Jump to content


New Premium Ships Ideas

WOWS Premium Ships Poll

  • Please log in to reply
60 replies to this topic

Poll: Premium Ship Ideas (88 members have cast votes)

What Ship(s) should be added in the game as Premium(s)?

  1. USS Laffey (DD-724) (17 votes [6.12%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 6.12%

  2. USS Samuel B. Roberts (DE-413) (24 votes [8.63%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 8.63%

  3. USS Alaska (CB-1) (54 votes [19.42%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 19.42%

  4. USS California (BB-44) (23 votes [8.27%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 8.27%

  5. USS Nevada (BB-36) (25 votes [8.99%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 8.99%

  6. IJN Yahagi (CR) (15 votes [5.40%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 5.40%

  7. IJN Ise (BB) (21 votes [7.55%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 7.55%

  8. IJN Tosa (planned BB) (13 votes [4.68%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 4.68%

  9. Graff Zepplin (planned CV; if German carrier tree isn't added to game) (32 votes [11.51%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 11.51%

  10. SMS Derfflinger (CR) (16 votes [5.76%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 5.76%

  11. Kronshtadt-class (planned CR) (9 votes [3.24%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 3.24%

  12. Stalingrad-class (planned CR) (14 votes [5.04%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 5.04%

  13. Other (please respond in comments) (15 votes [5.40%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 5.40%

Vote Guests cannot vote Hide poll

Sweet_Vengeance #21 Posted 20 April 2017 - 06:18 PM

    Seaman

  • Members

  • 46
  • Member since:
    12-29-2015
I would like to see the USS John F. Kennedy eventually. My grandpa served on her.

aethervox #22 Posted 20 April 2017 - 07:09 PM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Alpha Tester

  • 2,359
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostUmikami, on 20 April 2017 - 05:56 AM, said:

 

Just me asking a question Hop

I had thought the designation for battlecruiser was BC and not CB?

do you know which is actually correct?

 

 

it's BC (duh!).

 Also, not everyone uses American abbreviations, like AC (or ACC) is just as good as using CV.

The British Navy abbreviations are/were more widespread - they even had signal flag designations for various classes of ship.



Beverly52 #23 Posted 20 April 2017 - 09:43 PM

    Seaman Recruit

  • Members

  • 2
  • Member since:
    08-08-2015

Option on the Lexington, retaining the prewar 8 in guns and aimable by player.

 



joe0123456789 #24 Posted 20 April 2017 - 10:22 PM

    Seaman

  • Beta Testers
  • In AlfaTesters

  • 10
  • Member since:
    01-19-2013
I want them to add the HNLMS De Ruyter as a t4 premium when and if they add a pan European tree.

Ik wil dat Nederlandse oorlogsschepen!

Flag of the Netherlands.svg


thedarkone11_2014 #25 Posted 23 April 2017 - 03:16 AM

    Seaman

  • Members

  • 49
  • Member since:
    08-09-2014
I'd love to see them all in the game
TEST

lron_Dog_of_Jutland #26 Posted 23 April 2017 - 07:01 AM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 263
  • Member since:
    09-04-2016
DERFFLINGER!!!!!!!!!

Warden_Wolf #27 Posted 23 April 2017 - 08:46 AM

    Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 176
  • Member since:
    08-27-2015

View PostUmikami, on 20 April 2017 - 09:00 AM, said:

 

IMHO, Alaska would stomp holes in the competition at tier 6, because she enjoyed the benefits of autoloaders on her main batteries, not to mention radar driven accuracy and mondo maneuverability.

putting her ANYWHERE lower than tier 8 (and probably tier 9 as a companion to Missouri) would be little more than blatant pay-to-win seal-clubbing.

the damn ship's just too freakin good!

 

Not if she's considered a tier 6 battleship. Her gunnery range is on par with tier 6 stuff, and her guns' firing rate of 2.4-3 rounds per minute (per Wikipedia) puts her potential damage output approximately on par with a New Mexico. However, she's got cruiser armor, and is quite large (808 feet long, vs. 600 feet for a New Mex), and would be easily citadeled. Her speed is on par with or very slightly better than Scharnhorst. So, compared to Scharnhorst, she's the same speed, has very similar firepower, BUT is very lightly armored. As such, she's clearly not tier 7 material, but would fit perfectly at tier 6.

AMD FX 8350 8x 4.0GHz

16GB G.Skill DDR3 SDRAM

Gigabyte nVidia GeForce GTX 980

4x 1TB SAS drives in RAID 10 with 256GB SSD for CacheCade, and 1x 146GB SAS drive dedicated to WoWS


Umikami #28 Posted 23 April 2017 - 07:30 PM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Beta Testers

  • 2,582
  • Member since:
    05-14-2013

View PostWarden_Wolf, on 23 April 2017 - 08:46 AM, said:

 

Not if she's considered a tier 6 battleship. Her gunnery range is on par with tier 6 stuff, and her guns' firing rate of 2.4-3 rounds per minute (per Wikipedia) puts her potential damage output approximately on par with a New Mexico. However, she's got cruiser armor, and is quite large (808 feet long, vs. 600 feet for a New Mex), and would be easily citadeled. Her speed is on par with or very slightly better than Scharnhorst. So, compared to Scharnhorst, she's the same speed, has very similar firepower, BUT is very lightly armored. As such, she's clearly not tier 7 material, but would fit perfectly at tier 6.

 

by that logic Cleveland would be a good tier 3 battleship

except that they are both cruisers, and as such Alaska needs to be in the game as a cruiser, not a battleship

make her a cruiser, give her her radar, and put her at tier 8 or 9 where she belongs

that way she can enjoy the 3 rounds per minute rate of fire she had in real life,

which would be hard to do at tier 6

(not to mention her secondary/AA armament of 12 127 mm guns, 56 40 mm guns, and 34 20 mm guns)

WoW would have to COMPLETELY rework this ship to make it fit at tier 6, when it can fit perfectly already at tier 8 or 9

would you allow a tier 6 BB that did 33 knots? (what would Graf Spee Captains say when they were run down by a BB?)

there are just too many aspects of this ship that would need to be "reworked" to make her a tier 6 BB, would be a totally different ship



db4100 #29 Posted 24 April 2017 - 02:23 AM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 217
  • Member since:
    09-01-2015
Need some Aussie love....HMAS Australia either the 1911 British Indefatigable class battlecruiser or the 1930s British County class cruiser.  The Perth is lonely.

db4100 #30 Posted 24 April 2017 - 02:28 AM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 217
  • Member since:
    09-01-2015

View PostWarden_Wolf, on 22 April 2017 - 11:46 PM, said:

 

Not if she's considered a tier 6 battleship. Her gunnery range is on par with tier 6 stuff, and her guns' firing rate of 2.4-3 rounds per minute (per Wikipedia) puts her potential damage output approximately on par with a New Mexico. However, she's got cruiser armor, and is quite large (808 feet long, vs. 600 feet for a New Mex), and would be easily citadeled. Her speed is on par with or very slightly better than Scharnhorst. So, compared to Scharnhorst, she's the same speed, has very similar firepower, BUT is very lightly armored. As such, she's clearly not tier 7 material, but would fit perfectly at tier 6.

 

CB Alaska will be T7 due to its powerful AA in addition to what you just said.  The Atlanta is also a T7 because is its AA powers.  The CB-1 Alaska should be a premium ship that is not in the battleship nor cruiser tech tree.......just a stand alone premium....as is where the player chooses to use it as a battleship or cruiser.

Marine_Diesel #31 Posted 24 April 2017 - 04:35 AM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 200
  • Member since:
    12-21-2013
We need a British or French BB line first. Then I say Alaska, SMS Blucher, and Emden(1925) as the next premiums.
Emden at tier 4 and hopefully getting the 15 cm/48 (5.9") Tbts KC/36 armament. And hopefully with better HE alpha dmg due to larger bursting charge: 15cm L45 (Karlsruhe) - HE L/4,1 nose fuze: 9.0 lbs. (4.09 kg), and 15 cm/48 KC/36 HE, nose fuze: 12.2 lbs. (6.0 kg)

Then, the Stalingrad-class(project 82) battlecruiser.

Edited by Marine_Diesel, 25 April 2017 - 11:10 PM.


Umikami #32 Posted 24 April 2017 - 12:55 PM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Beta Testers

  • 2,582
  • Member since:
    05-14-2013

View Postdb4100, on 24 April 2017 - 02:28 AM, said:

CB Alaska will be T7 due to its powerful AA in addition to what you just said.  The Atlanta is also a T7 because is its AA powers.

 

 

you want to put Alaska in tier 7, where Atlanta is.

you do realize that Alaska's AA battery is more powerful than Atlanta's main battery? and that Alaska literally carries an Atlanta's firepower with her, PLUS HER MAIN BATTERY!!

Alaska at tier 7 makes as much sense as Missouri at tier 7



Pata1985 #33 Posted 24 April 2017 - 03:32 PM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 387
  • Member since:
    03-07-2016
I want more free tech tree ships :(

db4100 #34 Posted 25 April 2017 - 02:25 AM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 217
  • Member since:
    09-01-2015

View PostUmikami, on 24 April 2017 - 03:55 AM, said:

 

 

you want to put Alaska in tier 7, where Atlanta is.

you do realize that Alaska's AA battery is more powerful than Atlanta's main battery? and that Alaska literally carries an Atlanta's firepower with her, PLUS HER MAIN BATTERY!!

Alaska at tier 7 makes as much sense as Missouri at tier 7

 

Scharnhorst and Gneisenau are both T7s........compare the CB Alaska to those two, and It is often debated that the Atlanta should be T6.

Rolkatsuki #35 Posted 25 April 2017 - 01:17 PM

    Admiral of the Navy

  • Members

  • 18,747
  • Member since:
    09-03-2014
I voted for the Alaska but I want the Jean Bart, HMS Vanguard, HMAS Vampire, IJN Kako and the NCal design proposal that had 3 forward main gun batteries.

The Great South Land's most truculent Dunkerque captain~

2s1vtak.png

 


Umikami #36 Posted 25 April 2017 - 02:34 PM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Beta Testers

  • 2,582
  • Member since:
    05-14-2013

View Postdb4100, on 25 April 2017 - 02:25 AM, said:

 

Scharnhorst and Gneisenau are both T7s........compare the CB Alaska to those two, and It is often debated that the Atlanta should be T6.

 

well, ok.

 

Scharn is a prem, both are BB's.

A rather good case can be made that BOTH are OP.

Atlanta is a cruiser, and is EXATLY where it belongs.

Your entire argument is that because 2 BB's are at tier 7, Alaska should be tier 6.

What has one got to do with the other?

Alaska isn't a battleship, it is a cruiser.

If you put her at tier 6, her AA will be nerfed to crap.

her secondaries will be nerfed to crap.

Why do you want to put the best USN CA in a tier where she HAS to be nerfed?

LEAVE ALASKA A CRUISER!!



Umikami #37 Posted 25 April 2017 - 02:45 PM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Beta Testers

  • 2,582
  • Member since:
    05-14-2013

View Postdb4100, on 25 April 2017 - 02:25 AM, said:

 

Scharnhorst and Gneisenau are both T7s........compare the CB Alaska to those two, and It is often debated that the Atlanta should be T6.

 

Alaska is a cruiser, Scharn and Gneis are both BB's.

One has nothing to do with the other.

Atlanta is FINE at tier 7, ask how many tier 6 players want a RADAR CL at tier 6?

Alaska has MORE firepower in her secondaries than a Flint, and better AA than an Atlanta.

In order to be at tier 6, Alaska would have to have her AA totally nerfed, and her secondaries totally nerfed.

Why do you want to nerf the best USN CL BEFORE it even gets into the game.

Alaska belongs at tier 8, or 9, and as a CA.

(experiencing some unique computer issues, please forgive the double post)


 


Edited by Umikami, 25 April 2017 - 02:46 PM.


Marine_Diesel #38 Posted 25 April 2017 - 11:29 PM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 200
  • Member since:
    12-21-2013
Alaska at tier 7 minimum(Would probably get too many nerfs). Tier 8 would be a very nice spot. Tier 9 would seem a bit overtiered but not out of the question. Tier 10, forget it.

That said I would really also like to see the D-class cruiser. That has an armored belt of 220mm. Citadel armor was 50mm. Upper deck armor 35mm, with main deck armor of 70/80/70 in ship's sections. Was initially armed with 2 triple turrets mounting the 28 cm SK C/28 (Same guns as Graf Spee). The Kriegsmarine decided to increase displacement and mount a third triple turret. Secondary armament/AA was: 8 × 15 cm (5.9 in)/55 SK C/28 guns (4 × 2) & 8 × 10.5 cm (4.1 in)/65 SK C/33 AA guns (4 × 2)
The ship's keel was laid down on 14 February, 1934. Construction stopped on July 5th. The construction contracts were canceled and reallocated for the two Scharnhorst-class battleships.

Edited by Marine_Diesel, 25 April 2017 - 11:40 PM.


Halinspark #39 Posted 26 April 2017 - 02:49 AM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 384
  • Member since:
    03-16-2015
We already have a cruiser Chikuma as the Jp tier 2. At the very least, thats confusing.

RobDellKid #40 Posted 27 April 2017 - 01:53 AM

    Seaman Recruit

  • Members

  • 9
  • Member since:
    08-19-2016

View PostjmanII, on 17 April 2017 - 05:35 PM, said:

I pretty much agree with the more premium, the better - for the "Other" category:

 

USS WICHITA (CA-45) - Take the Cleveland and put the New Orleans 8" guns on it.  Would probably be at least a little better than the Indianapolis (most anything would be).

 

LEXINGTON CLASS Battle Cruiser of 1919 - the carrier was converted from this hull.  Would be nice to have a US CB with 16" guns.

 

USS WORCHESTER (CL-144):  Although it would most likely be the tier X CL if the line ever splits - would still like it to be in game if the split does not happen.  6" auto guns that are not British, SWEET!  Judging by a recent TAP post, this is going to happen.  My next would have been BROOKLYN (CL-40) but this is most likely going to be included in the CL/CA split also.

 

HMS VANGUARD: Not likely to be in the British BB line as it is a single ship class, perhaps a bit undergunned with old 15" guns from Courageous and Glorius.  Possibly a tier VII?  Last battleship to be launched in the world.

 

go lex

 







Also tagged with WOWS, Premium Ships, Poll

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users