British Battleship line for 2017?

[Gnomus]

 

I any case, WG should at least model the 3x3 15" guns and actually keep it separate from the hull upgrade, it just makes them look lazy.

 

Rather it was a very good solution from WG. It kept KGV in it's classical format to 99% of players while bypassing biggest weakness of 14" guns (even if I think KGV would have done just fine with actual 14" stats) making KGV fully competitive on tier where it belongs by other stats and history. 

 

Making it 3x3 15" would remove real KGV from the game and replace it with paper design with glorified name. Changing 356mm to 381mm on hidden file is much better solution than mutating one of the best known British BB's to something totally unreal.

[SeaMonsterUK]

 

Rather it was a very good solution from WG. It kept KGV in it's classical format to 99% of players while bypassing biggest weakness of 14" guns (even if I think KGV would have done just fine with actual 14" stats) making KGV fully competitive on tier where it belongs by other stats and history. 

 

Making it 3x3 15" would remove real KGV from the game and replace it with paper design with glorified name. Changing 356mm to 381mm on hidden file is much better solution than mutating one of the best known British BB's to something totally unreal.

 

It is actually an unrealistic solution as the 381mm guns were too big for the mounting in the quad turrets due to the excessive recoil. Adding a Hull C for the 3x3 381mm guns is a much more sound, much more realistic solution considering the fact that it would give people a choice between the 4/2/4 14" guns or the 3/3/3 15" guns.

[Gnomus]

It is actually an unrealistic solution as the 381mm guns were too big for the mounting in the quad turrets due to the excessive recoil. Adding a Hull C for the 3x3 381mm guns is a much more sound, much more realistic solution considering the fact that it would give people a choice between the 4/2/4 14" guns or the 3/3/3 15" guns.

 

One solution is changing 356mm guns to 381mm, and as you say, it would be hard fit to KGV turrets. Doable with little magic wand waving.

 

Another solution is give 356mm guns 381mm gun overmatch (this is what WG is doing), change it in hidden files while keeping guns nominally 356mm. No fitting problem there as in real life overpen is not so strict on/off as it is in game and also ships plating isn't historical. This doesn't even need magic wanding, as it is only balance decision about over pen game mechanism.

 

On the other hand you are quite willing to wave a massive magic wand so you could fit 3x 15" turret to turret ring of 2x 14" turret. Nothing unrealistic there? It would fit perfectly, wouldn't it?

 

 

Of course you could say that 3x3 15" was one of possibilities studied for KGV class and use it as excuse for 3x3 15" KGV, but that ship would not be KGV. It would be same as making N3 battleship and then call it Nelson because Nelson is derivative of N3 but N3 makes it more competitive.

 

If you want then by all means WG could make 3x3 15" T8 BB for British, but then they could name it "Queen Ann's Revenge" or even KCI (King Chipmunk I) and I would be fine with it. Defining feature of KGV was 4-2-4 setup and 14" guns. That needs to stay or ship will not be KGV.

 

There is no point making 3x3 15" "KGV" as it would not be KGV. Either do 4-2-4 with 14" guns (and fix gun stats to be competitive, as WG seems to be doing) or do some randomly named paper ships with 3x3 15". There is no 3x3 15" KGV.

[SeaMonsterUK]

 

One solution is changing 356mm guns to 381mm, and as you say, it would be hard fit to KGV turrets. Doable with little magic wand waving.

 

Another solution is give 356mm guns 381mm gun overmatch (this is what WG is doing), change it in hidden files while keeping guns nominally 356mm. No fitting problem there as in real life overpen is not so strict on/off as it is in game and also ships plating isn't historical. This doesn't even need magic wanding, as it is only balance decision about over pen game mechanism.

 

On the other hand you are quite willing to wave a massive magic wand so you could fit 3x 15" turret to turret ring of 2x 14" turret. Nothing unrealistic there? It would fit perfectly, wouldn't it?

 

 

Of course you could say that 3x3 15" was one of possibilities studied for KGV class and use it as excuse for 3x3 15" KGV, but that ship would not be KGV. It would be same as making N3 battleship and then call it Nelson because Nelson is derivative of N3 but N3 makes it more competitive.

 

If you want then by all means WG could make 3x3 15" T8 BB for British, but then they could name it "Queen Ann's Revenge" or even KCI (King Chipmunk I) and I would be fine with it. Defining feature of KGV was 4-2-4 setup and 14" guns. That needs to stay or ship will not be KGV.

 

There is no point making 3x3 15" "KGV" as it would not be KGV. Either do 4-2-4 with 14" guns (and fix gun stats to be competitive, as WG seems to be doing) or do some randomly named paper ships with 3x3 15". There is no 3x3 15" KGV.

 

Actually even in stats, the 356mm guns on Hull B are 381mm guns, not 356mm guns, so it is still magic wand waving, and I'd rather a more realistic 3x3 set up, yes I know, you can't fit a 3 gun turret on a twin gun turret mount, that is why a Hull C would be required. And yes, there may not be 3x3 15" gun KGV, but was there ever a 4x2 18" 16E-38 (hint, 16 is the size of gun being 16", 38 is the year it was designed in) aka HMS Conqueror? At least the 3x3 15" gun KGV class had a blueprint.

 

P.S - Adding a Hull C would technically give you a choice between 4/2/4 14" guns or 3x3 15 " guns, so you can either get a historical lay out or one that will actually be competitive next to its peers.

[Earl_of_Northesk]

 

One solution is changing 356mm guns to 381mm, and as you say, it would be hard fit to KGV turrets. Doable with little magic wand waving.

 

Another solution is give 356mm guns 381mm gun overmatch (this is what WG is doing), change it in hidden files while keeping guns nominally 356mm. No fitting problem there as in real life overpen is not so strict on/off as it is in game and also ships plating isn't historical. This doesn't even need magic wanding, as it is only balance decision about over pen game mechanism.

 

On the other hand you are quite willing to wave a massive magic wand so you could fit 3x 15" turret to turret ring of 2x 14" turret. Nothing unrealistic there? It would fit perfectly, wouldn't it?

 

 

Of course you could say that 3x3 15" was one of possibilities studied for KGV class and use it as excuse for 3x3 15" KGV, but that ship would not be KGV. It would be same as making N3 battleship and then call it Nelson because Nelson is derivative of N3 but N3 makes it more competitive.

 

If you want then by all means WG could make 3x3 15" T8 BB for British, but then they could name it "Queen Ann's Revenge" or even KCI (King Chipmunk I) and I would be fine with it. Defining feature of KGV was 4-2-4 setup and 14" guns. That needs to stay or ship will not be KGV.

 

There is no point making 3x3 15" "KGV" as it would not be KGV. Either do 4-2-4 with 14" guns (and fix gun stats to be competitive, as WG seems to be doing) or do some randomly named paper ships with 3x3 15". There is no 3x3 15" KGV.

You shouldn't bother. Changing the whole ship was always preferable for him than just tweaking the soft stats of the guns to keep the ships historical. Various people have pointed out multiple solutions to him but he's trapped and can't admit he's wrong. He's got sources you know. Pretty 100 page picture books telling him everything there is to know about naval combat.

[SeaMonsterUK]

You shouldn't bother. Changing the whole ship was always preferable for him than just tweaking the soft stats of the guns to keep the ships historical. Various people have pointed out multiple solutions to him but he's trapped and can't admit he's wrong. He's got sources you know. Pretty 100 page picture books telling him everything there is to know about naval combat.

 

Was wondering when you'd actually show up, to note, changing soft stats won't necessarily make the ship any less or any more competitive as it should or would be, but I actually want the KGV to be competitive where you on the other hand just seem to want to crap all over it, but putting that down would be about as arrogant as you putting down that I can't admit to being wrong which you put down anyway, which is technically incorrect as you can't prove I'm wrong in the same way I can't prove I'm right.

 

Also, 100 page picture books tell you [edited]all, actual combat information does however.

[Earl_of_Northesk]

 

Was wondering when you'd actually show up, to note, changing soft stats won't necessarily make the ship any less or any more competitive as it should or would be, but I actually want the KGV to be competitive where you on the other hand just seem to want to crap all over it, but putting that down would be about as arrogant as you putting down that I can't admit to being wrong which you put down anyway, which is technically incorrect as you can't prove I'm wrong in the same way I can't prove I'm right.

 

Also, 100 page picture books tell you [edited]all, actual combat information does however.

 

The actual combat information from where? About what? The KGV class being the only Battleship class in WW2 involved in sinking 2 enemy battleships? Bullcrap.

 

And I might remind you that you are the guy, when asked for his sources, brought up a 100 page book full of pretty pictures. Glad you realized it's meaningless.

 

Also, your first statement doesn't make sense. And you have been proven wrong so many times, I've lost count.

[SeaMonsterUK]

 

The actual combat information from where? About what? The KGV class being the only Battleship class in WW2 involved in sinking 2 enemy battleships. Bullcrap. And I might remind you that you are the guy, when asked for his sources, brought up a 100 page book full of pretty pictures. Glad you realized it's meaningless.

 

Also, your first statement doesn't make sense. And you have been proven wrong so many times, I've lost count.

 

I never bought up a 100 page picture book, and KGV may have been involved in sinking 2 battleships, but it was never alone in either engagements. Even against Bismarck during the final engagements, all the penetrating hits from the 14" guns were made at short range on an already sinking ship.

 

And no,  you haven't probed my wrong at all and I certainly haven't proved I'm right, and I'm certainly not being a complete [edited]about it either.

[Earl_of_Northesk]

 

I never bought up a 100 page picture book, and KGV may have been involved in sinking 2 battleships, but it was never alone in either engagements.

 

And no,  you haven't probed my wrong at all and I certainly haven't proved I'm right, and I'm certainly not being a complete [edited]about it either.

 

You brought that book up in this very thread, although I'm sure you have edited that at this point

[SeaMonsterUK]

 

You brought that book up in this very thread, although I'm sure you have edited that at this point

 

I brought up a book yes but it wasn't a 100 page picture book.

[Earl_of_Northesk]

And you have been proven wrong on various things here, not only by me but multiple people. The problem being you not accepting that because you lack fundamental understanding of how this game works.

[Earl_of_Northesk]

 

I brought up a book yes but it wasn't a 100 page picture book.

 

You wanna go there again? It's even partly on google books for everyone to see.

[SeaMonsterUK]

 

You wanna go there again? It's even partly on google books for everyone to see.

 

I will go there yes, it may have pictures in the book, but it is not a picture book and it still goes in detail on several engagements throughout the first and second world war, to note the Sinking of the Bismarck.

[SeaMonsterUK]

And you have been proven wrong on various things here, not only by me but multiple people. The problem being you not accepting that because you lack fundamental understanding of how this game works.

 

I know how the game works, but already knew you would bring that argument up again because it is hard to to be an arrogant [edited].

[Earl_of_Northesk]

 

I will go there yes, it may have pictures in the book, but it is not a picture book and it still goes in detail on several engagements throughout the first and second world war, to note the Sinking of the Bismarck.

 

"in detail"

 

Rofl. Even Ballards book goes into way more detail, and that's not even its purpose.

[SeaMonsterUK]

 

"in detail"

 

Rofl. Even Ballards book goes into way more detail, and that's not even its purpose.

 

Well if you want to deny a simple fact suit yourself. But to anyone who is remotely interested in the Royal Navy and want a book by The National Museum, you can find it here on Amazon:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Royal-Navy-Modern-Warfare-Treasures/dp/0233004866/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1497458027&sr=8-1&keywords=the+royal+navy+100+years

[Earl_of_Northesk]

 

Well if you want to deny a simple fact suit yourself. But to anyone who is remotely interested in the Royal Navy and want a book by The National Museum, you can find it here on Amazon:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Royal-Navy-Modern-Warfare-Treasures/dp/0233004866/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1497458027&sr=8-1&keywords=the+royal+navy+100+years

Oh, it's actually 80 pages. I'm sorry. Covering 100 years, it must be riddled with details.

 

Try Archbold/Ballard (1993). Including an actual damage report based on wreck examination. I think he's got a newer one out though I haven't read it.

[SeaMonsterUK]

Oh, it's actually 80 pages. I'm sorry. Covering 100 years, it must be riddled with details.

 

Try Archbold/Ballard (1993). Including an actual damage report based on wreck examination. I think he's got a newer one out though I haven't read it.

 

80 pages which have in detail a few engagements the Royal Navy partook in.

[Earl_of_Northesk]

 

80 pages which have in detail a few engagements the Royal Navy partook in.

 

There's no defending this. Nothing using 80 pages to cover multiple events goes "into detail" about anything. Just not possible. It's a nice Christmas gift for a 12 year old but not scientific in any way.

[SeaMonsterUK]

 

There's no defending this. Nothing using 80 pages to cover multiple events goes "into detail" about anything. Just not possible. It's a nice Christmas gift for a 12 year old but not scientific in any way.

 

You can actually go into detail within 80 pages, and if you want scientific go buy a book about NASA.

 

PS it is also a nice book to buy if you are a Naval enthusiast as well, may not be the best book but it does its job.

[Earl_of_Northesk]

 

You can actually go into detail within 80 pages, and if you want scientific go buy a book about NASA.

 

PS it is also a nice book to buy if you are a Naval enthusiast as well, may not be the best book but it does its job.

 

You realise "history" is actually a science, as is naval history, so there sure as hell are scientific books about the matter? What's that NASA reference got to tell me?

 

And ye, it might do well as some kind of overview, but I've got tons of books like it already and a ton of books going into way more detail. It's just nothing you should base any opinion on and that is, fundemantally, what you don't understand.

[SeaMonsterUK]

 

You realise "history" is actually a science, as is naval history, so there sure as hell are scientific books about the matter? What's that NASA reference got to tell me?

 

And ye, it might do well as some kind of overview, but I've got tons of books like it already and a ton of books going into way more detail. It's just nothing you should base any opinion on and that is, fundemantally, what you don't understand.

You skipped the sarcasm class obviously.

 

It still gives enough information, as well as that backed up by other sources on the internet, so yes I can use it to form an opinion. And onto subjects, I understand all the fundamentals about Naval Warfare around that time period.

[lup3s]

RN BBs just seem insanely OP atm...

Radar + insane AA + insane heal + insane guns + insane mobility?

 

Sounds quite insane.. Death of carries, cruisers and destroyers imo.

 

WG should nerf BBs in stead of making them stupidly OP.

Seems like they really want their game to evolve to World of Battleships.

[The_White_Whale]

RN BBs just seem insanely OP atm...

Radar + insane AA + insane heal + insane guns + insane mobility?

 

Sounds quite insane.. Death of carries, cruisers and destroyers imo.

 

WG should nerf BBs in stead of making them stupidly OP.

Seems like they really want their game to evolve to World of Battleships.

 

Only one has radar, their AA is average per tier, their guns are mixed per tier 15>16>14>16>18 and the t10 has only 8 of those 18's. The heal might be good but it depends on circumstance. Insane mobility? It takes more then a decent rudder shift to make a ship insane, the turning circles and speed are purely average.

 

There is still a lot of testing to do so it's a bit early to be calling a line that hasn't even made it to contributor testing 'OP'.

[SeaMonsterUK]

 

Only one has radar, their AA is average per tier, their guns are mixed per tier 15>16>14>16>18 and the t10 has only 8 of those 18's. The heal might be good but it depends on circumstance. Insane mobility? It takes more then a decent rudder shift to make a ship insane, the turning circles and speed are purely average.

 

There is still a lot of testing to do so it's a bit early to be calling a line that hasn't even made it to contributor testing 'OP'.

 

Correction, 15>16>14/15>16>18