Amogussy

Among us

This isn't ideal but there is a bit of a work around the voice-over language issue with Pan-Asian ships. You can set the normal voiceover to "National voiceover+", as is tradition. Then, depending on the nationality of the specific ship you are playing, you can set the "Voiceover language" to some of the Pan-Asian voiceovers: Korean, Chinese (Traditional), Chinese (Simplified), and Chinese (Singapore). In the case of using Sa Zhenbing, he served in the Republic of China Navy, so you would want to set the voiceover to "Chinese (Traditional)" for him. As I said before, this isn't ideal, but it helps with the immersion factor of playing Pan-Asian ships. @Ahskance Could you see if the already existing Pan-Asian voiceovers could get added to the "National voiceover+" modification, or some now "National voiceover+ (Pan-Asian)"? I think it would be a great addition for those of us that like immersing ourselves in this game.

I'd much rather prefer Almirante Grau be reverted to her original state: she seemed reasonably well balanced, had an original concept, and looked like a fun premium. This updated iteration really dives into the gimmick hard - Austin levels hard - and that is not a good thing. She still looks interesting, but the reliance on her Combat Instructions is a pretty big turn off for me, I'd greatly prefer the original version of the ship that has the Combat Instructions as a cherry on top of a good ship, rather than the thing that seemingly makes or breaks it. If WarGaming wants to stick to this new design, sure, go for it. But I'd rather the ship get a 5.5 or 6 second reload, and a French cruiser consumable line up (15% engine boost, reload booster, option between hydro and DFAA) instead of these over-gimmicked Combat Instructions.

POV: You got laughed out of the clan discord server for loving Yodo

Well the Louisiana can get off 9 secondary turrets (that's 18 5-inch guns on a 4 second reload base) at a 45 degree angle, that's actually kinda terrifying

There are so many buffs that are in-line with USN BBs that could happen yet WeeGee refuses to do even a single one: - Buff her heal (standard, 80s cooldown, 0.5% HP per second) to a Massachusetts heal (40s, 0.5% HP/s) - Buff her heal to a Montana heal (80s, 0.66% HP/s) - Buff her acceleration and deceleration akin to what Kansus/Minnesota/Vermont got - Give her AP improved ricochet angles (nullifies the lack of overmatch, but further emphasizes her large salvo weight) - Even a measly reload buff to 32 seconds, she'll still be on the slow side but at least it isn't slowwwwwww slow - Buff her 180 degree turret traverse rate from 60s to 45s, at least. 60s is obscenely slow for no reason, Colorado has a 45s turret traverse rate at T7 as well. Personally I'd pick the minor reload buff, turret traverse buff, maneuverability buff, and the Massachusetts heal buffs as my desired buffs to California. Nothing there is game-changing but it makes her go from a clumsy, unforgiving gun platform to one that is at least somewhat comfortable. I do agree with @Boggzy that California brings one hell of a broadside to the table at T7, but he fails to recognize that peoples' main issue with California is just how damn clunky of a platform she is. WarGaming has already softly admitted that California's hull doesn't work at higher tiers by buffing the heals and maneuverability of the fattleship line, and by buffing the heals of all the older tech tree USN BBs to the so-called "Montana heal". Also sidenote: Some the older USN BB premiums (Texas, Alabama, Arkansas Beta) should get heal buffs to the Montana heal, it's criminal that they didn't receive that heal when the mainline did; jury is still out on whether or not Arizona is weak enough to need a buff

I'm glad Tromp is appealing as a funni meme bote, because the most recent DevBlog just completely nuked my hopes for getting Z-42 and Brisbane on release.

Alright I did some digging on 140mm equipped vessels and I found something interesting: HMS Chester (1915) was originally going to be built for the Greek Navy but was repurchased with the start of World War 1 (under the name Lambros Katsonis ironically). With that being said, this means that the UK was ready and willing to sell a ~5,200 ton vessel armed with 10x 140mm guns to the Hellenic Navy before WW1. As such, I'd say that WarGaming's fictional Lambros Katsonis (3,000 tons with 6x 140mm guns) is actually very well grounded in reality compared to, say, the Pan-American light cruisers, as the UK did transfer some siezed/bought ships back to some navies after the war (the battleship Almirante Latorre/HMS Canada comes to mind). Although the alternate history path isn't ideal, I'd say WarGaming did a fairly realistic take on a feasible T9 Greek addition to the Pan-EU DD line.

Under normal circumstances I'd agree, but the current spread of upcoming lines are relatively cheap to produce: - American BBVs: Reuses NC, Iowa, and Montana hulls & assets respectively - Pan-American CLs: Pretty much entirely made of asset reuses from UK+US cruisers, Hercules and Navarra have original models but are likely asset reuses from the Commonwealth T1 and Spanish T3 CL respectively - Pan-EU DDs: Features some original models (Stord, Split and Lambros Katsonis), but the other ships are mostly reused models (T5 Muavenet is an Icarus, T7 Grom is Blyskawica, and Gdansk is a Mogador) - Russian Subs: Only 3 boats*, and small models, so relatively easy to produce - UK Subs: Ditto for VMF Subs

I bought my Black for steel and honestly I'm not too burned by this. It's a pretty toxic consumable combo in the right circumstances, as you pointed out with the Italian DD example. In general though, these ships appear to be designed for mid to long ranges: with their flat arcs, (presumably) poor maneuverability, and (probably) high speed but low damage torps. So the value of the smoke+radar combo will likely be limited for these ships, it just won't really mesh that well with their other stats. Obviously it's all subject to change though.

Man this line was so solid all the way up until the T10. WHY WHY WHY WHY must it be a lazy copy pasta of Mogador? Oh well, I guess the research team has a severe case of Pan-American Cruiser Syndrome. The original teaser announcement mentioned, "...It will bring in representatives of several European countries, such as Poland, Norway, Turkey, and Greece...", with no mention of Yugoslavia. I for one welcome the late inclusion of Split at T8, as it is a sensible, historical transition to the concept of the 140mm gunboat that the line has at higher tiers. +1 from me on that front. Hopefully this also means that whatever ship was originally going to be the T8 is turned into a premium that comes out alongside the line. And I really hope the smoke+radar combo doesn't stick, give the T8-10 a heal and let them choose between smoke and radar instead.

So what you're saying is that the Research and Game Design teams looked at a line that was full of British designs from T1 to T7 and went: "yeah, some American designs would really make this line cohesive"? I don't buy it one bit. Some great examples of "cohesive" lines: - French battleships - Japanese battleships - American heavy cruisers (hello Buffalo) - Japanese gunboat DD line - Pan-Asian DDs And my personal favorite: - The original Russian cruiser line (from March 2016 to May 2020), Kirov and Moskva sure were cohesive in a line of long range open water CLs. I'm sure that the history buffs from Latin America will be overjoyed when the Vickers 1124A design is made into a T9 premium CL that is only obtainable for doubloons. I know I sure am. Translation: "We don't care about your feedback on what ships should be in the Pan-Am CL line, give us feedback on the stats so we can fine-tune the profitability of the next Early Access event." I had plenty more I could've said on this topic, but honestly I don't have the energy to do so. Instead I put in an amount equivalent to the energy WarGaming put into properly researching what ships should be present in the Pan-Am CL line.

Never forget what they took from us...

As probably one of the few players who has been able to play every single one of these ships, I can wholly endorse this statement. Another pair of examples being Atlanta and San Diego, and the best example of all being the five Fletchers (Fletcher, Black, Chung Mu, Kidd, and Velos) which all manage to be different in their own ways. WarGaming has a near infinite number of ways to make Almirante Grau different from De Zeven Provincien, and more often than not WG tends to succeed in making sister ships (which aren't straight copy pastas) that are different enough to present their own unique and enjoyable play styles. And, if nothing else, implementing Almirante Grau would check the box of re-using existing assets in the form of a previous dockyard ship.

Well currently there are three options: 1. T7 Huron: Recently a freemium from the Puerto Rico dockyard revamp. Various other ships that were available for free (Kirov, Oktyabrskaya Revolutsiya, Hill, Duke of York, and Marblehead) are all current coal ships. Though a counterpoint to this would be that another dockyard freemium - Repulse - is doubloons only. As such I'd say Huron has the lowest chance of becoming a coal freemium. 2. T9 Hector, the love child of a Dido and Perth. 3. T10 Brisbane, le epic radar Minotaur with HE and better torps. With all this in mind, I'd say the chances of at least one of these ships becoming a coal ship is fairly likely, though it is too soon to say which one it may be.