Royal BB line

[SeaMonsterUK]

 

[edited]

 

So do most other people. And it can be buffed up to use Mark 2 16" guns.

[Earl_of_Northesk]

 

So do most other people. And it can be buffed up to use Mark 2 16" guns.

 

As in, no one.

Nelson would have, to sum it up:

- the worst speed of any T8 BB (by far)

- second worst armour behind Amagi

- the worst guns (marginally better than the 14" guns on KGV which you are advocating so heavily against, while historically having atrocious disperson)

- AA only superior to Amagi

- least HP

 

 

And you advocate against small buffs for KGV while wanting to give Nelson completely ahisotrical guns? 

 

At this point, I doubt your cognitive abilities.

[SeaMonsterUK]

 

As in, no one.

Nelson would have, to sum it up:

- the worst speed of any T8 BB (by far)

- second worst armour behind Amagi

- the worst guns

- AA only superior to Amagi

- least HP

 

 

And you advocate against small buffs for KGV while wanting to give Nelson completely ahisotrical guns? 

 

At this point, I doubt your cognitive abilities.

 

You need to recheck people's fanmade/speculatory trees.

 

And I place the Nelson at Tier 7, so far your reading skills are lacking. The G3 would be tier 8.

 

Edit: I've reread your comment and no, the Nelson is definitely Tier 7, and have already stated before, if you would also retake a look, that the only way the KGV would be Tier 8 is to have ahistorical guns.

[anonym_MfZ6T7iwWpUC]

At the risk of derailing this BB thread, I think commonsense tells us that any battlecruiser could potentially have a problem at higher tiers against any battleship. If cruisers are hard to balance at T8+ then I can see a true BC being harder still. They have to differentiate it from the BB's. That means thinner armour, but faster outright speed (traditionally). But isn't a 'Fast Battleship' just a BC in disguise?

[anonym_MfZ6T7iwWpUC]

Nelson class, definitely T7. Now that's a class I really do want to play.

[SeaMonsterUK]

At the risk of derailing this BB thread, I think commonsense tells us that any battlecruiser could potentially have a problem at higher tiers against any battleship. If cruisers are hard to balance at T8+ then I can see a true BC being harder still. They have to differentiate it from the BB's. That means thinner armour, but faster outright speed (traditionally). But isn't a 'Fast Battleship' just a BC in disguise?

 

We already have 1 Battlecruiser at Tier 8 already, the Amagi.

[SeaMonsterUK]

Nelson class, definitely T7. Now that's a class I really do want to play.

 

Can't wait for the premium, Rodney.

[SmartassNoob]

Why do you need to make fictional ridiculous buffs to WW1 BBs? If a nation never had any tier 8+ ships and never even designed any, just let their BB tree end at 7 or 8. This will be the case for Italy too.

[Earl_of_Northesk]

 

You need to recheck people's fanmade/speculatory trees.

 

And I place the Nelson at Tier 7, so far your reading skills are lacking. The G3 would be tier 8.

 

Edit: I've reread your comment and no, the Nelson is definitely Tier 7, and have already stated before, if you would also retake a look, that the only way the KGV would be Tier 8 is to have ahistorical guns.

 

Since you talked about the Nelson being a bypass to a T10 in a slow line, without ever mentioning G3's position in your proposal, you should probably just write it down properly.

 

While your first paragraph here STILL hints at you wanting to Nelson at T8.

Okay.

 

 

And I don't give a crap about fandmade tech trees from random people, because most people have no clue.

I remember the fan made tech trees before the German battleships came out. Even the ones made by "gaming magazines". Atrocious. I don't care.

[SeaMonsterUK]

Why do you need to make fictional ridiculous buffs to WW1 BBs? If a nation never had any tier 8+ ships and never even designed any, just let their BB tree end at 7 or 8. This will be the case for Italy too.

 

WG will create fake ships, don't you worry about that.

[Earl_of_Northesk]

 

Yes.

 

 

The armor is fine for T8.

 

 

Yes.

 

 

Hm, yes, I know what you mean. But the difference between T6, T7 and T8 battleships is quite stark and I don't think the fact that Scharnhorst works at T7 is necessarily an argument that the same concept works at T8 for KGV. T7 also meets quite different opposition these days.

 

 

Yes, and KGV is 10m longer than NoCal. It would be fairly agile, but certainly not revolutionarily so. Compared to NoCal you would have, in soft stats:

 

• Similar AA
• Similar or slightly better armor
• Slightly worse agility

 

And by this time I hope we have sufficiently established that the guns are inferior.

 

We have established that and I never disagreed. I just think we have different opionions about the consequences in game, which I don't think are as negative as you think.

Tbh, we will have to wait and see until they arrive in ST to settle this argument 

[SeaMonsterUK]

 

We have established that and I never disagreed. I just think we have different opionions about the consequences in game, which I don't think are as negative as you think.

Tbh, we will have to wait and see until they arrive in ST to settle this argument 

 

I'm willing to put money on it......

[Grimsley]

Apologies if this has already been posted, but seeing as people seem to be discussing the 14" a lot, here's what looks to be a cut from some actual firing trials (originally posted by Horizonwalker on the NA forums):

 

 

 

Might not be that relevant, but just for those curious.

[SeaMonsterUK]

Apologies if this has already been posted, but seeing as people seem to be discussing the 14" a lot, here's what looks to be a cut from some actual firing trials (originally posted by Horizonwalker on the NA forums):

 

 

 

Might not be that relevant, but just for those curious.

 

The good old times of the Vickers 14" gun.

[Blitzkrieguk]

Personally I'm leaning to putting the KGV at T8, mainly because we are obviously going to get the Nelson at T7.

If they did shuffle them down, at T8 you'd probably have to stick the Vanguard there, which probably wouldn't happen due to it most likely being selected as a premium at a guess. 

 

Let's be honest people, this is an arcade game, WG will most likely put the KGV at T8 and make some changes to get it placed there, regardless of which ever argument drum you bang. The reasoning behind it would most likely be they will want to place as many historically existing ships into the tree as possible without resorting to paper, as T9 and 10 will become paper. Due to they need to place the Nelson somewhere and it's far more suited as a T7 compared to T8 it would be natural that to fill the next ship would be the KGV since between the two it can handle T8 better than the Nelson due to its other attributes. While I highly doubt they would stick a paper ship at T8 in the RN line.

 

Then again we can speculate all day but with WG, christ they could throw anything into the works. 

[SeaMonsterUK]

Personally I'm leaning to putting the KGV at T8, mainly because we are obviously going to get the Nelson at T7.

If they did shuffle them down, at T8 you'd probably have to stick the Vanguard there, which probably wouldn't happen due to it most likely being selected as a premium at a guess. 

 

Let's be honest people, this is an arcade game, WG will most likely put the KGV at T8 and make some changes to get it placed there, regardless of which ever argument drum you bang. The reasoning behind it would most likely be they will want to place as many historically existing ships into the tree as possible without resorting to paper, as T9 and 10 will become paper. Due to they need to place the Nelson somewhere and it's far more suited as a T7 compared to T8 it would be natural that to fill the next ship would be the KGV since between the two it can handle T8 better than the Nelson due to its other attributes. While I highly doubt they would stick a paper ship at T8 in the RN line.

 

Then again we can speculate all day but with WG, christ they could throw anything into the works. 

 

Depends though, KGV can be split into 2 tiers, with the Nelson still remaining at Tier 7 as a Branch off.

[Oely001]

@fnord_disc: I see the general tendecy of Wargaming making every ship line a little stronger than the existing ones. KGV is Tier VIII in all aspects except her guns.

Main armor belt, HP, speed, torpedo protection: KGV > North Carolina

Deck armor, secondaries, AAA, turning circle: KGV = North Carolina (ok, AAA may be a little worse)

 

Compared with Colorado, KGV is even far, far better in any aspect except guns. Hell, even Nelson will be close to OP on Tier VII.

 

I often have to play New Mexico on T8 battles and know the limits of 14'' guns quite well. It is difficult but you can still punish T8 BB with them, and with higher range you could punish them a lot more. Wargaming has to do something with KGV 14'', defenitely. I named some ways (very strong HE, modified bounce angle, shorter reload, very good Krupp, maybe even supercharge). It would be considerable stretching of reality numbers, but downgrading a 1936 design to 1918-1925 standards would be even more unrealistic.

[SeaMonsterUK]

@fnord_disc: I see the general tendecy of Wargaming making every ship line a little stronger than the existing ones. KGV is Tier VIII in all aspects except her guns.

Main armor belt, HP, speed, torpedo protection: KGV > North Carolina

Deck armor, secondaries, AAA, turning circle: KGV = North Carolina (ok, AAA maybe a little worse)

 

Compared with Colorado, KGV is even far, far better in any aspect except guns. Hell, even Nelson will be close to OP on Tier VII.

 

I often have to play New Mexico on T8 battles and know the limits of 14'' guns quite well. It is difficult but you can still punish T8 BB with her, and with higher range you could punish them a lot more. Wargaming has to do something with KGV 14'', defenitely. I named some ways (very strong HE, modified bounce angle, shorter reload, very good Krupp, maybe even supercharge). It would be considerable stretching of reality numbers, but downgrading a 1936 design to 1918 standards would be even more unrealistic.

 

Considering it's main adversary is most likely Gneisenau that does seem fair, as it too is a fairly modern design compared to the Colorado and Nagato. But I don't believe stretching reality is the answer.

[Trainspite]

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

I'm not  suggesting changing the armour of the cruisers, they suffer enough already, but I was suggesting that WG fiddle with the numbers her guns. If that means that in the game files, they are listed/categorised as a 15" while appearing as a 14" in other aspects, then so be it.

 

Colorado was buffed over 2 seconds I believe, And other BBs likely to make it into the game will need to receive a significant buff. Littorio, 1.3RPM to 2. Nelson 1.5 to over 2. 

 

I would think she does, unless you start nerfing her soft stats. Accuracy, AA, etc. - 

 

A ship can have brilliant gun stats, and still be a ship that is regarded terribly. I am mainly looking at ships which are not ideal platforms, Courageous etc. - KGV is a good to excellent platform with lacklustre guns. KGV's armour is included in the package of a good platform. The citadel area is not likely to be anything bad

 

The problem is with trying to put KGV in game as historically accurate as possible, is that most other ships are not like that at all, and you start to break the games fine line between balanced and not balanced. If we take all the historical stats in, Kirov is taking the same time as a BB to reload. Given that Kirov is not a good platform, I can't see WG making KGV's guns worse than Fusos, even if historical stats would suggest that. Plus, the 14" guns are not too bad in history, considering KGV punched Bismarck up pretty well, and DoY sliced through Scharnhorsts engines. 

 

When thinking about KGV at tier 7, she is simply not a natural fit. You can pretty clearly see that this ship is tier 8 capable, just by looking at her. In game terms, she would be uncomfortable to play, due to the constant historical stats. Turret traverse, so I have to think realisticly, but unfortunately, I can't realisticly see KGV at tier 7. Compared to Nagato, she gets 10 comparatively weaker guns compared to 8 16", but probably Warspite esque dispersion (I think that will be a RN BB trait, maybe a nod to RN crews and seaworthy ships). RoF would be average, and she shouldn't have any problems slicing open BBs, and for cruisers she would be a nightmare.  She would also have ludicrous AA for the tier, and her secondaries wouldn't be too bad. She has the speed to flexibly operate quickly and effectively, the HP to stay alive, the armour to keep her HP, the AA to make her an almost immune zone for carriers, while sacrificing basically nothing, because her guns fit into tier 7 well enough to not be a major disadvantage. Some ships don't have a clear disadvantage, but KGV, she is simply too much, and that is virtue of being a late 1930s ship, under-tierred at tier 7. The way you would have to make her at tier 7 work is to nerf the shite out of her soft stats, to prevent her from being too dominant. At tier 8, you buff the soft stats. And throw in whatever tricks WG may want to give a RN BB line. 

 

A better comparison I think is a North Carolina, with similar AA, maneuverability and secondaries, but slightly faster, trading in a powerful armament for significant armour, while North Carolina has the opposite. KGV gets the short end of that stick because armour can be made to work more effectively in game, angling etc. , while gun stats are harder to get the most out of, hence small stat buffs.

 

 

[SeaMonsterUK]

 

I'm not  suggesting changing the armour of the cruisers, they suffer enough already, but I was suggesting that WG fiddle with the numbers her guns. If that means that in the game files, they are listed/categorised as a 15" while appearing as a 14" in other aspects, then so be it.

 

This, literally, has to be the worst proposal. You might as well make guns on the Iowa and Montana into 18" guns with the visuals of a 16" gun kind of bad idea. It's more practical to give it the 3x3 15" guns.

 

 

And she wouldn't be overtiered at Tier 7, she would however be overtired at Tier 8, that is clear by her armament.

 

And in terms of timeline, the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were both laid down 2 years before KGV, launched 2 years before KGV and commissioned 1 year before KGV. In fact, in game that would be her primary adversary.

[VC381]

Weren't most of the hits on Bismarck at such short range that it's fairly meaningless to use them as a benchmark for the power of the guns? In game terms, as fnord said, most fighting is this close anyway so autobounce is more important than theoretical belt penetration.

[piritskenyer]

Weren't most of the hits on Bismarck at such short range that it's fairly meaningless to use them as a benchmark for the power of the guns? In game terms, as fnord said, most fighting is this close anyway so autobounce is more important than theoretical belt penetration.

 

Yes well, they were mostly fired at a range shorter than 5'000m, but the point of me bringing it up was that the power of the 14" guns is being diminished so much in this thread that I just had to bring it up. Sure it's not exactly a good comparison, as it doesn't give an example to the long range performance.

I might be mistaken, but I seem to recall that in the engagement that sank Hood, KGV managed to score damaging hits on Bismarck, and that was an engagement at a rather respectable range. (I summon thee Trainspite!).

 

Yes, it's true that autobounce is at this level more important than flatout penetration, however it is still important. While you may indeed bounce off the bow plate of a T8 CA, blab them in the face (superstructure) with good enough accuracy and you'll do considerable damage to and through the frontal armament and superstructure. Bouncing BB shots from the main belt can happen at practically any calibre (lookiing at you Mogami bouncing 460mm off the side), so the only real worry here is overmatch. Despite that I'm still confident in the ship's ability to lay down the hurt even frontally (maybe based off my experience with Dunkerque).

[SeaMonsterUK]

Prince of Wales scored 2 decisive hits on Bismarck, one to the bow and the other below water line, so still not the best comparison.

[Trainspite]

 

This, literally, has to be the worst proposal. You might as well make guns on the Iowa and Montana into 18" guns with the visuals of a 16" gun kind of bad idea. It's more practical to give it the 3x3 15" guns.

 

 

And she wouldn't be overtiered at Tier 7, she would however be overtired at Tier 8, that is clear by her armament.

 

And in terms of timeline, the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were both laid down 2 years before KGV, launched 2 years before KGV and commissioned 1 year before KGV. In fact, in game that would be her primary adversary.

 

Oh really? How is it that bad? It involves changing a couple numbers in the game code, because a ship that is so obviously tier 8 in all but one aspect falls just foul of one decision. 

 

Other ships would also have 14" at tier 8, and then get hit by the overmatch mechanics. look at the North Carolina preliminary design proposals. A lot are armed with 14" guns. I would consider some of those design to be tier 7 matieral (Example, Current North Carolina Armour, slightly reduced AA, 2-3 knots faster, 12x 14"). So you face a choice of either fiddling with the stats or changing the game mechanics. 

 

"Scharnhorst is overtierred at tier 7, that is clear by her armament."

 

Basically what your argument is, again seeing 14" and thinking, nope, absolutely no 14" armed BB must go above tier 7. Killing off variety and logical progression for the sake of a silly little constant in your mind. Scharnhorst has 11" guns and she works. In fact she had to be nerfed. Yet her guns can't overmatch BBs. KGV is not exactly the same, but the same principle applies to a large extent.

 

Timeline plays a part, but KGV > Scharnhorst & Gneisenau. Even you should see that, considering how KGV & Rodney left Bismarck a smouldering, slowly sinking wreck, and Duke of York hammered Scharnhorst into submission. The KGV class is the RN 35'000t New Battleship, her equivalents to this are Bismarck, Littorio, North Carolina and Richelieu. Aka, Mid to late 1930s full and over the treaty limits BBs. Scharnhorst & Gneisenau evolved from an uparmoured Panzerschiffe, that could take on a Dunkerque. They don't reach the treaty limits, and while from the same time frame, simply do not hold up to the bigger ships. 

 

I might be mistaken, but I seem to recall that in the engagement that sank Hood, KGV managed to score damaging hits on Bismarck, and that was an engagement at a rather respectable range. (I summon thee Trainspite!).

 

 

 

The Prince of Wales hit the Bismarck 3 times, from what I know, first at 21.5km, then at 18.25km, and then again  at 16.45km. In which order the hits did the damage I don't know. 

[SeaMonsterUK]

 

Oh really? How is it that bad? It involves changing a couple numbers in the game code, because a ship that is so obviously tier 8 in all but one aspect falls just foul of one decision. 

 

Other ships would also have 14" at tier 8, and then get hit by the overmatch mechanics. look at the North Carolina preliminary design proposals. A lot are armed with 14" guns. I would consider some of those design to be tier 7 matieral (Example, Current North Carolina Armour, slightly reduced AA, 2-3 knots faster, 12x 14"). So you face a choice of either fiddling with the stats or changing the game mechanics. 

 

"Scharnhorst is overtierred at tier 7, that is clear by her armament."

 

Basically what your argument is, again seeing 14" and thinking, nope, absolutely no 14" armed BB must go above tier 7. Killing off variety and logical progression for the sake of a silly little constant in your mind. Scharnhorst has 11" guns and she works. In fact she had to be nerfed. Yet her guns can't overmatch BBs. KGV is not exactly the same, but the same principle applies to a large extent.

 

Timeline plays a part, but KGV > Scharnhorst & Gneisenau. Even you should see that, considering how KGV & Rodney left Bismarck a smouldering, slowly sinking wreck, and Duke of York hammered Scharnhorst into submission. The KGV class is the RN 35'000t New Battleship, her equivalents to this are Bismarck, Littorio, North Carolina and Richelieu. Aka, Mid to late 1930s full and over the treaty limits BBs. Scharnhorst & Gneisenau evolved from an uparmoured Panzerschiffe, that could take on a Dunkerque. They don't reach the treaty limits, and while from the same time frame, simply do not hold up to the bigger ships. 

 

1. Bending Reality to suit game balance is not OK, so yes changing the 10x14" guns to 10x15" guns without changing the gun visuals to match (which would require a turret redesign, which turns into a completely unrealistic ship and turns WG into a laughing stock) is an extremely bad idea.

2. Scharnhorst 11" guns can penetrate more armour than the King George V-class 14" guns, due to flatter trajectory of the shell at long range, only at short and extreme range will the KGV-class have better penetration here (note: this is belt armour penetration, 14" guns have superior deck penetration power). So Scharnhorst isn't even overtiered, just outmatched by same tier BB's and KGV would be that, twice fold at Tier 8. And yes it should be fine at Tier 7 and balanced with 14" guns (again, Scharnhorst has flatter trajectory)

3. Bismarck was heavily damaged, and was engaged at close range by 14" guns which could take full advantage of it's close range penetrating power. Also the captain had attempted, and failed, to scuttle the Bismarck prior to the engagement, making it an easy Target and was finished off by a salvo of Torpedoes fired from a Destroyer. Also, Scharnhorst suffered a failure with it's rangefinders, and was hopeless against HMS Duke of York. Assuming it's rangefinder hadn't suffered a mechanical malfunction, the battle may have ended differently.