December 5, 2020 at 5:18 pm #183383
Which ships and retrofits do y’all think are the most competitive in the current rule set? I am ignoring beta rules in this post.December 5, 2020 at 6:49 pm #183384
DD-wise, the German ones are beasts; just for the HP and guns they bring along. Note the lack of AA though. Japanese DDs with Type 93s are also good for sacrificial anti-capital duty too.
CL-wise, Aganos are lovely little darlings (dem Type 93s) but the Leanders come a close second IMHO
CA-wise, not so sure. The USN CAs with their 9 guns and dirt-cheap point price are excellent platforms, but they are helpless if they have to deal with an enemy BC / BB. The IJN CAs are prohibitively expensive (the Mogamis cost as much as a CV!) but they can deliver the hurt to match – I’d only choose them in high-point battles. The German CAs are a big meh, but good all-rounders, if that’s what you like.
BB-wise, two stand out: the KGV (for a high-point, extremely high-armor BB) and the New Mex (for her absurd damage output – THIRTY SIX DAMAGE DICE WHAT THE HELL). I don’t own the Bismarck, so grain of salt there, but I am not impressed by any other BB / BC around.
CV-wise, I find Shokaku is exceptional because she’s there earlier (Essex only appears in 1943) and she’s good for what she costs, but once Essex does make an appearance, she’s clearly a better choice (no less so because of the planes that she’s carrying. Yes, I know, beta rules, but the Dauntless is flat out better than the Val).December 5, 2020 at 7:13 pm #183385
<p style=”text-align: left;”>Hey Enioch. Enjoying your comment so far. However, I am having trouble with all the acronyms. Can you provide a key?</p>December 5, 2020 at 7:16 pm #183386
CL- light cruiser
CA – cruiser
Is this right?December 5, 2020 at 7:21 pm #183387
Right you areDecember 5, 2020 at 11:26 pm #183391NatParticipant
@clockwork, are you on Facebook? If so the wardroom has a document with the commonally used in naval war games abbreviations – although most are NATO to be honest :pDecember 6, 2020 at 9:26 pm #183401EumerinParticipant
New Mex (for her absurd damage output – THIRTY SIX DAMAGE DICE WHAT THE HELL)
Arizona gets the same (if you got her in the pre-order bonus), but she trades Armored Deck for Agile.
Historically, triple-gun turrets – like the ones on New Mexico – were tricky. The US figured them out early on, and used them in almost all of their battleships. As a result, having four turrets with three 14″ guns was standard on pre-treaty USN battleships. Other nations were much slower to adopt them, and even then did so in an inconsistent fashion. AFAIK, the only RN ships to mount them were the Nelson-class battleships. The Mogamis mounted three gun turrets, but swapped them out in 1939 for the configuration shown on the card. The only IJN battleship class to use them was the Yamato-class. The KM used them on some ships, but German ship-building was a mess as they were trying to play catch-up with technologies and tactics that I don’t think they ever fully understood due to the post WWI restrictions. The battlecruisers and other smaller ships had them, but the battleships did not.
The US never had more than nine 16″ guns on any of its ships, presumably due to the weight involved. The Colorado-class – the first class with 16″ guns – retained the four turret configuration of the earlier battleships, but switched to double turrets instead of retaining the triple-turret style. Subsequent battleships went back to the triple turret design, but with only three turrets instead of four. The only non-US battleship to mount 16″ or bigger guns in a three gun turret was the Yamato-class.
On the other hand, quad turrets existed, and the USN never used them. The French Richilieu-class mounted four gun turrets with 15″ guns, beating out the KGV-class quad turrets by an inch.December 7, 2020 at 9:00 pm #183408ShrokinsParticipant
Here’s how I grade the battleships for their points value:
A: Arizona, Bismarck (data card), Idaho, New Mexico.
B: Duke of York, Scharnhorst.
C: Bismarck (booklet), Missouri, Warspite, Yamato.
December 7, 2020 at 11:39 pm #183410
- This reply was modified 1 year, 12 months ago by Shrokins.
Shrokins, as you pointed out in a previous post, the Kongo has almost nothing going for it compared to the New Mexico. It is faster but can’t move the critical 7″ needed to get the hit penalty. So…. it is very underwhelming.
That being said, I want to run a list of 4 Kongo against the USN just ot see if I can survive lol.December 9, 2020 at 5:47 am #183429ShrokinsParticipant
Haha, a four Kongo game would be great. If there were some way to play on-line, I’d do it. Missouri, Arizona, Chicago and Northampton would make it a four on four, 1500 pts vs 1500 pts, guns only deathmatch.December 10, 2020 at 6:06 pm #183472
I mean, Missouri on her own is more than a match for 2-3 Kongos
Just the AP power, armor and Damage Dice / Critical Hit output is insane.
I don’t know the point cost for Arizona, but if she’s anything like the NewMex she can deal with two of them no problem.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.