So after a bit of back and forth discussion with @InterconKW and @TD1. For reading convenience and ease on the eyes I'm going to be breaking this post down into different parts with copious amounts of spoiler tags to keep everything nice and contained. Hopefully this will be final and the only reason I will edit this post is to either clarify things or if there's something that absolutely needs to be changed. What this suggestion is aimed to do is split the dreadnoughts and battlecruisers/fast BBs. I'll also be putting beside each ships stats the same tier BB in the other line based on in-game (top configuration) stats for a comparison. Do note that some ships in the higher tiers (namely Ushiro, Hakone and possibly Tosa) would probably receive a fake "modernisation" to make them perform adequately at those tiers. If you would prefer to respond on Reddit, this post has been linked there:    So without further ado, let's get into it.     Universal to Both Lines   Dreadnoughts Battlecruisers / Fast Battleships     Naming of the Ships A lot of the ships being based on paper designs that were planned but never made it into construction or preliminary designs were never officially named past their project designation. Thanks to @TD1 for not only naming these ships but even giving very solid and logical reasoning behind the names:   Japanese Nomenclature Once again, thanks to @TD1 for this clarification on how Japanese ships are named   Torpedoes in the Water! One of the main reason this has taken me so long to transfer this suggestion over to the "suggestion" subforum is because a lot, if not all, IJN battleships were originally designed to have torpedoes. So the biggest issue faced is; do we follow the rest of the the IJN BBs and remove torps all together? Or do we try to accommodate them into the line somehow. Personally I wanted torpedoes in the battlecruiser/ fast battleship line but good arguments against it have been raised, namely how it would affect the Kongo and Amagi. This is because people like these ships as they are, and I agree. The Kongo and Amagi are two of my favourite tech tree ships in the IJN BB line. But is there a way to keep everyone happy? Allow the purists that like those ships as they are to keep them as such, while also allowing torpedoes onto the line? I believe there is and this is because of the tier 8 Amagi and Kii. The Kii-class fast battleship was based around the Amagi design. When you look at the two ships you can clearly see the similarities; main armament, armor and speed. But there are noticeable differences. The Amagi has torps and far superior AA, but the Amagi has better torpedo protection and secondaries. And that's the drawback of having torps, they take the place of secondaries as your means of self defence against other ships.. Where am I getting with this? Glad you asked. Alternate hulls. It's as simple as that... well, in theory anyway. Basically an optional hull could be added that drops secondary and torpedo protection to gain torpedoes. The upgrade wouldn't be required to get to the next tier. This means that the choice is purely player preference, so people that don't want torps on their BB but rather have stronger secondaries and protection against torps can have just that. Feedback on this particular topic regarding this line is probably the most sought after by my as I feel it's a discussion that can become very opinionated so I do ask that we keep it civil and reasonable. One final point to make is that there are a number of balance factors at play with torps; generally limited to a max range of 6km, the number of torpedoes per broadside is limited based on ship tier and torpedo size and finally, available firing arc of the torpedoes.  Please take these limitations into account when considering if this line of BBs should get the option of torpedoes or not as well as clear justification as to why you hold such opinion. Change Log