TheDgamesD

The thing is there already exists full recordings and voice over for multiple forms of Chinese still in the game files and settings you can manually set for the default voiceover setting. these are still around from way back when Anshan and Lo Yang (originally how she was spelt in game) were first released years back. And did actually have+use Chinese voiceovers when using them with the National voiceover setting. For me it’s baffling why this can’t just be set for the commander Za Shenbning since the Swedish Af Chapman special commander for the Pan-Europeans does actually use and have a Swedish Voiceover regardless of what nation of ship you out him in in that tech tree. Showing a precedent for this already set in the game showing that it is possible.

you do realize this is part of the National + voiceover feature that is not part of the base game right..? If you just keep the game with the english voiceover setting you'd never see/hear these anyway?? I'm talking about when you enable the National Voiceover + feature that makes each nation speak their languages. The Chinese captains are the only ones who dont do this.

In game and years ago when i originally purchased Loyang (back when it was named as "Lo Yang") originally the Chinese Ships werent packed into a Pan-Asian nation line and kept their Chinese Voiceovers when using national voiceover in the settings, these voiceovers are still in the game files and can be selected manually as your default setting, and since we finally have a special commander who is a historical Chinese Admiral, yet under the Pan-Asian nation banner, could we see them given a proper Chinese Voiceover when using the Commander + setting. Just like how although Fredrik Henrik af Chapman is in the Pan-European line nation group, he still retains a Swedish Voiceover when using him.

Still doesnt change the fact the ship needs some form of ASW. You have to agree there.

What does it being Italian have to do with anything? I'm talking about gameplay balance here not some sort of weird bias, its the only tier VI DD without any ASW, and that's not okay for game balance.

I remember Wargaming stating before the reason Leone is the only DD that doesn't get ASW Depth Charges at its tier is "Because it didn't have them in real life" is a laughable excuse given a lot of the vessels in game. But still this is a issue since this ship does fight not only tier VI but also VIII Submarines and is the only DD without any form or way to damage them when they're submerged. This is inexcusable also given how even the Dutch CA's are getting ASW armament but the Leone is left without anything, (No hydro, no ASW, nothing but her guns) yet expected to have to fight and put up with tier VIII subs because "she didn't have any ASW weapons in real life". Alright then Give her a 4km ASW Airstrike. Atleast give it something to defend itself with, as 4km would be the perfect sweet spot to allow it to actually have the potential to target nearby submarines to defend itself, yet not be so strong like having 10km range on it that it could be "OP", while still keeping with the "It didn't have any ASW weapons historically" argument.

Guessing we cant get a second Nikolay Kuznetsov

It doesnt even make sense then, because the Illinois was already planned for the scrapper by the time these Schemes were being put down and planned for launch for BB-66 Kentucky specifically. Every blueprint of them mentions BB-66 Kentucky specifically by name, I'm literally the guy who documented these. And have seen them in person, These designs were never planned for USS Illinois, She was already planned to be scrapped after the CVN conversions fell through. Its why Only Kentucky went on even after for plans for the Conversion into a Guided missile battleship and Illinois was scrapped by then: She was deemed to costly to convert into anything.

For me it’s heartbreaking as I’d spent months researching this years ago, as it was the only interesting vessel with my states name attached, and a rather interesting one gameplay wise, instead it’s all being thrown out and attributed to a ship it was never considered for.

I can tell you having visited the actual archives of this in person, That is not the case. The BB-65 hull was never considered for this project. In-fact, the only reason the project was never completed was actually due to to the removal of the bow when her bow was removed in 1956 to repair USS Wisconsin (BB-64), If both ships truly were planned for this conversion the BB-65 would have gone ahead as scheduled. But she did not. As it was never planned for her. The archives and records literally made 0 mention of these designs being planned for her. Part of the reason the turrets were designed in the way they were for the BB-66 hull and upscaled for her turret barbettes was because she was more complete than her sister ship. The entire reason she was moved forward with was because it was seen as more cost effective to use either Scheme H or Scheme G moving forward on Kentucky given it was in a better state and was more along than her sister ship. Illinois only has records pointing to her use in the CV conversions projects. Her fate was scrapped soon after. Hence why she was already stricken from the naval record at wars end while the Kentucky was not, Furthermore It's also part of the reason only BB-66 Kentucky was planned to go forward into conversion into the BBG-1 Guided missile ship, while Illinois, again was not. The BB-65's hull's fate was fully sealed at wars end as he was deemed too incomplete to ever finish, as the $30 million it would cost to complete the ship enough to be able to launch her proved too great and the plan was abandoned. And instead priority focused on the BB-66 Kentucky. Fix the name.

For those who want to see the rest of the BB-66 blueprints here:

BB-65 was Illinois, and BB-66 was Kentucky, not Louisiana.

So it seems the planned project I'd proposed years back on the forums is being added, but not how it should be on the one final detail: the name. The ship project for that hull configuration overhaul design was for the BB-66 Iowa hull "Kentucky" and never the BB-65 hull "Illinois" as the BB-66 hull was more complete and actually seen as viably completable. Even in the blueprints i had provided of this scheme years ago it explicitly states "BB-66 - Scheme H" in it as seen here: Yet for some reason the one being added to the game is currently named Illinois and it baffles me, As that ship was only ever proposed for the Conversion into one of the Iowa Carrier proposals since most of its internals had not been properly laid down yet, unlike Kentucky's which would have allowed for a full proper conversion into a carrier. Let me repeat. The Scheme H/G BB/CA Proposal was never planned for BB-65, only BB-66. Please give it it's proper name I beg you. This is a ship design I had been asking for years to be added under its name as it was the only reasonable way i could see the Kentucky ever getting added in any form and currently the Devs have named it the Illinois.

I can answer this one. But i am infuriated for one separate reason on how they have chosen to implement my suggestion from years back. Surprisingly this isnt a full paper design but was in-fact the planned proposal the Navy was going to move forward with on the BB-66 hull "Kentucky" not BB-65 "Illinois". there are actual blueprints of it in the local archives here. More than anything i just want it to have its proper name being "Kentucky" as this was never planned for the BB-65 Illinois Hull, and only the BB-66 Kentucky hull that was laid down, as it was more complete

So no more Nikolai chances out of a supercontainer? then how am i supposed to get one now? I have its permanent camo but it seems unlikely ill ever get the ship to use it now.. Plus no more Enterprise in the boxes this year? That was the only ship i was gonna buy the containers to hope for so thats.. upsetting. i have the Azur Lane Commander and camo for her, and was excited to try and actually obtain her finally to make use of them..