Jump to content
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
InterconKW

Alternative IJN Battleship Line: The Response

25 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Member
341 posts
3,994 battles

@DeadArashi has proposed an alternative line for Japanese battleships, namely splitting for fast battleships/battlecruisers.

I was particularly interested that this could do with some improvements as I didn't quite agree with the moving of certain ships and what I saw. Plus, I need to defend the position of my beloved Fuso. Sorry for the memes. So to avoid my posts being buried, I decided to consolidate them, giving credit to things sourced from both the Hiraga archive and a friend, godzilla5549. Enjoy.

This is the current proposal.
EsVPQBB.png&key=57ad8d652f0f59331899649ab5672b0efd8883ed1f528775d1147c256cd60f87

First of all, I feel like Kawachi should stay Tier 3 as Satsuma and Kurama would be... rather weak. Think Mikasa. Also, I feel it would be a better gameplay choice to keep a battleship introduction that both options from the split are grinded from. Would be weird doing games in Tenryu (?) for three ships that are rather different.

Now the issues begin. Three ships are going to be taken out of the IJN BB line. Myogi (The paper B-40), Kongo and Amagi. Rather than downtiering Fuso for Ise, I'd rather keep Fuso in her place. Problem is, alternative battleship designs are quite obscure at this point so I don't blame him.

BATTLESHIP LINE

The Tier 4 and 5

kLLZB6c.png

Credit to the Hiraga archive, I feel like we would have more luck working A49 into Tier 4 and A50 into Tier 5. A49 with 10 14" guns outguns her tiermates but I'd presume the firing arcs on her echelon turrets would bring her closer in practice, seeing Konig ingame as a good example. I'd assume the 22 knot variant of A49 would be more reasonable, maybe with an armor refit.

A50, 23 knots as-built and maybe with a 24-25 knot fictional refit adding a pagoda mast would fit in at Tier 5, like a Fuso with one less turret. All these ships carry similar armor to Fuso.

At Tier 8, the Tosa battleship is a good enough choice after adjustments to fit in better.

THE BATTLECRUISERS
Splitting from Kawachi, Myogi in her current state would be a good introduction, followed by Kongo. These ships can stay as they are.

Tier 6: I believe Haruna in her 1945 fit would be a good option here. It wouldn't be out of question to give her the 28 second reload of Fuso, accuracy and exceptional AA, and Prinz Eitel Friedrich. But this progression might prove out of place and I'm currently working on alternatives.

Tier 7: Ashitaka, stock Amagi, exists at Tier 7 right now, and hasn't proved popular. Keeping Amagi at 8, instead of a repeat Ashitaka, so I started looking for alternatives. B-62 (No image found) was a preliminary design for Amagi with 8 41cm guns. 30 knots which would be the same design speed as Amagi with a 9" belt on 39900t. Alternatively B62A brings a near-crazy 35 knot ship with an 8" belt to the table. I feel that B62A's massive length, 925 feet (longer than Iowa!) would make it rather silly though. 

Edit: Yeah, I see your B62 now.

Tier 9 and 10

r7ivywW.jpg

The A design seems like a good progression from Amagi, increasing belt to respectable levels without a loss of other attributes. This gives a good Tier 9. I don't feel these battlecruisers need the torpedoes proposed in the original thread.

In the last 3 rows we see the Number 13s. Personally I think (8 46cm guns) and (10 46cm guns) could both work as our T10, bringing similar gunpower to Yamato to the table and a higher 30 knot speed. By now this has become similar to the original.

@DeadArashi hope this helps.

Edited by InterconKW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
68 posts
707 battles

Thanks for taking the time to do this. I'm always open to suggestions and opinions regarding these sort of topics. I don't know everything so it's always great to learn about alternative options.

I did make a comment about the Torps on my original thread so I won't bring it back up here.


A-49 looks interesting enough and the gun layout would definitely limit its active firepower 

Is there any more information on the "A" design? Things like armament or more full design blueprints? (I'll keep the Kii-class Owari where it is for now)

For the Number 13s the "L" design offering one extra gun over the Yamato would make up for the thinner armor and less secondary/AA

GZKePt0.png

 

Edited by DeadArashi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
341 posts
3,994 battles

A49 and A50 were preliminaries for Fusō. I believe Fusō was A64. I don't believe they got beyond the profile sketches, but then again, neither did Myogi...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
68 posts
707 battles

indeed, and the gun layout development also flows nicely from the Kawachi into the Fuso with the A-49 and A-50

 

And I just realised that the "A" design you mentioned is for the preliminary design for the #13 class

wppp-no-jp001a.png

 

And the "Design K" was the design I believe they ultimately chose for construction before it was cancelled 

wppp-no-jp001k.png

 

Though since battlecruisers were typically named after mountains in the prefecture they were constructed, that gives us the options of;

  • Tanzawa (personally I like this the most)
  • Oyama
  • Hakone
  • Ogusu

These being mountains located in the Kanagawa prefecture. The other 3 ships of the class were to be built in the Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Hyogo prefectures so there's a number of options that could be taken to name the A design so I won't even bother listing them. Would like to hear your thoughts for names for these two ships

 


On another note, I would like to hear your opinions on this idea of how torps could be implemented onto this BB line.

Rather then forcing the matter and changing how the Kongo and Amagi currently play, an option could be for an unrequired, alternative hull. So with the Amagi, it would be "Hull C" but you wouldn't need it to get to the tier 9. The benefits would naturally be the addition of torps (2-3 each side depending on tier). The drawback being the loss of AA or secondary guns.

The torps wouldn't be without their own drawbacks either; short range compared to cruisers and destroyers, slow speed and bad firing arcs that would improve as you get to higher tiers (Mutsu to Kii is a prime example of this).

This would be a way to offer the torps in a balanced way while increasing playstyle options for players which would make the line more appealing.

Thoughts?

Edited by DeadArashi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
224
[151ST]
Member
1,008 posts
4,494 battles

Thoroughly agree!

With the amount of BCs already in the IJN BB line, definitely support the 2nd line!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
213 posts
2,629 battles

My favorite name out of the four above is "Hakone" because its a shout-out to racing games old and new, and also Initial D.

 

Just a little heads up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
68 posts
707 battles

Love Initial D so I do get the reference, though I feel the reference would be better suited to a fast cruiser of destroyer. But it's still a possibility

@InterconKW I updated my original thread with what we've discussed. Feel free to let me know if you have any other questions or thoughts regarding it. I'm always happy to accommodate valid points and ideas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
213 posts
2,629 battles
20 minutes ago, DeadArashi said:

Love Initial D so I do get the reference, though I feel the reference would be better suited to a fast cruiser of destroyer. But it's still a possibility

@InterconKW I updated my original thread with what we've discussed. Feel free to let me know if you have any other questions or thoughts regarding it. I'm always happy to accommodate valid points and ideas

Considering destroyers are chiefly named after winds, the only way that would happen is to give the name to a fast heavy cruiser (since the light ones are named after rivers) or a battlecruiser.

 

If possible, I'd like to throw in a T2 battleship at the line just for kicks (Japan has a lot of pre-dreadnoughts, one of them with the exception of Mikasa ought to do)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
68 posts
707 battles
3 minutes ago, TD1 said:

Considering destroyers are chiefly named after winds, the only way that would happen is to give the name to a fast heavy cruiser (since the light ones are named after rivers) or a battlecruiser.

this is true, forgot about that. Had a hurr moment

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
213 posts
2,629 battles

I'll try and do this just for kicks: These are the battleship/battlecruiser ship names, with placeholder names with the A- and B- designs

 

BATTLESHIP LINE

Kawachi-> Mikawa (A-49)-> Noto (A-50)-> Fuso-> Nagato->Tosa->Izumo->Yamato

 

BATTLECRUISER LINE

(Kawachi)->Myogi->Kongo->Haruna->Tekari (B-62)->Amagi->Fuji->Hakone

 

My explanations

-I genuinely do not know where Mikawa and Noto are planned to be constructed at (as of now, these are my personally-assigned names and they are picked randomly) so if anyone is willing to help tell me and I'll search more appropriate names for them.

- Tekari lies in Shizuoka prefecture, just like Amagi (which is for me fitting because they are related designs).

-Fuji is the highest point of Honshu (the whole main island of Japan).

-Hakone is a mountain in Kanagawa, famed for the mountainside-racing in Initial D and Tokyo Xtreme Racer (a childhood memory game for me).

 

 

Edited by TD1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
68 posts
707 battles

I feel that I should clarify something. Owari is a Kii-class and was the actual name of one of the 4 sister ships of the Kii (only Kii and Owari were named while the other two where known as "Number 11" and "Number 12". This is why the "Number 13-class" is called so, it was meant to be part of the same fleet as a capital ship)

But we've changed it up a bit since then. Since the Owari wouldn't bring anything new over the Amagi or Kii at tier 8, the first preliminary design for the Number 13 was used:

GiJFZTV.png

Typically how I see it for naming paper ships or preliminary designs is to look at where they were to be built. Fuso and her sister ship were built in Horishima and Kanagawa prefectures. Since they're related, just do what you did with the Tekari/Amagi

It's the same with the "Design A" and the "Kanagawa"; Kanagawa, Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Hyogo. You've done this well by renaming the Kanagawa to Hakone and I see no issue with this. Fuji is a bit off though since it's not in any of those 4 prefectures

There's a good number to pick from in Kanagawa and Hyogo. Very small number in the other two:

  • Unzen (Nagasaki)
  • Yatate (Nagasaki)
  • Inasa (Nagasaki)
  • Osorakan (Hiroshima)

I just pulled these from wiki. Just hit list everything by prefecture then cntl+f and search for the prefecture that the ship's were to be built. I mean, is there really a right or wrong name for a paper ship as long as it's in the prefecture it was to be built?


 

Also, can we converge this back to the original thread please, personally it's easier for me to only have to monitor one thread to update. Even more so since I can actually edit the OP to reflect the discussion being made so everyone, new and old, knows where the discussions progressed to

 

Edited by DeadArashi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
213 posts
2,629 battles

I feel like you should edit the old thread title with sth like (DO NOT POST HERE, VISIT OTHER THREAD) and edit the first post of the old thread with an edit that links here. 

 

I'm still not sure Owari belongs in the battlecruiser line though. The Kii-class were purpose-built battleships and not battlecruisers, therefore Owari is not IMO a fitting name since Japanese purpose-built battleships were named after old Japanese provinces. That was why I renamed it to Fuji. But since you said Fuji is not in any of the 4 prefectures, I picked a new name for it: Ushiro (Mt. Ushiro in Hyogo prefecture)

So now it goes:

Kawachi->Myogi->Kongo->Haruna-> Tekari->Amagi->Ushiro->Hakone.

 

If A-49 and A-50 were related to Fuso, then I'll just use two names: Aki and Bingo (Kure Naval Arsenal, located in Kure in Hiroshima Pref. is where Fuso was built, and Hiroshima Prefecture itself belonged to two separate provinces, those I named earlier).

Now it goes:

Kawachi->Aki->Bingo->Fuso->Nagato->Tosa->Izumo->Yamato.

 

 

EDIT: Sadly, I do not, as of now, know where Kii and her sisters belong; given their rather unique status as battleships with torpedoes, I'd say premiums are the best bet. 

Had the OP not been very opposed to down-tiering Fuso to T5, I would have gone:

Kawachi->Bingo->Fuso->Ise->Nagato->Tosa->Izumo->Yamato

But since he doesn't like the Fuso down at tier 5, I digress. There's a silver lining to this though: We can include Ise as:

-An up-tiered Fuso-class with buffs to its attributes (e.g reload time, AA, etc etc), which IMO makes sense since Ise-class battleships were buffed Fuso-class battleships). Clone-premiums won't be received well with the crowd though, and I don't think doing what WG did with Ashitaka was a good idea (No, Mutsu doesn't count because the torpedoes give it something unique).

AND/OR

-A truly unique aviation battleship in its 1944 configuration, playing like a battleship with a touch of CV play (my favorite idea was to give it the ability to have spotter AND fighter airborne at the same time, and have plenty of aircraft in reserve a la the canceled Tone-class aviation cruisers to make the premium spotter/fighters, normally treated as wasting credits, a viable option. Of course, I would also rather that we can control the planes manually but I understand that this is a difficult idea and may not see light of day). Of course, this would have to wait for the CV rework to be complete, but IMO this way would be a good way for WG to show off the new CV gameplay, as well as say "We're sorry for removing Tone, here's something to compensate".

Edited by TD1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
68 posts
707 battles

Isn't it weird to close down the original thread in favour of a response thread?? If a moderator could merge the two threads together so everything is in order of date and time posted, that would be the most ideal situation. It should all be one post at this point, not two separate posts and since mine was the original it makes sense to keep that as such.

But anyway, I'm not the one that names the Owari the Owari. It was classed as a Fast Battleship same as the Amagi, based off the Amagi design. Take it up with the Japanese that classed it as such

As for the names, I can get behind those

Edited by DeadArashi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
68 posts
707 battles
27 minutes ago, TD1 said:

-A truly unique aviation battleship in its 1944 configuration, playing like a battleship with a touch of CV play (my favorite idea was to give it the ability to have spotter AND fighter airborne at the same time, and have plenty of aircraft in reserve a la the canceled Tone-class aviation cruisers to make the premium spotter/fighters, normally treated as wasting credits, a viable option. Of course, I would also rather that we can control the planes manually but I understand that this is a difficult idea and may not see light of day). Of course, this would have to wait for the CV rework to be complete, but IMO this way would be a good way for WG to show off the new CV gameplay, as well as say "We're sorry for removing Tone, here's something to compensate".

Fun fact, in the 1970's a design was proposed to refit the Iowa-class battleships into hybrid carriers. Just a little fun fact for you

56ca70b84c8c62545ff4bb790642e393.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
213 posts
2,629 battles

The Japanese never classified the Amagi-class as battleships, traditional dreadnought or fast; they were pure battlecruisers. Kii-class, on the other hand, were fast battleships (and why I argued that they were out of place in the battlecruiser line), they just happened to have battlecruiser (Amagi-class) roots in this case. 

 

EDIT: I meant "unique" in that the Ise were, IIRC, the only battleships to ever be modified this way.

 

 

Edited by TD1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
1,332 posts
8,817 battles
39 minutes ago, DeadArashi said:

Fun fact, in the 1970's a design was proposed to refit the Iowa-class battleships into hybrid carriers. Just a little fun fact for you

56ca70b84c8c62545ff4bb790642e393.png

WG add this plz. :cap_win:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
213 posts
2,629 battles

Extra material, but after I considered the prospect of including pre-dreadnought battleships in the tech tree (Mikasa as the only pre-dreadnought battleship in-game seems a bit like a wasted potential for me). Here is my take on the tech tree proposed by DeadArashi and InterconKW.

 

BATTLESHIP LINE

Asahi->Kawachi->Aki (A-49)->Bingo (A-50)->Fuso->Nagato->Tosa->Izumo->Yamato

BATTLECRUISER LINE

Asahi->Kawachi->Myogi->Kongo->Haruna->Tekari (B-62)->Amagi->Ushiro (Design A Battlecruiser)->Hakone (Design K)

 

-Names in brackets indicate the original names as posted by DeadArashi before I applied Japanese naming nomenclature to them.

-Ships in bold and italic are common to both tech tree branches.

 

NOW FOR THE NAMES I PICKED, AND WHY?

-Asahi was, like Mikasa, built in the 1890s in Britain, surviving all the way to the 1940s (by then a repair ship) before a US sub torpedoed her in 1942. Obviously, she should be in her 1890s-1910s loadout when she was still a pre-dreadnought battleship.

-Tekari is a mountain in Shizuoka Prefecture, which is also where Mount Amagi is. Considering B-62 is a preliminary design of Amagi (and apparently neither I nor DeadArashi knew which prefecture was to lay down this ship, so I have no idea from which prefecture it came from, and the mountain name appropriate for it), I only thought it made sense.

- Ushiro is a mountain in Hyogo Prefecture (DeadArashi had initially given the choice of 4 prefectures to pick a mountain from; Kanagawa, Hiroshima, Nagasaki or Honshu, but I pointed out that Honshu encompasses the whole main island of Japan (the mainland) and he reverted the choices to Hyogo, Kanagawa, Hiroshima, or Nagasaki. I picked a mountain name from Hyogo Prefecture; based on personal RNG, Ushiro was chosen.

-Hakone is a mountain in Kanagawa prefecture, and a childhood memory of mine given my experience in playing Tokyo Xtreme Racer 2 (however bad I was at that game since I was still 7yo or sth). Given that World of Warships has quite a few references to Initial D (Myogi, the "torpedobeats" meme courtesy of Yuro-senpai, and Haruna [even if its only as an ARP ship, Haruna is the real-life equivalent of Initial D's Mt. Akina], to name a few), another one can't possibly hurt.

-Aki and Bingo (A-49 and A-50 respectively) were chosen because Kanagawa prefecture, in which Kure and its IJN Naval Arsenal is located, was where Fuso originated from. Given that the two were premelinary designs of the Fuso, and that Japanese battleships (true battleships, not battlecruisers) took their names from old provinces, I did research and found out that Kanagawa prefecture used to be split between these two provinces. My choice became obvious after that.

 

@DeadArashi Do you plan on taking this to the Suggestions thread?

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
68 posts
707 battles

Thanks @TD1 for taking the time to pick names and to even go to the extent of giving plenty of reasoning behind the name.

I've taken the liberty of of putting together what the entire IJN tech tree could look like with these additions

l9mE06W.png

To answer you question, @TD1, I do plan to take this to the suggestions sub-forum but not until I've got a solid set up that would work well. Admittedly it's looking to be very close to that point so I'm probably going to start preparing the various data and imagery to supply in said post

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
213 posts
2,629 battles

@DeadArashi: Thanks for the compliments. Mind linking the thread in the suggestions sub-forum once you are done with it?

 

As a little tip, Kongo (by the time she sunk) had 122 barrels of Type 96 25mm autocannons (split amongst single, double and triple mounts) and 4x2 127mm/50 Type 3 dual-purpose guns (the same ones you get on Fubuki/Hatsuharu). Haruna only had 108 barrels (again, I dunno the configuration), but had 6x2 127mm/40 Type 89 dual-purpose guns (the near-ubiquitous ones on the higher-tier Japanese battleships/heavy cruisers). This minor difference in AA can be used to differentiate the ships, along with other differences, like in armament (like Haruna having more casemate secondaries historically: 16 as opposed to Kongo's 8. 

And one more thing: Haruna's name is the only one in the tech tree not written in all capital letters lel.


I'm also having minor misgivings about how the community will handle Mikasa no longer being the sole T2 battleship if Asahi made it in-game.

We sorely need more T2 battleships though, it would complete the line and realize untapped potential (Imagine Petroplavosk, Asahi, Mikasa, HMS King Edward VII, USS Kearsarge and other pre-dreadnoughts duking it out in the comfort of T2's protected MM (i.e only seeing up to T3 where there are no CVs yet and their complete lack of AA wouldn't matter), and that's not even counting other nations like Qing-era or Nationalist-era China, Ottoman Empire, Austria-Hungary, and other nations who had pre-dreadnoughts we can put in as premiums.

 

Back on the topic of Japanese battlecruisers and battleships, I'm kinda sad that Ise can't be included in the tech tree. However, seeing that WG is reworking CVs right now, I am optimistic to the hopes of seeing Ise or Hyuga in their aviation battleship configuration as premiums.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
68 posts
707 battles

oh lol, good spot, will edit that. And yer i will, I was going to post comparison stats between each tier ship so people could get an idea in how they would differentiate from each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
305 posts
4,060 battles

You guys discuss this topic quite seriously. although this is just a concept line from @DeadArashi. I really really hope WG will ad them sometimes in the future and doesn't set RU forum as their primary feedback forum for game development so just so they can see your concept and bring the topic to headquarter for further discussions. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
68 posts
707 battles

Well I tend to take tech tree suggestions rather seriously. Personally I just love how much knowledge I can gain from research and discussions and then sharing what I found. Over on the WoT forum I have the title of "Imperium Tech Priest" due to a bit of a reputation I had gained. 

But glad you liked it @mr_glitchy_R

Edited by DeadArashi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
357 posts
3,693 battles

Nice efforts there! But i can only say wg hands are all full! All this while i only been playing US and IJN line so it never hurt to have other option!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×