Royal Navy Tech Tree Proposal

[Trainspite]

Looking at destroyers (extended version), are Acasta, Matchless and Venomous competitive enough against Laforey, Radstock and Amazon?

Indeed, are the Thorncroft specials different enough to warrant a separate regular slots in terms of gameplay without resorting to gimmicks?

 

Acasta is an oddball. Included since the class had a fairly major role at Jutland, and because I don't like the idea of the Ms at tier 2. I doubt she would be competitive against the other DDs, but this is tier 2. As long she is playable, then she is alright for newcomers. 

 

Matchless is only 2kn slower than Radstock, and loses out on HP. I guess she is slightly more maneuverable, but I would consider this within the scheme of balance-able, given what WG have been doing. I did not count the added 18" torpedoes into this. 

 

Venomous is the harder one, being a higher tier where more people care. The difference in speed and HP is more pronounced with little advantage to make up for it. Other than gimmicks, you can either apply buffs to RoF, torpedo selection, or other soft stats to make Venomous a choice over Amazon. Maybe concealment. Otherwise, if that can't do it, then gimmicks it is. I would think that all the RN DDs would get the single fire ability though, if anything is taken from the RN CLs and if WG don't want to expand it to other nations. Maybe WG can create a difference on that. 

 

At this point, it comes to the point that WG will freely edit any stats to suit them and what they want out of the ship though. 

 

And as for the Thornycrofts, probably not. Maybe WG will include their stats as upgrades, or use them as the occasional premium, though people may not like that as judging by the response to Eugen. I did need something to fill the gap though that was apt enough. Not quite fitting for a DD-AA line however.

[creamgravy]

Acasta will be awesome. 2 x single torpedo tubes and 3 x 4" QF brawling guns is a potent combo. (V-25 has a fantasy 4" gun upgrade but the single tubes are crippled with a long 38s reload)

I'd also like to see a Tribal with 5 x 3" guns (a fast Tachibana with single launch torps) Unfortunately I don't think lots of low tier RN DDs will be financially viable for WG.

 

Not quite fitting for a DD-AA line however.

 

The WAIR conversions are perfect to start a support line at tier 5.

Look at the firing arcs of the Mk XIX guns. 

[Trainspite]

Acasta will be awesome. 2 x single torpedo tubes and 3 x 4" QF brawling guns is a potent combo. (V-25 has a fantasy 4" gun upgrade but the single tubes are crippled with a long 38s reload)

I'd also like to see a Tribal with 5 x 3" guns (a fast Tachibana with single launch torps) Unfortunately I don't think lots of low tier RN DDs will be financially viable for WG.

 

 

The WAIR conversions are perfect to start a support line at tier 5.

Look at the firing arcs of the Mk XIX guns. 

 

Well, I do have Zubian in the premium section to complement Tachi & Smiff, though Mohawk or Tartar is the more likely to appear on account of the armament.

 

I was thinking that maybe the Hunts can be switched in from tiers 3 to 5 if need be, since they have their DP 4" that could work decently against low tier planes. 

 

The only problem I have with the WAIR conversions is the lack of torpedoes, which isn't exactly a good thing for a destroyer.

[creamgravy]

You could easily throw a dual/triple launcher back on, nobody would mind. There's enough space when you delete any quad Mk III or single 2pdr mounts for a late war config. The Hunts could certainly fill the role but would they be fast enough in WOWS?

 

What spec should the tier 6 P-class destroyer get? I don't think the standard 4 x 4" Mk V ship has enough AA.

 

Edited: Added revised figures with correct Mk V range.

 

TLDR:

There's no balanced AA destroyer at tier 6. It's either OP or useless.

 

How many Kaga bombers can a stationary ship shoot down before they drop.

 

 

 

 

 

All destroyers are using this DD support captain with AA Guns Mod 2 and AA flag. > http://shipcomrade.com/captcalc/0100000000001001000011000000010119

Tobrok uses AA guns mod 3.

Leander has no AA captain skills or upgrades.

 

 

Valentine (WAIR)	Base DPS	Base range (km)
102 mm/45 QF Mk XIX (2)	19	5
Oerlikon (4)	14	2

 

Petard 1945	Base DPS	Base range (km)
102 mm/45 QF Mk XIX* (2)	30	5
Single Bofors (2)	15	3.5
‎40 mm 2-pdr. Mk VII (1)	14	2.5
Oerlikon (2)	7	2

 

Pakenham 1943	Base DPS	Base range (km)
102 mm/45 QF Mk V (5)	14	3.5
‎40 mm 2-pdr. Mk VII (1)	14	2.5
Oerlikon (6)	22	2

 

Penn 1942	Base DPS	Base range (km)
102 mm/45 QF Mk V (4)	11	3.5
‎40 mm 2-pdr. Mk VII (1)	14	2.5
Oerlikon (4)	14	2

 

TLDR:

 

• The O/P with Mk V gun is useless. WG would need to buff the Mark IV HA mount to something like 3.5 dps or 5km range.
• Petard 1945 is tier 7 material. (Esp if the C-class doesn't get a DP AA rating)
• I didn't realise Petard was that famous, add another DD to the premium list!
• The tier 6 could be a Petard 1945 refit with normal XIX mounts.

 

[Trainspite]

I'm using Penn more as a slot for a P-class as tier 6. Representing the class more than anything else. I did consider Petard as a premium for some time, and I think I eventually settled on her as a top hull for the tier 6. 

 

The Hunts are a little slow, but they do have pretty damn good firepower with the 3s reload on the twin 4". They should be decent at around those tiers, certainly unique.

[creamgravy]

I'm using Penn more as a slot for a P-class as tier 6. Representing the class more than anything else.

 

Absolutely, I just copy/pasted Penn to represent the base spec. 

 

I think the 5 x 4" Mk V with 1x4 Mk IX torps could be very spicy at tier 6.

 

This is how a standard Weapon-class compares with the tier 8 'AA' destroyers.

 

Battleaxe	Base DPS	Base range (km)
102 mm/45 QF Mk XIX* (2)	30	5
STAGG (2) + 2 singles	68	3.5

 

 

 

Battleaxe compares well with Ognevoi and Benson C-hull. The planned aft 4" mount could be added to make her more competitive with Kidd but they have 10 torpedoes.

 

[creamgravy]

Here's a closer look at the Battle class destroyers.

 

Tier 8

1942 Battle-class.

A heavy AA destroyer like Kidd but with weak guns and good torpedoes.

+ Very heavy AA.

+ Excellent torpedoes

- Poor gun DPM. (9,600 DPM)

 

Weapons.

4 x 114 mm/45 RP10 Mark IV (12 RPM)

10 x Mk IX** torpedoes.

 

AA

1942 Battle (1st batch)	Base DPS	Base range (km)
114 mm/45 RP10 Mk IV (2)	24	5
102 mm/45 QF Mk V (1)	3	3.5
Mk IV (4) + Mk VII (4)	126	3.5

 

1942 Battle (2nd batch)	Base DPS	Base range (km)
114 mm/45 RP10 Mk IV (2)	24	5
Mk IV (4) + Mk VII (6)	143	3.5

 

 

Tier 9.

1943 Battle-class.

The best all round spec for a standard line.

+ Excellent guns. (20,000 DPM)

+ Excellent torpedoes.

+ Decent AA.

 

Weapons.

4 x 114mm RP10 Mark IV* + 1 x 114mm RP50 Mark V* (RPM can be balanced around 15-20 RPM)

10 x Torpedoes Mk IXM

 

AA.

1943 Battle	Base DPS	Base range (km)
114 mm/45 RP10 Mk IV* (2) + Mk V (1)	38	5
STAAG (2) + Mk V (1) + Mk VII (2)	81	3.5

 

 

1944 Battle-class.

Better in a support line.

+ Excellent torpedoes.

+ Excellent AA.

+ Decent guns (16,000 DPM)

 

Weapons.

4 x 114mm RP41 Mark VI (20-24 RPM)
10 x Torpedoes Mk IXM

 

AA

1944 Battle (Tobruk)	Base DPS	Base range (km)
114 mm/45 RP41 Mk VI (2)	36	5
STAAG (3) + Mk VII (6)	128	3.5

 

 

Tier 10.

1950 Battle-class.

A tier 10 Kidd.

+ Crazy AA.

+ Great guns. (24,000 DPM)

- Only 3 torpedoes.

 

Weapons.

6 x 114 mm/45 RP10 Mark IV* guns (20 RPM)

3 x Mk IXM torpedoes.

AA.

1950 Battle (Nueva Esparta)	Base DPS	Base range (km)
114 mm/45 RP10 Mark IV* (3)	45	5
STAAG (4) + Mk V RP50 (4)	195	3.5

 

 

 

AA comparison using tier 9 Saipan bombers.

Imagine a Saipan squad flying towards your stationary ship, this is how many planes you'll shoot down before they can drop.

 

For example a full spec Weapon-class will be able to down 2 bombers without defensive AA (fantastic) A full spec Kidd can almost shoot down 3 (amazing)

 

 

Note:

All ships are using a full AA spec captain with all possible upgrades for the tier.

Figures don't include the defensive AA consumable.

Estimated AA DPM values for these guns. 15 DPS for RP10 Mark IV*, 12 DPS for RP10 Mark IV, 8 DPS for RP50 Mark V*.

 

 

[EUmofton]

Am I the guy who thinks everything's weak? I seem to be, Trainspite and I always disagree on tiering and I think you might be similar to him creamgravy.

 

My thought on a first RN DD line is Battle at T9 and Daring at T10. Issues with both. Splitting Battle over 2 tiers is interesting, but the T10 option is basically Daring with 30% of the torpedo load, so sorry but that's a no from me!

 

General 114mm Gun Issues

• Doesn't pen high tier DD hulls or even BB superstructures with HE
• Lowest MV of any high-tier DD gun, very shell-arcy
• If it needs IFHE it'll be -4 skill points off the bat
• RN CL style 'SAP' might be effective on bigger ships, but after 135 games in the Minotaur I'm convinced that it will be completely inadequate vs. destroyers

 

T8

With 12 RPM the T8 Battle gets shot to bits by everything. She's throwing 48 rounds downrange, Kagero's throwing 51, with far better ballistics and she's bottom of the barrel for gunboats. Her torpedoes meanwhile are a 'bit' better than Benson's while Benson's throwing 90x 5in rounds down range and gets to eat things you can't. As a pure torpedo boat Kagero's looking better and with the gun disparity... ugh. AA is a pretty marginally useful skill on a destroyer. Give it 20 RPM and maybe we'll talk?!

 

T9 - 1943

Traditional Battle I really like the look and aesthetics of, I also like the unique (in-game) gun layout. It's just badly let down by all of the 114mm gun issues and the fact that the top RN torpedo sucks 61kt x 10km vs. 67kt x 12km (Yugu), 66kt x 10.5km (Fletch) and 67kt x 10km (Z-46). If she does get top ROF and edges out Fletcher there, then she'll still have gun and torpedo weaknesses. Some of the other ships are less easy to compare, but the US ships are the closest in form and function. The 1944 Battle just isn't worth it as an AA boat as AA boats rarely are (never see C-hull Benson's and Kidd's had lackluster reviews, Grozovoi was nerfed into the ground but only worthwhile in her AA-beast appearance divisioning with a carrier which is broken and can't be relied on). You're giving up 20% of your firepower against 11 opponents for being 37% better against max one opponent who may not even exist as carriers creep down to 2% of games played. 

 

T10 - Venticinco de Battle

Wheres meh torpedoes?!

 

 

Although she's a different beast Gallant might suggest that WG will be 'kind' to RN DD on maneuverability and concealment which is certainly not to be underrated, but these Battles are big ships in the scheme of things. Maybe I'm not mentally accounting for that. A couple of game mechanics really do these ships a bit of a disservice, as does the 'meta' at least on NA where I play and carriers are (fortunately IMO) rare.

[creamgravy]

never see C-hull Benson's and Kidd's had lackluster reviews

 

Support destroyer gameplay isn't for everyone, it's best suited for competitive team battles (or hard mode clan PvE?)

 

A tier 8 1942 Battle would be p0rn to those guys with long duration smoke and defensive fire. 

 

Here's another fun comparison.

 

Minotaur, with this popular captain build and AA mod 2, will shoot down 4 planes. (You can test this in the training room agasint a bot Essex/Midway)

Daring, with speed boost and no AA skills, has a 80% chance to shoot down 1 plane (functionally no air defence)

1942 and 1950 have full AA builds with defensive AA running.

 

 

[Trainspite]

Am I the guy who thinks everything's weak? I seem to be, Trainspite and I always disagree on tiering and I think you might be similar to him creamgravy.

 

 

Eh, we don't disagree on everything. I mean, Dreadnought & Bellerophon are both tier 3s. Daring is a tier 10 (can't imagine it anywhere else, even if slightly UP without in game editations). Then again, there are lot more people on the NA forums with the opinion that a lot of RN stuff should be down one tier. And then there is me sticking to my guns and insisting that Kent & London can compete with Algerie, Myoko & Yorck. Mid-Early war Norfolk could be tier 6, or an as built Cornwall could be T6 or T5. 

 

As for the 114mm, you could go the route of the German HE on the cruisers and give it 1/4 overmatch capabilities. That is something to make up for a lack of power, though it won't save the entire ship. 

 

Also, Kidd isn't released yet. I think. 

[EUmofton]

Support destroyer gameplay isn't for everyone, it's best suited for competitive team battles (or hard mode clan PvE?)

 

Ah 'support' i.e. code for 'rubbish' ;)

 

What does the T8 Battle do that a C-Hull Benson can't do better, and what does the T9 Battle do that a Def. AA Fletcher can't do better either? Some more mid-range DPS, but scattering's the important thing and there's no guarantee of USN-style long duration smoke, so far Gallant doesn't get it (sharing IJN/VMF duration).

 

Shouldn't that graph have some more pronounced steps where the shorter range guns come into range? My Minotaur has 8.2km, 7.2km(the bulk) and 3.9km AA bubbles if memory serves. Or is it a cumulative over time effect?

 

Eh, we don't disagree on everything. I mean, Dreadnought & Bellerophon are both tier 3s. Daring is a tier 10 (can't imagine it anywhere else, even if slightly UP without in game editations). Then again, there are lot more people on the NA forums with the opinion that a lot of RN stuff should be down one tier. And then there is me sticking to my guns and insisting that Kent & London can compete with Algerie, Myoko & Yorck. Mid-Early war Norfolk could be tier 6, or an as built Cornwall could be T6 or T5. 

 

Sometimes we agree for different reasons, I think T3 balance doesn't matter that much so I'm apathetic towards it. Daring's a T10 though this thread has made me consider the L.90's balance wise (Daring's a built ship so should take precedence though).

 

Some people don't want to see tier after tier of mediocre ships, I can cope with the odd howler. I think US server players cared more about how abominably bad Pensacola was for instance to play, and also how bad NOLA was (and is). Weak ships at those tiers face stiff competition. Personally I don't really enjoy Algerie, sold Yorck rather than continue and sold Myoko as well, so I'm not hot on T7 cruisers it seems... Driving those huge cruise liners doesn't appeal too much, but with smoke/heal etc the sky's the limit.

 

 

[Trainspite]

 

 

Sometimes we agree for different reasons, I think T3 balance doesn't matter that much so I'm apathetic towards it. Daring's a T10 though this thread has made me consider the L.90's balance wise (Daring's a built ship so should take precedence though).

 

Some people don't want to see tier after tier of mediocre ships, I can cope with the odd howler. I think US server players cared more about how abominably bad Pensacola was for instance to play, and also how bad NOLA was (and is). Weak ships at those tiers face stiff competition. Personally I don't really enjoy Algerie, sold Yorck rather than continue and sold Myoko as well, so I'm not hot on T7 cruisers it seems... Driving those huge cruise liners doesn't appeal too much, but with smoke/heal etc the sky's the limit.

 

 

 

Well, I keep an eye on low tier balance since I don't want the same mistakes as WoT repeated here. Albert is a cause for concern on this.

 

Well, mediocre ships are what should make up the majority of ships at each tier. Average, mediocre etc. - certainly there will be some stars, and some which are difficult to play, except when I apparently play them. 

 

Algerie was my best T7 cruiser damage wise. Easily able to bully other cruisers into submission, hence one part of me regarding her as OP and a prime candidate as a nerf, after the ridiculous Martel. NA players would obviously care for their ships a bit more, and that is a mixed bag, regarding many as bad, or never good enough. (I think I saw someone claiming anti-USN bias and that Fletcher was weak at some point in the past). Yorck was quite enjoyable and refreshing after the poor HE Nurnberg. FabulousMyoko was one of my early best performing ships at tier 7 when I was a fairly new player of about 7-8 months. Now I have all 6 variations made available to me of the ship, and it sill performs like a gem. Of course me being silly and not wanting to enjoy anything, I want that one nerfed as well. Indianapolis seems to be the one T7 cruiser I have yet to click with yet, though I have not played many games with her, and despite the anemic avg damage, has a 90% WR. Smoke/Heal are certainly huge balancing factors, though I hope the RN CAs don't receive them. 

[creamgravy]

Shouldn't that graph have some more pronounced steps where the shorter range guns come into range? My Minotaur has 8.2km, 7.2km(the bulk) and 3.9km AA bubbles if memory serves. Or is it a cumulative over time effect?

 

Yep, I didn't have time to add the extra points. Here's the full analysis.

 

Minotaur*	DPS	Range (km)	Total aura contribution	Planes shot down (average)	Planes shot down (low)
152 mm/50 Mk XXVI	153	7.2	1.3	0	0
76.2 mm/70 Mk VI	410	6.0	3.0	2	2
Oerlikon	56	2.4	0.2	4	3

 

*Includes AA mod 2 and alt clicking the squad (Siapan bombers have 2058 HP and travel at 155 knots)

 

A stationary Minotaur will shoot down.

 

0 planes between 6 to 7km.

2 planes between 2.4 to 6km.

1-2 planes between 0 to 2.4km.

 

You should be able to replicate these figures reliably in the training room agasint a bot Essex.

 

 

Ah 'support' i.e. code for 'rubbish' ;)

 

What does the T8 Battle do that a C-Hull Benson can't do better, and what does the T9 Battle do that a Def. AA Fletcher can't do better either? Some more mid-range DPS, but scattering's the important thing and there's no guarantee of USN-style long duration smoke, so far Gallant doesn't get it (sharing IJN/VMF duration).

 

Support DDs are used for competitive team battles (see KotS etc) A 3rd RN DD line would fit this playstyle perfectly.

 

Long duration smoke would be ideal but they could introduce another team orientated consumable (Gallant is part of a different line)

 

Some more mid-range DPS, but scattering's the important thing

 

The best AA spec DDs can melt squads before they drop. (<3 my AA Sims)

[FionnMacC]

Here's a closer look at the Battle class destroyers.

 

Tier 8

1942 Battle-class.

A heavy AA destroyer like Kidd but with weak guns and good torpedoes.

+ Very heavy AA.

+ Excellent torpedoes

- Poor gun DPM. (9,600 DPM)

 

Weapons.

4 x 114 mm/45 RP10 Mark IV (12 RPM)

10 x Mk IX** torpedoes.

 

AA

1942 Battle (1st batch)	Base DPS	Base range (km)
114 mm/45 RP10 Mk IV (2)	24	5
102 mm/45 QF Mk V (1)	3	3.5
Mk IV (4) + Mk VII (4)	126	3.5

 

1942 Battle (2nd batch)	Base DPS	Base range (km)
114 mm/45 RP10 Mk IV (2)	24	5
Mk IV (4) + Mk VII (6)	143	3.5

 

 

Tier 9.

1943 Battle-class.

The best all round spec for a standard line.

+ Excellent guns. (20,000 DPM)

+ Excellent torpedoes.

+ Decent AA.

 

Weapons.

4 x 114mm RP10 Mark IV* + 1 x 114mm RP50 Mark V* (RPM can be balanced around 15-20 RPM)

10 x Torpedoes Mk IXM

 

AA.

1943 Battle	Base DPS	Base range (km)
114 mm/45 RP10 Mk IV* (2) + Mk V (1)	38	5
STAAG (2) + Mk V (1) + Mk VII (2)	81	3.5

 

 

1944 Battle-class.

Better in a support line.

+ Excellent torpedoes.

+ Excellent AA.

+ Decent guns (16,000 DPM)

 

Weapons.

4 x 114mm RP41 Mark VI (20-24 RPM)
10 x Torpedoes Mk IXM

 

AA

1944 Battle (Tobruk)	Base DPS	Base range (km)
114 mm/45 RP41 Mk VI (2)	36	5
STAAG (3) + Mk VII (6)	128	3.5

 

 

Tier 10.

1950 Battle-class.

A tier 10 Kidd.

+ Crazy AA.

+ Great guns. (24,000 DPM)

- Only 3 torpedoes.

 

Weapons.

6 x 114 mm/45 RP10 Mark IV* guns (20 RPM)

3 x Mk IXM torpedoes.

AA.

1950 Battle (Nueva Esparta)	Base DPS	Base range (km)
114 mm/45 RP10 Mark IV* (3)	45	5
STAAG (4) + Mk V RP50 (4)	195	3.5

 

 

I agree with EUmofton on the T8 Battle, creamgravy; and surely the RoF of the MkIV ought to be 16-18rpm even at T8? Put Battle (Barfleur) at T9 with her full 20rpm, have the 1943 as a B-hull, although the CP MkV* was a rebuilt 4.7" mounting with RP50 Remote Power Traverse & would have a RoF of around 14rpm; average this out to 19rpm in order to have a rear-aspect gun. The 1944 Battle is trickier; Commonwealth Premium or C-hull? Since she reverts to 2x2 layout but with the 4.5/45 MkVI's 24rpm, her total RoF is only 1rpm higher at 96. 
If you want a 4.5" armed T8, I'd go for the Gael with 18rpm (manual loading burst speed); otherwise, stick with the Battleaxe & her 3x2 4"/45 MkXIX (RP51) at 20rpm per gun. 
 

<snip>

General 114mm Gun Issues

• Doesn't pen high tier DD hulls or even BB superstructures with HE
• Lowest MV of any high-tier DD gun, very shell-arcy
• If it needs IFHE it'll be -4 skill points off the bat
• RN CL style 'SAP' might be effective on bigger ships, but after 135 games in the Minotaur I'm convinced that it will be completely inadequate vs. destroyers

 

T8

With 12 RPM the T8 Battle gets shot to bits by everything. She's throwing 48 rounds downrange, Kagero's throwing 51, with far better ballistics and she's bottom of the barrel for gunboats. Her torpedoes meanwhile are a 'bit' better than Benson's while Benson's throwing 90x 5in rounds down range and gets to eat things you can't. As a pure torpedo boat Kagero's looking better and with the gun disparity... ugh. AA is a pretty marginally useful skill on a destroyer. Give it 20 RPM and maybe we'll talk?!

 

T9 - 1943

Traditional Battle I really like the look and aesthetics of, I also like the unique (in-game) gun layout. It's just badly let down by all of the 114mm gun issues and the fact that the top RN torpedo sucks 61kt x 10km vs. 67kt x 12km (Yugu), 66kt x 10.5km (Fletch) and 67kt x 10km (Z-46). If she does get top ROF and edges out Fletcher there, then she'll still have gun and torpedo weaknesses. Some of the other ships are less easy to compare, but the US ships are the closest in form and function. The 1944 Battle just isn't worth it as an AA boat as AA boats rarely are (never see C-hull Benson's and Kidd's had lackluster reviews, Grozovoi was nerfed into the ground but only worthwhile in her AA-beast appearance divisioning with a carrier which is broken and can't be relied on). You're giving up 20% of your firepower against 11 opponents for being 37% better against max one opponent who may not even exist as carriers creep down to 2% of games played. 

 

T10 - Venticinco de Battle

Wheres meh torpedoes?!

 

 

Although she's a different beast Gallant might suggest that WG will be 'kind' to RN DD on maneuverability and concealment which is certainly not to be underrated, but these Battles are big ships in the scheme of things. Maybe I'm not mentally accounting for that. A couple of game mechanics really do these ships a bit of a disservice, as does the 'meta' at least on NA where I play and carriers are (fortunately IMO) rare.

The highlighted passages are relevant; I agree that the overmatch mechanics using rounding out really short-changes the sub-5" guns. However, I'd ask if your results using SAP against DD's are over 8km or

under that? The superior normalisation angles on RN SAP should make some difference, although a better solution would be giving the DD guns AP with SAP normalisation. 

 

Trainspite, on 21 June 2017 - 06:42 PM, said:

 

Eh, we don't disagree on everything. I mean, Dreadnought & Bellerophon are both tier 3s. Daring is a tier 10 (can't imagine it anywhere else, even if slightly UP without in game editations). Then again, there are lot more people on the NA forums with the opinion that a lot of RN stuff should be down one tier. And then there is me sticking to my guns and insisting that Kent & London can compete with Algerie, Myoko & Yorck. Mid-Early war Norfolk could be tier 6, or an as built Cornwall could be T6 or T5. 

 

As for the 114mm, you could go the route of the German HE on the cruisers and give it 1/4 overmatch capabilities. That is something to make up for a lack of power, though it won't save the entire ship. 

 

Also, Kidd isn't released yet. I think. 

That sounds like a damn good idea to me, it would better represent the gun's qualities than letting them fall victim to the game's lazier mechanics. 

 

[EUmofton]

Support DDs are used for competitive team battles (see KotS etc) A 3rd RN DD line would fit this playstyle perfectly.

 

Long duration smoke would be ideal but they could introduce another team orientated consumable (Gallant is part of a different line)

 

Well, there's a niche niche playstyle for a tiny proportion of the game, but then there's also simply superior options like the C-Benson and Fletcher for T8 and T9, they still have to be competitive with that.

 

Any thoughts on another team-oriented consumable?

 

AA-Sims should have better long range AA DPS (42 DPS) with her 4x1 5in guns than the T8 proposed Battle (24 DPS), if you're doing good stuff with Sims it's mostly those guns carrying? Sims has twice the firepower you can MFCAA at a tier lower and Sims has 18 RPM with 4 guns instead of 12, again a tier lower although at least her torpedoes are garbage comparatively. If SimsAA-edition is badass AA it tells me that the plethora of Bofors are either overkill or irrelevant.

 

Well, I keep an eye on low tier balance since I don't want the same mistakes as WoT repeated here. Albert is a cause for concern on this.

 

Well, mediocre ships are what should make up the majority of ships at each tier. Average, mediocre etc. - certainly there will be some stars, and some which are difficult to play, except when I apparently play them. 

 

Algerie was my best T7 cruiser damage wise. Easily able to bully other cruisers into submission, hence one part of me regarding her as OP and a prime candidate as a nerf, after the ridiculous Martel. NA players would obviously care for their ships a bit more, and that is a mixed bag, regarding many as bad, or never good enough. (I think I saw someone claiming anti-USN bias and that Fletcher was weak at some point in the past). Yorck was quite enjoyable and refreshing after the poor HE Nurnberg. FabulousMyoko was one of my early best performing ships at tier 7 when I was a fairly new player of about 7-8 months. Now I have all 6 variations made available to me of the ship, and it sill performs like a gem. Of course me being silly and not wanting to enjoy anything, I want that one nerfed as well. Indianapolis seems to be the one T7 cruiser I have yet to click with yet, though I have not played many games with her, and despite the anemic avg damage, has a 90% WR. Smoke/Heal are certainly huge balancing factors, though I hope the RN CAs don't receive them. 

 

As far as I'm concerned Albert's just murdered balance. The fact that WG have put that in at a tier with South Carolina means they just don't care. Game over.

 

Maybe I've been polluted by my time in the US but 'mediocre' has connotations of bad here. Like at T6 I'd call Cleveland average but Aoba mediocre.

 

I really hate Algerie, her playstyle is too passive fire spammy for me, not that she's really that good at it once you've gone Russian. 8in guns just suck more and more in game I find, unless you get significantly more than 4-5 RPM. I did very much think Nurnburg was a strong ship, I like ships with firepower - give me enough firepower and it doesn't matter if the ship's poorly armored I'll just sink the other guy first. Guns are armor, Fisher was pretty much incorrect.

 

I agree with EUmofton on the T8 Battle, creamgravy; and surely the RoF of the MkIV ought to be 16-18rpm even at T8? Put Battle (Barfleur) at T9 with her full 20rpm, have the 1943 as a B-hull, although the CP MkV* was a rebuilt 4.7" mounting with RP50 Remote Power Traverse & would have a RoF of around 14rpm; average this out to 19rpm in order to have a rear-aspect gun. The 1944 Battle is trickier; Commonwealth Premium or C-hull? Since she reverts to 2x2 layout but with the 4.5/45 MkVI's 24rpm, her total RoF is only 1rpm higher at 96. 

If you want a 4.5" armed T8, I'd go for the Gael with 18rpm (manual loading burst speed); otherwise, stick with the Battleaxe & her 3x2 4"/45 MkXIX (RP51) at 20rpm per gun. 

 

Definitely more surface firepower is needed with the 1700 dmg, 746m/s 4.5in gun of potential awfulness. I don't desperately like Gael as she's paper and armed like a Russian with an A-Y turret arrangement, A-B is so much more British: British DD skippers in WWII didn't give a toss for aft firepower because they were manly men who wanted to close and kill DD, or just torp and run from bigger prey.

 

Oh and 746m/s is new gun, 'average' is 716 and so far the RN national flavor is worn guns on BB at least... badass!

 

It is definitely retarded that the game thinks that 4.5in shells can basically never harm the hull of a Fletcher, Udaloi or Yugumo class destroyer, while a 5in can... Even though the 4.5in may be heavier.

 

WG's saying 'oh sh1t we didn't realize HE is the primary cruiser choice, here KM cruisers have 1/4 HE penetration on your lackluster HE' does suggest it's easier to do a whole-line tweak down the road if a line like the RN DD would get bashed by mechanics. Then again looking at the RN BB leaks they'll try and balance the T10 Daring with 200% fire chance and radar per the BB...

[creamgravy]

AA-Sims should have better long range AA DPS (42 DPS) with her 4x1 5in guns than the T8 proposed Battle (24 DPS), if you're doing good stuff with Sims it's mostly those guns carrying? Sims has twice the firepower you can MFCAA at a tier lower and Sims has 18 RPM with 4 guns instead of 12, again a tier lower although at least her torpedoes are garbage comparatively. If SimsAA-edition is badass AA it tells me that the plethora of Bofors are either overkill or irrelevant.

 

I averaged 21 Saipan plane kills, per CV game, with Sims last ranked season. A support build is such a huge asset where CVs are common (tier 7-8 have a few popular premium CVs now)

 

The additional Bofors on Benson C improves dAA consistency over peak capacity, one strong aura can get overwhelmed under a full strike. Don't forget destroyers can ambush spotter or strike groups with a low air detection range.

 

Here's a table comparing tier 8 AA power.

Number of tier 8 bombers shot down on approach.

 

	Average	Low
Mikhail Kutuzov (dAA)	8	7
1942 Battle (dAA)	7	6
Kidd (dAA)	6	6
Weapon (dAA)	5	3
Benson C-hull (dAA)	4	2
Sims (dAA)	4	1
Akizuki	3	2
Mikhail Kutuzov	2	2
Ognevoi (dAA)	2	1
Kidd	2	1
1942 Battle	2	1
Edinburgh	2	1
Benson C-hull	1	0
Weapon	1	0
Sims	1	0
Ognevoi	0	0

 

Mikhail Kutuzov is the baseline with a classic IFHE build. (Take one into a training room agasint a bot Lexington and you should see those results. Don't forget to alt click!)

 

1942 Battle and Kidd have similar AA profiles to IFHE Kutuzov. Kidd looses 5 torpedoes and 1942 Battle looses gun power for this extreme AA peak. (Otherwise both are tier 9)

Akizuki has consistent and reliable AA but, like Kidd, looses out on torpedoes. They're popular in team battles to lock down a cap/protect a BB on the flank (note: this is a full AA build, not a IFHE build for random battles)

Benson C and Weapon are have similar profiles. They should compliment each other very well.

 

 

 

I agree with EUmofton on the T8 Battle, creamgravy; and surely the RoF of the MkIV ought to be 16-18rpm even at T8? Put Battle (Barfleur) at T9 with her full 20rpm, have the 1943 as a B-hull, although the CP MkV* was a rebuilt 4.7" mounting with RP50 Remote Power Traverse & would have a RoF of around 14rpm; average this out to 19rpm in order to have a rear-aspect gun.

 

Yep, grinding a historic 1942 A-hull at tier 9 for the average player will be interesting. A nice paywall for WG?? 

I still want a premium tier 8 "every damned weapon and gadget except guns" Battle to compliment "every damned weapon and gadget except torpedoes" Kidd/Akizuki. 

 

[FionnMacC]

<snip>

Definitely more surface firepower is needed with the 1700 dmg, 746m/s 4.5in gun of potential awfulness. I don't desperately like Gael as she's paper and armed like a Russian with an A-Y turret arrangement, A-B is so much more British: British DD skippers in WWII didn't give a toss for aft firepower because they were manly men who wanted to close and kill DD, or just torp and run from bigger prey.

 

Oh and 746m/s is new gun, 'average' is 716 and so far the RN national flavor is worn guns on BB at least... badass!

 

It is definitely retarded that the game thinks that 4.5in shells can basically never harm the hull of a Fletcher, Udaloi or Yugumo class destroyer, while a 5in can... Even though the 4.5in may be heavier.

 

WG's saying 'oh sh1t we didn't realize HE is the primary cruiser choice, here KM cruisers have 1/4 HE penetration on your lackluster HE' does suggest it's easier to do a whole-line tweak down the road if a line like the RN DD would get bashed by mechanics. Then again looking at the RN BB leaks they'll try and balance the T10 Daring with 200% fire chance and radar per the BB...

Battleaxe & Broadsword lost 'B' turret to mount 2xSquid ASW mortars, where Crossbow & Scorpion lost 'Y' turret - Gael was designed similar to the first two Weapon-class, so 'A' & 'Y'. Battle was designed from the start with both turrets forward, though. I'm not too concerned either way, the 'Y' turret is close to the stern so shouldn't need much angling to have both turrets firing on a target. 
Only the two premium RN BB's - Warspite & Hood - use the 'Average Gun' MV, this seems to be because the penetration tables for 15"/42 MkI guns use this rather than the 'New Gun' value. Hopefully a recalculation will be done & the Tech Tree ships will use the 752/749m/s MV. Note that the cruisers all use the 'New Gun' figure, though; this should be true for the DD branch also. 
No argument from me on game retardation... 4.5" arcs will definitely end up being closer to Minotaur's 6" guns than US 5" ones though, so you're unlikely to be hitting anything reliably beyond 9.5km, more like 8km for DD's. 
A Radar DD at T10? Hmmm... nah. The KM 1/4 HE pen is definitely preferable though, but let's stick to something more suitable for fire chance, like Gallant's current 8%! 

[creamgravy]

Battleaxe & Broadsword lost 'B' turret to mount 2xSquid ASW mortars, 

 

Those two always confuse me, most pics have them with A, B turrets from the 50s. 

 

How about this for a highly progressive DD support line. All have 2 x 2 turrets, get defensive AA fire, long duration smoke or another team orientated consumable.

 

Tier 5: WAIR conversion.

The older AA mounts are parked and torpedo tubes added back on (not historic but very plausible)

 

Weapons

4 x 4" Mk XIX guns at 15 rpm (B + X) 

3x2 Mk ?? Torpedoes.

 

AA.

WAIR (tier 5)	Base DPS	Base range (km)
102 mm/45 QF Mk XIX (2)	19	5
Oerlikon (4)	14	2

 

Tier 6: P-Class (I)

Fictional refit based on Petard for tier 6. It drops the RP 51 4" guns, the rest is historic.

 

Weapons.

4 x 4" Mk XIX guns at 15 rpm (B + X)

4x2 Mk ?? torpedoes.

 

AA.

P-class (tier 6)	Base DPS	Base range (km)
102 mm/45 QF Mk XIX (2)	19	5
Mk III Bofors (2)	15	3.5
‎40 mm 2-pdr. Mk VII (1)	14	2.5
Oerlikon (2)	7	2

 

Tier 7: P-Class (II)

Fictional refit based on Petard for tier 7. It modernises a few AA mounts. **backup idea to the C-Class if the 4.5" Mk V doesn't get a DP rating**

 

Weapons

4 x 4" Mk XIX* guns at 20 rpm (B + X)

4x2 Mk ?? torpedoes.

 

AA.

P-class (tier 7)	Base DPS	Base range (km)
102 mm/45 QF Mk XIX* (2)	30	5
Mk IV (1) + Mk VII (2)	40	3.5
Oerlikon (2)	7	2

 

 

Tier 8: Weapon

Battleaxe as built. Sits comfortably between C-hull Benson and Ognavoi.

 

Weapons.

4 x 4" Mk XIX* guns at 20 rpm (A + X)

5x2 Mk ?? torpedoes.

 

AA.

Weapon (tier 8)	Base DPS	Base range (km)
102 mm/45 QF Mk XIX* (2)	30	5
STAGG (2) + Mk III (2)	68	3.5

 

 

[Killerbin34]

What are people's thoughts on the Daring Class ? Like HMAS Vampire.

[FionnMacC]

 

Those two always confuse me, most pics have them with A, B turrets from the 50s. 

 

How about this for a highly progressive DD support line. All have 2 x 2 turrets, get defensive AA fire, long duration smoke or another team orientated consumable.

 

Tier 5: WAIR conversion.

The older AA mounts are parked and torpedo tubes added back on (not historic but very plausible)

 

Weapons

4 x 4" Mk XIX guns at 15 rpm (B + X) 

3x2 Mk ?? Torpedoes.

 

AA.

WAIR (tier 5)	Base DPS	Base range (km)
102 mm/45 QF Mk XIX (2)	19	5
Oerlikon (4)	14	2

 

Tier 6: P-Class (I)

Fictional refit based on Petard for tier 6. It drops the RP 51 4" guns, the rest is historic.

 

Weapons.

4 x 4" Mk XIX guns at 15 rpm (B + X)

4x2 Mk ?? torpedoes.

 

AA.

P-class (tier 6)	Base DPS	Base range (km)
102 mm/45 QF Mk XIX (2)	19	5
Mk III Bofors (2)	15	3.5
‎40 mm 2-pdr. Mk VII (1)	14	2.5
Oerlikon (2)	7	2

 

Tier 7: P-Class (II)

Fictional refit based on Petard for tier 7. It modernises a few AA mounts. **backup idea to the C-Class if the 4.5" Mk V doesn't get a DP rating**

 

Weapons

4 x 4" Mk XIX* guns at 20 rpm (B + X)

4x2 Mk ?? torpedoes.

 

AA.

P-class (tier 7)	Base DPS	Base range (km)
102 mm/45 QF Mk XIX* (2)	30	5
Mk IV (1) + Mk VII (2)	40	3.5
Oerlikon (2)	7	2

 

 

Tier 8: Weapon

Battleaxe as built. Sits comfortably between C-hull Benson and Ognavoi.

 

Weapons.

4 x 4" Mk XIX* guns at 20 rpm (A + X)

5x2 Mk ?? torpedoes.

 

AA.

Weapon (tier 8)	Base DPS	Base range (km)
102 mm/45 QF Mk XIX* (2)	30	5
STAGG (2) + Mk III (2)	68	3.5

 

 

I can understand the confusion; when the Weapons were converted to Radar pickets in the late 1950's, all four ships had their torpedo launchers removed for a long-range air-search radar & their fire-control was replaced with a more modern system, but Battleaxe & Broadsword also had their Squid launchers moved from the 'B' turret positon to 'Y' turret, restoring all of the Weapons to identical gun layouts with 'A' & 'B' twin 4.5" turrets. 
The AA destroyers look okay, would they all be fitted with the Defensive Fire consumable? 

 

What are people's thoughts on the Daring Class ? Like HMAS Vampire.

Daring would be the Main RN T10; Good manueverability, not too stealthy but acceptable detection, best RoF at 24rpm but still probably outgunned in DPM by Gearing as well as the Russians but better than the Shimikaze & Z-52, decent but unspectacular torps (if using the Mk IXM & not a fictional upgrade) so better than Khaba, Grozovoi & Shimikaze's F3's, but slower & shorter range than the IJN Type 93's, the Gearing's Mk 10's & the German G7's. Should be a solid all-rounder & a good ship to end the RN DD branch with. 

[EUmofton]

 

Yep, grinding a historic 1942 A-hull at tier 9 for the average player will be interesting. A nice paywall for WG?? 

 

Baltimore 2.0. Oh boy...

 

For AA comparison with a T8 Battle '42 you have Akizuki which has so much AA that Def. AA is not allowed due to balance so go figure if you'll be allowed Def. AA! If Akizuki's not allowed Def AA at (by your table) 3/2 kills then will Battle '42 at 7/6? 

 

There's also the competing L/M class version with 4x 2 4in AA. I've seen suggestions of that at T8 where it would have double the ASuW firepower of the '42 Battle (20 RPM, smaller shells still need IFHE, twice the guns) and only a slight torpedo reduction. It also has directly double the ASuW firepower of the 4x 2 Weapon for a similar trade in torpedoes. Weapon at T8 has effectively less than half an Akizuki of firepower and although it has twice the torpedoes it doesn't have the reload booster and seems a weak option, especially as the Akizuki's 100mm guns are railguns comparatively to the RN 4in.

 

Comparing AA on a 'direct route in/out' basis is an ok way but not entirely representative. I just has a 40-shoot downMinotaur game where they never tried to strike me but didn't realize to stay at least 7.2km from the angry smokescreen.

 

Maybe it's Pixel-PTSD but so far every 2x 2 ship I've ever played has sucked. Mutsuki is legendarily sh1te. Old T6 Ognevoi was pretty awful, especially before the turret survivability buff... ugh. T8 Ognevoi does very badly (though don't worry, unlike some VMF DD get buffed rapidly when needed). A whole line... oh. I mean it makes sense as a progression, and I really like some of those ships, just not done that way at those tiers.

 

What are people's thoughts on the Daring Class ? Like HMAS Vampire.

 

To phrase it less politely than Andy_Foulds, Gearing but worse. The torpedoes as Andy mentions are an issue - compare to the similarly gunned Americans with similar 2x 5 tubes at T9-T10 and you'll find the 10km @ 62kt for 16,766 torpedoes look pretty lame compared to Fletcher's 10.5km @ 66kt for 18,033 damage, or Gearing's 16.5km ranged options. They're also behind the non-torpedo focused Z-52, Khaba's something else and Shima gets 3 options and 15 tubes.

 

The 4.5in has the caliber issue (which is an easy fix really) but also will probably have even arc-ier shells than the USN 5in/38 on the basis of lower MV. It should do less damage than the 5in too, though on the plus side it should get 7% vs 5% fire chance. At 24 RPM that could be dangerous - if you can hit anything.

 

HMAS Vampire would suffer if done as a historic premium as she loses half the torpedoes.

 

Battleaxe & Broadsword lost 'B' turret to mount 2xSquid ASW mortars, where Crossbow & Scorpion lost 'Y' turret - Gael was designed similar to the first two Weapon-class, so 'A' & 'Y'. Battle was designed from the start with both turrets forward, though. I'm not too concerned either way, the 'Y' turret is close to the stern so shouldn't need much angling to have both turrets firing on a target. 

Only the two premium RN BB's - Warspite & Hood - use the 'Average Gun' MV, this seems to be because the penetration tables for 15"/42 MkI guns use this rather than the 'New Gun' value. Hopefully a recalculation will be done & the Tech Tree ships will use the 752/749m/s MV. Note that the cruisers all use the 'New Gun' figure, though; this should be true for the DD branch also. 

 

Battleaxe and Broadsword have major problems however they're configured. Though A-Y is for Russians and girly amphibians really. Guns on the front, running away is for sissies! If the aft turret has good arcs - still meh unless it can 360' traverse.

 

I was having a dig against WG using worn guns, yeah the cruisers get new (thankfully) though WG also seems to think they forgot how to make that nice SAP ammo for 1950's Belfast so overall...

 

Do you really think the ballistics of the 4.5in will be any good? It's 6% slower MV, about the same weight so better cross-sectional density but overall... super meh.

 

Oh forum tables...

[Trainspite]

 

As far as I'm concerned Albert's just murdered balance. The fact that WG have put that in at a tier with South Carolina means they just don't care. Game over.

 

Maybe I've been polluted by my time in the US but 'mediocre' has connotations of bad here. Like at T6 I'd call Cleveland average but Aoba mediocre.

 

I really hate Algerie, her playstyle is too passive fire spammy for me, not that she's really that good at it once you've gone Russian. 8in guns just suck more and more in game I find, unless you get significantly more than 4-5 RPM. I did very much think Nurnburg was a strong ship, I like ships with firepower - give me enough firepower and it doesn't matter if the ship's poorly armored I'll just sink the other guy first. Guns are armor, Fisher was pretty much incorrect.

 

 

Well, they either don't care or want a few T3 seal clubbing machines to sell from time to time. Either way, it is bad and shouldn't be allowed to continue.

 

To me, mediocre and average are basically the same thing. Lacklustre is one rung below that. All are acceptable, but if a ship gets to poor, below lacklustre, then there is cause for concern. But that is just my system.

 

Eh, I don't play the Algerie passive, but this is the player who brawls with Hood and beats Gneisenaus with her. I don't particularly like long range spamming much, as shown by me not being overly fond of Budyonny. Guns are nice, but I like flexibility as well. Something that can do a lot of things, or at least adapt from situation to situation. In this case, Nurnberg is meh to me because her guns are a bit weak, at least pre-buff. Perth on the other hand, allows me to dart round, launch longer ranged fish, have extra range if needed, with not too bad HE+ AP. Her armour and concealment are not too bad either, and then there is smoke if so required, usually against tier 8s. 

 

 

[FionnMacC]

Baltimore 2.0. Oh boy...

 

For AA comparison with a T8 Battle '42 you have Akizuki which has so much AA that Def. AA is not allowed due to balance so go figure if you'll be allowed Def. AA! If Akizuki's not allowed Def AA at (by your table) 3/2 kills then will Battle '42 at 7/6? 

 

There's also the competing L/M class version with 4x 2 4in AA. I've seen suggestions of that at T8 where it would have double the ASuW firepower of the '42 Battle (20 RPM, smaller shells still need IFHE, twice the guns) and only a slight torpedo reduction. It also has directly double the ASuW firepower of the 4x 2 Weapon for a similar trade in torpedoes. Weapon at T8 has effectively less than half an Akizuki of firepower and although it has twice the torpedoes it doesn't have the reload booster and seems a weak option, especially as the Akizuki's 100mm guns are railguns comparatively to the RN 4in.

 

Comparing AA on a 'direct route in/out' basis is an ok way but not entirely representative. I just has a 40-shoot downMinotaur game where they never tried to strike me but didn't realize to stay at least 7.2km from the angry smokescreen.

 

Maybe it's Pixel-PTSD but so far every 2x 2 ship I've ever played has sucked. Mutsuki is legendarily sh1te. Old T6 Ognevoi was pretty awful, especially before the turret survivability buff... ugh. T8 Ognevoi does very badly (though don't worry, unlike some VMF DD get buffed rapidly when needed). A whole line... oh. I mean it makes sense as a progression, and I really like some of those ships, just not done that way at those tiers.

A T8 Battle '42 with Def AA is only just above the Kidd & below the Kutuzov, whilst giving DefAA to Akizuki at T8 would devastate whole strike groups in comparison! If Battle was released as a T8 AA support Destroyer, then she depends on that consumable to be effective in that role; Legion would probably follow the example of Akizuki & not be allowed DefAA lest they make CV players ineffectual & irrelevant. I have to say I'd prefer to see Legion as the AA branch T8 & Lightning as the T8 gunboat DD, but if it's an either/or then I'd choose Lightning & maybe Legion as a specialist AA Premium like Kidd. 

Battleaxe has exactly half Akizuki's firepower, but with big arcs instead of railguns. T8 Battle has about two-thirds of Aki's firepower; slower RoF & half the guns but higher AP/HE damage. And even bigger arcs. Legion has no RPC, so manual traverse only, meaning roughly 12 degrees per second. Aki herself has 16 degrees per second, which both of the 2 turret designs beat.  

I see your point about the 2 turreted destroyers, but Battle (& Gael/Late Weapon if added) has two important differences; traverse rate & RoF. Ognevoi has 12prm, manages just over 10 degrees per second traverse, roughly doubling that with the gun upgrade; Fubuki only manages 7.5rpm, with 7 degrees per second traverse which doesn't improve at all (I'm taking it that naming Mutsuki was a typo as she has a 2x1 layout rather than 2x2, although her guns suck anyway). Battle starts with 20 degrees/second, at T8 she should manage 16/18rpm; Battleaxe (with the 2 turret or my preferred 3 turret layout) would be 20rpm with again 20 degrees per minute; Gael should get 24rpm with 25 degrees per second. You're not going to be waiting precious seconds for the turrets to turn while jinking to try & dodge incoming fire in these ships. Well, maybe only a few seconds... if you're against a Benson or a Fletcher. 

 

EUmofton, on 24 June 2017 - 06:11 AM, said:

To phrase it less politely than Andy_Foulds, Gearing but worse. The torpedoes as Andy mentions are an issue - compare to the similarly gunned Americans with similar 2x 5 tubes at T9-T10 and you'll find the 10km @ 62kt for 16,766 torpedoes look pretty lame compared to Fletcher's 10.5km @ 66kt for 18,033 damage, or Gearing's 16.5km ranged options. They're also behind the non-torpedo focused Z-52, Khaba's something else and Shima gets 3 options and 15 tubes.

 

The 4.5in has the caliber issue (which is an easy fix really) but also will probably have even arc-ier shells than the USN 5in/38 on the basis of lower MV. It should do less damage than the 5in too, though on the plus side it should get 7% vs 5% fire chance. At 24 RPM that could be dangerous - if you can hit anything.

 

HMAS Vampire would suffer if done as a historic premium as she loses half the torpedoes.

I think you've spent too much time in the US, Mofton; this is overstating the negatives!

All these ships are 3x2 gun layouts, with their attending good & bad points. Khaba, Grozovoi, Gearing & Daring all have 2x5 torpedo launchers, Shima has the VERY heavy 3x5 layout & Z-52 has the lightest with 2x4. So Shima can launch the largest spread. Damage wise, tops is 23766 on the Shima's type 93 mod 3, followed by her F3's, Shima's type 93's, Khaba's 53-knot 6km range ET-46, Gearing, Daring, Khaba's 53-93 mod3 torps, both Grozovoi's torp options with Z-52 bringing up the rear. Unless WG treat the UK like almost every other nation in game & give the T10 DD better torps than the T10 cruiser.

Shima & Gearing's range advantage... okay, it allows you to torpedo spam & attempt to collect some random damage, but at that range the main aim is harassment; only someone camping in almost the same place for half the game or stupidly keeping the same course & speed far too long is likely to be hit by a spread or two targeted at that range. As for the speed... just to put this in perspective, 62 knots (Daring) = 114.8 km/h, 66 knots (Gearing/Fletcher) = 122.2 km/h & 69 knots (Z-52's G7 Steinwal torpedoes) = 127.8 km/h. So Daring's Mk IXM torps will get to 10km in 5 minutes 13.6 seconds, Gearing/Fletcher's torps in 4 minutes 54.6 seconds, Z-52's in 4 minutes 41.7 seconds. Oh, and Khaba's 10km torps (53 knots/98.2 km/h) will take 6 minutes 5.9 seconds. All of which are a long time for someone to stay on the same course/speed - unless you're VERY good at guessing where your target is going. Gearing's torps will actually take 8 minutes 6 seconds to reach maximum range - that's nearly half the timed game duration! 

Overall, I'd rate the torpedo layouts/capabilities as follows; Shimikaze (naturally), then Gearing, Daring, Grozovoi, Z-52 & finally Khabarovsk bringing up the rear unless you're good at short-range attacks using cover. 

What we don't know is how WG will choose to balance Daring against it's T10 fellows regarding maneuverability & concealment; we know that Daring is slow (30.5 knots deep load unless someone knows different), but her concealment should be good, Gearing or slightly better. We don't know how she's going to maneuver, what her rudder shift or turning circle should be (although her length/beam ratio leans to her being faster turning than Gearing). These are the factors that will make or break her as a T10; if they're good, then she could be the best all-round DD at top tier. If they're not so good... 

As for Vampire, she might make an acceptable T9, IF WG are planning on releasing any more T9 premiums; her weapons load make her OP for T8. 

 

EUmofton, on 24 June 2017 - 06:11 AM, said:

Battleaxe and Broadsword have major problems however they're configured. Though A-Y is for Russians and girly amphibians really. Guns on the front, running away is for sissies! If the aft turret has good arcs - still meh unless it can 360' traverse.

 

I was having a dig against WG using worn guns, yeah the cruisers get new (thankfully) though WG also seems to think they forgot how to make that nice SAP ammo for 1950's Belfast so overall...

 

Do you really think the ballistics of the 4.5in will be any good? It's 6% slower MV, about the same weight so better cross-sectional density but overall... super meh.

 

Oh forum tables...

As the likely T8 RN DD ship, Battleaxe will probably be an amalgamation of the traits of all the ships in that class similar to almost every other ship in game. So the A-Y layout isn't set in stone, we could see the A-B layout although I'm hoping to see the A-B-Y layout she was designed with; we don't need the Squid launchers after all. And yeah, the aft turret should be able to handle 360 rotation - and so should the Daring's Y turret. As for having all the guns on the front... I can see the attraction when you're attacking, what about when you're beating a tactical retreat with an enemy on your stern? 

I found it strange that WG used the average MV as well, given almost every other ship uses the 'New Gun' values. But so long as they're only used on those two premium BB's & not the regular silver ships, I can live with that. I also got the dig - badass is exactly what it isn't! 

I think the ballistics of the 4.5" will be okay out to about 10, maybe 10.5 km. After that, the arcs will be too high to hit another DD without some luck. But given the current mechanics of gun bloom, that's okay; most DD players I've spoken to (bar those that favour VMF DD's) have re-specced to drop AFT, sometimes not even taking the extended range module on DD's because they want to keep their detection down. With a concealment radius around 7.5km, you'd just cease fire & evade until you vanish again. This obviously holds some challenges with certain BB's that can have 10km secondaries... but then you can opt for the extended range to get outside that radius. The 4.5" ought to be able to hit BB's at that range, although whether they'll do any useful damage depends on how WG solve the calibre issue. Obviously it would have been more 'fun' if these were 900m/s semi-rail guns, but they weren't; what they were was solid, dependable, pretty accurate DP guns with a good RoF & penetration/damage capabilities better than their stats suggest.

I'm hoping they're going to do these ships right, & not just have more 'challenging' ships that only skilled players can perform in. Fingers crossed. 

[FionnMacC]

 

Well, they either don't care or want a few T3 seal clubbing machines to sell from time to time. Either way, it is bad and shouldn't be allowed to continue.

 

To me, mediocre and average are basically the same thing. Lacklustre is one rung below that. All are acceptable, but if a ship gets to poor, below lacklustre, then there is cause for concern. But that is just my system.

 

Eh, I don't play the Algerie passive, but this is the player who brawls with Hood and beats Gneisenaus with her. I don't particularly like long range spamming much, as shown by me not being overly fond of Budyonny. Guns are nice, but I like flexibility as well. Something that can do a lot of things, or at least adapt from situation to situation. In this case, Nurnberg is meh to me because her guns are a bit weak, at least pre-buff. Perth on the other hand, allows me to dart round, launch longer ranged fish, have extra range if needed, with not too bad HE+ AP. Her armour and concealment are not too bad either, and then there is smoke if so required, usually against tier 8s. 

I'd add to this by saying that Mofton's definitely been polluted! 

I know a good few people in the US & most of them think mediocre is bad simply because it isn't good either; if pressed for a definition, they almost all say that mediocre & average are one and the same. I'd say that a lacklustre ship needs looking at (it's below average, after all) & a poor ship should probably be buffed at the earliest available opportunity - but in a carefully considered manner. 

If Cleveland is an example of mediocre, then it's because WG made it that way when they nerfed her to fit at T6 rather than being the T8 in a US CL branch where she should belong. I can't speak for Aoba, I haven't played it - but I have been keeping my trap shut on my results from Furutaka, they seem to be better than the EU server average & lots of players complain about her being underwhelming. 

[creamgravy]

For AA comparison with a T8 Battle '42 you have Akizuki which has so much AA that Def. AA is not allowed due to balance so go figure if you'll be allowed Def. AA! If Akizuki's not allowed Def AA at (by your table) 3/2 kills then will Battle '42 at 7/6?

 

Akizuki = Reliable long range AA that's on all the time, hard for a CV to counter but it's possible to overwhelm with multiple squads. (would crush 9-10 tier 8 planes with dAA)

Battle 42 = Extremely high mid range AA that's easier to counter by the CV player. (Long range AA is poor)

Kidd = Balanced between the two.

 

This is all assuming Kidd keeps the crazy AA.

 

There's also the competing L/M class version with 4x 2 4in AA. I've seen suggestions of that at T8 where it would have double the ASuW firepower of the '42 Battle (20 RPM, smaller shells still need IFHE, twice the guns)

 

I've got Legion and Canadian Tribal down as T8 premiums but they can't get close to more modern ships for AA power. WG could do a fantasy refit with 4 x RP 51 mounts if they wanted a RN Akizuki.

 

 

 

	Average	Low
Heida, DDE 215 (dAA)	5	4
Weapon (dAA)	5	3
Weapon, design (dAA)	5	4
Nootka (dAA)	4	2
Akizuki	3	2
Legion (dAA)	3	1
Heida, DDE 215	2	1
Nootka	1	0
Weapon	1	0
Weapon, design	1	1
Legion	0	0

 

 

 

Legion	Base DPS	Base range (km)	Planes shot down	Planes shot down dAA
102 mm/45 QF Mk XIX (4)	38	5	0	1
‎40 mm 2-pdr. Mk VII (1)	14	2.5	0	2
12.7 mm Mk III (2)	4	1.2	0	3

 

 

Nootka (Canadian Tribal)	Base DPS	Base range (km)	Planes shot down	Planes shot down dAA
102 mm/45 QF Mk XIX (4)	38	5	0	1
Mk V (2) + Mk III (2)	40	3.5	0	2
Oerlikon (2)	12	2	1	4

 

 

Heida (DDE 215)	DPS	Stock range (km)	Planes shot down	Planes shot down dAA
102 mm/45 RP51 Mk XVIV*?? (2)	36	5	0	0
76.2 mm/50 Mk33 (1)	28	5	0	1
Mk VII (4)	35	3.5	1	5

(tier 6-7 premium?)

 

 

Weapon	Base DPS	Base range (km)	Planes shot down	Planes shot down dAA
102 mm/45 QF Mk XIX* (2)	30	5	0	1
STAGG (2) + Mk II (2)	68	3.5	1	5

 

 

Weapon (design)	Base DPS	Base range (km)	Planes shot down	Planes shot down dAA
102 mm/45 QF Mk XIX* (3)	45	5	0	1
STAGG (2) + Mk II (2)	68	3.5	1	5

The extra gun smooths out performance but doesn't increase peak performance. We've got the J-Class for a 6 guns + 10 torpedoes config.

 

 

J-Class	Base DPS	Base range (km)	Planes shot down	Planes shot down dAA
‎40 mm 2-pdr. Mk VII (1)	14	2.5	0	0
Mk III (2)	4	1.2	0	0

Ha-ha.

 

 

Legion (Fantasy upgrade)	Base DPS	Base range (km)	Planes shot down	Planes shot down dAA
102 mm/45 QF Mk XIX* (4)	60	5	0	1
Mk IV Hazemeyer (1) + Mk VII (4)	40	3.5	2	6

 

 

1942 Battle (1945)	Base DPS	Base range (km)	Planes shot down	Planes shot down dAA
114 mm/45 RP10 Mk IV (2)	24	5	0	1
Mk IV (4) + Mk VII (6)	143	3.5	2	7