Royal BB line

[KuroNyra]

 

Yes, because I simply refuse to allow other members to dictate as to what ships they'd rather have Overtiered. Or is it that I am not being elitist enough and agreeing to whatever is fed to me from a silver spoon?

 

No, you are refusing to allow multiples members who actually know what they are talking about and think YOUR opinion is better than everyone else.

[SeaMonsterUK]

 

 

Because you have yet to even point in any of my arguments where I have typed something to which I did not type. The facepalms are on you my friend.

[SeaMonsterUK]

 

No, you are refusing to allow multiples members who actually know what they are talking about and think YOUR opinion is better than everyone else.

 

I do not take my opinions above anyone else's, I simply disagree with what the majority of people believe in and will argue it, if you weren't so elitist perhaps that would compute, but we can't expect miracles now can we.

[Oely001]

 

I have plenty of arguments, but I'm not going to argue with someone who can only place shells from other ships to substitute for a Battleship that isn't even in the game yet.

 

 

You are free to put in your values for the shells into the calculation. Again: why is KGV with 10x14'' Tier 7 while with 9x15'' is Tier VIII?

[SeaMonsterUK]

 

 

You are free to put in your values for the shells into the calculation. Again: why is KGV with 10x14'' Tier 7 while with 9x15'' is Tier VIII?

 

Another Question - Why are 12 14" guns at tier 6 while 8 16" guns are at tier 7?

[Oely001]

 

Another Question - Why are 12 14" guns at tier 6 while 8 16" guns are at tier 7?

 

 

Because 16'' cannot be bounced by bow armor? Don't answer with counterquestion!

[SeaMonsterUK]

 

 

Don't answer with counterquestion!

 

Seeing how I just did.......

[Oely001]

Ok, that's enough for me.

[mr3awsome]

NC's 12" sloped is about equal to 13" flat. 

Which is better than Amagi and Bismarck/Tirpitz, but worse than the rest (KGV, Littorio & Richelieu). 

 

Just wanted to clear that up.

[SeaMonsterUK]

NC's 12" sloped is about equal to 13" flat. 

Which is better than Amagi and Bismarck/Tirpitz, but worse than the rest (KGV, Littorio & Richelieu). 

 

Just wanted to clear that up.

 

I would consider the NC's sloped armour to be superior however, as shells travel downwards at an angle. So it does provide an advantage at long range.

[fnord_disc]

Holy gods, what is happening here?

 

I personally believe that KGV is not T8, and cannot be made T8. Let me explain why I believe this. If you read this and you also believe that KGV is not T8, don't take this as me endorsing the ridiculous conduct of this discussion.

 

First some basic information.

 

KGV 14" penetration (as best as can be predicted for the game)

 

Penetration is a fair amount lower than the German 38cm.

Minimum armor thickness necessary to keep out overmatch: 25mm

Turret traverse: same as QE = 72s (this value is already buffed over historical values from 2°/s to 2.5°/s. It's unlikely Lesta will deviate from historical values even more)

RoF: 2 RPM (unlikely Lesta will deviate)

 

It's true that penetration is not the only factor deciding the performance of the gun.

 

Saying that Bismarck and Tirpitz are doing fine at T8 with their lower-caliber guns with mediocre penetration is entirely correct, but it's a misleading argument for KGV. 35.6cm guns do not overmatch 25mm. This means that KGV would not overmatch T8+ cruiser bow armor, nor any battleship bow it meets; almost all cruisers that it meets could simply sail straight at it and torpedo it, taking minimal damage. The traverse is also far too horrible to fight at close ranges. This simply doesn't happen with Bismarck and Tirpitz. This is a massive weakness of the ship compared to its nearest competitors in caliber that cannot be argued away.

 

To buff the ship to T8 levels regardless, soft stats or gimmicks would have to be introduced far above and beyond what Bismarck and Tirpitz had to be buffed with (torpedoes, secondaries, tiny citadel, hydro...).

 

Lesta could make the citadel really small by culling some decks from the citadel hitbox and the belt is great anyway, but buffing the ship like that would only make it comparable in this area to the German BBs. Besides, NC and Amagi have pretty small citadels too. The ship would need a lot more buffing than just this. Even if you start adding gimmicks like radar, defensive fire, or give it low rudder shift... it's still not enough in my opinion. A KGV with defensive fire AND radar AND a 10s rudder shift would still be the worst T8 battleship by far, and most of this is down to the overmatch mechanic.

 

A KGV with 15" guns that properly overmatch cruiser bow armor could be made balanced with some nice accuracy despite the horrible turret traverse, but not 14". I see no way to buff the soft stats of the ship enough to make the ship viable at T8.

 

edit:

I mean, is it theoretically possible to buff the ship enough to make it viable at T8? I guess! But I personally have no concrete ideas how to make this happen off the top of my mind.

 

...Radar, 14km base detection range, 10s rudder shift, improved heal like Warspite.

 

I guess this would be playable at T8, but it would be a difficult and unusual ship that scales terribly for bad players.

 

But is this what you want? A 10.5km ninja battleship with glacial turret traverse?

 

The basic design inherits such stunning weaknesses that it requires massive buffs in other areas. Which is possible, sure, but is it really what the ship deserves?

[SeaMonsterUK]

You'd have to artificially buff it to the point it would no longer be a King George V class battleship.

[piritskenyer]

Holy gods, what is happening here?

 

I personally believe that KGV is not T8, and cannot be made T8. Let me explain why I believe this. If you read this and you also believe that KGV is not T8, don't take this as me endorsing the ridiculous conduct of this discussion.

 

First some basic information.

 

KGV 14" penetration (as best as can be predicted for the game)

 

Penetration is a fair amount lower than the German 38cm.

Minimum armor thickness necessary to keep out overmatch: 25mm

Turret traverse: same as QE = 72s (this value is already buffed over historical values from 2°/s to 2.5°/s. It's unlikely Lesta will deviate from historical values even more)

RoF: 2 RPM (unlikely Lesta will deviate)

 

It's true that penetration is not the only factor deciding the performance of the gun.

 

Saying that Bismarck and Tirpitz are doing fine at T8 with their lower-caliber guns with mediocre penetration is entirely correct, but it's a misleading argument for KGV. 35.6cm guns do not overmatch 25mm. This means that KGV would not overmatch T8+ cruiser bow armor, nor any battleship bow it meets; almost all cruisers that it meets could simply sail straight at it and torpedo it, taking minimal damage. The traverse is also far too horrible to fight at close ranges. This simply doesn't happen with Bismarck and Tirpitz. This is a massive weakness of the ship compared to its nearest competitors in caliber that cannot be argued away.

 

To buff the ship to T8 levels regardless, soft stats or gimmicks would have to be introduced far above and beyond what Bismarck and Tirpitz had to be buffed with (torpedoes, secondaries, tiny citadel, hydro...).

 

Lesta could make the citadel really small by culling some decks from the citadel hitbox and the belt is great anyway, but buffing the ship like that would only make it comparable in this area to the German BBs. Besides, NC and Amagi have pretty small citadels too. The ship would need a lot more buffing than just this. Even if you start adding gimmicks like radar, defensive fire, or give it low rudder shift... it's still not enough in my opinion. A KGV with defensive fire AND radar AND a 10s rudder shift would still be the worst T8 battleship by far, and most of this is down to the overmatch mechanic.

 

A KGV with 15" guns that properly overmatch cruiser bow armor could be made balanced with some nice accuracy despite the horrible turret traverse, but not 14". I see no way to buff the soft stats of the ship enough to make the ship viable at T8.

 

edit:

I mean, is it theoretically possible to buff the ship enough to make it viable at T8? I guess! But I personally have no concrete ideas how to make this happen off the top of my mind.

 

...Radar, 14km base detection range, 10s rudder shift, improved heal like Warspite.

 

I guess this would be playable at T8, but it would be a difficult and unusual ship that scales terribly for bad players.

 

But is this what you want? A 10.5km ninja battleship with glacial turret traverse?

 

The basic design inherits such stunning weaknesses that it requires massive buffs in other areas. Which is possible, sure, but is it really what the ship deserves?

 

You at least give reasonings to your opinion. Will react in any professional fashion later. 

[piritskenyer]

You'd have to artificially buff it to the point it would no longer be a King George V class battleship.

 

Just as a 3x3x 15" "KGV" wouldn't be a KGV class BB

[anonym_MfZ6T7iwWpUC]

 

To paraphrase: The original proposal for the KGV class was to have 3x3 15" guns

 

I couldn't care less about what may have been proposed. It does not interest me. Like has been said before, not just by me. I want to see the 'as launched, and existed' KGV class, not what was proposed, and rejected.

[Trainspite]

 

Please. No. Slow turrets are no longer a balancing factor since the Bayern's arrival. The Bayern packs the same guns and is pretty much an equal in terms of overall maneuverability yet it isn't gimped with rusted turrets. I'd take the Bayern's ''bad'' accuracy any day of the week if it meant getting rid of the horrendous turret traverse. Using the rudder isn't much of a compensating factor as using the rudder means flashing more of your broadside.

 

The cruiser line is a joke. I have a ton of respect for any player that can grind through tiers 2 - 5. I've had two games in the Emerald and I want quit the line for good. No more gimped out gimmicks for what is arguably the most anticipated nation that will be introduced in to the game. The trend of making their premiums considerably better (HE on the Perth and Belfast) also needs to stop. If anything premiums should be the gimmick ships.

 

On the unique consumable that boosts reload for a time at the expense of increased chance of detonation, I like that. Some people may be triggered by that, but it did seem to be practice at Jutland to cut corners if it meant getting shells down range faster.

 

Well, it can be adapted to, I am not frightened by Warspite's traverse, since I do have a quickier turn time with Warspite than New Mexico as I have an EM captain in Warspite. But looking at the historical values, unless they are buffed a bit, only Nelson is really better than 2 degrees per second above tier 5. I would expect them to be buffed a bit in that regard though, since a lot of players don't like the turret traverse, it is doubtful WG will make probably one of the most popular battleship/cruiser lines difficult to play like that.

 

The first time I used free XP to skip ships was with the RN CLs, used the 120k odd free XP I had to get straight to Leander, which I haven't bought yet. Having tested them, I know how woefully inadequate they are with their major damage source taken away, nerfed torpedo stats and borked armour models. They would be far better ships with HE, even with the citadel problems. Caledon I imagine is quite a nice Tenryu hunter for example, with AP, and HE would blaze most targets you would outrun. 

 

Nope.  The embarrassments are those wanting to overtier a ship solely based on armour, without looking at the gun,  which is inferior to the guns on the North Carolina,  Bismarck and Amagi class ships.

 

At tier 8, this ship will be completely outclassed.

 

 

Oh, I am not just looking at the good aspects of KGV. I know her guns are sub-par for tier 8, but that is her balance factor. If she had better guns, she would have basically no disadvantages unless WG took to the soft stats and main stats with the nerf bat. You take KGV and give her 9x 16" instead of 10x 14"? Congratulations, you have a Lion.

 

Nope, 15" guns and the similar armour scheme of the KGV. And the other tier 9's use 16" guns of varying calibre.

 

 

Lion-class can also fit Tier 10 as there was a 4x3 16" proposal. I'll have to dig around for the design name.

 

Edit: 16E-38 - Lion-class Design proposal.

 

*Looks at Alsace* - *Passes designs of Alsace to Tano*

15" at tier 9 you say?

 

Also, 16E-38 is too slow for tier 10. 26kn, with effectively the same armament as Montana, with worse armour, and less HP.

 

The Lion design I think would get tier 10 is this:

Tier 10 is easy enough.

 

The first choice is most likely to be a Lion design from 1945. I think it is called plan B or so. 

- 69,140t full load, gives around 92'400 HP.

- Quite long, 960ft at Waterline, so similar maneuverability to Grosser Kurfurst is expected.

- 9x 16", capable of 3RPM (20 sec reload), and could possibly use USN 16" Super heavy rounds.

- 14" Armour belt 

- 32 knots tops.

- 24x 4.5" DP guns, 68x 40mm AA

- No catapult

- Lowest detection of a tier 10 BB (Not much taller than KGV or Lion 1942)

 

Call her Thunderer (Last of the named Lions planned), and she should be ideal to be the tier 10 of a fast BB line, (QE,KGV, Lion etc.)

 

 

And here is a source for that:

 

Just so you know, Daigensui is a person who goes around in archives for WG, finding designs. I would think that she is a reputable person with her efforts therefore. 

 

All you do is you see the 14", and instantly think it is inadequate, without taking the bigger picture of balance, game mechanics, WG Dev decisions, and historical knowledge. A ship is not decided by one statistic, and for this I will give you a comparison.

 

HMS King George V vs USS Tennessee - I.e. The other most obvious 14" armed ship that should be at tier 7.

 

                           KGV                      Tennessee

Displacement:    46,090t                  41,607t

Speed:                28.3kn                   21kn

Length:               217m                     190m

Armour:              14.7"-15" Belt        8"-13.5" Belt

DP Battery:         8x 2 5.25"              8x 2 5"

AA Battery: 

 

KGV:

• 8x 2 5.25”
• 12x 8 40mm Pompoms
• 2x 4 40mm Bofors
• 6x 2 20mm Oerlikons
• 24x 1 20mm Oerlikons

DoY:

• 8x 2 5.25”
• 8x 8 40mm Pompoms
• 6x 4 40mm Pompoms
• 2x 4 40mm Bofors
• 16x 2 20mm Oerlikons
• 8x 1 20mm Oerlikons

Anson:

• 8x 2 5.25”
• 8x 8 40mm Pompoms
• 2x 4 40mm Pompoms
• 4x 4 40mm Bofors
• 53x 1 20mm Oerlikons
• 6x 2 20mm Oerlikons

Howe:

• 8x 2 5.25”
• 8x 8 40mm Pompoms
• 8x 4 40mm Pompoms
• 8x 4 40mm Bofors
• 18x 1 40mm Bofors
• 4x 2 20mm Oerlikons

 

Tennessee:

• 8x 2 5"
• 40x 40mm Bofors
• 41x 20mm Oerlikons

                  

Main Armament: 10x 14"                  12x 14"

             - Range   KGV > Tennessee

             - RoF (Predicted) KGV: 28s Tenn: 30s

             - Velocity 757mps (869)                 823mps

             - 

 

Tano, you are also quick on the insults and derogatory comments.  When someone doesn't agree with my views, I will try to explain them, give my reasoning against theirs. With you, all you do is state a view, try to back it up, and then insult anyone who gives evidence against it. You are not a guy I would like to know in person, given what has been laid out in front of me anyway.

 

 

 

Turret traverse: same as QE = 72s (this value is already buffed over historical values from 2°/s to 2.5°/s. It's unlikely Lesta will deviate from historical values even more)

RoF: 2 RPM (unlikely Lesta will deviate)

 

 

Lesta could make the citadel really small by culling some decks from the citadel hitbox and the belt is great anyway, but buffing the ship like that would only make it comparable in this area to the German BBs. Besides, NC and Amagi have pretty small citadels too. The ship would need a lot more buffing than just this. Even if you start adding gimmicks like radar, defensive fire, or give it low rudder shift... it's still not enough in my opinion. A KGV with defensive fire AND radar AND a 10s rudder shift would still be the worst T8 battleship by far, and most of this is down to the overmatch mechanic.

 

 

edit:

I mean, is it theoretically possible to buff the ship enough to make it viable at T8? I guess! But I personally have no concrete ideas how to make this happen off the top of my mind.

 

...Radar, 14km base detection range, 10s rudder shift, improved heal like Warspite.

 

I guess this would be playable at T8, but it would be a difficult and unusual ship that scales terribly for bad players.

 

But is this what you want? A 10.5km ninja battleship with glacial turret traverse?

 

The basic design inherits such stunning weaknesses that it requires massive buffs in other areas. Which is possible, sure, but is it really what the ship deserves?

 

 

- About Overpenning 25mm. First off, there is a branch of cruisers in the game that never get that much bow armour, so maybe that can become more commonplace. That is doubtful, but then there is always the option of WG simply fiddling with the game stats, and they hold final say, and if a historical stat gets in the way of balance, it gets thrown out the window and a better stat more suited appears.

 

- Turret Traverse. As I said above, I can't really see WG introducing a line of BBs with slow turning turrets, unless their maneuverability is second to none. It is too fustrating a form of gameplay for many people, and doing that to one of the most popular lines is due to attract substantial criticism. Most Tier 5 and below RN BBs have 4 degrees per second, the exceptions being Nelson and G3. And while keeping it historical is desirable for most of the time, WG will put balance first. Case in point, the USN CAs. Specifically, the turrets used for Pensacola, New Orleans and Indianapolis. They would have a stunning 51.5s traverse time for 180 degrees, and for a heavy cruiser, that is simply not viable. Therefore, WG buffed it, and now Pensacola is sitting happy on a 26.5s traverse time. I don't think WG will use anywhere near the historical value, for KGV, Lion and the inter-war designs, bar Nelson & G3. I have a feeling, that with the possible exception of N3 and L3 (Slow BBs - Slow Turrets?) - the traverse will not be below 60s. Maybe QE and the Rs are an exception to that, and be like Warspite with a 72s turn time.

 

- RoF - WG use RoF as a large balancing tool, and buff it ahistorically all over the place. Aoba, Omaha, Karlsruhe, Furutaka etc. - But for a comparable case, look at Fuso, somehow sitting at 28s despite having 2RPM listed. Same for Dunkerque. Colorado should be 1.5RPM, but she gets 2RPM in game. To KGV the edge, why force the 2RPM on her when so many other ships break the barrier. 28s at least for her reload and who knows, maybe WG will decide to decrease it further. 

 

The Overmatch mechanic, while being an annoyance, is not a valid reason in my eyes to try and slice off a 1930s treaty BB from her contemparies. She outclasses everything at tier 7 by a long way, by virtue of being the equivalent of Bismarck etc. - Therefore, while the 14" will probably be buffed to deal with the overmatching. Afterall, Balance > Historical Values. And KGV would be such a broken ship without nerfs at tier 7, that it is far simpler to buff her guns that bit to make up for it. Rather than nerf the many outstanding statistics of KGV into tier 7 to try and compete where she simply is not meant to be.

 

No gimmicks are really needed, since she is an entirely capable ship, aside from the guns, which I mentioned as sub-par before, so WG can fiddle with the numbers of her guns. It doesn't take much really. If there are any gimmicks, then they come from WG trying to give the RN BBs a flavour. 

 

And hopefully the final nail in the coffin for the idea of KGV at tier 7, is that the historical advisors that WG confer with are in favour of the KGV being tier 8. 

[fnord_disc]

 - About Overpenning 25mm. First off, there is a branch of cruisers in the game that never get that much bow armour, so maybe that can become more commonplace. That is doubtful, but then there is always the option of WG simply fiddling with the game stats, and they hold final say, and if a historical stat gets in the way of balance, it gets thrown out the window and a better stat more suited appears.

 

Lesta would have to change the cruiser armor of about a dozen cruisers in the game and completely upend the balance. The chance of this happening to make one ship work at T8 is practically 0.

 

 - Turret Traverse. As I said above, I can't really see WG introducing a line of BBs with slow turning turrets, unless their maneuverability is second to none. It is too fustrating a form of gameplay for many people, and doing that to one of the most popular lines is due to attract substantial criticism. Most Tier 5 and below RN BBs have 4 degrees per second, the exceptions being Nelson and G3. And while keeping it historical is desirable for most of the time, WG will put balance first. Case in point, the USN CAs. Specifically, the turrets used for Pensacola, New Orleans and Indianapolis. They would have a stunning 51.5s traverse time for 180 degrees, and for a heavy cruiser, that is simply not viable. Therefore, WG buffed it, and now Pensacola is sitting happy on a 26.5s traverse time. I don't think WG will use anywhere near the historical value, for KGV, Lion and the inter-war designs, bar Nelson & G3. I have a feeling, that with the possible exception of N3 and L3 (Slow BBs - Slow Turrets?) - the traverse will not be below 60s. Maybe QE and the Rs are an exception to that, and be like Warspite with a 72s turn time.

 

Lesta did not significantly buff the turret traverse of any battleship in the game. The 0.5°/s on Warspite are just about the limit. Arguing that they could buff KGV's traverse more than that is resorting to something without precedent among battleships.

 

Some were buffed more than 0.5°/s.

 

 - RoF - WG use RoF as a large balancing tool, and buff it ahistorically all over the place. Aoba, Omaha, Karlsruhe, Furutaka etc. - But for a comparable case, look at Fuso, somehow sitting at 28s despite having 2RPM listed. Same for Dunkerque. Colorado should be 1.5RPM, but she gets 2RPM in game. To KGV the edge, why force the 2RPM on her when so many other ships break the barrier. 28s at least for her reload and who knows, maybe WG will decide to decrease it further.

 

Same argument as above - I could see 28s happening, but not a lot lower than that. There is no precedent for such a large buff among battleships.

 

 She outclasses everything at tier 7 by a long way,

 

No, she does not.

 

Historically? Yes. It was a solid design and a worthy contemporary of the other treaty battleships. In the game, with stats near those she would inherit? No.

 

Gun performance and other offensive stats are all that really matters, even if you and a lot of others don't want to admit that. KGV has a great belt, but as sad as it is, what matters isn't the belt once you get above 300mm. What matters is the citadel hitbox. GK is much more durable than Yamato or Montana even though their belt is way better. The size of the citadel hitbox, in turn, is a matter of interpretation and balancing. It's neither an argument for nor against T8, and therefore the armor protection of KGV is neither an argument for nor against T8. The third turret has very bad angles to the front and the ship will have to expose the entire broadside to fire all turrets. I have the line drawings here and the ship exposes 50° to fire the back turret, completely eliminating any advantage its armor would have given it through angling. In most engagements you will be limited to the front 6x14" turrets, which is anemic to say the least.

 

If Lesta gave KGV the guns that it historically had, then their performance would be inferior to a T6 Fuso:

 

• Inferior penetration
• Inferior flight time
• Inferior in number
• Inferior traverse

 

...assuming one ignores areas where Fuso was buffed over historical values like RoF. If the rest of the ship is interpreted very conservatively for the game, it would even be balanced at T6.

 

Now, I can already hear you typing right now. I don't mean this as a criticism of the historical design in any way. If anything, it's proof of how far away the game's dynamics are from the real world.

 

 And KGV would be such a broken ship without nerfs at tier 7

 

Why? Please argue in terms of game dynamics, not history. And I would prefer an argument centered around the 757m/s ordinary charge, but we can go with the coastal rounds if you like.

 

The way it looks to me, she's a fair bit faster than a Nagato with drastically inferior guns. She has better AA and probably a better heal and that's about it. Sounds pretty balanced to me.

 

edit:

As for the citadel hitbox, Breyer's line drawings are contradictory. One drawing shows two decks above the machinery, the other shows only one deck. Since this is the waterline deck, the citadel hitbox would end either a little above or below the water = down to balancing and neither an argument for nor against anything.

[SeaMonsterUK]

 

Just as a 3x3x 15" "KGV" wouldn't be a KGV class BB

 

That would be the only way it would be tier 8, as it stands with its 14" armament it is tier 7

[sharpie65]

For all gameplay purposes, I think the RN BBs will and should be intended as cruiser-hunters for +/- one tier either way - the same as what happened with the CLs being destroyer-hunters rather than going toe-to-toe with BBs and CAs like with other nations. They'll still struggle against other BBs of equal and higher-tier, but that will just reinforce the style of play that WG seems to have with when picking the CLs.

[SeaMonsterUK]

 

*Looks at Alsace* - *Passes designs of Alsace to Tano*

15" at tier 9 you say?

 

Also, 16E-38 is too slow for tier 10. 26kn, with effectively the same armament as Montana, with worse armour, and less HP.

 

The Lion design I think would get tier 10 is this:

I should correct that,  15"/42 Mark I guns as tier 9 won't be happening. 

 

Also Lion class with 4x3 set up can get a speed and armour buff. It is the only logical Lion class for tier 10. 

[mr3awsome]

edit:

As for the citadel hitbox, Breyer's line drawings are contradictory. One drawing shows two decks above the machinery, the other shows only one deck. Since this is the waterline deck, the citadel hitbox would end either a little above or below the water = down to balancing and neither an argument for nor against anything.

There are three deck. 

The citadel height would presumably be based on the lowest of these three.

 

 

Also Lion class with 4x3 set up can get a speed and armour buff. It is the only logical Lion class for tier 10. 

It can't. Otherwise you're just making up another Montana style battleship. Like the DEBB Tier X. 

The actual 1944 Lion offers a more unique flavour to the game. 

And its that difference in flavour that helps keep the game going. 

 

[SeaMonsterUK]

It can't. Otherwise you're just making up another Montana style battleship. Like the DEBB Tier X. 

The actual 1944 Lion offers a more unique flavour to the game. 

And its that difference in flavour that helps keep the game going. 

 

Only real difference I see is the use of Mark III Turrets with heavier shells, I don't see how it would be balanced vs ships like Montana.

[Oely001]

@fnord_disc: Yes, gun calibre is an issue on KGV, but not an unsolvable one. There are already König, Dunkerque and Scharnhorst in the game, and all three are good ships, no because of their guns but despite of their guns. Guns will remain KGV's weakness - like in reality - but the strong belt allows her to use all ten of them savely, and with 28 sec reload and good HE shells (and the new HEAP captain skill) she will be dangeous enough. And she can brawl, her secondaries are good, and turning circle can be quite small. And, if necessary, Lesta could take the solution they used with RN cruiser AP, which is in fact very potent although it is 152 mm.

 

As I wrote before, there is still the possibility to take the hypothetical 3x3 15'' armament, but this would make the ship only more traditional in gameplay and a little better against cruisers but not much stronger at all. KGV is Tier VIII or it is not Tier VIII, with 14'' and with 15''.

 

Edit: Cruiser bow armor is totally about balance in WoWs. I see no problem to adapt it at all cruisers to be overmatched by 14''. It wouldn't make any difference for these ships.

[SeaMonsterUK]

@fnord_disc: Yes, gun calibre is an issue on KGV, but not an unsolvable one. There are already König, Dunkerque and Scharnhorst in the game, and all three are good ships, no because of their guns but despite of their guns.

Correct, but all three have guns which are better than on the KGV-class, whether marginally (Konig is perhaps arguable at this) or significantly.

 

KGV is still useing World War 1 era guns (OK they were developed in the 30's, but the shells are old, that is what I'm saying).

[Oely001]

@Ashoka: You need not to answer to my posts.