You know, after seeing how little fanart there was for Aquila, I'm starting to like her more now. And I don't mean just pity-like, but I am genuinely curious why people don't seem to like her as much.
You know, after seeing how little fanart there was for Aquila, I'm starting to like her more now. And I don't mean just pity-like, but I am genuinely curious why people don't seem to like her as much.
She has bad stats in the game and looks just like Zara with some bad looking CV gear strapped on her with duct tape, which obviously doesn't give any bonus points. And on top of that, she's a damn drop, not a reward for completing E3.
Shit stats, shit ingame sprite and a drop. I'm pretty sure, that a lot of artists who play KanColle just hate her.
You know, after seeing how little fanart there was for Aquila, I'm starting to like her more now. And I don't mean just pity-like, but I am genuinely curious why people don't seem to like her as much.
Her stats would be merely okay for a light carrier, but she is classified as a "regular" carrier.
I personally don't think her sprite is bad at all, but I can understand that people don't like it. Regarding her stats, I see why people are upset, though I wouldn't go so far as to hate her.
Speaking of her stats, I wonder why the devs made them so bad? I understand her not being a particularly great ship in real life, but still. Here's hoping they buff them a bit in the following weeks like they did with Zara and a few others I can't remember.
Blue_Stuff said: Speaking of her stats, I wonder why the devs made them so bad? I understand her not being a particularly great ship in real life, but still. Here's hoping they buff them a bit in the following weeks like they did with Zara and a few others I can't remember.
I think the Devs are constantly trying to "Damage control" all the history buffs that complain that the Kancolle game isn't "Realistic". So if a game sucked in real life, they plan to make them suck in the game. So i wouldn't expect a buff then unless in real life, there were plans for an upgraded modell. Kinda like how if I recall, Bismark's Drei form is actually a make believe form that had blueprints but never got a chance to be a reality in real life.
You know, after seeing how little fanart there was for Aquila, I'm starting to like her more now. And I don't mean just pity-like, but I am genuinely curious why people don't seem to like her as much.
As the others have already given you plenty of reasons to why people don't like her, I'll take this chance to let you know that you are not alone! I like her too. A lot. I don't care about shitty stats. I don't care about CVL or CV. What I care about is that even though allies, nazis, fascists and italians themselves tried to sink her, she's still smiling. And what a beautiful smile.
As the others have already given you plenty of reasons to why people don't like her, I'll take this chance to let you know that you are not alone! I like her too. A lot. I don't care about shitty stats. I don't care about CVL or CV. What I care about is that even though allies, nazis, fascists and italians themselves tried to sink her, she's still smiling. And what a beautiful smile.
Yes, thank you!
Now I'm curious - do people actively dislike her, or do they just not care for her?
I don't think people actually hate her (she's not a villain like, i don't know, frieza... she's just a girl) i suppose they just don't care because "Warspite". If she had more "personality" she would not have been ignored, just like Pola when Iowa was released.
Blue_Stuff said: or do they just not care for her?
Pretty sure it's not care for her. In an ironic twist of fate for most fictional character, it's actually "better" to be hated instead of ignored. Hated characters actually often get just as much if not more fan art thatn loved characters because "rule of funny". Take a look at Kaito from vocaloid or Rinnosuke from Touhou.
If she was truely "hated" or even "hated with a passion" we'd be getting a lot of fan art. Although most of it was be abuse fanart and not "good" fan art.
Characters that are hated are usually "love to hate" type of characters.
Ships that saw action can receive stat boosts beyond what would be expected for their exemplary record, or interesting personalities from the events of their career. Of course it's difficult to give a ship a personality if she was never commissioned.
One of Graf's saving graces is that her ship's design is bold and interesting in many ways. A hybrid carrier/cruiser, her bizarre launch cycle, her ridiculous power plant, and those maneuvering propellers. All sort of interesting, even if there's reason to believe she wouldn't be very good.
Graf is a footnote of history, but Aquila is a footnote of Graf's footnote.
Ships that saw action can receive stat boosts beyond what would be expected for their exemplary record, or interesting personalities from the events of their career. Of course it's difficult to give a ship a personality if she was never commissioned.
One of Graf's saving graces is that her ship's design is bold and interesting in many ways. A hybrid carrier/cruiser, her bizarre launch cycle, her ridiculous power plant, and those maneuvering propellers. All sort of interesting, even if there's reason to believe she wouldn't be very good.
Graf is a footnote of history, but Aquila is a footnote of Graf's footnote.
Graf's saving grace IMO was that she was German and had somewhat better art to start with. Otherwise I doubt she'd have as many images as she does. Just like I doubt Iowa would have half the art she does if she wasn't an American ship.
Italy gets fewer fetish bonus points then Germany or America in Japan though and pretty much all of it's girls have suffered for it. Basically the girl herself needs to stand out more, but none of them really did. In fact it was rather the opposite as all of them were quite bland really. At least until Pola showed up, and wouldn't you know it she's rapidly overtaking all of them in art.
Has it dawned on anyone that this scene has be completely copied by Germany and Italy for Hetalia or everyone has already figured it out and I am acting like Zoidberg
Seeing this piece of fanart, Graf Zeppelin and Aquila remind me of Ludwig Beilschmitt (Germany) and Feliciano Vargas (Italy) from Hetalia: Axis Powers.
Seeing this piece of fanart, Graf Zeppelin and Aquila remind me of Ludwig Beilschmitt (Germany) and Feliciano Vargas (Italy) from Hetalia: Axis Powers.
Speaking of her stats, I wonder why the devs made them so bad?
Probably because they have shit in their heads. What they did with Aquila's stats is just one of their many errors like: VV-class armor too low. Zara-class armor too low, they fixed it a little but it's still too low. Prinz Eugen armor too high. Warspite firepower too high. Kongou armor too high.
Being an Italian admiral who was interested in warships way before this game existed is becoming too painful.
The game is so random and equipment exchangeable between different classes you would believe people worry more about image and voices than stats that mean nothing because of the mentioned reasons.
Why do admirals want another carbon copy Kaga? Raise another Kaga if you don't want different purpose units then.
The game is so random and equipment exchangeable between different classes you would believe people worry more about image and voices than stats that mean nothing because of the mentioned reasons.
Why do admirals want another carbon copy Kaga? Raise another Kaga if you don't want different purpose units then.
Can't have two Kagas (or two of any shipgirl) in one fleet. A bit of a problem for anyone who wants to sortie two Kaga-tier CVs in one fleet, and Aquila is not the solution.
Not sure how this gameplay mechanic works in regards to Yuu/Ro, Hibiki/Verniy, Littorio/Italia, and Taigei/Ryuuhou, partly because I don't play the game in the first place.
Not sure how this gameplay mechanic works in regards to Yuu/Ro, Hibiki/Verniy, Littorio/Italia, and Taigei/Ryuuhou, partly because I don't play the game in the first place.
you can't put them in the same fleet they are still considered the same ship
Ships that saw action can receive stat boosts beyond what would be expected for their exemplary record, or interesting personalities from the events of their career. Of course it's difficult to give a ship a personality if she was never commissioned.
One of Graf's saving graces is that her ship's design is bold and interesting in many ways. A hybrid carrier/cruiser, her bizarre launch cycle, her ridiculous power plant, and those maneuvering propellers. All sort of interesting, even if there's reason to believe she wouldn't be very good.
Graf is a footnote of history, but Aquila is a footnote of Graf's footnote.
That, despite Graf being a horrendous grafted ship with some of the most over-complicated mechanisms with at most 80% of Aquila's plane complement. Aquila was more solid, had been closer to completion, and took a metric ton of punishment without sinking. She doesn't deserve those stats.
That, despite Graf being a horrendous grafted ship with some of the most over-complicated mechanisms with at most 80% of Aquila's plane complement.
Not counting the planned plane types. Those of the Graf were simply a mistake. It's difficult to think of a worst "modern" (single seat, monoplane) embarked fighter than the Bf109, with it's weak, narrow, undercarriage and the small rudder, and 12 of them would hardly have been enough to face a coordinated attack. Aquila was planned to have a single type fighter-bomber, less specialized than the Stukas in attack (but probably not worse in the torpedo-bomber role), but much more capable to defend themself and the ship.
Probably because they have shit in their heads. What they did with Aquila's stats is just one of their many errors like: VV-class armor too low. Zara-class armor too low, they fixed it a little but it's still too low. Prinz Eugen armor too high. Warspite firepower too high. Kongou armor too high.
Being an Italian admiral who was interested in warships way before this game existed is becoming too painful.
Keep in mind that it's not entirely raw technical data, ships that did outstanding things in there career or where known to be skilled in some area can get stat bonuses beyond the commonly known luck stat. Though in the Kongous case I suspect their inflation was a result of being the ONLY fast battleships many player could reasonably get in the game for a long time after launch, so there stats were set a bit higher in light of that. Now that more modern ships have come in I agree they're probably a bit inflated, but popularity power assures they'll never be nerfed.
The cruisers though are clearly broke, Eugen definitively has too much defense when one of the biggest weakness of the Hipper was poor protection for her inflated displacement and Zara has too little when one of her biggest strengths was very heavy armor for her type. Sadly like Kongou Eugen probably has way too much popularity power to be nerfed, but Zara could certainly use a bigger buff.
Croven said:
That, despite Graf being a horrendous grafted ship with some of the most over-complicated mechanisms with at most 80% of Aquila's plane complement. Aquila was more solid, had been closer to completion, and took a metric ton of punishment without sinking. She doesn't deserve those stats.
Aquila's capacity compared to Graf is overstated: -The stated air group includes a permanent ten plane deck park, Graf's given number probably includes no such thing. -Of the supposed 41 planes in the hanger 15 were actually hung overhead and not immediately usable (though they were fully assembled so could be pulled for use as spares within a few hours) -Thus in fact the maximum possible operational air group for a given operation was about 35 planes.
As for her other characteristic as a bodged up conservation it was unlikely she would ever make her projected speed regularly, her hull was weak structurally compared to a warship built to higher standards, compartmentalization was poor, she only had armor over small areas of the deck above magazines and fuel tanks (machinery was effective unprotected). Torpedo defense consisted of only a added blister intended more for stability then anything with concrete rather then steel for fragment protection behind it. She was not 'tough' in any god damn way and would have been hugely more vulranble then a frame up warship like Graf.
The plane totals on Graf in general have never made sense anyway. They almost certainly didn't include a deck parks and may have been more a factor of how many planes they thought would be available (given the lethargic Luftwaffe support they were getting) when it launched, not carrying capacity. This was also the first German CV and they may have just been overly conservative in what they thought a ships plane handling capacity per unit of volume would be, experience would have shown them it was higher.
Given the physical sizes of the hanger and deck with even a modest deck park she should be able to carry at least around 70 aircraft, and about sixty within the hangers should have been doable. In dimensions Graf's two hangers were similiar in size to the Dragons (61,700 cubic feet vs 58,700 for Graf) and those ships routinely operated 60-65 aircraft without a deck park. They're also similiar to in total volume to Yorktown (56,500) which operated 70-80 with a Deck Park.
Note
These volume are estimates based only on stated maximum length,width, and height dimensions. A quick look at some diagrams shows that the twin hanger ships tend to have more incursions that reduce width at various place over their length then open hangers that are basically superstructure rather then being buried within the hull. So the twin hanger numbers are probably a bit more inflated, but they generally constitute a reasonable rough comparison.
Graf's design WAS inefficient mind you, she was the size of an Essex which even with the above estimations probably had about a 30-40% larger air group (90-100 vs 60-70) and, lack of even the rather tenuous flight deck armor of Graf aside, was largely better protected. She used FAR too much tonnage on artillery although a fair bit (though not all) of this could have been reclaimed by it's removal when it's uselessness became obvious. She also too obsessed with speed, her two knot speed 'advantage' over Essex for instance cost her 50,000 extra HP in machinery weight and the headaches high power machinery always brings compared to more modest plants in maintenance, reliability, and efficiency (she probably had something like half the cruising range of an Essex). She was big enough not to need that super high sprint speed to get good sized deck loads off (a notable part of the reason the Dragons were so fast) so that was wasted tonnage really.
Still wasn't terrible just a bit under optimized with some detail issues resulting from a lack of much first hand experience, some of which could have been largely corrected with refits if she'd gone into service and had some time for such things.
Dogwalker said:
Not counting the planned plane types. Those of the Graf were simply a mistake. It's difficult to think of a worst "modern" (single seat, monoplane) embarked fighter than the Bf109, with it's weak, narrow, undercarriage and the small rudder, and 12 of them would hardly have been enough to face a coordinated attack.
The 109T was NOT just Luftwaffe 109 with a new designation slapped on, fairly significant design changes were made to decrease approach speed and improve handling. That said it still probably wasn't ideal, much like it's Spitfire rival wasn't, but much like that rival it probably would have worked passably all the same. It's range was still short for a naval fighter and even with the changes it wasn't exactly the easiest beast to handle and would have certainly had an increased accident rate. Still if it had gone into service as intended in 1940 it would have been better as a point defense fighter then basically anything else afloat.
The proportion of fighters planned was too low, but that was a mistake nearly everyone made, but of course it's stupidly easy to fix by just embarking more fighters so that can hardly be counted against Graf. That "problem" could literally be fixed with the stroke of a pen to change the ratio of assigned aircraft.
Aquila was planned to have a single type fighter-bomber, less specialized than the Stukas in attack (but probably not worse in the torpedo-bomber role), but much more capable to defend themself and the ship.
And virtually certain to be terrible, every single attempt at these 'swing role' designs of this era was a DOG. The technology simply was not there for this to work either from an airframe and power plant perspective, but even beyond that it also ignores that in an era before the computer doing all your work for you can be toggled from 'missle to bomb' at the flip of a switch the skills of a dive bomber/TB pilot and the skills of a good fighter pilot are NOT the same thing. So basically what would happen is you'd have a bunch of guys that aren't very good at bombing and aren't very good and dogfighting, or you'd have one group that focuses on one and the other on the other and then you have to question, why the fuck not give these groups designs optimized for their roles?
The late war USN fighters for instance could carry nominal bomb loads comparable to a dive bomber and could in theory even carry a torpedo, but this was almost never done beside against area targets on land (and only after basically all air opposition was gone). Why? Because hitting a moving ship at sea even with a plane designed for it ain't easy even if you train for it, but for guys that don't... well go look at how ineffectual air force bombers were against ships over and over again during the war. Maritime strike is a skill set that must be trained for, it's not just something you get good at by accident by being a pilot.
Even later on the navies in the know focused their 'dual role' designs on combining the TB/DB roll, attempting to roll the fighter mission into this ALWAYS tended to result in an oversized, overweight design that was not competitive in air combat with focused designs and thus not fit for it's mission. Naval fighters already had added weight compared to land based designs, trying to roll aspects of bombers into them only made this even worse. If you want to see why a fighter/bomber design in early WWII was a terrible idea go look at the Fulmar.
Another issue is that when looking at Graf's purposed air wing one must be careful to consider the period WHEN it was purposed and not to compare it to stuff from 1943-44. Graf was at first planned to be finished in mid 1940 and the planes cited for it were intended to be used in that period. With that in mind look at competing air groups in that period:
Mid 1940 carrier aircraft
Germany Fighter: 109T, doesn't need much explanation Dive Bomber: Stuka variant, needs little explanation Torpedo Bomber: Fi 167, a last generation biplane TB similiar to the Albacore
Japan: Fighter: A5M, the Zero wouldn't see start to see squadron service until the later half of 1940 and hadn't even fully replaced the A5 on all carriers by the time of the start of the Pacific war (A5 flew off Shouhou at Coral Sea for instance). Dive Bomber: the D3A val was only ordered in December 1939 it was only beginning to replace the earlier Biplane DB by mid 1940 Torpedo Bomber: B5N a pretty good aircraft, better to a reasonable degree even even the last generation of Biplane TBs and in wide service by 1940
USN: Dive Bomber: The fist mark SBD was just coming into service, but quite a few units were still using the old Biplane Helldiver from the mid 30s Fighter: The Wildcat was only begin to come into service in mid to late 1940 Torpedo Bomber: The Devastator was actually ahead of it's time in the mid 30s, but it's performance by 1940 was not really superior to the Albacore or Fi 167
RN: Fighter: The FAA was using the Biplane Sea Gladiator until mid 1940 when the first Fulmar began to arrive... these were terrible. Dive Bomber: Suka, reasonable actually a bit ahead of it's time, but becoming obsolescent by late 1940 Torpedo Bomber: The Albacore was nominally coming into service, but as evidenced by various operations the Swordfish remained in wide use at this time
France: They had biplane dive bombers on there one slow, WWI era converstion, nothing else.
The purposed Air Wing for Graf was completely competitive for mid to late 1940, it's aircraft's range was a bit short for naval operations aside from the purpose deisnged Fi, but within that range the performance of it's fighter was superior to almost anything at the time and it's dive bomber was highly competitive with the best foreign example (the just arriving SBD).
Tk3997 said: Aquila's capacity compared to Graf is overstated: -The stated air group includes a permanent ten plane deck park, Graf's given number probably includes no such thing. -Of the supposed 41 planes in the hanger 15 were actually hung overhead and not immediately usable (though they were fully assembled so could be pulled for use as spares within a few hours)
"Hours"? How bad a crane has to be designed to require hours to lower the charge of less than 3m? Better "minutes".
Tk3997 said: As for her other characteristic as a bodged up conservation it was unlikely she would ever make her projected speed regularly, her hull was weak structurally compared to a warship built to higher standards, compartmentalization was poor, she only had armor over small areas of the deck above magazines and fuel tanks (machinery was effective unprotected). Torpedo defense consisted of only a added blister intended more for sty then anything with concrete rather then steel for fragment protection behind it. She was not 'tough' in any god damn way and would have been hugely more vulranble then a frame up warship like Graf.
Sorry, but those are only personal guesses. It's far more probable than the Graf couldn't keep her speed for long, due to it's overcomplicated, overpowered and higly experimental machinery. On the contrary, Aquila's powerplant had been even downpowered in respect to what her two "Capitani Romani" class engines could do (every single Capitani Romani class engine could deliver 110.000 hp, but in the Aquila they were downpowered to 151.000 hp total) Graf's deck armor wasn't continuous too, Aquila's compartimentalization was very good, her underwater protection had been experimented and considered satisfactory, and the ship demonstrated to be pretty though.
Tk3997 said: The 109T was NOT just Luftwaffe 109 with a new designation slapped on, fairly significant design changes were made to decrease approach speed and improve handling.
Really they were Bf109e converted, an aircraft that was already obsolete in 1941. And the conversion increased the weight too, not really a good thing for that undercarriage, that continued to be narrow and weak, while the rudder continued to be small. The Bf109 was chosen only cause there wasn't better in the German inventory to convert, not cause it was any good for that job.
Tk3997 said: And virtually certain to be terrible,
Not by any means. First, having a single type plane does not means to have a single type pilot, but means to have much simpler manteinance. Second, the jobs to perform were really two (fighting and torpedoing with the 640kg torpedo, the Re.2001 was not a dive bomber), and a pilot can learn to do both. The Reggiane fighters (like the C.202 CB for that matter) were usually used as fighter-bombers, that means they were used to fight and to bomb, without their pilots having nervous breakdowns for that. Re.2001 CB had ben tested for naval operations with good results, and it's direct descendant, the Re.2002 had been really used to hit ships. Third. As they were, Re.2001 was already a better fighter than the Bf109e. Thanks to superior downward visibility for the pilot and inferior wing loading (and large undercarriage, and large rudder) it was clearly a better base for an embarked fighter, and it would have hardly been an inferior torpedo bomber to the Stuka (for the survivability of the crew until the release of the torpedo and after that, i give my vote to the Reggiane), so, the fuck with "optimized designs". The Bf109 and the Ju87 were not optimized designs for carrier operations at all.
Tk3997 said: well go look at how ineffectual air force bombers were against ships over and over again during the war.
To be ineffectual was high-altitude bombing. And tests performed since the '30s shown it would have been ineffectual. Air forces tried to perform it anyway cause it was safer for the pilots. It wasn't due to the quality of the pilots, but to purely statistical reasons. When figher-bombers tried to hit ships, if they were not shot down, they generally succeeded.
Tk3997 said: Even later on the navies in the know focused their 'dual role' designs on combining the TB/DB roll, attempting to roll the fighter mission into this ALWAYS tended to result in an oversized, overweight design that was not competitive in air combat with focused designs and thus not fit for it's mission.
Unfortunately the Re.2001 was already a fighter bomber, so there were nothing to add, and was already a better fighter than a BF109e, that was not a specialized embarked fighter. The Fulmar was a specialized naval design, so, if it sucked, it's not good for your theory above.
Tk3997 said: Another issue is that when looking at Graf's purposed air wing one must be careful to consider the period WHEN it was purposed and not to compare it to stuff from 1943-44. Graf was at first planned to be finished in mid 1940 and the planes cited for it were intended to be used in that period.
I have to compare available datas. When the Graf project was cancelled in 1943 the proposed aircrafts were still those listed. If I have to do guesses for the Aquila in 1940. An Re.2000OR single type would have probably still been a better air complement than that proposed for the Graf.
