Royal BB line

[SeaMonsterUK]

 

So you are back to repeating "it would need to be 15 or 16" guns to even be considered on par with the other ships."

 

Now lets get to the heart of matter:

a) If WG nerfed 14" performance and name them 15/16" it would suddenly be all right and work well?

b) If WG kept 14" performance but named it 15/16" it would be all right and work well?

c) If WG buffed to 14" to 15/16" performance but kept name 14" it would absolutely never work, because it's 14"?

 

What really is the matter why 14" KGV can't even be considered on par with others?

 

Side note: I think even with non-buffed 14" KGV could be considered on par with others. It might end up being weakest T8 BB, but it would be close enough to do consideration (and find it lacking).

 

So please explain in simple and clear manner why 14" is not going to work. What improvements they should need for them to work? Would 14" need more penetration? More damage? More RoF? More what? Name of the gun can't matter, it must be performance. Why they do not work, why they can't be buffed to work? Stop repeating "it would not work without 15/16" guns" and answer in simple and clear manner, please.

 

Once we get it cleared out what is the problem and how it could be fixed we can talk if needed buffs are smaller or bigger butchery for history and game balance than using pseudohistorical 15/16" guns or nerfbatting KGV to T7. 

 

14" guns are on par, penetration wise, with the 11" guns used by the Germans for the Scharnhorst, and not as good as 14"/50 guns used on New Mexico and Tennessee-class Battleships. It would need either the 15" or 16" guns otherwise it's just another complete joke like the British Cruiser "Special AP" Rounds. And with 14" guns it would be inferior to North Carolina and Bismarck-class Battleships, and Amagi-class Battlecruisers in terms of both penetration and max damage output.

[sharpie65]

Either of those would work without completely changing the ship so that it is unrecognisable as a KGV-class battleship. Saying that 14" guns would simply not work against Bismarck, for example, is poppycock - she had a 12.6" belt and 14" armour on the turrets. Would they struggle against the 'turtleback' construction? Maybe so, maybe not. We simply don't know what WG will do to make her fit at T8, so it's better to wait and see.

 

[SeaMonsterUK]

Some other potential solutions: buff the penetration values of the Mk VII shell. It wouldn't mess with the ship itself and the KGV would remain recognisable. Giving her the 3 triple 15" guns that none of the finished products got would be a kick in the teeth for "purists".

 

WG could also give the RN BBs an AP shell that works in the same manner that the CL AP does. Not only that, but the Royal Navy very rarely used HE in any of their ships; that may be why the CLs only got a (better than usual) AP round as opposed to HE/AP.

 

Either of those would work without completely changing the ship so that it is unrecognisable as a KGV-class battleship. Saying that 14" guns would simply not work against Bismarck, for example, is poppycock - she had a 12.6" belt and 14" armour on the turrets. Would they struggle against the 'turtleback' construction? Maybe so, maybe not. We simply don't know what WG will do to make her fit at T8, so it's better to wait and see.

 

Who actually gives a damn about the purists anyway? The only way this ship is going to be tier 8 is by getting those 3 triple 15" guns or bigger. Which were planned for KGV.

[Comrad_StaIin]

If you would do that the ship has to be renamed as it wouldnt be the KGV anymore

[sharpie65]

Yes. They were planned. As in, "planned for a potential design using the same shells used on the Nelson-class battleships" - unlike Gneisenau, those guns were not. Put. On. A. Single. KGV. -Class. Battleship.

 

They were considered. The battleships themselves were never ordered with the 15" guns you seem to think they would work so well with. The British would rather stick within the limits imposed by the Second London Naval Treaty with 14" guns, due to the fact that they would be left without new battleships for longer due to allow the designers to facilitate changes necessary in order to complete the ships to the new design. Therefore, they never invoked the necessary clause out of necessity.

 

If those ships did get ordered with 15" guns, the design would need to scale back on armour to avoid going outside of said Treaty limits, and the ship wouldn't fit at T8 anyway.

[SeaMonsterUK]

If you would do that the ship has to be renamed as it wouldnt be the KGV anymore

 

Same then goes for overbuffing it to unrealistic and immersion breaking levels. Let see, HMS Complete and Utter Joke?

[SeaMonsterUK]

Yes. They were planned. As in, "planned for a potential design using the same shells used on the Nelson-class battleships" - unlike Gneisenau, those guns were not. Put. On. A. Single. KGV. -Class. Battleship.

 

They were considered. The battleships themselves were never ordered with the 15" guns you seem to think they would work so well with. The British would rather stick within the limits imposed by the Second London Naval Treaty with 14" guns, due to the fact that they would be left without new battleships for longer due to changes necessary in order to complete the ships to the new design. Therefore, they never invoked the necessary clause out of necessity.

 

The reason the 15" guns not used was not just because of the London Naval Treaty, but also because of the lack of skilled Technicians and Ordance designers.

 

And I don't think the shells from the 16" Mark 1 guns of the Nelson, would fit into 15" guns that were planned for the KGV class. And it was 16" guns that the RN had no time for when it came to the clause, not the 15" guns.

[sharpie65]

 

Same then goes for overbuffing it to unrealistic and immersion breaking levels. Let see, HMS Complete and Utter Joke?

 

"Overbuffing"? How is giving a slight touch up to the British 14" shell to enable the only ship that it was equipped on "unrealistic and immersion-breaking"? If you want "realistic and immersive", take a look at the Pensacola's turrets IRL, and then take a look at them in-game.

 

And if you want "realistic and immersive", this is most likely the wrong game for you. There is nothing whatsoever realistic or immersive about German battleships, cruisers, and destroyers fighting side-by-side with American and Russian destroyers, Japanese carriers, battleships, and destroyers, and British and Russian cruisers.

[SeaMonsterUK]

 

"Overbuffing"? How is giving a slight touch up to the British 14" shell to enable the only ship that it was equipped on "unrealistic and immersion-breaking"? If you want "realistic and immersive", take a look at the Pensacola's turrets IRL, and then take a look at them in-game.

 

And if you want "realistic and immersive", this is most likely the wrong game for you. There is nothing whatsoever realistic or immersive about German battleships, cruisers, and destroyers fighting side-by-side with American and Russian destroyers, Japanese carriers, battleships, and destroyers, and British and Russian cruisers.

 

Random Battles has nothing to do with Realism or Immersion, the tech trees on the other hand......

 

And Pensacola didn't need it's guns buffed to "martian heat ray" levels like so many people want with the KGV's 14" guns.

[sharpie65]

By "look at Pensacola's guns", I meant look at the traverse time. Giving 14" rifles enough of a buff to allow the ship they are mounted to be competitive with her contemporaries is not the same as demanding a buff to "martian heat ray levels", as you put it. Giving the ship 15" or 16" guns that were only considered during the design stage would however, make the ship unrecognisable.

 

[SeaMonsterUK]

Giving 14" rifles enough of a buff to allow the ship they are mounted to be competitive with her contemporaries is not demanding a buff to "martian heat ray levels" as you put it.

 

Actually it is, espiecally if you actually do your goddamn research on the penetration values of the 14" guns.

[sharpie65]

Newsflash: This game is, and never will be, historically accurate. If it is, then WG should get rid of the Grosser Kurfurst as it was only a design study (H41-class battleship) and Freidrich der Grosse. As well as the Neptune and Minotaur, Roon and Hindenburg, Izumo and Montana. As well as cross-faction teaming - as far as I'm aware, the Kreigsmarine never actually engaged American ships in the Pacific with the Imperial Japanese Navy, and the Soviet Navy was relegated to convoy escort duty in the Arctic in order to ensure the survival of the Russian/Soviet people.

 

But all of that's just fine, as long as the KGV doesn't get a buff to her 14" rifles that allow her to perform just as well as her contemporaries in Amagi, Bismarck, and North Carolina.

[SeaMonsterUK]

Newsflash: This game is, and never will be, historically accurate. If it is, then WG should get rid of the Grosser Kurfurst as it was only a design study (H41-class battleship) and Freidrich der Grosse. As well as the Neptune and Minotaur, Roon and Hindenburg, Izumo and Montana. As well as cross-faction teaming - as far as I'm aware, the Kreigsmarine never actually engaged American ships in the Pacific with the Imperial Japanese Navy, and the Soviet Navy was relegated to convoy escort duty in the Arctic in order to ensure the survival of the Russian/Soviet people.

 

But all of that's just fine, as long as the KGV doesn't get a buff to her 14" rifles that allow her to perform just as well as her contemporaries in Amagi, Bismarck, and North Carolina.

 

Actually they are historically accurate as far as their blueprints are concerned with the exception to the German Tier 10 which is a H-41 with an extra gun per turret, though I won't touch the German cruisers as I don't know enough about them to determine whether any are fake or actual blueprints.

 

And KGV would need the 15" guns to perform on par with Amagi, Bismarck and North Carolina.

[sharpie65]

That's just it. "Blueprints" are not the approved ship. Of those ships, Montana is the only one that was actually authorised. She was only cancelled in favour of the Essex-class carriers and the four Iowa-class battleships that were fast enough to escort them, due to the Battles of Midway and Coral Sea diminshed the value of the battleship.

 

She would not. You really are hung up on that suggestion that "only 15/16" guns" are capable of being a match for the other ships, when that would render the very idea of that ship obsolete and unrecognisable. WG are perfectly capable of either SLIGHTLY buffing the worse penetration values of the Mk VII 14" shell, or giving the RNBBs the RN's AP that Premiums obviously wouldn't get.

[SeaMonsterUK]

That's just it. "Blueprints" are not the approved ship. Of those ships, Montana is the only one that was actually authorised. She was only cancelled in favour of the Essex-class carriers and the four Iowa-class battleships that were fast enough to escort them, due to the Battles of Midway and Coral Sea diminshed the value of the battleship.

 

Blueprints are enough however to keep the ship's within the lines of historical accuracy.

[sharpie65]

 

Blueprints are enough however to keep the ship's within the lines of historical accuracy.

 

And this game is anything but "historically accurate". Nassaus fighting alongside American South Carolinas and Kawachis, and (eventually) British Dreadnoughts or Bellerophons against similar ships? Don't make me laugh.

[SeaMonsterUK]

 

And this game is anything but "historically accurate". Nassaus fighting alongside American South Carolinas and Kawachis, and (eventually) British Dreadnoughts or Bellerophons against similar ships? Don't make me laugh.

And as I said, Random Battles has nothing to do with historical accuracy, it as it says: Random Battle, not Historically Accurate Battles.

[sharpie65]

And yet here you are complaining that KGV would not work in T8 without 15" guns, because a slight buff to the penetration values would be "unrealistic and immersion-breaking".

 

Again, if you're looking for realism and immersion in a naval simulation game, chances are that you're looking in the wrong place.

[SeaMonsterUK]

And yet here you are complaining that KGV would not work in T8 without 15" guns, because a slight buff to the penetration values would be "unrealistic and immersion-breaking".

 

Again, if you're looking for realism and immersion in a naval simulation game, chances are that you're looking in the wrong place.

 

WG is trying to make ships as Historically Accurate as possible. That does not mean they are going to make sure every single battle will be as well, even War Thunder won't be able to do that, but they will keep ship stats as close to as possible, that includes penetration of guns.

[sharpie65]

 

WG is trying to make ships as Historically Accurate as possible. That does not mean they are going to make sure every single battle will be as well, even War Thunder won't be able to do that, but they will keep ship stats as close to as possible, that includes penetration of guns.

 

And historical accuracy takes a back seat to game balance. I'd find it hard to believe that they'll make what will essentially be their own design in spite of what their historians suggest, which is that KGV is better off at Tier 8.

 

I don't recall WG changing Bismarck's armour belt to be better than 12.6 inches, which is perfectly fine when coupled with the KMBB 'turtleback' citadel armour scheme.

[SeaMonsterUK]

 

And historical accuracy takes a back seat to game balance. I'd find it hard to believe that they'll make what will essentially be their own design in spite of what their historians suggest, which is that KGV is better off at Tier 8.

 

I don't recall WG changing Bismarck's armour belt to be better than 12.6 inches, which is perfectly fine when coupled with the KMBB 'turtleback' citadel armour scheme.

 

KGV will only ever work at Tier 8 if it has guns bigger than 14", which the Bismarck and North Carolina are both immune to at medium-long range engagements unless the shells either land below waterline or on the bow and neither will do much damage in WoWS like it does in real life.

 

And WG have already said some time ago that they aim to make sure ships are as historically accurate as possible. I think that also means it's unlikely for them to over buff the 14" guns to Martian Heat Ray standards anytime soon.

[Gnomus]

14" guns are on par, penetration wise, with the 11" guns used by the Germans for the Scharnhorst, and not as good as 14"/50 guns used on New Mexico and Tennessee-class Battleships. It would need either the 15" or 16" guns otherwise it's just another complete joke like the British Cruiser "Special AP" Rounds. And with 14" guns it would be inferior to North Carolina and Bismarck-class Battleships, and Amagi-class Battlecruisers in terms of both penetration and max damage output.

 

So problem is penetration. Thank you. Was it so hard to say instead of repeating "must have 15/16" guns"?

 

Inferiority on damage out put is easily solved with suitable RoF. Lack of penetration has to be waved away with buffed penetration value or having other characteristics high enough to compensate.

 

As this "problem" is solved we can get ot next thing, which solution is more damaging to game and history?

 

Who actually gives a damn about the purists anyway? The only way this ship is going to be tier 8 is by getting those 3 triple 15" guns or bigger. Which were planned for KGV.

 

So you don't mind butchering historical ship to something totally different... ...because penetration value of some shell is so important that that it should not be touched because it is historical value?

 

As said earlier, WG can buff 14" KGV to suitable level. Easiest way would be touch precious gun stats.  If those numbers are so holy that they should not be tinkered with then they can do balancing with RoF, turret turn rate, ship acceleration and turning or just give British T8+ BB's similar "super heal" as British cruisers already enjoy at T8+ tiers. All of those are values that are known to be chosen by game balance perspective. 

 

Same then goes for overbuffing it to unrealistic and immersion breaking levels. Let see, HMS Complete and Utter Joke?

 

So back to question which is more unrealistic and immersion breaking:

a) Tinkering with penetration values. You know those numbers that are not visible in game and 90% of players wouldn't understand even if they were.

b) Changing KGV's defining properties like main armament and turret arrangement. Things that can be find and seen with 5s googling and can directly seen to be false. (Yes I know there were plans for them, but those were never implemented and KGV class is known for what it actually was.)

 

Just compare these two. Which is more unrealistic and immersion breaking? Can you understand why any here doesn't accept this "must have 15/16" guns" because it would be unhistorical to balance 14" guns to suitable level.

 

KGV will only ever work at Tier 8 if it has guns bigger than 14", which the Bismarck and North Carolina are both immune to at medium-long range engagements unless the shells either land below waterline or on the bow and neither will do much damage in WoWS like it does in real life.

 

And WG have already said some time ago that they aim to make sure ships are as historically accurate as possible. I think that also means it's unlikely for them to over buff the 14" guns to Martian Heat Ray standards anytime soon.

 

Bismarck and North Carolina would not be immune. They might be citadel immune, but that is totally another matter. And of course we have these nice things like HE shells here also. This all of course with assumption that 14" performance would not be touched.

 

If WG really aims at making ships as historical as possible I have bad news for you. Change of main armament and turrets is much bigger historical deviation than tinkering with some numbers. But then we have seen how much liberties they already have taken with performance numbers (RoF, turning speed etc.) and even with basic ships forms (imaginary upgrades).

[SeaMonsterUK]

Why is it everyone doesn't actually give a sh*t about British Battleships and instead want it to be the Laughing stock of the other Battleship trees...................

 

I'm reiterate: The only way KGV will be Tier 8 is with 15" guns, not by over buffing the 14" to Martian Heat Ray Standards so get that f*cking nonsense out of your heads! Because it's that kind of over buffing that will literally KILL this game. Yes, you can buff or nerf turret traverse, but that is different to the performance of the guns themselves, but changing the guns on a whim, such as the penetration too far from it's historical figures is when it goes TOO far.

[sharpie65]

Just how far is "too far"? Enough so that the ship will be as it existed less the shell penetration characteristics? Changing the ship itself so that it is no longer recognisable as a KGV? Considering what Gnomus just said, a good portion of the playerbase will neither know nor care about the HISTORICAL stats of the shell provided the ship at least resembles what it looked like at any point in history.

 

Once again, nobody said anything about buffing them to allow instakill on other BBs. That was you. All the rest of us said was "buff the penetration values SLIGHTLY to give KGV a chance against her contemporaries". Changing the guns to triple 15" guns instead of 10 14" guns in two quads and one twin is far more immersion-breaking than changing a hidden stat that the majority of players care very little about.

 

Once again, Gneisenau was at least given 380mm guns after her bow section was destroyed following a bomber raid by British aircraft. The destruction the bow, and the resulting destruction of 'Anton' turret, was enough to convince the German shipbuilders that replacing the 11" guns was worth the effort. Then we come to KGV - the proposed 15" guns were never installed. Never installed = unhistorical. Penetration values are soft stats, which can be changed to the extent that very few people will care about them. Gun number and calibre of said guns is a "hard stat" - change them, people will notice there and then.

[SeaMonsterUK]

Just how far is "too far"? Enough so that the ship will be as it existed less the shell penetration characteristics? Changing the ship itself so that it is no longer recognisable as a KGV? Considering what Gnomus just said, a good portion of the playerbase will neither know nor care about the HISTORICAL stats of the shell provided the ship at least resembles what it looked like at any point in history.

 

Once again, nobody said anything about buffing them to allow instakill on other BBs. That was you. All the rest of us said was "buff the penetration values SLIGHTLY to give KGV a chance against her contemporaries". Changing the guns to triple 15" guns instead of 10 14" guns in two quads and one twin is far more immersion-breaking than changing a hidden stat that the majority of players care very little about.

 

Once again, Gneisenau was at least given 380mm guns after her bow section was destroyed following a bomber raid by British aircraft. The destruction the bow, and the resulting destruction of 'Anton' turret, was enough to convince the German shipbuilders that replacing the 11" guns was worth the effort. Then we come to KGV - the proposed 15" guns were never installed. Never installed = unhistorical. Penetration values are soft stats, which can be changed to the extent that very few people will care about them. Gun number and calibre of said guns is a "hard stat" - change them, people will notice there and then.

 

Exactly my point! You care little about British Battleships. Over buffing the guns, to unhistorical levels is more immersion breaking than changing the guns to a another set that was also planned for the ship.