Source: Tuccy (WG Staff) and Karsun (Dev), summarized by ByronicAsian
Q1: Why RN so late?
A1: Cost and ease of development (easier access to blueprints and easier balance). USN and IJN also seemed natural fit for first two factions.
Q2: RN CA subline branch? Why choose CL?
A2: Yes/probably. Chose CL due to prevalence in CL designs in RN (enough for two trees) and RN paper CA designs would look out of place due to late 20s origin of design studies in addition to weird progression of 30s IRL treaty cruisers -> mid 20s design study paper ship.
Q3: What were you not happy about RN CL ver 1?
A3: Many things. If only one problem, would’ve not delayed it for so long. (1) They were difficult to play, this is still the case. (2) They were unfun to play against mostly HE/Smoke combo
Q4: Why play them?
A4: Because they’re the RN, also if you like DD playstyle. Good rudder shift, acceleration (Minotaur accelerates in a hard rudder turn), and consumables make for interesting gameplay and teamplay (ties in with new spotting damage rewards and etc.). Semi-Armor piercing shells fits with enhanced AP shell given in game. Good torpedoes match IRL.
Q5: No HE? What makes SAP good against armor?
A5: Good pen abilities, and good arcs at close range (I think they’re implying that with the consumables fit, you can be fairly aggressive to close to said 8-9km ranges. The shells also have very good normalization and dual settings (on their fuses) help against different targets. Short fuse makes SAP work like HE against DD, on more heavily armored targets, the detonating threshold is similar to normal AP shells so citadels will be possible. Very heavily armored targets….shoot bow, stern, and superstructures. Very good plunging fire against CAs.
Q6: Consumable fit? Comments?
A6: Driving idea behind the choice of consumable choice is teamplay. I think they shout out to Flamu’s Belfast video as THE closest to their vision of how these ships are to be played. Shouldn’t be to weak against planes even w/o Def AA (good maneuverability)
Q7: CLs are squishy and you really can’t just add armor where they didn’t exist as buffs. How did you mitigate?
A7: tl;dr gave the ships tools to actively defend (mobility is armor, hydro/radar to know where enemies are, smoke to gtfo, if hit heal )
Q8: Are the citadel difficult to hit they seem low in the water?
A8: Not really. The citadels are still fairly high (especially compared to USN designs Worchesters vs Z4A/Minotaur). Heal that repairs citadels should mitigate. Summary: only skilled captains need apply upper tiers. Low-mid tiers are forgivable by default.
Q1: Why RN so late?
A1: Cost and ease of development (easier access to blueprints and easier balance). USN and IJN also seemed natural fit for first two factions.
Q2: RN CA subline branch? Why choose CL?
A2: Yes/probably. Chose CL due to prevalence in CL designs in RN (enough for two trees) and RN paper CA designs would look out of place due to late 20s origin of design studies in addition to weird progression of 30s IRL treaty cruisers -> mid 20s design study paper ship.
Q3: What were you not happy about RN CL ver 1?
A3: Many things. If only one problem, would’ve not delayed it for so long. (1) They were difficult to play, this is still the case. (2) They were unfun to play against mostly HE/Smoke combo
Q4: Why play them?
A4: Because they’re the RN, also if you like DD playstyle. Good rudder shift, acceleration (Minotaur accelerates in a hard rudder turn), and consumables make for interesting gameplay and teamplay (ties in with new spotting damage rewards and etc.). Semi-Armor piercing shells fits with enhanced AP shell given in game. Good torpedoes match IRL.
Q5: No HE? What makes SAP good against armor?
A5: Good pen abilities, and good arcs at close range (I think they’re implying that with the consumables fit, you can be fairly aggressive to close to said 8-9km ranges. The shells also have very good normalization and dual settings (on their fuses) help against different targets. Short fuse makes SAP work like HE against DD, on more heavily armored targets, the detonating threshold is similar to normal AP shells so citadels will be possible. Very heavily armored targets….shoot bow, stern, and superstructures. Very good plunging fire against CAs.
Q6: Consumable fit? Comments?
A6: Driving idea behind the choice of consumable choice is teamplay. I think they shout out to Flamu’s Belfast video as THE closest to their vision of how these ships are to be played. Shouldn’t be to weak against planes even w/o Def AA (good maneuverability)
Q7: CLs are squishy and you really can’t just add armor where they didn’t exist as buffs. How did you mitigate?
A7: tl;dr gave the ships tools to actively defend (mobility is armor, hydro/radar to know where enemies are, smoke to gtfo, if hit heal )
Q8: Are the citadel difficult to hit they seem low in the water?
A8: Not really. The citadels are still fairly high (especially compared to USN designs Worchesters vs Z4A/Minotaur). Heal that repairs citadels should mitigate. Summary: only skilled captains need apply upper tiers. Low-mid tiers are forgivable by default.
