ID
Password
FlashGuide
FlashGuide
HA Infomation

Kriegsmarine

  Index

  • Bismark 1943 or H41

    01. 11. 2013 08:23


mustangman

I've come down to deciding to get a KM ship for my EBB ticket. It appears that the Bismark 1943 is a bit better than the H41.

 

Has anyone used both these ships and can offer useful advice?

 

  • Re : Bismark 1943 or H41

    01. 11. 2013 09:02


Sonlirain

Well.

H41 is basically a slightely upgraded H39 so no suprises there.
It's a nice BB4 but nothing you wouldn't expect from a H39.

Now Bissy while it might be slow (especially with a high level crew) it also can load Opro2 trips. and do awful ammounts of damage with them (altho not as much as hyuga).

And (if you don't have it already) there is the Opro that got a bit modified and now goes derp'n with 16" guns (apparently it's bad but the guns will get more accurate once you're skilled enough.. or so they say).

Basically:
H41 - Vanity prize.
Bissy - Montana lite.
Opro - H39s "special" little brother. 

  • Re : Bismark 1943 or H41

    01. 11. 2013 10:37


mustangman

I never thought of the Opro! I don't really "need/want" a vanity prize. It seems like the bissy might be the way to go.

  • Re : Bismark 1943 or H41

    01. 11. 2013 19:07


Zeabz

Bismarck is Montana light? Hardly, KM with no range is dead in most any games. The Bismarck (1943) AKA "TIRPITZ" with triple turrets (12 guns) still has a serious lack of range vs BB4/5/6 and thus is food for all other nations. I highly doubt you can armor it, thus you are stuck with more shells (that still can't block) and that cause no damage (no KM shells cause any damage). You have no speed and no range (except vs BB3 and under which you rarely go against in NF).

Go with the H41 since at least you get H39 range. You will still get dominated by all BB5/6 and most BB4 because of your lack of shell damage and awful survivability but at least you outrange "Tirpitz".

  • Re : Bismark 1943 or H41

    01. 12. 2013 04:15


Sonlirain

Originally Posted by Zeabz

Bismarck is Montana light? Hardly, KM with no range is dead in most any games. The Bismarck (1943) AKA "TIRPITZ" with triple turrets (12 guns) still has a serious lack of range vs BB4/5/6 and thus is food for all other nations. I highly doubt you can armor it, thus you are stuck with more shells (that still can't block) and that cause no damage (no KM shells cause any damage). You have no speed and no range (except vs BB3 and under which you rarely go against in NF).

Go with the H41 since at least you get H39 range. You will still get dominated by all BB5/6 and most BB4 because of your lack of shell damage and awful survivability but at least you outrange "Tirpitz".



Well you know... Triplitz is a BB3.
It just carries a lot of firepower for a KM ship 

  • Re : Bismark 1943 or H41

    01. 12. 2013 05:28


CLTwolverine

Good points zeabz, I'm guessing that every other BB3/EBB3 hit much harder than KM, as is always the case.

It is frustrating that KM is by far the weakest nation in causing damage when the primary way of getting exp and winning battles is by causing damage.

  • Re : Bismark 1943 or H41

    01. 13. 2013 08:54


Kogard

Well I'm getting H41, becoz I don't think bizzy43 with triple gun (but reduced speed) do a better job than my original O2 in GBs. In BB3 rooms that's another story...

 

 

  • Re : Bismark 1943 or H41

    01. 13. 2013 20:04


ErwinJA

To a degree, I'd even go so far as saying the H41 is a bit of a downgrade of the H39. It has significantly less useable displacement - in other words: less bulge - and a 25% reduction in plane space (the only EBB5 to get this, and the only one under 200). And a hidden weakness: IIRC, there is a bonus for attack against higher level ships (and a penalty for significantly lower level ones). An H39 with the same attack will often get slightly more exp because it's a lower level ship.

The main reason to get the H41 is the number of support slots, which make it good for leveling additional crew. Even then, the O-Pro II EBB has the same, and is a better overall ship IMHO. In fact, going 42 easy, and 44-45 if you use the 14.96" trips and skimp a bit, its somewhat lackluster range is EASILY made up for by speed and rate of fire, and it's very easy to savage even BB5s if you know what you're doing.

The bissy, however, is actually quite powerful. The KM 14.96" actually do have decent hitting power, and the trips have a very good spread even if they don't block-shot. It is fully capable of terrorizing BB3 and lower with those guns, and a major threat to higher tiers if it can sneak into range. But I'll take the O II's extra speed and support slot over the extra turret any time.

  • Re : Bismark 1943 or H41

    01. 13. 2013 21:03


Benser33

Originally Posted by ErwinJA

To a degree, I'd even go so far as saying the H41 is a bit of a downgrade of the H39.

1) It has significantly less useable displacement - in other words: less bulge

2) A 25% reduction in plane space (the only EBB5 to get this, and the only one under 200).

3) And a hidden weakness: IIRC, there is a bonus for attack against higher level ships (and a penalty for significantly lower level ones). An H39 with the same attack will often get slightly more exp because it's a lower level ship.

Just to address some of what you've said here, Ive split your first paragraph up.

1) The H41 has plenty enough space to fit the maximum 255 bulge that can be fit to a ship, as far as I am aware. The reduced displacement actually results in the H41 taking less damage than the H39, through a mechanic called submergence.

2) I think this might have been an error that will be fixed.

3) To my knowledge, this is true from a technical standpoint. But the extra support slot more than makes up for any 'loss' in exp. Besides, that extra support should allow the H41 to perform better than the H39.

  • Re : Bismark 1943 or H41

    01. 13. 2013 23:18


ErwinJA

Originally Posted by Benser33

Originally Posted by ErwinJA

To a degree, I'd even go so far as saying the H41 is a bit of a downgrade of the H39.

1) It has significantly less useable displacement - in other words: less bulge

2) A 25% reduction in plane space (the only EBB5 to get this, and the only one under 200).

3) And a hidden weakness: IIRC, there is a bonus for attack against higher level ships (and a penalty for significantly lower level ones). An H39 with the same attack will often get slightly more exp because it's a lower level ship.

Just to address some of what you've said here, Ive split your first paragraph up.

1) The H41 has plenty enough space to fit the maximum 255 bulge that can be fit to a ship, as far as I am aware. The reduced displacement actually results in the H41 taking less damage than the H39, through a mechanic called submergence.

2) I think this might have been an error that will be fixed.

3) To my knowledge, this is true from a technical standpoint. But the extra support slot more than makes up for any 'loss' in exp. Besides, that extra support should allow the H41 to perform better than the H39.



1) I have an H41. At my current setup and crew, I drop from 40 to 39 at 51 bulge. It goes down again to 37 knots at 131 bulge. The absolute maximum bulge I can hold without ghosting or removing crew is 205 (it does, however, involve reducing ammunition). For the record, the crew I'm using right now weighs 5200 tons (6 are FPs I'm leveling, the rest are max level). Note that this setup has no AA because I'm leveling so many pilots, so a "proper" setup is even worse.
Also, as I understand it, increased displacement increases the damage taken from large caliber shells, not the reverse. This is one of the reasons the H44 is so fragile compared to, say, the L2.

EDIT: Did a bit of testing, and while somewhat counterintuitive, the H41 did hold slightly more bulge before dropping to 37 knots. It's in the single digits, but it is more, so I concede that part.

2) Like the Katsuragi's displacement "typo" that took 9 months? Even if it is an error, they're still not likely to fix it any time soon. And the fact remains that what used to be a KM advantage is now a disadvantage for this ship. Limited scout space is supposed to be a UK thing.

3) Agreed, though it can still be an issue in some situations.

  • Re : Bismark 1943 or H41

    01. 14. 2013 10:19


Benser33

Originally Posted by ErwinJA


Also, as I understand it, increased displacement increases the damage taken from large caliber shells, not the reverse. This is one of the reasons the H44 is so fragile compared to, say, the L2.

Increased displacement does increase damage taken, which is actually what I said. The reduced displacement actually results in the H41 taking less damage than the H39, through a mechanic called submergence.

Max displacement of the H39 is 69,000.

Max displacement of the H41 is 66,200.

I think the H41 has more free displacment than the H39 aswell.

 

These points considered, I wouldn't personally call the H41 a downgrade. It is, imo, a direct upgrade in most every way, other than the anomolous scout space which is more a bug than a nerf, not worth taking into consideration for comparison purposes.

1 2