Pretty sure the B-65 will NOT be in the game. Definiely no he A-150. There’s hardly information on the former, none on the latter
BRs dont make sense,there are huge gaps in every line and that will only incrrase wait times and make lobbies full of vehicles of 2-3classes.
Certain br placements are also bad. Amagi on 7.7 with poor stalingrad? Iowa would wipe both h39 and g3. Nelson lower than vanguard? The grouping idea is good but far fetched atm. The BRs are just bad.
All the 15 has to do is hit an ammo rack, it has the pen to do that and would only take 1 to 2 volleys to achieve it on almost every battle ship in game if it had the accuracy to do so. Dps isn’t going to stop that.
DPS stands more in case of ammo rack as it will has more chance of hitting ammo rack in same time than slower reloading guns. Thats what Scharnhorst doing now isn’t it
My point remains, a single volley or 2 that detonates a ship will still kill faster then death of a thousand cuts.
Is there any point of advantage by big gun if even small gun can kill detonate ship with single volley or 2 and small gun has better DPM?
Which destroyer or cruiser is one hotting hood at Max range (reliably) ?
We are talking about Battleship’s smaller gun and bigger gun as this thread is about battleship. Why are you out of point of this thread?
You said smaller guns and were talking about dps so I made the assumption. Still 11, 12 and 14 inch guns fired at hoods Max range are still going to be in the same situation and fail to reliably kill or even disable hood.
As long as the current implementation standards are not changed, I think it will be fine, but whether or not the B-65 and A-150 will be implemented will depend on how far the paper plan ships are eventually implemented. If there is a race to build a strong paper-plan ship as a competing slot for the Yamato class , it would be unfair not to implement the A-150, and the current information is sufficient to implement it.
Such ships have to appear in Tue, because the tree will look like this nagato 7.3 and then a long long long time, nothing, and yamato on 9.0, it would be absurd if gaijn did that, not to mention that most nations have ships up to 1940, and then nothing, and then a modern destroyer,Believe me, if gaijn doesn’t add these ships, it doesn’t stand a chance with wows or improving the popularity of ships in general, because they will be in even worse shape than they are now, because there will be huge gaps in the tree and a huge imbalance.
No, I am saying that no one knows what A-150 would’ve looked like. At all. You can’t implement a ship if there is no information on it, or any design
It might be useful to take WT Mobile into account for how battleships are going to go here in WT, since the two games share vehicle models as a common resource.
In particular, their HMS King George V(41) is in her 1945 refit and their USS Lexington is* in her CV-2 completed form - in fact, she 's already been shared here to WT:
her armament corresponds to the mid-1941 refit which was her last to retain the 8in guns.
USS Saratoga(CV-3) is also already ingame here, in a late-war refit replacing the 8in w/ dual 5in 's.
*will be, she 's been in the files but is not yet available to play
1 Like
That would definitely have been something to account for, I just don’t have access to the game-files (I play on xbox).
But yes refits will come into it although for the major nations this will primarily just be AA refits.
Sorry but isn’t the one in WT mobile pre 1943 version? There’s still catapult with hydroplane in the middle and boats were on the after superstructure.
The game files name her as '45, and the gun armament corresponds to that time. The provision of aircraft there is similar to that of depth charges - appearently a particular decision based on balancing needs rather than accuracy.
I mean you could compress it, but that would severely impact ships, but then again, Prinz Eugen can see Scharnhorst. But I don’t particularly want to see Yamato in my HMS Vanguard.
Some I felt were too good to go down, but to bad to go up.
You are forgetting that the current maps favour German styles of armour scheme and gun ballistics (high velocity low arc). Also Iowa would be pretty comparable to G3, G3 has same number of (older) guns, but a much thicker belt by 2 inches, as well as thicker deck armour and a similar reload. Like yes Iowa would be better, but not massively so, hence the .4 br difference.
I wouldn’t have even placed any if I didn’t have to. It was mostly just a necessity based on very simple metrics of armour, calibre and reload.
Nelson has bigger guns, but less accurate guns, a worse FCS (Vanguards would be even better than Iowa’s her backup, was Iowa’s primary) and a higher reload and worse armour too. Again Br’s are just approximate though. But this was my thought process when BR’ing the two.
For the UK I think I mostly got it down but America I desperately struggled to find any pattern with, otherwise it would’ve been 2 lines BB and BC.
I based her (very roughly) off Kronshtadt, but with bigger guns (and given the 11’s compete with 15’s…). She could probably have done with going down but as she was a new ship to me, when I looked at her in the tree, it must not have stood out to me. Amagi I see no problem with though. Its only like Hood or Scharnhorst being 7.0. Yes thinner armour, but bigger and more guns.
gun armament can’t corresponds to 1945 if there’s boat in the after superstructure because that’s the point where HMS King George V installed Bofors and additional Pom-pom. It’s the reason why they remove catapult and move boats to where catapult was
File name is typical Gaijin mistakes. Even in PC War Thunder they stated Parizhskaya Kommuna as 1941 version. It’s actually 1943 version as 37 mm 70-K in the masts were installed in 1943.
I mean fair enough, its mostly just a different version of a list of all laid down ships for each nation. But people enjoy visual stimulation. However I am surprised you didn’t include the UK there, the BC line is inarguable and splitting the UK tree on historic notability seemed fitting…
I don’t know if I mentioned it here but I had trouble, the US basically would be 2 lines (BC and BB), but as Gaijin already had 3 I went with it.
This was literally just a way of differentiating the two BB Tree’s the US has. Most US standard battleships are very minor incremental improvements, many included the exact same number of guns and belt armour and armour scheme, with differences like oil vs coal propulsion.
I didn’t even know how to br US ships, their mix of armour vs firepower seems very… skewed. 16 inch guns with a 13.5 inch belt is an interesting choice and I had no idea how to place them as base on calibre they’d be near glass cannons, based on armour they’d be stomping.
I love Gaijin’s idea of splitting those lines into three. Those two nations have way much candidate compared to other nations, and splitting three instead of two makes their tech tree ‘length’ similar to other nations.
By the way, talking about USA takes too much energy than I expected. I’m not sure I’m going to continue this XD.