Jump to content


Beta Tester
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


About DeadArashi

  • Rank
    Lieutenant (junior grade)
  • Birthday 01/16/1996
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

130 profile views
  1. Alternate IJN Battleship line

    You're not wrong and it's not like we're demanding it right away. In fact, I agree that other nations should be a priority. RNDDs are in the works and other nations shouldn't be prioritised as well. But that doesn't mean we can't think about further expanding other ships in the future. They've already split the IJN and RU DD line as well as the US cruisers
  2. Alternate IJN Battleship line

    That's actually wrong, anything with 九四式(Type 94) before "40c/m" is actually the 46cm (18") guns of the Yamato. And since Japan never had 40cm guns (there is the 40cm/45 but the bore is still actually 41cm) it's safe to say that the J0 to J3 designs were to have the 41cm guns we see in-game on the Izumo As for personal preference as to the design, I would say J3. The reason being that it wouldn't require a fake gun calibre for the ship and 12x 41cm (four turrets, three guns each) is easier to balance. Though if it is I'm sure just removing one of the rear turrets would suffice to bring the gun count down, but considering the Amagi and Kii have 10 x 41cm guns at tier 8 there shouldn't be much issue
  3. Alternate IJN Battleship line

    Well if it's keeping the 410mm guns then the only option would be to use the J3 design. Otherwise they may as well just swap the Izumo for Musashi or have to give one of the other designs the incorrect gun calibre. And naturally the Shinano would be in carrier form, its battleship configuration was never completed. It's a case of got half way through construction then turned the constructed hull into a carrier. Hence why it had the same 400mm thick belt armor, although this was only around the ammo where it had already been installed, other then that it would be 100-200 mm thick. Armament would be heavily tailored to AA Yamato Musashi Shinano 9 × 46 cm Type 94 guns (3x3) 6 × 15.5 cm 3rd Year Type guns (2x3) 24 × 127 mm Type 89 (12x2) 162 × 25 mm Type 96 AA guns 4 × 13.2 mm Type 93 (2x2) 3 × triple 46 cm Type 94 guns 12 x 15.5 cm 3rd Year Type guns (4x3) 12 x 12.7 cm Type 89 (6x2) 36 x 25 mm Type 96 AA guns (12x3 4 x 13.2 mm Type 93 AA machine guns (2x2) 16 x 12.7 cm Type 89 (8x2) 105 x 25 mm Type 96 AA guns (35x3) 336 x 12 cm (4.7 in) AA rocket launchers (12x28) For comparison, the Hood at tier 7, which has very scary AA potential, only has 100 AA rockets (5x20) although they are 7"(178mm) So it would be interesting to see how WG would set up its flight squadrons
  4. Alternate IJN Battleship line

    Izumo is already based of one of the A-140 designs, specifically J2. It's just they should change it to one where the third turret is forward facing like the Nelson. And as much as I would love to have the A-150, 51cm guns might be pushing it unless they also release a Super kurfurst with 48cm guns to compete Shinano, based purely on armor and AA she would be tier 9 or 10. Altho considering the low number of planes it would probably tier tier 7 feels appropriate. Armor would probably be heavily reduced to make it work and the planes will probably be similar to the Taiho at tier 9. Although unlike the Taiho the Shinano would be slow with poor concealment In saying this, i kinda want to see the Shinano with full Yamato belt armor and all its AA glory.
  5. Alternate IJN Battleship line

    the images are nice and clear for me, containing all the armor values and types of armament. And that would be right, must have missed that bit of info. I honestly don't know what to do with the B-65, chances are WG will just slap it at tier 9 with the 310mm guns and call it a cruiser like the Kronshtadt. I would be all for the 1930 Kongo replacement for tier 6 if it wasn't so slow. BUT, the Kongo as originally built had roughly the same displacement (27,384t vs the replacements theorised 30,000t), while having less shp (64k vs 80k). And since the Amagi was designed 10 years before this replacement design I think it wouldn't be a stretch to say it would have been able to have a 131,200 shp engine installed. It would, in theory, be able to hit speeds of 30+kn Honestly I'm not that knowledgeable in the way of navel armament so I wouldn't be able to say for sure. But I can say that the Ushiro and Hakone would most certainly need some form of modernisation to keep it competitive
  6. Alternate IJN Battleship line

    All the information on the details for Designs 1 to 4 can be found here: https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,26779.0.html Going from it there looks to be two hull options that could be made available. Main guns are listed as 14" (356 mm) so if it's just that then the secondaries and AA from Tzoli's modernised version should be fine for tier 6, it would be strong but the smaller main armament and thinner armor would make up for it One alternative could be that the Ishikari could be tier 7 with the 310mm and 356mm and then at tier 8 could be a "what-if" modernised sister ship armed with 410mm guns with better armor, sort of like an Ishikari-kaizen . Again, leading from cruiser to battlecruiser
  7. Alternate IJN Battleship line

    Food for thought, if the Design III modernisation gave it similar secondaries and AA to the Mutsu then it should be fine What I was then thinking for the Ishikari was to put it up at tier 8 as a branch from the tier 7 Myoko into the tier 9 Ushiro. Give it both the 9 x 310mm as stock and a hull upgrade that lets the 6 x 356mm guns be mounted. This would create the most logical design flow since the Design 3 was later used for the B-62, which in turn was used for the B-64 Amagi. The B-65 would no longer be before the Amagi and instead be a route for players to get from the cruiser line to the battlecruisers.
  8. Alternate IJN Battleship line

    I feel the Modernised Design III would be way too strong for tier 6. That's armor comparable to the Mutsu, the main armament of the Mutsu, better AA and secondaries then the Mutsu, the same torpedoes as the Mutsu... while going nearly 10kn faster then it. That's getting more into tier 8 territory. The Kongo replacement design looks interesting but armor and speed would make it a bit off from the rest of the battlecruiser line and be more like a dreadnought line. That's not to say that it couldn't fit at tier 6, it could even be used as a ship to cross from the Kongo into the dreadnought style line. I still think the B-65 would be the best because, while it wouldn't make sense logically, it would still fit the line without needing any hypothetical what-if modernisation. Just fixed that, thanks
  9. Alternate IJN Battleship line

    I feel that Ishikari would work best though. The name is a bit ironic in that it would work be it a light cruiser or a heavy cruiser since the Ishikari River runs from the Ishikari sub-Provence all the way to the Ishikari Mountains (which is actually a group of multiple mountains). But if it was named the Ishikari-class then it could easily have the sister ships named after the other mountains; Ishikari Otofuke Mikuni Yuniishikari Numanohara all of these mountains are part of the "Ishikari Mountains"
  10. Alternate IJN Battleship line

    The only name I can find is it being called the Ishikari-class. This is actually fine as a name because there is a Mount Ishikari located in Hokkaido. So it could be that the lead ship in the class was to be built somewhere in Hokkaido. Should this be the case it would follow Japanese nomenclature
  11. Alternate IJN Battleship line

    I believe that it should be fine for two main reasons; The same tiered Fuso is missing it's original 1915 build configuration and is in her 1944 configuration. While the Nagato at a tier higher is missing her 1944 refit and is somewhere between the original and refit WG doesn't particularly care much for armament dates; the Amagi in it's 1939 refit in-game has 25mm AA guns despite those guns not entering service until 1941. The AA rockets might be pushing it a bit but in terms of armament, armor and mobility it would fit very well into the midtier BC line Yes it loses a gun over the Kongo but that secondary and AA looks a hell of a lot stronger, not to mention it also becomes faster
  12. Alternate IJN Battleship line

    @TD1 just added a reddit link into the OP
  13. Alternate IJN Battleship line

    I feel like at this point it would gain more attention via the reddit then the forums
  14. Alternate IJN Battleship line

    @TD1 at it with the quality nomenclature clarification Do you mind if I put that into the OP for future readers?
  15. Alternate IJN Battleship line

    There were a number of exceptions to this rule. The Yamato-class being one of them. Yamato and Musashi are ancient provinces and not mountains. Likewise, cruises tended to be named after rivers but the Takao and Ibuki class were named after mountains. The Americans were much more relaxed about naming ships: BBs being named after states, cruisers after cities and destroyers after people. I say simple in that it didn't particularly matter if it had any actual relation to the ships construction or not