Royal BB line

[piritskenyer]

 

I looked up the pen tables by Nathan Okun, and decided to make a graph of various guns for a complete pen vs British Face Hardened Plate. The first graph shows the current tier 8 battleships and the KGV. The x-axis is range in yards, and the y-axis if penetration inches, I couldn't work out how to properly convert into metric without doing each value individually.  

 

 

The second graph shows the 14 inch guns of the KGV, New Mexico and Fuso.

 

 

 

 

Yes, well, Nathan Okuns pen tables are basically compiled output data of his facehard calculator program, which is derived of the USN empirical formula, which, as demonstrated by Trainspite, is not always on point. 

[mr3awsome]

As it should be known, coastal defence guns of the same caliber has superior penetration due to heavier shells being used.

No, the coastal defence guns used the same projectiles. 

If they needed extra range they were able to use a supercharge to increase the MV from 757mps to 869mps. 

 

Yes, well, Nathan Okuns pen tables are basically compiled output data of his facehard calculator program, which is derived of the USN empirical formula, which, as demonstrated by Trainspite, is not always on point. 

From what I've heard, Facehard tends to be closer to the mark than the USN Empirical Formula. 

 

[SeaMonsterUK]

No, the coastal defence guns used the same projectiles. 

If they needed extra range they were able to use a supercharge to increase the MV from 757mps to 869mps. 

Depends, some shells used by Coastal Defence are heavier, I was using that as one of the examples, the other example you said is the extra charge. However to get higher penetration with the same MV would require a Heavier shell as the 14" Mk VII wasn't able to get 12" penetration over 26.5K yards in combat conditions.

[Earl_of_Northesk]

They are​ calculated against the same kind of armour. While it's not accurate, it is better for comparions sake. And it really shows that what Chipmunk said in this thread is completely invalid.

[SeaMonsterUK]

How ar​ calculated against the same kind of armour. While it's not accurate, it is better for comparions sake. And it really shows that what Chipmunk said in this thread is completely invalid.

 

What you say is completely invalid.

[mr3awsome]

Before this topic gets locked because you can't think of any new arguments and resort to personal attacks,

can we talk about something else thats up for debate. 

 

For example: What should be the initial tier IV battleship?

[SmartassNoob]

Tier 3, you mean.

 

The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Dreadnought_(1906) is the obvious option, but unfortunately it would also be the obvious premium tier 3 ship.

[SeaMonsterUK]

Tier 3, you mean.

 

The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Dreadnought_(1906) is the obvious option, but unfortunately it would also be the obvious premium tier 3 ship.

 

Tier 3 should be HMS Bellerophon. Tier 4 can be a KGV Class,  HMS Centurion. 

[Trainspite]

Nah, I think mr3awsome is referencing choosing between the two front-runners for the tier 4 in the first RN BB line. Those candidates being Orion, and Colossus. 

 

I can't especially decide between them, I have a feeling WG might choose Colossus because of being fairly unique in the line with echelon turrets firing over the decks, while Orion would look like smaller Iron Duke. But Orion is the more capable ship, and given the trend of having fictional refits, would suit a partial modernisation better than Colossus. Even if I have family relations to both Colossus and sister Hercules, that wouldn't make me automatically choose them since they could well turn up as a premium afterwards, assuming there is no tier 4 or 5 for a slow BB line.

[SeaMonsterUK]

Choices are Orion,  Collosus and KGV. 

[anonym_MfZ6T7iwWpUC]

 

I was only thinking about T3 to 5 the other day (again). As said above, Bellerophon will probably be T3, with Iron Duke at 5. But at 4, with Kaiser having 12" main guns, will that make WG favour Colossus to give parity in calibre as it also has 12" guns, and not Orion?

 

Technically you also have the 1911 KGV. But if the 1939 KGV is going to be in the regular tree, I doubt the 1911 version will appear. Personally, although I think KGV will be T8 and cope fine. I would put Vanguard at 8 and have PoW/DoY as a T8 premium.

 

But its the lower tiers I am most looking forward to playing, as I know less about them.

 

[SeaMonsterUK]

I was only thinking about T3 to 5 the other day (again). As said above, Bellerophon will probably be T3, with Iron Duke at 5. But at 4, with Kaiser having 12" main guns, will that make WG favour Colossus to give parity in calibre as it also has 12" guns, and not Orion?

 

Technically you also have the 1911 KGV. But if the 1939 KGV is going to be in the regular tree, I doubt the 1911 version will appear. Personally, although I think KGV will be T8 and cope fine. I would put Vanguard at 8 and have PoW/DoY as a T8 premium.

 

But its the lower tiers I am most looking forward to playing, as I know less about them.

 

I don't think they care too much about having 2 ships of different era that share the same class name, only ship name. And Centurion is more unique compared to Collosus or Orion. It's also less protected in some areas having between 8-12" of Belt armour, and 1-4" of Deck armour, it's lighter also which allows for it's gun layout.

 

But I believe the KGV 1939 should be tier 7, and it should be fine there without being overpowered. The only way it would be tier 8 is with 15" guns.

[anonym_MfZ6T7iwWpUC]

I wouldn't be totally upset if KGV ended up at T7, as it would mean getting it earlier.

[SeaMonsterUK]

I wouldn't be totally upset if KGV ended up at T7, as it would mean getting it earlier.

 

But it would be better off at that tier with a nerf to it's AA. Especially since it's own armour scheme is likely to be it's own weakness, with a 13.75" amidships.

[SeaMonsterUK]

[Trainspite]

And despite the attempt to get away from KGV(1938), within a single figured number of posts, we are back to KGV (1938). Surely you don't have to pick up on every mention of the ship. 

 

So other discussion points;

- Tier 4 BB choices.

- Names for Paper ships. 

- Preferred premium camouflage options.

- Consumables, unique traits and feel of the lines.

- Potential Premiums. 

[SeaMonsterUK]

And despite the attempt to get away from KGV(1938), within a single figured number of posts, we are back to KGV (1938). Surely you don't have to pick up on every mention of the ship. 

 

We wouldn't be back onto it if people actually knew where it belongs, and that is not tier 8.

 

As for the other discussion points:

Tier 4 BB Choices: Centurion seems the most likely, despite having heavier shells than it's predecessor

Names for paper ships - This is varied, but there aren't that many names for them that were actually planned, for example the Lion-class Battleships were Lion, Thunderer, Temeria and Conqueror, with a 9000 ton 1945 Cruiser with the name Centurion, which, despite the name not being Centurion, we already have in game I think.

As for potential premiums, there are really too many to count, potentials, looking at not just Battleships, would include Victorious (USS Robin), Revenge, Prince of Wales, Hood, Scylla etc etc.

 

[Trainspite]

We wouldn't be back onto it if people actually knew where it belongs, and that is not tier 8.

 

 

And likewise, the same can be said against you.

 

 

As for the other discussion points:

Tier 4 BB Choices: Centurion seems the most likely, despite having heavier shells than it's predecessor

Names for paper ships - This is varied, but there aren't that many names for them that were actually planned, for example the Lion-class Battleships were Lion, Thunderer, Temeria and Conqueror, with a 9000 ton 1945 Cruiser with the name Centurion, which, despite the name not being Centurion, we already have in game I think.

As for potential premiums, there are really too many to count, potentials, looking at not just Battleships, would include Victorious (USS Robin), Revenge, Prince of Wales, Hood, Scylla etc etc.

 

 

I would not rate Centurion too likely myself, she is too similar to Iron Duke, and not the lead of the class which are both negative points in the eyes of the devs probably.

 

There were 6 names proposed for the Neptune/Minotaur cruiser designs, Neptune, Minotaur, Mars, Edgar, Bellerophon & Centurion. Benbow, Effingham, Hawke and Blake were all considered around 1940 for cruisers.

 

I would try to refrain on using the lead ship of the class as a premium, because the class can usually fit into a tech tree, Hood & Revenge being the two examples from the list you gave. Scylla could also be used for a CL-AA line.

[piritskenyer]

We wouldn't be back onto it if people actually knew where it belongs, and that is not tier 8.

 

[...]

 

Joke's on you, as you are the one who doesn't seem to get where he belongs... 

Pretty ballsy trying to downtalk people like Trainspite, Earl_of_Northesk, Exocet6951 and Historynerd...

[Historynerd]

Joke's on you, as you are the one who doesn't seem to get where he belongs... 

Pretty ballsy trying to downtalk people like Trainspite, Earl_of_Northesk, Exocet6951 and Historynerd...

 

Whoa, wait a minute.

I get that there's a long-drawn discussion here, but apart from giving (quite some time ago, if my memory holds) my modest opinion that KGV to me looks like a Tier 8, I didn'tjoin in, and lately I resurfaced only to clarify some points about a comparison made with the Littorio-class.

And it seems to me I was never "downtalked". 

 

But even if I were... well, why not? I'm not in the league of the other guys you mentioned. I may be a major pain in the backside whenever anything Italian is discussed, but especially outside that I don't know a third of what they know. I'm just an amateur, they're more dedicated.

[Trainspite]

 

 

But even if I were... well, why not? I'm not in the league of the other guys you mentioned. I may be a major pain in the backside whenever anything Italian is discussed, but especially outside that I don't know a third of what they know. I'm just an amateur, they're more dedicated.

 

I wouldn't say that really. You & Deamon could school basically anyone on this forum on Italian ships. And I can't say I am much more than an amateur myself, although I have come some ways over the last year and a half.

 

 

[SeaMonsterUK]

 

Joke's on you, as you are the one who doesn't seem to get where he belongs... 

Pretty ballsy trying to downtalk people like Trainspite, Earl_of_Northesk, Exocet6951 and Historynerd...

 

Jokes are actually on you. 

[Exocet6951]

 

Whoa, wait a minute.

I get that there's a long-drawn discussion here, but apart from giving (quite some time ago, if my memory holds) my modest opinion that KGV to me looks like a Tier 8, I didn'tjoin in, and lately I resurfaced only to clarify some points about a comparison made with the Littorio-class.

And it seems to me I was never "downtalked". 

 

But even if I were... well, why not? I'm not in the league of the other guys you mentioned. I may be a major pain in the backside whenever anything Italian is discussed, but especially outside that I don't know a third of what they know. I'm just an amateur, they're more dedicated.

 

And I don't consider myself even a tenth as knowledgeable as you when it comes to ships as a whole !

Respect where respect is due.

 

[SeaMonsterUK]

HMS Vanguard will likely either be a premium, or come in at tier 8 after the KGV and leading onto the Lion-class, so I can see it being in the standard tech tree itself. Since we are also looking for unique tier 10's, Lion 1944 will be it, with 3x3 16" Mark IV guns in 3 Mark III turrets.

[piritskenyer]

Because you guys have put in logic, knowledge and research instead of repeating *one* thing over and over again. Also, you guys are knowledgeable, and thus are on a higher level in my eyes when it comes to discussion.