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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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"
I know I’m just making a silly joke don’t worry X)
I’m sure a lot more battleships are still yet to come as you said, I look forward to playing them too, do you think a 7th Rank would be necessary for those two though?
bismark probably not since its air defences are … lacking to say the least. but the Iowa in its ww2 configuration would prob be 7.0 max 9.0 would be a refit, cause that gets CIWIS and tomahawks and harpoons… 6.0 would probably be good for the bismark just cause of its AA capabilities considering its fate
It will have to increase , sorry to tell you that , might as well make the grind a bit worse but they gonna have to spead it out. As of now 7.0 is super compressed. With 6.0 vehicle getting dunked on for not being good enough. And as for any of the end of the line , I am even expecting them to be rank 9 or even rank 10. Cause by god I do not want them to just dunk on interwar ship
