Discussion thread for "some interesting info around the world"

[Toivia]

4 hours ago, Affeks said:

Lets say it does, but in return doesnt get the normal 7% dispersion one

 

If it uses the current Graf Spee dispersion with 2.05 sigma

That would be largely fine compared to latest powercreep (Stalingrad, ahem), I guess, except Kronstadt is left in the dust.

I'm assuming Alaska would keep the better bounce angles of US heavy cruisers and with Graf Spee dispersion + this upgrade, it would be pretty damn accurate.

 

That said, I'm definitely more fine with Alaska having US traits than Stalingrad...

[HaachamaShipping]

48 minutes ago, Toivia said:

That would be largely fine compared to latest powercreep (Stalingrad, ahem), I guess, except Kronstadt is left in the dust.

I'm assuming Alaska would keep the better bounce angles of US heavy cruisers and with Graf Spee dispersion + this upgrade, it would be pretty damn accurate.

 

That said, I'm definitely more fine with Alaska having US traits than Stalingrad...

Well, you know, some people couldn't stand the thought of not getting broken AP and it's glorious Soviet boat. Named after heroic stance in defense of Motherland. 

[Darth_Glorious]

On 29/08/2018 at 3:40 AM, Affeks said:

Kinda interested in an idea for Alaska and want to hear some input before making a thread or more direct proposal.

 

If Alaska were to get access to the Artillery Plotting Room 2 (-11% max dispersion for main battery) in the 6th slot (same as USN BBs) would you use it over the Main Battery mod 3?

 

I want to know if this is could be a way to help Alaska get some extra USN flavour over the other Super cruisers like Stalingrad and Kronshtadt (and the inevitable B65/super A-class).

Alaska doesn't have Artillery Plotting Room 2 because it already has -7% dispersion max dispersion module

It also already has good accuracy, no problem hitting things at 15 km. The slower shell speed give it better vertical dispersion compared to Krondstadt so the shells converge more to the aiming point.

[Affeks]

5 hours ago, Darth_Glorious said:

Alaska doesn't have Artillery Plotting Room 2 because it already has -7% dispersion max dispersion module

I know it does, just want to know what people thought about the idea. 

[Lebedjev]

12 minutes ago, Affeks said:

I know it does, just want to know what people thought about the idea. 

 

If we want to powercreep more T9, it will be a good move. [:o]

[Affeks]

39 minutes ago, Lebedjev said:

 

If we want to powercreep more T9, it will be a good move. [:o]

So for you the -11% max dispersion is more important than -12% RoF?

[Lebedjev]

Yes ? Because is more a alpha striker than a dpm monster. =o

[El2aZeR]

So they're going to release UK CVs with the rework after all. Smart move.

[Chaos_Umbra]

1 hour ago, JaaZZEe said:

UK CV's icons found in 7.9 PTS files

Cool maybe you should post it in the Interesting INFO topic as it is newly leaked info.

[OVanBruce]

If we didn't have this CV rework on the horizon I'd be hyped as [edited]for the reveal of those icons but as things stand now I cannot get hyped about some ships I may not like to play at leas, as much as I enjoy playing carriers with the current system.

 

Just, show the gameplay already WG ffs

[Aragathor]

1 hour ago, El2aZeR said:

So they're going to release UK CVs with the rework after all. Smart move.

Can you identify any? I see HMS Eagle at the bottom and HMS Implacable top right.

 

But yeah, that's a smart move. Not only do they have a completely new CV gameplay, they also have a second leg of a CV arc with UK CVs. Throw in a mini-campaign and they have a whole arc.

[Admiral_H_Nelson]

1 hour ago, JaaZZEe said:

UK CV's icons found in 7.9 PTS files

The icons are rather small - it's difficult to make out the banks of torpedo tubes that will make up the main armament of RN Carriers.

[Spunyarn]

On ‎21‎/‎08‎/‎2018 at 10:38 PM, Johmie said:

Port of London

... but the new aeroplane looks distinctly more World War One...

 

According to the game files that is a Fairey IIID, which (Wikipedia to the rescue) was the first major production version of the Fairey II served with the Fleet Air Arm between 1924 and 1930 before being replaced by the Fairey IIIF. There is also a Fairey Flycatcher listed, and which I have seen in the PTS, and that served as a carrier-borne fighter between 1923 and 1934. So that seems to fix the date of the new port to the interwar years.

 

Not sure whether that is the TARDIS or a normal Police Call Box in the background; probably the latter as the whole point of the TARDIS looking like a Police Call Box was that even in the 1960s they were still a common sight.

 

[Culiacan_Mexico]

UK CVs before Russians CVs! 

 

What kind of madness is this!

[JaiFoh]

At Quick Glance we have in the Top Left
HMS Furious

Top Right
HMS Audacious

Middle Left
HMS Implacable

Middle Right
HMS Indomitable 

Bottom
HMS Hermes 

[jss78]

I can't wait for the RN CV's. Great, great looking ships, and finally some variety for CV matchups.

 

I do wonder if they'll be implemented assuming deck parking and thus similar air group sizes as with USN. Otherwise the balancing will need some inventive solutions.

[El2aZeR]

16 minutes ago, JaiFoh said:

HMS Furious

 

I'm extremely disappointed that they did not let her keep her 18" gun. 

 

[FishDogFoodShack]

If only WG had given any details as to what the CV rework actually entails, it might have been actually worth getting excited for these new CVs.

[OVanBruce]

27 minutes ago, jss78 said:

I can't wait for the RN CV's. Great, great looking ships, and finally some variety for CV matchups.

 

I do wonder if they'll be implemented assuming deck parking and thus similar air group sizes as with USN. Otherwise the balancing will need some inventive solutions.

Even with deck parking only the very last RN CV designs had a somewhat comparable air group to USN ones. And even so they didn't reach those numbers. From a historical point of view the RN carriers should be tough as nails and have way more survivability than any competition but basing their national flavor on that would be as memetic as current Graf Spee with hydro.

 

Overall I have no idea what kind of national flavour they are going to apply to the british CVs other that they may actually be broken given our experience with the BB line. Also, WG did these couple of vids about british carrier planes so there is it too.

 

 

 

[El2aZeR]

3 minutes ago, OVanBruce said:

Overall I have no idea what kind of national flavour they are going to apply to the british CVs

 

They've stated in the past that they're toying with the idea of fighter-bombers, but how that'd play out in the new iteration remains a mystery. If no other planes can engage enemy aircraft other than fighters then the concept of fighter-bombers could be quite overpowered.

[HaachamaShipping]

55 minutes ago, jss78 said:

I can't wait for the RN CV's. Great, great looking ships, and finally some variety for CV matchups.

 

I do wonder if they'll be implemented assuming deck parking and thus similar air group sizes as with USN. Otherwise the balancing will need some inventive solutions.

Look at Graf Zeppelin's air group. That ship has almost double the amount of planes it should have had IRL.

[Admiral_H_Nelson]

55 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

 

I'm extremely disappointed that they did not let her keep her 18" gun. 

 

Who says that they haven't?

 

(It's a small icon, and it's difficult to see from this angle if one is at the stern of the ship.)

[jss78]

28 minutes ago, OVanBruce said:

Even with deck parking only the very last RN CV designs had a somewhat comparable air group to USN ones. And even so they didn't reach those numbers. From a historical point of view the RN carriers should be tough as nails and have way more survivability than any competition but basing their national flavor on that would be as memetic as current Graf Spee with hydro.

 

Overall I have no idea what kind of national flavour they are going to apply to the british CVs other that they may actually be broken given our experience with the BB line.

Yeah, all fair points -- with "similar" I really meant "not half as small".

 

With present mechanics they'd really be tricky to balance. You couldn't justify the planes being individually better I think. As @Riselotte noted, I guess you could simply enlarge the air groups beyond any historical analogues.

 

And you're right about the tankiness of course -- it'd be one of those things that produces a hilarious situation maybe 1 game in 50. Sure you can implement it for national flavour, but it couldn't really be used in the balancing equation.

 

I guess it's moot speculation until we see what exactly the CV reword entails. Maybe plane reserves won't be as decisive at that point.

[ApesTogetherStronK]

1 hour ago, JaiFoh said:

At Quick Glance we have in the Top Left
HMS Furious

Top Right
HMS Audacious

Middle Left
HMS Implacable

Middle Right
HMS Indomitable 

Bottom
HMS Hermes 

 

Furious is not the class, so more likely to see her in game as 'Courageous.' 

 

Audacious looks like she was as designed, before WW2 experience modified her mid construction, IRL she resembles more of a modern carrier after completion.

 

Middle two are probably what you said, though middle right is possibly being HMS Illustrious instead. 

 

Bottom is definitely Hermes. 

 

I fully expect HMS Ark Royal to be a premium at tier 7 or 8. The above classes fill roles from tiers 4-9 and she's not among them. Hermes will be the tier 4, however this leaves a gap at tier 5 not represented here, as Courageous/Furious are more likely tier 6 material. 

 

So I would expect: 

 

Tier 4: Hermes

Tier 5: Eagle

Tier 6: Courageous

Tier 7: Illustrious   |    Ark Royal (Premium) 

Tier 8: Implacable

Tier 9: Audacious

Tier 10: Victorious (Modernized Illustrious, used into 60's) Or a paper design. Alternatively could also be modern as finished Audacious class, under a different name (however both names of the ships completed are already used, Eagle and Ark Royal.) 

[Grimsley]

Just to post the names (from the person who posted the CV images) as they sometimes hint at possible tiers:

 

PBSA106.png, PBSA108.png, PBSA204,.png PBSA210.png, PBSA508.png.

 

I assume the order is from top to bottom left column, then top to bottom right, as this ends with the icon with camo (premium) which maches the PBSA5 prefix.

 

Judging from the icon and filename the premium leaked is probably HMS Indomitable as a T8, which would make sense if an Illustrious is the T7 as Indomitable is modified illustrious class with more aircraft.