First German BB Leak - STOP THIS PAPER "WHAT-IF" UPGRADE IDIOCY!

[Gojuadorai]

Let's hope that their guns get a sigma value >1.8 (sigma value of Tirpitz guns is 1.8) :v

 

you got a link to a list of guns sigma values?

i'd be intrested in that

[Darth_Glorious]

 

you got a link to a list of guns sigma values?

i'd be intrested in that

 

There it is :

[piritskenyer]

 

I see... you are even forgetting something - ships turn much faster ingame than they would IRL.

 

You last point, however, is moot once guns became gyrostabilized. Is still very true for most lower-tier ships, though.

 

Not completely moot because a gyro can't compensate for everything and a ship has more movement axes than a tank for example. Early gyroscopic stabilisation didn't even rely on keeping the guns pointedonto target at all times, but rather used a "stable vertical" system where the gyroscope would be aligned onto a vertical position while the ship was in drydock or otherwise tied down, and would allow fire when the ship was within a set range of divergence from that vertical. When the gun plot was completed, elevations and leads set, they would pull the "automatic trigger" which would fire the guns when the ship reached the stable vertical point in its movement. 

In other words, the difference between tank stabs and ship stabs was that the tank guns are fully stabilised, while ship guns were actually not. Today of course with ship guns rarely if ever exceeding 155mm the guns are light enough to be kept stabilised over their full range of travel.

[Devi1]

 

If they did the ship would have sunk due to the weight. Balancing naval loads is a delicate process.

 

Sorry, english is not my native language, i thought about the weight/space (and other conditions) too in my "possibility".

[Unintentional_submarine]

 

It's 0.352 for mk8 SHS of the 16inch mk7 and 0.292 for the Type 91 of the 46cm. Lower means flatter arc.

 

Thanks.

Those values indicate that it will be slightly easier to hit with the German guns than the USN Mk8s, and that the penetration gets comparably better the further they travel (German shells are faster and loses speed slower). The question is when the speed superiority overtakes the better krupp of the Mk8. Overall I think they are going to be pretty comparable with little to make them discernibly different when playing. So in effect Mk8s that are slightly easier to hit with but with much fewer guns and worse reload. Yikes...

 

A minor, but perhaps important aspect, is that the German 420s will probably never have an angle of fall that can penetrate the deck of any ship. 420mm isn't enough to overmatch anything 406mm can't. So if the angle of fall is slighter there won't even be long range plunging strikes (which the Mk8 armed USN ship can achieve with some difficulty).

[fnord_disc]

 

Thanks.

Those values indicate that it will be slightly easier to hit with the German guns than the USN Mk8s, and that the penetration gets comparably better the further they travel (German shells are faster and loses speed slower). The question is when the speed superiority overtakes the better krupp of the Mk8. Overall I think they are going to be pretty comparable with little to make them discernibly different when playing. So in effect Mk8s that are slightly easier to hit with but with much fewer guns and worse reload. Yikes...

 

A minor, but perhaps important aspect, is that the German 420s will probably never have an angle of fall that can penetrate the deck of any ship. 420mm isn't enough to overmatch anything 406mm can't. So if the angle of fall is slighter there won't even be long range plunging strikes (which the Mk8 armed USN ship can achieve with some difficulty).

 

Also less normalization, which helps enormously with deck armor.

 

I hope I'll be proven wrong, but T9/10 look like lemons to me.

[Darth_Glorious]

Unfortunately, the penetration of German 406 mm gun is not great, it is weaker than Yamato and Iowa guns

[Unintentional_submarine]

 

Also less normalization, which helps enormously with deck armor.

 

I hope I'll be proven wrong, but T9/10 look like lemons to me.

 

Yep, touched upon this in another thread (urgh... splitting the effort). Didn't even consider the plunging capability in that regard. Does make it even worse in that. With 4 degrees of normalisation they need to have a fall of at least 26 degrees to have a hope of not auto-bouncing against 32mm plating. Unfortunately navweaps doesn't have a listing for the angle of fall, but if we use the 380mm chart it is beyond 25km to get to that angle of fall (the game is actually rather correct in this regard). So chances are that it is impossible. Yamato just lolpens of course and the Mk 8 will reach the angle of fall required for regular pens around 24km (the further out the better of course as at the least range most shells will still bounce).

 

I'm not ready to call them lemons as we only have the gun stats, but those gun stats are really bad.

[GrossadmiralThrawn]

 I'm not ready to call them lemons as we only have the gun stats, but those gun stats are really bad.

 also even if the ship would theoretically be able to take 4 full citadel salvos of a yamato it wouldn't be impressive... why? Well tanking is all nice and fine... but

1) if the ship doesnt impose any REAL danger to the other BBs they can theoretically "ignore" it and wreck the rest of hte team... making it's tanking abilities mood until it's the last one standing and gets pounded by the remaining enemy team...

2) Tanking helping the team is all nice and fine... but it doesnt give you anything great (aside Dreadnought, that fire thing and the flooding thing... all 3 of whcih are nice to ahve and useful but nothing really impressive)... you wont get any silver to get in the costs... you wont get any experience (not that it really matters at that tier) BUT you will end up with a nice bill at the end of the battle especially if ye got sunk

[fnord_disc]

 also even if the ship would theoretically be able to take 4 full citadel salvos of a yamato it wouldn't be impressive... why? Well tanking is all nice and fine... but

1) if the ship doesnt impose any REAL danger to the other BBs they can theoretically "ignore" it and wreck the rest of hte team... making it's tanking abilities mood until it's the last one standing and gets pounded by the remaining enemy team...

2) Tanking helping the team is all nice and fine... but it doesnt give you anything great (aside Dreadnought, that fire thing and the flooding thing... all 3 of whcih are nice to ahve and useful but nothing really impressive)... you wont get any silver to get in the costs... you wont get any experience (not that it really matters at that tier) BUT you will end up with a nice bill at the end of the battle especially if ye got sunk

 

I agree with this. Tankiness is not useless, but it isn't as useful as it would be in other games. No matter how tanky a ship is, she can still be damaged with regular penetrations and HE. Maybe the torpedo protection is good and the fire chance low, but damage is taken nonetheless.

 

Also, consider where being tanky is useful. You can soak up damage for allies, but only if you are shot at and not your allies. This means you need to be quite close to the enemy to force them to fire on you instead of your allies, and the enemies might just ignore you anyway no matter how close you are.

 

Besides, I'm not so sure the H classes will be that enormously tanky. Remember, they both have only a 300mm belt. That's Fuso's belt. Getting 10k on a penetration salvo will not be very difficult. Most of this can be repaired, sure, but how is the enemy going to go away if the guns aren't up to the job? Are allies going to kill them all?

 

I'm not really sure how the Hs are supposed to leverage tankiness for their team, how it can make the team win.

[Unintentional_submarine]

The survivability is just one aspect, it is the only one we know of yes, but still only one.

 

They could have incredible Concealment values. They could have surprisingly small turning circles and short rudder shift. They could bleed very little power in turns. Their AA could be seriously impressive (heh). There are many areas where they could be different (and better).

 

Regarding the survivability I'm not entirely sure that the better citadel protection is a great advantage at the highest tiers. Yes, it protects against Yamato lol-pens through the bow that Montana is unfortunate enough to suffer from. But aside form that the citadels are generally something people tend to guard very hard. Hence the bow-in gameplay. At that point fire chance reduction and penetration protection are much more important. Fire chance reduction is supposedly better. But we know from Tirpitz that penetration is worse, and the two H ships will functionally be the same, if not slight worse in this regard.

 

One thing the citadel protection can help with is allowing the H ships to disengage or play a more maneuvering gameplay. They don't have to worry about getting random citadels and can turn away from overwhelming enemy firepower without getting triple citadelled in the process. But that doesn't make them strong fighters, just less vulnerable in situations they can't win anyway.

[GrossadmiralThrawn]

to sum it up: Kriegsmarines Tier IX and X BBs are likely utterly, totaly and royally screwed... especially since the DMG system gives even penetrating hits in areas where nobody would care about the penetration full damage... meanwhile an overpenetration straight through a vital part 1/10 (note: vital part not necessarily citadel)... well i guess i'll go up to the Bismarck to have a back up to the Tirpitz (and because of historical fame... but after that... maybe i'll try to grind out the Izumo... or finaly get the NC... if i didnt get any of those whenthe Battleships of Seiner Majestät Hochseeflotte and Die Deutsche Kriegsmarine enter the harbors

[fnord_disc]

The survivability is just one aspect, it is the only one we know of yes, but still only one.

 

They could have incredible Concealment values. They could have surprisingly small turning circles and short rudder shift. They could bleed very little power in turns. Their AA could be seriously impressive (heh). There are many areas where they could be different (and better).

 

Regarding the survivability I'm not entirely sure that the better citadel protection is a great advantage at the highest tiers. Yes, it protects against Yamato lol-pens through the bow that Montana is unfortunate enough to suffer from. But aside form that the citadels are generally something people tend to guard very hard. Hence the bow-in gameplay. At that point fire chance reduction and penetration protection are much more important. Fire chance reduction is supposedly better. But we know from Tirpitz that penetration is worse, and the two H ships will functionally be the same, if not slight worse in this regard.

 

One thing the citadel protection can help with is allowing the H ships to disengage or play a more maneuvering gameplay. They don't have to worry about getting random citadels and can turn away from overwhelming enemy firepower without getting triple citadelled in the process. But that doesn't make them strong fighters, just less vulnerable in situations they can't win anyway.

 

Yeah. Based on the concealment stats that we have from Tirpitz and Scharnhorst, we can assume their concealment will be "pretty good". The values look slightly better than American BBs and significantly better than Japanese BBs. Maybe going full stealth will actually be a thing and German BBs bumrush the enemy with <13km sea detection. We will see.

 

Tirpitz is also relatively agile, so sure.

 

I mean, Tirpitz is a strong ship at T8, but she has RoF and torpedoes. Taking that away and rewarding it with more survivability and potentially more agility and stealth is... I don't know...

[Unintentional_submarine]

I'm not saying they will be great, just that we know too little of the other aspects to be sure that the weak guns mean weak ships as well. Of course my opinion is that weak guns can't be made up for by slight advantages elsewhere, and I find it very unlikely that they are massively better in other aspects (and it needs to be plural, a single very impressive area isn't enough), but it can still happen.

Also, this is the first stats. As we have seen with the datamined stats of Scharnhorst she has already gotten a nerf to her rudder shift, so changes can happen, and I certainly hope for that for these guns.

 

But should the guns remain like this, and the H ships follow the logical progression to T10 from Tirpitz as a baseline (with no torps), then they look rather unimpressive and we will have a new bottom BB at T10.

[GrossadmiralThrawn]

But should the guns remain like this, and the H ships follow the logical progression to T10 from Tirpitz as a baseline (with no torps), then they look rather unimpressive and we will have a new bottom BB at T10.

 

Support H45 (post WWII fantasy ship... that some people... most likely those that believe in every megalomaniac design that ever appeared on this world was to be built by Nazi Germany even if this was post WWII believe to be actually part of hte h class proposals and actually planned to be built) with 8 80cm guns in 4 twin turrets then add simply much more armour on it's belt than on the H41... i'd go with 450mm... stronger engines for 33 knots... deck armour of 200mm on the first and 150mm on the second deck... 4 tripple 150mm turrets (per side) and many other 105mm and 15cm guns as secondary and 3 times the AA of the Tirpitz

(I'd actually bet that somebody takes that serious...)

[fnord_disc]

 

Support H45 (post WWII fantasy ship... that some people... most likely those that believe in every megalomaniac design that ever appeared on this world was to be built by Nazi Germany even if this was post WWII believe to be actually part of hte h class proposals and actually planned to be built) with 8 80cm guns in 4 twin turrets then add simply much more armour on it's belt than on the H41... i'd go with 450mm... stronger engines for 33 knots... deck armour of 200mm on the first and 150mm on the second deck... 4 tripple 150mm turrets (per side) and many other 105mm and 15cm guns as secondary and 3 times the AA of the Tirpitz

(I'd actually bet that somebody takes that serious...)

 

The biggest and maddest BB in the game should not be a paper ship. It has to stay Yamato. I completely agree that WG want to make sure Yamato carries the biggest guns in the game.

 

So no H42+.

[t0ffik1]

They'll need fantasy upgrades in order to have any meaningful AA.

 

meaningfull AA on tier 3? WHAAAAAT? do you play the game actually?

[GrossadmiralThrawn]

 

The biggest and maddest BB in the game should not be a paper ship. It has to stay Yamato. I completely agree that WG want to make sure Yamato carries the biggest guns in the game.

 

So no H42+.

Just that from all we've seen the H41 isnt competitive... "the biggest and maddes shouldnt be paper ship" is in my opinion simply hypocritical to avoid any "but yamato was" cryin... from what i've seen it the 41 will be not better.... most likely WORSE than the Montana... if the H41 gets good enough firepower to stand up to the other BBs (THIS INCLUDES RoF...)(And you can tell me what you want... in this game firepower is, to a certain degree, the most important thing...) AND wont have to actively DRIVE into every shell so that it can "tank" any damage (because enemy could theoretically ignore it because of bad dispersion and unimpressive damage and simply sinks all others of your teammembers first)... and then it's done for... also: even if it can tank... tanking damage gives you nothin... no silver... no xp only a bill... SO WHY THE HECK would anyone play a ship just to CATCH shells? And even then (if) it's defensive capabilites wont be better than the Yamato there will be no reason to play it...

 

and i'd bet that the "no bigger stuff than yamato" only counts til soviets sekrit Stalin class comes in with 50 cm guns, 25 secs reload, 500mm Belt...

[fnord_disc]

Just that from all we've seen the H41 isnt competitive... "the biggest and maddes shouldnt be paper ship" is in my opinion simply hypocritical to avoid any "but yamato was" cryin... from what i've seen it the 41 will be not better.... most likely WORSE than the Montana... if the H41 gets good enough firepower to stand up to the other BBs (THIS INCLUDES RoF...)(And you can tell me what you want... in this game firepower is, to a certain degree, the most important thing...) AND wont have to actively DRIVE into every shell so that it can "tank" any damage (because enemy could theoretically ignore it because of bad dispersion and unimpressive damage and simply sinks all others of your teammembers first)... and then it's done for... also: even if it can tank... tanking damage gives you nothin... no silver... no xp only a bill... SO WHY THE HECK would anyone play a ship just to CATCH shells? And even then (if) it's defensive capabilites wont be better than the Yamato there will be no reason to play it...

 

and i'd bet that the "no bigger stuff than yamato" only counts til soviets sekrit Stalin class comes in with 50 cm guns, 25 secs reload, 500mm Belt...

 

Mate, I'm not saying H41 is going to be strong enough with those stats. I posted like 10 times that I think she looks weak. But H42/H43/H44 shouldn't be used because they're bigger than Yamato.

[Getzamatic]

With regards to the OP, I'm okay with fictional upgrades for Kaiser and Baden - I'm just not sure it's actually necessary for Kaiser.  I'd have thought that some AA could have been added without the need for a major visual redesign of the ship - the Turks certainly managed it with Yavuz and she didn't end up looking massively different to her WWI fit.

 

However, the real problem to my mind is the upgraded hull looks UGLY.  The Kaisers and Konigs were very elegant looking ships (at least in my opinion) so my real problem is that the upgrade appears to have wrecked her lines for no good reason.

[KommandantPhilipp]

 

Mate, I'm not saying H41 is going to be strong enough with those stats. I posted like 10 times that I think she looks weak. But H42/H43/H44 shouldn't be used because they're bigger than Yamato

H-39 and H-41 are already bigger in size than the yamato and if you talking about the gun caliber why can it be over the yamato in your opinion. I mean we have already some ships in the game that are not even real (not even paper).

 

[Trainspite]

H-39 and H-41 are already bigger in size than the yamato and if you talking about the gun caliber why can it be over the yamato in your opinion. I mean we have already some ships in the game that are not even real (not even paper).

 

 

Iowa is longer than Yamato. Yamato is not exactly the biggest in some categories. But WG have stated that Yamato will have the biggest guns in the game (18.1" / 460mm). The only exception is H42, only if H41 proves uncompetitive. Seeming that H41 would probably be fine if some of the gun stats were tweaked (RoF etc.), I severely doubt H42 will appear. 

 

Oh, Roon & Hindenberg are WG created ships based around historical armaments.

[Mucker]

 

 

[Gojuadorai]

GIVE ME NOW

 

please 

[1MajorKoenig]

With regards to the OP, I'm okay with fictional upgrades for Kaiser and Baden - I'm just not sure it's actually necessary for Kaiser.  I'd have thought that some AA could have been added without the need for a major visual redesign of the ship - the Turks certainly managed it with Yavuz and she didn't end up looking massively different to her WWI fit.

 

However, the real problem to my mind is the upgraded hull looks UGLY.  The Kaisers and Konigs were very elegant looking ships (at least in my opinion) so my real problem is that the upgrade appears to have wrecked her lines for no good reason.

 

THANK YOU!!!

 

At least someone got the point