• You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.

Commonwealth Full Destroyer Tree, For or Against?   71 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you want to see / play a full Destroyer Line in the Commonwealth Tree / Branch?

    • Yes, about time that Canada and Australia gets their due!
      52
    • No, there is nothing unique about them
      12
    • I don't know
      7

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

52 posts in this topic

There is most definitely 10 unique ships commonwealth wide.

None of which have been listed, despite having a week and a half to come up with some. 

 

Commonwealth countries are British colonies that built these ships for King and Crown, many with their own alterations, such as Canadian ships adapted for Arctic use from existing designs. (extra heat, bow reinforcement for icebreaking etc).

And how many of those differences will have a tangible impact on the game?

 

 


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

None of which have been listed, despite having a week and a half to come up with some. 

 

And how many of those differences will have a tangible impact on the game?

 

 

 

What are you talking about? You have not read this thread in entirety obviously. Scroll up and see the 10 ships suggested by the OP.

 

They will have a "tangible difference" in the same effect the Lo Yang, Campbeltown and Anshan do. The premise of your argument is "yeah but, they're British ships even though they were built in Commonwealth countries as well " ... is strained to say the least.

 

I get the sneaky suspicion your resistance to the whole idea of a commonwealth tree is based upon prejudice and ignorance. Them lowly Canadians and Auzzies couldn't possibly have the technology to build ships and fight wars! They live in igloos and travel down under on Kangaroo-back. Preposterous! They haven't even made it to space... err...

 

 

Edited by ElectroVeeDub

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Snip. 

Well of the classes suggested, only four were actually built in the Commonwealth. 

Parramatta is too weak. 

Tribal is a good tier VII. 

Australian Darings are a fair tier VIII. 

Battles are a fair tier IX. 

 

If you add ones that were ordered by the Commonwealth but built in the UK, you gain one. 

Skeena, a tier V. 

 

The rest are all second hand. Of those: 

- The Admiralty Ms are needed for the RN

- The Admiralty Vs are needed for the RN

- The modified Ws are needed for the RN

- Parker is needed for the RN

- Scott is needed for the RN

- N is needed for the RN

- The Wickes & Clemsons are represented by their namesakes, Campbeltown or are not capable enough for the game. 

 

Which means that any Commonwealth Destroyer line would just be a copy & paste of an existing line. 

Lo Yang & Anshan work because they are one offs. An entire line of copy & paste ships is somewhere between lazy and moronic. 

 


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Used British ships at the same tier isn't original enough. British battleships or destroyers - I'd love to see :)

 


1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well of the classes suggested, only four were actually built in the Commonwealth. 

Parramatta is too weak. 

Tribal is a good tier VII. 

Australian Darings are a fair tier VIII. 

Battles are a fair tier IX. 

 

If you add ones that were ordered by the Commonwealth but built in the UK, you gain one. 

Skeena, a tier V. 

 

The rest are all second hand. Of those: 

- The Admiralty Ms are needed for the RN

- The Admiralty Vs are needed for the RN

- The modified Ws are needed for the RN

- Parker is needed for the RN

- Scott is needed for the RN

- N is needed for the RN

- The Wickes & Clemsons are represented by their namesakes, Campbeltown or are not capable enough for the game. 

 

Which means that any Commonwealth Destroyer line would just be a copy & paste of an existing line. 

Lo Yang & Anshan work because they are one offs. An entire line of copy & paste ships is somewhere between lazy and moronic. 

 

 

Did you seriously just shoot down the idea of a commonwealth line because they're "just copy paste ships"... and then claim the Lo-Yang and Anshan are perfectly ok "copy paste" ships?

 

You realize that you just contradicted yourself... right?

 

Proof. Canadian destroyers did differ from their British counterparts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-_and_B-class_destroyer

 

Don't let stereotypical American prejudicial propaganda fog your judgement. The boys from the commonwealth were building ships, escorting convoys,  and sinking Nazi subs years before America even joined WW2. Canada was landing troops and enough equipment for an entire division in occupied Europe 6 days after the war began, and the Auzzies were stalling the Japanese long before Pearl Harbor was attacked. They'd laugh at any Yankee that thought otherwise then probably throw him overboard for not knowing his place in history.

Edited by ElectroVeeDub

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you seriously just shoot down the idea of a commonwealth line because they're "just copy paste ships"... and then claim the Lo-Yang and Anshan are perfectly ok "copy paste" ships?

 

You realize that you just contradicted yourself... right?

 

Proof. Canadian destroyers did differ from their British counterparts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-_and_B-class_destroyer

I said a couple of C&P premiums is okay, but a line of C&P ships isn't. No contradiction. 

 

I had mentioned Skeena & Saguenay earlier, but clearly you didn't bother to read that. 


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Did you seriously just shoot down the idea of a commonwealth line because they're "just copy paste ships"... and then claim the Lo-Yang and Anshan are perfectly ok "copy paste" ships?

 

You realize that you just contradicted yourself... right?

 

Proof. Canadian destroyers did differ from their British counterparts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-_and_B-class_destroyer

 

Don't let stereotypical American prejudicial propaganda fog your judgement. The boys from the commonwealth were building ships, escorting convoys,  and sinking Nazi subs years before America even joined WW2. Canada was landing troops and enough equipment for an entire division in occupied Europe 6 days after the war began, and the Auzzies were stalling the Japanese long before Pearl Harbor was attacked. They'd laugh at any Yankee that thought otherwise then probably throw him overboard for not knowing his place in history.

 

And? A/B class is Tier 4-6 ship functionally identical to the RN versions. All Commonwealth ships were British designs with at best a few local variations. There is no possible way of getting a Commonwealth line that isn't copy-paste. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And? A/B class is Tier 4-6 ship functionally identical to the RN versions. All Commonwealth ships were British designs with at best a few local variations. There is no possible way of getting a Commonwealth line that isn't copy-paste. 

 

Once again... the OP supplied a proposal above that consists of an entire line that mostly is not "copy/paste".

 

You should see the WG news blog regarding the release of the new French line. Some people in that blog aren't too happy that France (who was basically a non-contender in WWII as their entire fleet was scuttled shortly after Nazi occupation) is represented before Commonwealth countries who fought much longer and contributed far more .

 

Americans think it's a joke. The very concept that Canada/Australia/New Zealand even had access to a canoe blows their minds. The reality is quite the opposite.

 

http://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/remembrance/history/canadian-armed-forces/royal-canadian-navy/sww

 

http://www.navy.gov.au/history/feature-histories/ran-second-world-war


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again... the OP supplied a proposal above that consists of an entire line that mostly is not "copy/paste".

The only one that isn't Copy & Paste is the Australian Daring. 

 

You should see the WG news blog regarding the release of the new French line. Some people in that blog aren't too happy that France (who was basically a non-contender in WWII as their entire fleet was scuttled shortly after Nazi occupation) is represented before Commonwealth countries who fought much longer and contributed far more .

France has far more unique content to contribute to the game, however. 

 


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only one that isn't Copy & Paste is the Australian Daring. 

 

France has far more unique content to contribute to the game, however. 

 

 

So? Why does everything absolutely have to be "unique"? It's about who built and operated the ships and contributed. It makes for some pretty limited gameplay if class variants can't be used, and will affect every tech tree in-game including USN.

 

According to that philosophy, the following ships should not be in game:

 

1)Campbeltown

2)Texas

3) Missouri

4) Lo Yang

5) Black

6) Flint

7) Indianapolis

8) Oleg

9) Minsk

10) Gremyaschy

11) Murmansk

12) Molotov

13) Emden

14) Konig Albert

15) Scharnhorst

16) Tirpitz

17) Atago

18) Belfast

19) Sims

20) Anshan

21) More to come no doubt. These are all the "copy/paste" ships that are variants of existing classes I can recall off the top of my head.

 

Wanna lose all these ships to satisfy your prerequisites?

 

 


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wanna lose all these ships to satisfy your prerequisites?

None of those are two regular ships, which is the matter at hand. 

Half of them aren't even Copy & Pastes. 

 

So? Why does everything absolutely have to be "unique"? It's about who built and operated the ships and contributed. It makes for some pretty limited gameplay if class variants can't be used, and will affect every tech tree in-game including USN.

Because if you have Copy & Paste Regular Lines, the gameplay is exactly the same. 

 


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

None of those are two regular ships, which is the matter at hand.

Half of them aren't even Copy & Pastes.

 

Because if you have Copy & Paste Regular Lines, the gameplay is exactly the same.

 

 

 

Well it looks like someone at WG didn’t get the memo on that idea

 

According to the recent issue of World of Tanks Magazine, WG announces for release later this 2017 of a Pan-Asian Tech Tree “consisting of RU, US and Japanese ships” (destroyers more than likely)

 

So you were saying something about copy and pasting ships lines not working for a full line?

 

(pay attention to 2:24)

 

 

so if WG is doing this for the Pan-Asia Branch, then more than likely a Commonwealth one will not be that far off


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is some feedback on your choices in making this a complete line (IMHO only bro, just me thinking)

 

2. Parramatta: Weak guns with only the one 4", if you could get WoW to "swap" the 12 pounders for additional 4 " guns she might work tho.

3. Patriot: Only 3 Guns and 4 torpedo tubes seems a bit light.

4. Vendetta: This ship looks great, though I would certainly pick the 1942 version (providing she kept her torpedo tubes).

5. Voyager: Again, nice DD; though again I would go with the 2 torp launcher design.

6. Skeena: Very nice ship, the single tube torp launchers will be interesting!

7. Rotherham: Nice ship, better torps, great history.

8. Wessex: Nice ship (again) but really isn't she a repeat of Rotherham? Seems very similar (but then so do USN DD's at that tier)

9. Tobruk: Wow, this ship may be OP for this tier (hope not; looks great).

10. Vampire: How could you go wrong with Vampire?

 

 

3. Anzac: Light on torpedo armament.

4. Vampire: Definitely use the quad torp mounts.

5. Stuart: Nice.

6. Napier: (your link to this ship didn't work so I had to look it up myself) Nice, but only the single 5 tube torp launcher.

7. Iroquois: Again, nice, but only the single torp launcher.

8. Crusader: Very nice, and historical (the trainbusters thing is just too cool) but again weak torps with the 4 single launchers (quik for a reload tho).

 

All in all; great job and thanks for sharing some very interesting ships!! Thumbs Up Dude!!

 

 

Did some further research on Crusader and during her service in Korea (or off Korea I should say) she kept her same armament she was built with and had when she was transferred to the RCN (that included her quad launcher)

 

As she was also built as a Destroyer Leader of that subclass, it makes sense to keep her there

 

http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/canada/postwar/c/

 

As for other (possible) changes, I will update as needed (and when I have the time)


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it looks like someone at WG didn’t get the memo on that idea

According to the recent issue of World of Tanks Magazine, WG announces for release later this 2017 of a Pan-Asian Tech Tree “consisting of RU, US and Japanese ships” (destroyers more than likely)

So you were saying something about copy and pasting ships lines not working for a full line?

(pay attention to 2:24)

so if WG is doing this for the Pan-Asia Branch, then more than likely a Commonwealth one will not be that far off

It doesn't say anything about a branch. It just says more ships. 

 


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't say anything about a branch. It just says more ships.

 

 

This was the best I could do since I couldn’t post the link from the actual article since it was mobile or tablet accessible only

 

But as the article in the issue said “fans of Lo Yang and Anshan will look forward to a researchable branch of ships”

 

Researchable

 

As in regular tech tree

 

Don’t believe me, download the app yourself and read it there

 

https://worldofwarships.com/en/news/common/you-have-issues/

 

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=en.letsbattle.mobile

 

https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/world-tanks-magazine-english/id912730960

 

 


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I said a couple of C&P premiums is okay, but a line of C&P ships isn't. No contradiction. 

 

Wanna lose all these ships to satisfy your prerequisites?

 

There is no contradiction in not wanting a whole line but thinking premiums are ok. 

 

To me there's no issue in wanting neither a 'Pan-Asian' or 'Commonwealth' tree. 

 

But as the article in the issue said “fans of Lo Yang and Anshan will look forward to a researchable branch of ships”

“consisting of RU, US and Japanese ships”

 

I don't think this is a good call, and I don't understand how they'll do it but it's WG's game so, well good luck to them. It'll mean I don't know what on gun caliber with 120, 127 and 133mm guns bouncing around, I have no idea how they'll make it feel like a progressive tree rather than a Frankenstein. 

 

There are some differences between a Pan-Asian DD and Commonwealth DD branch. Apparently as you point out the ships will be drawn from 3 nations, so there may be more fertile ground to draw. The 2017 preview for instance included 3 Russian high tier DD - Smeliy, Neutrashimy and Pr. 56: https://worldofwarships.com/en/news/common/whatsinthebox/ and so far the Russians at least have plenty of options. Japan already struggles with endless Fubuki-derivative designs but there are some re-arms. The US has some 'spare' classes but space to differentiate is smaller now (hydro is the German thing apparently). 

 

A Commonwealth DD line however would draw exclusively from RN designs, of which there aren't necessarily a whole bunch of classes 'spare' from the tree, or with great differences. Technically you could use some very similar but different classes but overall you need 9 tiers worth of different ships from the RN when at several tiers there aren't many options. 

 

Hard to keep that fresh, different and balanced.

 

 


1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A Commonwealth DD line however would draw exclusively from RN designs, of which there aren't necessarily a whole bunch of classes 'spare' from the tree, or with great differences. Technically you could use some very similar but different classes but overall you need 9 tiers worth of different ships from the RN when at several tiers there aren't many options. 

 

 

 

The problem here is how do you differentiate between British, Canadian, Australian, and possibly Indian built and/or designed ships? The Commonwealth legally speaking at one time was one and the same as Britain.

 

Keep in mind that Britain did not necessarily develop those ships without direct or indirect help from her colonies, namely Canada and Australia.

 


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem here is how do you differentiate between British, Canadian, Australian, and possibly Indian built and/or designed ships? The Commonwealth legally speaking at one time was one and the same as Britain.

 

Keep in mind that Britain did not necessarily develop those ships without direct or indirect help from her colonies, namely Canada and Australia.

 

My read is that 'Commonwealth' by which at the time they really mean British Empire design work outside the UK was extremely limited if not nil. There are some revisions to designs but mr3awsome gave a fairly good breakdown of what ships are cookie-cutter and which aren't. 

 

By WWII I think the Tribals were the biggest warships built in Australia/Canada aside from HMAS Adelaide, a modified Town-class. I believe design experience was very lacking. From reading Friedman on both cruisers and destroyers external input seems to have been slight. The Tribals had slight changes made for instance, but the most different version with 2x 2 4in isn't likely to make it into the game. 

 

 

If the ships do need differentiation it is possible, see Lo Yang vs. Benson with hydro and markedly different torpedoes for a different-enough ship, but only a premium. A whole line of Lo Yang's? That's trickier, doesn't foster much diversity and isn't necessarily healthy. I don't think a hydro/torp version of Farragut through Gearing would be a good move if re-flagged 'Pan-Asian'. Ditto a whole line of 'Commonwealth-ized' RN DD/CL.

 

 

We can have quite a good number of Commonwealth premiums though. The whole supposed reason for the split was to prevent the RN from having too many premiums (after 2 years it has 3, so yeah a major worry...) currently I think the RU Cruiser line has the most premiums with 6, the Commonwealth could get similar numbers and still represent a lot of historic ships. 


1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The problem here is how do you differentiate between British, Canadian, Australian, and possibly Indian built and/or designed ships? The Commonwealth legally speaking at one time was one and the same as Britain.

 

Keep in mind that Britain did not necessarily develop those ships without direct or indirect help from her colonies, namely Canada and Australia.

 

 

That issue has already been solved.

 

Just before the start of the Second World War, to distinguish it’s ships from the RN, the RCN started painting a Green Maple Leaf on its ships’ funnels. Post-war this was changed to a Red Maple Leaf.

 

Also during the war and post war, the RAN and RNZN did this as well, with a Red Kangaroo and Kiwi Bird respectively painted on their funnels

 

Not sure yet if India and South Africa did this as well, but it would seem logical


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That issue has already been solved.

 

That's not really the differentiation I was thinking of, which was primarily in terms of gameplay and variety and secondarily in terms of visuals.

 

The funnel badges are entirely inadequate visual clues to ships which have the same hulls, largely same AA, likely same camouflage depending on their timing and location and fly the same White Ensign.

 

 

Gameplay wise you'll have ships which will be entirely similar to the RN in hulls, which will look identical (the used Perth is about the most visually distinctive Commonwealth warship IMO as the Brits sold all of the Amphion subclass to Australia and kept all the Batch-I Leander's). There's limited scope to mess about with consumables without being directly better, or directly worse which matters much more with a whole line than a 1-off premium i.e Perth is far inferior to Leander.

 

As another example, take the storm in a teacup of Prinz Eugen vs. Hipper, some people were massively disappointed Eugen was just a Hipper with a few more HP and a bit less maneuverability. I personally think that was fine, demands for repair or radar on PE would have been P2W. However, Eugen had the advantage of at least looking distinctive in some ways with her Atlantic Bow, an advantage almost all proposed Commonwealth variants would lack.


1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be all in favour of a common wealth DD line or just a couple commonwealth premiums like Haida. I'm a serving Canadian sailor and would really like to employ a piece of Canadian naval history.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm all for more commonwealth ships. The issue I have with adding a commonwealth DD line, which is the same problem I have with adding any new DD line, is how will they be any different in play style from the DD's we all ready have? Personally, I feel all the niches DD's can fill are already being filled and the only reason add them would be for national pride and that, to me doesn't really justify a whole new ship line, premiums, yes, but a whole line? Don't get me wrong, I really, really want more commonwealth ships in game but what would they do gameplay-wise that isn't already being done? That's a serious question btw.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.