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

WoWS Dev Blog's bundle of new news #10 - OH HAI OH

49 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

49
[-CAT-]
Member
140 posts
5,859 battles
8 hours ago, Paladinum said:

 

First of all, Gnei wouldn't really work at T8 with stats alone (unless buffed to an unreasonable extent). Many uptiered ships (premiums) in this game only work with some forms of consumable gimmick. This has always been the case. So I believe Gnei should stay where she is.
Gneisenau is too powerful in terms of protection to be a cruiser. 350 mm belt and turtleback. That's basically madness. But the BBs exist... kinda unfair regardless lol

 

WG announced Siegfried, an (modified) O-class as a T9 cruiser a few weeks ago, soooooo... 
Also O-class fits T7 as BB...

 

I don't think that the large triple turrets can fit in such a thin hull... Maybe the double 406/420 from FdG, but triple is a bit too much.

 

hmmm giving me an idea on your feedback.

If Gnei will be buffed, buff her HP and secondary base range to 7.5 km. Her asset is her speed. Get in, harass, get out, just like a raider.

On the other hand

If Gnei will be staying at T7, then lets remove Ersatz Yorck.
 

T5 Derfflinger

T6 Mackensen

T7 Gneisenau 1944

T8 O Class (Double 380 mm)

T9 O Class (Double 406 and 420 mm)

T10 O Class (Triple 406 and 420 mm)

The O Class has only 3 turret slot so 6 guns minimum and 9 guns maximum. Its ok if she is fat (wide) at T10, at least she can throw 9 shells at her targets. Plus the branch line is intended for speed (30 to 32 knots at least). Germany sacrificed guns to acheive this while Britain sacrificed armor to acheive theirs.

9 guns is also a plus for those who play Clan Battles and T10 Ranked. (Side Note: Half - half on the 12th season of Ranked with T10 ships)
 

8 hours ago, Paladinum said:

Well... Vanguard is not technically a "class". Vanguard was completed improvised. Lion's hull and old Queen E guns. So maybe not... If there is any preliminary design between KGV and Lion, I think that'd be better.
There are also a bunch of post-WW1, pre-Nelson designs that fit into T7 between Queen E and KGV (KGV could easily be the T8 with that super unfair reload, and Hull B could be in-game Monarch).

I agree with you on Vanguard's case. That did not stop WG with P.E. Friedrich and her theoretical upgrade in T6. Besides Lion class has 6 ships planned, 4 were named and 2 were underconstruction. 1 was modified and became HMS Vanguard, the other was scrapped. What if, she was not scrapped. What if Britain continued a 2nd Vanguard with the 2nd incomplete hull and complete her. Initially armed with 380 mm of the QE. Then later upgrade to 381 mm of the Monarch. Higher velocity and increased damage without loosing her main asset, speed and also her weakness, thinn armor. She is fast, she also can upgrade her teeth, but she is also punishable.
 

Your KGV at T8 with upgradeable Monarch guns, I'm half - half on it, as it will loose her identity. Though 381 mm is the intended armament before settleing for 356 mm. (Blame the Washington and London Treaty).
I would like to see a Hull C upgrade for KGV, Monarch and Lion. You loose the float plane, but gain additional AA (I dont have the Duke of York, but I think she has no float plane but have a buffed AA).


Now with your feedback, UK may now have as much as 5 BB Branch at T9 and T10.

G3 (406 and 419 limit)
N3 (457 in dual guns and 4 turret slot. 12 457 mm is overkill)
406 and 419 Lion and Conqueror
457 Lion and Conqueror (British Georgia and Ohio)
406 and 419 Battlecruiser (T9 - 8  Guns, T10 - 12 Guns)

Thanks for your feedback. Appreciate it. 🙂

Edited by S0und_Theif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
406
[151ST]
Member
1,241 posts
5,894 battles

Seriously WG, stop it...

Get it together, there are still (most ships built and/or thorough plans):

- RM DD, CL, BB

- RN CA, BC

- Commonwealth DD, CL

- IJN CL, second CV

- USN second DD, second CV

- A proper evening out of IJN BB line into BC and BB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18
[LYNMF]
Member
478 posts
12,948 battles
38 minutes ago, S4pp3R said:

Seriously WG, stop it...

Get it together, there are still (most ships built and/or thorough plans):

- RM DD, CL, BB

- RN CA, BC

- Commonwealth DD, CL

- IJN CL, second CV

- USN second DD, second CV

- A proper evening out of IJN BB line into BC and BB

why's RM CA's not in your plan?

and you forgot RU CV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,021
Member
2,236 posts
6,176 battles
17 hours ago, S0und_Theif said:

If Gnei will be staying at T7, then lets remove Ersatz Yorck.

I think a better idea would be forcing WG to add that as an alternative Hull C for the existing Gneisenau... Ersatz Yorck is a nice design, and I strongly believe that WG will add that ship in the new line.

 

17 hours ago, S0und_Theif said:

T7 Gneisenau 1944

T8 O Class (Double 380 mm)

T9 O Class (Double 406 and 420 mm)

T10 O Class (Triple 406 and 420 mm)

First of all, Gneisenau has way more displacement (therefore, HP) than any O design, due to thicker armor (and more secondary guns). Since this is a BB line, it's pretty illogical to put a ship with more HP at lower tier.

Second, again, I don't think the hull of O-class can fit in the triple turrets, the barbette will just be too large. Those will not just shave off protection, but also a lot of speed, which you don't want.

I think that O-class and Gnei are alternative of each other, and Gneisenau should instead succeed O, not the other way around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
406
[151ST]
Member
1,241 posts
5,894 battles
2 hours ago, blacknoheart said:

why's RM CA's not in your plan?

and you forgot RU CV

RU CVs - lol...

RM CAs, they basically had 2 classes and both were 4x2 configuration.

Figured WG would probs just make them premiums...

At least with RN CAs there were quite a few varieties, albeit all relatively similar...

Don't get me wrong though, perfectly happy with RM getting a CA line as well, hell I don't even mind RU getting a CV line at some point as long as they kit out other nations first that actually had CVs during the relevant time period...

My issue with RU ship lines isn't that they are paper or even just invented, it's that actual ship lines that were built or mostly built from other nations have been ignored or relegated to lower priority...

Edited by S4pp3R

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,021
Member
2,236 posts
6,176 battles
17 hours ago, S4pp3R said:

RM CAs, they basically had 2 classes and both were 4x2 configuration.

I think he meant 'cruisers' in general, not just 'heavy cruisers'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18
[LYNMF]
Member
478 posts
12,948 battles
5 hours ago, S4pp3R said:

RU CVs - lol...

RM CAs, they basically had 2 classes and both were 4x2 configuration.

Figured WG would probs just make them premiums...

At least with RN CAs there were quite a few varieties, albeit all relatively similar...

Don't get me wrong though, perfectly happy with RM getting a CA line as well, hell I don't even mind RU getting a CV line at some point as long as they kit out other nations first that actually had CVs during the relevant time period...

My issue with RU ship lines isn't that they are paper or even just invented, it's that actual ship lines that were built or mostly built from other nations have been ignored or relegated to lower priority...

being wg they can make full class of RM heavy cruiser. but yeah you're right, real ships is the priority for us fans.

but for wg, they did say paper ships are much easier to do than real built ships.

and I did heard/read/watched somewhere, think it's Drachinifel's drydock, ru made lots of cv design studies and a cv line is actually very possible. not that i want it!! (i don't play cv)

wg "owe" us RM line long ago, so please wg, pretty please

 

2 hours ago, Paladinum said:

I think he meant 'cruisers' in general, not just 'heavy cruisers'

actually, I do mean ca as in heavy cruiser, lol. wanna look at how zara looks like in the game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,021
Member
2,236 posts
6,176 battles
20 hours ago, blacknoheart said:

actually, I do mean ca as in heavy cruiser, lol. wanna look at how zara looks like in the game

I suggest using 'C' or 'CR' to say cruisers in general (super cruisers included)

Battlecruisers are not cruisers.

Edited by Paladinum
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
160 posts
1,554 battles
On 6/19/2019 at 10:16 AM, S4pp3R said:

RU CVs - lol...

RM CAs, they basically had 2 classes and both were 4x2 configuration.

Figured WG would probs just make them premiums...

At least with RN CAs there were quite a few varieties, albeit all relatively similar...

Don't get me wrong though, perfectly happy with RM getting a CA line as well, hell I don't even mind RU getting a CV line at some point as long as they kit out other nations first that actually had CVs during the relevant time period...

My issue with RU ship lines isn't that they are paper or even just invented, it's that actual ship lines that were built or mostly built from other nations have been ignored or relegated to lower priority...

Sorry for digging the thread up. However, as far as I am concerned, besides the 3 classed of CAs actually built for the Regia Marina, Italian shipbuilders have made quite a few numbers of studies and designs for potential foreign customers like Francoist Spain and the USSR, as well as some usable preliminary studies that can be used to fill up the gaps. (For example, Phoenix is a Proto-Omaha, Shchors is a Proto-Chapayev, Friant is a Proto-Duguay-Trouin, Yorck is a preliminary study of Deustchland-class, Podvoisky is a Proto-Leningrad and Seattle is a preliminary design of a 152-mm DP CL for the US Navy.)

Besides a fabled 254-mm armed Super Cruiser linked with the also fabled Mid-1930s Soviet "Cruiser-X" programme, Italian shipbuilders have some heavy cruiser studies for their ideologiacl ally, Francoist Spain, that are generally 203-mm armed ships based on modified hulls of Abruzzi-class. A further development scheme, though I am not clear whether it was completed by the original Italian designers or the Spanish engineers, even boasted a 12-gun broadside with four triple turrents in an AB-XY layout similiar to Zao, Hindenburg and Buffalo (CA-B).

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
408
[PATEN]
Video Contributor, Clantest Coordinator
2,458 posts
11,784 battles

T9 - Iowa 3x3 406mm

T10 - Montana 4x3 406mm

Georgia/Ohio : may I copy your homework?

Iowa/Montana : sure!

a few months later

Georgia/Ohio : TADA!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,021
Member
2,236 posts
6,176 battles
14 hours ago, Project45_Opytny said:

Italian shipbuilders have made quite a few numbers of studies and designs for potential foreign customers

Every major (or vaguely major) power had a bunch of (war)ship designs lying somewhere in their archives. The question is whether WarGambling could dig those up or not.

 

14 hours ago, Project45_Opytny said:

Sorry for digging the thread up.

Sorry for what? I want my threads to gain exposure :Smile_trollface:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
160 posts
1,554 battles
1 hour ago, Paladinum said:

Every major (or vaguely major) power had a bunch of (war)ship designs lying somewhere in their archives. The question is whether WarGambling could dig those up or not.

I remember that someone from The Daily Bounce made a complete Italian cruiser line proposal. I have it merged with some ideas from my discussions elsewhere...

Tier I: Eritrea (Colonial patrol sloop, nothing much to talk about)

Tier II: Nino Bixio (WWI-era scout cruiser)

Tier III: (Looking for a suitable design or one of those reparation cruisers)

Tier IV: Alberto di Giussano (Condottieri-A/B), or another suitable design

Tier V: Raimondo Montecuccoli (Condottieri-C), or Alberto di Giussano (Condottieri-A/B)

Tier VI: Trento, or Raimondo Montecuccoli (Condottieri-C)

Tier VII: Zara

Tier VIII: Zara preliminary (which was abandoned as grossly over the treaty tonnage limit)

Tier IX: One of the heavy cruiser studies done for Francoist Spain

Tier X: The fabled "Super-cruiser" designed for the USSR

Potential premiums include Bolzano (Tier VI) and one of the three sisters of Zara. A similiar debate concerning Capitani Romani-class Flotilla leaders (which "perfectly" blurred the traditional boundry between cruisers and destroyers) like the German Spahkreuzer proposal, however personally speaking I would like to see them rated as high-tier destroyers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,021
Member
2,236 posts
6,176 battles
14 hours ago, Project45_Opytny said:

Tier X: The fabled "Super-cruiser" designed for the USSR

You have the gun size and gun layout?

If it is a "super" cruiser, WarGambling may automatically put that as a T9 premium cruiser... You know, like half a dozen of them that were released so rapidly lately... I believe they want a super cruiser for every nation in the game :Smile_veryhappy:

 

14 hours ago, Project45_Opytny said:

A similiar debate concerning Capitani Romani-class Flotilla leaders (which "perfectly" blurred the traditional boundry between cruisers and destroyers) like the German Spahkreuzer proposal, however personally speaking I would like to see them rated as high-tier destroyers.

I think she would be T10 DD. HP would be about Harugumo's level. But the in-game RoF needs to be buffed a bit...

Edited by Paladinum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,021
Member
2,236 posts
6,176 battles

Back to the thread a bit:

WHERE IS THE NC DESIGN THAT CARRIES THREE QUAD 14-INCH TURRETS ???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
160 posts
1,554 battles
37 minutes ago, Paladinum said:

You have the gun size and gun layout?

Traditional AB-X layout with triple 254-mm main guns, though parameters about the guns have to be "invented" like the 240-mm rifles on Herni IV.

A set of pictures drawn by Mr. Tzoli from European WoWS forums, though his creditablity is a bit dubious.

ansaldo_big_gun_cruiser_design_for_russia_by_tzoli-dbzyz8x.thumb.png.461ca46200a2f42f914780a4fab92f03.png

There exists two sets of specifications about this ship. All Soviet versions.

Var. 1, seems written by TZoli himself:

Dimensions: 241.5 x 28 x 7.45m
Displacement: 22000tons (standard), 26700tons (full load)
Armour: 90mm Deck, 220mm Belt
Engines: Unknown
Speed: 69km/h (37 knots)
Armaments: 
3x3 250mm/55 Main Guns
6x2 130mm/50 Pattern 1936 Guns (B-2LM mounting)
6x2 100mm/50 Minizini Pattern 1928/30 DP-AA Guns
32x 45mm Pattern 1932 AA Guns (I've chosen 8x2,16x1) (single 21-K and twin 41-K mountings)
2x3 533mm Torpedo tubes
4x Seaplanes (Beriev Be-2)

Var. 2, provided by a friend of mine as a more "realistic" alternative:

Dimensions: N/A
Displacement: 22.500tons (standard)
Armour: 80mm Deck, 130mm Belt, 200mm Turrent face, 150mm Barbettes, 150mm Rudder control, 250mm Conning Tower
Engines: 3 geared turbines, 3 shafts, 165000 shaft horsepowers
Speed: 34 knots
Range: 8000 miles/14knots
Armaments: 
3x3 250mm/57 Main Guns
4x2 130mm/50 Pattern 1936 Guns (B-2LM mounting)
4x2 100mm/56 Pattern 1940 DP-AA Guns (B-54 mounting)
24x 37mm 70-K AA Guns (4x 46-K mountings,  4x 66-K mountings)
8x 12.7mm DShK AA Guns (MTU-2 mountings)
2x3 533mm Torpedo tubes
Seaplane facilities available

And about the 356-mm armed NC preliminary ("Mini-Alsace..."), perhaps you need to search in Norman Friedman's US Battleships: An Illustrated Design History. Fortunately someone on another forum has collected some of the illustrations from the PDF version of that book.

23293852f54tri2lt1rsvf.thumb.jpg.024690491e5ac6752e8e244c2eddb6a4.jpg

Edited by Project45_Opytny
Forgotten to complete it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,021
Member
2,236 posts
6,176 battles
13 hours ago, Project45_Opytny said:

triple 254-mm main guns

Awwwww... That's not that "super" it's just... well... just a tad oversized, but workable as tech tree T10.

 

14 hours ago, Project45_Opytny said:

And about the 356-mm armed NC preliminary

 I WANT TO SEE THAT SH*T IN THE GAME!!!

 

13 hours ago, Project45_Opytny said:

("Mini-Alsace...")

3x3 381 Alsace as T8
3x3 406 as T9
And 3x4 406 (Repub hull) as T10 :Smile_trollface:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49
[-CAT-]
Member
140 posts
5,859 battles
On 6/19/2019 at 8:31 AM, Paladinum said:

I think a better idea would be forcing WG to add that as an alternative Hull C for the existing Gneisenau... Ersatz Yorck is a nice design, and I strongly believe that WG will add that ship in the new line.

Or We can do a WOT style tech tree. 2 Tier 7, choose your poison (Ersatz Yorck with Thin Armor vs Gneisenau with 2 guns less), then progress to Tier 8 while researching only 1 of the 2.
 

T10 BC ill leave it blank for now. There are no plans or paper for a "Super O Class" thai I can find. Unless WG has the plans secretly. :Smile_hiding:

 

6 hours ago, Onlinegamer said:

T9 - Iowa 3x3 406mm

T10 - Montana 4x3 406mm

Georgia/Ohio : may I copy your homework?

Iowa/Montana : sure!

a few months later

Georgia/Ohio : TADA!!!

Next thing you will see is 357 version for the Conqueror.
9 x 406 / 419 = Lion
12 x 419 = Conqueror

6 x 457 = "Temeraire"
8 x 457 = Thunderer

Then Japan gets the Super Yamato (A-150). But insted of the 510, they went with the 480 with 6 guns.
Anything 500 is considered as T11. Unless WG implements it to T10, then US and Germany can respond with their 508.
No info with the rest of the nation if they have anything beyond 500.

5 hours ago, Project45_Opytny said:

I remember that someone from The Daily Bounce made a complete Italian cruiser line proposal. I have it merged with some ideas from my discussions elsewhere...

Tier I: Eritrea (Colonial patrol sloop, nothing much to talk about)

Tier II: Nino Bixio (WWI-era scout cruiser)

Tier III: (Looking for a suitable design or one of those reparation cruisers)

Tier IV: Alberto di Giussano (Condottieri-A/B), or another suitable design

Tier V: Raimondo Montecuccoli (Condottieri-C), or Alberto di Giussano (Condottieri-A/B)

Tier VI: Trento, or Raimondo Montecuccoli (Condottieri-C)

Tier VII: Zara

Tier VIII: Zara preliminary (which was abandoned as grossly over the treaty tonnage limit)

Tier IX: One of the heavy cruiser studies done for Francoist Spain

Tier X: The fabled "Super-cruiser" designed for the USSR

Potential premiums include Bolzano (Tier VI) and one of the three sisters of Zara. A similiar debate concerning Capitani Romani-class Flotilla leaders (which "perfectly" blurred the traditional boundry between cruisers and destroyers) like the German Spahkreuzer proposal, however personally speaking I would like to see them rated as high-tier destroyers.

I like the T8 to T10, may i know where you got the source other than TZoli. TZoli's work is great
Your research may complete the missing T8 to T10 Italian Cruiser line. Hence why WG still did not implement the Italian tech tree.

https://forum.worldofwarships.asia/topic/36016-italian-tech-tree-suggestion-incomplete-need-help/
Full Details in the link.

 

IMG_0003.jpg

Edited by S0und_Theif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49
[-CAT-]
Member
140 posts
5,859 battles
4 hours ago, Paladinum said:

3x3 381 Alsace as T8

3x3 406 as T9
And 3x4 406 (Repub hull) as T10 :Smile_trollface:

 

IMG_0004.jpg

Forward Guns Branch (The French way)
T7 Strasbourg
Armament:
    8 × 330 mm (13 in)/50 guns (2 x 4)
    16 × 130 mm(5.1 in)/45 guns (3 x 4 and 2 x 2)
    8 × 37 mm (1.5 in)/50 guns (4 x 2)
    8 × 13.2 mm (0.52 in)/76 Hotchkiss MG (8 x 1)

Armour:    
    Belt:
        Dunkerque: 225 mm
        Strasbourg: 283 mm
    Deck:
        Dunkerque: 115 – 125 mm
        Strasbourg: 127 – 137 mm
    Turrets:
        Dunkerque: 150 – 330 mm
        Strasbourg: 160 – 360 mm
    Conning tower:
        270 mm

Note: Armour shows the difference between Dunkerque and Strasbourg. While both ships will have 26s reload time, only Dunkerque will get the WD40 Armament reload booster, while Strasbourg dose not.
Question: Should Dunkerque move up to T7 along with her sister Strasbourg or stay at T6?


T8 Richelieu

Armament:
    8 × 380 mm (15 in)/45 guns (2 x 4)
    9× 152 mm (6 in)/55 guns (3 x 3)

Note: No change.
Side Note: Richelieu's Hull A is similar to Clemenceau, the 3rd sister of the Richelieu class, where she recieves 2 extra secondary turrets in her sides insted of usual AA armament of 37mm and 13.2mm were placed.


T9 Alsace (N3)

Armament:
    12 × 380 mm (15 in)/45 guns (3 x 4)
    9 × 152 mm (6 in)/55 guns (3 x 3)
    24 × 100 mm (3.9 in)/45 guns (12 x 2)

Note: No change.
Note: The only odd one in the branch as she has rear turret.
Side Note: N3 design was the approved design by France since the 380 mm in quad turret is already a proven gun. N2 design would be 9 x 406 mm and N1 would be 9 x 380 mm.


T10 Liberte

Armament:
    8 x 431 mm (17 in)/50 guns (2 x 4)
    16 x 127 mm (5 in)/54 guns (8 x 2)
    9 x 152 mm (6 in)/55 guns (3 x 3)

Note: Republique has 1 forward and 1 rear turret, Liberte has both turret in front and none in the rear.


Traditional Style Branch
T7 Lyon

Armament:
    16 x 340 mm (13.4 in)/45 guns (4 x 4)
    24 × 130 mm(5.1 in)/45 guns (4 x 4 and 4 x 2)
    40 × 37 mm (1.5 in)/50 guns (20 x 2)
    24 × 13.2 mm (0.52 in)/76 Hotchkiss MG (12 x 2)

Note: No change.
Side Note: there were 2 other designs for Lyon and they can be sold as premium.
    Other Design 1 (Turret Configuration): There was a competing design for Lyon with 2 turrets forward (A, B)and 2 turrets rear (X, Y) (The center turret (C) was moved forward). This means she can fire 8 guns insted of only 4. (source: Journal of United States Artillery, example Tourville)
    Other Design 2 (Armament Size): there were plans to mount Lyon with 8 380 mm guns, but later abandoned due to time constraints.
Personal Opinion: Lyon seems to have a mistake in her design in an engineering stand point. Her funnel is in the front near the bridge tower. Does this mean either the engine is between Turret A and Turret C and have extra long gears to the propeller.
          Or the engine is in the correct position (which is near in the middle) and have created a long shaft funnel to go forward. Which may heat up the magazine room in Turret C and cause catastrophic explosion.
          
          I know im being nit picky on this but it just looks wrong. We can open a discussion this in another topic in the forum.


T8 "Gascogne" type

Armament:
    8 × 380 mm (15 in)/45 guns (2 x 4)
    9× 152 mm (6 in)/55 guns (3 x 3)

Note: She is Gascogne in all manner and configuration but she is not Gascogne. Gascogne is a premium and will find another name for her, but the configuration of the armament replicates Gascogne.


T9 Flandre (N2)

Armament:
    9 × 406 mm (16 in)/?? guns (3 x 3)
    9 × 152 mm (6 in)/55 guns (3 x 3)
    24 × 100 mm (3.9 in)/45 guns (12 x 2)

Note: Flandre is the 4th sister of the Alsace class. France always likes to make fun of the 4th sister as they are different than the other 3. (i.e. Richelieu -> Gascogne, Lyon -> Tourville)
Note: The N2 design arms her with 406 mm (16 in) instead of 380 mm (15 in) in 9 guns.
Note: She will look, feel, smell like Iowa class due to her number of guns and configuration.
Side Note: N3 design was the approved design by France since the 380 mm in quad turret is already a proven gun. N2 design would be 9 x 406 mm and N1 would be 9 x 380mm.


T0 Republique

Armament:
    8 x 431 mm (17 in)/50 guns (2 x 4)
    16 x 127 mm (5 in)/54 guns (8 x 2)
    9 x 152 mm (6 in)/55 guns (3 x 3)

Note: No change.

 

Full details


Yes, my DD tech tree is one tier off. It was before they release their DD line for Public Test.

Edited by S0und_Theif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,021
Member
2,236 posts
6,176 battles
17 hours ago, S0und_Theif said:

Question: Should Dunkerque move up to T7 along with her sister Strasbourg or stay at T6?

If she's a tech tree she can be a tier higher than her premium sister (like Ashitaka - Amagi or Edinburgh - Belfast). And she should get MBRB, same as Jean Bart and Bourgogne, who have tech tree sisters in lower tiers.

 

The thing about Alsace 3x3 381 and 406 is that they are too "standard" for BBs. Roma, Monarch, NC, Iowa, etc. But if they get MBRB... :Smile_trollface:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
406
[151ST]
Member
1,241 posts
5,894 battles
16 hours ago, Project45_Opytny said:

Sorry for digging the thread up. However, as far as I am concerned, besides the 3 classed of CAs actually built for the Regia Marina, Italian shipbuilders have made quite a few numbers of studies and designs for potential foreign customers like Francoist Spain and the USSR, as well as some usable preliminary studies that can be used to fill up the gaps. (For example, Phoenix is a Proto-Omaha, Shchors is a Proto-Chapayev, Friant is a Proto-Duguay-Trouin, Yorck is a preliminary study of Deustchland-class, Podvoisky is a Proto-Leningrad and Seattle is a preliminary design of a 152-mm DP CL for the US Navy.)

Besides a fabled 254-mm armed Super Cruiser linked with the also fabled Mid-1930s Soviet "Cruiser-X" programme, Italian shipbuilders have some heavy cruiser studies for their ideologiacl ally, Francoist Spain, that are generally 203-mm armed ships based on modified hulls of Abruzzi-class. A further development scheme, though I am not clear whether it was completed by the original Italian designers or the Spanish engineers, even boasted a 12-gun broadside with four triple turrents in an AB-XY layout similiar to Zao, Hindenburg and Buffalo (CA-B).

Thanks for the info!

Right then I expect an RM CA line as well! Haha

I knew the Italians were pretty heavy on their Navy outside of the ships they built for themselves but I'll be honest, my knowledge of theoretical ship designs outside of IJN is limited.

I do have a fair to decent knowledge on ships that were actually built by most major navies though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,021
Member
2,236 posts
6,176 battles

So... uhm... Anyone down for Pan-EU tech tree? They do have many unique, native designs.

Like >>this<< for T10 :Smile_trollface: 

 

Edited by Paladinum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49
[-CAT-]
Member
140 posts
5,859 battles
4 hours ago, Paladinum said:

So... uhm... Anyone down for Pan-EU tech tree? They do have many unique, native designs.

Like >>this<< for T10 :Smile_trollface: 

 

Full details here :Smile_Default:

Pan-America and Commonwealth of Nations are near eachother in the suggestion tab. It is understood that not all ships will be implemented or agreed by the community and WG. But I tried my best to get info with limited resource.

:Smile_Default:

Totaling of 11 Factions. 7 Countries and 4 Group of Nations.

Can WOWS tech tree do a WOT style tech tree? i.e. 2 to 3 ships in 1 tier and then merge again in the next tier without researching all 3?

Edited by S0und_Theif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,021
Member
2,236 posts
6,176 battles
1 hour ago, S0und_Theif said:

Full details here :Smile_Default:

I'm glad that we agree on the Östergötland as the T10 :Smile_veryhappy:  (Hälsingland was a member of that class)

I put the modified Halland (Columbian 7 de Agosto) at the T10 of the Pan-Amer DD line. That is an Östergötland with THREE dual 120 mm turrets (OP please nerf!)

Also I want to limit the appearances of many ships that already appeared in the game, aka 'clones', for example, Fletcher, Gearing, Cleveland, etc. that the US gave/sold to other navies. As many unique designs as possible! Get them coming!

 

Anyway, I only do speculative tech trees because this is a good thinking excercise. I just put the ships I want to see in game in my speculative tech tree lines and try to find a logical way to put them in tech trees.

Regardless, keep up the good work. 100% will add some of your suggestions into my own lines!

Edited by Paladinum
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49
[-CAT-]
Member
140 posts
5,859 battles
21 minutes ago, Paladinum said:

I'm glad that we agree on the Östergötland as the T10 :Smile_veryhappy:  (Hälsingland was a member of that class)

I put the modified Halland (Columbian 7 de Agosto) at the T10 of the Pan-Amer DD line. That is an Östergötland with THREE dual 120 mm turrets (OP please nerf!)

Also I want to limit the appearances of many ships that already appeared in the game, aka 'clones', for example, Fletcher, Gearing, Cleveland, etc. that the US gave/sold to other navies. As many unique designs as possible! Get them coming!

 

Anyway, I only do speculative tech trees because this is a good thinking excercise. I just put the ships I want to see in game in my speculative tech tree lines and try to find a logical way to put them in tech trees.

Regardless, keep up the good work. 100% will add some of your suggestions into my own lines!

:Smile_great: Thank you very much.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×