Jump to content


Commonwealth Destroyer Line(s)

Commonwealth Destroyers Commonwealth Destroyers Canadian Australian Indian RCN RAN British Royal Navy

  • Please log in to reply
51 replies to this topic

Poll: Commonwealth Full Destroyer Tree, For or Against? (67 members have cast votes)

Do you want to see / play a full Destroyer Line in the Commonwealth Tree / Branch?

  1. Yes, about time that Canada and Australia gets their due! (48 votes [71.64%])

    Percentage of vote: 71.64%

  2. No, there is nothing unique about them (12 votes [17.91%])

    Percentage of vote: 17.91%

  3. I don't know (7 votes [10.45%])

    Percentage of vote: 10.45%

Vote Guests cannot vote Hide poll

LordHood2552 #1 Posted 22 December 2016 - 12:35 AM

    Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 82
  • Member since:
    10-10-2015

After reading through some proposals for British  / Royal Navy Destroyer Lines and Sub-branches, it got me thinking: is there enough to also create a full tech tree destroyer line and destroyer leader / heavy destroyer sub-line for the Commonwealth Tech Tree as well?

 

I know in similar discussions there has been some comments such as "they will not be unique because there are British ships just with another coat of paint on them" etc etc.

 

If we can avoid getting into that area of thought and actually think of a combined line and sub-line incorporating Canadian, Australian and even one RIN (Royal Indian Navy) ship to fill up at least one full line, then that will be at least a start.

 

I'll go first:


Tier 1:

 

HMIS Jumna (Black Swan Class Sloop) (Royal Indian Navy)

 

for me the hard part to start this was just finding an appropriate starting ship for a line like this that was somewhat unique

 

and then I found the info on the Jumna

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMIS_Jumna

 

even though its mostly the same as the Tier 1 British Black Swan, I think the circumstances of its service make it unique as well as we need to start somewhere

 

the rest of the full line I'm still working on here and there, but if anyone has any helpful suggestions or tree / sub-tree ideas, feel free to share

 

(please note, I will of course include HMCS HAIDA as Tier 7 Premium, so don't jump on me for not mentioning about her)

 

(p.s. I would like to thank and acknowledge Phoenix_jz and his post Destroyers; Steel, paper or Fiction for giving me a source to start from) (http://forum.worldofwarships.com/index.php?/topic/92493-destroyers-steel-paper-or-fiction/)


Edited by LordHood2552, 01 February 2017 - 06:16 PM.


Kapitanleutnant_Ford #2 Posted 22 December 2016 - 12:51 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Members

  • 1,944
  • Member since:
    07-15-2016
I am looking forward to a Royal Navy destroyer line, and I'm sure there are some notable commonwealth DDs that will make excellent premiums. I don't see them having a full tech tree line though.
Stats

GrandAdmiral_2016 #3 Posted 22 December 2016 - 12:58 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 684
  • Member since:
    01-02-2016

While I Iike the idea, you have to sell it to WoWs/WG. The selling point is that it allows WoWs to have ships of various classes without having a branched RN destroyer tech tree because of the numerous classes involved and the nature of the wartime emergency programs. Otherwise the tech tree inclusion decisions are going to be very tough indeed to make. Could debate this for a long time but I think, if you search the forum, you will find the subject has been flogged to death.


 

HMCS Haida as the RCN Tribal

HMCS Annapolis (Lend-Lease Clemson Class transfer)

HMCS Skeena (Revised A-Class built for the RN)

HMAS Arunta (present at Surigao Strait!) as the RAN Tribal

HMAS Vampire (V&W)

HMAS Norman (N-Class transferred unit)

HMAS Stuart (WWI S-Class)


Edited by GrandAdmiral_2016, 22 December 2016 - 12:59 AM.


AnderZENZ_IowaClass #4 Posted 22 December 2016 - 01:26 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 561
  • Member since:
    12-05-2015
As long as they differ from UK Destroyers (when/if they come along) I'm game.

RNG needs directions to the toilet, because I am not in fact a toilet, especially not his.

 


LordHood2552 #5 Posted 22 December 2016 - 03:52 AM

    Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 82
  • Member since:
    10-10-2015

ok, here is my first draft of the proposed line(s)

 

Regular Tree Ships

 

 

 

Heavy Destroyer / Destroyer Leader Line


 

 

 

 

 

 


Edited by LordHood2552, 22 December 2016 - 04:06 AM.


LordHood2552 #6 Posted 22 December 2016 - 03:57 AM

    Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 82
  • Member since:
    10-10-2015
by the way, I have searched the forum, but no one ever gave any examples about how a tree might look like, just comments and random ships suggested

LordHood2552 #7 Posted 22 December 2016 - 04:03 AM

    Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 82
  • Member since:
    10-10-2015


 Premium Ships

 

Tier 3:

 

Patrician (Admiralty M-Class) (RCN), Niagara (Wickes Class) (RCN), St. Clair (Wickes Class) (RCN)

 

Tier 4: St. Croix (Clemson Class) (RCN), St. Francis (Clemson) (RCN)

 

Tier 5: Waterhen (Ad.m W-Class) (RAN)

 

Tier 6: Saguenay (A-Class) (RCN)

 

Tier 7: Haida (Tribal Class) (RCN), Bataan (Tribal Class) (RAN)

 

Tier 8: Sioux (V-Class 1941) (RCN)

 

 



LordHood2552 #8 Posted 22 December 2016 - 04:05 AM

    Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 82
  • Member since:
    10-10-2015
sorry just realized I had a typo in my listing for the Napier, should be RAN instead of RCN, not sure how I missed that

LordHood2552 #9 Posted 22 December 2016 - 04:06 AM

    Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 82
  • Member since:
    10-10-2015
there, fixed

LordHood2552 #10 Posted 22 December 2016 - 04:10 AM

    Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 82
  • Member since:
    10-10-2015

if anyone else has an idea how this line could work, feel free to post their ideas and versions

 

only rule, must be a full Tier 2-10 line, not just premiums



mofton #11 Posted 22 December 2016 - 04:30 AM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Members

  • 2,994
  • Member since:
    10-22-2015

View PostKapitanleutnant_Ford, on 21 December 2016 - 04:51 PM, said:

I am looking forward to a Royal Navy destroyer line, and I'm sure there are some notable commonwealth DDs that will make excellent premiums. I don't see them having a full tech tree line though.

Agreed.

 

View PostAnderZENZ_IowaClass, on 21 December 2016 - 05:26 PM, said:

As long as they differ from UK Destroyers (when/if they come along) I'm game.

They don't, you  could possibly differentiate some a bit by going with post-war outfits (like Lo Yang is from Benson) but overall, every suggestion on this thread so far is either a British built DD, or a USN Lend-Lease model.

 

View PostLordHood2552, on 21 December 2016 - 07:52 PM, said:

ok, here is my first draft of the proposed line(s)

 

Regular Tree Ships

 

Heavy Destroyer / Destroyer Leader Line

 

 

Your regular tree looks pretty good aside from T7 and T8 which I think are overtiered, there may be disagreement on T7 but R and W class are pretty similar 'War Emergency Program' models and I can't see one at T8.

 

On your leaders tree I think Napier is under-tiered, JKN class could do minimum T7 and maybe even T8 (I'm thinking about it) 6 guns, 10 torpedoes. Tribal at T7 is the common assertion, I agree - so long as you keep 8x 4.7in's. C-Class(43) I don't think are a T8.

 

Basically RN DD (which is what these are) are discussed a fair amount. The difficulty in tiering them is that choice of torpedoes - up to WG - and concealment - which no one knows quite how it works - are big deals for DD. Also WG don't know how to tier DD either, otherwise Fubuki wouldn't have been bumped from T8 to T6...


light.png

Iowanna be a rockstar - Salmon - Ctrl-Click-Schiffe - Le Dunkerque - Grand Old Lady - ~5 Mil in IJN Scrap

Gearings of Poor - Trashcan - Biscuit-tweaker - Tachi-Ali-Baba - Not-quite-Minekaze - Zit-23 - Shinbone - Your-a-gnome

Dakka Moines - AbSchorring - Dakka-Dakka-taur


Umikami #12 Posted 22 December 2016 - 03:15 PM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Beta Testers

  • 2,568
  • Member since:
    05-14-2013

Here is some feedback on your choices in making this a complete line (IMHO only bro, just me thinking)

 

2. Parramatta: Weak guns with only the one 4", if you could get WoW to "swap" the 12 pounders for additional 4 " guns she might work tho.

3. Patriot: Only 3 Guns and 4 torpedo tubes seems a bit light.

4. Vendetta: This ship looks great, though I would certainly pick the 1942 version (providing she kept her torpedo tubes).

5. Voyager: Again, nice DD; though again I would go with the 2 torp launcher design.

6. Skeena: Very nice ship, the single tube torp launchers will be interesting!

7. Rotherham: Nice ship, better torps, great history.

8. Wessex: Nice ship (again) but really isn't she a repeat of Rotherham? Seems very similar (but then so do USN DD's at that tier)

9. Tobruk: Wow, this ship may be OP for this tier (hope not; looks great).

10. Vampire: How could you go wrong with Vampire?


 

3. Anzac: Light on torpedo armament.

4. Vampire: Definitely use the quad torp mounts.

5. Stuart: Nice.

6. Napier: (your link to this ship didn't work so I had to look it up myself) Nice, but only the single 5 tube torp launcher.

7. Iroquois: Again, nice, but only the single torp launcher.

8. Crusader: Very nice, and historical (the trainbusters thing is just too cool) but again weak torps with the 4 single launchers (quik for a reload tho).

 

All in all; great job and thanks for sharing some very interesting ships!! Thumbs Up Dude!!


Edited by Umikami, 22 December 2016 - 03:16 PM.


LordHood2552 #13 Posted 01 February 2017 - 06:19 PM

    Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 82
  • Member since:
    10-10-2015

well to be fair Umikami, the second line is meant to be more Heavy Destroyer / Destroyer / Flotilla Leader Line and with the Tribal Class and up they tended to emphasize guns over torpedoes

 

but if you have a better idea for that line I'm open to suggestions



AVR_Project #14 Posted 01 February 2017 - 06:24 PM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Members

  • 2,710
  • Member since:
    10-31-2015

In World War 2, in the jungles of New Guinea, MacArthur had two smaller Army groups at his disposal.  He had them fighting side-by-side.

One was a troop from India, the other was Native Americans from the SouthWest US.

The Native Americans were called, 'Indians'.  The native Indians were called, "Gurkhas'.


So much has been lost, so much forgotten. So much pain, so much blood. And for what? I wonder. The past tempts us, the present confuses us, and the future frightens us. And our lives slip away, moment by moment, lost in that vast, terrible in-between. But there is still time to seize that one last, fragile moment. To choose something better, to make a difference.  -- Babylon 5


ElectroVeeDub #15 Posted 01 February 2017 - 07:54 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 441
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

Although you've made an excellent proposal that should be in-game... you will encounter resistance to the idea on the forums here. Keep in mind that the NA forums are dominated by Americans. Many consider Canada and other commonwealth nations to be... "non-contribution" navies not worthy of mention, along with Russia, Poland, Holland, Taiwan, China, and even France or Italy.

 

Scroll up and see the above comments. Some people actually believe there wasn't even 10 ships to create tech tree out of in WoWs.

 

Even though a massive factor in Britain's freedom today is because of the Canadian convoy escorts in WWII, and the Aussies and Kiwi's were repelling Japanese conquerors in the pacific, garnering acknowledgement of that is like herding cats.



mr3awsome #16 Posted 01 February 2017 - 08:22 PM

    Fleet Admiral

  • Supertester
  • Alpha Tester
    In AlfaTesters
    Beta Testers

  • 13,696
  • Member since:
    08-16-2012

View PostElectroVeeDub, on 01 February 2017 - 07:54 PM, said:

Some people actually believe there wasn't even 10 ships to create tech tree out of in WoWs.

There aren't 10 Unique ships to create a tech tree out of. 

Literally, Canada has fewer unique options than Poland (Which has 3, vs Canada's 0). 

 


 


Poland has more unique warships to contribute than Canada.


ElectroVeeDub #17 Posted 01 February 2017 - 08:53 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 441
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View Postmr3awsome, on 01 February 2017 - 08:22 PM, said:

There aren't 10 Unique ships to create a tech tree out of. 

Literally, Canada has fewer unique options than Poland (Which has 3, vs Canada's 0). 

 

 

This is a thread about a commonwealth tree. Not a Canadian only tree. If that's the case then how did the OP find the 10 ships shown above?

 

https://en.wikipedia...l_Canadian_Navy

 

Canada is Britain. You speak as if Canada did not fly the Union Jack in WWII.

 

Many of the war machines the British used were Canadian built including ships. Britain built these machines in Canada because Canada was untouchable to the Germans and the Japanese at that time. These factories and ship-yards employed Canadian skilled labor and engineers alike, most of which had family roots in Britain. The Lancaster bomber and Sexton artillery are a couple prime examples of such equipment.

 

You're essentially claiming the third largest navy in the world at that time (not even considering that Canadians also served on British ships, bases, etc, etc) ... didn't have 10 measly destroyers? Between Canada, Australia and New Zealand? India?

 

If that's the case... The Lo Yang, Anshan, Perth and a few other ships shouldn't be in game either. They don't meet your requirements that they must be unique. This isn't a debate about "who built what". It's more of a debate about paying homage to fallen soldiers from contributing nations. If you don't believe that Canada didn't contribute... then I can think of more than a few cemeteries in Holland, Belgium, and France full of Canadian ghosts that would strongly disagree with you.

 

 


Edited by ElectroVeeDub, 01 February 2017 - 09:38 PM.


BrianDavion #18 Posted 01 February 2017 - 09:56 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 788
  • Member since:
    07-07-2015

I don't think they're saying Canada didn't contribute, after all, Canadian troops where fighting and dying long before America fought in the war. Americans are, or should be, well aware that WW2 began in 1939 and the US sat out the first 2 and a half years because many Americans opposed going to war until they where forced into it. 

 

rather they're saying Canada lacked any unique ship designs and used US and UK ships. in that regard, yes thats true, on the other hand it does give WG a chance to build a combined US/UK line where they change things up, such as giving a ship hydro instead of smoke etc. 



ElectroVeeDub #19 Posted 01 February 2017 - 10:12 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 441
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostBrianDavion, on 01 February 2017 - 09:56 PM, said:

I don't think they're saying Canada didn't contribute, after all, Canadian troops where fighting and dying long before America fought in the war. Americans are, or should be, well aware that WW2 began in 1939 and the US sat out the first 2 and a half years because many Americans opposed going to war until they where forced into it. 

 

rather they're saying Canada lacked any unique ship designs and used US and UK ships. in that regard, yes thats true, on the other hand it does give WG a chance to build a combined US/UK line where they change things up, such as giving a ship hydro instead of smoke etc. 

 

Then we agree. Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and perhaps even India should be represented in WoWs, if not as premiums, as part of a destroyer tech tree.

 

However... I think that was WarGaming's intent from the beginning, given the carousel filter option for commonwealth ships.



SparvieroVV #20 Posted 02 February 2017 - 03:18 AM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Beta Testers

  • 2,135
  • Member since:
    06-20-2015

http://www.cnrs-scrn...nm_5_1_1-17.pdf

 






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users