Roma - Tier VIII Premium Italian BB suggestion

[ShinGetsu]

14.5 surface detectability...

You can drop it to 10.88km. What did they even smoke to get this number ? Especially with 880 m/s shell velocity and 1.9 sigma. I can understand 11.8 on NC with its catapult-like guns, but 10.9 detectability on a BB with lasergun and great accuracy ? Why ?

 

Anyway... 

 

[Verdius]

Aside from concealment which I hope gets adjusted I am ready to board the hype train

[phoenix_jz]

Anyone else's eyes getting caught on that MV? 880/805? Shouldn't that be 850/880?

[Historynerd]

1 hour ago, phoenix_jz said:

Anyone else's eyes getting caught on that MV? 880/805? Shouldn't that be 850/880?

Either WG wants to push the AP (not that I would mind, considering how the Cesare's blend of AP and HE is almost too Hood), or it's a typo.

 

At least, this time is not "French battleship". 

[SmartassNoob]

If it's true then high speed accurate AP could be the Italian BB gimmick.

[Webley_Mark]

8 hours ago, ShinGetsu said:

You can drop it to 10.88km.

 

11.2km in fact, the camo is already included in the 14.5km, since Roma is a Premium WG consider the camo as a part of the ship.

[Affeks]

19 hours ago, phoenix_jz said:

Anyone else's eyes getting caught on that MV? 880/805? Shouldn't that be 850/880?

I thought about that, but i found out that the AP alpha of 12 000 is calculated with 850 m/s not 880. If it was 880 it would be 12 100 or 12 200 instead so I concluded the 880 AP m/s has to be a typo or something.

[RUSSIANBlAS]

On 04/11/2017 at 11:41 AM, ShinGetsu said:

14.5 surface detectability...

You can drop it to 10.88km. What did they even smoke to get this number ? Especially with 880 m/s shell velocity and 1.9 sigma. I can understand 11.8 on NC with its catapult-like guns, but 10.9 detectability on a BB with lasergun and great accuracy ? Why ?

 

Anyway... 

 

 

You ask what do WG smoke to get X?

 

I ask myself that everyday at the changes and new ships they add 

 

 

[Historynerd]

On 4/11/2017 at 0:41 PM, ShinGetsu said:

14.5 surface detectability...

You can drop it to 10.88km. What did they even smoke to get this number ? Especially with 880 m/s shell velocity and 1.9 sigma. I can understand 11.8 on NC with its catapult-like guns, but 10.9 detectability on a BB with lasergun and great accuracy ? Why ?

As long as there are no carriers on the enemy team. Because I have an inkling that it will be similar to the Cesare in the fact that its AA will be good only to shoot down the random plane here and there, but otherwise you'll have to WASD like heck, even though you won't have the same weakness underwater. However, I believe you'll be comparatively less agile than the GC, with that turn radius.

 

We have our first ahistorical stat, guys!  XD

[ShinGetsu]

Well, italian AA were kind of complete garbage.

Or more like they were good, but overly complicated and kept breaking. 

[Historynerd]

36 minutes ago, ShinGetsu said:

Well, italian AA were kind of complete garbage.

Or more like they were good, but overly complicated and kept breaking. 

This deserves a closer look.

 

Spoiler

• The Breda 20/65 was ballistically ok, not unlike other weapons for its caliber, its only flaw being the lowish 120 rpm, not low to the point of inefficiency, though (and the same of the German C/30 2 cm).
• Likewise, the 37 mm cannon was alright, and its rate of fire was rather good (especially when you look at German and French equivalents), and most of the problems came from the mounts (mostly non-recoiling, therefore causing vibrations that hampered aim, although the later 1939 mount corrected that).
• The 90 mm gun... well, that's a tricky one; its caliber is on the low side for a heavy AA weapon, giving it somewhat lowish ceiling, but the real issue was the mounts that was literally too forward thinking. On one side, it was impressive to think of a fully stabilized AA weapon (to obtain greater precision), on the other, keeping water out of the mounts was possible (at times) only on the Littorio-class, where the mounts were high on the water, while on the Duilio-class they said "Screw it!" and deactivated the system and used them manually. Moreover, at first their shells worked badly. However, when they worked and had proper shells, they were not that bad overall if they struck home, and had a decent RoF compared to similar-caliber guns.
• The 100 mm were a relic of the past, and by the war it was an obsolete mount, so no one shed tears, I'd wager, when they were removed.

 

Then there was the 65 mm gun, that might've been a good weapon in the middle caliber range, not enough to deal with heavy bombers or high flying targets but good enough against other threats. The two years that Italian research missed would've come in handy here.

 

Same goes for the 135 mm gun, that might've been the late-blooming DP gun Italy would have badly needed. It would've never reached the level of the American 127 mm, of course, especially without all the RPC and equipment USN ships carried, but it would've filled a pretty huge gap.

Overall, mediocre and somewhat conservative, or running too fast forward, but not complete garbage, I'd say.

Let's not forget that the poor Cavour managed to take down the Swordfish that sealed its fate. That, and Admiral Bruto Brivonesi who waited too long before allowing her to ground. 

[Exocet6951]

6 hours ago, Historynerd said:

This deserves a closer look.

 

  Reveal hidden contents

• The Breda 20/65 was ballistically ok, not unlike other weapons for its caliber, its only flaw being the lowish 120 rpm, not low to the point of inefficiency, though (and the same of the German C/30 2 cm).
• Likewise, the 37 mm cannon was alright, and its rate of fire was rather good (especially when you look at German and French equivalents), and most of the problems came from the mounts (mostly non-recoiling, therefore causing vibrations that hampered aim, although the later 1939 mount corrected that).
• The 90 mm gun... well, that's a tricky one; its caliber is on the low side for a heavy AA weapon, giving it somewhat lowish ceiling, but the real issue was the mounts that was literally too forward thinking. On one side, it was impressive to think of a fully stabilized AA weapon (to obtain greater precision), on the other, keeping water out of the mounts was possible (at times) only on the Littorio-class, where the mounts were high on the water, while on the Duilio-class they said "Screw it!" and deactivated the system and used them manually. Moreover, at first their shells worked badly. However, when they worked and had proper shells, they were not that bad overall if they struck home, and had a decent RoF compared to similar-caliber guns.
• The 100 mm were a relic of the past, and by the war it was an obsolete mount, so no one shed tears, I'd wager, when they were removed.

 

Then there was the 65 mm gun, that might've been a good weapon in the middle caliber range, not enough to deal with heavy bombers or high flying targets but good enough against other threats. The two years that Italian research missed would've come in handy here.

 

Same goes for the 135 mm gun, that might've been the late-blooming DP gun Italy would have badly needed. It would've never reached the level of the American 127 mm, of course, especially without all the RPC and equipment USN ships carried, but it would've filled a pretty huge gap.

Overall, mediocre and somewhat conservative, or running too fast forward, but not complete garbage, I'd say.

Let's not forget that the poor Cavour managed to take down the Swordfish that sealed its fate. That, and Admiral Bruto Brivonesi who waited too long before allowing her to ground. 

 

I always it fascinating how the French and Italians always have such similar mindsets.

They'll do one avant-garde piece of equipment, very advanced (too much for its own good) for its time, then completely fail on a crucial aspect of a much more common piece of equipment.
IE: 2 plane stabilized 90mm mount (that didn't really work), but failing to have recoil compensation on the 37mm and having the mount shake as much as James Bond's martini.

 

Had History gone differently and both countries been on the same side for decades, we could have seen some very interesting thing.
Of course 75% of it would have been completely non-functional over half the time, but it would have been impressive on paper !  

[Historynerd]

1 minute ago, Exocet6951 said:

They'll do one avant-garde piece of equipment, very advanced (too much for its own good) for its time, then completely fail on a crucial aspect of a much more common piece of equipment.
IE: 2 plane stabilized 90mm mount (that didn't really work), but failing to have recoil compensation on the 37mm and having the mount shake as much as James Bond's martini.

 

Had History gone differently and both countries been on the same side for decades, we could have seen some very interesting thing.
Of course 75% of it would have been completely non-functional over half the time, but it would have been impressive on paper !  

Well, the Italians did come up with a recoil-operated 37 mm gun... and that version was, according to its users, good enough; thanks to the fact that it didn't need anymore a strong structure to absorb the shaking, they put it on smaller ships as well.

Somewhat better than pointlessly spamming 25 mm cannons, like another Navy... 

 

Besides, whose fault was that the guys who designed these things were not the ones that used them? For a very long time, feedback was pretty much forbidden. Rather foolish, I know, but well...

[SparvieroVV]

Interesting to hear about the AP alpha difference. From what we have seen of Lyon and French battleships WG doesn’t have an excuse to get creative with silver ships. 

[MungaH]

I'd like to know what are the 4 x 120/40 old cannons  (used for lighting) meant to.

I'm referring to the game ofc.

 

Are they just "visual stuff" ?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QF_4.7-inch_Gun_Mk_I–IV

[SparvieroVV]

2 hours ago, MungaH said:

I'd like to know what are the 4 x 120/40 old cannons  (used for lighting) meant to.

I'm referring to the game ofc.

 

Are they just "visual stuff" ?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QF_4.7-inch_Gun_Mk_I–IV

 

They where used to fire star shells. 

[Historynerd]

10 hours ago, SparvieroVV said:

They where used to fire star shells. 

Yay, fireworks show when a DD chases you! 

 

Honestly, better forget about those.

Even IRL they were a disgrace; not the guns themselves, but the thinking that their fitting could have made the slightest difference had a battleship been forced into a night engagement. 

[RUSSIANBlAS]

4 hours ago, Historynerd said:

Yay, fireworks show when a DD chases you! 

 

Honestly, better forget about those.

Even IRL they were a disgrace; not the guns themselves, but the thinking that their fitting could have made the slightest difference had a battleship been forced into a night engagement. 

Didn't stop WG adding rockets to Hood even though they were essentially expensive fireworks.

 

I'm looking forward to Roma even if it's yet another BB.

 

Fast turrets is power creep as it's making Adrenaline Rush the new go to 2nd level captain pick!!

[Affeks]

2 hours ago, Negativvv said:

Didn't stop WG adding rockets to Hood even though they were essentially expensive fireworks.

 

I'm looking forward to Roma even if it's yet another BB.

 

Fast turrets is power creep as it's making Adrenaline Rush the new go to 2nd level captain pick!!

AR is already the go to 2nd level captain pick on everything except Yamato, QE and maybe Warspite... maybe some very low tier BBs as well, but tbh no mid-high tier BBs really need them over the usual survivability perks.

 

I dont use EM on GK, Alabama, Dunkek, Mutsu, Kii, Tirpitz etc. My Yamato is the only BB captain I currently use it on.

 

controllable 5-15% increase to RoF is much more preferable to 5-15% increase in turret traverse.

[RUSSIANBlAS]

18 minutes ago, Affeks said:

AR is already the go to 2nd level captain pick on everything except Yamato, QE and maybe Warspite... maybe some very low tier BBs as well, but tbh no mid-high tier BBs really need them over the usual survivability perks.

 

I dont use EM on GK, Alabama, Dunkek, Mutsu, Kii, Tirpitz etc. My Yamato is the only BB captain I currently use it on.

 

controllable 5-15% increase to RoF is much more preferable to 5-15% increase in turret traverse.

I still like EM as a luxury skill, means I don't need to be as alert as I can check Facebook on my phone or eat with my other hand 

 

Altho I only leave it off Bismarck/Scharn and Dunker. Most other BB captains I have are 16+ points so I take it later. Alabama is helpful as I use Segal, plus I value switching directions so any turret boost is helpful.

[SparvieroVV]

EM is nice when facing good players who depend on timing. They will adjust however normally after finding out the hard way. 

[Historynerd]

 

[SmartassNoob]

I noticed 2 things:

• The boats are missing from in front of the rear secondary turrets.
• The armor model at the front of the ship is missing something. Didn't these ships have an internal secondary bow-like thing, made of armor, that was specifically designed for bow-tanking? Or did I mix it up with another ship?

[Historynerd]

1 minute ago, SmartassNoob said:

• The armor model at the front of the ship is missing something. Didn't these ships have an internal secondary bow-like thing, made of armor, that was specifically designed for bow-tanking? Or did I mix it up with another ship?

Yes, that was present only on the Giulio Cesare and the Conte di Cavour, because when they were rebuilt they fitted a new, longer bow over the old one, and let the old one remain in its place. On the similar Duilio and Andrea Doria, instead, the old bow was removed.

[SmartassNoob]

Oh.

 

Where do I keep getting my info? I guess someone must have looked at the armor layout of one of those modernized ships and not knowing about the reconstruction must have assumed that it's a special type of internal armor.