed) BB ever use AP vs. lightly armoured targets is, again, bigger citadels against cruisers and the expectation of higher damage against destroyers also. Why would you load an ammo type that does less damage and has few if any mitigating advantages, when you could load a higher-damage type instead?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CR33D]
[CR33D]
Players
3,300 posts
30,552 battles
1 minute ago, NobleSauvage said:

Because of what I pointed out. Italian battleship SAP doesn't do more consistent damage: it can ricochet, it can hit parts that might be too thick for it that the AP would blow through.

 

If SAP bounce than there is a good chance that AP will bounce too, especially if you are hitting a  part which it can't overmatch. And difference in the damage is between 305mm AP and SAP is not that big. If you want to use mostly AP than feel free to do it. IMO SAP is more consistent. Of course if you can't pen citadel armour with SAP you will use AP, but if you can, have opportunity and have SAP loaded than there is no reason to switch to AP first is SAP will do the work too. But that is to how you manage your shell types. All this is completely pointless considering this proposal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,072 posts
1 minute ago, fumtu said:

 

If SAP bounce than there is a good chance that AP will bounce too, especially if you are hitting a  part which it can't overmatch. And difference in the damage is between 305mm AP and SAP is not that big. If you want to use mostly AP than feel free to do it. IMO SAP is more consistent. Of course if you can't pen citadel armour with SAP you will use AP, but if you can, have opportunity and have SAP loaded than there is no reason to switch to AP first is SAP will do the work too. But that is to how you manage your shell types. All this is completely pointless considering this proposal. 

No, if SAP bounces from armour that's too thick, there's still quite a lot of scope for AP to work against the same target given the far larger penetration values (there's a difference between non-penetration and ricochet in the game mechanics). SAP and AP overmatch at the same rate, so that's not a factor; any limitation there would be more down to the comparatively small calibre of the guns than shell choice. 'Not that big' a difference in damage is still a difference; I'm not trying to convince you not to use SAP at all, if you've been having more luck with that than the AP then more power to you, but I've found (and the available information seems to support) the opposite; and again, why deliberately choose a less-damaging ammo type if there are no advantages like fire chance? If you're basing the idea of SAP being overpowered on the concept that 'if you have SAP loaded by mistake when shooting for citadels there's no point in changing it to AP', that seems pretty unsound as an argument, particularly when the same could frequently be said of HE and that seems to be what you're comparing to.

 

WG has made pretty thoroughly sure that Italian battleship SAP is not as overpowered as everyone was predicting, and before T7 if anything they've actually ended up making it underpowered. I doubt it would be a problem in the kind of application that @invicta2012 is suggesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CR33D]
[CR33D]
Players
3,300 posts
30,552 battles
1 minute ago, NobleSauvage said:

No, if SAP bounces from armour that's too thick, there's still quite a lot of scope for AP to work against the same target given the far larger penetration values (there's a difference between non-penetration and ricochet in the game mechanics).

 

If SAP bounce from the target is is either because it is too thick or too angled. If SAP bounce because armour is too angled. than AP will bounce too, unless it can overmatch it. London has 25mm upper belt. If your SAP bounce on that than AP will bounce too. But if SAP can pen it, it doesn't mean that AP will pen it too, as SAP has improved penetration angles.

 

1 minute ago, NobleSauvage said:

SAP and AP overmatch at the same rate, so that's not a factor; any limitation there would be more down to the comparatively small calibre of the guns than shell choice. 'Not that big' a difference in damage is still a difference; I'm not trying to convince you not to use SAP at all, if you've been having more luck with that than the AP then more power to you, but I've found (and the available information seems to support) the opposite; and again, why deliberately choose a less-damaging ammo type if there are no advantages like fire chance?

 

Well if you don't want to use SAP that is your problem. If you are limiting yourself to just one shell type just because you don't see advantage of the other that is on you. 

 

1 minute ago, NobleSauvage said:

If you're basing the idea of SAP being overpowered on the concept that 'if you have SAP loaded by mistake when shooting for citadels there's no point in changing it to AP', that seems pretty unsound as an argument, particularly when the same could frequently be said of HE and that seems to be what you're comparing to.

 

WTF? Show me where did I said that SAP is overpowered.

 

1 minute ago, NobleSauvage said:

WG has made pretty thoroughly sure that Italian battleship SAP is not as overpowered as everyone was predicting, and before T7 if anything they've actually ended up making it underpowered. I doubt it would be a problem in the kind of application that @invicta2012 is suggesting.

 

If you don't understand what are application of accurate T6 BB with SAP shells, shell that would never overpenetrate lightly armoured cruisers at that tier and will deal a lot of damage, than I don't see point of arguing with you . SAP on Italian BBs is not too strong for one reason, a that is accuracy. Why do you think they sigma is so poor? Because great AP?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,072 posts
1 hour ago, fumtu said:

If SAP bounce from the target is is either because it is too thick or too angled.

Correct, that's what I said.

1 hour ago, fumtu said:

If SAP bounce because armour is too angled, than AP will bounce too, unless it can overmatch it.

Yes, but if SAP bounces because the armour is too thick, AP still has a much better chance of penetrating.

1 hour ago, fumtu said:

London has 25mm upper belt. If your SAP bounce on that than AP will bounce too.

Not unless the AP has less than 25mm of penetration. It has more, so this example is wrong.

1 hour ago, fumtu said:

But if SAP can pen it, it doesn't mean that AP will pen it too, as SAP has improved penetration angles.

You seem to be confusing non-penetrations and ricochets again.

 

Quote

Well if you don't want to use SAP that is your problem. If you are limiting yourself to just one shell type just because you don't see advantage of the other that is on you. 

I never said I don't use SAP, just that it's not very useful on the T6 and below Italian battleships (those that have the same or similar guns to what we've been talking about).

 

Quote

WTF? Show me where did I said that SAP is overpowered.

Hmm...

7 hours ago, fumtu said:

No it would not be worthy but straight better than them. Mostly thanks to SAP ability to citadel almost any cruiser at T6 and even some at T7, and dealing much more consistent damage as its accuracy would be much better than that of Dunq and PEF. So this is basically just sugarcoating a new OP ship request.

Or did you mean something else by that?

 

Quote

If you don't understand what are application of accurate T6 BB with SAP shells, shell that would never overpenetrate lightly armoured cruisers at that tier and will deal a lot of damage, than I don't see point of arguing with you . SAP on Italian BBs is not too strong for one reason, a that is accuracy. Why do you think they sigma is so poor? Because great AP?

I've been pointing out logical and factual flaws in what you've been saying this whole time, if one of us doesn't understand the application of SAP shells in various circumstances here it isn't me. Also, you started off talking about SAP citadels (see the above quote), now you're trying to talk about anything but. SAP has disadvantages more than just the inaccuracy, and those are what I've been pointing out; if you don't see the point in arguing then I imagine it's because you don't have an answer to any of those points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CR33D]
[CR33D]
Players
3,300 posts
30,552 battles
15 minutes ago, NobleSauvage said:

I never said I don't use SAP, just that it's not very useful on the T6 and below Italian battleships (those that have the same or similar guns to what we've been talking about).

 

Lol. And why do you think is that?

 

Quote

Or did you mean something else by that?

 

You understand from that that I said that SAP is OP? Wow, just .... wow. So basically you haven't read what I wrote but instead decided that 305mm SAP is all my post is about. Well done.

 

Quote

I've been pointing out logical and factual flaws in what you've been saying this whole time,

 

Which flows?

 

Quote

.... if one of us doesn't understand the application of SAP shells in various circumstances here it isn't me.

 

Hmmm .... somehow I doubt that is a case.

 

Quote

Also, you started off talking about SAP citadels (see the above quote), now you're trying to talk about anything but. SAP has disadvantages more than just the inaccuracy, and those are what I've been pointing out; if you don't see the point in arguing then I imagine it's because you don't have an answer to any of those points.

 

So what is actually wrong about what I said? Are you saying can't citadel T5-T7 with it? Did I said to just use SAP? But if you don't see SAP potential that is your problem not mine. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,072 posts
16 minutes ago, fumtu said:

Lol. And why do you think is that?

As per my above posts (you should have a look over them again for the specific details): SAP on those ships can fail to penetrate sufficiently thick armour, can ricochet and has lower damage potential than the AP; given that the only advantage that leaves over the AP shells is that the ricochet angle is more generous, SAP has a lot less utility than HE in equivalent circumstances.

 

Quote

You understand from that that I said that SAP is OP? Wow, just .... wow. So basically you haven't read what I wrote but instead decided that 305mm SAP is all my post is about. Well done.

It seems I need to quote your own first post in this thread to you once more, because apparently you might need to look that one over again too:

8 hours ago, fumtu said:

No it would not be worthy but straight better than them. Mostly thanks to SAP ability to citadel almost any cruiser at T6 and even some at T7, and dealing much more consistent damage as its accuracy would be much better than that of Dunq and PEF. So this is basically just sugarcoating a new OP ship request. I doubt that was your intention but in the end your proposal means just that as you are believing that it is such a drawback having 305mm guns instead of 320mm at T6 that it justify having better reload and better accuracy. And last thing that all those poor cruisers at T5-T7 needs is a BB with accurate guns that can blap them with a SAP.

Again, unless 'OP' means something different to you than 'overpowered', or you think that 'mostly' overpowered has a meaningful distinction from another kind, you seem to be misremembering. Also, as has been clear from my posts, I was specifically responding to the part of your about the SAP in order to correct a misconception. I wasn't commenting on the rest of your post, or I would have quoted it.

 

If this particular quote from your post has a different meaning to the one I'm ascribing, what is that?

 

Quote

Which flows?

Flaws*. I've been quoting them.

 

Quote

Hmmm .... somehow I doubt that is a case.

You're entitled to your opinion. If you have facts to back it up, you could make it into an argument.

 

Quote

So what is actually wrong about what I said? Are you saying can't citadel T5-T7 with it? Did I said to just use SAP? But if you don't see SAP potential that is your problem not mine. 

Where did I suggest any of those things?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CR33D]
[CR33D]
Players
3,300 posts
30,552 battles
1 minute ago, NobleSauvage said:

It seems I need to quote your own first post in this thread to you once more, because apparently you might need to look that one over again too:

 

If taking a things out of context is a point of this game I guess you would be a super uniqum player. Bravo. Have a nice day.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,072 posts
1 minute ago, fumtu said:

If taking a things out of context is a point of this game I guess you would be a super uniqum player. Bravo. Have a nice day.

So no answers to any of my questions, huh?

Share this post


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

×