Great, but why use a Nagato.

What about with the ISE and FUSO? No L is available.

Again the second Set? What about Range of Normal vs D Gun?

What do you recomend for Nagato?
Wha do you recomend for Ise Fuso?

I just reread the Thread.

So many Double Negatives my Head is spinning.

Is this Correct?

Dual 16.1"/ 45 Type 3 L vs. Dual 16.1"/ 45 Type 90 L
1st Type 3 Has Lower Damage THAN 2nd Type 90
1st Type 3 Has Lower AP Damage THAN 2nd Type 90
1st Type 3 Has Slower Reload THAN 2nd Type 90
1st Type 3 Has Higher Weight THAN 2nd Type 90
1st Type 3 Has Better Spread THAN 2nd Type 90

So the SECOND Type 90 Set Wins 4 of 5 ?

Damage dones't matter far too much to me, but what does, is stopping power, and the
ability to hit the enemy, and either kill then, cripple them, or do enough damage to
make them retreat and repair. In my opinion, that is stopping power.

The stopping power increases with spread as far as BBs goes. for example, the lyon
with it 16 barrels of doom has horrible spread. Sure it has good damage overall, but it
cant hit my O pro with a single shell if I'm rushing a BB5 beside him.

On the other hand, a PoW with quad 14"s, blocking set, can shot any ship dead in it's
tracks with 2 well aimed salvos.

Anyway, even that little bit of range I think is worth the first set...I tend to either line
battle or rush L1 style with the nagato >.>

I watched the video and it seemed like the 1st set did consistently about 28K in
damage on the SY, whereas the 2nd set consistenly did 31-32K in damage.

On the Queen Victoria with 12inch deck, the first set seemed useless, but the 2nd
set seemed to cut through the armor easily.

Now from the video I'm led to believe the second set is better. In the past, I had
always thought -> go with the 1st set due to the heavier damage, but this video (if
it wasn't manipulated in someway) suggest opposite.

About accuracy, in the video Richard used an SY, does this affect the shells more so
than if a Nagato FC was used?

Interseting video there.

Dear Richard,
Thanks for the post, are you saying that the 2nd Type 90 Gun has now been partially fixed?

1st Type 3 = better damage + better AP + worse spread + slower reload + higher weight
2nd Type 90 = worse Damage +worse AP + better spread + faster reload + lower weight
(reload was unclear in your post)

1st Type 3 2nd Type 90
DAMAGE + -
AP + -
SPREAD - +
RELOAD - +
WEIGHT - +

That the SPREAD, RELOAD, Lower WEIGHT of the 2nd Type 90s Now may make them a better
choice then the 1st Type 3s?

1) Is my chart now correct with most recent guns?
2) We are talking about Ls for both guns?
3) Do people now believe that the 2nd type 90s are THE Better Option?

*****
less Damage+spread+less reload+less weight>better damage+better AP+worse
spread+faster reload+more weight ?
*****
Fixed partially.

So, I am led to believe that even with the squirrely spread the type 90 is indeed a
better gun??

Damage+spread+less reload+less weight>less damage+better AP+worse
spread+faster reload+more weight.



BB3 128 BB room, long time ago.
Briggerz in nelson on A (dual 15", AW),
Me in Nagato on B.
We only met each other at the end of the battles, and AP was not needed since only
1/4th were AW UK ships. (and for BB3s, most cant carry more than 8"+BB3 ranged
guns)

Edit: oh formatting hell D:

2Edit: image for range difference (lower range is 2nd set), taken from my gun guide.

I thought that the reason to use the first set was more range?