Jump to content


  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


Community Reputation

144 Valued poster

About Aristotle83

  • Rank
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Aristotle83

    We need more WW1 era content

    We don't need WOWS to spread their time period. They've already established the ships in the game are basically from 1900-1950s(are there ships at T2 commissioned in the 1890 if so I take that back?) and IMO that concept is fine it's just they are neglecting a huge part of that period. Issue is the 1900-1915 part because it was earlier with weaker ships gets next to no new content despite having far more content than the later eras. WG can incentive people to play low tiers and buy more of the cheaper premium ships if they set up missions etc. While WG really set up their model against the T2's which are going to be like 10 bucks a pop, the T3-T5 which are like 20-30 dollars get no love too unless it's a tech tree and they have to do it and most of the tech trees are done. And then there's BC's which they could sell for like at T5-T6 but just choose not to(though I'm more confident they'll do these at some point than 1900-1910 stuff). The Virbius Unitis premium at T5 gives me hope they're open to the 1910s, almost certain they'll get around to stuff like the Pan American dreadnoughts at some point(why make the faction otherwise?) but I don't think they've touched the 1900s(at least for the heavy units) in years. Something I've found bizzare is they've seem to have aversion to adding cruisers with big guns like Armored cruisers and battlecruisers for the WW1 era. Maybe they're just doing the later era cruiser killers first but even from the beginning of the game with tech trees has anyone noticed all the cruisers on the tree at T2 are ones without big guns. St Louis I think is games only armored cruisers and it's only got 6 inchers. Here;s a list of really cool content not in the game from the 1900-1920 period. Tried to not add sister ships designs or classes that are too similar to ships already in the game otherwise would go on forever. UK King Edward VII Lord Nelson N3 G3 Invincible Indefatigable Queen Mary Tiger Furious(imagine running around at T5 or T6 with 2 18 inch guns?) Renown Courageous Warrior Drake US Virginia Connecticut Tennessee Lexington(battlecruiser not the CV) Germany Duetschland Von Der Tamm Seydlitz Derflingger Blucher Scharnhorst Breslau France Patrie Liberte Danton nameless French battlecruiser design Leon Gambetta Ernest Renan Edgar Quintet Russia Ship from the Borodino class not named the Borodino because the name is taken in game. Evstafi Imperator Pavel Rurik Italy(not including ships that will almost certainly be included in a tech tree) Regina Margarita Garibaldi Pisa Pan America Mineas Gerais Rivadavia Admiral Latoirre Libertad/Swiftsure Rio De Janeiro/Sultan Osman Japan Katori Satsuma Tsubuka Ibuki Tosa Pan Europe Radetzky Ersatz Monarch Sankt George Espana Reina Victoria Eugena Salamis Kikias Avarof Yayuz Sverige Ilmarianen Resadaiye/Erin Dutch battlecruiser design Austro-Hungarian battlecruiser design Probably missing a lot but feel like if we did a list of possible future content from 1920-1950 it would be much shorter.
  2. Aristotle83

    where would you put this ship?

    Tier 2. Germany only major nation with no semi dreadnoughts and even those are probably going to be T2. It appears T1 is just a training tier with a lot of weak ships from later eras. Everything pre dreadnought/battlecruiser is probably going to be at T2 if it ever comes out(which I really hope it does). .
  3. Aristotle83

    We need more WW1 era content

    What's sad is there's a lot of really good Russian content in the early 1900s too. Russias armored cruisers were some of the most powerful warships in the world.
  4. Lot less ships in WW2. But WG seems so focused on the higher tiers where there's just so little history left there are ignoring the periods where there's the most unexplored content. It's frustrating enough that pre dreadnoughts and armored cruisers have been almost entirely ignored but WW1 era ships in general. I'd say like 90% of the unreleased major ships at this point are from the era and yet with every new release it's some upper tiered paper or fantasy design. And this isn't even complaining about that it's complaining about putting that over real ships in a historical game.
  5. Aristotle83

    New BB for WOWS idea

    You can get one. It's 20 dollars in the premium store. Virbius Unitis is the same class of ship, virtually the same except the name.
  6. Aristotle83

    Are battleships going to be obsolete ?

    So were going to end up with just CV's, subs and DD's? It'd be world of torpedos. Cause the way things went all ships that used naval guns as their primary armament became obsolete. Non missle cruiser obsolescence was right behind BB obsolescence. But yeah a night of playing and somewhat often having 1-2 BB's in a game made me realize this thread is not a joke.
  7. Aristotle83

    Pre Dreadnoughts obsolesce overstated?

    I get the waste of money part in terms of future investment for the major powers (not minor one given how coastal battleships continued to be a thing for decades). Talking about the obsolesence of the ones the pre dreadnoughts that existed. Dreadnoughts despite using turbins weren't all that much faster and in certain cases were around the same speed. In a lot of these situations too the accuracy was horrible regardless. And given how many pre dreanoughts there were pre 1906 the fleet in being case is certainly valid especially for the UK, US or one of the navies with one of the big fleets. Let's say somehow Germany cleans the field at Jutland(at the loss of it's own fleet), the UK has like 60 pre dreanoughts not to mention the Dreadnoughts which weren't present and the ones about to be completed. The concept that this somehow reset everything to zero is something I don't get given the(limited) combat record and the fact most major navies took their time converting despite as you said the price(in the beginning) being pretty similar. Armored cruisers which mostly used that same "hail of fire" concept of pre dreadnoughts on a scaled down basis were not seen as obsolete(or maybe they were and it just isn't as talked about?) and got a far harsher reality check in WW1 than the pre dreadnoughts did.
  8. Aristotle83

    On the historical misconceptions behind Battleships VS. Aircraft Carriers

    Think using the French as a yardstick is a best case scenario but hey that's arguable I guess. Germany wasn't forced to go to war in 1939(don't buy the economic arguments you're saying). They or Hitler incorrectly believed invading Poland wouldn't be enough to provoke France and the UK. Which isn't implausible based on the WW1 experience but at the same time I get someone thinking that is stupid all the same. While I guess anti semitism(not the Austria and Czech stuff which is an entirely different story) might have had it's origins in greed, that doesn't mean Germany needed that robbery to economically survive. France's foreign policy 1870-1940 for example was based upon the opposite of that premise that Germany's economic engine was inherently superior to it's own(which was especially daunting from a French perspective given that France had Germany's role as the most populous and resourceful European state since the fall of the Roman Empire before that). Again don't know the details of where Germany was or wasn't in the case of their project. But I think following the French timetable is the most optimistic possible view on that. Did France even have a nuclear program prior to the end of WW2 given they had multi recongized govt's with more important issues on their minds?
  9. Aristotle83

    Anyone Find it Odd Both Alabama and Mass are Premiums?

    While most countries there's more tiers than classes the US has more classes than tiers. To those saying there's going to be a split that'd be great and all but from a business perspective why wouldn't WG just gradually release the remaining US BB's as premiums? Especially given each one represents a state and that stats players would be more likely to buy it. Just don't see them just giving us another 8 of them especially the higher tier ones which have more of a history attached like Washington, or one of the other 2 Iowas. Isn't Maryland the last US BB left they could put at T7?
  10. Aristotle83

    Ships expected to dominate Tier 6 season?

    Guessing Dunkerque or Mutsu they've got T7 speed and guns respectively at T6. Izmail looks powerful too, most powerful tech tree BB at that tier IMO. Premiums mostly seem a lot better than the tech tree at this tier with a few new exceptions like that German BC. Graf Spee for the cruisers probably it's old but it's held up pretty well cause kind of hard to power creep 11 inch guns on a cruiser if you're not at the fantasy tier. Prolly going with Warspite or Arizona. Might play a few times with the Spee too, without the possibility of being up tiered I imagine the Spee does somewhat better? I'm assuming we're not counting the CV's of course?
  11. Aristotle83

    Dunkerque as a cruiser

    Oh I know i don't WG think has ever reteired something if something's OP or UP they'll nerf it or buff it.. But yeah that's the thing it's only OP at T7 if you consider it a cruiser. Like Alaska as a cruiser it's good for T9(right now cause T9 and T10 going to get all those battlecruisers not called battlecruisers) as a Iowa with much weaker guns it probably belongs at T8. If you consider it a BB or BC, it's fine though. It's like the Scharnhorst. At T6 it's OP either way though, BB's dont really have that manueverability at T6 makes a mockery out of "fast battleship" QE for example. And when you get down tiered Dunkerque wil be fighting early sluggish dreadnoughts. Heck heavy cruisers aren't even a thing until T5 and the Dunkerque would be existing at T4 where it is faster than some of the cruisers and stronger than the BB's. The German BB's that have that reload time in those tiers are slow and sluggish. Izmail might be a T6 battlecruiser and might be almost as fast but Dunkerque's reload time and movement is OP by comparison. It's also got a great range for a T6 especially considering it's speed advantage. And Russian BB's aren't exactly something everyone considers balanced. At T8 I'd think the Dunkerque would just be throughly outclassed by other BB's which at that point all got at least 15 inch guns. At T7 you got the Lyon with the 16 smaller, guns, Scharnhorst is more maneuverable but has weaker guns, KGV's aren't much more powerful either though I think they are better. Colorado and Nagato got the bigger 16 inch guns but are considerably slower especially Colorado. It's pretty balanced. At T8 every BB's a fast battleship, every BB's got considerably stronger guns, Dunkerque would just be bad. But again if you're comparing it to cruisers that changes. All BB's are going to overmatch cruisers at T7, what T7 heavy cruiser could face any T7 BB alone? What heavy cruiser(the 7-8 inch gun kind) at any tier can overmatch a BB? They have a different job they aren't expected to. Guess seeing a misleading cruiser icon on BB would just be misleading af like it is to BB players who see a cruiser icon and end up fighting a much weaker fast battleship. It'd be the same except the cruiser would face more consequences for being misled. With these ambigious ships it's best to give them the label that's closer to being accurate. Whatever misleads least. It's closer to a BB, a lot closer so think they made the right call there like I think they made the wrong call with the Alaska etc. Dunkerque's main peer is Scharnhorst and it's at T7 think that's where it belongs. Instead they put it with the ships it was designed to destroy Graf Spee and her sisters.
  12. Aristotle83

    Make Viribus Unitis Great Again!

    It's good at T5. It's worth it. One of my favorite ships. It could have been a T4/T5 it was an either or thing. But it is not bad at T5 even when up tiered it's not useless. T5's are generally going to be in trouble when they get uptiered though. The more people who buy it the more it encourages WG to make more historically real ships from the WW1 era. They did a damm good job IMO. I haven't played the ships people consider the strongest T5's but I'd take it over Konig, Iron Duke or Bretagne which aren't bad ships in themselves. While I don't think it's objectively better than those ships it's not clearly inferior ever and different people will think differently. At T4 it would be OP. Guilio Caesare is really the only thing it's inferior to and keep in mind that's kind of cause those ships both have their WW2 configurations. October Revolution is a WW2 Gangut as well. Know it's a premium and I'm favorably comparing it to tech tree ships but it's still good not like there's a Euro tech tree one to compare to.
  13. Aristotle83

    Italian Battleship Lineup

    Regina Margarita is a semi dreadnought with 4 8 inch secondaries. It's also pretty fast even for T3 BB. Italian semi dreadnoughts are probably the weakest ones but there's quite a lot of pre dreadnoughts stronger than Mikasa. So much so if they were all added Mikasa probably would powercrept into a mistiered T1. See more issues with a Regina Elena cause even though it's more powerful you only have a main battery of 2 guns and I'll admit that really wouldn't work in the game should stick with 4 gun ships and above.
  14. Aristotle83

    WHy WG, why make these BB's

    California is a real US BB named after the state which has the most people/likely players/likely paying customers. US BB premiums have also tended to have been received better than any nations probably because their tech tree line is likely the worst. Texas, Arizona, Massachusetrs, Missouri, Georgia, Ohio, rarely heard a bad thing said about any of these ships. California also is the first ship of her class to be put in the game and isn't merely a buffed tech tree sister like most of the above list(you could argue Tennessee class is similar to New Mexico and Arizona but it is a new class. We don't get new IRL or even paper classes much these days that's a big deal. Fantasy ships like Champlain I agree, but would think you'd pair if with Ludendorff or something? Yeah not fan of Champlain would prefer they went with the BC design but that'd be a lower tier. In their defense most of the IRL French content post dreadnought is in the game at this point and there isn't many places left to go. On the other hand would prefer if they'd focus on the nations where this isn't the case. Just bizzare how you can't picture someone wanting California though IMO.
  15. Aristotle83

    DD, A pointless class

    Cruisers especially CL's IMO specificlally because they are the only class that simply was not built IRL to handle WOWS like situations. They are supposed to fight cruisers and DD's with weaker guns in isolation, cause IRL you'd almost never see an enemy BB. In game you almost always will see one. y aren't. DD's in numbers at least are useful in a fleet action. They can take out anything, are fast and very hard for capital ships to shoot. WG buffed them so individual DD's can shoot a bunch of torps once. They are more different than BB's, cruisers than worse, tried them before and it's just a fundamentally different game. If we're talking guns they are the worst obviously but that's not their main thing. It's just a fundamentally different game in a DD v a mainly gun shooting ship.