Trainspite

Royal Navy Tech Tree Proposal

  • You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.

209 posts in this topic

 

 

Given the state of carriers I'm going to ignore those. 

 

Whilst Colossus is an option, I'd expect Orion as being more likely. 

Vanguard is more of a tier VIII than IX. Mainly because her guns are the 15"/42 Mk I. 

Which design do you mean by "Lion (Prototype)"?

Or "Lion" for that matter. 

 

Indefatigable is tier III material. 

Queen Mary is tier IV material. 

Admiral is tier VII material. Not V or VIII. 

Renown is definitely not tier VII material. There is some debate, but personally I think she works at tier VI. 

Incomparable is out of place, and more likely to be something in April fools or Halloween than a regular ship. There are three other solid choices, I3, H3a & K3. 

 

Monmouth is a solid tier III premium choice, definitely not a tier II regular. 

Devonshire and Warrior are part of the Unlikely for the Foreseeable Future group, along with most other Armoured Cruisers.

Which designs are you giving the names "Antrim" and "Shannon" to?

There is no "lower calibre Admiral design".

 

The cruisers between Arethusa and Danae, whilst all starting with the letter C, vary too much to be considered a single class.

Both the above, Danae & Emerald are a tier lower than they should be.

The Southamptons, and Gloucesters, are on par with the Crown Colony class, whilst the Edinburghs are outright better. 

Dido is about on par with Leander. So it should be tier VI, not VIII. 

Swiftsure is a modified Crown Colony class, its not change that demands two tiers higher placement. 

None of the three designs for the Tiger deserve to be at tier X. Tier VII is a better place for them. The 1st design is Superb, why not just call it that?

 

The destroyers are a veritable mess. 

- Despite Amazon & Ambuscade being at least equal to Shakespeare & Scott, you've put them two tiers lower. 

- Icarus & the Tribals are clearly superior to Shakespeare & Scott, yet you've put them the tier below them. 

- The Ca class are better tier VIIs than VIIIs. 

- By the same measure, Weapon is a better tier VIII than IX. 

- Given that Gael is just a Weapon modified to carry QF 4.5"/45 Mk Vs rather than the QF 4"/45 Mk XVI, it is also a good tier VIII choice, rather than X. 

 

 


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Transpite, I've had an idea on how to arrange the RN DDs without having to resort to designs that never left the drawing board (the Ypres being the only ship that didn't make it past being ordered). What do you think? 

 

pxjqoyB.png

 

EDIT: Uploaded a newer version of the tree. 

 

Sorry I haven't got around to responding, I have not had too much time recently.

 

I would still like to see Laforey at tier 2 instead of the Ms, Rs or Ss. She fits a bit better, and would not be blatantly OP. I know V-25 is at the moment, but the extra speed of the Ms, Rs & Ss combined with soft stat and torpedo buffs can make them reasonable tier 3 candidates. Something like Wakatake, but with smaller guns. The Laforey would be more similar to Sampson.

 

Likewise, I would feel the Admiralty Ws would be decent at tier 4. 6 torpedoes, fairly good guns and torpedoes, quite flexible. The Vs only have 4 torpedoes, and so to be tier 3 I feel they would have to be short ranged. 

 

I regard the modified V & Ws as equivalent to Minekaze in game, only with better guns, at the expense of stealth and a few hundred HP. More flexible in terms of being multi-purpose. 

 

I also think you have put the Acasta & Glowworm 1 tier too low. It is dependent on torpedoes however, but they should receive quite good torpedoes for tier 6. The guns are not the best, but decent enough. There is not much difference between Glowworm & Icarus really either. 

 

 

I'll complete the high-tiers & premiums later, but for now I prefer:

 

    II                 III                IV                 V

Laforey* > Radstock  > Wakeful   > Venomous

Swift      > Parker       > Valentine > Scott

 

*= possible for the Admiralty M class as well.


1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Given the state of carriers I'm going to ignore those. 

 

Whilst Colossus is an option, I'd expect Orion as being more likely. 

Vanguard is more of a tier VIII than IX. Mainly because her guns are the 15"/42 Mk I. 

Which design do you mean by "Lion (Prototype)"?

Or "Lion" for that matter. 

 

Indefatigable is tier III material. 

Queen Mary is tier IV material. 

Admiral is tier VII material. Not V or VIII. 

Renown is definitely not tier VII material. There is some debate, but personally I think she works at tier VI. 

Incomparable is out of place, and more likely to be something in April fools or Halloween than a regular ship. There are three other solid choices, I3, H3a & K3. 

 

Monmouth is a solid tier III premium choice, definitely not a tier II regular. 

Devonshire and Warrior are part of the Unlikely for the Foreseeable Future group, along with most other Armoured Cruisers.

Which designs are you giving the names "Antrim" and "Shannon" to?

There is no "lower calibre Admiral design".

 

The cruisers between Arethusa and Danae, whilst all starting with the letter C, vary too much to be considered a single class.

Both the above, Danae & Emerald are a tier lower than they should be.

The Southamptons, and Gloucesters, are on par with the Crown Colony class, whilst the Edinburghs are outright better. 

Dido is about on par with Leander. So it should be tier VI, not VIII. 

Swiftsure is a modified Crown Colony class, its not change that demands two tiers higher placement. 

None of the three designs for the Tiger deserve to be at tier X. Tier VII is a better place for them. The 1st design is Superb, why not just call it that?

 

The destroyers are a veritable mess. 

- Despite Amazon & Ambuscade being at least equal to Shakespeare & Scott, you've put them two tiers lower. 

- Icarus & the Tribals are clearly superior to Shakespeare & Scott, yet you've put them the tier below them. 

- The Ca class are better tier VIIs than VIIIs. 

- By the same measure, Weapon is a better tier VIII than IX. 

- Given that Gael is just a Weapon modified to carry QF 4.5"/45 Mk Vs rather than the QF 4"/45 Mk XVI, it is also a good tier VIII choice, rather than X. 

 

 

 

Sure. You're absolutely right. That's why I didn't post my fanmade techtree myself : I knew it wasn't fit and pretty much messy. I take way too much freedom and don't have enough knowledge, and my goals when making these trees are kinda upside down. I don't mind explaining my choices, although it won't make the tree any more ok to you, but I'll do it anyway if you want to read.

 Firstly, I hardly base my techtrees on history even though I sometimes pretend the contrary. I do my best to avoid plans that didn't exist and push forward ships that were well known, and I try not to disfigure any ship and respect what they looked like, but that's it. All my other considerations are turned toward gameplay, and my trees (because I made them for several nations, from Japan, to Spain, and Russia, Italia and France too to name a few) are made with the idea that they should make the best possible gaming experience (and not historical one).

Therefore, the order of ships on trees isn't defined by the date of construction or their historical performance, but rather by their raw caracteristics, like speed, guns (caliber, number, and position), anti-air armement or armor. In fact, I overlook guns and other parts' specs a lot because I don't consider them when I try to balance my ships. For example, if a WWI destroyer has a 120mm main gun, and if a post-WWII destroyers has a 120mm main gun, I tend to regard these guns roughly as the same because even if the second was definitely surely better than the first in every possible way, I will deicde of it myself when choosing the in-game specs (like reload, alpha damage, fire chances) without looking too much at the real guns specs.

 

From there on, the techtree isn't so much the important part of my work, but the specs tables are. Just like this one :

 

British DD1 specifications table

 

As you can see, none of these are actually historical. The AA values are roughly calculated based on the AA canons the ship fitted, the speed is approximately the same as the real one (+/- 2kn usually, and as you can see I completely disfigured Daring's real speed for example), the canons are arranged the same way, but damage, reload, and range are entirely made up to give these ships an in-game identity which isn't based solely on their reality.
Therefore, Amazon in my tree is indeed inferior to Scott in many ways, even if she wasn't in real life.

And to top it off, you can see in the "note" column how I even invented consumables. I took more time on creating the consumables than studying the ships themselves. I think it should be a proof of my goal when creating a techtree.

 

Now for the the things you asked...

Lion was a proposed upgraded KGV design with 406mm in the 30s. Two were laid down in 39 among six planned (with the design evolving several times due to treaty stuff between 30 and 39). Due to the outbreak of war, the construction for these two was stopped, and what was already made was ultimatly scrapped after the war, eternally unfinished.

 HMS_Lion.gif

Lion (prototype) is a proposal to finish one of the two laid down Lion-class into a hybrid battleship/carrier (kinda like Ise and Hyuuga) with a flight deck and 2*3 406mm - hence its presence in a special "BBV" line. It was never done.

 

I decided to pick Incomparable because she's more well-known outside of England than the other possible choices. And no, I didn't intend to introduce some 513mm guns. Some designs planned her with 457mm, or even with 410mm (which is what I refer to when saying 2nd or 3rd design). I intended to choose one of these.

 

I had real troubles finding designs to complete the heavy cruiser branch. Antrim and Shannon were the first codename for heavy cruisers proposed by dear old Winston Chruchill that were designed but not much more. Here is one of the places I read about them :

http://www.avalanchepress.com/ZRNCruiser1.php

I'll give you that, it's not really solid informations, but it's the only thing I found.

 

I'm pretty sure I found a proposal for Admiral-class design with lower caliber guns. I'll make sure to transmit you the place I read about this as soon as I get my hands back on it.

Also, my choice for an actual battlecruiser (or, with a lower caliber, I guess we should call it a Large Cruiser) at TX of the heavy cruisers even tho I made an entire CC line is actually made to fit with my other trees. I took many liberties - for example, almost all of my trees have a pré-dreadnought as T3 battleship despite WG saying it'll never happen (the british happen to be an exception). Another of those choices is that every TX heavy cruiser shall be a Large Cruiser or Battlecruiser - and that's a something I kept true for all nations.

It's all personnal choices. I completely understand why someone serious about techtrees would despise them.

 

Anyway, thanks for having read if you did. I don't intend to stop on my techtrees tho because I love creating and balancing ships as I'd see them ingame and my head, lacking of historical content, is full of gameplay ideas. But I agree the trees in themselves are far from serious or correct.

 

Sorry for having wasted your time

 

 

Edited by LastButterfly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One would wonder about the proposed refits for the Nelsons and the Royal Sovereigns before the war broke out. I hear them mentioned about the place but I don't see them in any of the books I own nor after a quick perusal through google. The only thing I did find out was about the 'super bulges' for the Royal Sovereign class. To the end I've ordered digital copies of Admiralty record ADM 229/20 "NOTES TAKEN AT CONTROLLER'S CONFERENCE ON 7/3/39, CONCERNING RECONSTRUCTION OF "NELSON", "RODNEY" AND "HOOD", ALSO RE-ARMOURING "ROYAL SOVEREIGNS" specifically sections concerning the refits of everyone but Hood. I will post about it when the digitised records arrive. I was surprised to find out they didn't already exist in digital format.

 


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Sorry I haven't got around to responding, I have not had too much time recently.

 

I would still like to see Laforey at tier 2 instead of the Ms, Rs or Ss. She fits a bit better, and would not be blatantly OP. I know V-25 is at the moment, but the extra speed of the Ms, Rs & Ss combined with soft stat and torpedo buffs can make them reasonable tier 3 candidates. Something like Wakatake, but with smaller guns. The Laforey would be more similar to Sampson.

 

Likewise, I would feel the Admiralty Ws would be decent at tier 4. 6 torpedoes, fairly good guns and torpedoes, quite flexible. The Vs only have 4 torpedoes, and so to be tier 3 I feel they would have to be short ranged. 

 

I regard the modified V & Ws as equivalent to Minekaze in game, only with better guns, at the expense of stealth and a few hundred HP. More flexible in terms of being multi-purpose. 

 

I also think you have put the Acasta & Glowworm 1 tier too low. It is dependent on torpedoes however, but they should receive quite good torpedoes for tier 6. The guns are not the best, but decent enough. There is not much difference between Glowworm & Icarus really either. 

 

 

I'll complete the high-tiers & premiums later, but for now I prefer:

 

    II                 III                IV                 V

Laforey* > Radstock  > Wakeful   > Venomous

Swift      > Parker       > Valentine > Scott

 

*= possible for the Admiralty M class as well.

 

Thanks for chiming in. I'll try to rethink the lower tiers, though trying to balance any new ships against Japanese DDs at tier IV and below will be rather difficult as I haven't played the latter in months. I'm not entirely sure if the As and the Gs should be moved up - they carried as many guns as the Admiralty Ws (albeit they were the much-improved Mk IXs which should by all means perform better than the Mk Is), only two more torpedo launchers and a top speed higher by two knots, give or take. IMHO the Acasta would fit well at tier V, though it should be possible to balance her at tier VI with reasonable success. The Icarus seems like a more natural fit at tier VI with its 10 torpedo tubes. 

 

On another note, I made a simplified version of the tree above. I don't expect Wargaming will bother with making two full lines of ships anyway, I expect them to do the same thing they did with the Japanese destroyers. 

 

 

Q5Hcucd.png

 

 

In any case this is purely a thought experiment on my part, I doubt if any of the changes I implement would impact the eventual introduction of British DDs into the game. :-) Once again, thank you for your input!


1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Sure. You're absolutely right. That's why I didn't post my fanmade techtree myself : I knew it wasn't fit and pretty much messy. I take way too much freedom and don't have enough knowledge, and my goals when making these trees are kinda upside down. I don't mind explaining my choices, although it won't make the tree any more ok to you, but I'll do it anyway if you want to read.

 Firstly, I hardly base my techtrees on history even though I sometimes pretend the contrary. I do my best to avoid plans that didn't exist and push forward ships that were well known, and I try not to disfigure any ship and respect what they looked like, but that's it. All my other considerations are turned toward gameplay, and my trees (because I made them for several nations, from Japan, to Spain, and Russia, Italia and France too to name a few) are made with the idea that they should make the best possible gaming experience (and not historical one).

Therefore, the order of ships on trees isn't defined by the date of construction or their historical performance, but rather by their raw caracteristics, like speed, guns (caliber, number, and position), anti-air armement or armor. In fact, I overlook guns and other parts' specs a lot because I don't consider them when I try to balance my ships. For example, if a WWI destroyer has a 120mm main gun, and if a post-WWII destroyers has a 120mm main gun, I tend to regard these guns roughly as the same because even if the second was definitely surely better than the first in every possible way, I will deicde of it myself when choosing the in-game specs (like reload, alpha damage, fire chances) without looking too much at the real guns specs.

 

From there on, the techtree isn't so much the important part of my work, but the specs tables are. Just like this one :

 

British DD1 specifications table

 

As you can see, none of these are actually historical. The AA values are roughly calculated based on the AA canons the ship fitted, the speed is approximately the same as the real one (+/- 2kn usually, and as you can see I completely disfigured Daring's real speed for example), the canons are arranged the same way, but damage, reload, and range are entirely made up to give these ships an in-game identity which isn't based solely on their reality.
Therefore, Amazon in my tree is indeed inferior to Scott in many ways, even if she wasn't in real life.

And to top it off, you can see in the "note" column how I even invented consumables. I took more time on creating the consumables than studying the ships themselves. I think it should be a proof of my goal when creating a techtree.

 

Now for the the things you asked...

Lion was a proposed upgraded KGV design with 406mm in the 30s. Two were laid down in 39 among six planned (with the design evolving several times due to treaty stuff between 30 and 39). Due to the outbreak of war, the construction for these two was stopped, and what was already made was ultimatly scrapped after the war, eternally unfinished.

 HMS_Lion.gif

Lion (prototype) is a proposal to finish one of the two laid down Lion-class into a hybrid battleship/carrier (kinda like Ise and Hyuuga) with a flight deck and 2*3 406mm - hence its presence in a special "BBV" line. It was never done.

 

I decided to pick Incomparable because she's more well-known outside of England than the other possible choices. And no, I didn't intend to introduce some 513mm guns. Some designs planned her with 457mm, or even with 410mm (which is what I refer to when saying 2nd or 3rd design). I intended to choose one of these.

 

I had real troubles finding designs to complete the heavy cruiser branch. Antrim and Shannon were the first codename for heavy cruisers proposed by dear old Winston Chruchill that were designed but not much more. Here is one of the places I read about them :

http://www.avalanchepress.com/ZRNCruiser1.php

I'll give you that, it's not really solid informations, but it's the only thing I found.

 

I'm pretty sure I found a proposal for Admiral-class design with lower caliber guns. I'll make sure to transmit you the place I read about this as soon as I get my hands back on it.

Also, my choice for an actual battlecruiser (or, with a lower caliber, I guess we should call it a Large Cruiser) at TX of the heavy cruisers even tho I made an entire CC line is actually made to fit with my other trees. I took many liberties - for example, almost all of my trees have a pré-dreadnought as T3 battleship despite WG saying it'll never happen (the british happen to be an exception). Another of those choices is that every TX heavy cruiser shall be a Large Cruiser or Battlecruiser - and that's a something I kept true for all nations.

It's all personnal choices. I completely understand why someone serious about techtrees would despise them.

 

Anyway, thanks for having read if you did. I don't intend to stop on my techtrees tho because I love creating and balancing ships as I'd see them ingame and my head, lacking of historical content, is full of gameplay ideas. But I agree the trees in themselves are far from serious or correct.

 

Sorry for having wasted your time

It wasn't a waste of time, just a rather different view of making the trees. 

Balancing the ships themselves is a step further than most people go. 

However, substituting the indisputable realities of certain details of the ship, such as torpedoes and the guns, is a step too far. 

It is a slippery slope. Why stop at the guns? Why not the armour? Why not the speed? etc. 

 

There were only four Lions planned, to replace four of the QEs under the terms of the Treaty. The fifth was to be replaced by what became HMS Vanguard. 

Given the development of the line itself, I feel that Incomparable would be out of place compared to the other high end ships that precede it.

Its an issue that gives me a headache, so no worries there. The names are fake, but the designs are real enough. 

The 15"/42 was the smallest gun considered for all capital ships after 1911 until the late 1920s. 

Given the existence of small 12" battleship designs from the 1920s & 30s, those might fit better. 

 

Despise is a strong word. I don't feel that way about them, I just disagree with the process you used to build them. 

 


1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It wasn't a waste of time, just a rather different view of making the trees. 

Balancing the ships themselves is a step further than most people go. 

However, substituting the indisputable realities of certain details of the ship, such as torpedoes and the guns, is a step too far. 

It is a slippery slope. Why stop at the guns? Why not the armour? Why not the speed? etc. 

 

There were only four Lions planned, to replace four of the QEs under the terms of the Treaty. The fifth was to be replaced by what became HMS Vanguard. 

Given the development of the line itself, I feel that Incomparable would be out of place compared to the other high end ships that precede it.

Its an issue that gives me a headache, so no worries there. The names are fake, but the designs are real enough. 

The 15"/42 was the smallest gun considered for all capital ships after 1911 until the late 1920s. 

Given the existence of small 12" battleship designs from the 1920s & 30s, those might fit better. 

 

Despise is a strong word. I don't feel that way about them, I just disagree with the process you used to build them. 

 

 

Well I always try to keep the outside reality of a ship. I do not modify the amount, caliber, or position of main and secondary guns or torpedo tubes, and, as a matter of fact, any other element the ship had or was supposed to have. But I balance their efficiency - which means, all the data  which cannot be seen when merely looking at the ship - just like wargaming balanced the Long Lance. I make it so it's fun to play with because I see this game as absolutely nothing historical and everything about a fun simulation with ships that actually existed.

(Well excepted I don't find IG's long lance actually fun to play with anymore but that's not the place to discuss such thing)

In any case, I don't have the required historical knownledge to change my trees for the better, so... I decided to stick with it and instead focus on what was my "strong point" and main goal : balancing unhistorical trees to make an enjoyable game.

If I wanted to go further I'd need to team up with someone who's willing to create a historical tree and we'd have to work together so we can see what kind of tree we could make by being both historical and gameplay-oriented. But I have no friend and even less friend who are history specialists ^^.

 

 

Well anyway. I didn't know the lions were only four planned, I thought I had read six. Thanks for the info tho. Any knowledge is good to take.

I picked Incomparable because she felt right. Not only is she the most well known of the designs, but she's kind of a good pinnacle for tier 10. She's fast and powerful and that's exactly what I wanted for the line. Since I made the promise - like I already said - to make every tier 10 heavy cruiser of every nation a Large Cruiser (kinda like what Moskva is) or a battlecruiser (if there's no Large Cruiser), I had to make sure that the tier 10 Battlecruiser stands out. Incomparable felt good for the job.

Heavy cruisers are among the ships I studied the least, and that for all nation. So I have to admit I haven't studied the british designs in detail. Maybe there are other designs, but honnestly, it was easier to find russian carriers than british heavy cruisers -.- ...

 

Disagreement is fine. If everyone always agreed, we'd never progress. It's by being criticized and proven wrong that we can improve.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ADM 229/20 - Proposed refits to HMS Hood, HMS Rodney, HMS Nelson. Page 96

 

Self made Transcript only as I don't have publishing permission for the digital images copy.

 

 

“Nelson” and “Rodney”

——–

1. These two ships are already overdue for large repairs, and ought therefore to be taken in hand for this purpose before long. Cost would probably be about £600,000 and the time about 15 months.

2. Modernization. There would be natural desire to take up the opportunity of the large repair to bring the ships up to date. Certain proposals have been made, all of which have thier points and which are subject to discussion.
There are:-

  • A. New Belt, £650,000, 2 years.
  • B. New Machinery, £700,000, 2 ½ - 3 Years.
  • C. H.A. re-arrangment, £900,00, 2 years.
  • D. Aircraft arrangments, £180,00, During re-armament.
  • E. New Bridges, £100,000, 1 ½ Years.
  • F. Torpedo Tube removal, £10,000, During Repairs.
  • Add for Defects and normal alterations and additions, £460,000
  • Total  £5,000,000

3. Of the above A is important, B would give two knots more speed, C is in my opinion of doubtful value, D still more doubtful except perhaps on turrets, E is desirable, F should be done.

4. Important aspect of modernising “NELSON” and “RODNEY” within a reasonable time is that, in order to provide a new belt (A Above), it would almost certainly be necessary to increase our orders with Vitkovice in the near future.

5. Apart from the above large scale “modernization”, “RODNEY” could have additional armour and better H.A control arrangements  fitted in about 6 months, to make her similar to “NELSON”.

 


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would still like to see Laforey at tier 2 instead of the Ms, Rs or Ss. She fits a bit better, and would not be blatantly OP. I know V-25 is at the moment, but the extra speed of the Ms, Rs & Ss combined with soft stat and torpedo buffs can make them reasonable tier 3 candidates. Something like Wakatake, but with smaller guns. The Laforey would be more similar to Sampson.

 

A premium Yarrow S-Class that does over 40 knots might be OP at tier 2 :trollface:

 

dWR7kPo.jpg

 


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An overall update to the main lines, starting with the more realistic or smaller tree.

First up is the cut down tree. The changes are:

  • CA line
  • Swapped Weymouth & Topaze around.
  • Swapped Hawke 8" for Drake 9.2” for variety.
  • DD line
  • Replaced Matchless with Radstock. (Admiralty R, instead of Admiralty S).
  • Replaced Vancouver with Wakeful. (Admiralty W instead of Admiralty V).
  • Replaced Vansittart/Venomous with Amazon. 
  • DDL line
  • Replaced Marksman with Parker
  • Parker replaced with Valentine
  • Swapped Extra torp tribal with Design V Leader
  • Renamed Tier 8 to Tay from Rother
  • BC line
  • Renamed G3 ‘Anson’ to ‘Trafalgar’
  • CV line
  • Replaced the armoured Malta with the open hangar design X1.

 

Reasoning being: 

- Admiralty R being bigger and faster than the M (34 vs 36kn) will hopefully prove a bit more decisive in battle at tier 3.

- Weymouth belongs to the town class lineage, so being separated from it doesn't make sense.

- 9x 9.2" is more likely to appear as the first tier 10 CA than the 12x 8".

- Admiralty W has 6 torpedo tubes to 4 on the V. Though that potentially can be an upgrade path, the appropriate ships should be there.

- Amazon is a more capable ship than the Modified W, by nature of speed and tonnage.

- Parker should be far more capable and similar to G-101 at tier 3 than the Marksman. 

- With Parker now at tier 3, the very similar Valentine takes place at tier 4, mostly soft stat differences between the two.

- The Design V Leader has extra firepower and is probably a better fit at tier 9 than a tribal with poor maneuverability but an extra torpedo launcher.

- Tay is probably a more appropriate name than Rother for a potential lead of a class.

- Giving G3 the name Trafalgar frees up Anson for use on other ships that are potentially a better fit.

- Given Malta X1 was more likely to be built, it would probably appear first, even before the better fit that is the armoured Malta.

8N8WmZs.jpg

 

 

 

A premium Yarrow S-Class that does over 40 knots might be OP at tier 2 :trollface:

 

dWR7kPo.jpg

 

 

Maybe just a bit. :ohmy:

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I would guess later than Summer 2017. BBs are fairly expensive time-wise to produce. Q3 or Q4, probably the former is my best guess for RN BBs. BCs would be good, they contain quite a few popular and unique ships, but I doubt they would come first. They could, You do have famous ships lining up, Invincible vs Dreadnought, Lion vs Iron Duke, QE vs Renown, Hood vs Nelson, you only miss out at tier 8, once you hit the post-Hood designs in 1920/1921. 

 

The flavour of a RN BC line would be along the lines of poorer armour (Kongo standard), until Hood which then gets Nagato standard armour, which continues for J3, G3 being better than Iowa in most ways, and K3 being massive. Fast, slowest being Invincible at tier 3, with 26kn, and fastest being Hood to K3, at 31-33kn. Decent secondaries could be a thing, with poorer turning circles as they are long BCs. AA would not be terrible. They would effectively play like a line of fast Warspite's really. If WG decides to take that route anyway. The consumable is an interesting idea. -2 to 5 seconds off the reload or so for a 25% increased chance of detonation?

 

I'm not sure why WG would want to merge the BC line into a fast BB line (KGV), considering it would be more work for them later on down the road. They do have to split the IJN BCs out at some point as well. 

 

Don't you think that as the very first thing mentioned in "Developer Diaries, 2017 plans" by their Development Director as "We definitely need to add more branches for the Queen of the Seas, Great Britain" means that a RN BB line is more likely sooner rather than later this year, and probably before the French lines appear. 

I'm thinking more Q2 than 3 or 4

Still I'm happy every time a new line comes out , whichever nation it belongs to

Edited by Hans_the_Hawk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forgive me if this question has already been raised (I skimmed and didn't see it), but might it be conceivable to place the battleships of the Revenge-Class at Tier VI, in place of the QE-Class in the first iteration of the line?  These ships were comparable in armament to the QE-Class, underwent similar reconstruction and may be a better follow-up from the Iron Duke-Class at Tier V due to their more comparable top-speed (I believe there's a small speed reduction between the QE-Class and the Nelsons).  My main consideration here is that we already have a Queen Elizabeth-Class in HMS Warspite.

 

Regardless, I would by no means be disappointed if they went with the QEs over the Revenge, but it would serve to add more variety, in my opinion.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Babylon the Rs never saw anywhere near the same rebuilds that 3 of the QE's got. And with Warspite already in game the QE ares the favourites for tier 6.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Don't you think that as the very first thing mentioned in "Developer Diaries, 2017 plans" by their Development Director as "We definitely need to add more branches for the Queen of the Seas, Great Britain" means that a RN BB line is more likely sooner rather than later this year, and probably before the French lines appear. 

I'm thinking more Q2 than 3 or 4

Still I'm happy every time a new line comes out , whichever nation it belongs to

 

RN BBs are expected this year, and I think CVs were also mentioned, as part of the carrier rework. Also, DD models have been seen about, in the 'heads over keels' video series, but I would not expect them this year, except for an odd premium. Cossack maybe. As for when the RN BBs arrive, I have been thinking about April to May myself, since they have been mentioned a lot, meaning they should be getting towards the final stages of the modelling department process, unlike the French lines.

 

With France and the Marine Nationale due to get 2 lines as well, that fills up the 4 main lines per year quota, but you also get 2 branches of Soviet cold war DDs, and whatever else could be thrown in. 

 

Forgive me if this question has already been raised (I skimmed and didn't see it), but might it be conceivable to place the battleships of the Revenge-Class at Tier VI, in place of the QE-Class in the first iteration of the line?  These ships were comparable in armament to the QE-Class, underwent similar reconstruction and may be a better follow-up from the Iron Duke-Class at Tier V due to their more comparable top-speed (I believe there's a small speed reduction between the QE-Class and the Nelsons).  My main consideration here is that we already have a Queen Elizabeth-Class in HMS Warspite.

 

Regardless, I would by no means be disappointed if they went with the QEs over the Revenge, but it would serve to add more variety, in my opinion.

 

While I would like to see a regular Revenge at tier 6 as well, and hopefully we will some day, but I think there are a few factors that push it in favour of QE appearing first.

 

First off is that with Warspite, they already have the basis for an easy model with QE, and given that BBs are the most intensive to create a model for, WG may have taken the shortcut with it. Secondly, in terms of fame, the QE class outweigh the R class by some way, given their role at Jutland, and their extensive service in the Mediterranean in WW2. And the final reason is that they would be slightly easier to balance in my opinion, the R class would get supercharged shells for tier 6 (Compensating for the lack of 30 degree elevation on the 15" guns), but would require a bit more player skill to play, with less AA and speed than the QEs. The QE would be a bit more friendly to play, and in a line that does look to be challenging at times, a few ships which are friendly should be a welcome sight.

 

Revenge should appear as a regular tier 6 on the slow BB line, and Nelson ideally moved across to that when it comes. 23kn Nelson would fit better here leading from the 21kn Revenge, while QE with 24kn would lead to an improved QE design with 26-7kn. The Rs never received an extensive modernisation like the QEs (or a fictional Iron Duke C-hull as we could get in game), and are slower, but they are more compact, and hence tougher than QE. Also given the supercharges as historically, the guns in game become a lot better, with better velocity and shell flight times. They would be too much for tier 5 really, 8x 15" vs the poor New York or Kongo. 


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

RN BBs are expected this year, and I think CVs were also mentioned, as part of the carrier rework. Also, DD models have been seen about, in the 'heads over keels' video series, but I would not expect them this year, except for an odd premium. Cossack maybe. As for when the RN BBs arrive, I have been thinking about April to May myself, since they have been mentioned a lot, meaning they should be getting towards the final stages of the modelling department process, unlike the French lines.

 

With France and the Marine Nationale due to get 2 lines as well, that fills up the 4 main lines per year quota, but you also get 2 branches of Soviet cold war DDs, and whatever else could be thrown in. 

 

 

While I would like to see a regular Revenge at tier 6 as well, and hopefully we will some day, but I think there are a few factors that push it in favour of QE appearing first.

 

First off is that with Warspite, they already have the basis for an easy model with QE, and given that BBs are the most intensive to create a model for, WG may have taken the shortcut with it. Secondly, in terms of fame, the QE class outweigh the R class by some way, given their role at Jutland, and their extensive service in the Mediterranean in WW2. And the final reason is that they would be slightly easier to balance in my opinion, the R class would get supercharged shells for tier 6 (Compensating for the lack of 30 degree elevation on the 15" guns), but would require a bit more player skill to play, with less AA and speed than the QEs. The QE would be a bit more friendly to play, and in a line that does look to be challenging at times, a few ships which are friendly should be a welcome sight.

 

Revenge should appear as a regular tier 6 on the slow BB line, and Nelson ideally moved across to that when it comes. 23kn Nelson would fit better here leading from the 21kn Revenge, while QE with 24kn would lead to an improved QE design with 26-7kn. The Rs never received an extensive modernisation like the QEs (or a fictional Iron Duke C-hull as we could get in game), and are slower, but they are more compact, and hence tougher than QE. Also given the supercharges as historically, the guns in game become a lot better, with better velocity and shell flight times. They would be too much for tier 5 really, 8x 15" vs the poor New York or Kongo. 

 

Thank you for responding.  That reasoning makes sense, although I have one or two problems with a 'slow BB line' for the RN (namely that, to my knowledge, the RN never really pulled back from fast BBs with the exception of Revenge (which was for the sake of costs and time-saving) and Nelson which was also due to economic considerations (namely the Great Slump and the Washington Naval Treaty).  But, as you say, the QE is the easiest and user-friendliest way to go from a gameplay standpoint.  Still, if WG doesn't implement a slow-BB line, maybe we'll see it as a premium (such as Royal Oak).

 

On the topic of modernisation, I think I've figured out were I went wrong on that one.  I think I read somewhere that the Revenge-Class were considered for modernisation, but dropped so that the funds could be spent on a more comprehensive reconstruction of the more tactically-useful Queen Elizabeths (going back to my point about the abandonment of the Slow BB concept).  I obviously forgot that the modernisation plans were ultimately rejected.  While I believe 2 of the class were refitted at the outbreak of WWII with 20mm AA guns, it was a very small refit and had only a minor impact on the ships' design.

 

Still, I think it would be a nice ship to see at some point if only because it is the successor to the Iron Duke-class.

 

EDIT: Another possibility if they choose to go the premium route is the Royal Sovereign or Ramillies, or even Revenge herself.

 

-Ramillies served alongside Revenge at the Battle of Jutland and also took part during the Battle of Cape Spartivento.

-Revenge served at Jutland but her wartime service in WWII mainly consisted of Atlantic patrols and convoy escort.  However, she was one of the Battleships dispatched alongside Rodney and King George V to pursue the Bismarck.  Also, she's the lead ship of the class.

-Royal Sovereign missed Jutland and mainly served as a convoy escort, but an argument could be made for her being a USSR premium.  She was loaned to the USSR in 1944 awaiting the delivery of an Italian Battleship as war reparations, although the most notable thing abut her service with them appears to be that the Soviet Navy had somehow managed to jam all her main-calibre turrets dead-ahead and -astern (apparently the USSR tried to retain the ship by arguing she wasn't sea-worthy enough for the return trip to Britain, though I doubt the poor state of the guns was deliberate).

 

On another note, I noticed that you've placed the Dido-Class Cruiser at Tier VI in a revised CL-line.  I came to the same conclusion when devising my own version of the British Cruiser Line back before the composition was announced last year.  I was wondering how you would personally structure the module tree for her, since the class can be separated into 2-3 sub-classes.  Would you include the original Dido layout as an A-Hull and then the later Dido configuration with the 5th turret and the Bellona configuration as B- and C-Hulls respectively?  I have a family connection to the ships of this class as one of my grandfathers was a surgeon aboard HMS Argonaut when she was torpedoed in the Gibraltar Straits and repaired at Philadelphia Naval Yards.

 

Thank you again for your time.

Edited by Babylon_218

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the topic of modernisation, I think I've figured out were I went wrong on that one.  I think I read somewhere that the Revenge-Class were considered for modernisation, but dropped so that the funds could be spent on a more comprehensive reconstruction of the more tactically-useful Queen Elizabeths (going back to my point about the abandonment of the Slow BB concept).  I obviously forgot that the modernisation plans were ultimately rejected.  While I believe 2 of the class were refitted at the outbreak of WWII with 20mm AA guns, it was a very small refit and had only a minor impact on the ships' design.

When it first became feasible to rebuild capital ships as they wouldn't have to be scrapped, both the QEs & Rs were considered, but the QEs had a number of factors in their favour, such as their larger hulls, larger board margin and generally higher speeds. 

The ships did benefit from the 2nd stage refits that the RN ran in parallel with the rebuilds, which Repulse, Barham & Malaya also got. 

During the war most of the ships, except for Royal Oak, were refitted to include more deck armour in vulnerable locations, modified handling gear for the 6crh shells and improved anti aircraft defences, in their case 2 quadruple pom-poms on B & X turrets and some 20mm Oerlikons


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the Rs...

 I've been trying to look into how to make the Royal Sovereign class more than just a QE clone in gameplay. I've been trying to look into Admiralty documents to try and see what was proposed (If authors could list what documents they were and not just "ADM reports" that would be great). I call them Royal Sovereigns because that is how they were mentioned in the documents I saw, not the Revenge class. From what I've gathered here and in books and the ADM documents for upgrades in game...

  • Prewar it was suggested they take a year out to increase the elevation of the guns.
  • We have the super charges of course
  • 4 Different kinds of torpedo bulges to pick from with different amount of protection
  • Remove some of the upper secondary batteries (when take out, AA was added)
  • Royal Oak had above water tubes (can someone confirm this, apparently that ship only)
  • Super Bulging (Coastal battleship proposal, would have cut speed down to 18 knots but hey when has WG not BS'd something)
  • Quarter Deck vs Turret catapult
  • BSing "in excess of 22 knots" to make them 23 or 22.5 knots

 

Unrelated but when the Royal Sovereign came back from the Soviet Union apparently she had female crew on board.

 

Edited by Perrinu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Thank you for responding.  That reasoning makes sense, although I have one or two problems with a 'slow BB line' for the RN (namely that, to my knowledge, the RN never really pulled back from fast BBs with the exception of Revenge (which was for the sake of costs and time-saving) and Nelson which was also due to economic considerations (namely the Great Slump and the Washington Naval Treaty).  But, as you say, the QE is the easiest and user-friendliest way to go from a gameplay standpoint.  Still, if WG doesn't implement a slow-BB line, maybe we'll see it as a premium (such as Royal Oak).

 

On the topic of modernisation, I think I've figured out were I went wrong on that one.  I think I read somewhere that the Revenge-Class were considered for modernisation, but dropped so that the funds could be spent on a more comprehensive reconstruction of the more tactically-useful Queen Elizabeths (going back to my point about the abandonment of the Slow BB concept).  I obviously forgot that the modernisation plans were ultimately rejected.  While I believe 2 of the class were refitted at the outbreak of WWII with 20mm AA guns, it was a very small refit and had only a minor impact on the ships' design.

 

Still, I think it would be a nice ship to see at some point if only because it is the successor to the Iron Duke-class.

 

EDIT: Another possibility if they choose to go the premium route is the Royal Sovereign or Ramillies, or even Revenge herself.

 

-Ramillies served alongside Revenge at the Battle of Jutland and also took part during the Battle of Cape Spartivento.

-Revenge served at Jutland but her wartime service in WWII mainly consisted of Atlantic patrols and convoy escort.  However, she was one of the Battleships dispatched alongside Rodney and King George V to pursue the Bismarck.  Also, she's the lead ship of the class.

-Royal Sovereign missed Jutland and mainly served as a convoy escort, but an argument could be made for her being a USSR premium.  She was loaned to the USSR in 1944 awaiting the delivery of an Italian Battleship as war reparations, although the most notable thing abut her service with them appears to be that the Soviet Navy had somehow managed to jam all her main-calibre turrets dead-ahead and -astern (apparently the USSR tried to retain the ship by arguing she wasn't sea-worthy enough for the return trip to Britain, though I doubt the poor state of the guns was deliberate).

 

On another note, I noticed that you've placed the Dido-Class Cruiser at Tier VI in a revised CL-line.  I came to the same conclusion when devising my own version of the British Cruiser Line back before the composition was announced last year.  I was wondering how you would personally structure the module tree for her, since the class can be separated into 2-3 sub-classes.  Would you include the original Dido layout as an A-Hull and then the later Dido configuration with the 5th turret and the Bellona configuration as B- and C-Hulls respectively?  I have a family connection to the ships of this class as one of my grandfathers was a surgeon aboard HMS Argonaut when she was torpedoed in the Gibraltar Straits and repaired at Philadelphia Naval Yards.

 

Thank you again for your time.

 

Don't worry about a slow BB line, it would include some of the larger designs before Nelson, like N3 and L3. 

 

If there was to be a premium R- class, that is not Arkangelsk, and for the RN in game, then I would think Ramillies or  Royal Oak, since the former had a busy war record, and the latter is famous due to her fate, and possibly unique in game if she gets above water torpedo tubes as mentioned above by Perrinu. Revenge herself should be kept back for a later appearance in a regular branch, since she is the lead of the class, and therefore automatically gets the tech tree spot.

 

With Dido, I am thinking of taking out the regular CL branch and replacing it with a CL-AA branch of sorts, including the C-class conversions, Scylla/Charybdis, Delhi, Bellona and Dido herself, still at tier 6. The module tree I would assume has the usual A-hull and B-hull, and a possible upgrade in torpedoes, from an early version of the Mk.IX (9.5km @57kn) to a later version Mk.IX** (10km @62kn). To be at tier 6, I think having all 5 turrets is essential, and losing a turret would not be beneficial from a gameplay perspective, hence why I would think Bellona would be a tier below in a CL-AA branch. Hence I would think, if going by Dido alone, that the difference would be between her 1942 and 1944 conditions, with the addition of more 20mms and radars There also might be a fire control upgrade for greater range given her upgrades, although the range upgrade seems to be mandatory for all ships. I do wonder which premium camouflage scheme Dido, would wear though, since her own schemes are not exactly inspiring, though her June 1943 camouflage could work.

 

Very nice to hear that you have connections to a ship of the class, as far as I am aware, I have no connections with the class, and so the nearest I get is Euryalus, being the last cruiser built at Chatham Docks. Hence she becomes my favourite, though I admire her war record quite a bit. 

 

No need to say thanks all the time, I try to respond to replies in this thread, though sometimes it takes a bit of time. (I'll be getting back to you soon on RN DDs Firefly). 

 


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And before I put it off any longer, I reviewed another ship. And definitely no bias in choosing this one at all...

This may be a prelude to another project, although looking in depth at the whole of the CA line in the tech tree. 

I may review other members of the class as potential premiums or regulars at later dates, since NA user hexeris originally requested HMAS Australia, but first off on the County class is the following.

 

 

HMS Kent (54)

Invicta - Unconquered.


Named for the Home county of Kent, South-east England, she spent most of her early career as flagship of the China squadron, and she was extensively rebuilt with a new armour belt, dual 4” guns and octuple pompoms in 1938. Returning to the east Indies and Indian Ocean, but sent back to the Mediterranean in August 1940 to combat the Italians, she was not a month on the job when attacked by Italian torpedo bombers, being hit in the stern and severely damaged. After being repaired in the UK, she escorted Arctic convoys and carrier raids against the Tirpitz. Kent, with the Light Cruiser Bellona, and 4 destroyers also intercepted and decimated a convoy of German freighters and minesweepers. However, she was not needed for much longer, and put into reserve in January 1945, before being scrapped in 1948.

 

Aa4cUek.jpg

HMS Kent, the 8th (or 9th), as built, still in that attractive pre-war white and buff 'camouflage' scheme. From what I can tell, she doesn't have a 3rd 4" gun per side, and the catapult holds a smaller biplane, so I am guessing this photo was taken around 1929-1932. The camouflage could be white and mid-grey, given that Kent was reportedly wearing that in 1932 (conflicting sources).

 

WEIGHT – Displacement/HP

There are quite a few figures given for Kent’s displacement. So I have listed them and given a rough approximation of the Hitpoints she should get.

From wikipedia

Standard Displacement: 10,010t – circa 28’400HP

Full Load Displacement: 13,740t – circa 35’400HP

 

From navypedia/WW2 Cruisers & Battleships

Standard Displacement: 10,434t – circa 29,200HP (1939-1941)

Standard Displacement: 10,876t – circa 30,000HP (From 1941 onwards)

Full Load Displacement: circa 14,910t – circa 37’500HP

 

Taking an average of both gets us about 29,200HP for standard displacement and A-hull and 36,450HP for full load and B-hull. These values are pretty good for a tier 7 ship, and could even be workable at tier 8, although at the low end of that tier. Only Myoko beats the average, and with the lower estimates, Pensacola & Belfast draw level. The formulas may have overestimated the HP value, but it should detract too much from Kent being a healthy ship HP wise.

 

ARMOUR

As originally built, the Counties had poor protection 25mm belt over the machinery, 32mm on the deck, and a 111mm box over the magazines. However, Kent was rebuilt in 1937-8 and this improved her armour somewhat. The original condition county class could become a tier 6 premium along the lines of the French Duquesne. The rebuild in terms of armour improved the belt over the machinery spaces from 25mm to 114mm (4.5”).

Main belt: 114mm (4.5”) (4” in places on sides). 1.8m high.

Magazine Box: 111mm (4.4”)

Deck: 25-38mm (1-1.5”) 

Turrets: 25mm (1”) All over the turret. Including Barbettes.

 

Overall, the armour is nothing especially exciting, average at best, the citadel region should be similar to that of the Leander or Edinburgh, as in just over the waterline. Probably inferior to the Myoko in terms of bouncing shells, although the citadel would be smaller. Definitely better than ships like Pensacola or Shchors/Projekt 28 however. The bigger weakness would come in the form of the turrets. Having only 1” (25mm) armour all over means you will lose turrets quite often which is going to be a moderate annoyance. There is also a 1.6m torpedo bulge that would offer some limited protection from torpedoes.

 

3QvsgnT.jpg

At Scapa flow, 3rd November 1941. Having been repaired, she has gained and lost features, notably the sternwalk, unique to her, is gone. A KGV class lurks in the background behind the cruiser.

 

MAIN BATTERY – 4x2 203mm

The RN 8”/50 Mk.VII should perform quite similarly to the USN & IJN 8” guns already in game, firing a 116kg shell at 855mps, meaning similar shell arcs.

Although the Royal Navy entry has only 8 guns in a conventional 2 fore and aft twin turrets, the RoF can be improved to compensate for this gun barrel disadvantage compared to the Myoko or Pensacola historically the RoF in practice was 3-4RPM (15-20s), but designed for 5-6RPM (10-12s), and Kent herself achieved 5RPM on trials. Hence a 5RPM or 12s reload seems perfectly adequate for Kent to remain competitive. This would be basically the same as Yorck/Entwurf I/10. However, this could be a little too much, so 4.5RPM(13.3s) could be appropriate as well, given this ship beats the Yorck in quite a few ways, and the German should have an advantage somewhere.

The range should be adequate, but not especially long. About 15km seems reasonable, or 15.4km like Fiji, & Belfast.

The turret traverse would be 6 degrees a second, or 30s for 180 degrees. Distinctly middle of the pack, although the intended 8 degrees a second would give a 22s time, which would be quite comfortable for an 8” cruiser.

 

SECONDARY BATTERY – 4x2 102mm

Originally, Kent had 2, later increased to 3 single 4”/45 Mk.V (102mm) per side, but the 1937-8 refit changed these out for 2 twin 4”/45 Mk.XVI per side, although in game they are shown in game by the mount, the Mk.XIX. This gives Kent, the same secondary battery as Leander, Fiji & Belfast. The guns are not terrible, 6% chance of fire, 5km range and a 3s reload, but they are secondaries and count for precious little.

 

AA BATTERY – 2x 8 40mm Pom Pom Mounts, (4x2 102mm)

As a starting point, Kent in her 1938/9 condition after her major refit, she had 2x 4 12.7mm, 2 Octuple pompoms (2pdr/40mm), and her 4 twin 4”/102mm turrets which were dual purpose. She retained this set up until 1941, when she went for refit again after getting torpedoed.

  • 4x 2 102mm – DPS 38 @ 5km
  • 2x 8 40mm – DPS 40 @ 2.5km
  • 2x 4 12.7mm – DPS 11 @ 1.2km

That would do as a stock hull, it is not especially good though, and WG may choose to have a midwar Kent as the stock hull. After repair, improved radar systems and 6 or 7 20mm Oerlikons were added. Which would bump up her DPS at short range, and later on, she traded in her catapult and 12.7mm for another 6 20mm Oerlikons, and then replacing 6 of those single 20mm for 3 dual 20mm. She finished the war in that condition, 3x 2 20mm, 6x 1 20mm, 2x 8 40mm, 4x 2 102mm. Not brilliant AA by any standard of the imagination, and it would be interesting what players would prefer, giving up the catapult for better AA, though still not too good. The nearest counterpart would be Myoko in my opinion. The radars added should help give the AA armament some extra DPS, but I am not blessed with the understanding of the AA mechanics yet. One interesting thing to note is that the 8” main armament was intended to be DP, with a 70 degree elevation, but that would not appear in game, probably because the 8” proved so inadequate in the AA role.

 

TORPEDOES & AIRCRAFT

Mounted on the deck either side, is a quadruple torpedo launcher. These fired 21”/533mm Mk.V or VII torpedoes, but by WW2, the Mk.IX was in play, with it’s 10km and 62kn in game. And I trust that since Kent, should be tier 7, that WG not fluff the stats and give it the utterly wrong 8km torpedoes that beleaguer Leander & Fiji.

Kent, has access to a catapult unless, as discussed earlier, it is traded out of AA systems. The catapult could house either a Walrus spotter plane or a Hawker Osprey, as on Perth.

 

ljEJ3UL.jpg

Again, 3rd November 1941. This time the port side distinctive camouflage pattern is shown. I also added a digital representation of the ships crest in, because why not. 

 

SPEED – 31.5kn

This speed will get you places. But it is not fast, especially since every other tier 7 cruiser in game at the moment is faster than this, even if Yorck/Entwurf I/10 only beats her by 0.5kn. This speed should allow for a measured style of gameplay, not rushing in too quickly like a lot of cruiser can do.

 

MANEUVERABILITY & CONCEALMENT

Kent has the distinctive county class profile, of 3 raked funnels, but her concealment should be quite good. She has not got tall or blocky superstructures, so I would think a detection range of between 11 and 12.5km would suit her just fine. In keeping with RN cruiser trends, the detection range is a strength, and allows a sneakier playstyle, though with 8” guns that is less relevant.

The Kent sub-class was 192m long, and the class was traditionally praised with good seaworthiness, which can be in part represented by a quick rudder time, and the turning circle should be roughly 680m. Not USN standard and therefore not as good for dodging as they would, but the same as Belfast, and far better than the Japanese or soviet cruiser entries at the tier.

 

CONSUMABLES, CAMOUFLAGE & CAPABILITIES

Personally, I don’t think Kent really needs any special consumables. She is a bog-standard tier 7 cruiser, no gimmicks, and is average in most regards. She would probably get hydro and defensive AA, alongside the catapult aircraft. The unique trait would at most be the walrus spotter plane. Any further consumables like the smoke generator or HP repair would take an already good/average ship into the realms of overpowered. (*cough* Atago).

As for a premium camouflage, Kent has quite a few options. Since Kent, is to a certain extent unique in appearance compared to her sisters, she should get her own camo. So below I have posted a link to a source that gives very nice images of HMS Kent and details of her career through WW2. I personally think the September 1941 camouflage should be the premium one, since it has a decent variety of colours and patterns.

Link.

 

u5Gd4wf.jpg

I am a little nervous of either scanning my RN camouflage book in or taking pictures of a website it says: No, thou shalt not! So this is the next best thing, though the colours are off. This is what I would hope her premium camouflage would be, but the Green toned down, darker blue areas made Black, and as far as I know, there was no green or blue on the funnels. Alternatively, instead of me giving a long winded and probably inaccurate description, you could click on ze link in the camouflage section to decide for yourself which dress suits the lady best.

 

CONCLUSION

So, in Kent, what we have is a distinctly average tier 7 heavy cruiser. She doesn’t really excel at much, she can put out damage with reasonable effectiveness with a well balanced main armament, her armour is nothing special, and probably a little on the weak side. The story is the same for AA, while torpedoes and maneuverability are both good points in my book. There isn’t really a specific role this ship could play except support, unless WG tweak the shells or consumables This could happen, but I would prefer it not. We need at least 1 normal RN line, and Heavy cruisers can be it for the most part.

 

PROS

- Decent guns with a good RoF

- Long ranged torpedoes either side. Single fire ability.

- Should have reasonable concealment.

- Good RoF and potential damage output.

- Large HP pool.

 

CONS

- A little slow compared to other tier 7 cruisers.

- Turrets very vulnerable to incapacitation.

- Below average to adequate AA

 

g7tdKz8.pngA shipbucket rendition of HMS Kent (54) as she appeared in 1944. I am aware that there are no pictures showing her stern in detail in this review, and hence I have quasi-rectified this! Though having a full-side on view of a potential tier 7 cruiser is useful enough.

 

 

 


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I may be wrong, but the easy incapacitation or destruction of turrets is something that won't be a feature of just the Kent. Given that the Surrey suffers from the same issue, only at Tier 9 and 10 I guess we might see sturdier turrets.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I may be wrong, but the easy incapacitation or destruction of turrets is something that won't be a feature of just the Kent. Given that the Surrey suffers from the same issue, only at Tier 9 and 10 I guess we might see sturdier turrets.

 

York, Kent & Surrey would all have fairly poorly armoured turrets, as does Leander in game. 25mm all around is going to be a pain if a large caliber shell hits it, but the designs that are the potential tier 9 and 10 have a 6" face and 2" sides/rear. Still, compared to most other cruisers at tiers 6 to 8, it is not too good (25mm).

 

 


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An overall update to the main lines, starting with the more realistic or smaller tree.

First up is the cut down tree. The changes are:

  • CA line
  • Swapped Weymouth & Topaze around.
  • Swapped Hawke 8" for Drake 9.2” for variety.
  • DD line
  • Replaced Matchless with Radstock. (Admiralty R, instead of Admiralty S).
  • Replaced Vancouver with Wakeful. (Admiralty W instead of Admiralty V).
  • Replaced Vansittart/Venomous with Amazon.
  • DDL line
  • Replaced Marksman with Parker
  • Parker replaced with Valentine
  • Swapped Extra torp tribal with Design V Leader
  • Renamed Tier 8 to Tay from Rother
  • BC line
  • Renamed G3 ‘Anson’ to ‘Trafalgar’
  • CV line
  • Replaced the armoured Malta with the open hangar design X1.

 

Reasoning being:

- Admiralty R being bigger and faster than the M (34 vs 36kn) will hopefully prove a bit more decisive in battle at tier 3.

- Weymouth belongs to the town class lineage, so being separated from it doesn't make sense.

- 9x 9.2" is more likely to appear as the first tier 10 CA than the 12x 8".

- Admiralty W has 6 torpedo tubes to 4 on the V. Though that potentially can be an upgrade path, the appropriate ships should be there.

- Amazon is a more capable ship than the Modified W, by nature of speed and tonnage.

- Parker should be far more capable and similar to G-101 at tier 3 than the Marksman.

- With Parker now at tier 3, the very similar Valentine takes place at tier 4, mostly soft stat differences between the two.

- The Design V Leader has extra firepower and is probably a better fit at tier 9 than a tribal with poor maneuverability but an extra torpedo launcher.

- Tay is probably a more appropriate name than Rother for a potential lead of a class.

- Giving G3 the name Trafalgar frees up Anson for use on other ships that are potentially a better fit.

- Given Malta X1 was more likely to be built, it would probably appear first, even before the better fit that is the armoured Malta.

8N8WmZs.jpg

 

 

 

Maybe just a bit. :ohmy:

I've gone back & forth on the issue of Tier 2 Destroyers, which I'll come back to. Not really any argument with the rest of the tree although I'd like to give an honourable mention to F3 as an alternative Tier 8 BC, it's reasonable if you like the thought of the 3x3 forward turrets, two fewer twin secondaries & three knots slower but thicker armour over the magazines. I'd still prefer J3 myself though. Also, I hope that in the expanded tree Unicorn will take the place of Furious; for me, having two destroyer, cruiser, CV lines with a BB and a BC line would be more than enough to adequately represent the RN. It also adds to the potential premiums! 

Laforey seems underpowered for Tier 2. I know that V-25 is OP at this point but still, Sampson is the slowest DD in the Tier with the heaviest gun armament (4x1 4") & short range torpedoes. Laforey is half a knot slower with only three 4" guns; even if her torps are longer ranged, they're unlikely to be much faster than the ones on Sampson & her detection will probably be around the same as Umikaze at best or more likely closer to Sampson's. In short, I think she's going to be an easy target unless her ROF is buffed or she gets extra HP for balance. It seems easier to place Murray at Tier 2 with Marksman as the accompanying DL even if they would probably have to be nerfed slightly to fit. 

Would it make a difference to have Glowworm/Grenville instead of Active/Codrington at Tier 6? They both seem to fit.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've gone back & forth on the issue of Tier 2 Destroyers, which I'll come back to. Not really any argument with the rest of the tree although I'd like to give an honourable mention to F3 as an alternative Tier 8 BC, it's reasonable if you like the thought of the 3x3 forward turrets, two fewer twin secondaries & three knots slower but thicker armour over the magazines. I'd still prefer J3 myself though. Also, I hope that in the expanded tree Unicorn will take the place of Furious; for me, having two destroyer, cruiser, CV lines with a BB and a BC line would be more than enough to adequately represent the RN. It also adds to the potential premiums! 

Laforey seems underpowered for Tier 2. I know that V-25 is OP at this point but still, Sampson is the slowest DD in the Tier with the heaviest gun armament (4x1 4") & short range torpedoes. Laforey is half a knot slower with only three 4" guns; even if her torps are longer ranged, they're unlikely to be much faster than the ones on Sampson & her detection will probably be around the same as Umikaze at best or more likely closer to Sampson's. In short, I think she's going to be an easy target unless her ROF is buffed or she gets extra HP for balance. It seems easier to place Murray at Tier 2 with Marksman as the accompanying DL even if they would probably have to be nerfed slightly to fit. 

Would it make a difference to have Glowworm/Grenville instead of Active/Codrington at Tier 6? They both seem to fit.

 

I have slated F3 as a tier 7 premium, for both both tech trees, since I think a few nerfs to her guns should see her work as a tier 7 premium since she has a few disadvantages that would make her a fair bit more uncomfortable than J3. She could work with some modernisation at tier 8 though I guess.

 

Unicorn should come with a second CV line, since I think Furious would be the more relevant ship to use for an initial tree. However, I think having any less trees, except for possibly the 3rd CV, and small CA branch from tier 7 to 10 would add too much to the potential premium pool for my liking. 

 

Laforey should be fine for tier 2 I think. All the tier 2 DDs so far only have a 3 4" gun broadside, including Sampson, with the exceptions being Tachibana and Smith with 4x 3". 

Laforey therefore matches up with regular destroyers and there broadside, with similar guns and firepower. Her RoF should be 13RPM as listed, and that does beat Sampson's 8.3RPM by some way. The ballistics should be slightly better, but not too noticeable. 

In terms of HP, the full load displacement is 1'150t to 1'300t, so she can be slightly above or below Sampson in terms of that, 9'300/400HP at max or so. Her speed is probably the largest disadvantage, but at tier 2, it isn't much of a disadvantage considering the maps are small and easy to get across. I usually find I can pace myself fairly well with a ship of mediocre speed, not rushing in too much. 

 

The final aspect that matters, would be the torpedoes and this is where Laforey can separate herself from being slightly worse than Sampson. (Being 0.5kn slower, and with no 4th gun to call upon).

Although Sampson has 2x 2 on each side, they are only 4.5km, and while that is good for close range attacks, the stealth torpedo boats Umikaze and V-25 do significantly better, and so Laforey has a selection of torpedoes that can be called upon to join the ranks the above two. 

- Mk. II** - 4.1km @ 64-66kn

- Mk.II** - 5.5km @ 55-56kn

- Mk.IV - 7.3km @ 56kn

 

The Mk.IV can probably be an upgrade option over the Mk.II**, and I would sincerely hope WG don't fluff the stats of the torpedoes since Laforey should be a decent torpedo boat for her tier.

 

I would think that the extra speed and HP of the Admiralty Ms are not needed at the tier since Laforey should be good on her own. I could do a more detailed analysis of Laforey at some point I guess, in the style of the other reviews I have done. 

 

I have Active & Codrington because they match up in terms of classes, although I could use later classes if needed. Glowworm I think would be a premium, given her relative fame. so using a different class from G would work, though they are all very similar. If I had to change them both, I think I would use Electra/Escapade and Grenville/Hardy, on grounds of displacement/HP increase. The differences are not that much though, hence I haven't really considered it.

 

 


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Nice work! :medal:

 

But like „FireflyActual“ mentioned, I think that the 4.7in. L/M-class DD's should be in the regular Tech tree (tier 7/8) and maybe the 4in. L-class as Premium, although I would rather like the implementation of the L/M-class with two different hull types (4in. and 4.7in. guns) so you can chose on your gamestyle.

Then I think that if the 4.7 in L/M-class DD’s get implemented as premium they probably will go for the polish ORKAN.

 

Also if the L/M-class doesn’t show up in the regular tech tree, I have no idea wear to put all the free experience I’m hording for it since release.:ohmy:

 


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice work! :medal:

 

But like „FireflyActual“ mentioned, I think that the 4.7in. L/M-class DD's should be in the regular Tech tree (tier 7/8) and maybe the 4in. L-class as Premium, although I would rather like the implementation of the L/M-class with two different hull types (4in. and 4.7in. guns) so you can chose on your gamestyle.

Then I think that if the 4.7 in L/M-class DD’s get implemented as premium they probably will go for the polish ORKAN.

 

Also if the L/M-class doesn’t show up in the regular tech tree, I have no idea wear to put all the free experience I’m hording for it since release.:ohmy:

 

Thanks! ^^

The 4" L would probably have to be a premium, since I don't think she fits very well in any of the lines. 

As for the Normal L class, I would like to put them at tier 8, and I could probably shift out the weapons for a tier 8 premium role, although I don't see that as desirable, though by going by war records, the L makes more sense. I'm still a bit divided on it really though. 

 

 


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.