Jump to content

S0und_Theif

Member
  • Content Сount

    13
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    2354

About S0und_Theif

  • Rank
    Lieutenant (junior grade)
  • Insignia
  1. S0und_Theif

    Finland? (Finnish Navy)

    Väinämöinen class Coast defence ship? Probably a Tier 2 premium like the IJN Mikasa. Though only a few will play Tier 2 to 4 games and have no possibility to play combat missions and campaigns. :( Once you implement 1, others will be requested. Pan Europe, Pan Asian, and Pan American.
  2. S0und_Theif

    Alternate IJN Battleship line

    Sorry off topic @TD1 you can check US Tech tree suggestion thread. I have split 2 CV lines, 2 BB lines, 4 to 5 CA lines, and 2 DD lines. Have a look :) Much appreciate it. And you are right about RN, KM, and French BB. In my head, I can split the RN into 3 lines, and 2 lines for KM and French Navy (although incomplete and will stop at tier 8 laike Akizuki). 1 Line for RM. 1 line for Soviet Navy (but have problems on tier 7 as there are none, unless project 21or project 24 can fill the role)
  3. S0und_Theif

    Alternate IJN Battleship line

    Hi TD1, Desing A from deviant art by TZoli or the written in Japanese paper I attached? Cuz its the same 3 forward turret design, but nelson configuration (3 forward facing). Advantage is turret traverse. Turret C (Turret 3) no need to traverse 360 to aim. Disadvantage is still can't fire that gun when facing forward. Have to angle to fire. Looking from what I got, A-140 preliminary design sheet, configuration A, G, G1'A, G2'A, K, and J0 are current Izumo design. (Nelson type connfigutation or current Izumo type configuration). A, G, G1'A, G2'A, and J0 has 9 Guns, while K has 8 Guns. While design F2, F4, and F5 has 3 turrets (2 Forward, 1 Aft) 9 Guns. And Design F has 3 turrets (2 Forward, 1 Aft) 8 Guns And design B has 4 turrets (2 forward, 2 aft) 8 Guns. Design I has 4 turrets (2 forward, 1 aft) 10 Guns (Either Nevada configuration or Pensacola/Dallas Configuration). Design J2 has 4 turrets (2 forward, 2 aft) 12 Guns. All guns were armed with "40 c/m" can safely say that that is the intended main armament. 40 cm or 400 mm = 15.7 inch. But we can all agree that she must be armed with 40.6 cm or 406 mm = 16 inch to match North Carolina, Iowa, and Montana in gun fights Secondary armament consist of 15.5 cm or 155 mm = 6.1 inch. Configuration A, B, G, and F are armed with 4 turrets, 3 guns each. Configuration K and J0 are armed with 3 turrets, 3 guns each. And finally configuration I is armed with 2 turrets, 3 guns each. Teritary armament consist of 12.7 cm or 127 mm = 5 inch dual purpose guns. All configuration has 6 turrets, 2 guns. Except configuration I wich has 8 turrets, 2 guns. The last armament is AA guns 25 mm = 1 inch guns in triple mount. Looks like they only mounted 12 of them. (This is preliminary design after all and paid no attention to AA guns after 1943 upgrade) My take is Design F2 as standard Tier 9 ship. Design B, I, and G (current Izumo) as premium Tier 9. And Design J2 as Tier 10 premium. What do you think TD1, mr_glitchy_R and DeadArashi? :) Also, Pardon if this is a focused topic on Izumo (A-140) and not as an entire Alternate IJN Ship tree. :( For visual comparison: Tzoli A = Design G1'A, G2'A, J0 Tzoli B = Design F2 Tzoli C = Design B Tzoli D = Design G Tzoli E = Design F Tzoli F = Design I Tzoli G = Design K Tzoli H = Design J2
  4. S0und_Theif

    Alternate IJN Battleship line

    Just a wishful thinking that Isizuchi would make a better T4 vs Myogi. Probably same class but different name. You can probably get away with that right? :)
  5. S0und_Theif

    Alternate IJN Battleship line

    Golly you beat me to it (Ship Suggestion) :) But you ship line is more diverse compared to mine. Though my suggestion to JP BB Line ii: Kawachi -> Ishizuchi -> Kongou -> Ise -> Nagato -> Tosa -> Izumo -> Yamato Tier 4 Ishizuchi fits in better vs Myogi 1. Ishizuchi has 10 x 12 inch guns vs Myogi 6 x 14 inch guns Im ok loosing the 20 km range and horrid dispersion for 10 shells (even with horrid dispersion there is enough shells that at least 1 or 2 of them will hit the target) 2. Loosing premium status will mean gains in hulls, range finder, and propulsion upgrades. At least for tier 4 standards. Compared to other Tier 4's, other navy's has a much better broadside: Wyoming / Arkansas = 12 x 12 inch Nassau = 10 x 11 inch (aimed right) Orion = 10 x 13.5 inch Courbet = 10 x 12 inch (broadside) Dante Alighieri = 12 x 12 inch (possible Italian T4) Nikolai I = 12 x 12 inch (possible Russian T4) Tier 6 in my opinion, Ise is much more suitable. Same 12 x 14 inch guns, but with better configuration (Optional): Tier 9 = Izumo Do you think they should change the Izumo from A-140G to a more conventional configuration A-140F (2 forward, 1 aft)and armed with the same 9 x 16 inch guns? Having those rear guns (Y turret) saved me in multiple engagements. Forward facing guns will only go to Nelson, G3, Dunkirque, and Richelieu. No need to torture players in Tier 9 for Japanese BB. Tier 10 = A-150 Do you think the A-150 should occupy Yamato's guns or a separate class? A-150 will carry 6 x 20 inch guns on a Yamato Hull. (Assuming the range and the dispersion is not so horrid like the myogi) In the US tech tree suggestion, Nebraska, a 8 x 18 inch / 47 cal armed Montana. A separate class. Or like the British Conqueror, which is armament switchable. For CA,s I like your diversity, but i would like to see Myoko, and Takao class have armament option like Mogami Class. Japanese engineered the Mogami to put 6.1 inch guns in triple mount (secondaries of the Yamato) to classify it as a light cruiser but upgradeable to 8 inch in dual mount to be a heavy cruiser. Light cruiser and Heavy cruiser designation was by gun caliber in WW2 but no restriction in armor detail. You can have a faster firing 15 x 6.1 inch guns sacrificing damge or 10 x 8 inch guns sacrificing rate of fire. (Japan ships have horrid turret traverse, as seen on all JP ships. This will be its disadvantage to make the game fair) And lastly, to get B-65 Large cruiser and Shinano Aircraft Carrier, Shinano will require Hakuryu and Yamato to unlock. And B-65 will require Yamato and Zao to unlock. Both are at Tier 9. (like the US tech tree suggestion) Alaska, B-65, Strasbourg, Scharnhorst, Andrea Doria, Kronstadt, and (UK Large Cruiser Concept) will all be at Tier 9 and requires 1 BB and 1 CA/CL to unlock. A powerful ship requires some grinding effort to unleash its power. Shinano is a BB converted to CV, it is most fitting to require Yamato and Hakuryu to unlock. (US has suggested to convert an Iowa and Alaska hull to a Carrier). This will rival Shinano in US tech tree. But these are my opinion only. :) I do hope everyone is ok with this concept. :) :) Cheers
  6. S0und_Theif

    US Tech Tree Suggestions

    I am very happy and pleased at wargaming for adding the light cruisers for the US tech tree line, but more can still be done. Especially if the community is eyeing the Alaska class large cruiser. Here is an updated suggestion / wishlist for the US Tech tree. I'm gonna follow-up the info tomorrow. I have shaves some ships and added new ships in the line. Sorry bout the bad handwriting, one of my nerves got misplaces and i cant write well for a while. Some few info: Yes, Alaska will require Iowa and Oregon City to unlock. Likewise for Mill Springs carrier will require Yorktown and Maine to unlock. I was thinking using Gearing to unlock Oakland and Somers. For Somers it will be worth it. But gor Oakland, im having 2nd thoughts as it will be of a too much hassle for the player to reach Tier 10 DD to unlock Tier 7 CLAA. Please share your thoughts on that. Chattanooga, Detroit, V. Islands, Maine, Mill Springs and Manila are just suggestive names for the ships. Wargaming may change them if they are to be released. Constitution is CC5 to stay true with the Lexington class Battlecruiser.
  7. S0und_Theif

    US Tech Tree Suggestions

    I saw that video too from Flamu and Noster, if buffalo would be added as tier 9 CA, it can branch with either Baltimore or Oregon City depending on the Tier 9 split in the suggestion. It will be like Juneau (1945), which will be researched via one of the modules in tier 9. Buffalo dose not have the auto loader like Des Moines, so its manual labor and will have low rate of fire vs Des Moines and Worcester. Tier 9 will be ok. Unless Wargameing nurfed its AA vs Baltimore or Oregon City to be more of a brawler cruiser than a AA cruiser. Cleaveland and Baltimore were made with the same concept hull, much like Brooklyn and Witchita, as well as Fargo and Oregon City. American CLs have more guns but carries 6 inch / 152mm guns, where as CAs carries 8 inch / 203 mm guns but less 1 turret or 3 guns (exception with buffalo). Damage wise they are almost the same with CL slightly faster at reload. Buffalo and Alaska will be the ultimate tier 9 Cruiser killers or Battleship busters for a cruiser. If thats the case, Gneisenau (11 inch / 283 mm), 1940 Heavy Cruiser Design (UK), Dunkerque, Andrea Doiria, B65 (Ishikari in WOWS forum) and Kronshtadt (12 inch / 305 mm) will branch at Tier 9 to go against the Alaska class. This cruiser killers was suggested to be unlocked once the player has researched both Tier 9 and Tier 10 cruiser modules. (like in some tanks in WOT). There are some ships out there where it was fully conceptuallized or made by wargameing themselves that I still do not know about. So would like to ask the communities help to complete them in my future tech tree suggestions. I have been thinking of 2 branch split in German BB line and 3 branch split on UK BB line. They will stop at tier 9 but meet up in tier 10. This dose not mean you need to unlock all branches to unlock tier 10 BB. (Work in progress concept and will be discussed on a separate topic. This is only a teaser.)
  8. S0und_Theif

    US Tech Tree Suggestions

    Hi, I have revised the tech tree as per inputs and added new ones to maximize the USN fleet. (revision 3) Basically, there are now 2 versions in the cruiser line. I cannot decide which one is better but i'm sure the split will begin with New Orleans. Missile cruisers are no more. But still put Kentucky and Hawaii there to be Tier 10 premium. What modifications will be needed will make the ships effective, ill let you decide. No missile. Added branch in tier 9 carriers, Mill Springs (BB-66 USS Kentucky) and Manila (CB-4 USS Philippines), this will also serve as room for Shinano, a BB turned CV in Japanese tech tree in my future suggestion for Japan tech tree. Since US carriers are named after great battles or great men who contributed in the revolutionary war, it is fitting for Mill Springs (Battle of Mill Springs in Kentucky 1862) and Manila (Battle of Manila in Philippines 1898). Added tier 10 Worcester and Gearing but armed with 5"/54 caliber Mark 16 gun (the same secondaries armed in Montana Class battleship. Nebraska is a basically Montana class armed with 18"/45 guns. Guns are smaller than the Yamato's 18.1"/45 guns and 1 gun less than the Yamato. Please let me know what you think about this updated tech tree and if the dev team will approve this line up. And if the dev team approves, I will continue my research for the rest of the nation ship line up. Thanks for your feedback.
  9. S0und_Theif

    US Tech Tree Suggestions

    i can see your picture. sure I'll revise the list. Lemme know if you have other opinions with the rest of the line. Thank you for your inputs. It helps to balance the tech tree.
  10. S0und_Theif

    US Tech Tree Suggestions

    Pensacola class/ Northampton class should be deleted at tier 5 and start the branch at tier 6 with the New Orleanse class, correct? And the 5 missile ships can be deleted. Though it is only a suggestion, Im comfortable deleteing them. :)
  11. S0und_Theif

    US Tech Tree Suggestions

    Hi All, I have revised the tech tree as per inputs and added new ones to maximize the USN fleet. Added 2 tier 9 carrier branch. This branch are USS Illinois and USS Philippines / USS Puerto Rico / USS Samoa converted to carriers. This is added to in the future compliment Shinano, a Japanese Yamato class battleship converted to carrier. Since US Battleships are named by 48 US states "at the time" and the 6 Large Cruisers are nemed after US Territories "at the time", once conveted to carriers they will not bear those names, hence the questionmarks. WW2 US carriers were named after great battles in US history. Suggestion of names are much appreciated or if you have a historical archive and have the names of these converted ships please add them so we can complete the nameing of the 2 ships. Initially i plan to put USS Manila in USS Philippines as her namesake. It makes sense, as the Battle of Manila in 1899 or 1942 in US history. Alaska and Juneau moved from tier 10 to tier 9. But Alaska will need both Oregon City and Des Moines to unlock. Alaska is a cruiser killer and will murder any tier 8 to 10 cruisers with her 9 x 12 inch guns. Added Boston and Providence as tier 10 missile cruisers. Like Mississippi, Guam, and Kentucky. "I forgot to add Mississippi in the list as tier 10/9" Added Sacramento, a tier 7 Heavy Cruiser "if built", she would look like a 9 x 8 inch gunned cruiser version of St. Louis (1938), but armed with 10 to 12 x 5 inch secondaries. Destroyers are back as is and added USS Somers Class as a branch for USS Fletcher. At her peak, she carries 8 x 5 inch guns and 12 (non-reloadable) 21 inch torpedoes. To be fair, she will have 4 Hull upgrades (including the base hull) Hull A - Standard - 6 x 5 inch guns in dual mount. 8 x 21 inch torpedo tubes in quad mount, 2 x 1.1 inch AA guns and several .50 cal MG Hull B - Torpedo - 4 x 5 inch guns in dual mount, 12 x 21 inch torpedo tubes in quad mount (reloadable), 2 x 1.1 inch AA guns and several .50 cal MG Hull C - Guns - 8 x 5 inch guns in dual mount, 4 x 21 inch torpedo tubes in quad mount, 2 x 1.1 inch AA guns and several .50 cal MG Hull D - AA - 4 x 5 inch guns in dual mount, 4 x 21 inch torpedo tubes in quad mount, 8 x 40mm bofors in twin mount and several 20mm Oerlikon Hulls B, C, and D will branch like a trident and let the player choose his playstyle. Please let me know what you think about this updated tech tree and if the dev team will approve this line up. And if the dev team approves, I will continue my research for the rest of the nation ship line up, including some South American ships , Sweden, Spanish, Dutch Cruisers as premium.
  12. S0und_Theif

    US Tech Tree Suggestions

    Good point. Alaska and Juneau can be tier 9. I like it when you will research Alaska and Juneau for 2 ships. Juneau 1952 modification can be researched via Hull B module. Fret not, Guam and Hawaii will be Alaska's premium. Guam to carry Radar like Missouri Hawaii to carry Missile/Rocket like the planned conversion of Illinois and Kentucky (if were completed). It would be nice to be able to use Saipan as a standard ship. Her sister can take the premium spot. The Left CV line purpose should be smaller, faster and more concealed vs the CV line on the right. The draw back is lesser squadron and lesser armor for its tier level. Play smart carrier vs play hard carrier. That's the idea though. Additional Notes: I also was thinking of adding "Sacramento", A tier 7 Premium cruiser. She will have St. Louis (1938)/Helena silhouette. Carries 9 x 8 inch guns. her secondaries are 10 x 5 inch (2 x 1 mounts and 4 x 2 mounts). Armored Cruisers for Tier 3 or Tier 4 ships? Specialty is good XP and currency generator. No further tech tree upgrades. Or sell them as premium ships?
  13. S0und_Theif

    US Tech Tree Suggestions

    Hi All, I am new to WOWs, and I have a suggestion for US the tech tree line. If anyone can help me reach the dev team and have a look at my suggestion, that would be of great help. Here is my suggestion for a possible tech treee for the US warship line. Both standard and premium with details after the tech tree. I also have some tech tree lineup for UK, France, Germany, Italy, and Russia, running in my head, but that will be another topic for another time. Also have ideas for Spain, Netherlands, Sweden, Argentina, Commonwealth Nations as well. but it will be like Poland style tech tree. Please let me know what you think about this tech tree and if the dev team will approve this line up. And if the dev team approves, I will continue my research for the rest of the nation line up. Thanks in advance if you find this good and reached the dev team. I will try to fill up as much info as needed for this tech tree line up. Feel free to ask and i will try to get back on you as soon as i can.
×