(9-47) Battleship Buff

[Stalker0]

It's way more realistic to make Dreadnoughts range 3 as well but ik they can come before arsenals which is problematic. Lowering dreadnought movement to 3 could be in interesting trade-off, since 'Battleships' are called 'Fast battleships' irl, due to their highers speed than Dreadnought type battleships.

Range 3 dread is an ENTIRELY different discussion, it would be way too invincible (and note we have tried such a thing back in the day, it was pulled back for good reason)

The battleship comes at a time with a lot more high range counters, so the range at that point makes more sense

 

[Alpakinator]

Could be balanced by reducing , portraying smaller secondary batteries and sluggishness making it an easy target to torpedoes (destroyers). I agree it could be unbalanceable without making more drastic changes though (like dynamic penalty the further away a unit shoots).

 

[redrum68]

It's way more realistic to make Dreadnoughts range 3 as well but ik they can come before arsenals which is problematic. Lowering dreadnought movement to 3 could be in interesting trade-off, since 'Battleships' are called 'Fast battleships' irl, due to their highers speed than Dreadnought type battleships.

Interesting idea. I think probably too big a change at this point as I think that's something that would need more testing given Dreadnought timing compared to 3 range land units, arsenals, and planes.

 

[paul_soryu]

I think I'm opposed to this because it would drastically increase the number of ships which can bombard cities, make maneuverability and ship formations much less important, and greatly buff the side with more ships in naval battles (an entire additional row to shoot from).

Ranged ships already have Air Strike Defense, and Melee ships already have both Air Strike Defense and interception, so this counters the high range of Air units, which are also limited by city capacity. And on top of that you can also bring your own Air units on Carriers to counter enemy Air units or to have high range attacks. Wouldn't mind Indirect Fire on Dreadnoughts though.

 

[Stalker0]

I think I'm opposed to this because it would drastically increase the number of ships which can bombard cities, make maneuverability and ship formations much less important, and greatly buff the side with more ships in naval battles (an entire additional row to shoot from).

Ranged ships already have Air Strike Defense, and Melee ships already have both Air Strike Defense and interception, so this counters the high range of Air units, which are also limited by city capacity. And on top of that you can also bring your own Air units on Carriers to counter enemy Air units or to have high range attacks. Wouldn't mind Indirect Fire on Dreadnoughts though.

In my experience, even fleet destroyers don't protect your ranged ship that well. If you don't have a carrier with some interception, your naval ships will get air sniped.

 

[paul_soryu]

In my experience, even fleet destroyers don't protect your ranged ship that well. If you don't have a carrier with some interception, your naval ships will get air sniped.

I think it should be balanced either by buffing Air Strike Defense and Interception on ships, or by debuffing Air units in general or vs. ships specifically. Direct balancing of the issue, no need to change naval range which affects much more other things.

Still, I think the requirement to bring your own Carrier with some interceptors to counter enemy Air units is a good and balanced thing, you can't just ignore the arrival of planes, why should it be changed? That would flatten current Air combat dynamics.

 

[Stalker0]

I think it should be balanced either by buffing Air Strike Defense and Interception on ships, or by debuffing Air units in general or vs. ships specifically. Direct balancing of the issue, no need to change naval range which affects much more other things.

Still, I think the requirement to bring your own Carrier with some interceptors to counter enemy Air units is a good and balanced thing, you can't just ignore the arrival of planes, why should it be changed? That would flatten current Air combat dynamics.

I mean historically aircraft beat navy vessels pretty handidly in the WWII era especially. They are the "new power", just like knights or g guns when they come out.

But honestly this range change is much more than aircraft counters to naval.


In the old days, the battleship came out earlier, at a time when a solid range 2 navy ship could get the job done. since the naval rework, the battleship comes out a good bit later. At the time it now comes out...the world has changed. You have aircraft, you have artillery with 3 range, you often have a lot more ranged units with the range promotion, missiles with long range. Cities start getting 3 range, etc.

Its a new paradigm, and the battleship should change with it in order to be relevant.

 

[Alpakinator]

Yamato is known for possessing extreme range. At a time the Americans prided of engaging their battleships at 20 km, and considered fire at 26 km a waste of ammunition, Yamato showed accurate fire against an aircraft carrier at nearly 32 km.

Moreover, Yamato used a special type of shell that could travel underwater, turning their shells into torpedoes. The Imperial Japanese Navy estimated that it effectively doubled the size of Yamato's targets. That said aircraft carrier was heavily damaged this way with a single near miss, whose underwater explosion caused so much damage (and visible smoke from that carrier), both sides thought the ship was lost. It survived, thanks to extraordinary damage control by its crew, but was unable to continue fighting for the rest of the war and was relegated to ferrying duties.

If there's one UU that should be allowed to have extreme range, it is the Yamato.

The only longer distance "hit" I'm aware of is USS New Yersey against IJN Nowaki at ~36km.

This vid is a cool resource:

where Yamato is on 3 on the the top 10 spots of this list, incl no.2 - the engagement you mentioned.

 

[Legen]

Interesting, it's the first time I heard of the USS New Jersey's shot. Maybe it has to do with the fact it was certainly shooting High Capacity shells, instead of Armor Piercing ones.

One factor behind the extra accuracy on Yamato's shots, relative to the American ones, was the tradeoff each nation chose for their shell designs. The Iowa class didn't have enough armor penetration on their 406mm guns against battleships of comparable displacement (which they assume would be what the Japanese would also build). As such, they chose to sacrifice its aerodynamic capabilities for improved penetration, enough to make it effective against its own 307mm armor belt, but with worse accuracy as a result. Yamato, on the other hand, had excessive penetration against 307mm armor with its 460mm caliber guns, leading the Japanese to choose the opposite design; sacrifice penetration for improved aerodynamics. This is why Iowa preferred to shoot at 20km while Yamato could remain accurate at around 32km.

This all only applies to Armor Piercing shells, however; for High Capacity ones, which aren't meant to be used vs armored targets, there's no reason to trade accuracy for penetration.

 

[Alpakinator]

I can sponsor it.

 

[Recursive]

Timestamp post to arrange all the threads in a neat order.