Because two guns were built? What about the ship for them to go on? There’s nothing to be called a prototype. Also I understand what the suggestion rules are, but iirc naval ship implementation requires for a ships to have been laid down (this means the keel).
2 Likes
The laying of the keel is generally considered the official beginning of a ships construction, for larger ships it’s often an event milestone that’s noted as being equal to the launching/first floating.
Equipment and armament are important, but until there is a hull to put them on they are not considered as a ships fit merely potential.
The lack of detailed plans does not help either. Ships are complicated beasts, more so than many understand, and armoured behemoths are in desperate need of structural and internal layout details to prevent the inevitable bias calls for/against.
The Kronshtadt is often mentioned in such instances, together with the
Z 46/47 etc. But these were layed down, with photos available,. The ‘Super Yamato’ never got this far and simply doesn’t meet the Devs minimum criteria.
Maybe one day such advanced paper projects will arrive as alternatives get thin, but I believe we are still a few years away.
5 Likes
The laying of the keel is considered enough for a ship suggestion as an partially started ship.
However A-150 fits in our other unfinished vehicle criteria of a unique part of a ship was built. As stated in the suggestion one or two guns were made.
What constitutes an (unfinished) prototype:
- Vehicle was (partially) constructed
- Vehicle-specific parts (i.e. guns, powerplants, etc.) were built
Does the vehicle you intend to suggest meet the criteria above? Fantastic! In that case, you have a more obscure vehicle which at least in some capacity existed in the real world and is therefore a valid vehicle to be suggested.
I do not recall any other plans were made for an 51cm gun.
Therefore the A-150 becomes a valid suggestion to be made
12 Likes
Whether or not any guns manufactured remains a moot point as you can’t have vehicle specific parts without a specific vehicle. The design was not finalised and several options remained at the point the project was scrapped.
Its been discussed at length several times. There was a thread just a few months ago that went through the exact same points.
Honestly, Design A-150 would be neat to see in-game so it does have my tentative +1. However, as others have brought up the lack of detailed records on it could indeed be a serious issue in modeling the ship accurately.
Luckily though there was a stop-gap solution considered by the Japanese NGS (which was still squabbling over building an even bigger A-150) where Yamato and Musashi would be re-gunned with the 51cm twins intended for the A-150s. So that might be an alternative solution to the lack of sources for the A-150s
1 Like
It’s shooting Armourd personal carriers!!! I need it !!!
1 Like
A Moderator already stated that it doesn’t go against their rules. So what you’re saying is redundant. Your arguing that the ship not having a hull shouldn’t be added however going by what the Suggestion moderator said which is the message above yours. States that if even only certain parts of the ship were made this includes just the turrets. Then it is a completely valid suggestion and could be implemented.
1 Like
And as I stated although the guns were built there is no finalised design and so cannot count as vehicle specific.
Plus the guns were also considered for refit to Yamato and Musashi so the idea of them being A150 specific also invalidates the condition.
In fact Yamato class refit ships are more valid according to the rules than the “Super Yamato” as both hull and existed, just neither ship survived to see the idea progress.
1 Like
These are the moderator’s words. They’re saying it does, you a random with 0 authority on what is and what doesn’t count so you have no say.
1 Like
Does the ship itself needing to be laid down still apply? Iirc someone from the development team or one of the community managers said it did (I can’t remember who). There was outrage about the Kronshtadt and someone came out and stated why it was added.
Does this ship only meet the requirements to be suggested rather implemented under current rules, I think this is where people are getting it confused.
(Look up)
I’d rather get clarification, because we’re being told two different things from different entities of Gaijin.
Moderators aren’t God’s, they merely interpret the language of the rules as they see them. Is questioning now forbidden?
If the ship was added it would be necessarily be modelled with purely speculative performance, hull design and armour layout. Even the turret for the gun would have to be a guesstimate based on the 46cm gun equivalent if true figures don’t get dug up. It was obviously based on the A140F6 but wasn’t the same.
The whole result has the potential to be an addition of disastrous proportion. Anything but average in every respect would make the Kronshtadt controversy look boring. Naval is already a mess, this would only make it worse, even more so as the other nations would require counters and that would certainly push the bracket in to paper design territory.
Yamato class genesis – Warship Projects 1900-1950 - the author used original Wartime references and still admits a lot of the A140/150 information is lost and and admits the drawings for the type are ‘speculative’.
1 Like
It’s not the question of questioning, it’s when you start inserting your own statements and acting like that its fact. However, I am wrong in 1 part. Which is what is defined as incomplete.
1 Like
I have been thinking about this one. It fits the rules and your write up is very interesting.
However I don’t think I can support the addition of this one.
Yamato alone would need paper BB’s or almost paper BB’s for many nations such as Montana, Lion 16e-38, Littorio design UP.41 with its’ 16’s, Germany would need H-41 and France doesn’t have an option but should receive the Alsace class. All of that and the only one that is even suggest-able is the Lion because 1 gun was built.
For this ship, particularly with autoloaders there is no counterplay, there is not nerfing it to a manageable level its armour and firepower are too good. Let’s not forget that Yamato was designed to battle several ships at once, limiting her and her successor to 1 per game just puts her onto the playing field she was designed for.
I think that’s all I have to say, it’s already loose on the rules when all other nations are relying on the ‘Paper ships’ mentioned in a devblog long long ago and Japan can already expect the best ship in-game that was actually built.
Still of course a very nice writeup.
I’m more supportive of this ship being in the game rather than not, but obviously, players from other nations will want equivalent ships, like the Montana. That’s fine. That being said, I hope this doesn’t lead to the more crazy ships like the later H-class proposals.
It may be better to have the Yamato ship with the option to swap out the gun turrets, as was once proposed by the Japanese ,IIRC
3 Likes
If this got added, you could definitely expect ships like it to be added such as Montana, K-1000 and some of the larger H-class ships etc.
Yes using the guns are built reasoning, some H-class proposal can definitely be proposed.
K-1000 was a complete hoax, the most you could probably expect for the USSR in that vein is Project 24
Everything up to H-41 could probably be reasonably proposed. Everything after that is either fake or made by an unofficial branch of the Nazi government with no real power to have anything constructed and no parts exist.