Allow me to explain to stave off further unwanted remarks and guesses.
I drew this during the first part of the event when E-5/6/7 weren't released yet, using the equipment fairy of the 16 inch triple mount Mk. 6 as a baseline from where I'd start the work in progress.
The equipment fairy of the Mk. 6 had attributes we now see with KC SoDak (the long American flag hair, the bridge headgear, and the pencil skirt (which is partially visible in my work). Given past instances where fairies of equipment released from ranking rewards are based off charas that historically carried them and to be implemented (twin 152 Bofors had a Gotland fairy, triple 8 inch mount had a Houston fairy, etc.), I took it to mean that the new fairy in the Mk.6 illustration was most likely SoDak.
What the equipment fairy, unfortunately, does not give you is the physique of the character to expect (since unlike AL, KC ships aren't released in entirety beforehand due to a different NDA). As such, I had to rely on merry jest of guesswork to infer what SoDak's build would be when she came out. Thus, I based SoDak off Iowa since both were treaty-era BB. What I did not expect, though, was that zeco would portray SoDak in a way that reflected her class having the shortest overall length of the USN's treaty BB.
This resulted in a physique mismatch when her design finally came out Saturday morning JST. Since it would have taken me much longer to redo the work (three days at most from scratch, one day to change this to Hornet), I had to say it out loud on the artist commentary that the SoDak portrayed here is 大人 (adult version).
I hope I've outlined my full explanation for this and for your kind understanding.
Allow me to explain to stave off further unwanted remarks and guesses.
I drew this during the first part of the event when E-5/6/7 weren't released yet, using the equipment fairy of the 16 inch triple mount Mk. 6 as a baseline from where I'd start the work in progress.
The equipment fairy of the Mk. 6 had attributes we now see with KC SoDak (the long American flag hair, the bridge headgear, and the pencil skirt (which is partially visible in my work). Given past instances where fairies of equipment released from ranking rewards are based off charas that historically carried them and to be implemented (twin 152 Bofors had a Gotland fairy, triple 8 inch mount had a Houston fairy, etc.), I took it to mean that the new fairy in the Mk.6 illustration was most likely SoDak.
What the equipment fairy, unfortunately, does not give you is the physique of the character to expect (since unlike AL, KC ships aren't released in entirety beforehand due to a different NDA). As such, I had to rely on merry jest of guesswork to infer what SoDak's build would be when she came out. Thus, I based SoDak off Iowa since both were treaty-era BB. What I did not expect, though, was that zeco would portray SoDak in a way that reflected her class having the shortest overall length of the USN's treaty BB.
This resulted in a physique mismatch when her design finally came out Saturday morning JST. Since it would have taken me much longer to redo the work (three days at most from scratch, one day to change this to Hornet), I had to say it out loud on the artist commentary that the SoDak portrayed here is 大人 (adult version).
I hope I've outlined my full explanation for this and for your kind understanding.
Iowa is not a treaty battleship. If you mean Colorado, she is pre-Treaty, taking more cues from WWI dreadnoughts.
I assume the design for South Dakota is supposed to be half-way between Colorado and Iowa.
Technically Colorado was a treaty battleship if look at the Washington Naval Treaty, she and her sisters were the only American battleships allowed with 16 inch guns. Now for the Iowas, well yes you can say they are not treaty battleships, they are however carry overs from the Treaty era, as they still have the influence of the London Naval Treaty of 1936 in their designs.
Technically Colorado was a treaty battleship if look at the Washington Naval Treaty, she and her sisters were the only American battleships allowed with 16 inch guns. Now for the Iowas, well yes you can say they are not treaty battleships, they are however carry overs from the Treaty era, as they still have the influence of the London Naval Treaty of 1936 in their designs.
...So would that mean Yamato was the most illegal battleship to have ever exist?
...So would that mean Yamato was the most illegal battleship to have ever exist?
Well, the Japanese never signed the 1936 treaty and withdrew from all treaties so Yamato was not illegal as the Japanese weren't bound to treaty anymore. Besides Yamato was laid down in 1937.
I assume the design for South Dakota is supposed to be half-way between Colorado and Iowa.
The South Dakota-class was designed in line with the traditionally "slow battleship but heavy armor" doctrine, whereas the Iowa-class wqs designed under the newer "fast Battleship" doctrine. Both doctrines were used by the United States Naval ship planners as a compromose between the naval officers on both sixes of the argument, as well as to appease US Congressmen and Senators on military committees, who were pressuring the US Navy to speed up production of new battleships to keep up with the advancements of other national navies.
The South Dakotas WERE NOT treaty-battleships. The North Carolinas were though (only two of that class: North Carolina herself and Washington). The South Dakotas were meant to be improvements on the North Carolinas (more armor and gun mounts)
It's you verses nearly every single major Naval Historian in the English language as well as every participant of the London Naval Treaty on that point.
