RN BBs

[Machine_Cookie]

But it raises an interesting tangent question about the place of ships with weird setups e.g. Scharnhorst. Where do you put something that's a modern battleship in every way except it has 11" guns?!

 

Caliber isn't everything.

[Historynerd]

Tier VIII Vanguard very good with the 15" mark II (hello moron-kun the proposed mark IIs not the WW1 ones) not much difference to the German 15" despite their edge in RoF which can be easily compensated by a better spread (better radar FC it also had) and much better AA it already had

 

 

 

The Vanguard was fitted with the 15-inch Mark I gun, the turrets those that had been removed from the Courageous and Glorious when they were transformed into aircraft carriers.

The only saving grace that they might have in terms of performance could be their use of supercharges, though.

 

 Tier X N3. Matching gun caliber and performance Yamato, matching protection Montana, might need a boost in speed and AA but its a paper ship none the less, done right easily a Yamato contender. It needs some help since it was an early proposal but it fits nicely if done right. Certainly much better than suddenly matching 9x16" vs 12x16" vs 9x18,1"vs potentially 8x17". 

 

The proposed 18-inch Mark II gun followed the same philosophy that was the basis for the 16-inch Mark I mounted on the Nelson-class, and contrary to the philosophy of the successful 13.5-inch and 15-inch guns used that far (i.e., firing at a relatively high muzzle velocity a relatively low weight shell, instead of firing at a lower muzzle velocity a heavier one).

Given the issues that the 16-inch guns had (namely, their ballistic performance turned out to be disappointing, with only marginal improvements compared to the 15-inch Mark I), it's doubftul that these weapons would have been a match for the Japanese 460 mm.

 

[Comrad_StaIin]

also the n3 has an aweful turret layout it would propably the least favoured battleship at tier 10 just like the FV 4003 was in WoT

[Trainspite]

Tier 3 or 4, I have put 4 if Courageous gains Warspite like accuracy. This way it should be able to delete a few cruisers, but it is still the hideously vulnerable ship for it's size. Maybe having a longer range like Myogi would balance things out, but I think it very likely for Courageous (Under the name Glorious) to turn up as a battlecruiser. Not so sure about Furious, 2 18 inch guns might be stretching what is already an extreme ship. Plus Furious is more suited to appear as a tier 6 carrier.

 

Always lovely to see the RN fans getting more and more delusional, hey maybe the KGV will be made tier 10 since it was so awesome, especially its turret breakdowns that plagued its quad turrets until late 1943. Even the USN modernized Iowa well after WW2 never achieved 3 rpm but the proposed brit one did..(the mysterious   Mark IV mounts of which no source was provided, probably Harry Potter powered and the britannium armour made of an element previously and today unknown). Whatever you are smoking dudes lay it off, it seems to melt your brains. The RN has very solid choices for their BB tree and their BC tree without bullshi*** too much.

As I said use the proposed 15" mark IIs along with the speed and fire control and you have an excellent Tier 8 in the Vanguard. KGV best tier 7, Lion tier 9, and N3 tier 10.

 

So if you think about it for a moment what would be the result?

 

Tier III Dreadnought or Bellerophon ok tier III

Tier IV Colossus ok tier IV

Tier V Iron Duke en par with New York      

Tier VI Queen Elisabeth very good ship at tier VI

Tier VII KGV best ship at tier VII nuff said

Tier VIII Vanguard very good with the 15" mark II (hello moron-kun the proposed mark IIs not the WW1 ones) not much difference to the German 15" despite their edge in RoF which can be easily compensated by a better spread (better radar FC it also had) and much better AA it already had

Tier IX Lion, excellent ship proposal certainly matching Iowa, easily better than Izumo.

Tier X N3. Matching gun caliber and performance Yamato, matching protection Montana, might need a boost in speed and AA but its a paper ship none the less, done right easily a Yamato contender. It needs some help since it was an early proposal but it fits nicely if done right. Certainly much better than suddenly matching 9x16" vs 12x16" vs 9x18,1"vs potentially 8x17". 

 

So what do we get? A matching line that makes sense and even should solve most issues with the die hard RN fans since it would put that line on average to be easily the best all terms considered (fire power, speed, protection, AA) even taking fictional H-39 and H-41 into account.    

 

There is the historical facts that need to be taken into the account and the fact that this is a game that needs to be balanced and does need to make sense to the none navy fanatics.    

 

Time to ruthlessly dismantle this post.

This was a proposed design, much like everything. 3 RPM was the target, although that only existed in paper, and yes sources are available. But that is still more real than the Roon. 

 

Vanguard had no Mk.2s. They were the Mk.1s from Courageous and Glorious. Tier 8 is still ideal though since she is tier 9 in basically all other aspects.

 

Tier 3: Dreadnought, Bellerophon, St Vincent, Invincible, Indefatigable

Tier 4: Orion, KGV(1911), Erin, Agincourt, Lion, Queen Mary, Courageous, Colossus, Neptune

Neptune and Colossus are awkward ships to place, to good for tier 3, slightly lacklustre for tier 4. My guess is a tier 4 premiums.

Tier 5: Iron Duke, Canda, Tiger

Tier 6: QE, Revenge, Renown, Warspite

Tier 7: Nelson, (Design A, 27 knot QE) Hood, F2 & F3

KGV "best ship at tier 7" Yes, that is because it would be overpowered as flip. Seriously? You are taking a ship with the best AA, and armour at tier 8, good speed, and decent guns and putting it at tier 7. You do realise that puts it up against ships like Tennessee, which it outclasses in almost every way imaginable. Armour, AA, Speed, Firepower. That is just silly, yes her firepower will be sub-par at tier 8, but that can be solved easily.

Tier 8: KGV(1938) J3, M2, Vanguard

Tier 9: Lion(1939), N3, G3

Tier 10: Lion (1945) L3, K3(or H3, or I3)

N3 can't compete at tier 10. She is far too slow. And has a turret arrangement that is awkward to use in game. And generally she is worse in all respects to Yamato.  And mostly inferior to Montana too. L3 is a better fit, since the turret layout is easier to use and not constricted, and she was designed to be sailing around at 25 knots.

 

The ships characteristics vary wildly from tier to tier, going from Lion with her excellent speed, to N3 which is slow for example. You have a horrifically overpowered ship at tier 7. 

 

Needless to say, I'm trying to decide what is worse, your attitude in that post, or the tech tree. (Probably your attitude, the tech tree was mostly fine until tier 6)

 

[Getzamatic]

Tier 3 or 4, I have put 4 if Courageous gains Warspite like accuracy. This way it should be able to delete a few cruisers, but it is still the hideously vulnerable ship for it's size. Maybe having a longer range like Myogi would balance things out, but I think it very likely for Courageous (Under the name Glorious) to turn up as a battlecruiser. Not so sure about Furious, 2 18 inch guns might be stretching what is already an extreme ship. Plus Furious is more suited to appear as a tier 6 carrier.

 

 

Time to ruthlessly dismantle this post.

This was a proposed design, much like everything. 3 RPM was the target, although that only existed in paper, and yes sources are available. But that is still more real than the Roon. 

 

Vanguard had no Mk.2s. They were the Mk.1s from Courageous and Glorious. Tier 8 is still ideal though since she is tier 9 in basically all other aspects.

 

Tier 3: Dreadnought, Bellerophon, St Vincent, Invincible, Indefatigable

Tier 4: Orion, KGV(1911), Erin, Agincourt, Lion, Queen Mary, Courageous, Colossus, Neptune

Neptune and Colossus are awkward ships to place, to good for tier 3, slightly lacklustre for tier 4. My guess is a tier 4 premiums.

Tier 5: Iron Duke, Canda, Tiger

Tier 6: QE, Revenge, Renown, Warspite

Tier 7: Nelson, (Design A, 27 knot QE) Hood, F2 & F3

KGV "best ship at tier 7" Yes, that is because it would be overpowered as flip. Seriously? You are taking a ship with the best AA, and armour at tier 8, good speed, and decent guns and putting it at tier 7. You do realise that puts it up against ships like Tennessee, which it outclasses in almost every way imaginable. Armour, AA, Speed, Firepower. That is just silly, yes her firepower will be sub-par at tier 8, but that can be solved easily.

Tier 8: KGV(1938) J3, M2, Vanguard

Tier 9: Lion(1939), N3, G3

Tier 10: Lion (1945) L3, K3(or H3, or I3)

N3 can't compete at tier 10. She is far too slow. And has a turret arrangement that is awkward to use in game. And generally she is worse in all respects to Yamato.  And mostly inferior to Montana too. L3 is a better fit, since the turret layout is easier to use and not constricted, and she was designed to be sailing around at 25 knots.

 

The ships characteristics vary wildly from tier to tier, going from Lion with her excellent speed, to N3 which is slow for example. You have a horrifically overpowered ship at tier 7. 

 

Needless to say, I'm trying to decide what is worse, your attitude in that post, or the tech tree. (Probably your attitude, the tech tree was mostly fine until tier 6)

 

 

It's best to ignore Warsinger2. He regularly flips his lid when somebody suggests the KGVs at tier eight despite the fact it's self evidently the obvious choice.  If I remember correctly, he also accuses anyone who defends the KGV at tier eight of being a  "delusional fanboy," is completely unable to comprehend the notion that there is more to a battleship than the size of it's guns and is convinced that the North Carolina was not a treaty restricted battleship design...

[Trainspite]

 

It's best to ignore Warsinger2. He regularly flips his lid when somebody suggests the KGVs at tier eight despite the fact it's self evidently the obvious choice.  If I remember correctly, he also accuses anyone who defends the KGV at tier eight of being a  "delusional fanboy," is completely unable to comprehend the notion that there is more to a battleship than the size of it's guns and is convinced that the North Carolina was not a treaty restricted battleship design...

 

Ah. Okay then....

[anonym_MfZ6T7iwWpUC]

I think the KGV would be a really interesting BB to play, and yes, T8 is the obvious place for it. Looking forward to trying the Nelson as well.

[VC381]

I think the KGV would be a really interesting BB to play, and yes, T8 is the obvious place for it. Looking forward to trying the Nelson as well.

 

In a pure BB line the Nelson would be the "obvious" Tier 7 probably, she would be a cool ship but the firing arcs might get annoying if/when you need to run away from something.

[anonym_MfZ6T7iwWpUC]

 

In a pure BB line the Nelson would be the "obvious" Tier 7 probably, she would be a cool ship but the firing arcs might get annoying if/when you need to run away from something.

 

If all else fails, you could see if they are willing to play chicken with 9 16” guns. If you’re going to go down, go down fighting.

[BuccaneerBill]

Really would like to see the Invincible or Indefatigable class at tier 3.  This is to add something different to the other tier 3 nations BB's.  HMS Dreadnought should be a premium IMO. HMS TIger at tier 4 maybe? Got to love them Battlecruisers.

 

[Getzamatic]

Really would like to see the Invincible or Indefatigable class at tier 3.  This is to add something different to the other tier 3 nations BB's.  HMS Dreadnought should be a premium IMO. HMS TIger at tier 4 maybe? Got to love them Battlecruisers.

 

 

Tiger is nigh identical to Kongo - in fact she had slightly better armour and was a touch faster pre-modernisation - so she's clearly tier five material.

 

The Lion class battlecruisers might work as tier 4 ships.  Their gun layout wasn't optimal and they're slower than Myogi is in the game.

[BuccaneerBill]

I would have thought the Kongo with all the rebuilds (which I assume we have in game) would be superior to Tiger.  Lion would be nice too, though I wouldn't compare them to the Myogi (lets be honest its pretty darn poor), the Imperator and Wyoming are the standard setters for tier 4 I think.

[RamirezKurita]

I would have thought the Kongo with all the rebuilds (which I assume we have in game) would be superior to Tiger.  Lion would be nice too, though I wouldn't compare them to the Myogi (lets be honest its pretty darn poor), the Imperator and Wyoming are the standard setters for tier 4 I think.

 

They were almost identical in original layouts, only with Tiger having slightly smaller guns, so original specs will be very similar

 

It is true that the Kongos underwent more modernisations, however that's because HMS Tiger was scrapped due to the London Naval Treaty in the early 30s which is when most of those old battlecruisers had their extensive refits, it is highly likely she would have undergone an extensive rebuild similar to Renown in the 30s if she weren't scrapped so I would expect WG to throw together a fictional rebuild that would represent a "what-if?" scenario had Tiger not been scrapped.

[VC381]

Lion and Tiger may as well be sister ships except for the turret layout, they have same speed and armour so I don't think you can justify them being a tier apart based on only one awkward firing arc. Kongo as built was very similar to Tiger, slightly bigger guns (although interestingly the same weight shell), slightly thinner armor, more or less same speed. Unfortunately the "splendid cats" were scrapped between the wars but it wouldn't be hard to give them a fictional refit based on what Renown got (new bridge, command and fire control equipment, increased gun elevation, better AAA etc.), which would keep their fighting prowess in line with the re-built Kongo as she was in WWII.

 

Even if Dreadnought herself was to be a premium (because unique ship and all that) the next classes along (Bellerophon or St. Vincent) were essentially identical in layout and would make fine starter battleships as well. Invincible and Indefatigable might be balanced at Tier 3 but all battleships struggle against cruisers at that tier, Invincible with a 6-gun broadside and 6" armor would probably get shredded by the current cruisers it would face. We're also back to the RN having too many ships, we would need two lines for that to work.

[BuccaneerBill]

You could give the splendid cats a fictional upgrade, though personally I would prefer not. To be honest I could see any of the Battlecruiser's from Lion->Tiger at Tier 4 in their historical state.  With 1.8 ROF or so, I don't think they would be OP and should be pretty balanced.  Only problem is Myogi, which is a turd (this probably needs 2.0 ROF+accuracy buff).

[Comrad_StaIin]

HMS dreadnought should be the tier 3 since WG always takes the first dreadnought of the Nation as Tier 3 (South Carolina,Kawachi,Nassau)

[Getzamatic]

Lion and Tiger may as well be sister ships except for the turret layout, they have same speed and armour so I don't think you can justify them being a tier apart based on only one awkward firing arc. Kongo as built was very similar to Tiger, slightly bigger guns (although interestingly the same weight shell), slightly thinner armor, more or less same speed. Unfortunately the "splendid cats" were scrapped between the wars but it wouldn't be hard to give them a fictional refit based on what Renown got (new bridge, command and fire control equipment, increased gun elevation, better AAA etc.), which would keep their fighting prowess in line with the re-built Kongo as she was in WWII.

 

Compared to Lion, Tiger fired heavier shells (1400 lb vs 1290 lb) had a more potent secondary armament (6" vs 4"), enjoyed about a knot and a half of extra speed and while her maximum armour thickness was the same, it was more extensive so she enjoyed somewhat better protection.

 

Compared to the Kongos, all of the splendid cats had thicker armour as built as they all had 9" belts compared to Kongo's 8" belt.  Lion and Princess Royal had inferior firepower - they could only fire the lighter shells because their ammo hoists were not designed for the later shell - but Queen Mary and Tiger could fire the 1400 lb shell which meant their firepower was effectively identical.  As built the Kongos had the same speed as the Lions and were a fraction slower than Tiger.

 

Kongo can be thought of at an intermediary design between Queen Mary and Tiger, but in reality all of these ships had effectively the same fighting power.

 

To elaborate on my earlier point of Renown and Repulse's armour.  Immediately after WW1 they were both refitted with a 9" belt and had their original 6" belts raised to form an upper belt.  This gave them significantly more protection than an unrebuilt Kongo.  When Renown recieved her last modernisation she had her deck protection significantly augmented, so in that form she remained better protected than a modernised Kongo.  Even with only six guns, Renown and Repulse had a marginally heavier broadside than the Kongos (11520 lb vs 11200 lb), and the individual shells were much more destructive.

 

The Japanese may have reclassified the Kongos as fast battleships after their rebuild, but they were kidding themselves.  The rebuilt Kongos were very useful and effective ships, but they were no more likely to survive an encounter with a proper fast battleship than Renown was.

[VC381]

Very true, I remembered after I posted that Lion and Tiger fired different shells but I couldn't find a reference as to whether Lion was ever refitted with heavier hoists so thanks for clearing that up.

[Killerbin34]

It would also in gameplay terms with the North Carolina being a very good bow on tank will be superseded by the KGV with her superior Deck Armour as well as the fact she is built to withstand 16'' whereas the North Cals i believe were built to withstand the US 14'' which in most cases the KGV's outperformed chiefly at the kind of ranges engagement will occur so it shall be interesting to see how they'd perform.