Japanese battleship superstructures

[TsAGI]

I noticed a lot of the Japanese battleships had very similar pagoda style superstructures, from the Kongo class, Fuso class (namely Yamashiro), Ise class, and all the way to the Nagato class (all post-modernization). Also it seems very likely that the canceled types like the Amagi class, Tosa class, Kii class would have also received this type of superstructure after their refits. Will this be implemented into the game?

 I'm guessing the devs could add it into the campaign as well as a Japanese compromise-refit, where the superstructure refit takes less resources and time but improves the ship's targeting capability less compared to other nations.

[Kloothommel]

Yes.

[1MajorKoenig]

Yes we certainly need Pagoda masts 🥳

[Cptbarney]

Also add a feature to extend the pagoda to stupid heights for memes.

[Wakelessrex]

Agreed.

[ReefKip]

On 8/22/2020 at 5:22 PM, TsAGI said:

where the superstructure refit takes less resources and time but improves the ship's targeting capability less compared to other nations.

What made the pagoda superstructure less good for targeting? Also doesn't the pagoda provide superior visibility then most other superstructures?

[TsAGI]

On 10/25/2020 at 11:45 PM, ReefKip said:

What made the pagoda superstructure less good for targeting? Also doesn't the pagoda provide superior visibility then most other superstructures?

Japanese ships in general had worse fire control systems but I guess that's more down to the optics themselves. A definite drawback to the pagoda style towers were that they were so tall that in some ships (mainly the really tall ones like Fuso) the ship rocked sideways a lot and therefore stability was pretty bad. 

[Shiki]

Yes and no? Japanese optical (i.e. rangefinders, binoculars, etc.) equipment was sufficiently advanced for its time and almost on par with German optical systems; certainly a bit ahead of Italian, British, and American optical-directed fire control systems, the former being plagued by certain details with regards to cleaning and glare treatment and the latter two for their small size. The primary problem wasn't with the optics, it was with the lack of a stable vertical and the decentralization of the fire process. You could say that - taking the two Pacific juggernauts as the example - that the Japanese had the better (optical) equipment, but the Americans had the better system, especially considering the large amounts of automation that went into the latter.

As for the visibility and targeting factors, yes, they could provide superior optical gunfighting ability. However, that didn't matter much after October 1942, when the USN began to step up its use of radar-directed fire.