This is a good change but it needs to apply to all tech trees with more than 2 Rank VI vehicles. Like, why does it apply to Great Britain, which has five vehicles in Rank VI, but not Japan, which also has 5 vehicles in that rank?
If this is really the do-or-die patch for Naval, Gaijin needs to be doing a lot more than this to reduce the grind for players. If you attract new players to the mode with Yamato and Bismarck, you’re going to infuriate them if grinding the entire naval tree is still as unpleasant as it currently is.
They’re closer in role. Historically the successor to Warspite would be the KGV class, and the successor to the Nelson’s would be the Lion class.
Vanguard was intended to be a successor to the R class that was useful but the design would evolve rapidly from the point of its intention. The class would then be designed to complement Hood and fulfill her purpose so Hood could be modernised or retired. Then war broke out and they still intended the class to complement Hood, but in fewer numbers and so that Hood could for certain be modernised (they hoped to get a better protection scheme and 32 knots with new machinery).
Eventually Hood gets sunk, and they pool resources into Vanguard to essentially have her be a replacement for Hood. She is Hoods direct replacement, and the class was the natural successor to the Admiral class.
It wasn’t until way past Vanguard being retired that she was called a Fast Battleship. As you can see in this extract which is quoting ADM1/10141, Design on of 15-inch gun battleship, 1939, Public Records Office, (Vanguards design specification by the Director of Naval construction), though she was acknowledged to be a well armoured Battlecruiser, she was still, fundamentally, a battlecruiser.
There is a newspaper article from the day Vanguard was launched calling her a Battleship, but that was a tabloid assumption as they weren’t provided any information on the type of ship that she was. She was just called a capital ship.
Then there’s the fact that she’s a faster annex to another class, this in UK naming nomenclature is always a battlecruiser. E.G Hood, Invincible, Queen Mary have parent classes of QE, Dreadnaught and Iron Duke classes.
That’s a valid point, originally no, as time went on yes. But the UK had long moved past a battle line ideal as we know it, that’s why they were doing everything they could to increase the fleets speed to a minimum of 28knots (plus the Nelsons), for a tactical battle advantage.
Yes this is exactly like the conversation we had about Amagi not being after Kongou and Mutsu also. I supported the Japanese community then although it failed, so I’d hope they would reciprocate that gesture (now I’ve explained my motives).
Because the UK has 6 vehicles in rank V and 7 in rank IV, Japan only has 5 in these ranks. It used to be that you had to have 6 or all of the vehicles in the rank to progress.
It depends on how the current changes to the naval AI AA play out. If its possible for a WW2 era aircraft to actually make a succesful attack solo, then yes. Later aircraft arent needed
But if its still nearly impossible alone. Then access to some of the early jets between 7.0 and 8.7 would be really useful.
If nothing else being able to bring Canberra over a Lancaster is rather nice
I don’t think your bombs would penetrate, if I was us I’d probably want to take the lancaster and just dome things with the Grand Slam. Nothing has the deck protection required to defeat that.
Since we would be able to empty the upper shell room by loading a lower ammunition capacity; therefore removing the biggest crippling weakness she has.
I REALLY hope they fix this! Otherwise, Iowa will just blow up as easily as every other American ship.
We finally have the chance to get an actually survivable ship here!
I believe your reload would reduce to the level of Littorio as a rebound.
I must admit I didn’t grind the US so I couldn’t guess which option is worse.
Maybe just worth making the shells inert, as you can still reliably detonate US ships down the barbette.
I think Gaijin may have been confused about how many ships were really in the rank due to Barham. 5 +1 event vehicle.
Which could indicate that they know so little about naval that they’re completely unaware as to how many ships are in each tree. I get that naval isn’t a huge money maker but, being that unaware… geez, it is no wonder they keep making such unpopular changes.
Soyuz’s 406 AP shells have twice the TNT equivalent while not losing any penetration, the thing has significantly thicker armor overall and much smaller and lower ammoracks xD
Lleaving aside the non-viability of the ship in general because of logistic and budget reasons (since none of those matter for vehicle implementations, to be fair), I can’t help but to wonder whether those AP shells and their current performance are physically possible at all. That being said, I’m not very knowledgeable of this project, so who knows.
