We’re more likely to see Iowa next patch than the F-22. But that’s like saying we’re more likely to see the F-22 in two patches instead of next patch.
By the end of the year or first patch of the year after, for sure.
There’s a very good chance it stays in “passed as a suggestion” hell forever, but at least they didn’t go back with the “not a bug” within a day of accepting it like they did to the poor French. I still have hope/cope
1 Like
They think Mutsu is the ultimate evolution of the Kongo design or something like that. I’m pretty sure their source, if they even use one, was printed in Moscow sometime around 1940 (which is why they’re so wrong) and they view it as the naval equivalent of the Holy Bible.
So its a good luck to anyone in regards to getting anything changed.
1 Like
Tbh , it is not because they think it is the peak evolution , especially talking about a ship that didn’t even see combat. More like about the way they designed the mode as a whole and the way the TT work. Cause with the system of TT we have as of now , that one of the many way to put her there, even if it doesn’t make sense. The dev kinda dig themself a hole when they designed the tech tree that way and the only way out is basically an overhaul of the entire thing. Cause we gonna have anti ship missile and what not , with the current system , it just gonna be after the BBs
That doesn’t work because they could have, and should have, put Mutsu after Fuso as they knew they were going to add Amagi two patches later. They did it entirely because Mutsu has 4 turrets, and Kongo has 4 turrets. And Amagi follows Ise because they both have more than 4 turrets.
That was their implication in the Mutsu devblog.
PLUS, they actually have three lines in the Japanese tree, two “battleship” lines and a dedicated battlecruiser line. They even correctly identified each ship as battleship and battlecruiser respectively. At best they don’t care, at worst they’re being intentionally dense.
Thank God we’re not going to have to worry about missiles for a while. Submarines are likely to plague us this year, but at least one cancer has been delayed for a while.
Tbh, I’m more worried about the ridiculously high drafts the Standards use. Tennessee as a fine example of being questionably vulnerable.
Who knows if this trend contiues in North Carolina and up.
That a can of worm , I can see we ( the naval playerbase) gonna have to open up soon enough. If not the first , then the latter will be opened up
Still I do want them to at least fix the whole thing before adding anything tho. Cause by god the current naval is bad
Aye. We’ve been begging them for any real changes to improve the mode pretty much since it came out.
We’ll be lucky if we even get longer ranged maps to go with our modern battleships.
We really don’t need any changes to the current mode setup beyond QoL stuff like spawning a bit further away from teammates so you can actually turn.
They seem to use the generally very optimistic design water line while setting statcard mass closer to full or even emergency load conditions. However from what plans I’ve seen the design waterline on the fast battleships is generally several feet or more deeper, and I believe there’s more easily accessible information about what draft a ship had at a given displacement, which I’d think would help in reporting.
1 Like
Thankfully.
At least for the US fast BBs they all have ridiculously thick barbette and turret armor. Very important when all their shells are stored there
That will mostly help fighting Scharnhorst, almost any treaty peer will still blow clean through at regular in game ranges. Accounting for the RCA modifier the North Carolina’s barbette will be a touch under 450mm equivalent, while the South Dakota’s would be around 480mm. Certainly significant armor but inside 15km that’s only really good against less capable ships, and won’t stand up to most peer guns. Only exception is likely to be KGV which they might block at around 10km or so.
1 Like
Yep, its my hope that with more bluewater ships being added we’ll get more top tier maps in the 15-20km range.
2 Likes
I’d support larger maps but I think it creates a lot of difficult to solve balance issues. I’m not sure if it would be better or worse than the current system that effectively invalidates most non turtleback armor schemes though. I’d like to see EC type maps and objectives in regular play but I’m also not holding my breath
Sad story, seems like in test server, Rondey’s 16inch gun’s reloading time is 46s :(
cant iowa class get hits somehwat constiently at that range though? bc of radar raneginders and FCS and all that
1 Like
Beyond a certain distance getting a hit comes down mostly to luck due to dispersion, with a larger target to shoot making it easier. Iowas had very good fire control but at 20km it doesn’t matter how good your fcs is, a good salvo is landing one shell on target and you’ll completely miss probably about as often as you score that single hit.
that dosnt imply we will get the Iowa or bismark yet more likely they will add the USS North Carolina IMHO as its a step towards the Iowa in a way
1 Like
I would argue the Bismarck is a famous battleship
didnt say it wasnt but they would be at br 9.0 at least IMHO, so some stuff would need to come before those battleships just to fill the gaps. (yes 9.0 would make sense historically if it was given its vietnam model"