Fair point. :)
Why is Fargo grouped with Brooklyn instead of Cleveland? Fargo-class is direct successor and upgrade of the Cleveland-class, therefore Fargo should be grouped with it, not older Brooklyn-class. Other classes of ships follow this principle, such as Chapayev and Sverdlov, or Furutaka and Aoba, even in the American tree heavy cruisers are grouped in a similar way, so why not Cleveland and Fargo?
Suggestion:
Group Cleveland → Fargo and put Brooklyn where Cleveland is now.
8 Likes
While I like the long awaited decompression, USS Alaska slightly getting that bump up will still give it a death sentence. Can we still keep it at 7.0 since it only has 12in guns? It’s not only soft, but the guns is halfway to an actual battleship. The only thing it is good for is speed and rate of fire.
3 Likes
My feedback on france changes:
Mogodor change not deserved i would say, 9 second reload on a very small 10 round ready for 5.0 would be really poor rack when Le Triomphant can manage 12 RPM for 24 round 1st stage.
So Mogodor should stay at 4.7 you trade a lot of the reload for more guns and being more bulky build with less crew and AA than other french 4.7 dds currently.
I would say it should stay especially when u compare it to soon to be US 5.0 dds which are very good.
I agree with Bretagne changes cause its more main gun Lorraine even though no AA.
Strassbourg armor upgrade being worth 0.3 br is ok too.
Duguay being higher than Jeanne d’Arc is acceptable too.
6 Likes
Error detected, Costal instead of Coastal, Although it does line up with my joke of calling those near useless TT’s Cost’all instead which are filled with the old Rank II vessels & bluewater warships at the end of the trees.
The aviation changes are pointless, if you’re controlling your AA defence like Heavy AA or are in a ship with a radar set to guide the cannons most 8.7 aircraft cannot even get close to a Late WWII/ Post War destroyer type (as per many matches in RB custom battles) niche the Impetuoso class destroyer has radar tracking for the 40 mm/60 autocannons, Let alone these late WWII Battleships filled to the brim with dakka ntm cold war ships are increasingly powerful against aircraft already especially those with SAM’s so why make everything 9.3? (absolute fun police).
1 Like
For all the lower br 5 inch DDs other than Impetuso with 4x5 inch thats already going up.
Geniere 4,3 → 4,7 (4x5 inch fast RoF)
Z4 Zerstörer 4,3 → 4,7 (4x5 inch fast RoF)
JDS Yūgure (DD-184) 4,3 → 4,7 (4x5 inch fast RoF)
JDS Harukaze (DD-101) 4,0 → 4,3 (3x5 inch fast RoF)
USS Alywin 4,0-> stay at 4,0 (4x5 inch bu arent as fast firing)
USS Bagley 4,0->4,3 (4x5 inch but half arent as fast firing)
A lot of high RoF 5 inch guns at so low br is too much for conventional DDs
I know that puts some same br as Fletcher but they are more than capable thanks to high damage output potential compared to lower RoF dds even at higher brs. And Impetuso already went up so it makes sense.
Also we have USS Coolbaugh with 2x5 inch at 4.0 in coastal so lets be serious about decompression and move actual DD hulls with double the same guns up. I know some of these are harder to use fully than others etc like frontally Yugure can be lacking but its still fine for me.
6 Likes
4 Likes
Depends at least with yamato currently as it is in the dev if a yamato angles the checks can be a weakspot and the very bad ammo placement is a once shot (well have to see if the ammo gets adjusted but we’ll see)
Specifically*
Error in spreadsheet: Izmail is already 7.0 in NAB and NRB. Move up to 7.3 instead then? (Or perhaps it was intended to be wrote as “7.0 → 6.7” looking at the Rank change, from VI to V?)
Spoiler
Answer, ty:
1 Like
Seeing ships being folderd makes me very happy
4 Likes
No, the 38cm SK C/34, along with Iowa’s Mk7 and Yamato’s Type 94 are the most accurate guns in dev server, much more accurate than Scharnhorst’s 28cm
2 Likes
Scharnhorst 7.0 → 7.7
The Scharnhorst’s turtleback armor makes it nearly impossible to do meaningful damage to it at engagement ranges on most maps, while its high rate of fire gives it more chances to do catastrophic damage to opposing ships. Leaving it at only 7.3 implies that it’s only equal to the Nevada, which while one of the most durable ships is still more vulnerable than the Scharnhorst, on top of having far less effective firepower.
9 Likes
All of these aircraft bar the F-117 and A-4E Early should stay where they are. The threat of an AGM-12 Bullpup or AS-20 Nord against a battleship or battlecruiser is negligible at best, considering their explosive mass and the fact that they do not penetrate armor before detonating. Also consider that we already have (limited) surface to air missiles in the form of the Bravy and a couple of other examples.
The logical solution would be to allow these aircraft in right now, and focus on adding more ships armed with surface to air missiles to all nations, so they have a fleet defense aircraft, functioning somewhat like an SPAA but in naval. For example, Germany, US, and Britain (in the form of Australian Navy vessel) could get a Charles F. Adams class destroyer, armed with the RIM-24 missile.
France could get Bouvet, a modified T 47-class refitted with a RIM-24 launcher on her stern.
Italy could get Impavido, a small destroyer fitted with a RIM-24 launcher.
And those are just some examples with RIM-24, a missile that we already have in game on the USS Douglas.
12 Likes
Now looking at UK changes I agree but would be still nice to make liverpool lower br like the York went down cause it has less turrets. But unfortanetly Liverpool still pretty strong and dont want to bully leander and arethusa too much. So i would accept Belfast and Southampton at 6,0 if they also move up other strong 5,7 cruisers up. Not “”“strong”“” 5,7 cruisers like New Orleans and Zara but the well rounded one u mention.
Thats correct. Its a mistake. Its simply changing rank and remaining at 7.0
3 Likes
why is zheleznyakov still at 6.0 facing bbs with 152mms?
1 Like
Will you be “carefully reading” the feedback like you did when you screwed up arcade naval aiming. You can see all the polls showing it was deeply unpopular (2/3 or more against) and the thousands of comments asking for it to be reverted. I don’t believe you take player feedback into consideration.
9 Likes
When are you fixing the absurd BR requirements for the top rank ships? And the equally absurd unlock requirement for Rank VII ships?
4 Likes
just to be clear, you’re ‘decompressing’ by moving a tonne of destroyers and cruisers further into battleship BRs?
1 Like