Yeah, I have thought about something like that. Or even just having waves of AI aircraft spawn in randomly or when a player spawns in just to draw some fire, would be good. Would add some little extra value to SAM ships in the future.
Maybe heavy bombers could do with a 1-2km increase in spawn alt
The Montana-class battleships have detailed designs, and the main gun, Mk. 7, and the secondary gun, Mk. 16, are real. But if they did not exist as weapons specifically for the Montana class battleships, does that mean they cannot be added to the WT?
https://catalog.archives.gov/id/301095586
https://catalog.archives.gov/id/301095588
That is correct, to put it simply:
Ship was not laid down ≠ can’t be suggested
Ship did not have any part made specifically for it = can’t be suggested
When I refer to unique part it is in reference to parts specific to say in this case a Montana class, so a spare 16 inch Mark 7 gun isn’t enough to make suggesting Montana valid, it would require instead that said 16 inch Mark 7 gun to be made specifically with the intention of being fitted to a Montana class.
If you really want to understand how it works, go ask Leroyonly as they are the senior suggestion mod I learned a bit more about the suggestion rules in regards to incomplete vehicles, that is where you will find definitive answers on how it works.
Instead of arguing about whether Gaijin should add project ships, rather than change next update’s name to “Make Red Navy Great Again”. One PR.23 can beat any other country’s top tier battleships. Gajin enjoying see all players suffered by soviet’s vehicles.
And we just like back to 2021, one Pari with 1928 wheelchair ammo can sink a whole team’s battleships. In next updates, which team have more PR.23, that team will win.
Aye, I’d wager that the 5"/54, being that it was specifically designed and built for Montana, would be enough to suggest it. Plus, there are also the auxiliary diesel generators that were built.
Regarding the 16"/50 Mark 7s, Ryan Szimanski, the curator for Battleship New Jersey, claims that NJ’s current 16"/50s are nine of the twelve specifically built for Montana rather than spares. He’s been collecting sources on other items built for Montana that also got passed around.
Well, there is Amagi, as I’ve mentioned before. According to the devs, Amagi is based on the 1919 Preliminary design that was never authorized for construction or laid down. For whatever reason, what we have in-game is not representative of the Amagi class as laid down, and instead is a preliminary design with ahistorical weaponry (which has been bug reported before and denied because the devs reportedly intentionally modeled it on the 1919 Prelim designs).
Is it true that the Mk.7 owned by the battleship New Jersey is part of a gun barrel manufactured for the Montana class?
I would like to see proof if possible.
NJ was not the only use of the barrels as well, 2 of them went on to make the HARP gun program succeed, having two of the barrels fused together it to make it one of longest naval gun ever constructed. The HARP gun at the highwater test range holds the record for the longest naval gun ever constructed, however, that gun also used earlier mark II 16"/50 barrels.
we could just give uss iowa her refit with tomahawks
Fantasy ships will be a nuisance.
Ships feel insignificant already regarding gameplay, map design and the way they are controlled in game.
Being annihilated in an uptier by prototype and paper ships in some of the most famous Ships in history wont feel any more majestic than naval does at the moment.
For planes and tanks the issue is somewhat similar but usually nowhere near as noticeable.
That is PASSED to the dev’s, NOT accepted by them.
all you have to do is fire at the front of the yamato and the whole ship goes up in 1 giant explosion.
yeah, test on Dev server just makes me feel it is not USA or USSR that needs paper ship, but Japan or Great Britain actually.
Unfortunately, they will not under the unique fictitious vehicle clause. The same point was raised that the vast majority of USSR’s naval top tier, like Kronshtadt or Project 69 was complete fiction and a paper navy. However their argument was that the hull was started (Not completed mind you) and that met the minimum criteria. But even though most of Montana’s major components were in fact built, they were common to the Iowa class and so therefore didn’t count because they were not “unique”. All the Naval players thought that justification was thinly veiled handwaving. But there it is: Montana is a hard no.
That P1000 gun depression dead-zone could have its own Zip code 😑
But he makes a good point about balancing Yamato’s armor. Yamato s/b nerfed to guarantee14" pen at 60% of the hull along with a 90 second reload for the 18" armament. They made Colorado and Abrams a joke with a similar argument so why not?
Lmao no. WT Naval is already unrealistic with the range engagements take place. No need to artificially nerf anything.
Why not just nerf Iowa shell pen?
Why not triple iowa pen
Combined broadside is 135-180 kilotons spread in 9 bursts of 15-20 kilotons
imagine how cinematic and beautiful it would be to split a Yamato or Bismarck in half in a blinding white flash that transitions into an orange red fireball rising into a mushroom cloud, with a speaker overloading shockwave for good measure
