There aren’t prototypes.
The explanation and inclusion of the ships with the keel laid down is IMHO a good decision. I 100% agree that ships are not cars/tanks/planes where building a prototype could be done at a low budget, while laying down a warship means that you have to have pretty much everything ready (or at least that’s how non-Soviet nations did it).
And let’s face it: Italy and France will desperately need laid-down warships to be competitive in the top tier.
Kronshtadt wouldn’t have had its armor belt either.
The 15" version of the Pr.69 design was a variant, yes, but so was the 12"-armed version they went with. Either way, Gaijin’s requirements for ships to be added is as minimal as having anything laid down or a major component manufactured, e.g. a gun.
I think France may even need the paper Alsace class and honestly I wouldn’t have a problem with that.
Gaijin also said in a very old devblog that they would consider adding completed designs.
Issue with Alsace is that France didn’t quite decide which of the three versions they were going with before they had a minor Germanic vacation issue.
Admittedly, this means Gaijin could very well just add three separate Alsaces, but even then, there’d be debate.
France needs Normandy class
Italy needs Francesco Caracciolo class
I could keep going, but these two are most obvious.
It wouldn’t even be a problem if its France as it likely won’t get any bullshit stats.
Yes I know what they need for this moment however quite soon they will be left without options. Their last ships are Littorio which admittedly will be quite good and the Strasbourg which I have less hope for due to the thin belt (although you can just angle her very very well).
But after that France could IMO get the Alsace too.
Italy needs its good ships sooner rather than later so they can enjoy being competitive whilst they still have options to fill those tiers.
I dont agree with that. If gaijin removes unifinished things for sake of begin unfinished and then adds unfinished russian ships its the same from my point of view. No matter if it ships, plane or tank. They should act indiscriminately to the nations. Which yes it is not happending due to bias of moust played nations and thats just wrong.
Ah yes russian ships are the problem but the fact that Italy and Germany both have more unfinished ships in TT isn´t problem right?
Russia has 2 paper ships:
Germany has 3:
Italy has 3:
And just to point out the Etna and bothe Z-46 and Z-47 have fantasy AA which was never in their plans.
I did not say so. I just say if gaijin removes unfinished tanks or planes and then adds new unfinished ones its just broken. In my opinion they should just choose to add prototypes or not. I would not mind any option but do 1 or 2 to all nations but not both and then excuse it due to begin protoype when removing it.
Tanks and planes have completly diffferent requirements then ships and even then the KT105 and in game P2 are much much more fantasy then even the most fantasy ships in game currently. There are some inconsistencies with the tank and plane criteria but they have nothing to do with ships and criteria for them so I have no idea why are you bringing it up in naval section.
It sure does have to do. You either add unfinished things or you dont. There should not be anything between. This way one could just add any paper project and there could be ratte or super yamato or even crazyer things and the game gonna end up like world of warships. So gaijin has to choose and not make exeptions afterwards.
I really don´t understand why it is so hard to understand that:
Ships have different implementation criteria then tanks or planes
So implementing unfinished ships has no influence on tanks or planes, also the criteria are right now set up in a way that Super Yamato (and Ratte is completly out of question) wont fit them since the plans seemingly weren´t finished and the class wasn´t ordered. The absolute streach of the criteria are ships like Montana but we will have to wait if Gaijin decided to implement it or not.
Where can you find those “implementation criteria” If I may ask? As I never heard of those.
Still the ship just is not ever in the water and fighting or even tested no matter if it was unfinished canceled prototype or just paper project. It just did not exist. You cant fight other ships with unfinished hull that wont even float can you? There just should not be exeption to this just for the sake of adding things to be at the same tier if the nation simply did not make it.
In the suggestions tab there is one such example which states that they will accept unfinished prototypes: this constitutes vehicles where a significant component was build such as guns or armour, or engines (see the O Class Battlecruiser suggestion), or vehicles which began construction.
There was a devblog a few years ago which said that they would accept completed ship designs, however this has since been amended to ships which were laid down as well as ships which constitute unfinished prototypes. This includes things like Kronshtadt but also many other ships that can come in the future such as the Amagi and Kii class ships, or the french normandie, or the American Lexington and South Dakota class’, or the British Lion, G3 and Churchill classes.
In the interests of gameplay and also variety, ships which were partially constructed or laid down had designs finished make the cut. So yes things are added because nations did not finish making them. The only nation where its questionable is Russia because they laid down things they could never have finished, but France for instance had its ships screwed by German invasions twice. But in the interest of fairness Russia also gets its ships.
This is wildly off-topic now anyway.
Q. Will there be projects for series H battleships for Germany in the game? They were laid, but were soon dismantled. The battleship Bismarck will not be able to withstand Yamato and Iowa on equal terms. We would like to see the H-39 project.
We consider as possible the addition of similar ships, those that were laid down, but were not completed in reality.
Design of the ships and especially the large capital ships such as BBs is much more complex then that of tanks or planes. And there is nothing like prototype, as is for tanks or planes. So the unfinished ship have enough data and are close enough to the eventual completed ships (even if that never happened) that gaijin can model them accurately enough.
If you want to continue this discussion link my reply into other thread this is off topic here so I wont reply here further.
Because Hood is considerably faster. As horsepower required for more speed increases exponentially, it would require much more power to increase the speed to 30+kn. That means the machinery space has to be considerably longer thus adding up more hull structure weight as well as armour weight. As opposed to many people’s impression, battlecruisers aren’t “smaller” or “lighter” than the contemporary battleship, as they need a shit load of tonnage on their machinery in order to achieve the high speed. For example, Renown is heavier than QEs and Rs too despite being lightly protected and having less firepower. Meanwhile Hood was the first attempt to combine the speed of battlecruiser, the same level of firepower and protection (in fact, better) as contemporary battleships, it’s not going to surprise you that her tonnage went rocket high.
Another fun fact: Hood was the largest warship Britain had ever built until 2017, when the aircraft carrier QE commissioned. A record kept for 97 years.
P.S. A diagram showing required horsepower related to speed for HMS Renown
Thanks for the discussion, here is the latest version of the chart with many additions. Had to extend the layout quite much down. I will later add some numerical information such as tonnage to each ship.
Original resolution image (20mb) can be found here:
https://i.ibb.co/VwbBdTS/Size-chart-3.png
Gorgeous work.
