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 #21 Posted 02 February 2017 - 03:58 AM

    Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 82
  • Member since:
    10-10-2015
And as you can see I did manage to include not 1 but 2 Indian ships (the starting ship at Tier 1 in my first post) and even managed to fit in a South African ship at Tier 8.

LordHood2552 #22 Posted 02 February 2017 - 04:02 AM

    Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 82
  • Member since:
    10-10-2015

But to be fair, these were ships I was able to find that actually all served at one time or another and were all actually commissioned (which in some cases with the "Greater Powers" in game you will see at least 1 paper ship somewhere)

 

That said, if anyone knows of any designs for any Commonwealth ships that never left the drawing board, please, do let me know about them and make your own suggestions to me


 

As I have continued to say, any contributive input will be greatly appreciated



mr3awsome #23 Posted 02 February 2017 - 06:44 PM

    Fleet Admiral

  • Supertester
  • Alpha Tester
    In AlfaTesters
    Beta Testers

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

View PostElectroVeeDub, on 01 February 2017 - 08:53 PM, said:

 If that's the case then how did the OP find the 10 ships shown above?

I would assume Google, like most people. 

 

View PostElectroVeeDub, on 01 February 2017 - 08:53 PM, said:

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?

The RCN was briefly the 4th largest Allied Navy only. And no, they didn't have 10 destroyers of unique design. 

The entire Commonwealth can only muster 2.5 unique ships in general, and all of those are Australian. 

Spoiler

The rest are either slightly altered British designs that had classmates used by the RN in greater numbers or were ex-RN vessels themselves. 

 

View PostElectroVeeDub, on 01 February 2017 - 08:53 PM, said:

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". 

Perth is an exception because all three of the Amphions served for most of their lives in the RAN, and they're different enough from the Leanders in both designs and light AA suite to warrant including as a separate entry. Not that you see the latter in game, but still. 

 

Lo Yang is a case of luring in the sizable Chinese market, because SinoBucks are relatively plentiful if you play it right, and you can bet that SerB likes rolling around in a pile of notes. 

 

Given how irritated people get at the Chinese tank line, which is derided as a Copy & Paste line, a Commonwealth destroyer line would be even worse, because with the exception of the Australian Darings, they are literally Copy & Pastes of British ships or the hulls of British ships that will be needed for their own line. 

 

View PostElectroVeeDub, on 01 February 2017 - 08:53 PM, said:

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.

Denying the contribution of Canada is pretty similar to denying the Holocaust or Climate Change. Pretty dumb. 

To that end, something like Perth or Blyskawica is freely endorsed, with the most common candidate suggested being the Haida, for obvious reasons. 


 


Poland has more unique warships to contribute than Canada.


Lord_Magus #24 Posted 02 February 2017 - 11:28 PM

    Lieutenant Junior Grade

  • Members

  • 1,553
  • Member since:
    08-18-2016
If a non-premium line of Commonwealth DDs is to happen, surely one of the Halifax-built Tribals is a must since with 4x2 102mm guns they'd be distinctive from the premium Haida (and from any RN Tribals as well).

ElectroVeeDub #25 Posted 13 February 2017 - 06:13 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 441
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View Postmr3awsome, on 02 February 2017 - 06:44 PM, said:

I would assume Google, like most people. 

 

The RCN was briefly the 4th largest Allied Navy only. And no, they didn't have 10 destroyers of unique design. 

The entire Commonwealth can only muster 2.5 unique ships in general, and all of those are Australian. 

Spoiler

The rest are either slightly altered British designs that had classmates used by the RN in greater numbers or were ex-RN vessels themselves. 

 

Perth is an exception because all three of the Amphions served for most of their lives in the RAN, and they're different enough from the Leanders in both designs and light AA suite to warrant including as a separate entry. Not that you see the latter in game, but still. 

 

Lo Yang is a case of luring in the sizable Chinese market, because SinoBucks are relatively plentiful if you play it right, and you can bet that SerB likes rolling around in a pile of notes. 

 

Given how irritated people get at the Chinese tank line, which is derided as a Copy & Paste line, a Commonwealth destroyer line would be even worse, because with the exception of the Australian Darings, they are literally Copy & Pastes of British ships or the hulls of British ships that will be needed for their own line. 

 

Denying the contribution of Canada is pretty similar to denying the Holocaust or Climate Change. Pretty dumb. 

To that end, something like Perth or Blyskawica is freely endorsed, with the most common candidate suggested being the Haida, for obvious reasons. 

 

You failed to acknowledge my previous statement of "This is a thread about a commonwealth tree. Not a Canadian only tree." and  "Canada is Britain. You speak as if Canada did not fly the Union Jack in WWII."

 

Commonwealth countries are British colonies that built these ships for King and Crown, many with their own alterations, such as Canadian ships adapted for Arctic use from existing designs. (extra heat, bow reinforcement for icebreaking etc).

 

There is most definitely 10 unique ships commonwealth wide.



mr3awsome #26 Posted 14 February 2017 - 08:49 AM

    Fleet Admiral

  • Supertester
  • Alpha Tester
    In AlfaTesters
    Beta Testers

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

View PostElectroVeeDub, on 13 February 2017 - 06:13 PM, said:

There is most definitely 10 unique ships commonwealth wide.

None of which have been listed, despite having a week and a half to come up with some. 

 

View PostElectroVeeDub, on 13 February 2017 - 06:13 PM, said:

Commonwealth countries are British colonies that built these ships for King and Crown, many with their own alterations, such as Canadian ships adapted for Arctic use from existing designs. (extra heat, bow reinforcement for icebreaking etc).

And how many of those differences will have a tangible impact on the game?

 

 


 


Poland has more unique warships to contribute than Canada.


ElectroVeeDub #27 Posted 19 February 2017 - 07:08 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 441
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View Postmr3awsome, on 14 February 2017 - 08:49 AM, said:

None of which have been listed, despite having a week and a half to come up with some. 

 

And how many of those differences will have a tangible impact on the game?

 

 

 

What are you talking about? You have not read this thread in entirety obviously. Scroll up and see the 10 ships suggested by the OP.

 

They will have a "tangible difference" in the same effect the Lo Yang, Campbeltown and Anshan do. The premise of your argument is "yeah but, they're British ships even though they were built in Commonwealth countries as well " ... is strained to say the least.

 

I get the sneaky suspicion your resistance to the whole idea of a commonwealth tree is based upon prejudice and ignorance. Them lowly Canadians and Auzzies couldn't possibly have the technology to build ships and fight wars! They live in igloos and travel down under on Kangaroo-back. Preposterous! They haven't even made it to space... err...

 

 


Edited by ElectroVeeDub, 19 February 2017 - 07:19 PM.


mr3awsome #28 Posted 20 February 2017 - 10:02 PM

    Fleet Admiral

  • Supertester
  • Alpha Tester
    In AlfaTesters
    Beta Testers

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

View PostElectroVeeDub, on 19 February 2017 - 07:08 PM, said:

Snip. 

Well of the classes suggested, only four were actually built in the Commonwealth. 

Parramatta is too weak. 

Tribal is a good tier VII. 

Australian Darings are a fair tier VIII. 

Battles are a fair tier IX. 

 

If you add ones that were ordered by the Commonwealth but built in the UK, you gain one. 

Skeena, a tier V. 

 

The rest are all second hand. Of those: 

- The Admiralty Ms are needed for the RN

- The Admiralty Vs are needed for the RN

- The modified Ws are needed for the RN

- Parker is needed for the RN

- Scott is needed for the RN

- N is needed for the RN

- The Wickes & Clemsons are represented by their namesakes, Campbeltown or are not capable enough for the game. 

 

Which means that any Commonwealth Destroyer line would just be a copy & paste of an existing line. 

Lo Yang & Anshan work because they are one offs. An entire line of copy & paste ships is somewhere between lazy and moronic. 

 


 


Poland has more unique warships to contribute than Canada.


Wyatt_DERP85 #29 Posted 21 February 2017 - 06:19 AM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 310
  • Member since:
    06-27-2014
Used British ships at the same tier isn't original enough. British battleships or destroyers - I'd love to see :)

ElectroVeeDub #30 Posted 26 February 2017 - 04:37 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 441
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View Postmr3awsome, on 20 February 2017 - 10:02 PM, said:

Well of the classes suggested, only four were actually built in the Commonwealth. 

Parramatta is too weak. 

Tribal is a good tier VII. 

Australian Darings are a fair tier VIII. 

Battles are a fair tier IX. 

 

If you add ones that were ordered by the Commonwealth but built in the UK, you gain one. 

Skeena, a tier V. 

 

The rest are all second hand. Of those: 

- The Admiralty Ms are needed for the RN

- The Admiralty Vs are needed for the RN

- The modified Ws are needed for the RN

- Parker is needed for the RN

- Scott is needed for the RN

- N is needed for the RN

- The Wickes & Clemsons are represented by their namesakes, Campbeltown or are not capable enough for the game. 

 

Which means that any Commonwealth Destroyer line would just be a copy & paste of an existing line. 

Lo Yang & Anshan work because they are one offs. An entire line of copy & paste ships is somewhere between lazy and moronic. 

 

 

Did you seriously just shoot down the idea of a commonwealth line because they're "just copy paste ships"... and then claim the Lo-Yang and Anshan are perfectly ok "copy paste" ships?

 

You realize that you just contradicted yourself... right?

 

Proof. Canadian destroyers did differ from their British counterparts. https://en.wikipedia...class_destroyer

 

Don't let stereotypical American prejudicial propaganda fog your judgement. The boys from the commonwealth were building ships, escorting convoys,  and sinking Nazi subs years before America even joined WW2. Canada was landing troops and enough equipment for an entire division in occupied Europe 6 days after the war began, and the Auzzies were stalling the Japanese long before Pearl Harbor was attacked. They'd laugh at any Yankee that thought otherwise then probably throw him overboard for not knowing his place in history.


Edited by ElectroVeeDub, 26 February 2017 - 06:41 PM.


mr3awsome #31 Posted 27 February 2017 - 10:24 AM

    Fleet Admiral

  • Supertester
  • Alpha Tester
    In AlfaTesters
    Beta Testers

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

View PostElectroVeeDub, on 26 February 2017 - 04:37 PM, said:

Did you seriously just shoot down the idea of a commonwealth line because they're "just copy paste ships"... and then claim the Lo-Yang and Anshan are perfectly ok "copy paste" ships?

 

You realize that you just contradicted yourself... right?

 

Proof. Canadian destroyers did differ from their British counterparts. https://en.wikipedia...class_destroyer

I said a couple of C&P premiums is okay, but a line of C&P ships isn't. No contradiction. 

 

I had mentioned Skeena & Saguenay earlier, but clearly you didn't bother to read that. 


 


Poland has more unique warships to contribute than Canada.


MandolinMagi #32 Posted 28 February 2017 - 05:28 PM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 263
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostElectroVeeDub, on 26 February 2017 - 11:37 AM, said:

 

Did you seriously just shoot down the idea of a commonwealth line because they're "just copy paste ships"... and then claim the Lo-Yang and Anshan are perfectly ok "copy paste" ships?

 

You realize that you just contradicted yourself... right?

 

Proof. Canadian destroyers did differ from their British counterparts. https://en.wikipedia...class_destroyer

 

Don't let stereotypical American prejudicial propaganda fog your judgement. The boys from the commonwealth were building ships, escorting convoys,  and sinking Nazi subs years before America even joined WW2. Canada was landing troops and enough equipment for an entire division in occupied Europe 6 days after the war began, and the Auzzies were stalling the Japanese long before Pearl Harbor was attacked. They'd laugh at any Yankee that thought otherwise then probably throw him overboard for not knowing his place in history.

 

And? A/B class is Tier 4-6 ship functionally identical to the RN versions. All Commonwealth ships were British designs with at best a few local variations. There is no possible way of getting a Commonwealth line that isn't copy-paste. 

ElectroVeeDub #33 Posted 06 March 2017 - 07:43 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 441
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostMandolinMagi, on 28 February 2017 - 05:28 PM, said:

 

And? A/B class is Tier 4-6 ship functionally identical to the RN versions. All Commonwealth ships were British designs with at best a few local variations. There is no possible way of getting a Commonwealth line that isn't copy-paste. 

 

Once again... the OP supplied a proposal above that consists of an entire line that mostly is not "copy/paste".

 

You should see the WG news blog regarding the release of the new French line. Some people in that blog aren't too happy that France (who was basically a non-contender in WWII as their entire fleet was scuttled shortly after Nazi occupation) is represented before Commonwealth countries who fought much longer and contributed far more .

 

Americans think it's a joke. The very concept that Canada/Australia/New Zealand even had access to a canoe blows their minds. The reality is quite the opposite.

 

http://www.veterans....nadian-navy/sww

 

http://www.navy.gov....econd-world-war



mr3awsome #34 Posted 06 March 2017 - 09:59 PM

    Fleet Admiral

  • Supertester
  • Alpha Tester
    In AlfaTesters
    Beta Testers

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

View PostElectroVeeDub, on 06 March 2017 - 07:43 PM, said:

Once again... the OP supplied a proposal above that consists of an entire line that mostly is not "copy/paste".

The only one that isn't Copy & Paste is the Australian Daring. 

 

View PostElectroVeeDub, on 06 March 2017 - 07:43 PM, said:

You should see the WG news blog regarding the release of the new French line. Some people in that blog aren't too happy that France (who was basically a non-contender in WWII as their entire fleet was scuttled shortly after Nazi occupation) is represented before Commonwealth countries who fought much longer and contributed far more .

France has far more unique content to contribute to the game, however. 

 


 


Poland has more unique warships to contribute than Canada.


ElectroVeeDub #35 Posted 07 March 2017 - 04:17 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 441
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View Postmr3awsome, on 06 March 2017 - 09:59 PM, said:

The only one that isn't Copy & Paste is the Australian Daring. 

 

France has far more unique content to contribute to the game, however. 

 

 

So? Why does everything absolutely have to be "unique"? It's about who built and operated the ships and contributed. It makes for some pretty limited gameplay if class variants can't be used, and will affect every tech tree in-game including USN.

 

According to that philosophy, the following ships should not be in game:

 

1)Campbeltown

2)Texas

3) Missouri

4) Lo Yang

5) Black

6) Flint

7) Indianapolis

8) Oleg

9) Minsk

10) Gremyaschy

11) Murmansk

12) Molotov

13) Emden

14) Konig Albert

15) Scharnhorst

16) Tirpitz

17) Atago

18) Belfast

19) Sims

20) Anshan

21) More to come no doubt. These are all the "copy/paste" ships that are variants of existing classes I can recall off the top of my head.

 

Wanna lose all these ships to satisfy your prerequisites?

 

 



mr3awsome #36 Posted 07 March 2017 - 09:30 AM

    Fleet Admiral

  • Supertester
  • Alpha Tester
    In AlfaTesters
    Beta Testers

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

View PostElectroVeeDub, on 07 March 2017 - 04:17 AM, said:

Wanna lose all these ships to satisfy your prerequisites?

None of those are two regular ships, which is the matter at hand. 

Half of them aren't even Copy & Pastes. 

 

View PostElectroVeeDub, on 07 March 2017 - 04:17 AM, said:

So? Why does everything absolutely have to be "unique"? It's about who built and operated the ships and contributed. It makes for some pretty limited gameplay if class variants can't be used, and will affect every tech tree in-game including USN.

Because if you have Copy & Paste Regular Lines, the gameplay is exactly the same. 

 


 


Poland has more unique warships to contribute than Canada.


LordHood2552 #37 Posted 10 March 2017 - 03:49 AM

    Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 82
  • Member since:
    10-10-2015

View Postmr3awsome, on 07 March 2017 - 04:30 AM, said:

None of those are two regular ships, which is the matter at hand.

Half of them aren't even Copy & Pastes.

 

Because if you have Copy & Paste Regular Lines, the gameplay is exactly the same.

 

 

 

Well it looks like someone at WG didn’t get the memo on that idea

 

According to the recent issue of World of Tanks Magazine, WG announces for release later this 2017 of a Pan-Asian Tech Tree “consisting of RU, US and Japanese ships” (destroyers more than likely)

 

So you were saying something about copy and pasting ships lines not working for a full line?

 

(pay attention to 2:24)

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=Fp2XmDAtKV4

 

so if WG is doing this for the Pan-Asia Branch, then more than likely a Commonwealth one will not be that far off



LordHood2552 #38 Posted 10 March 2017 - 04:02 AM

    Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 82
  • Member since:
    10-10-2015

View PostUmikami, on 22 December 2016 - 10:15 AM, said:

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!!

 

 

Did some further research on Crusader and during her service in Korea (or off Korea I should say) she kept her same armament she was built with and had when she was transferred to the RCN (that included her quad launcher)

 

As she was also built as a Destroyer Leader of that subclass, it makes sense to keep her there

 

http://www.hazegray....nada/postwar/c/

 

As for other (possible) changes, I will update as needed (and when I have the time)



mr3awsome #39 Posted 10 March 2017 - 09:19 AM

    Fleet Admiral

  • Supertester
  • Alpha Tester
    In AlfaTesters
    Beta Testers

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

View PostLordHood2552, on 10 March 2017 - 03:49 AM, said:

Well it looks like someone at WG didn’t get the memo on that idea

According to the recent issue of World of Tanks Magazine, WG announces for release later this 2017 of a Pan-Asian Tech Tree “consisting of RU, US and Japanese ships” (destroyers more than likely)

So you were saying something about copy and pasting ships lines not working for a full line?

(pay attention to 2:24)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fp2XmDAtKV4

so if WG is doing this for the Pan-Asia Branch, then more than likely a Commonwealth one will not be that far off

It doesn't say anything about a branch. It just says more ships. 

 


 


Poland has more unique warships to contribute than Canada.


LordHood2552 #40 Posted 10 March 2017 - 05:45 PM

    Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 82
  • Member since:
    10-10-2015

View Postmr3awsome, on 10 March 2017 - 04:19 AM, said:

It doesn't say anything about a branch. It just says more ships.

 

 

This was the best I could do since I couldn’t post the link from the actual article since it was mobile or tablet accessible only

 

But as the article in the issue said “fans of Lo Yang and Anshan will look forward to a researchable branch of ships”

 

Researchable

 

As in regular tech tree

 

Don’t believe me, download the app yourself and read it there

 

https://worldofwarsh...ou-have-issues/

 

https://play.google....tsbattle.mobile

 

https://itunes.apple...ish/id912730960

 

 






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users