It's always bugged me a bit that, while some nations (Germany mostly, and to a lesser
extent Britain) have a lot of ships in their lines that were never completed - and
sometimes never started - other nations (the US in particular, and to a lesser extent
Japan) have lines that are almost exclusively limited to ships which were built and
comissioned.
I also think it's kind of unfair that some nations have so many choices when playing
through their BB lines, and other nations so few. Japan, for example, has only a single
BB1 choice and only a single BB3 choice. All nations other than Britain (following the
BB34AA patch) have only a single BB4 choice. There are six different paths a player could
take if playing Britain from BB1-BB5, four for US, and only two for Germany and Japan.
Now, it's not really a huge advantage to have more ship choices, although it is nice to be
able to use your old support crews and gunners when leveing a new Bridge Officer, and you
can only do that if your nation has more than one BB line to play.
Both of these issues could be solved with the same fix - more ships! Specifically, there
are a number of "nearly-were" ship designs from the period between the end of World War I
and the signing of the Washington Naval Treaty (1918-1922) that I think would help a lot
to fill out some lines that need more choices, and add some additional variety to the game.
The only downside I see is that some of these changes would restrict players who are
already part of the way down a tree to a ship choice they might not have been restricted
to before (because there wasn't a choice there before), and that would be bad. But, uh...
I guess SDE would sell more BO resets, so it's a win for them.
I tried to provide diagrams whenever possible instead of photographs, as I think a
multi-view diagram gives the best sense of how a ship would actually work in game.
So anyway, let's see the expanded trees!
-------------------------------
-------------------------------
IJN:
BB1 Settsu
What was Settsu in real life?
The two ships of the Settsu class were arguably the first true dreadnoughts comissioned
into the Imperial Japanese Navy. They were launched with the unique (and unfortunate)
feature of having a main battery comprised of two different caliber (barrel length) guns -
four 12"/50 guns and eight 12"/45 guns, which among other things made attempting to direct
the ship's fire a nightmare due to the differing ballistic properties of the two weapons.
Kawachi and Settsu bombarded the German port of Tsingtao in China during Japan's brief
foray into WWI. In 1924, Settsu was disarmed and placed in reserve to comply with the
terms of the Washington Naval Treaty, but continued to serve as a heavily armored target
ship for gunnery training, remaining active in that role until being sunk by US carrier
aircraft in 1945.
How would Settsu play in Navy Field?
Settsu is a BB1, which almost certainly points to it being slow, short-ranged and fragile
in-game. It would likely have the same options for main guns as the Kongo (the 2x 12.2" at
level, or the 2x 14" if you have higher gunners). I would imagine that, in spite of its
unusual historical main gun mix, the Settsu would have uniform R slot sizes in game in
order to make it playable. The T slots would probably not be large enough to mount any
useful AA.
What makes Settsu different from the existing ship(s) at that tier?
Well, really not much. Though it has more turrets than the Kongo, their layout would give
it more or less the same firepower in almost all instances. With a higher level crew,
Settsu could be run with only its three forward turrets in a rushing configuration (the
way people do with the EBB Nassau now). As a battleship, Settsu would presumably have more
durability and less speed than the battlecruiser Kongo. It would also fill out Japan's BB
line a bit, since right now they're the only nation limited to a single BB1 choice.
BB3 Amagi
What was Amagi in real life?
The battlecruisers Amagi, Akagi, Atago and Ashitaka were to be one quarter of Japan's
planned "Eight-Eight" fleet - eight battleships, eight battlecruisers - which was deemed
necessary to defeat the United States Navy in the Pacific. The Amagi class was an
archetypical battlecruiser, with a high top speed of 30 knots from a long hull and
powerful engines, a heavy main battery of ten 16.1"/45 guns (the same type used in the
earlier Nagato class) in five dual turrets, and frighteningly thin armor for its size.
Construction on the Amagi class was started in 1920, but halted after the signing of the
Washington Naval Treaty in 1922. Instead of scrapping them all, it was decided to convert
two of the partially built ships (Amagi and Akagi) into aircraft carriers. Amagi was
destroyed in its berth by the Kanto earthquake of 1923, so the hull of the Tosa class
battleship Kaga, which had also been canceled due to the treaty signing, was used in its
place.
How would Amagi play in Navy Field?
Amagi would be one of the fastest ships in the Japanese BB line, and quite heavily armed.
As with other battlecruisers, though, it would also have a long sprite, low turning force
and low durability. With its restrictive turret arcs and impressive broadside damage,
Amagi would play something like a supercharged Fuso or Ise (1937). The T slots would
probably not be large enough to mount any useful AA. Yes, if this ship were put into the
game, the BB6 would need a new name. If that wasn't possible, the name Akagi (1920) could
be used instead, I guess.
What makes Amagi different from the existing ship(s) at that tier?
In real life, Amagi would have used the same main guns as Nagato (the 40cm/45 3rd Year
Type), but with ten barrels to Nagato's eight, I'm uncertain if the ship could be balanced
like that in game. In any event Amagi would be faster and more heavily armed than Nagato,
but Nagato would be much tougher, with a smaller sprite, more turning force and more
damage resistance. Also, since the two ships would be on different lines, which one a
player chooses would also determine which BB4 they get.
BB4 Kii
What was Kii in real life?
The Kii class were to be Japan's first "fast battleships" - ships with the speed of a
battlecruiser and the armor and firepower of a battleship. They were designed as improved
versions of the preceeding Amagi and Kaga classes and shared the same general layout of
five dual 16.1"/45 turrets. Construction of four ships was planned to begin in late 1922
with the first expected to be commissioned in 1925, and two (Kii and Owari) were even
assigned naval yards and names, but the signing of the Washington Naval Treaty led to the
planned construction being suspended in 1922 before it could begin, and the class was
eventually canceled in 1924.
How would Kii play in Navy Field?
Kii could be considered an improved Amagi with all of the same strengths but none of the
weaknesses. In real life the Kii was slated to use the same guns as the Nagato, Amagi and
Kaga classes, but since it's a higher tier ship, in game it would probably use the 16.1"
Type 90 (which in real life was an experimental gun considered for use as the main
armament of the Yamato class but abandoned in favor of the more promising 18.1" Type 94).
Apparently the Type 90 sucks right now - I can't speak with authority on this because I
haven't used it myself - but if so, it would probably need a buff to its range and damage
to make it suitable for use a BB4 gun, and this would likely result in the Nagato class no
longer being able to use it. The T slots would have enough space to hold AA guns with a
reasonable number of binds of ammo.
What makes Kii different from the existing ship(s) at that tier?
Kii has one more barrel than Yamato and would probably have higher overall firepower,
although Yamato has better turret placement and would likely do more damage per shell. Kii
would have somewhat shorter range and low max angles on its guns, making it more suitable
for rushing in the Lion style and generally allowing for more aggressive play than the
Yamato does. Yamato would be slower, but more durable. Kii would have more T slots, but
would not be able to use the recently buffed 3x 6.1" A guns that the Yamato can now carry
two of, and unlike Yamato the T slots would be scattered around the deck instead of all
tightly grouped in the center.
-------------------------------
-------------------------------
KM:
BB1 Baden
What was Baden in real life?
The battleships Baden, Bayern, Sachsen and Wurttemberg were the most advanced class of
dreadnoughts laid down for the Hochseeflotte ('High Seas Fleet', the WWI Imperial German
Navy). Construction started in 1913, and by 1916 two of the class (Baden and Bayern) had
been completed and commissioned. The Baden class was quite similar in capabilities to the
Revenge class, the last coal-burning dreadnoughts built by the Royal Navy. The Baden class
carried a main armament of eight 15"/45 guns in four dual turrets and had a top speed of
21 knots. Both ships were awarded to Britain as war reparations, but were scuttled in
Scapa Flow along with the rest of the fleet in 1919 to prevent them from being taken.
Baden was beached by British tugboats to prevent it from sinking, and after extensive
study it was expended in gunnery trials in 1921.
How would Baden play in Navy Field?
Well, basically, Baden would play like the Revenge; that's not a bad thing as the Revenge
is generally regarded as one of the most fun BB1s to use. The 38cm SK L/45 would have very
similar performance to the 15" guns used by the Revenge, and the Baden's speed, sprite
size, turning force and durability would also be quite similar. The playstyle and tactics
that work for the Revenge would work for Baden as well. The T slots on Baden would not
have enough space to fit useable AA.
What makes Baden different from the existing ship(s) at that tier?
With less range, less speed, more firepower, more durability, and no ability to carry AA,
Baden would be a huge departure from the other KM BB1s. Although I hate to keep saying it,
Baden would honestly behave almost exactly like a UK ship, with all the advantages and
disadvantages of that playstyle. The KM battleship lines suffer because, of the four
playable nations in game, Germany was the only one not to retain WWI-era dreadnoughts for
WWII use. Adding a High Seas Fleet line, while not strictly accurate historically, will
give them some ships that are direct contemporaries of the lower-tier battleships used by
other nations.
BB2 Mackensen
What was Mackensen in real life?
The Mackensen class were the last battlecruisers laid down by Imperial Germany. Following
the design philosophy espoused by Alfred von Tirpitz, German battlecruisers were built to
a quite different standard than those of other nations; where other nations traded armor
for speed, German naval architects instead sacrified firepower in order to build fast
ships that were still nearly as well protected as a battleship. The main armament was
eight 13.8"/45 guns in four twin turrets, with a respectable top speed of 28 knots. Four
ships of the class - Mackensen, Prinz Eitel Friedrich, Graf Spee and Furst Bismarck - were
laid down in late 1915, but they were not given priority and construction work was slow.
None were finished before the end of the war, and all had been broken up by 1923.
How would Mackensen play in Navy Field?
Mackensen would have a run-and-gun playstyle that should be immediately familiar to KM BB
players. The 35cm SK L/45 guns may not do particularly impressive damage, and the speed
would not be as high as other ships that are classified as battlecruisers in game, but in
general the Mackensen would be a forgiving ship to play with well-balanced attributes
(speed, firepower, durability, range). The T slots would have enough gunspace to mount
light AA guns, but Mackensen would have fewer T slots than the other KM BB2s.
What makes Mackensen different from the existing ship(s) at that tier?
While it is a pretty fast ship, Mackensen would be slower than the other KM BB2s. The main
difference would be durability - a player that makes a mistake in a Mackensen would be
much more likely to survive it than if they were driving a Gneisenau or O Project. As with
Baden, range would be somewhat lower than other KM ships on the same tier, but damage per
shell would be higher and max angle would be lower to compensate.
BB3 Yorck
What was Yorck in real life?
The "Ersatz Yorck" class battlecruisers were originally ordered in 1916 as part of the
Mackensen class, but the design was enlarged considerably in 1917 to provide the High Seas
Fleet with a counter for the huge new British battlecruiser Hood. 'Ersatz' in this case is
a German term generally translated as 'substitute', and the ships, which were never named,
are usually referred to as "Ersatz Yorck", "Ersatz Gneisenau" and "Ersatz Scharnhorst"
indicating the sunken armored cruisers (Yorck, Gneisenau and Scharnhorst) they were
originally ordered as replacements for. Like other German battlecruisers, the "Ersatz
Yorck" class would have been somewhat slower but much better protected than their
contemporaries. They were to be armed with the same model of 15"/45 guns as the Baden in
four twin turrets and were projected to have a top speed of 28 knots, making them closer
to an early fast battleship than a typical battlecruiser. Only "Ersatz Yorck" was laid
down, but little construction work had been done before the end of the war, and it was
scrapped soon after.
How would Yorck play in Navy Field?
Yorck is a close contemporary of the Hood and, like Baden, it would have a very similar
playstyle to its British counterpart. The tactics used for the Hood would apply to Yorck
as well, although it would be slightly smaller, somewhat more durable, and a bit slower.
Historically it used the same guns as Baden, but as was done with the UK RP12 (now 15" Mk
III), Baden could be restricted to the N version (given the stats of a BB1 L gun) and
Yorck could use the L version (given the stats of a BB3 L gun). The T slots would have
enough gunspace for AA guns with a reasonable amount of ammo.
What makes Yorck different from the existing ship(s) at that tier?
Continuing the theme of the line, Yorck would be somewhat slower than Bismarck or O
Project II and have less range, but more damage per shell, lower max gun angles, and more
durability. Bismarck and O Project II would also be able to mount more AA guns, and their
T slots would be better grouped for anti-aircraft than Yorck. Yorck would also have a
considerably larger sprite than Bismarck, making it harder to avoid fire.
BB4 L20 Project
What was L20 Project in real life?
Design plan L20 was the last battleship class selected for production by Imperial Germany.
Specifically, I've chosen design study L20e alpha, which was thought to be the most
promising of the L20 proposals. The L20 class was an ambitious program, and they would
have been superior to any other warship in service with any nation at the time, if they
had been built. They were to be armed with a new 16.5"/45 gun, eight carried in four twin
turrets, and were projected to have a top speed of 26 knots as well as formidably thick
armor. The L20 class was approved in late 1917 and production was intended to begin in
1918. However, capital ship construction by that point was not considered a priority, and
work had not started before the end of the war.
How would L20 Project play in Navy Field?
L20 Project would be a big, powerful and durable brawler, with a playstyle somewhat like
the British Lion (although obviously you wouldn't want to AW it). It wouldn't be quite as
fast as Lion, but it would be able to mount an effective AA battery to let it sneak in
close and do a lot of damage. It would probably have (or be close to) the highest damage
per shell of all BB4s and would generally be the sort of ship you don't want to
accidentally stray into range of. It would have enough T slots, with enough gunspace, to
mount a large AA battery.
What makes L20 Project different from the existing ship(s) at that tier?
Compared to H39 Class, L20 Project would have less speed, less range, more... yadda yadda
yadda. You know how it goes by now. In rough terms L20 Project would be a boxer to the
fencer H39 Class, making L20 Project a better choice for the chaotic GBII environment and
the H39 a better choice for BB-only rooms. Both H39 Class and L20 Project would have a
similar number and placement of T slots.
-------------------------------
-------------------------------
RN:
BB2 Agincourt
What was Agincourt in real life?
The single-ship Agincourt class has a long and unusual history. Ordered from a private
British shipbuilding company by Brazil in 1911 as the Rio de Janeiro, it was from the
outset a unique ship. The most distinctive feature was the bewildering deck layout,
featuring fourteen 12"/45 guns in seven (!) twin turrets, giving it a heavier broadside
than any other battleship afloat. Protection was to battlecruiser standard, although the
top speed of only 23 knots certainly was not. As construction progressed, however,
Brazil's economy declined, leaving them unable to afford the cost, so when it was
completed it was as Sultan Osman I, the Ottoman navy's first dreadnought. Under this name
it was launched in 1914, but when WWI broke out later that year the ship was seized for
use by the British navy (which was not good for Ottoman-British relations), modified
slightly and renamed Agincourt. Agincourt fought at Jutland in 1916, and remained in
British hands until it was finally scrapped in 1924, in spite of efforts to convince the
Brazilians or anyone else to purchase it.
How would Agincourt play in Navy Field?
Agincourt would be a difficult ship to use, and probably one not suitable for players with
at-level crews. It would be a large, slow target with fairly short range but incredibly
high firepower. The 12"/45 Mk X currently in game is a special gun reserved for the EBB
Dreadnought, so a new gun (12"/45 Mk XIII) would have to be made for Agincourt. It would
not have enough free displacement to AW effectively, and it's a UK battleship, so probably
best not to ask about the AA capability.
What makes Agincourt different from the existing ship(s) at that tier?
Agincourt would be something of a "gimmick ship", and players on their first BB crew would
be best advised to take Queen Elizabeth instead. The 12"/45 Mk XIIIL would presumably have
lower range than the 15" Mk IIL used by Revenge, to say nothing of the 15" Mk IIIN used by
Queen Elizabeth and Repulse. With enough high-level engineers to make it decently fast,
full SD, and good gunners it would play in a similar manner to a 12-gun setup Prince of Wales.
BB4 G3 Class
What was G3 Class in real life?
Design plan G3 was a revolutionary and often overlooked step in the evolution of
battleship design. The design is often referred to as a battlecruiser - and, indeed, most
other nations assumed that it would be built to battlecrusier standards for protection -
but this designation is misleading; the G3 class was instead an impressively advanced fast
battleship that was decades ahead of its time. They were to be armed with nine 16"/45 guns
in three triple turrets (in a somewhat awkward arrangement with two ahead of the tower and
one between tower and funnels), armored to withstand 18" gunfire, and have a top speed of
32 knots, and if they had performed to specifications they would have been in many aspects
quite comparable to the Iowa class even though they were ordered twenty years earlier.
However, the British economy after the end of WWI was in rough shape, and although four of
the class were ordered in 1921, it is argued that this was only to use them as bargaining
chips in the Washington Naval Treaty negotiations, and that they would not have been
completed even if they were allowed in the final agreement. In any event, they weren't,
and all four were cancelled in 1922.
How would G3 Class play in Navy Field?
G3 Class would play, more or less, as a BB4 upgrade for Nelson. It would be fast, with
long range guns (probably a new 3x 16" gun set different from the Nelson and Lion ones
would need to be made) and good durability. The odd turret layout would prevent the back
turret from firing anywhere on a 40 degree arc behind the ship, though, and that combined
with the fairly long sprite would make it inadvisable to run away while under fire in one.
The T slots would have enough room for any AA gun desired *cough* but most would be
grouped towards the rear as in Nelson making them somewhat less than useful. G3 Class
would be capable of carrying a large amount of armor, although obviously speed would
suffer to do so.
What makes G3 Class different from the existing ship(s) at that tier?
G3 would honestly probably behave somewhat like the Lion does, but with lower damage per
shell and longer range, a bigger sprite, and higher base speed. The turret layout would
make it challenging to play, but the lowish damage per shell would make it unsuitable for
a Lion/Prince of Wales front gun-only playstyle. Vanguard would have a bit more range and
damage per shell, but one fewer barrel, less speed, and less free displacement.
-------------------------------
-------------------------------
USN:
BB1 Wyoming
What was Wyoming in real life?
The two ships of the Wyoming class were the fourth class of dreadnoughts built by the
United States, and the last to be built with a 12" main armament. Launched in 1912, they
were fairly typical designs for their era, with a somewhat unsual but not unique layout of
twelve 12"/50 guns in six dual turrets, arranged in the same way as the later Japanese
Fuso and Ise classes, a top speed of 21 knots and respectable protection. The two ships
served with the British fleet in the later stages of WWI, and completed interwar
modernization in 1927. Both were placed in reserve following the signing of the London
Naval Treaty in 1930, and used as gunnery training ships from that point until the US
entry into WWII. During the war Wyoming had its main battery removed and served as an
anti-aircraft gunnery training ship, while Arkansas retained its big guns and was used to
escort convoys, as well as taking part in shore bombardments off Normandy, Cherbourg,
Toulon, Iwo Jima and Okinawa. Both ships were decommissioned in 1946; Arkansas was used as
an atomic bomb test target later that year and Wyoming was scrapped in 1947.
How would Wyoming play in Navy Field?
Well, it's a BB1. Wyoming would be slow, fragile and short-ranged in game. It would have a
fairly small and narrow sprite (probably around the same size as the EBB New York), for
what that's worth. A new gun, the 2x 12"/50 Mark 7, would have to be added for it. It may
be possible for Wyoming to carry the Alaska 3x 12" D guns for huge firepower, but if that
was allowed it would be painfully short ranged, would have very little ammo per gun, and
would generally be a one-trick pony - something like a lower level equivalent to the 16"
Fuso. The T slots would have enough room for light AA guns and ammo.
What makes Wyoming different from the existing ship(s) at that tier?
The 2-2-2 gun layout of Wyoming makes it interesting looking, at the very least. It would
be able to AA, but not as well as Alaska, and it would have good short-ranged firepower,
but not as good as Nevada. It would really be a sort of middle ground between the two
ships with a few unique features of its own to distinguish it. Also, since the later ships
currently on the Nevada line have been split into two lines, picking between Wyoming and
Nevada would also determine the BB2 the player gets.
BB3 Lexington (1921)
What was Lexington (1921) in real life?
The battlecruisers Lexington, Constellation, Saratoga, Ranger, Constitution and United
States were to be the first battlecruisers built for the United States Navy. Long, lightly
armored and very fast, they were prime examples of the battlecruiser philosophy.
Originally designed in 1916, they were repeatedly redesigned and a final configuration was
not approved until 1919. In their definitive configuration, they were to be armed with
eight 16"/50 guns in four dual turrets and have a top speed of 34 knots. Due to various
delays, construction did not start until 1921, and soon after the Washington Naval Treaty
was signed. As with the Japanese Amagi class, two of the partially constructed ships
(Lexington and Saratoga) were retained for conversion to aircraft carriers, while the rest
were scrapped.
How would Lexington (1921) play in Navy Field?
Like Yorck, Lexington (1921) is a close contemporary design to the British Hood and would
play in a fairly similar fashion. Lexington (1921) would actually have a longer sprite (!)
than the Hood, which combined with its relatively low durability would make it a giant
shell magnet. To compensate for this, though, it would be very fast. A new gun, the 2x
16"/50 Mark 2, would have to be added for it. The T slots would be fairly tightly grouped
around the center and would have enough space for light AA guns and ammo.
What makes Lexington (1921) different from the existing ship(s) at that tier?
Lexington (1921) would probably be a challenging ship to use, making it a better choice
for more advanced players. As such, it has been placed on a branch, with North Carolina
available to players on either Nevada or Wyoming lines if they would rather have a more
ordinary BB3. Lexington (1921) would be far and away faster than any other ship in the US
line, although it would have lower firepower than the other two BB3s since it has eight
barrels to their nine, and would be more vulnerable to enemy fire.
BB4 BB49 Class
What was BB49 Class in real life?
The South Dakota class (BB-49 to BB-54; yes, the name is shared with BB-57 South Dakota
and its class) was to be the first postwar American battleship. They would have been
large, slow and thoroughly conventional battleships, not particularly innovative but well
protected and heavily armed. They were intended to be armed with twelve 16"/50 guns in
four triple turrets and have a top speed of 23 knots. Six ships (South Dakota, Indiana,
Montana, North Carolina, Iowa and Massachusetts) were laid down in 1920, but all were
scrapped - most already more than a third complete - following the signing of the
Washington Naval Treaty in 1922, and most of the names were later used for battleships of
other classes.
How would BB49 Class play in Navy Field?
I've used the name BB49 Class to avoid confusion with the US BB3 South Dakota already in
game. It sounds a little odd, but I don't know what else it could be called. BB49 Class is
a big, slow and powerful ship that would play much like the German L20 Project. It would
have high firepower and low max gun angles. A new gun, the 3x 16"/50 Mark 3, would have to
be added for it. It would have good T slot placement and enough gunspace to carry heavy AA
guns and ammo.
What makes BB49 Class different from the existing ship(s) at that tier?
BB49 Class has an extra turret over Iowa, giving it very high firepower, and has lower gun
angles - which is good, because shots arrive faster, but also bad, because you can't
extend the ship's range as much by running. It would be far slower than Iowa. Both would
have comparable AA capability and durability.
-------------------------------
-------------------------------
Sheesh, that was long. If you've made it this far, thanks for reading the whole thing! I
welcome all comments, feedback, suggested improvements, hate mail and death threats. Any
suggested changes I use will be credited at the top of this post.
[But wait, there's more! Additional battleships here: http://tinyurl.com/yewghoc]