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

Test ship Odin - Potential

33 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,677
Member
3,536 posts
7,236 battles

Kid you not the different turret roofs weird me out. But Hipper-class has the same thing. The flatter turret kind of is similar to Italian's 381 mm (it's not)

According to navweaps, these guns were planned, so WG did not just pull this design from their metaphorical aft. The gun name, shell names and many stats match.

They have to put these on Siegfried and try it out. 380 mm guns on a "cruiser" :feelsweirdman:

shot-19_11.14_10_30.24-0380.thumb.jpg.8ed4c3f9c171704b94c9c3ee2f395f38.jpg

 

Also secondary gun superfiring main turret weirds me out a bit. For a German ship at least. Makes this ship look like Alsace and Repub.

Stats show that those triple are Konigsberg's and not Nurnberg's, L A M E

shot-19_11.14_10_30.42-0321.thumb.jpg.a8944d4302802aa82f3e80210394b831.jpg

 

This torpedo launchers and their 'style' of placement reminds me of some other German ship in the game...

I wonder which ship is it? Rhetorical question, do not answer.

shot-19_11.14_10_30.32-0415.thumb.jpg.267431bb5e9c3d322773d61489d08798.jpg

 

This is truly bizarre though. Is this a Teabag BB?

shot-19_11.15_09_04.57-0039.thumb.jpg.f53fbc90de45bc0b89b89505bf8d58be.jpg

 

So I guess this is a legit (aka historical) design, made between Deutschland and Scharnhorst classes.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
420
[LBAS]
Member
2,555 posts
12,379 battles

Funny enough, those triple guns are like Yamato but this is more of a YamaHorstqueror Hybrid.

Edited by BIGCOREMKP0I

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,677
Member
3,536 posts
7,236 battles
14 minutes ago, BIGCOREMKP0I said:

Funny enough, those triple guns are like Yamato but this is more of a YamaHorstqueror Hybrid.

Where/how do see Yama in that design? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
420
[LBAS]
Member
2,555 posts
12,379 battles
3 minutes ago, Paladinum said:

Where/how do see Yama in that design? 

155mm on front and back. but the turrets are triple

 

 

PS: Its gonna be either shipbuilding or Armory Coal.

Edited by BIGCOREMKP0I

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,677
Member
3,536 posts
7,236 battles
Just now, BIGCOREMKP0I said:

155mm on front and back. but the turrets are triple

Oh okay.

I thought your comment was about the main turrets. I guess Yamato has never really been on my mind.

 

Quote

YamaHorstqueror

Explain this? I don't get it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,677
Member
3,536 posts
7,236 battles
4 minutes ago, Paladinum said:

Explain this? I don't get it.

I get the Horst part but the queror? The ship doesn't even have catapult?

Edited by Paladinum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
337
[FORCE]
Member
889 posts
9,976 battles

Looks like a child from an interracial relationship between Scharnhorst & mid tier British BBs (the catapult's position) whose ancestors also made out with an Italian at some point (chopped aft deck).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,677
Member
3,536 posts
7,236 battles
2 minutes ago, Sir_Feather said:

Looks like a child from an interracial relationship between Scharnhorst & mid tier British BBs (the catapult's position) whose ancestors also made out with an Italian at some point (chopped aft deck).

The Teabag style catapult placement is very weird, I can tell you that.

The "chopped aft deck" (and the torpedo launchers) came from Graf Spee/Deutschland-class. So no Italian ancestry here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
746
[AUSNZ]
Beta Tester
1,040 posts
9,250 battles
On 11/15/2019 at 10:31 PM, Paladinum said:

380 mm guns on a "cruiser" :feelsweirdman:

I am at a loss as to how they define a cruiser now.  It seems the main distinction between a cruiser and BB is the lower main belt armour.  That seems like it makes for a very narrow definition of cruiser.

Siegfried is the size of a BB, handles like a BB, has the main gun setup of a BB, has armour like a BB, has the concealment of a BB, except it has a 200mm or so lower main belt.  Everything else is pure BB.

I personally think that most ships that are now 'large cruisers' should be classed as BB's.  They are closer to BB's than cruisers, and they do the job of a BB.  It's a tough one though, because many of these ships do blur the lines between the classes.

The main defining feature of a BB as I see it are the guns.  Anything 11 inches and up should be a BB as far as I am concerned.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
337
[FORCE]
Member
889 posts
9,976 battles
39 minutes ago, Moggytwo said:

The main defining feature of a BB as I see it are the guns.  Anything 11 inches and up should be a BB as far as I am concerned.

I couldn't agree more. Scharnhorst has been dwarfed by these large cruisers. The MM issue amplifies this problem even further.

Edit:

Graf Spee should be exempted from this rule because her armor belt is not that thick to begin with.

Edited by Sir_Feather

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50
[WWS]
Member
128 posts
2,136 battles

I'd accept 203s to 283s are CA guns but 305s?, that's a low tier BB gun. WG should add a separate classification since USS Alaska is classified as Large Cruiser (CB). I just don't know how WG classify cruisers in this game. Heck even Moskva/Stalingrad is just a heavy cruiser and it almost as same size as an RU BBs or any other BBs in general.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
746
[AUSNZ]
Beta Tester
1,040 posts
9,250 battles
17 minutes ago, Sir_Feather said:

Graf Spee should be exempted from this rule because her armor belt is not that thick to begin with.

I think Graf Spee may have started the rot when it came to the 'large cruiser' issue.  They obviously thought "we can't make this ship a BB", so they set it up as cruiser, but that then led to other ships that probably should have been BB's being called cruisers (Kronshtadt, Stalingrad were the first of these), and we've gone from there. 

Graf Spee has enough cruiser attributes to be called a cruiser overall even with the 11" guns.  Kronshtadt, Stalingrad etc should have been set up as BB's though, since they have mainly BB attributes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,677
Member
3,536 posts
7,236 battles

There are so many factors to consider with the battleship - battlecruiser - super cruiser "debate". Looking at gun size alone is a horrible oversimplification. I wish people would stop doing that and look at the protection as well. Holy ****.

I hate the term "battlecruiser" so much, it was created vaguely and each country understood it differently.

Also people should stop using the term completely when talking about a ship after the WNT.

 

Battleship: best firepower, best protection. Best example: Montana-class.

Battlecruiser: as much firepower as BB, but worse protection by a large margin. In-game example: Kongou. The best example is Renown-class as designed. The "speed" thing is irrelevant later on. 

Super cruiser: firepower and protection stand average between a typical CA and a typical BB. Best example: Alaska. Compare to 2 ship classes of the same era: Baltimore and Iowa.

Three DIFFERENT ship types, three DIFFERENT sets of criteria.

 

Hood: battlecruiser when she was completed but fast battleship in the 1930s and onward.
NC/SD/Iowa: between battlecruiser and battleship. But all in all , battleships.
Most RN battlecruisers should be taken as "true"/"pure" battlecruisers, esp. Renown-class as designed.
Most KM battlecruisers are between battlecruisers and battleships.
Scharnhorst-class: "Small-gunned battleship".
Deutschland-class: super cruiser. Graf Spee has 100 mm belt vs the 80 mm on her sister ships.
German O-class: basically a Renown-class of the Kreigsmarine.

The incoming 'Goliath' of the RN CA line is standing between a heavy and a super cruiser. Give the ship 1 inch more armor belt and I'd like WG to push that ship out of the line and into the "super cruiser" pool.

Thankfully Scharnhorst doesn't have 3x3 203 mm or I'd totally push that ship into a T10 cruiser. Or a T7 super cruiser.

 

I'd rather see WG split those "super cruisers" into a new ship type altogether - super/large cruiser, NOT battlecruiser (those should still be BBs). Doing so does good to the MM by not taking a place of a "standard" cruiser.

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,677
Member
3,536 posts
7,236 battles

Making them a different ship type matters because this is a game.

+ MM

+ Gun penetration

+ Plating

+ Tiering

+ Economic stuffs

 

Again, super cruisers are not battlecruisers or battleships.

Edited by Paladinum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
746
[AUSNZ]
Beta Tester
1,040 posts
9,250 battles

I agree that it's not simple.  I don't think having a whole new 'super cruiser' class is a good idea, because there are very limited numbers of viable ships in this category, and to make a new class you need multiple full lines as well as quite a few premium options.  This means you are restricted to either cruiser or BB categories.

So it comes down to which you put them in.  I personally think super cruiser types are closer to BB's than cruisers, and should be mostly put into the BB category.

33 minutes ago, Paladinum said:

Looking at gun size alone is a horrible oversimplification.

We weren't looking at gun size alone.  I said above that the only difference between Siegfried and a BB was the lower main belt armour.  If you took an Iowa and then made the lower main belt 200mm, is that suddenly a cruiser?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,677
Member
3,536 posts
7,236 battles
23 minutes ago, Moggytwo said:

I personally think super cruiser types are closer to BB's than cruisers, and should be mostly put into the BB category.

IRL the line is already blur, but in this game it's even worse.

Tier needs to change, which can create new issues.

Different ship types use different HP formula. Alaska as a BB will have much less HP than as a cruiser. Alaska in-game has 59k HP as a cruiser, but as a BB that would drop well below 50k, approx 46k. Coupled that with the somewhat thin belt.
Alaska has very poor torpedo protection, much like a US cruiser.
Historical AA is too good for a T7 ship, if not flatly OP.
This is hypothetical, but imagine if a T7 BB gets radar.
Ships like Graf Spee, Alaska and Kronstadt used to have 45s fire duration (cruisers have 30s), but right now they are the same as BBs at 60s.

Putting those ships as cruisers allows WG to balance them easier and have more freedom to do things with them.

 

23 minutes ago, Moggytwo said:

I said above that the only difference between Siegfried and a BB was the lower main belt armour.  If you took an Iowa and then made the lower main belt 200mm, is that suddenly a cruiser?

That makes the both battlecruisers, which is still BB in-game.

Edited by Paladinum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
420
[LBAS]
Member
2,555 posts
12,379 battles

Hang, on, her Torpedoes are Armored like from the Graf Spee, note that the torpedo had also had excellent arcs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,677
Member
3,536 posts
7,236 battles
2 minutes ago, BIGCOREMKP0I said:

Hang, on, her Torpedoes are Armored like from the Graf Spee, note that the torpedo had also had excellent arcs.

You notice that now? :fish_palm: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
420
[LBAS]
Member
2,555 posts
12,379 battles
Just now, Paladinum said:

You notice that now? :fish_palm: 

She also had a Camo with the Kriegsmarine Flag paint, Similar to the Last Conquest Bismarck

Edited by BIGCOREMKP0I

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,677
Member
3,536 posts
7,236 battles
Just now, BIGCOREMKP0I said:

She also had a Camo with the Kriegsmarine Flag paint, Similar to the Last Conquest Bismarck

I like that edgy black paint for the turrets and guns. I thought the edgy black cannons on Tirpitz is badaft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
420
[LBAS]
Member
2,555 posts
12,379 battles

And we still have no news for her Cousin Siegfried,

 

Although Siegfried would be available for coal for this month.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,677
Member
3,536 posts
7,236 battles
13 minutes ago, BIGCOREMKP0I said:

Although Siegfried would be available for coal for this month.

What do you mean by 'for this month'?

What do you mean by that whole sentence lol

Edited by Paladinum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,366
[MRI]
Member
2,584 posts
12,675 battles
22 minutes ago, Paladinum said:

What do you mean by 'for this month'?

What do you mean by that whole sentence lol

I have long learnt to just take what he says with a huge grain of salt lol.

He is probably not a native English speaker because the way he writes is extremely weird - what he thinks or what he hopes things will be is written as though it were fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,677
Member
3,536 posts
7,236 battles
6 minutes ago, Thyaliad said:

I have long learnt to just take what he says with a huge grain of salt lol.

He is probably not a native English speaker because the way he writes is extremely weird - what he thinks or what he hopes things will be is written as though it were fact.

I know. What he posts in the "Interesting stuffs from RU server" is usually highly disputable :fish_book: 

Edited by Paladinum

Share this post


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

×