Find these documents, we must!
1 Like
Now hold on a second, on the pre 1920 fits we have for other ships these same exact documents have been presented and gaijin struck them down as well, citing that they did not believe the ROF was possible and that they would stay as they are for “balance”.
USS Mississippi main gun ROF issue // Gaijin.net // Issues
EG
To that same end, IJN ships in game have their rates of fire tuned to their trials ROFs which is not indicative of the fits of ships we have in game, so why is that allowed then?
This is just another incredible double standard when it comes to the standards.
4 Likes
The US doesn’t really do tests where guns fired at the minimum range possible like how it was done for other nations. The USN in the 1930s were focusing more on the medium and long range aspect of naval combat, so collecting data in a close range brawl was kinda useless to doctrine.
Regardless, even NavWeps leaves disclaimers that the rapid rate of fire seen on most cannons are only possible in zero degrees elevations. Unfortunately it seems that was all that Gaijin needed to slap 24 second reloads on 16" guns.
I just dont get how this is a thing, for ground Gaijin just got sick of the issues RoF was causing so they then based it all on balance rather than historical data. Its just bizarre that us in naval has to do the digging on a clear gameplay issue
1 Like
Even in the best case scenario the Standards, bar the 16" ones, wouldn’t really be competitive against Amagi, her equal is more the North Carolinas imo
I still don’t get what their rationale was behind adding Amagi, its not like Japan was lacking in top tier ships
3 Likes
Thats more or less the entire reason why I bring it up, there are test stand results for USN guns, but thats all they are, test stand results. Gaijin however choses to only allow the USN guns to adhere to their in service ROFs, but at the same time, gaijin chooses to hold every other nation to their theoretical as designed max ROFs, EG the 180mm guns of Russia in game never attained the ROF they have in game, it was only attained on a test stand, and there is documented evidence that has been presented that this is the case, yet, the guns still retain their test stand ROF.
Gaijin either needs to hold all guns to the same measure of ROF or admit that guns of different nations are held to different standards.
2 Likes
If the rate of fire can not be changed, then the approach should be to increase its survivability by as much as it is possible.
Keep it a slow firing fortress… but fortress, nonetheless. Right now, it’s just a slow firing glass castle!
The full load draft would help, but the cherry on top would be fixing shell rooms once and for all.
I’m pretty sure it’s because the ground and naval guys are different. And for some reason I guess they didn’t feel like communicating.
And even if Gaijin’s Naval team wants to make everything fully historical:
Then remove nuclear explosion shell rooms. That would help America even more than an increase in rate of fire because at least then their ships would become the fortresses they are meant to be.
But I’m sure suddenly historical accuracy won’t matter so much then, and shell rooms will remain lethal ad they have all these years “for balance”.
1 Like
Didn’t moderators clarify in another thread that 1924~1925 documents cannot be a source as US Navy modified turrets of standard battleships in 1930s. I think I read that multiple times.
If you guys want battleship explode even with one turret destroyed, go ahead with 1920s scheme(though would be never implemented in those form)
1 Like
Yeah this ship is pure crap, stick with Alaska, only best USA ship for higher tier unfortunately
That’s very disappointing, I was really looking forward to a decent US battleship. And the addition of the Amagi just adds insult to injury. Why Gaijin, why?
I’m no numbers and historical records guy on anything naval related but it is pretty obvious how bad this thing is in battle. You can put a lot of hurt on someone and may I dare say, destroy a ship, but this is under the assumption no one is firing at you for half the battle. Its just that the dispersion of the cannons, terrible angles, 40+ second reload and the forever repairing when targeted make it hard to love anything about this ship. If I’m not using the Alaska , I’ll just use the Arizona here and there.
I wouldn’t invest any time to get to Tennessee unless it is your last ship to research.
1 Like
On a related topic, there’s a passage in Friedman’s “US Battleships” on a “we never did this before, let’s see what happens” test on one of the Idaho-class BB’s (comparable to Tennessee) sometime within a year after the Pearl Harbor attack. The test was to see how fast and sustained rate of broadside firing could be maintained, with the intent to empty the magazines if I remember correctly. The results were interesting. At present I don’t have my copy of this book handy.
You’ll have to wait for at least North Carolina class, but trajectory is problem for 16’’ 45 Mark 6
Well, another implementatiion of 16’’ capital ship to Japan is problematic to other nations, but even Japan who got it is unsatisfactory now. Currently Amagi is just worse Fuso.
You would recommend Fuso over Amagi? Napalmratte said Amagi was the most OP. What about Ise, better or worse than Fuso?
Well Napalmratte… who always J3 with reserve torpedo boat if he didn’t think he could be the best one?
Saying Amagi as the second OP shows how dumb he think of ‘OP’ is.
For Ise, better than Fuso. better shell room layout on No.1 and No.2 turret(though they are dangerous too), and presence of hydroplane makes her essential for lineup, prior to another 16’’ capital ship. She would be only changed with modernized IJN Nagato, who would have hydroplane.
2 Likes
He says so, doesn’t mean he’s right at all. This content creators are like CNN or FOX news, you get only one part of a story.
+1
40 second reload (ace crew) is a bad way to nerf USA.
To be fair the standards are a ‘Pre-WNT’ design and Colorado doesn’t really change this it just swaps the triples for twins. Whereas NoCal is a post-WNT design and includes escalator clause measures and therefore could be expected to compete with WNT designs (though you can’t use that as a rule because the difference between the worst WNT design Lexington and the best G3 is absolutely massive).
But I agree that decompression and rebalance is needed, and also just some balanced additions like thats the hardest task xD…
apparently the hardest thing for naval is keeping it balanced and having parity
1 Like