Wrong and Missing Ships: How to correct them ALL

[twillie96]

The devs went with 60 hangar capacity (at least at the current beta version). The question is: is that good enough or do we need to suggest something different?

we’ll add that to the guide on Tuesday (before the next DD)

Other issues:

• M-Class sub: we’ll propose to add them as a midget sub OR (alternatively) T1 hull sub.
• British midget subs: unlocked with the Secret Weapons focus

Please just let them go with 60. As it stands now, 40 with deck armor is a terrible design and I rather get a good design from the focus than an ever so slighly more historical one.

 

[Ketchup & friends]

I would tend to go with 40 because, of the 51 planned, 10 would be in an above deck hanger, 41 would be below decks but 15 of them would be suspended from the deck head. Since they don't count the 'spares' on most of the other large carriers in game, I would count the 15 either.

Please just let them go with 60. As it stands now, 40 with deck armor is a terrible design and I rather get a good design from the focus than an ever so slighly more historical one.

Thank you for the input, we've decided to propose the change (take a note on the guide update). While this would make the RN Aquila somewhat weaker then the 60 planes, the other proposals feature buffs (like upgrading their hulls or modules form T1 to T2) for many Italian Cruiser and Destroyer classes (and nerfs to a few others).

If the devs implement them as well, then Making the focus-spawned CV slightly weaker (and a player might rebuild it later) seems acceptable for the sake of historical accuracy.

 

[Axe99]

I would tend to go with 40 because, of the 51 planned, 10 would be in an above deck hanger, 41 would be below decks but 15 of them would be suspended from the deck head. Since they don't count the 'spares' on most of the other large carriers in game, I would count the 15 either.

While this is true, these aircraft did not have folding wings - so the space they took up was more than the many of the comparable aircraft figures for US/UK/Japanese carriers. Once folding wings are available, the deck park (it wasn't an above deck hangar, there was only one hangar and then the flight deck) and the hangar would have been able to hold significantly more aircraft. It's a bit like the situation where Hermes or Eagle, when operating non-folding-wing Sea Hurricanes, had significantly less air wing capacity than "marked on the tin".

Thank you for the input, we've decided to propose the change (take a note on the guide update). While this would make the RN Aquila somewhat weaker then the 60 planes, the other proposals feature buffs (like upgrading their hulls or modules form T1 to T2) for many Italian Cruiser and Destroyer classes (and nerfs to a few others).

If the devs implement them as well, then Making the focus-spawned CV slightly weaker (and a player might rebuild it later) seems acceptable for the sake of historical accuracy.

I still (respectfully ) disagree with the deck armour being historically plausible. If you're wedded to 40 aircraft, then I'd just remove the module entirely, rather than make the ship historically implausibly more expensive. The armour that was there compared poorly with conventional carriers that didn't have deck armour, let alone with British or Japanese armoured carrier designs. Bear in mind that World of Warships, while enjoyable and often quite good when it comes to attention-to-detail, is hardly an authoritative source on historical warship design.

 

[Znail]

While this is true, these aircraft did not have folding wings - so the space they took up was more than the many of the comparable aircraft figures for US/UK/Japanese carriers. Once folding wings are available, the deck park (it wasn't an above deck hangar, there was only one hangar and then the flight deck) and the hangar would have been able to hold significantly more aircraft. It's a bit like the situation where Hermes or Eagle, when operating non-folding-wing Sea Hurricanes, had significantly less air wing capacity than "marked on the tin".



I still (respectfully ) disagree with the deck armour being historically plausible. If you're wedded to 40 aircraft, then I'd just remove the module entirely, rather than make the ship historically implausibly more expensive. The armour that was there compared poorly with conventional carriers that didn't have deck armour, let alone with British or Japanese armoured carrier designs. Bear in mind that World of Warships, while enjoyable and often quite good when it comes to attention-to-detail, is hardly an authoritative source on historical warship design.

I agree, it's fine to have 40 planes, but no reason to add a module just to fill up when it does not make sense.

 

[xtfoster]

While this is true, these aircraft did not have folding wings - so the space they took up was more than the many of the comparable aircraft figures for US/UK/Japanese carriers. Once folding wings are available, the deck park (it wasn't an above deck hangar, there was only one hangar and then the flight deck) and the hangar would have been able to hold significantly more aircraft. It's a bit like the situation where Hermes or Eagle, when operating non-folding-wing Sea Hurricanes, had significantly less air wing capacity than "marked on the tin".

Agreed. The article that I read (and mis-remembered the topside deck park to be a deck hangar) also said that if the proposed folding-wing version of the Re.2001 OR II had been built the capacity would have gone up by 15 (to 51+15)

I still (respectfully ) disagree with the deck armour being historically plausible. If you're wedded to 40 aircraft, then I'd just remove the module entirely, rather than make the ship historically implausibly more expensive. The armour that was there compared poorly with conventional carriers that didn't have deck armour, let alone with British or Japanese armoured carrier designs. Bear in mind that World of Warships, while enjoyable and often quite good when it comes to attention-to-detail, is hardly an authoritative source on historical warship design.

I also agree with this. Just because the slot is available doesn't mean a historical design should fill it simply for the sake of filling it.

 

[Ketchup & friends]

OK, fixed that.

- Aquila Class CV: remove 1 deck space module (leaving 2)

 

[Caeric]

I'll have to disagree with that for the reasons stated before. Axe99 pointing out that the aircraft lacked folding wings thus reducing the theoretical carrying capacity just adds further fuel to that argument.

Like I said before, this is a likely 70d focus that you will have to build yourself to boot. Not just a free design in your starting construction.

 

[Ketchup & friends]

Like I said before, this is a likely 70d focus that you will have to build yourself to boot. Not just a free design in your starting construction.

That can be balanced by increasing the construction percentage and/or decreasing the focus time.

 

[Caeric]

That can be balanced by increasing the construction percentage and/or decreasing the focus time.

Firstly, since when has ever a focus that put a ship class directly into production been <70d combined with presumably straight up giving you 1936 carrier tech?
Edit: Since when does the focus cost have any impact on wanting to spend the NIC on a ship design as opposed to cancelling it and making a better "Mk II"?

Secondly, I doubt adding construction progress makes all that much sense given that she was only started in '41 and never completed despite being worked on for two years.

Thirdly, fixed-wing aircraft means her theoretical hangar capacity could already be higher as soon as that issue got resolved. Even estimates based on the folding-wing Reggianne state her capacity could theoretically reach 66 planes in her hangar which is even plain to read in her wikipage. Just being able to fold away some of the 11m wingspan of the Re.2001 should free up a fair bit if space.

Even by the lower 51 estimate she is closer to Ark Royal in capacity (de facto). Upper bring her closer to Hiryuu. Both are still well above 40

 

[xtfoster]

I think that what it comes down to is that, as designed, the Aquila should not be the equal of the Yorktown (80+), Ark Royal (72 as designed, 60 in practice), or Soryu (63+) which are the in-game analogs they would be compared against. Even with the folding-wing version of the Re.2001 the Aquila was projected at 51 plus 15 hanging from the overhead. But if the Aquila given by the Focus is at 3*20=60 it would be equivalent to them.

 

[Caeric]

I think that what it comes down to is that, as designed, the Aquila should not be the equal of the Yorktown (80+), Ark Royal (72 as designed, 60 in practice), or Soryu (63+) which are the in-game analogs they would be compared against. Even with the folding-wing version of the Re.2001 the Aquila was projected at 51 plus 15 hanging from the overhead. But if the Aquila given by the Focus is at 3*20=60 it would be equivalent to them.

Still doesn't address the first two gameplay related points.

If you get a kinda crap carrier from a naval focus why would anybody even build her?

Might as well remove her design entirely at that point since the only people who won't just remove her and design an actually good carrier are the select few roleplayers. Then you'd be better off just getting the technology and an empty 1936 hull to customise yourself.

The only purpose of Aquila at that point is saving a handful of naval xp of which you already got +15 from the focus.

Either case, my point is she'd likely become just a speed bump in cost for designing a better CV.

 

[Axe99]

I think that what it comes down to is that, as designed, the Aquila should not be the equal of the Yorktown (80+), Ark Royal (72 as designed, 60 in practice), or Soryu (63+) which are the in-game analogs they would be compared against. Even with the folding-wing version of the Re.2001 the Aquila was projected at 51 plus 15 hanging from the overhead. But if the Aquila given by the Focus is at 3*20=60 it would be equivalent to them.

Aircraft carrier capacity is a tricky one to sort out - and historical numbers can be misleading. For example, in my notes I have three air wing figures for Yorktown during WW2, 31 Dec 1941 (69), Coral Sea (71) and Midway (76, plus three spares stowed overhead) - although I sadly don't have the hangar space (and it's a bit late for me to hit the bookshelf). Ark Royal, on the other hand, often carried significantly fewer than 60, due to the FAA getting short shrift when it came to aircraft acquisition, despite having a hangar floor area about twice the size of the Lexington (70 and 75 air wing size in the two entries in my notes) which had a hangar floor area, at least according to my notes (the figure is from Jordan's Warships after Washington) similar in size to the Aquila - although the Lexington had 50m more of flight deck to play with when it came to the deck park. Another important thing when looking at Ark Royal's air group is that it was prior to the use of a deck park, and so not really comparable (in terms of "total effective capacity" to figures used with a deck park (which is every US carrier).

It gets even more complicated when adding in the capacity to store munitions - despite having a smaller designed air complement (and a substantially larger hangar, although 44m shorter flight deck) Ark Royal only carried about 12% less fuel than Lexington (sadly, I don't have a figure for Aquila), and the ability to carry fuel and munitions (again, I don't have a figure for Aquila) for the aircraft (to enable repeat sorties) is also important - although doctrine and capacity for resupply also comes into play here as well.

Given that Aquila is actually a bigger ship than the Yorktowns (although certainly less optimised for aircraft operations), and everything else that's been discussed, I still think it's plausible (noting that this is a very "wet finger in the air" guess - I haven't gone through the plans or anything like that) that, with some practice operating aircraft from a ship, she could have operated 60. By way of how these things could improve, the UK Illustrious class started operating air groups in the mid-30s, but by 1944 at times operated air wings of 57 (flying Corsairs and Barracudas) - and that's with half the fuel capacity of Ark Royal. Part of this was shifting to using a deck park, but I expect experience and optimisation played a part. In this context, I'm a bit reluctant to suggest a max air wing of 40 for a 27,800 ton ship (normal displacement) with the (admittedly small) hangar size of Lexington - but, as I've said before, there's a case to be made in both directions. I just thought I'd throw some more numbers in the mix for discussion

 

[Ketchup & friends]

Firstly, since when has ever a focus that put a ship class directly into production been <70d combined with presumably straight up giving you 1936 carrier tech?
Edit: Since when does the focus cost have any impact on wanting to spend the NIC on a ship design as opposed to cancelling it and making a better "Mk II"?

As we don't know what exactly the focus will do, the discussion is pointless until BBA releases.

If you get a kinda crap carrier from a naval focus why would anybody even build her?

the focus should provide some other features (e.g. Carrier tech research)

Some other foci need adjustments anyway. Here are all currently proposed changes to ships spawned by a focus or decision:

UK:

Ships created by a Focus:

Secret Weapons:
(OR, some other focus)
- should (in addition to current effects) unlock the Midget sub hull (allowing ENG to build X-class subs)

Vaguard:

- Vanguard class BB: Downgrade Hull to tier III replace one main battery III with AA III. Downgrade the other two main battery III modules to main battery II. Downgrade engine IV to engine II.

- increase the Naval XP slightly (to 30 or 35 to keep it balanced)

Italy:

Special events:

- Sending aid to Nationalist Spain should transfer the Aquila/Poerio DD and Archimede class SS (similar to the transfer of cruisers from UK to NZ via focus)

Germany:

Focus changes:
- U-Boat Effort: Add new effect: Add technology: Midget Submarines

Soviets:

Ships created by a Focus:

- Hipper-Class Cruiser: - upgrade cruiser engine tier I to cruiser engine tier II - add secondary armament tier I in default (yet empty) slot - upgrade AA tier I (default slot) to AA tier II - replace second AA tier I with secondary armament tier I - upgrade torpedo module I to torpedo module tier II. Change name to Admiral-Hipper-Class.

- Project 71-Class CV: - upgrade engine I to engine II - change the name of the spawned ship from Siberia to Sibir. Possibly: Change name to Sibir-Class.

Dutch:

Change Focus The Battlecruiser Plan:

- Design 1047 BC: Change armour to BC armour (still Tier I)

Greek:

Ships spawned by decisions:

- Mississippi class BB: change hull to pre-dreadnought, remove 1x heavy battery II, downgrade battleship armor from Tier II to Tier I. Add RHS prefix to both ships.

- Salamis Class BB: change the armour module to Battlecruiser armor II. Add RHS prefix.

Poland:

Change Focus tree Study British Ship Designs:
In addition to current effects, it should:

- Create the Grom class DD design (including changes as suggested above)
- Spawn 2 Grom class DD:

• ORP Grom
• ORP Blyskawica

Italy and Manchukuo:

The new Cooperation Programs focus will solve this issue:

Spoiler: Italian Ships sold to Sweden in 1940

Italy:
- The ships sold to Sweden in 1940 (Destroyers Bettino Ricasoli, Giovanni Nicotera, Astore and Spica) are already missing in the Italian OOB. (They are not in the Swedish navy, neither as existing nor on the queue.) Should be still in the Italian navy (and the Spica and Astore should be Spica-class as suggested, definitely not Maestrale class).

either

Option A:

Add these ships to Italian OOB:

2x Sella-class

- RCT Bettino Ricasoli

- RCT Giovanni Nicotera

2x Spica-class:

- RCT Astore

- RCT Spica

Option B:

Give Sweden 2 new classes:

- Psilander class DD: light ship hull I. Modules: engine I. fire control. light battery I. AA I. torpedo I. minelaying rails. depth charges.

- Romulus class DD: light ship hull I. Modules: engine I. fire control. light battery I. AA II. torpedo I. minelaying rails. depth charge


Add these ships to the Swedish construction Queue:

2x Psilander-class (same as Italian Sella-class):

- HMS Psilander

- HMS Puke

2x Romulus-class (same as Italian Spica-class):

- HMS Romulus

- HMS Remus

But needs further fixes:
- Italian ship classes should be adjusted according to the proposal above (Curtatoni class to Sella class and Maestrale class to Spica class class)
- the 4 trasferred ships need to be added to the Italian OOB in 1936 scenario (see entry for Italy above)

Japan to Manchukuo ship transfer:
Collaboration With the Japanese focus:
- Should have an effect similar to the upcoming Italian Cooperation Programs focus: give Japan an event allowing to transfer a Destroyer (Kashi if possible) to Manchukuo

Given that Aquila is actually a bigger ship than the Yorktowns (although certainly less optimised for aircraft operations), and everything else that's been discussed, I still think it's plausible (noting that this is a very "wet finger in the air" guess - I haven't gone through the plans or anything like that) that, with some practice operating aircraft from a ship, she could have operated 60.

Leaving a slot open would allow a player to upgrade her installing a third module.

 

[Caeric]

As we don't know what exactly the focus will do, the discussion is pointless until BBA releases.


the focus should provide some other features (e.g. Carrier tech research)

I mean the current WIP effect is listed in the dev diary, though apparently I admittedly missed the single tech boost it included.

Still the discussion is about the merit of completing the provided ship, not the value of the focus itself in the case you remove 1 deck module as opposed to cancelling it and modifying it.

Since frankly unless it comes with significant progress you might as well cancel it and build an actually good carrier. As why would anybody not hardcore roleplaying not just cancel it and make an Aquila Mk II in that case?

And don't give me the bollocks about upgrading, the refit cost combined with the construction cost will be much higher than just straight up cancelling her and adding the module right from the get-go.

But if you don't want to continue the discussion, we can drop it for later.

 

[Kaosium]

What a fantastic project!

I've an addition, as esoteric as it may be, that I did not see listed. Is it possible to give Surcouf its eight inch guns? It got its floatplane, but the most ridiculous warship ever built is incomplete without the big guns. The cost should probably be upped a tad too, it wasn't really a submarine. It was more along the lines of a very slow light cruiser which had heavy cruiser guns and could submerge.

 

[Caeric]

What a fantastic project!

I've an addition, as esoteric as it may be, that I did not see listed. Is it possible to give Surcouf its eight inch guns? It got its floatplane, but the most ridiculous warship ever built is incomplete without the big guns. The cost should probably be upped a tad too, it wasn't really a submarine. It was more along the lines of a very slow light cruiser which had heavy cruiser guns and could submerge.

I'd probably argue that the Brittish M-class submarine with a 12-inch gun is even sillier.

 

[Kaosium]

I'd probably argue that the Brittish M-class submarine with a 12-inch gun is even sillier.

Heh, I'd read the British experimented with 'cruiser submarines' as well, but did they ever actually build one and put it into service? I think the Japanese did too for a while though I don't know if they ever actually commissioned one.

 

[Axe99]

Leaving a slot open would allow a player to upgrade her installing a third module.

Leaving a slot open would allow a player to upgrade her installing a third module.

Given the size of the hull, and the cost involve, I actually don't see this (again, noting I haven't gone all naval architect) as particularly implausible - there would be a naval xp, IC and time cost involved, it's not as if it's free. As Caeric mentions - a player can quickly cancel the production, change the template to replace the armour with a module and start again with no trouble at all. Imo it's a lot more implausible to give it a heap of expensive armour it didn't have - but it's also a game where the ship designs are pretty abstract, so I'm not going to die on a hill over it Unless a new issue is raised that I've got something new to add, I won't keep rambling on.

What a fantastic project!

I've an addition, as esoteric as it may be, that I did not see listed. Is it possible to give Surcouf its eight inch guns? It got its floatplane, but the most ridiculous warship ever built is incomplete without the big guns. The cost should probably be upped a tad too, it wasn't really a submarine. It was more along the lines of a very slow light cruiser which had heavy cruiser guns and could submerge.

Unfortunately (afaik) the game mechanics don't allow for submarines to use guns against ships (or vice-versa), so beyond cosmetic reasons, I don't think there's a lot of point, and while flavour is nice, it could confuse players who might expect the module to do something. Mechanical changes to enable this down the track would, at least to me, be very welcome

Heh, I'd read the British experimented with 'cruiser submarines' as well, but did they ever actually build one and put it into service? I think the Japanese did too for a while though I don't know if they ever actually commissioned one.

As well as the M class, the Brits commissioned HMS X-1, although it wasn't terribly successful.

 

[Kaosium]

Unfortunately (afaik) the game mechanics don't allow for submarines to use guns against ships (or vice-versa), so beyond cosmetic reasons, I don't think there's a lot of point, and while flavour is nice, it could confuse players who might expect the module to do something. Mechanical changes to enable this down the track would, at least to me, be very welcome

I wondered about that, I suppose making it a light cruiser that could submerge would lead to a similar problem with the mechanics?

As well as the M class, the Brits commissioned HMS X-1, although it wasn't terribly successful.

Yeah, I just looked it up, I never knew about those M class subs.

 

[xtfoster]

Given the size of the hull, and the cost involve, I actually don't see this (again, noting I haven't gone all naval architect) as particularly implausible - there would be a naval xp, IC and time cost involved, it's not as if it's free.

Considering the Focus gives Italy 15 Naval XP, the XP part of it would be a moot point.