The French Destroyer's Thing

[dasCKD]

Well, it might not be what everyone is expecting. I wanted to come back with a carrier thread, but I have spent a small fortune on my computer and I do not think that the system as it is right now could even come close to being able to handle the bile and hatred which I will spew when the time comes. Until then however, I thought I would start off my return from my break with something a little less consequential.

 

Many would consider this thread largely irrelevant as we already know what the French destroyer's 'thing' is, and that is their speed. Admittedly the ability to traverse the map at incredible speeds and to contest caps far more often than their enemies would be far more beneficial than high speeds on a cruiser that, whilst useful, does not define a ship. Speed alone doesn't make a ship however. This might be because I've always been a bit of a rubbish destroyer player, but to me there are effectively only about 3 destroyer lines in the game: the gunboat, torpedo boat, and the hybrid. Where cruiser lines are defined by their gimmicks, destroyers are defined by their primary weapon in combination of whether or not they want to play the spotter. Even for destroyers with effective torpedoes and effective guns, they can really only do one at a time. A perfect theoretical destroyer can't both play a gunboat and a torpedo boat at the same time. A torpedo boat has to remain unseen, being most effective when the enemy doesn't even think about them until it's much too late. A gunboat will inevitably be seen, even if they're not detected, as every single captain who is not a bot understands what a long line of low damage shells heading towards them from a smoke screen or behind an island. This presents an issue. WG is known for wanting to preserve the flavor of a ship within the line and the French cruisers are heavily defined by their high explosive shells but whilst their torpedoes have relatively minor usefulness in their high tiered cruisers, the French 9 km torpedoes are actually very good torpedoes for a destroyer and French destroyers carries moderately heavy torpedo armaments in configurations that are incredibly effective with World of Warships mechanics with very fast reloads (2x2 + 2x3 Mogador, 3x3 Le Fantasque, 1x3 + 2x2 Vaquelin, 2x3 Aigle) compared to their contemporaries. They are also built as gunboats and destroyer hunters, and that is where the issue is.

 

In a vacuum, this isn't an issue. The French destroyers, with high speed and fast loading torpedoes, will work as good torpedo boats. That said, they can't perform the torpedo and gunboat role at once, meaning that they could both be balanced as a gunboat and balanced as a torpedo boat. The problem is that there are other destroyers in the game, and only the Russian subline and arguably the Akizuki can really be considered hybrids to any large degree. The Americans, formally hybrids, no longer have the use of stealth fire to keep themselves alive outside of smoke screens and, like the Germans, simply don't have the shell performance to merit a gun heavy build outside of cutting down enemy destroyers in gunfights. This means that it is easy to make the French destroyers incredibly powerful and appealing ships, they could very easily become overpowered compared to their contemporaries. What we have with the French destroyers with the French speed boost and good torpedoes: the Kiev or Udaloi with few of their weaknesses. French destroyers need to be handled extremely carefully if they are not to become entirely overpowered when compared to their peers. We have the Americans with excellent torpedo armaments and guns that are good for short ranged engagements but little else. We have the Russians that generally perform as long ranged annoyances, the Japanese that used to be the torpedo line and are now just bad, and the Germans that work as cap contestants and good torpedo boats. The French destroyer's place in all this is difficult, as it would be easy to create French destroyers such that they would be so powerful they would effectively replace the existing destroyer lines in almost all roles except ones restricted to the truest of the true destroyers.

 

Support

Spoiler

Much like the smoke and gun dichotomy, there is a dichotomy in how much support you can provide for your team as a destroyer. You can stay close to the team to keep them smoked up, but then you'll be denying them a set of eyes. You can go forwards and spot, but then you can't protect your team with smoke or DFAA (if you have access to the consumable). You could do evasion tank to keep shells off your allies, but then you can't smoke or spot for your team as enemy destroyers will find it easy to navigate around you. You also don't have the AA to help your carrier control airspace. The support role of the destroyers are therefore quite limited by the fact that you can only be in one place at once.

 

Objective

Spoiler

Destroyers who contest objectives generally either do so by being sneaky enough to get into the cap and get back out or have the tools or firepower to chase away enemy destroyers if they show up whilst still maintaining the ability to fall back into concealment if the situation cares for it. This could mean that they are significantly sneakier than the enemy destroyer, allowing them to sit there and spot the enemy destroyers for the team and shooting torpedoes into their smoke screen if they still insist on remaining in the cap. This could mean having the tools that sends the enemy destroyer packing like long ranged hydroacoustic search or a radar consumable as on the Black. This could also mean having the firepower that just the sight of the enemy destroyer is enough to send the enemy destroyer away.

 

Anti-battleship

Spoiler

Lacking the firepower of their cruiser counterparts, destroyers depends on fires and torpedo damage to cut down the health pool of a battleship. Fires are effective as they deal reliable damage once lit regardless of the health of the burning segment, but are unreliable when it comes to actually getting set in the first place. Some salvos set two fires, other times a set of a dozen salvo could fail to set even one. Destroyers like the Kiev and Khabarovsk have shown that the pure volume of fire coming out of a destroyer's guns can overcome these concerns however, which makes fires perhaps the most effective anti-battleship weapon in the game against a competent battleship captain save for high tiered American fleet carriers (that also uses a lot of fire, which really isn't a coincidence). The problem however is that those anti-battleship gunboats, like the Khabarovsk or the Kiev, are seen as incredibly powerful. Many would argue too powerful. The implementation of French destroyers have to be handled carefully to create a balanced destroyer line. Whilst AP shells have proven effectiveness against battleships, even heavy cruisers lose AP effectiveness at longer ranges so it's doubtful that an AP focussed destroyers could effectively damage battleships even with the far larger 138 mm French destroyer shells that ships like the Fantasque and Mogador would have.

 

Anti-destroyer

Spoiler

It is far easier to create an anti-destroyer destroyer than an anti-destroyer cruiser. It is very easy to create a cruiser that is incredibly effective against destroyers, but also difficult to create one that is completely overpowered. To be directly effective against destroyers, just a few things are needed. You either need a significantly better DPM or health pool than the destroyer you are hunting (a la American destroyers) or a better effective combat survivability than the destroyer you are hunting that comes from better gun arcs, sufficient armor to withstand the fire from the enemy destroyer, or just a smoke screen and a hydroacoustic search. Destroyers can close to far closer ranges than cruisers can hope to safely, and so destroyer lines that can effectively hunt destroyers alone have proven to be extremely effective. The Z-52 is one of the most powerful tier X destroyers for a reason.

 

Area control

Spoiler

Much like how a good carrier is good at controlling the airspace, a good destroyer is good at controlling the 'safe' waters for friendly ships. By spotting enemy ships and sending torpedoes and allowing allied artillery ships to send shells the way of the enemy ships. Destroyers can therefore be used to exert a sphere of influence over the battlefield. Stealthy destroyers generally are better at this than easily spotted destroyers.

Speed alone is not enough to make a destroyer line. Whilst possessing destroyers that are the fastest in the world like the Fantasque at 45 knots, the French line also has ships like the Mogador with a good but unexceptional 39 knots and a poor performance with ships like the Aigle that are barely faster than the Japanese midtier destroyers that are some of the most sluggish destroyers in the entire game. The French destroyers are also mostly built, so simply forcing them into a role of fragile but powerful speedsters really can't be done as these ships exists with real life performance and characteristics. Despite this, the French destroyer line could be made very interesting as long as they are balanced correctly. The over performance of the Khabarovsk could potentially be seen as the under performance of the destroyer class in general. Where one draws the line of what makes a balanced destroyer is largely a matter of perspective.

 

Miniature cruisers

Spoiler

Removing the smoke screen from a destroyer line might sound insane to most, but it isn't necessarily a bad formula. Ships like the Khabarovsk have shown that the miniature cruiser, with the armor necessary to resist shells from a destroyer and cruisers, have a proven effectiveness on the battlefield. Now 50 mm of armor is excessive on a destroyer, but a line of destroyers with cruiser tier armor (25-30 mm) and slower firing but harder hitting guns would make for an interesting line. The French destroyers have a significantly larger gun that is standard on WoWs destroyers at 138 mm on ships that would likely be the top tier ships, translating to a higher alpha damage. Probably around 2100 for HE and 2900 on their AP shells. With a performance more in line with light cruiser shells capable of landing citadel hits on lightly armored cruisers at around 6 km and landing effective AP fire on heavy tier X cruisers at 11 km and under.

 

Let's be honest, it hasn't been an easy year for cruisers. Whilst there are those who still hang on and perform, the majority of the game has abandoned the cruiser lines for battleship lines that, increasingly, possesses the strength of the cruisers with few of their weaknesses. Nevertheless, the evasive tanking and high adrenaline rush play style is something that appeals to many, and gunboat lines built around long ranged effective fire has proven to be extremely useful in ships like the Kiev, Udaloi, and Khabarovsk. A true miniature cruiser, with the style of a proper cruiser but with the advantages that being a destroyer offers, could very well be an answer to the increasing lack of cruisers in the matches.

 

The shell weight of the Modele 1929 is around 40 kilograms compared to the 50 kilograms of the British light cruisers, and so tweaking to the shell krupp might need to be done to bring the shell performance up to adequate levels. The rate of fire on the Modele 1929 guns are actually very good at 4 seconds, but the slow shell hoists slows the shell reload period down to around 8 seconds in real life. The harder hitting shells with better alpha damage and shell performance characteristics would justify the slower rate of fire, but a middle ground of around 6-7 seconds per salvo would be much more preferable. This will differentiate these destroyers from the Russian destroyers with their faster firing guns. The floatier shells of the French cruisers could, in this case, also be carried over to the destroyers to create a destroyer line that is extremely effective at kiting and evasive tanking battleships, fight slightly lower tiered cruisers on equal footing and equal tiered cruisers with support, but limit their effectiveness against destroyers which would stop them from becoming entirely overpowered. The French destroyer line would, in this case, come out looking more like the Blyskawica than a Russian destroyer. A proper, but small, cruiser rather than a upsized destroyer.

 

As a cruiser, these mega-destroyers will obviously be able to be spotted far before their peers in destroyers. Fully built for concealment, the Mogador in this example should probably not be able to go below 7.8 km in terms of concealment range. Their poor concealment is to be compensated for by the larger health pool and superior firepower compared to their contemporary destroyers and their improved survivability after being hit. The armor of the French cruisers needs to be handled carefully. Whilst the size of their destroyers outstrips those of equivalent and more traditional destroyers of the other navies, they are still significantly smaller than cruisers. The probable tier X Mogador's 137 meters is a far cry from even tiny cruisers like the Leander's 168 meters. Despite this, creating a miniaturized cruiser line will require that the French destroyers at least have the armor to resist some punishment as creating ships that can handle well enough that they would never get hit in the first place risks creating destroyers that are completely overpowered. This could be handled in two ways: by giving the French destroyer line better armor of around 20 mm at the lower tiers culminating in armor plates of 25 to 30 milimeters at the higher tiers, allowing them to resist the shells of enemy destroyers almost in their entirety and resist the shells of certain cruisers partially, making heavy cruisers and battleships their enemy or by giving them wide plates of French spaced armor that would improve their survivability against everything firing HE. It could serve as the point of differentiation between French and Russian destroyers: the Russians focused on DPM whereas the French focus on survivability and alpha damage. I like the Khabarovsk, and I am generally in favor of more of destroyers like them. The combination of the ability to partially resist incoming damage and to recover from the damage taken should make for a potent blend with these destroyers.

 

As for consumables, I can be relatively brief. I would recommend the general cruiser fare with hydroacoustics (as the French DDs won't have smoke in this design) and the French speed boost, with a heal consumable for the Fantasque and the Mogador at tier 9 and 10 respectively. Defensive fire probably won't be necessary, as they should be nimble enough to avoid the attention of most carriers. This should give a nice balance of characteristics, being a cruiser in performance and playstyle but whilst maintaining the nimbleness that would mostly keep them safe from battleships and close enough to the caps to jump in and take the base if the proper destroyers aren't nearby. Whilst lacking in firepower of true cruisers, the compound of the classes would make for a very potent combination. The focus of this design is to create a cruiser line with the speed of a destroyer and with decent firepower. Whilst they would lose in pure gun effectiveness and health trading to a equivalent cruiser handily, they could still do severe damage to a cruiser if they catch them off guard and then run away to annoy someone else.

 

Gunboat destroyers

Spoiler

Whilst I would obviously prefer a cruiser line without citadels something a bit more unique, the French destroyers would work just as well as the gunboats along the line of the Russian destroyers. The superior speed boost will allow them to maneuver around falling shells with ease, and gunfire has consistently proven to be a far more effective weapon against battleships compared to torpedoes. A combination of a solid rate of fire, good damage output, and decent fire chance lets destroyers do a lot of damage to ships as long as they don't get hit. French destroyers, in the gunboat design, would still have the considerable side of the French destroyers in general whilst lacking the armor that the miniature cruiser concepts offers. This would mean poor concealment and poor maneuverability as in the first design. The practical upshot of this is that it would be possible to justify a superior artillery suite compared to the contemporaries of the French destroyers whilst maintaining a workable torpedo suite. Whilst less interesting than a tougher destroyer line built to act and play like a proper cruiser, a support gunboat has both precedent and proven effectiveness in the World of Warships system. Without the increased protection, smoke can probably come back for these destroyers. The pure shell performance described in the miniature cruiser design will likely have to be drawn back to something that would be more destroyer like however.

 

The armaments of the French destroyers, lacking the distinction of the first design set of being able to negate, either in part or entirety, the impact of incoming enemy firepower, could be much more powerful in certain regards. Whilst I would heavily recommend against using the suggested extremely powerful shells of the first design concept, I could recommend a higher DPM that would be traded for an inferior shell performance. The torpedoes can also be considerably better, as they would be, in design, much more similar to traditional destroyers. What I mean by this is to discard the concept of designing a destroyer that leans away from a destroyer that could fight a cruiser on a somewhat even ground and instead design a destroyer that is focused around being uniquely more effective against enemy battleships over all other roles. This is the time where I would like to introduce the concept of incendiary high explosives. Originally suggested with the hypothetical design of the French cruisers, the concept was to create a weapon system that allowed lower caliber guns to be extremely effective against battleships. Under standard penetration rules, the 139 mm shells of the French Modele 1929, even with IFHE, will be insufficient to penetrate the standard 32 mm platings of high tiered battleships. The concept over incendiary HE is to introduce an HE shell that might have a lower base fire chance normally, but ignores the penalty induced by non-penetrating hits. This would mean that fire rolls for all of the shell hits by the French destroyers under this design will have a standard fire roll regardless of whether or not the shell penetrates the armor. The lower or at least mediocre fire chance would make the shells only moderately effective against cruisers and destroyers that typically take damage from HE hits regardless, but would be extremely effective against the slow moving battleships. It would even reduce the effectiveness of fire prevention, as French destroyers under this design will be able to set fires to the bow and sterns of battleships with moderate ease whereas most destroyers are constrained to superstructure hits that could easily be diminished by skills like fire prevention.

 

The decent torpedoes of the French cruisers would be much less problematic with this designed. Lacking in armor of the first design, they could work as combined gunboats, keeping up fire on enemy targets to maximize damage whilst sending torpedoes forwards in order to discourage aggressive enemy pushes, meaning that the French destroyers could be, in this design, very effective at holding choke points and stopping the allied team from being flanked. The smoke present in this design will also allow the French destroyers to hold a position if they have friendly destroyers or planes to spot whilst also providing a safe spot for the allied fleet to retreat to. Whilst the first design is for a much more aggressive and "selfish" design for an artillery ship, this design will resemble the role of a support destroyer whilst maintaining effective artillery firepower.

 

True Speedsters

Spoiler

I have always been a proponent against the inclusion of the speed boost to the French cruiser line up to the time of its release. Whilst I think that in the current incarnation of the French cruiser speed boost is a boon to the line, the benefits are mostly in the rate of acceleration and not the extra speed that it offers which, whilst nice, isn't game changing. The problem with the speed boost is always that the benefits that it offers is relatively small on a strategic scale and in the case of most destroyers, they don't even offer any benefits for tactical engagements. I recommend that this change should be implemented with the French destroyers. Scaling back the firepower of the French destroyers will probably be necessary to make this workable at all. Luckily for War Gaming, there is historical precedent for the French destroyer 139 mm guns to have a rate of fire as low as 8.5 seconds which allows them the ability to much more heavily tweek the performance of the French destroyer artillery. With this speed boost, it should eschew the past speed boost that offers tangential benefit to something that has more direct benefit immediately like radar. Here is my suggestion: instead of the current French speed boost, give them a speed boost that doesn't last nearly as long as the current speed boost but with the power to drive the ship to close to double its top speed. The impetus behind this concept is twofold. Firstly, French cruisers are already extremely difficult target despite their gigantic size, a destroyer with natural destroyer nimbleness in combination with the French speed boost might make it so that French destroyers, correctly commanded, would be literally untouchable. Secondly, it distinguished the French destroyers from the French cruisers in a way that allows them to fulfill the destroyer role despite the concealment rating that these ships will no doubt have.

 

Instead of the +8% of standard destroyers or the slightly improved version of the French cruisers, give the French destroyers something obscene like +50% or +70% to their speed and +100% to their engine power for an engine boost that lasts from around 40-60 seconds. Instead of being a passive boost for an engagement, such a consumable would be a precise instrument that can be used extremely effectively to gain instant tactical advantages that could turn the tide of an engagement. Sprint up to and run over the Japanese destroyer the moment the French destroyer is spotted, near-instantly catch up with a fleeing carrier, running up to and using torpedoes to turn battleships into a reef, or simply turning tail and running the moment a cruiser pops radar or half the enemy fleet rounds the corner. The tool can also be used to better avoid carrier strikes and to skate around unexpected torpedo salvos whilst stopping the speed boost from being used in long engagements as a consumable that could simply be incorporated into the base statistics of the ships if the superior evasive capabilities was considered to be defining. With this speed boost, a new ship line with a very unique play style with tactical latitude that is simply not available to her contemporaries, all the while maintaining a moderate level of balance as she will still possess the general vulnerability of destroyers.

In general, I don't think that the French destroyers even have the chance of being as disastrous as the first incarnations of the French cruisers. The thing that I fear most when it comes to these ships isn't their weakness, but rather their mediocrity. It is very easy to basically replicate the Russian destroyer formula with slightly floatier guns, better alpha, poorer RoF, and slightly better speed boost. The French destroyers have the potential of being something really special however, much like how the French designed them in concept. A destroyer which is truly a miniature cruiser instead of a slightly bigger gun boat, a weapon system with the strengths of the cruisers diminished, but not really sharing any of the weaknesses could create a truly enjoyable and interesting line to grind and play.

 

This post is a little short on images and comments compared to my usual work, but I have been quite distracted as of late. I'm putting this out so at least I'm putting out some content instead of just siting back and never posting anything I write.

[El2aZeR]

28 minutes ago, dasCKD said:

This would mean that fire rolls for all of the shell hits by the French destroyers under this design will have a standard fire roll regardless of whether or not the shell penetrates the armor.

 

I thought it was stated by devs that armor does not affect fire chance?

[Major_Damage225]

26 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

 

I thought it was stated by devs that armor does not affect fire chance?

It dosent, where you hit combined with your fire chance+buufs-enemys anti %= you fire chance (lease thats how i think, correct me if im wrong) for instance, i want to set a fire on a red ship at the bow, i'll try to hit next to the A turret right at that part of the ships side just bellow the deck, same for rear (get the "blast wave" in the sweet spot) 

[LastButterfly]

Fun fact for those who don't know already :

Khabarovsk is originated from a russian attempt at almost copying the Italian esploratori Capitani Romani with seldom (if any) changes. Capitani Romani was itself Italy's take at creating a ship that would equal Mogador, based on a similar design.

Khabarovsk is more or less the copy of a copy of Mogador. Therefore if there's any logic at all their gameplay should end up being somewhat similar right ?

 

In any case, always great topics CKD. Tho I can't understa how you can still put even a tiny bit of faith in this game, I admire your dedication and effort. And your drawing talents.

[procrastinatingStudent]

38 minutes ago, Major_Damage225 said:

It dosent, where you hit combined with your fire chance+buufs-enemys anti %= you fire chance (lease thats how i think, correct me if im wrong) for instance, i want to set a fire on a red ship at the bow, i'll try to hit next to the A turret right at that part of the ships side just bellow the deck, same for rear (get the "blast wave" in the sweet spot) 

Pretty much you just need the hit the area to have a chance at a fire in the respective area. It juat that the bow and aft don't have as much to hit as the mid sections do.

[SinkTheOthersNotMe]

French DD main characteristics:

- Very high speed, thus probably bad manoeuvrability + turning radius.

- High caliber guns: Therefore longer range guns with big AP+HE dmg but low ROF and low turret traverse rate.

- Big size, talk about tashkent size so easy to hit.

- Bad to horrible AA.

- Decent torps, performance would be similar to British torps.

- Decent HP as they are so easy to hit and so sluggish

 

All in all to make it balanced IMO without betraying too much their IRL characteristics:

 

Big, easy to hit, sluggish to turn ships with almost no armor but very fast with horrible AA.

Best guns performance (for DD) and longest range + flat trajectory but lowest ROF (on par with IJN DD) and almost as bad turret traverse, on the other hand highest AP and HE dmg among all DD.

Torps would be ok like the British ones, no special consummables, smoke would last as long as the IJN to compensate for lack of Hydro, good torps or knife fighting capabilities.

 

All in all, this would reflect the role of the IRL French torpilleurs and contre torpilleurs.....very fast ships with a lot of very big DD guns and some decent torps, not agile (so no knife fighting), big and quite easy to hit but can run after any DD (therefore a speed higher than the paper Russian DD) and make very decent light cruisers.

[dasCKD]

8 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

I thought it was stated by devs that armor does not affect fire chance?

 

Well, it could just be my impression but when I hit the midsection, armor belt, or any rather thick area of battleships, I get less fires than I do when I hit the superstructure, bow, or stern. It could be just that those areas aren't active fire zones, in which case I think that incendiary HE could also get more active fire zones.

[dasCKD]

7 hours ago, LastButterfly said:

Tho I can't understa how you can still put even a tiny bit of faith in this game, I admire your dedication and effort. And your drawing talents.

 

Well, I have to believe (for the sake of my sanity if nothing else) that War Gaming doesn't actually loathe their game but are instead just incredibly incompetent. I think they want their game to be better, they just act in ways that completely trash their game balance thanks to their misunderstanding of the game and not some deep seated hatred of the players.

[Juanx]

14 minutes ago, dasCKD said:

 

Well, I have to believe (for the sake of my sanity if nothing else) that War Gaming doesn't actually loathe their game but are instead just incredibly incompetent. I think they want their game to be better, they just act in ways that completely trash their game balance thanks to their misunderstanding of the game and not some deep seated hatred of the players.

 

Had nothing to do with loving-loathing the game or its playerbase, its a milking company. Whenever the cow that is WoWs is depleted, they will move to new endeavours.

Also, nothing to do with hating the players, as explained above, its just that they do not care unless bottom line is hurt.

[Exocet6951]

I don't think the "high speed" can describe the entire branch, but rather some large destroyer leader-type ships which will be in the branch.

Overall it's a tough branch to develop, with very heterogeneous designs past the lower tiers.

On the plus side, we might get my sweetheart ship on tier9 or 10, a class of ship with one surviving example still parked a few km from where I live, with 3x2 127mm/54 and 6 torpedoes per side.

 

Not quite enough torpedoes to out-Gearing the Gearing, but close !
 

[FallOutBoi]

honestly, this is the class i am most waiting for. Because i think this class has the potential to become a new gun boat line (at least at higher tiers). And this would be awesome. And a Capitani Romani in the italian tree as the "real" Chaba would be great, too.

[JaiFoh]

The French Destroyers will be more unique than those that come before them because they will evolve from a centre line firing torpedo line to a set of basically super Clemsons from T8 upwards.  

Their emphasis should be a split between the conventional destroyers at early tiers to a Super Clemson style that can choose on become a Torpedo Boat or a Gun Boat. 

so something like this

T2: Bouclier-class
T3: Bisson-class destroyer
T4: Enseigne Gabolde 
T5: Cyclone
T6: Guépard-class
T7: Aigle-class
T8: Vauquelin-class 
T9: Mogador-class
T10: Surcouf class 

T8 Premium, Le Fantasque
T4 Premium, Aventurier

[dasCKD]

14 minutes ago, JaiFoh said:

The French Destroyers will be more unique than those that come before them because they will evolve from a centre line firing torpedo line to a set of basically super Clemsons from T8 upwards.  

Their emphasis should be a split between the conventional destroyers at early tiers to a Super Clemson style that can choose on become a Torpedo Boat or a Gun Boat. 

so something like this

T2: Bouclier-class
T3: Bisson-class destroyer
T4: Enseigne Gabolde 
T5: Cyclone
T6: Guépard-class
T7: Aigle-class
T8: Vauquelin-class 
T9: Mogador-class
T10: Surcouf class 

T8 Premium, Le Fantasque
T4 Premium, Aventurier

 

I very much doubt that the Surcouf would be part of the line, thanks to how slow she is and the fact that her armaments are nothing like those of the destroyers that proceeded her. She's more an American destroyer than anything. Also, I am very doubtful that they could make the Mogador fit at tier 9, much less the FANTASQUE at tier 8. A 45 knots base destroyer with 5 light cruiser guns at tier 8 would just be too much.

[Exocet6951]

2 minutes ago, dasCKD said:

 

I very much doubt that the Surcouf would be part of the line, thanks to how slow she is and the fact that her armaments are nothing like those of the destroyers that proceeded her. 

 

Second part of the argument is understandable, but the first part is debatable.

She goes 38 knots with her engines pushed to the max, and her slower 34 knots on the "you don't need to go faster and ruin the engines in a few days, you bloody madman" setting.
38 knots isn't bad, and would really give a great, almost low tier multipurpose DD vibe.

Again, totally not biased.
/s

 

[JaiFoh]

5 minutes ago, Exocet6951 said:

 

Second part of the argument is understandable, but the first part is debatable.

She goes 38 knots with her engines pushed to the max, and her slower 34 knots on the "you don't need to go faster and ruin the engines in a few days, you bloody madman" setting.
38 knots isn't bad, and would really give a great, almost low tier multipurpose DD vibe.

Again, totally not biased.
/s

 

Indeed and Wargaming quite often uses Trial speeds instead of actual speeds and with speed flags it creeps it up even more.
If they put the Surcourf with a 36kt speed (same as Gearing) then you have an interesting and more unique destroyer at T10. 

as for the Fantasque, the Kiev has a base speed of 42.5kts, and 6 130mm guns 10 8km (upgraded torps), Fantasque has 5 138mm guns and 45kts "base" speed and 9 torpedos. 

i fail to see why she couldn't be a T8 premium when a very similar ship is already a line ship in the game.

[Tubit101]

2 hours ago, Juanx said:

 

Had nothing to do with loving-loathing the game or its playerbase, its a milking company. Whenever the cow that is WoWs is depleted, they will move to new endeavours.

Also, nothing to do with hating the players, as explained above, its just that they do not care unless bottom line is hurt.

 

I think this is closest to the truth, unfortunately. However, WG persists at doing poorly even as a milking company. I think they are trying to keep expenditure to an absolute minimum, which results in a less than ideal performance from their employees. In short, the quality of the game is so low and user-unfriendly that they have a much worse churn rate (falloff of new players) than what would be optimal. This means that they lose a lot of potential customers. They  focus on short term yield (mainly through premium ships and XP conversion) instead of improving fundamentals.

 

A lot of established players show disdain towards "potatoes" - but imagine trying to be a new player at this point in time. The amount of things you need to learn to do well has grown significantly and there is next to nothing in terms of tutorials or anything that would help ease the learning curve.

 

As time passes there is only more ships and mechanics to memorize somehow. For each confused new player, the hostility and toxicity of the established player base only grows. Why would you want to invest your money in a game like that? Some obviously do anyway, but most people don't.

 

The way I see it, that is the true source of WG's failings.

[Cosseria]

IMHO, Le Fantasque needs to be T 9 and Mogador T 10. I would be disappointed by any different solution.

 

Waiting to put a speed flag on Le Fantasque and to hit the speed boost button

 

[creamgravy]

42 minutes ago, Cosseria said:

IMHO, Le Fantasque needs to be T 9 and Mogador T 10. I would be disappointed by any different solution.

 

 

Le Fantasque might be a little old for tier 9 (early 1930s design vs 1940s kit)

 

Tier 4. Bourrasque (4 x 130mm 1919)

Tier 5. Chacal (5 x 130mm 1919)

Tier 6. Aigle (5 x 139mm 1927)

Tier 7. Vauquelin (5 x 139mm 1927)

Tier 8. Le Fantasque (5 x 139mm 1929)

Tier 9. Le Hardi (6 x 130mm 1935)

Tier 10. Mogador (8 x 139mm 1934)

 

Compared to Russian DD leaders they have better HE but slightly worse AP, arcs and possibly reload. (typical French faction ammo) Do they need a funky consumable to make them stand apart from the main VFM line? Probably.

[Cosseria]

Yes but Le Hardi is noticeably slower and would play differently from the rest. A fleet torpedo boat in the middle of a line of flotilla leaders would be odd.

[creamgravy]

10 minutes ago, Cosseria said:

Yes but Le Hardi is noticeably slower and would play differently from the rest. A fleet torpedo boat in the middle of a line of flotilla leaders would be odd.

 

A more compact destroyer that can do 40 knots, has modern 3x2 130mm guns and 3 tubes in a 1x2 config might work at tier 9. 

 

Would there be enough for a second fleet destroyer line?

[LOZFFVII]

48 minutes ago, Cosseria said:

Waiting to put a speed flag on Le Fantasque and to hit the speed boost button

Spoiler

Some music to go with your madness:

Spoiler

 

Or maybe some of this:

Spoiler

 

But seriously, if Fantasque becomes a T8 premium (or a T9 FXP ship) I will definitely just get her and ignore the rest of the line, because comboing 45knt, speed flag and engine boost is a match made in heaven.

[Skyllon]

13 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

 

I thought it was stated by devs that armor does not affect fire chance?

 

More like shatters, but you are absolutely correct.

[LastButterfly]

2 hours ago, Cosseria said:

Yes but Le Hardi is noticeably slower and would play differently from the rest. A fleet torpedo boat in the middle of a line of flotilla leaders would be odd.

 

"Fleet Torpedo Boat' with carateristics surpassing that of destroyers in other nations. A fast firing 130mm armament in 3*2 guns and the size and displacement at full load of a Kagero ? If Le Hardi is a torpedo boat, than Italians destroyers are actually all patrol gunboats and so are most of the British.

It should not be forgotten that what French classified as Contre-Torpilleur, which should translate to the notion of destroyer, was considered by several other nations to be Light Cruisers.

 

Also, le Hardi and Le Fantasque actually had the same cruise speed, which were 37kn. And while Fantasque could do with faster, above 40kn was nothing but a trial record, unusable in real service. Besides, the Hardi class achieved 39kn. I get what you mean by "noticeably slower" but dude, its cruise speed, not even max speed, is above Kagero and Fletcher's one. I thing it's good enough xD

 

Edit : also fun fact : Fantasque herself only ever achieved 42.7kn. Only her sister Terrible once managed to exceed 45.03kn. She used different boilers so that's probably why.
Honestly WG will give Fantasque 43kn max. Wanna bet ? After all, they DID indeed write that Khabarovsk was unrivaled in terms of speed...

[Namolis]

4 hours ago, LastButterfly said:

 

"Fleet Torpedo Boat' with carateristics surpassing that of destroyers in other nations. A fast firing 130mm armament in 3*2 guns and the size and displacement at full load of a Kagero ? If Le Hardi is a torpedo boat, than Italians destroyers are actually all patrol gunboats and so are most of the British.

It should not be forgotten that what French classified as Contre-Torpilleur, which should translate to the notion of destroyer, was considered by several other nations to be Light Cruisers.

 

Also, le Hardi and Le Fantasque actually had the same cruise speed, which were 37kn. And while Fantasque could do with faster, above 40kn was nothing but a trial record, unusable in real service. Besides, the Hardi class achieved 39kn. I get what you mean by "noticeably slower" but dude, its cruise speed, not even max speed, is above Kagero and Fletcher's one. I thing it's good enough xD

 

Edit : also fun fact : Fantasque herself only ever achieved 42.7kn. Only her sister Terrible once managed to exceed 45.03kn. She used different boilers so that's probably why.
Honestly WG will give Fantasque 43kn max. Wanna bet ? After all, they DID indeed write that Khabarovsk was unrivaled in terms of speed...

They also gave Shimakaze a speed that just barely allows her to reach true top speed with speed boost. And then they made Leningrad (rl speed 40 kts) into a 43 kts ship without speed boost.

[Verdius]

4 hours ago, LastButterfly said:

Also, le Hardi and Le Fantasque actually had the same cruise speed, which were 37kn. And while Fantasque could do with faster, above 40kn was nothing but a trial record, unusable in real service. 

 

Tell that to all the Soviet DDs. I don't see why the French can't have those speeds when stuff like Tashkent goes at full trial speeds that would probably rip the hull on full load.