British Battleship line for 2017?

[phoenix_jz]

 

Correction, 15>16>15>16>18

 

FTFY - there's no gun upgrade on KGV. You get the 15" guns from the get-go, they're just labeled as 14" guns.

[SeaMonsterUK]

 

FTFY - there's no gun upgrade on KGV. You get the 15" guns from the get-go, they're just labeled as 14" guns.

 

Actually the stock Hull A is the 14" guns, the Hull B is the 15" guns dressed up as 14" guns. This is not just coming from SEA sever leaks but what is on the North American forums.

[Gnomus]

 

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.

 

Guns are 356mm, they just happen to have stats of 381mm guns. Basically WG is just saying they are super good and have over match ability of 381mm guns, but they are 356mm guns on appearance and name.

 

Latest info I've seen is here: http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/81149-from-reddit-british-bbs-at-last/page__st__75__pid__1869512#entry1869512

 

Do you have something more recent? You can curse as much as you want, but as you can see those are 356mm guns (so they fit turrets) with performance of 381mm (so they don't lack over match that you have been so worried about).

 

That is much smaller change than remaking half the ship to suit your fancy 3x3 15" build. It was one of early plans and it was dropped. It was never upgrade plan to upgun KGV class so it should not be top hull. If it must be in the game, then it needs to be some other ship than KGV. 

 

People have been complaining about Gneisenau and it at least was preplanned upgunning that was actually acted upon to justify murdering classical Schrnhorst/Gneisenau build. With KGV 3x3 15" is just one dropped option that never saw light of day. Removing one of best known British BB, or rather whole class, to suit some never acted paper design is several orders of magnitude larger change than discreetly buffing 14" guns to suitable level (to 15" performance while still calling them 14").

 

 

What comes of Conqueror I simply do not mind. Whole ships is mutated collection of several never build plans and WG artistic lisence. Same as Kurfurst. I'd rather see some actual design in their place, but if it must be unreal ship then it can be unreal ship. Simple as that. I would be much more picky about Lion, as those were actually laid down, so they should be close to what was planned. 

 

KGV-class on the other hand had several ships that took part on lot of battles. They need to be as close to real as possible. KGV is 4-2-4 14" not 3x3 15". As I said, if they want to have 3x3 15" T8 BB then by all means add it, but that will never be KGV but something else. Then people could decide if they want KGV 4-2-4 14" or fancy KCI 3x3 15" paperweight. What's problem with that?

 

 

Honest real question:

Why do you consider tweaking some unseen gun parameters as more problematic than changing half the ship to fit different turret setup, removing all it's defining features and replacing one of most important historical BB's with never acted upon paper design?

 

I must admit I can't see the logic here, so please enlighten me.

[SeaMonsterUK]

 

Guns are 356mm, they just happen to have stats of 381mm guns. Basically WG is just saying they are super good and have over match ability of 381mm guns, but they are 356mm guns on appearance and name.

 

Latest info I've seen is here: http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/81149-from-reddit-british-bbs-at-last/page__st__75__pid__1869512#entry1869512

 

Do you have something more recent? You can curse as much as you want, but as you can see those are 356mm guns (so they fit turrets) with performance of 381mm (so they don't lack over match that you have been so worried about).

 

That is much smaller change than remaking half the ship to suit your fancy 3x3 15" build. It was one of early plans and it was dropped. It was never upgrade plan to upgun KGV class so it should not be top hull. If it must be in the game, then it needs to be some other ship than KGV. 

 

People have been complaining about Gneisenau and it at least was preplanned upgunning that was actually acted upon to justify murdering classical Schrnhorst/Gneisenau build. With KGV 3x3 15" is just one dropped option that never saw light of day. Removing one of best known British BB, or rather whole class, to suit some never acted paper design is several orders of magnitude larger change than discreetly buffing 14" guns to suitable level (to 15" performance while still calling them 14").

 

 

What comes of Conqueror I simply do not mind. Whole ships is mutated collection of several never build plans and WG artistic lisence. Same as Kurfurst. I'd rather see some actual design in their place, but if it must be unreal ship then it can be unreal ship. Simple as that. I would be much more picky about Lion, as those were actually laid down, so they should be close to what was planned. 

 

KGV-class on the other hand had several ships that took part on lot of battles. They need to be as close to real as possible. KGV is 4-2-4 14" not 3x3 15". As I said, if they want to have 3x3 15" T8 BB then by all means add it, but that will never be KGV but something else. Then people could decide if they want KGV 4-2-4 14" or fancy KCI 3x3 15" paperweight. What's problem with that?

 

 

Honest real question:

Why do you consider tweaking some unseen gun parameters as more problematic than changing half the ship to fit different turret setup, removing all it's defining features and replacing one of most important historical BB's with never acted upon paper design?

 

I must admit I can't see the logic here, so please enlighten me.

 

They are actually 15" guns dressed up as 14" guns.

 

And if they wanted as real as possible, 15" guns dressed as 14" guns in quad turrets isn't getting them anywhere, and I don't see a problem at all with having a Hull C and allowing people to chose between historical 14" guns in 2x4, 1x2 or paper 15" guns in a 3x3 set up.

[0ddys]

Very true, just look at the shellweight (879kg), speed (836 m/s) and the alpha (11.900). These are not values of the historical 356mm gun (that would be 721kg and 757 m/s for round about 10.400 alpha), but of the 381mm gun (to be honest all her gun characteristics are these of the 381mm/45 gun and not of the 356mm/45). In the end she has the 381mm guns that aren't called by that name ingame so purists can say its the KGV as she served, but in the end it isn't true.

 

That said, in my opinion this solution is stupid and makes no sense at all as Chipmunk said. If the 381mm are required to work then go with the, even if there were finally abandont, plan of the 3 x 3 381mm, then this. That would be atleast more historical then a 4,2,4 381mm config.

[SeaMonsterUK]

To quote one of the comments I've seen on the NA Forums, they are 356mm guns in name only.

[1MajorKoenig]

To quote one of the comments I've seen on the NA Forums, they are 356mm guns in name only.

 

I am ok with that. Better tweak some stats (it's a game guys) than pulling more fantasy horseshit out of ones back. We already have too much fictional garbage in this game.

[SeaMonsterUK]

 

I am ok with that. Better tweak some stats (it's a game guys) than pulling more fantasy horseshit out of ones back. We already have too much fictional garbage in this game.

 

Technically it isn't fictional, 3x3 15" guns were one of the few proposed designs of what would become the King George V class. A soft stat tweak which which turns the 356mm guns into 381mm guns is in my opinion much worse than putting in a completely fictional ship in the game, it is like turning the 2-Pounder on a Churchill into a 17-Pounder just because it's a soft start.

 

Edit: And yes I know it is a game, but I still expect a certain level of realism from an Arcade game based on historical Warships.

[anonym_MfZ6T7iwWpUC]

 

Technically it isn't fictional, 3x3 15" guns were one of the few proposed designs of what would become the King George V class. A soft stat tweak which which turns the 356mm guns into 381mm guns is in my opinion much worse than putting in a completely fictional ship in the game, it is like turning the 2-Pounder on a Churchill into a 17-Pounder just because it's a soft start.

 

Edit: And yes I know it is a game, but I still expect a certain level of realism from an Arcade game based on historical Warships.

 

​I fully respect your passion and opinion on this issue. Don't for a moment think I don't. But I cant understand why you are making such a fuss about this issue. If B-Hull's guns are basically 15" guns labelled as 14" then what's the point of a 3x3 15" layout?

 

The KGV's iconic looks are part of its appeal, and putting a 3x3 layout on it wipes that clean in one go. It then becomes just another 3x3 battleship. The way the KGV looks, is massively important.

[SeaMonsterUK]

 

​I fully respect your passion and opinion on this issue. Don't for a moment think I don't. But I cant understand why you are making such a fuss about this issue. If B-Hull's guns are basically 15" guns labelled as 14" then what's the point of a 3x3 15" layout?

 

The KGV's iconic looks are part of its appeal, and putting a 3x3 layout on it wipes that clean in one go. It then becomes just another 3x3 battleship. The way the KGV looks, is massively important.

 

Realism is also a very important part, not because of how the battleship looks, that is secondary in my views, it is about the realism which adds up to immersion, and 15" guns dressed up as 14" guns breaks both realism and immersion. For 1, the 15"/45 Mk II was too big to the Quadruple Turret mountings, the recoil being too big for the guns it was originally designed for.

[VC381]

I would say realism in terms of ship looks comes first, otherwise it isn't the ship as most people see it in their mind's eye. I do agree with you that it would be nice to have more realism and immersion in terms of gun performance.

 

But the only reason this is a problem for KGV in the first place is because of the grossly simplistic and unrealistic overmatch and autobounce mechanics. To me, making the guns behave as if they were bigger isn't a step into fantasy, it's an acknowledgement that the guns are a special case and should behave differently to how the game would otherwise force them to, which would be less immersive and realistic. It might be done ham-handedly due to the labelling, but it's no different to saying "we were wrong to make all guns of X size share Y property, so we're making a tweak to better represent this shell on its own merits".

[1MajorKoenig]

 

Technically it isn't fictional, 3x3 15" guns were one of the few proposed designs of what would become the King George V class. A soft stat tweak which which turns the 356mm guns into 381mm guns is in my opinion much worse than putting in a completely fictional ship in the game, it is like turning the 2-Pounder on a Churchill into a 17-Pounder just because it's a soft start.

 

Edit: And yes I know it is a game, but I still expect a certain level of realism from an Arcade game based on historical Warships.

 

3x3 38cm guns are fictional the same way as Gneisenau's 3x2 38cm guns. Proposed but never implemented.

 

And as VC said, the problem is not the gun's performance but the questionable game mechanics. But as we won't get out of them I don't see a problem with interpreting the gun stats in a way that they work in the current game mechanics.

 

These proposed designs, such as the 38cm armed KGV, can become premium ships if need to be but I'd appreciate a little more realistic ships rather than what we have already today in the game. It is turning into WOT with Panthers with 75 L/100 guns and other idiotic fictional stuff.

[SeaMonsterUK]

I would say realism in terms of ship looks comes first, otherwise it isn't the ship as most people see it in their mind's eye. I do agree with you that it would be nice to have more realism and immersion in terms of gun performance.

 

But the only reason this is a problem for KGV in the first place is because of the grossly simplistic and unrealistic overmatch and autobounce mechanics. To me, making the guns behave as if they were bigger isn't a step into fantasy, it's an acknowledgement that the guns are a special case and should behave differently to how the game would otherwise force them to, which would be less immersive and realistic. It might be done ham-handedly due to the labelling, but it's no different to saying "we were wrong to make all guns of X size share Y property, so we're making a tweak to better represent this shell on its own merits".

 

Ship looks come second, realism in terms of a ships armament takes priority. you can sugar coat it all you like, but at the moment a dressed up 15" gun is not realistic at all and breaks all possible chances of immersion in game.

[1MajorKoenig]

 

Ship looks come second, realism in terms of a ships armament takes priority. you can sugar coat it all you like, but at the moment a dressed up 15" gun is not realistic at all and breaks all possible chances of immersion in game.

 

Sorry but where did you spot any kind of realism in this game? Do you mean the Kaiser or the Hindenburg maybe? 

 

This game is loosely based on naval vessels at best. Nothing more. 

[SeaMonsterUK]

 

3x3 38cm guns are fictional the same way as Gneisenau's 3x2 38cm guns. Proposed but never implemented.

 

And as VC said, the problem is not the gun's performance but the questionable game mechanics. But as we won't get out of them I don't see a problem with interpreting the gun stats in a way that they work in the current game mechanics.

 

These proposed designs, such as the 38cm armed KGV, can become premium ships if need to be but I'd appreciate a little more realistic ships rather than what we have already today in the game. It is turning into WOT with Panthers with 75 L/100 guns and other idiotic fictional stuff.

 

If it is fictional that means it was designed in the first place, considering there were designs for a 15" KGV and the Gneisenau was being refitted with 38cm guns means that they cannot be, in any possible meaning of the word, fictional.

 

Game mechanics may be questionable yes, but the primary problem here is the actual performance of the 14" Mk VII, not the game mechanics in general.

 

If you want little bit more realistic ships then you just contradicted yourself in thinking the 15" guns dressed as 14" guns is OK and referring to looks. You cannot have it both ways, it is either one or the other and either one is not realistic either aesthetically (in terms of it's historical look) or physically.

[SeaMonsterUK]

 

Sorry but where did you spot any kind of realism in this game? Do you mean the Kaiser or the Hindenburg maybe? 

 

This game is loosely based on naval vessels at best. Nothing more. 

 

I can spot quite a bit a realism in the game, espiecally in terms of ship armament and performance, the latter being either upscaled (speed) or downscaled (range) due to how boring Naval Combat would actually be in an actual simulator or arcade game.

[1MajorKoenig]

 

If it is fictional that means it was designed in the first place, considering there were designs for a 15" KGV and the Gneisenau was being refitted with 38cm guns means that they cannot be, in any possible meaning of the word, fictional.

 

Game mechanics may be questionable yes, but the primary problem here is the actual performance of the 14" Mk VII, not the game mechanics in general.

 

If you want little bit more realistic ships then you just contradicted yourself in thinking the 15" guns dressed as 14" guns is OK and referring to looks. You cannot have it both ways, it is either one or the other and either one is not realistic either aesthetically (in terms of it's historical look) or physically.

 

Yes Gneisenau's 38cm config is fictional. There was a plan for a conversion but this plan was never carried out. It is not pulled out of the blue as the garbage refits we see on DE Lowtier BBs but still not historical. However as there was at least a solid plan for the conversion I can live with it.

 

And KGV's guns weren't bad in real life. They were adequate for the time and opposition they met. The only reason to change the gun to something else in the game is the game model/mechanics. So I prefer tweaking stats to fight the (questionable still) mechanics rather than replacing the guns altogether.

 

And about realism - you won't find any. The game is a model / depicting a naval scenario and is making lots of concessions to "ease of use". The overall experience should create a naval engagement feeling / ideally create immersion. But that doesn't mean that individual random elements need to be 100% historical accurate such as your 36cm gun performance.

[SeaMonsterUK]

 

Yes Gneisenau's 38cm config is fictional. There was a plan for a conversion but this plan was never carried out. It is not pulled out of the blue as the garbage refits we see on DE Lowtier BBs but still not historical. However as there was at least a solid plan for the conversion I can live with it.

 

And KGV's guns weren't bad in real life. They were adequate for the time and opposition they met. The only reason to change the gun to something else in the game is the game model/mechanics. So I prefer tweaking stats to fight the (questionable still) mechanics rather than replacing the guns altogether.

 

And about realism - you won't find any. The game is a model / depicting a naval scenario and is making lots of concessions to "ease of use". The overall experience should create a naval engagement feeling / ideally create immersion. But that doesn't mean that individual random elements need to be 100% historical accurate such as your 36cm gun performance.

 

If it was fictional that would mean there was no plans for a refit in the first place when there was and the only reason it never took place was because of the war situation, so you can look at it however you like, but it is not fictional in the technical meaning of the word.

 

The guns in real life may have been adequate, and they were considering the amount of Battleship on Battleship engagements (there weren't many) but they were still lackluster in their capabilities and wouldn't put the ship up to North Carolina standards. And tweaking stats doesn't make the gun itself realistic or historical, so you are still left with a ship that still isn't what the ship was in the real world, the more realistic approach is to completely replace the guns with the 15" design, keeping realism doesn't mean keeping it 100% historically accurate.

 

Actually there is realism, some of it has been upscaled or downscaled meaning that wouldn't be true realism, but there a lot of realism in the ship designs themselves and they perform closely to what they would in reality if you were to put things back into scale. So there is still realism in the game even if you don't see it yourself.

[VC381]

 

Ship looks come second, realism in terms of a ships armament takes priority. you can sugar coat it all you like, but at the moment a dressed up 15" gun is not realistic at all and breaks all possible chances of immersion in game.

 

If you say so, for me pointing your bow at the enemy and stopping dead in the water being a valid strategy breaks immersion long before petty inconsistencies of gun performance. The game is not and will never be a realistic simulation, so I can't take you seriously when you cherry pick and call on realism to argue a very narrow point that is largely made moot by how unrealistic everything else is. Especially when the "unrealistic" tweak ironically makes the gun behave more realistically (as in, more like RL) in terms of what ships it can reliably damage.

[Earl_of_Northesk]

Chipmunk_of_Vengeance, on 15 June 2017 - 11:37 AM, said:

 

Ship looks come second, realism in terms of a ships armament takes priority. you can sugar coat it all you like, but at the moment a dressed up 15" gun is not realistic at all and breaks all possible chances of immersion in game.

 

Efin`hell you are pathetic How can something ahistorical you can't see break your immersion more than something ahistorical you can see? 

Your logic is lacking, among other things. 

 

 

 

Chipmunk_of_Vengeance, on 15 June 2017 - 11:57 AM, said:

 

If it was fictional that would mean there was no plans for a refit in the first place when there was and the only reason it never took place was because of the war situation, so you can look at it however you like, but it is not fictional in the technical meaning of the word.

 

The guns in real life may have been adequate, and they were considering the amount of Battleship on Battleship engagements (there weren't many) but they were still lackluster in their capabilities and wouldn't put the ship up to North Carolina standards. And tweaking stats doesn't make the gun itself realistic or historical, so you are still left with a ship that still isn't what the ship was in the real world, the more realistic approach is to completely replace the guns with the 15" design, keeping realism doesn't mean keeping it 100% historically accurate.

 

Actually there is realism, some of it has been upscaled or downscaled meaning that wouldn't be true realism, but there a lot of realism in the ship designs themselves and they perform closely to what they would in reality if you were to put things back into scale. So there is still realism in the game even if you don't see it yourself.

 

Hasn't your pretty picture book told you about the battle on North Cape, for starters?

 

Do you really wonder why you have become the laughing stock of the community? 

 

[SeaMonsterUK]

 

Efin`hell you are pathetic How can something ahistorical you can't see break your immersion more than something ahistorical you can see? 

Your logic is lacking, among other things. 

 

 

 

 

Efin`hell you are pathetic How can something ahistorical you can't see break your immersion more than something ahistorical you can see? 

Your logic is lacking, among other things. 

 

 

 

Immersion = realism, not enough realism breaks immersion, to note, realism doesn't = historically accurate not keeping too 100% historical accuracy won't break that immersion.

[Earl_of_Northesk]

 

 

Immersion = realism, not enough realism breaks immersion, to note, realism doesn't = historically accurate not keeping too 100% historical accuracy won't break that immersion.

 

Yeah, so you can't explain it either. Thought so. 

[SeaMonsterUK]

 

Hasn't your pretty picture book told you about the battle on North Cape, for starters?

 

Do you really wonder why you have become the laughing stock of the community? 

 

I couldn't give 2 f.ucks if I'm the laughing stock of the community, at least I'm not going to act like a complete d.ick about it whenever the chance arises.

 

And the battle of North Cape is one of many engagements that happened during the second World War and the Duke of York wasn't alone during the engagement, also to note, the Scharnhorst was retreating at the time and took an unlucky hit to it's engine from the deck at long range, something the 14" guns excel at.

[SeaMonsterUK]

 

Yeah, so you can't explain it either. Thought so. 

 

To be fair, I couldn't be f.ucked in answering it with you.

[SeaMonsterUK]

 

If you say so, for me pointing your bow at the enemy and stopping dead in the water being a valid strategy breaks immersion long before petty inconsistencies of gun performance. The game is not and will never be a realistic simulation, so I can't take you seriously when you cherry pick and call on realism to argue a very narrow point that is largely made moot by how unrealistic everything else is. Especially when the "unrealistic" tweak ironically makes the gun behave more realistically (as in, more like RL) in terms of what ships it can reliably damage.

 

I never said at any point that this was a realistic simulation.