German BBs+ tier 6 premium French BB Dunkerque stats in 0.5.9

[Zogash85]

Saipan = 9500 Doubloons

Saipan = 35.15€

 

Scharnhorst = 9500 Doubloons

Scharnhorst = ???

 

It isn't rocket science, guys...

 

As for Prinz Eugen, if she were really to cost 11k, that would make her 300 Doubloons more expensive than Atago, so she better get something really significant to justify that. Repair seems like the obvious choice. I still think all Tier 8 CAs should get it by default, but a ship that I'm supposed to shell out 40€ for should definitely have it.

[EskimkoSRB]

Maybe WG will give captain with 19 skill points for princ Eugen like we saw on pics from china server.

Maybe thats why it costs a bit more..

[KMS_Tirpitz]

 

Aye, it is. That's completely true.

 

 

Lol? Because WG make a lot of money from having boring American and German ships, their two biggest single-language markets outside RU?

 

Dude.

 

I'm not a big fan of the way WG is handling some game design decisions either, but it clearly is just plain wrong decisions and not a conspiracy.

 

 

Are you saying:

 

• WG is making German ships weaker on purpose
• WG is making German ships less accurate on purpose

 

?

 

Because the first is simply not true. German ships are not weaker than those of other nations and perform statistically average. Is it the second? That you think WG is making American and German ships inaccurate because of some conspiracy to deceive people on the internet into thinking German guns were bad WW2? If that's the case then this discussion is over and I will not respond again to your tin-foil hat insanity. I'd only like to add that right now it looks to me like you're the one with a political agenda here.

 

Anyway, just for you, out of the greatness of my heart.

 

 

It makes a lot of sense, actually. After all, what weakness would you pick? What woud you choose as the weakness of the German line?

 

• If WG makes German armor weak, people complain about muhwotanstahl
• If WG makes ships slow, they complain about muh 30kn
• If WG gives them bad AA, they complain slightly less
• If WG gives them low HP, people complain about muhgermanengineering

 

So, bad AA. Okay. But that isn't going to cut it. Japanese-level accuracy with better armor than paper ships like Fuso, Kongo, Amagi? And still 25kn+ and armor at least as good?

 

Where is the weakness?

 

Design me a German ship. Any tier you like, give me ingame values, dispersion, dps, etc. I'm curious.

 

Haha, trust me I am no conpiracy theorist, moon landings, Area 51, alien ancestry etc., not a subscriber ;-)

However that aside if you honestly believe that there is no bias present in videogames these days then while you might not be wearing a tinfoil hat you're certainly wearing some mighty impressive rose coloured glasses!   Trust me there is bias, and loads of it, esp. in this type of franchise and esp. in games from the east due to the political environment over there.

 

As to your theory that such bias would be bad for business, this is also incorrect as in the west there are actually as many people who are fans of Soviet made equipment as there are those who are fans of US, German or British equipment, and that mainly because in the west we aren't brought up with the same form of patriotism. In the east however things are abit different, and that due to what people are taught throughout their upbringing there. Might surprise (& hopefully disturb) you to know that Stalin is still seen as a great hero and person in Russia, same for Mao in China - it's all taught in school.

 

 

Now finally as for how I would've balanced the factions? I'd have followed a general rule along these lines in order to at least somewhat respect the historical trends where it really showed (numbered in terms of strength relative to each other):

 

Artillery

Range: USA (10) GER (9) GB (8) JP (7)

Accuracy: GER (10) USA (9) GB (8) JP (7) 

AP penetration:  USA (10) JP (9) GER (8) GB (8)

AP dmg: JP (10) USA (9) GER (8) GB (8)

HE fire %: JP (10) GB (9) GER (8) USA (7)

HE dmg: JP (10) GB (9) GER (8) USA (8) 

_____________

Secondaries: GER (10) JP (10) GB (8) USA (7)

AA: USA (10) GB (10) GER (8) JP (7)

 

Protection

Citadel: USA (10) JP (9) GER (8) GB (8)

Hull & Superstr: GER (10) JP (9) GB (8) USA (7) 

Torpedo protection: GER (10) JP (9) GB (8) USA (7)

 

Maneuverability: GB (10) JP (9) GER (7) USA (7)

 

Concealment: JP (10) GB (9) GER (7) USA (6)

[Comrad_StaIin]

you know the range isnt balanced after the nation it is balanced based on how high the rangefinder is placed

 

also concealment it is based on the size and hight of the ship 

 

Penetration is also based on real world values 

same goes for Armor layout (a few adjustments here and there)

[KMS_Tirpitz]

you know the range isnt balanced after the nation it is balanced based on how high the rangefinder is placed

 

also concealment it is based on the size and hight of the ship

 

Well the former is a bit of a weird way to balance things considering how that works in reality, and also esp. considering that only the Japanese & Russians weren't using radar for rangefinding during WW2

 

 

[Darth_Glorious]

German 420 mm HE shell penetration follows 1/6 caliber rule -->70 mm pen.

German 406 mm HE shell penetration follows 1/4 caliber rule -->102 mm pen.

 

So want to shoot HE ? Choose the 406 mm. You can low the reload time from 29 s to 25,5 s with Main Battery Modification 3 

Want to shoot AP ? Choose the 420 mm. YOu can low the reload time from 32 s to 28 s with Main Battery Modification 3

 

 

"Strong" german turret  engineering...
 

 

 

 

Dive bombers approve

 

 

 

Travel time of 420 mm AP at 25 km range (with scout plane). You can see that it has bad firing angle for rear turrtets (45 degrees)

 

 

 

Travel time of 420 mm AP at 20 km range :

 

 

 

[Darth_Glorious]

Preliminary Chinese tech tree :

Tier 1 : Nanshang gunboat, 3  x 120 mm gun

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_gunboat_Uji_(1940)

 

Tier 2 : Hai Yung cruiser, 3 x 152 mm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_cruiser_Hai_Yung

 

Tier 3 : Hai Chi cruiser, 2 x 203 mm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_cruiser_Hai_Chi

 

Tier 4 : Ning Hai Cruiser, 6 x 140 mm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ning_Hai-class_cruiser

 

Tier 5 : Leander-class cruiser, 8 x 152 mm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leander-class_cruiser_(1931)

 

Tier 6 : Fushun destroyer (Anshan class), 4 x 130 mm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anshan-class_destroyer

 

Tier 7 : Tan Yang destroyer (Karego class), 6 x 127 mm (US guns)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_destroyer_Yukikaze_(1939)#ROCS_Tan_Yang

 

Tier 8 : Tribal-class destroyer, 8 x 120 mm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribal-class_destroyer_(1936)

 

Tier 9 : Fen Yang destroyer (Akizuki class), 8 x 100 mm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_destroyer_Yoizuki

 

Tier 10 : Luda destroyer, 4 x 130 mm, 15-18 rpm, velo 950 m/s (early version without ASMs and SAMs)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_051_destroyer

 

 

[Todger_Fairmile]

Preliminary Chinese tech tree :

Tier 1 : Nanshang gunboat, 3  x 120 mm gun

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_gunboat_Uji_(1940)

 

Tier 2 : Hai Yung cruiser, 3 x 152 mm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_cruiser_Hai_Yung

 

Tier 3 : Hai Chi cruiser, 2 x 203 mm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_cruiser_Hai_Chi

 

Tier 4 : Ning Hai Cruiser, 6 x 140 mm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ning_Hai-class_cruiser

 

Tier 5 : Leander-class cruiser, 8 x 152 mm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leander-class_cruiser_(1931)

 

Tier 6 : Fushun destroyer (Anshan class), 4 x 130 mm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anshan-class_destroyer

 

Tier 7 : Tan Yang destroyer (Karego class), 6 x 127 mm (US guns)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_destroyer_Yukikaze_(1939)#ROCS_Tan_Yang

 

Tier 8 : Tribal-class destroyer, 8 x 120 mm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribal-class_destroyer_(1936)

 

Tier 9 : Fen Yang destroyer (Akizuki class), 8 x 100 mm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_destroyer_Yoizuki

 

Tier 10 : Luda destroyer, 4 x 130 mm, 15-18 rpm, velo 950 m/s (early version without ASMs and SAMs)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_051_destroyer

 

 

 

If that's real (not just for Chinese server) then 1-3 are going to really suck (free points anyone?) or need a hell of a buff. 4 will need a speed buff at least

[Darth_Glorious]

Chinese version Leander cruiser and Tribal class destroyer can be refitted with Soviet 130 mm guns, Soviet 37 mm AA and Soviet torpedoes

[Affeks]

Preliminary Chinese tech tree :

Tier 1 : Nanshang gunboat, 3  x 120 mm gun

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_gunboat_Uji_(1940)

 

Tier 2 : Hai Yung cruiser, 3 x 152 mm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_cruiser_Hai_Yung

 

Tier 3 : Hai Chi cruiser, 2 x 203 mm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_cruiser_Hai_Chi

 

Tier 4 : Ning Hai Cruiser, 6 x 140 mm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ning_Hai-class_cruiser

 

Tier 5 : Leander-class cruiser, 8 x 152 mm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leander-class_cruiser_(1931)

 

Tier 6 : Fushun destroyer (Anshan class), 4 x 130 mm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anshan-class_destroyer

 

Tier 7 : Tan Yang destroyer (Karego class), 6 x 127 mm (US guns)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_destroyer_Yukikaze_(1939)#ROCS_Tan_Yang

 

Tier 8 : Tribal-class destroyer, 8 x 120 mm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribal-class_destroyer_(1936)

 

Tier 9 : Fen Yang destroyer (Akizuki class), 8 x 100 mm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_destroyer_Yoizuki

 

Tier 10 : Luda destroyer, 4 x 130 mm, 15-18 rpm, velo 950 m/s (early version without ASMs and SAMs)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_051_destroyer

 

 

This is the most roundabaout way to satisfy the need for RN ships.

 

Still tho I've been dying to get one of the Akizuki destroyers ingame. Wanna spam those 100m all day, with AP of course ;D

[NoirLotus]

Damn I want Akizuki too ...

[fnord_disc]

Artillery

Range: USA (10) GER (9) GB (8) JP (7)

Accuracy: GER (10) USA (9) GB (8) JP (7) 

AP penetration:  USA (10) JP (9) GER (8) GB (8)

AP dmg: JP (10) USA (9) GER (8) GB (8)

HE fire %: JP (10) GB (9) GER (8) USA (7)

HE dmg: JP (10) GB (9) GER (8) USA (8) 

_____________

Secondaries: GER (10) JP (10) GB (8) USA (7)

AA: USA (10) GB (10) GER (8) JP (7)

 

Protection

Citadel: USA (10) JP (9) GER (8) GB (8)

Hull & Superstr: GER (10) JP (9) GB (8) USA (7) 

Torpedo protection: GER (10) JP (9) GB (8) USA (7)

 

Maneuverability: GB (10) JP (9) GER (7) USA (7)

 

Concealment: JP (10) GB (9) GER (7) USA (6)

 

That looks pretty balanced, but if German ships have bad citadels, someone else will pop up and explain the power of Germany's armor layout, of which the whole point was to not get hit in the citadel.

 

Besides, your accuracy balancing is less historical than the one we have now. You give the least accurate guns to the Japanese, but the Japanese had a lack of radar fire control, not inaccurate guns. In fact, it is very likely that the Japanese, not the Germans, had the most accurate guns in World War II, just as the game depicts it. Accuracy of guns is not the same as quality of fire control.

 

To this end, I quote from the after-action reports from the battle off Samar, 1944:

 

 USS Franks

"Opening salvos were on in range even at 15 miles. Enemy 4-6 shell pattern was very tight. Estimated range pattern 50 yards and deflection of 5 yards even at a range of 15 miles. Enemy appeared to be using direct spot, rather than any ladder doctrine. Enemy used bright yellow dye marker which showed as yellow on the splash and green on the flat water which suggests visual spot. Rounds fired at us detonated so deep that detonation did not even ruffle the surface of the water. The only visual effect of the detonation was the appearance of a rapidly expanding compression ring, exactly the same as is seen with a depth charge. This suggests they were using AP ammunition."

 

USS Franks was the main target of IJN Haruna.

 

 USS Hailey

"The enemy fired four gun salvos near our formation that fell within a distance of 300 to 1,000 yards at a range of 32,000-35,000 yards. The pattern size was no more than 75-100 yards."

 

USS Hailey was with USS Franks and observed the impacts.

 

 USS Haggard

"At 0845 a seven gun salvo moved up to 200 yards astern. The pattern in range and deflection did not exceed 75 yards."

 

USS Haggard describes the same impacts.

 

And finally I quote their commander, Admiral Sprague:

 

 "From the performance off SAMAR, it can be concluded that the Japanese have failed to learn one of the axioms of fire control -- that in salvo fire the pattern must be large enough to allow for control error and insure hits once the mean range is established. Their pattern sizes were extremely small. Competent observers have stated and photographic evidence appears to verify the fact that the pattern size was in the neighborhood of 200 to 300 yards. This pattern size proved, after a trial of two and one-half hours, to be entirely too small to insure hits."

 

 

 

This also tells you something else that's very important. Having accurate guns doesn't matter historically. Maybe it does in World of Warships, but historically it was a disadvantage to have extremely small pattern. Both very big and very small patterns are bad.

 

To me it looks like you're trying to have your view of history implemented in the game, your vision of history, not how history was.

[byronicasian]

 

That looks pretty balanced, but if German ships have bad citadels, someone else will pop up and explain the power of Germany's armor layout, of which the whole point was to not get hit in the citadel.

 

Besides, your accuracy balancing is less historical than the one we have now. You give the least accurate guns to the Japanese, but the Japanese had a lack of radar fire control, not inaccurate guns. In fact, it is very likely that the Japanese, not the Germans, had the most accurate guns in World War II, just as the game depicts it. Accuracy of guns is not the same as quality of fire control.

 

To this end, I quote from the after-action reports from the battle off Samar, 1944:

 

 

USS Franks was the main target of IJN Haruna.

 

 

USS Hailey was with USS Franks and observed the impacts.

 

 

USS Haggard describes the same impacts.

 

And finally I quote their commander, Admiral Sprague:

 

 

 

 

This also tells you something else that's very important. Having accurate guns doesn't matter historically. Maybe it does in World of Warships, but historically it was a disadvantage to have extremely small pattern. Both very big and very small patterns are bad.

 

To me it looks like you're trying to have your view of history implemented in the game, your vision of history, not how history was.

 

Every seems to keep forgetting that, "WE'RE" the FCS in game. So technically, its all Mk.1 eyeball + kentucky windage here. Dispersion is better described as "precision" as opposed to accuracy. 

 

Of note, the US Naval Technical mission observed that despite the poor gyros and being behind in fire control radar, they were still more or less competitive with other nations due to the offset provided by extremely tight groupings (should they hit).

 

http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/primary_documents/gvt_reports/USNAVY/USNTMJ%20Reports/USNTMJ-200F-0023-0085%20Report%20O-31.pdf

 

 

[fnord_disc]

 

Every seems to keep forgetting that, "WE'RE" the FCS in game. So technically, its all Mk.1 eyeball + kentucky windage here. Dispersion is better described as "precision" as opposed to accuracy. 

 

Of note, the US Naval Technical mission observed that despite the poor gyros and being behind in fire control radar, they were still more or less competitive with other nations due to the offset provided by extremely tight groupings (should they hit).

 

http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/primary_documents/gvt_reports/USNAVY/USNTMJ%20Reports/USNTMJ-200F-0023-0085%20Report%20O-31.pdf

 

 

 

I know, I've read that report. You can absolutely argue that ingame accuracy is a compound value not strictly related to historical dispersion size but also all the elements of fire control like stabilization, range finding, control solution... But that's exactly the point. Saying the game "misrepresents" historical accuracy and precision is a little strange because it functions so very differently. The quality and height of a ship's rangefinders already influence the range in the game, so does that have to be included again when the dispersion size is determined?

 

Do you see my point? Arguing the game misrepresents history is bizarre when the game doesn't really represent history in the first place.

[byronicasian]

Yea, you're going to have to compromise on A LOT of things to fit the operations and mechanics of a several thousand ton ship into the mold of a 3rd Person arcade shooter. That is not to say the devs aren't inconsistent with their picking and choosing which elements of historical accuracy to keep in isolation.

[byronicasian]

Preliminary Chinese tech tree :

Tier 1 : Nanshang gunboat, 3  x 120 mm gun

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_gunboat_Uji_(1940)

 

Tier 2 : Hai Yung cruiser, 3 x 152 mm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_cruiser_Hai_Yung

 

Tier 3 : Hai Chi cruiser, 2 x 203 mm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_cruiser_Hai_Chi

 

Tier 4 : Ning Hai Cruiser, 6 x 140 mm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ning_Hai-class_cruiser

 

Tier 5 : Leander-class cruiser, 8 x 152 mm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leander-class_cruiser_(1931)

 

Tier 6 : Fushun destroyer (Anshan class), 4 x 130 mm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anshan-class_destroyer

 

Tier 7 : Tan Yang destroyer (Karego class), 6 x 127 mm (US guns)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_destroyer_Yukikaze_(1939)#ROCS_Tan_Yang

 

Tier 8 : Tribal-class destroyer, 8 x 120 mm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribal-class_destroyer_(1936)

 

Tier 9 : Fen Yang destroyer (Akizuki class), 8 x 100 mm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_destroyer_Yoizuki

 

Tier 10 : Luda destroyer, 4 x 130 mm, 15-18 rpm, velo 950 m/s (early version without ASMs and SAMs)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_051_destroyer

 

 

 

Wow, copy pasta galore.

 

Also, if Akizuki and RN ships get implemented for the Chinese ships first I'll be might pissed. 

[fnord_disc]

Yea, you're going to have to compromise on A LOT of things to fit the operations and mechanics of a several thousand ton ship into the mold of a 3rd Person arcade shooter. That is not to say the devs aren't inconsistent with their picking and choosing which elements of historical accuracy to keep in isolation.

 

I agree with that. And this made worse by the lack of communication from WG with respect to the shooting mechanics in general because the game's documentation there is poor and WG rarely  explains why they use certain values.

[Darth_Glorious]

Chinese review of GK 

 

http://wows.duowan.cn/1608/334147930088.html

 

The notorious turrets

[Affeks]

 

Wow, copy pasta galore.

 

Also, if Akizuki and RN ships get implemented for the Chinese ships first I'll be might pissed. 

 

And sadly they will. I'm norwegian and I would like to see the RN, RM and french navy before getting a burrowed norwegian tree ffs 

[SmartassNoob]

Notable things I just spotted about those chinese ships:

 

• Tier 1 - No specific notes.
• Tier 2 - It has 3 torpedo tubes and 8 x 105mm secondary guns.
• Tier 3 - Probably like the Mikasa, minus 2 guns and minus secondary guns. This would have to get a fictional modernization.
• Tier 4 - It carried 2 planes. A tier 4 cruiser with a plane could be something.
• Tier 5 - 2 x 4 torpedo tubes.
• Tier 6 - Modernized russian Gnevny-class destroyers with 4 anti-ship missiles. The game will likely have an older version with out any.
• Tier 7 - No specific notes.
• Tier 8 - 1 x 4 torpedo launcher.
• Tier 9 - 4 torpedo tubes.
• Tier 10 - 6 torpedo tubes. It has missiles, but it's mentioned above that the game one would be an early version.

[GrossadmiralThrawn]

Chinese review of GK 

 

http://wows.duowan.cn/1608/334147930088.html

 

The notorious turrets

 

Galley slaves! ROW! ROW! ROW FASTER!! PREPARE FOR COLLISION! WE'RE GONNA RAM THOSE BUGGERS!

[Vanhal]

Chinese tier 1-4 looks interesting, but incredibly UP. Above that it's meh copypasta.

[TommyScaletta]

5.9.1 just got released....at least I could download it because of NA Client (although Im in EU)

[Tyrendian89]

 

Galley slaves! ROW! ROW! ROW FASTER!! PREPARE FOR COLLISION! WE'RE GONNA RAM THOSE BUGGERS!

 

that pic is pure, pathetic scaremongering tbh... notice how this is a training room, which means the "opponent" was aiming specifically at the turrets of a stationary target at minimal ranges, and the turets are TURNED AWAY FROM HIM exposing their much much weaker rear armour? Now do that exact scenario with the other two T10 BBs as well, in more realistic circumstances, twenty times to at least give a minimal sample size, and also actually record how many hits it took, and THEN that will have any minimal relevance whatsoever

[Darth_Glorious]

 

that pic is pure, pathetic scaremongering tbh... notice how this is a training room, which means the "opponent" was aiming specifically at the turrets of a stationary target at minimal ranges, and the turets are TURNED AWAY FROM HIM exposing their much much weaker rear armour? Now do that exact scenario with the other two T10 BBs as well, in more realistic circumstances, twenty times to at least give a minimal sample size, and also actually record how many hits it took, and THEN that will have any minimal relevance whatsoever

 

2 hits for each turret. Even Tirptiz can lolpen those turrets.

That's why GK cannot fight in close range. It's better to stay at medium range and spam 406 mm HE to burn people to death..

If you want to use AP, the 420 mm is only option, it has good pen, but the slow reload time and the dispersion will make you crazy :v