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 (86 members have cast votes)

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

  1. USS Laffey (DD-724) (17 votes [6.18%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 6.18%

  2. USS Samuel B. Roberts (DE-413) (24 votes [8.73%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 8.73%

  3. USS Alaska (CB-1) (52 votes [18.91%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 18.91%

  4. USS California (BB-44) (23 votes [8.36%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 8.36%

  5. USS Nevada (BB-36) (25 votes [9.09%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 9.09%

  6. IJN Yahagi (CR) (15 votes [5.45%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 5.45%

  7. IJN Ise (BB) (21 votes [7.64%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 7.64%

  8. IJN Tosa (planned BB) (13 votes [4.73%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 4.73%

  9. Graff Zepplin (planned CV; if German carrier tree isn't added to game) (32 votes [11.64%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 11.64%

  10. SMS Derfflinger (CR) (16 votes [5.82%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 5.82%

  11. Kronshtadt-class (planned CR) (9 votes [3.27%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 3.27%

  12. Stalingrad-class (planned CR) (13 votes [4.73%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 4.73%

  13. Other (please respond in comments) (15 votes [5.45%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 5.45%

Vote Guests cannot vote Hide poll

db4100 #41 Posted 27 April 2017 - 03:20 AM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 215
  • Member since:
    09-01-2015

View PostUmikami, on 25 April 2017 - 05:34 AM, said:

 

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!!

 

CB Alaska as a T8 cruiser would be fine with me, but as battlecruiser (Hood, Renown, and Kongo)....ouch.  Depends on how WG defines her.

Umikami #42 Posted 27 April 2017 - 12:57 PM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Beta Testers

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

View Postdb4100, on 27 April 2017 - 03:20 AM, said:

 

CB Alaska as a T8 cruiser would be fine with me, but as battlecruiser (Hood, Renown, and Kongo)....ouch.  Depends on how WG defines her.

 

I agree.

 

Alaska was NEVER A BATTLECRUISER.

The USN had ordered some battlecruisers, back before the Washington naval treaty.

They were Lexington and Saratoga (there were two others but I honestly do not remember their names) which,

about halfway through their construction, were converted into CV's.

 

Alaska is what the USN refers to as a LARGE CRUISER, which is totally different than a BATTLECRUISER.

(End of rant)



Schroughphie #43 Posted 27 April 2017 - 01:22 PM

    Seaman

  • Members

  • 29
  • Member since:
    08-18-2016

The 6 Lexington/Constitution class Battlecruisers were:

 

CC-1     Lexington (ex-Constitution)     converted to aircraft carrier (CV-2)

CC-2     Constellation     cancelled while under construction and scrapped

CC-3     Saratoga     converted to aircraft carrier (CV-3)

CC-4     Ranger (ex Lexington)     cancelled while under construction and scrapped

CC-5     Constitution (ex Ranger)     cancelled while under construction and scrapped

CC-6     United States     cancelled while under construction and scrapped

 

The 6 Alaska class Large Cruisers were:

 

CB-1     Alaska     scrapped 1961

CB-2     Guam     scrapped 1961

CB-3     Hawaii     launched and never completed, scrapped 1960

CB-4     Philippines     cancelled before construction started

CB-5     Puerto Rico     cancelled before construction started

CB-6     Samoa     cancelled before construction started

 


Schroughphie (it's pronounced Scruffy)

Battlecruiser_Guam #44 Posted 29 April 2017 - 12:07 AM

    Seaman

  • Beta Testers

  • 19
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

The Somers class destroyer would make a fine teir 8 premium 

 

AA%2Boo%2BWARRINGTON.jpg?imgmax=1024

 

its AA suite is near none existent but with 8 127/38s in dual mounts and 12 533mm torps in 3 x quad mounts i'd be quite a nice ship.



Schroughphie #45 Posted 29 April 2017 - 02:17 AM

    Seaman

  • Members

  • 29
  • Member since:
    08-18-2016

Tiny little problem with the Somers.  They, like the Porters, were built with 8 Mark 12 5"/38s in 4 twin Mark 22 single purpose mounts. These were anti-surface weapons only and with a maximum elevation of 30-35 degrees useless for AA fire. Later 2 of the Porters had their single-purpose mounts swapped to 2 dual-purpose twin mounts and 1 dual-purpose singe mount but none of the Somers were modified. Because they were very top heavy both classes lost 1 twin mount, usually Mount 53.

 

 


Schroughphie (it's pronounced Scruffy)

XXRed_DawnXX #46 Posted 04 May 2017 - 04:26 PM

    Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 61
  • Member since:
    04-09-2015

View PostBattlecruiser_Guam, on 28 April 2017 - 04:07 PM, said:

The Somers class destroyer would make a fine teir 8 premium 

 

AA%2Boo%2BWARRINGTON.jpg?imgmax=1024

 

its AA suite is near none existent but with 8 127/38s in dual mounts and 12 533mm torps in 3 x quad mounts i'd be quite a nice ship.

 

View PostSchroughphie, on 28 April 2017 - 06:17 PM, said:

Tiny little problem with the Somers.  They, like the Porters, were built with 8 Mark 12 5"/38s in 4 twin Mark 22 single purpose mounts. These were anti-surface weapons only and with a maximum elevation of 30-35 degrees useless for AA fire. Later 2 of the Porters had their single-purpose mounts swapped to 2 dual-purpose twin mounts and 1 dual-purpose singe mount but none of the Somers were modified. Because they were very top heavy both classes lost 1 twin mount, usually Mount 53.

 

 

 

I personally think an Allen M. Summers class ship would be a better choice as a high tier American destroyer premium.

LINE OFFICER, EQUESTRIAN ROYAL NAVY

.-.. ..- -. .- / .. ... / -... . ... - / .--. .-. .. -. -.-. . ... ...

.--. .-. .- .. ... . / - .... . / -. .. --. .... -


2CRsgt #47 Posted 05 May 2017 - 05:04 PM

    Seaman

  • Members

  • 46
  • Member since:
    10-24-2015

View PostIJN_Yamato_BB17, on 17 April 2017 - 07:44 PM, said:

Then there is the IJN Shinano and the Ise class battleship carrier hybrid.

 

I don't think players would like the hybrids. (Don't forget the converted Tone CA/CVL). The hybrids carried catapult floatplanes only. They were meant to be the eyes of the fleet freeing up space for the CVs to carry more combat aircraft. But unless the point system changed in the game this would mean they would be the lowest scoring ships played. No combat AC (Catapult fighters maybe?) reduced surface combat capability. Not something I would spend money on.

 

 

The Shinano was intended as a CV aircraft replenishment/aircraft workshop ship not a fleet  CV.


Edited by 2CRsgt, 05 May 2017 - 05:14 PM.


FCA_Wichita #48 Posted 05 May 2017 - 05:21 PM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Beta Testers

  • 2,172
  • Member since:
    12-07-2012

I would also consider USS Wichita.  My profile has a good deal of info on her, but in short, a unique Heavy Cruiser that served in the Arctic runs, Operation Torch, Southern Pacific, Alaska, and the final islands of the Pacific War.  If she can come in for Halloween...


"I'll get you my pretty, and your little destroyer too!"

(Fog) Signatures done by Fuchsy

 


xX_Critical_ClopOut69_Xx #49 Posted 05 May 2017 - 05:51 PM

    Ensign

  • Members

  • 849
  • Member since:
    03-02-2015

View PostUmikami, on 27 April 2017 - 08:57 AM, said:

 

I agree.

 

Alaska was NEVER A BATTLECRUISER.

The USN had ordered some battlecruisers, back before the Washington naval treaty.

They were Lexington and Saratoga (there were two others but I honestly do not remember their names) which,

about halfway through their construction, were converted into CV's.

 

Alaska is what the USN refers to as a LARGE CRUISER, which is totally different than a BATTLECRUISER.

(End of rant)

 

Alaska has way too much tonnage to be classified as a cruiser along with too much armor and high performance guns. Her guns are just as powerful as the 14 inch guns of WWI era dreadnoughts.

 

Placing her as a Tier 7 battleships makes a lot more sense. Then she would play as a Scharnhorst who trades a lot of armor and a bit of HP for better guns, AA and speed.



Matthewl419 #50 Posted 05 May 2017 - 05:55 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 483
  • Member since:
    02-22-2015
I, for one, would really appreciate having the USS Yorktown in game. But CV-10, not CV-5. This is partly because it's the ship that sunk the Yamato, and partly because I have familial connections to it.

USN: St Louis, Langley, Farragut, Cleveland, New Mexico, Pensacola, Ranger,New Orleans,  Iowa, Montana.   German: G-101, V-170, T-22, Bayern, Gneisenau, Hipper.   IJN: Hatsuharu, Fubuki, Fuso, Ryujo, Akatsuki, Nagato, Kagero.   RN: Leander.   Russian: Gnevny, Budyonny.   French: Friant.

Premium: Tachibana, Mikasa, Smith, Albany, Emden, Katori, (Classic)Kamikaze R, Texas, Graf Spee, Southern Dragon. 

Arpeggio: ARP Kongo, ARP Kirishima, ARP Haruna, ARP Hiei, ARP Myoko, ARP Haguro, ARP Ashigara, ARP Nachi, ARP Takao.

Other Stuff:

captainHansFrans #51 Posted 05 May 2017 - 08:41 PM

    Seaman Recruit

  • Members

  • 2
  • Member since:
    10-22-2015
Bias so I think they should add Schleswig-Holstein (1939) layout, I mean it fired the first shots of the second world war


Umikami #52 Posted 05 May 2017 - 11:31 PM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Beta Testers

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

View PostxX_Critical_ClopOut69_Xx, on 05 May 2017 - 05:51 PM, said:

 

Alaska has way too much tonnage to be classified as a cruiser along with too much armor and high performance guns. Her guns are just as powerful as the 14 inch guns of WWI era dreadnoughts.

 

Placing her as a Tier 7 battleships makes a lot more sense. Then she would play as a Scharnhorst who trades a lot of armor and a bit of HP for better guns, AA and speed.

 

Alaska would be no bigger than either Moskva or Henri IV.

Alaska has the EQUAL of a FLINT for a secondary / AA battery; putting it at tier 7 would require a hellish nerf.

Alaska is a LARGE CRUISER, not a BATTLECRUISER.

Lexington and Saratoga were Battlecruisers; they were rated at over 12,000 tons more than Alaska.

We have enough battleships in the game without making one out of a large cruiser so you can go Don Quixote on a Scharnhorst.

(and at tier 9 you will still see plenty of them, as well as Bizmark's, Mighty Mo's, and the occasional Fat Freddy De Goober. oh the fun!!)



xX_Critical_ClopOut69_Xx #53 Posted 06 May 2017 - 01:24 AM

    Ensign

  • Members

  • 849
  • Member since:
    03-02-2015

View PostUmikami, on 05 May 2017 - 07:31 PM, said:

 

Alaska would be no bigger than either Moskva or Henri IV.

Alaska has the EQUAL of a FLINT for a secondary / AA battery; putting it at tier 7 would require a hellish nerf.

Alaska is a LARGE CRUISER, not a BATTLECRUISER.

Lexington and Saratoga were Battlecruisers; they were rated at over 12,000 tons more than Alaska.

We have enough battleships in the game without making one out of a large cruiser so you can go Don Quixote on a Scharnhorst.

(and at tier 9 you will still see plenty of them, as well as Bizmark's, Mighty Mo's, and the occasional Fat Freddy De Goober. oh the fun!!)

 

Calm down with the capitals, they aren't giving any legitimacy to your case. 

 

Using the formula to calculate cruiser HP, Alaska would have 73,600 HP, more than any Tier 8 battleship and dwarfing any Tier X cruiser. However if you use the battleship formula, she would have 51,290 HP. That's squishy but more than balanced as a Tier 7 battleship. I am aware Alaska is a large cruiser however, she does not fit the cruiser class very well.

 

Alaska is very similar to Scharnhorst, trading torpedoes, a bit of HP and armor for more speed, Tier 9 levels of AA (Better than Baltimore) and superior guns. Her armor and armament is still better than basically any cruiser in the game minus Moskva due to her railguns. Her secondary guns don't make her imbalanced and she doesn't need a nerf.

 

 

 

 



WidgetWombat #54 Posted 09 May 2017 - 02:10 AM

    Seaman

  • Members

  • 17
  • Member since:
    05-18-2014
USS Maine.  Remember the MAINE!!!

XXRed_DawnXX #55 Posted 16 May 2017 - 04:28 PM

    Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 61
  • Member since:
    04-09-2015

View PostcaptainHansFrans, on 05 May 2017 - 12:41 PM, said:

Bias so I think they should add Schleswig-Holstein (1939) layout, I mean it fired the first shots of the second world war

 

I agree. Like the Japanese pre-dreadnought battleship Mikasa, she would be a fine Tier II premium.

Edited by XXRed_DawnXX, 16 May 2017 - 04:33 PM.

LINE OFFICER, EQUESTRIAN ROYAL NAVY

.-.. ..- -. .- / .. ... / -... . ... - / .--. .-. .. -. -.-. . ... ...

.--. .-. .- .. ... . / - .... . / -. .. --. .... -


XXRed_DawnXX #56 Posted 16 May 2017 - 04:49 PM

    Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 61
  • Member since:
    04-09-2015

View Post2CRsgt, on 05 May 2017 - 09:04 AM, said:

 

I don't think players would like the hybrids. (Don't forget the converted Tone CA/CVL). The hybrids carried catapult floatplanes only. They were meant to be the eyes of the fleet freeing up space for the CVs to carry more combat aircraft. But unless the point system changed in the game this would mean they would be the lowest scoring ships played. No combat AC (Catapult fighters maybe?) reduced surface combat capability. Not something I would spend money on.

 

 

The Shinano was intended as a CV aircraft replenishment/aircraft workshop ship not a fleet  CV.

 

I agree, if they are thinking of adding the Ise class to the game, they should leave it at the pre-hybrid design. As for the Shinano, even though she was commissioned in 1944 as a "heavily armored support carrier," she would be fun to add into the game for there are players out there (including my-self) who think she could fill the roll as a Japanese "Super-Carrier."

LINE OFFICER, EQUESTRIAN ROYAL NAVY

.-.. ..- -. .- / .. ... / -... . ... - / .--. .-. .. -. -.-. . ... ...

.--. .-. .- .. ... . / - .... . / -. .. --. .... -


XXRed_DawnXX #57 Posted 16 May 2017 - 04:55 PM

    Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 61
  • Member since:
    04-09-2015

GOOD NEWS EVERYONE! The Enterprise will be added to the game!

HUZZAH!


Edited by XXRed_DawnXX, 16 May 2017 - 04:59 PM.

LINE OFFICER, EQUESTRIAN ROYAL NAVY

.-.. ..- -. .- / .. ... / -... . ... - / .--. .-. .. -. -.-. . ... ...

.--. .-. .- .. ... . / - .... . / -. .. --. .... -


Destroyer837 #58 Posted 17 May 2017 - 03:11 AM

    Seaman Recruit

  • Members

  • 1
  • Member since:
    06-04-2015
I personally would like to see an H44 class battleship. The blueprints are almost exactly like those of the H39 class battleships (i.e. Bismarck ​and Tirpitz), except with 508mm guns in the same 2x4 main battery layout. I know, I know, that would be extremely OP, but it would still be super lit to see a ship in the game so big, it dwarfs the GroBer Kurfurst. Speaking of the GroBer Kurfurst, it is not historically accurate at all. First, the real GroBer Kurfurst was a Kaiser class dreadnaught during WW1, a Tier 4 dreadnaught, but in the game, it is a Tier 10 fast battleship. Second, there was never any blueprints of a German battleship with the 3x4 main battery layout. The only German battleship ever to have 3 guns per turret was the Scharnhorst. ​In my opinion, I think that Wargaming should change the name and follow the H43 class battleship plans that it was originally based off of more accurately, meaning ​that instead of 12 guns at 406-420mm (planned gun size for the H42 class battleship aka ​the ​Friedrich Der GroBe​) in the fake 3x4 main battery layout, it should have 8 guns at 480mm in the normal German main battery layout of 4 turrets, 2 guns per turret. I know this isn't a premium ship idea, but it's still an idea. If anyone has any questions or wants more info on the H43 and H44 class battleships, please email me at kinseras@gmail.com​.

IJN_Yamato_BB17 #59 Posted 17 May 2017 - 04:50 AM

    Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 80
  • Member since:
    12-30-2015
I remember wargaming talking about realising the Ise Class Battleship Carrier hybrids, but they need to figure out their gameplay first. This would also apply to the IJN Tone. I would like to see both Ise class ships one being the battleship and the other being the hybrid. 

Lord_Magus #60 Posted 19 May 2017 - 06:44 AM

    Lieutenant Junior Grade

  • Members

  • 1,552
  • Member since:
    08-18-2016

View Postdb4100, on 26 April 2017 - 10:20 PM, said:

CB Alaska as a T8 cruiser would be fine with me, but as battlecruiser (Hood, Renown, and Kongo)....ouch.  Depends on how WG defines her.

 

As a cruiser Alaska would have nearly 74000 HP. That's only 5000 less than Iowa, and over 10000 more than Alabama. While as a battleship she'd have a much more reasonable 51300 HP.

 

View PostXXRed_DawnXX, on 04 May 2017 - 11:26 AM, said:

I personally think an Allen M. Summers class ship would be a better choice as a high tier American destroyer premium.

 

The issue there is how do you make an Allen M. Sumner that's T8 material? Near as I can tell the answer is "you don't." Sumner is basically Gearing with a tighter turning circle and about 1500 less HP, and that's just too good to drop down 2 whole tiers.

 

I'd favor USS Laffey as a T9 free XP premium, in 1945 configuration with only 1x5 torps. That would give you strong AA and Gearing gun power at T9, but you couldn't be a torpedoboat at all.

 

View PostWidgetWombat, on 08 May 2017 - 09:10 PM, said:

USS Maine.  Remember the MAINE!!!

 

Problem is, I don't think there's anywhere to put a Tier 0 battleship.


Edited by Lord_Magus, 19 May 2017 - 06:44 AM.






Also tagged with WOWS, Premium Ships, Poll

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users