Jump to content


American BB Sub-Branch

US BB

  • Please log in to reply
47 replies to this topic

Ryuukazi #1 Posted 17 May 2017 - 03:20 PM

    Seaman

  • Members

  • 16
  • Member since:
    10-22-2013


I don't know about you all, but I really hope they add a US BB sub-branch that starts at tier 5 and ends at 8 that starts with Nevada (she would be too much of a seal clubber a 5 unless heavily made weaker, maybe only up to the 30s upgrades only) , then Pennsylvania, then Tennessee then North Dakota class, their "thing" can be better AA or faster guns, or better armor, or secondaries, I honestly don't care I just want these ships! Especially the badass USS Nevada, such a ship needs to be in the game! I don't expect to see these ships anytime soon, just please not as premiums...... 

 



Neighbor_Kid #2 Posted 17 May 2017 - 03:31 PM

    Petty Officer

  • Beta Testers

  • 67
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012
Id like...

Nevada with ending hull with 5 icnh dp's at t5.

Tennessee at 6... Got the hull of T7 colo, but guns of T6 new mex... So i can see it work... With 5inch DP

West VA at T7 premium.

SoDak T8 or Alaska.

Ace_04 #3 Posted 17 May 2017 - 03:49 PM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Members

  • 2,471
  • Member since:
    06-01-2015

View PostNeighbor_Kid, on 17 May 2017 - 10:31 AM, said:

Id like...

Nevada with ending hull with 5 icnh dp's at t5.

Tennessee at 6... Got the hull of T7 colo, but guns of T6 new mex... So i can see it work... With 5inch DP

West VA at T7 premium.

SoDak T8 or Alaska.

 

I'd bet the bank Alaska comes in as a unique premium one day.

 

She's too unique to be a lowly tech tree ship.


[-K-] Kraken

"In war, there are no atheists.  Both sides are asking God for help" - Cmdr. Terry Goddard


Lert #4 Posted 17 May 2017 - 03:56 PM

    Admiral

  • Supertester
  • In AlfaTesters
    Beta Testers

  • 11,549
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostNeighbor_Kid, on 17 May 2017 - 03:31 PM, said:

SoDak T8 or Alaska.

 

Alaska would get its aft handed to it at tier 8. At best I see her at T7 as BB.

(Above stats not guaranteed accurate. I'm a supertester and test ships don't always register correctly)

 

Ship hipster: I liked Alabama before it was cool


paradat #5 Posted 17 May 2017 - 04:10 PM

    Captain

  • Beta Testers

  • 4,105
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012
It has been discussed and is very likely but not any time soon.


 


BladedPheonix #6 Posted 17 May 2017 - 04:18 PM

    Captain

  • Alpha Tester

  • 5,553
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostAce_04, on 17 May 2017 - 09:49 AM, said:

 

I'd bet the bank Alaska comes in as a unique premium one day.

 

She's too unique to be a lowly tech tree ship.

 

Alaska is slotted to be a tier 10 cruiser for the eventual heavy branch for the USN tree.:read_fish:

Lert #7 Posted 17 May 2017 - 04:23 PM

    Admiral

  • Supertester
  • In AlfaTesters
    Beta Testers

  • 11,549
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostBladedPheonix, on 17 May 2017 - 04:18 PM, said:

Alaska is slotted to be a tier 10 cruiser for the eventual heavy branch for the USN tree.

 

Yeah no.

(Above stats not guaranteed accurate. I'm a supertester and test ships don't always register correctly)

 

Ship hipster: I liked Alabama before it was cool


BladedPheonix #8 Posted 17 May 2017 - 04:30 PM

    Captain

  • Alpha Tester

  • 5,553
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostLert, on 17 May 2017 - 10:23 AM, said:

 

Yeah no.

 

it was historically designated as a "Large cruiser", look it up.:sceptic:

 

besides WG never said that cruisers had to only have 8 inch guns for max caliber! just look at the new french tier 10!:read_fish:



Lert #9 Posted 17 May 2017 - 04:39 PM

    Admiral

  • Supertester
  • In AlfaTesters
    Beta Testers

  • 11,549
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostBladedPheonix, on 17 May 2017 - 04:30 PM, said:

it was historically designated as a "Large cruiser", look it up.

 

Which means ... what, exactly, in relation to this game? Hood was a batlecruiser, is a battleship in this game. Kongo pre-refit was a battlecruiser, is a battleship in this game. Bougainville was an AVISO, is a cruiser in this game. Graf Spee was a panzerschiff, is a cruiser in this game. In WoT tanks have switched classification more than once. Just because one nation historically gave it one ambigious designation doesn't mean that WG has to 100% classify it the same in this game. Even then, 'large cruiser' is just a political term.

 

View PostBladedPheonix, on 17 May 2017 - 04:30 PM, said:

besides WG never said that cruisers had to only have 8 inch guns for max caliber! just look at the new french tier 10!

 

Please point out where anyone ever said that cruisers can only have up to 8". I mean, we have Moskva, Graf Spee, HIV ...

 

Besides, it's not the caliber of the guns that make Alaska completely and totally unsuitable to being a cruiser in this game at any tier, its her hull. She has far more tonnage than Moskva - using WG's own cruiser hitpoint formulas she would have almost 74k hp. Alaska has a 228mm side belt, Moskva only a 170mm one. The very idea that she would fit in this game as a T10 cruiser is preposterous, akin to slotting in Iowa at tier 7. She would powercreep all other T10 cruisers into non-relevance and utter and complete obsolescence. And all that just because they called her a 'large cruiser' historically? Do you really want to ruin this game completely? Read up on the actual ship and its capabilities, instead of just what it was called. Insisting she should be a cruiser in this game because that's half of what she was called historically is just shortsightedness and shows a lack of understanding of game balance.

 

Here is a write-up treating Alaska as a battleship, and she would fit in almost perfectly without powercreeping the hell out of everything else at tier.


(Above stats not guaranteed accurate. I'm a supertester and test ships don't always register correctly)

 

Ship hipster: I liked Alabama before it was cool


OseanTanker #10 Posted 17 May 2017 - 04:40 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Beta Testers

  • 1,755
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012
There will not be a 'sub branch' for USN battleships. There are enough designs for an entirely new second line.

No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country. - General George S. Patton

 

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.​ -2nd Amendment

 


Swolja #11 Posted 17 May 2017 - 04:55 PM

    Petty Officer

  • Beta Testers

  • 84
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostLert, on 17 May 2017 - 10:39 AM, said:

Lot's of yelling..

Lert hates Alaskans..



Lert #12 Posted 17 May 2017 - 05:00 PM

    Admiral

  • Supertester
  • In AlfaTesters
    Beta Testers

  • 11,549
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostSwolja, on 17 May 2017 - 04:55 PM, said:

Lert hates Alaskans..

 

Not at all. I'd love to see Alaska in this game. Which means it's not going to be as a cruiser.

(Above stats not guaranteed accurate. I'm a supertester and test ships don't always register correctly)

 

Ship hipster: I liked Alabama before it was cool


The_Librarian54 #13 Posted 17 May 2017 - 10:09 PM

    Seaman Recruit

  • Members

  • 4
  • Member since:
    08-21-2016
I want this to happen very much. There are plenty of American designs that could be used for an entirely new line, but I would be happy if they added the West Virginia, the Lexington class battlecruiser, and the South Dakota, with my favorite ship (Alaska) slotted in at T7. I agree it is a bit unfair to put a full battleship (albeit a small one in the Scharnie) in the same place as an oversized cruiser (Alaska), but it is what it is unless WG adds a battlecuiser category, which is not going to happen. Just give me my ship and everything is cool, right?

TenguBlade #14 Posted 17 May 2017 - 10:13 PM

    Vice Admiral

  • Members

  • 9,258
  • Member since:
    06-21-2015
There's enough BBs as it is in the game.  I don't need more morons driving those on my teams, especially not when their top speed doesn't break 21 knots until T8.

Don't know if you have a dark sense of humor?  If you laugh at this, you do.

IJN: Yamato, Amagi, Ibuki, Mogami, Shokaku, Hiryu, Akatsuki, Shiratsuyu, Kamikaze R, Katori, MikasaKongō, Myōkō, Kirishima, Haruna, Hiei, Ashigara, Nachi, Haguro, TakaoSouthern Dragon

USN: Montana, Iowa, New Mexico, New Orleans, Pensacola, Cleveland, Langley/Bogue, Farragut

European Navies: Gnevny, Shchors, Nürnberg/Yorck, Bayern, Fiji, Blyskawica (Gift from Compassghost), Scharnhorst (First and only bought), Admiral Graf Spee


Lert #15 Posted 17 May 2017 - 10:17 PM

    Admiral

  • Supertester
  • In AlfaTesters
    Beta Testers

  • 11,549
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostTenguBlade, on 17 May 2017 - 10:13 PM, said:

There's enough BBs as it is in the game.

 

There are two lines of carriers, three lines of BBs, 4.5 lines of DDs and 6 of cruisers. We don't have enough BBs.

(Above stats not guaranteed accurate. I'm a supertester and test ships don't always register correctly)

 

Ship hipster: I liked Alabama before it was cool


TenguBlade #16 Posted 18 May 2017 - 03:02 AM

    Vice Admiral

  • Members

  • 9,258
  • Member since:
    06-21-2015

View PostLert, on 17 May 2017 - 05:17 PM, said:

There are two lines of carriers, three lines of BBs, 4.5 lines of DDs and 6 of cruisers. We don't have enough BBs.

Explain to me why 4-6 battleships per match is acceptable when WG themselves said it's a population issue.


Don't know if you have a dark sense of humor?  If you laugh at this, you do.

IJN: Yamato, Amagi, Ibuki, Mogami, Shokaku, Hiryu, Akatsuki, Shiratsuyu, Kamikaze R, Katori, MikasaKongō, Myōkō, Kirishima, Haruna, Hiei, Ashigara, Nachi, Haguro, TakaoSouthern Dragon

USN: Montana, Iowa, New Mexico, New Orleans, Pensacola, Cleveland, Langley/Bogue, Farragut

European Navies: Gnevny, Shchors, Nürnberg/Yorck, Bayern, Fiji, Blyskawica (Gift from Compassghost), Scharnhorst (First and only bought), Admiral Graf Spee


Ryuukazi #17 Posted 18 May 2017 - 03:57 AM

    Seaman

  • Members

  • 16
  • Member since:
    10-22-2013

View PostNeighbor_Kid, on 17 May 2017 - 03:31 PM, said:

Id like...

Nevada with ending hull with 5 icnh dp's at t5.

Tennessee at 6... Got the hull of T7 colo, but guns of T6 new mex... So i can see it work... With 5inch DP

West VA at T7 premium.

SoDak T8 or Alaska.

 

Tennessee would do fine in t7, it would have the best performing 380s in the game, not like the 283s make the Scharn unplayable, and I do just fine in t8 games as the Arizona. 

 

View PostTenguBlade, on 17 May 2017 - 10:13 PM, said:

There's enough BBs as it is in the game.  I don't need more morons driving those on my teams, especially not when their top speed doesn't break 21 knots until T8.

 

There are morons on all ships, nor do I see how new lines mean more battleships, since I don't see how any BB line would bring DD, CV, or CA players to play BBs more.

TenguBlade #18 Posted 18 May 2017 - 04:58 AM

    Vice Admiral

  • Members

  • 9,258
  • Member since:
    06-21-2015

View PostRyuukazi, on 17 May 2017 - 10:57 PM, said:

There are morons on all ships, nor do I see how new lines mean more battleships, since I don't see how any BB line would bring DD, CV, or CA players to play BBs more.

The problem isn't that it won't bring new players in.  The problem is there's already too many battleships in most matches.  WG balanced this game around teams being composed primarily of cruisers, with DDs taking up the mantle if necessary, BBs always being in the severe minority,

and CVs being in absolute minority.

Don't know if you have a dark sense of humor?  If you laugh at this, you do.

IJN: Yamato, Amagi, Ibuki, Mogami, Shokaku, Hiryu, Akatsuki, Shiratsuyu, Kamikaze R, Katori, MikasaKongō, Myōkō, Kirishima, Haruna, Hiei, Ashigara, Nachi, Haguro, TakaoSouthern Dragon

USN: Montana, Iowa, New Mexico, New Orleans, Pensacola, Cleveland, Langley/Bogue, Farragut

European Navies: Gnevny, Shchors, Nürnberg/Yorck, Bayern, Fiji, Blyskawica (Gift from Compassghost), Scharnhorst (First and only bought), Admiral Graf Spee


Ryuukazi #19 Posted 18 May 2017 - 05:07 AM

    Seaman

  • Members

  • 16
  • Member since:
    10-22-2013

View PostTenguBlade, on 18 May 2017 - 04:58 AM, said:

The problem isn't that it won't bring new players in.  The problem is there's already too many battleships in most matches.  WG balanced this game around teams being composed primarily of cruisers, with DDs taking up the mantle if necessary, BBs always being in the severe minority,

and CVs being in absolute minority.

 

What's the difference between someone playing the Navada instead of the New York? BB players will play any available ship line they want. With all the cruiser additions, haven't seen and increase in what percentage of cruisers there are. Also, how sad, people playing the ships they want to play.

Ryuukazi #20 Posted 18 May 2017 - 05:11 AM

    Seaman

  • Members

  • 16
  • Member since:
    10-22-2013

View PostTenguBlade, on 18 May 2017 - 04:58 AM, said:

The problem isn't that it won't bring new players in.  The problem is there's already too many battleships in most matches.  WG balanced this game around teams being composed primarily of cruisers, with DDs taking up the mantle if necessary, BBs always being in the severe minority,

and CVs being in absolute minority.

 

Also, today I saw a grand total of 3 Franch ships today, and 90% of cruisers being Japanese, Russian, and British. Boy such a massive difference then before the French. Again, people will play the line they like no matter how new it is.





Also tagged with US BB

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users