XXRed_DawnXX

New Premium Ships Ideas

  • You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.

Premium Ship Ideas   178 members have voted

  1. 1. What Ship(s) should be added in the game as Premium(s)?

    • USS Laffey (DD-724)
    • USS Samuel B. Roberts (DE-413)
    • USS Alaska (CB-1)
    • USS California (BB-44)
    • USS Nevada (BB-36)
    • IJN Yahagi (CR)
    • IJN Ise (BB)
    • Other (please respond in the comments section)
    • SMS Schleswig-Holstein (BB)
    • Ersatz Yorck-class (planned CR)
    • (NEW!) HMS Dreadnought (1906 built BB)
    • (NEW!) SMS Goeben (CR)

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

178 posts in this topic

 

IMHO, Alaska would stomp holes in the competition at tier 6, because she enjoyed the benefits of autoloaders on her main batteries, not to mention radar driven accuracy and mondo maneuverability.

putting her ANYWHERE lower than tier 8 (and probably tier 9 as a companion to Missouri) would be little more than blatant pay-to-win seal-clubbing.

the damn ship's just too freakin good!

 

Not if she's considered a tier 6 battleship. Her gunnery range is on par with tier 6 stuff, and her guns' firing rate of 2.4-3 rounds per minute (per Wikipedia) puts her potential damage output approximately on par with a New Mexico. However, she's got cruiser armor, and is quite large (808 feet long, vs. 600 feet for a New Mex), and would be easily citadeled. Her speed is on par with or very slightly better than Scharnhorst. So, compared to Scharnhorst, she's the same speed, has very similar firepower, BUT is very lightly armored. As such, she's clearly not tier 7 material, but would fit perfectly at tier 6.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Not if she's considered a tier 6 battleship. Her gunnery range is on par with tier 6 stuff, and her guns' firing rate of 2.4-3 rounds per minute (per Wikipedia) puts her potential damage output approximately on par with a New Mexico. However, she's got cruiser armor, and is quite large (808 feet long, vs. 600 feet for a New Mex), and would be easily citadeled. Her speed is on par with or very slightly better than Scharnhorst. So, compared to Scharnhorst, she's the same speed, has very similar firepower, BUT is very lightly armored. As such, she's clearly not tier 7 material, but would fit perfectly at tier 6.

 

by that logic Cleveland would be a good tier 3 battleship

except that they are both cruisers, and as such Alaska needs to be in the game as a cruiser, not a battleship

make her a cruiser, give her her radar, and put her at tier 8 or 9 where she belongs

that way she can enjoy the 3 rounds per minute rate of fire she had in real life,

which would be hard to do at tier 6

(not to mention her secondary/AA armament of 12 127 mm guns, 56 40 mm guns, and 34 20 mm guns)

WoW would have to COMPLETELY rework this ship to make it fit at tier 6, when it can fit perfectly already at tier 8 or 9

would you allow a tier 6 BB that did 33 knots? (what would Graf Spee Captains say when they were run down by a BB?)

there are just too many aspects of this ship that would need to be "reworked" to make her a tier 6 BB, would be a totally different ship


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Need some Aussie love....HMAS Australia either the 1911 British Indefatigable class battlecruiser or the 1930s British County class cruiser.  The Perth is lonely.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Not if she's considered a tier 6 battleship. Her gunnery range is on par with tier 6 stuff, and her guns' firing rate of 2.4-3 rounds per minute (per Wikipedia) puts her potential damage output approximately on par with a New Mexico. However, she's got cruiser armor, and is quite large (808 feet long, vs. 600 feet for a New Mex), and would be easily citadeled. Her speed is on par with or very slightly better than Scharnhorst. So, compared to Scharnhorst, she's the same speed, has very similar firepower, BUT is very lightly armored. As such, she's clearly not tier 7 material, but would fit perfectly at tier 6.

 

CB Alaska will be T7 due to its powerful AA in addition to what you just said.  The Atlanta is also a T7 because is its AA powers.  The CB-1 Alaska should be a premium ship that is not in the battleship nor cruiser tech tree.......just a stand alone premium....as is where the player chooses to use it as a battleship or cruiser.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need a British or French BB line first. Then I say Alaska, SMS Blucher, and Emden(1925) as the next premiums.

Emden at tier 4 and hopefully getting the 15 cm/48 (5.9") Tbts KC/36 armament. And hopefully with better HE alpha dmg due to larger bursting charge: 15cm L45 (Karlsruhe) - HE L/4,1 nose fuze: 9.0 lbs. (4.09 kg), and 15 cm/48 KC/36 HE, nose fuze: 12.2 lbs. (6.0 kg)

 

Then, the Stalingrad-class(project 82) battlecruiser.

Edited by Marine_Diesel

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CB Alaska will be T7 due to its powerful AA in addition to what you just said.  The Atlanta is also a T7 because is its AA powers.

 

 

you want to put Alaska in tier 7, where Atlanta is.

you do realize that Alaska's AA battery is more powerful than Atlanta's main battery? and that Alaska literally carries an Atlanta's firepower with her, PLUS HER MAIN BATTERY!!

Alaska at tier 7 makes as much sense as Missouri at tier 7


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

you want to put Alaska in tier 7, where Atlanta is.

you do realize that Alaska's AA battery is more powerful than Atlanta's main battery? and that Alaska literally carries an Atlanta's firepower with her, PLUS HER MAIN BATTERY!!

Alaska at tier 7 makes as much sense as Missouri at tier 7

 

Scharnhorst and Gneisenau are both T7s........compare the CB Alaska to those two, and It is often debated that the Atlanta should be T6.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted for the Alaska but I want the Jean Bart, HMS Vanguard, HMAS Vampire, IJN Kako and the NCal design proposal that had 3 forward main gun batteries.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Scharnhorst and Gneisenau are both T7s........compare the CB Alaska to those two, and It is often debated that the Atlanta should be T6.

 

well, ok.

 

Scharn is a prem, both are BB's.

A rather good case can be made that BOTH are OP.

Atlanta is a cruiser, and is EXATLY where it belongs.

Your entire argument is that because 2 BB's are at tier 7, Alaska should be tier 6.

What has one got to do with the other?

Alaska isn't a battleship, it is a cruiser.

If you put her at tier 6, her AA will be nerfed to crap.

her secondaries will be nerfed to crap.

Why do you want to put the best USN CA in a tier where she HAS to be nerfed?

LEAVE ALASKA A CRUISER!!


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Scharnhorst and Gneisenau are both T7s........compare the CB Alaska to those two, and It is often debated that the Atlanta should be T6.

 

Alaska is a cruiser, Scharn and Gneis are both BB's.

One has nothing to do with the other.

Atlanta is FINE at tier 7, ask how many tier 6 players want a RADAR CL at tier 6?

Alaska has MORE firepower in her secondaries than a Flint, and better AA than an Atlanta.

In order to be at tier 6, Alaska would have to have her AA totally nerfed, and her secondaries totally nerfed.

Why do you want to nerf the best USN CL BEFORE it even gets into the game.

Alaska belongs at tier 8, or 9, and as a CA.

(experiencing some unique computer issues, please forgive the double post)

 

 

Edited by Umikami

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alaska at tier 7 minimum(Would probably get too many nerfs). Tier 8 would be a very nice spot. Tier 9 would seem a bit overtiered but not out of the question. Tier 10, forget it.

 

That said I would really also like to see the D-class cruiser. That has an armored belt of 220mm. Citadel armor was 50mm. Upper deck armor 35mm, with main deck armor of 70/80/70 in ship's sections. Was initially armed with 2 triple turrets mounting the 28 cm SK C/28 (Same guns as Graf Spee). The Kriegsmarine decided to increase displacement and mount a third triple turret. Secondary armament/AA was: 8 × 15 cm (5.9 in)/55 SK C/28 guns (4 × 2) & 8 × 10.5 cm (4.1 in)/65 SK C/33 AA guns (4 × 2)

The ship's keel was laid down on 14 February, 1934. Construction stopped on July 5th. The construction contracts were canceled and reallocated for the two Scharnhorst-class battleships.

Edited by Marine_Diesel

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We already have a cruiser Chikuma as the Jp tier 2. At the very least, thats confusing.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I pretty much agree with the more premium, the better - for the "Other" category:

 

USS WICHITA (CA-45) - Take the Cleveland and put the New Orleans 8" guns on it.  Would probably be at least a little better than the Indianapolis (most anything would be).

 

LEXINGTON CLASS Battle Cruiser of 1919 - the carrier was converted from this hull.  Would be nice to have a US CB with 16" guns.

 

USS WORCHESTER (CL-144):  Although it would most likely be the tier X CL if the line ever splits - would still like it to be in game if the split does not happen.  6" auto guns that are not British, SWEET!  Judging by a recent TAP post, this is going to happen.  My next would have been BROOKLYN (CL-40) but this is most likely going to be included in the CL/CA split also.

 

HMS VANGUARD: Not likely to be in the British BB line as it is a single ship class, perhaps a bit undergunned with old 15" guns from Courageous and Glorius.  Possibly a tier VII?  Last battleship to be launched in the world.

 

go lex

 


1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

well, ok.

 

Scharn is a prem, both are BB's.

A rather good case can be made that BOTH are OP.

Atlanta is a cruiser, and is EXATLY where it belongs.

Your entire argument is that because 2 BB's are at tier 7, Alaska should be tier 6.

What has one got to do with the other?

Alaska isn't a battleship, it is a cruiser.

If you put her at tier 6, her AA will be nerfed to crap.

her secondaries will be nerfed to crap.

Why do you want to put the best USN CA in a tier where she HAS to be nerfed?

LEAVE ALASKA A CRUISER!!

 

CB Alaska as a T8 cruiser would be fine with me, but as battlecruiser (Hood, Renown, and Kongo)....ouch.  Depends on how WG defines her.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

CB Alaska as a T8 cruiser would be fine with me, but as battlecruiser (Hood, Renown, and Kongo)....ouch.  Depends on how WG defines her.

 

I agree.

 

Alaska was NEVER A BATTLECRUISER.

The USN had ordered some battlecruisers, back before the Washington naval treaty.

They were Lexington and Saratoga (there were two others but I honestly do not remember their names) which,

about halfway through their construction, were converted into CV's.

 

Alaska is what the USN refers to as a LARGE CRUISER, which is totally different than a BATTLECRUISER.

(End of rant)


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 6 Lexington/Constitution class Battlecruisers were:

 

CC-1     Lexington (ex-Constitution)     converted to aircraft carrier (CV-2)

CC-2     Constellation     cancelled while under construction and scrapped

CC-3     Saratoga     converted to aircraft carrier (CV-3)

CC-4     Ranger (ex Lexington)     cancelled while under construction and scrapped

CC-5     Constitution (ex Ranger)     cancelled while under construction and scrapped

CC-6     United States     cancelled while under construction and scrapped

 

The 6 Alaska class Large Cruisers were:

 

CB-1     Alaska     scrapped 1961

CB-2     Guam     scrapped 1961

CB-3     Hawaii     launched and never completed, scrapped 1960

CB-4     Philippines     cancelled before construction started

CB-5     Puerto Rico     cancelled before construction started

CB-6     Samoa     cancelled before construction started

 


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Somers class destroyer would make a fine teir 8 premium 

 

AA%2Boo%2BWARRINGTON.jpg?imgmax=1024

 

its AA suite is near none existent but with 8 127/38s in dual mounts and 12 533mm torps in 3 x quad mounts i'd be quite a nice ship.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tiny little problem with the Somers.  They, like the Porters, were built with 8 Mark 12 5"/38s in 4 twin Mark 22 single purpose mounts. These were anti-surface weapons only and with a maximum elevation of 30-35 degrees useless for AA fire. Later 2 of the Porters had their single-purpose mounts swapped to 2 dual-purpose twin mounts and 1 dual-purpose singe mount but none of the Somers were modified. Because they were very top heavy both classes lost 1 twin mount, usually Mount 53.

 

 


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Somers class destroyer would make a fine teir 8 premium 

 

AA%2Boo%2BWARRINGTON.jpg?imgmax=1024

 

its AA suite is near none existent but with 8 127/38s in dual mounts and 12 533mm torps in 3 x quad mounts i'd be quite a nice ship.

 

Tiny little problem with the Somers.  They, like the Porters, were built with 8 Mark 12 5"/38s in 4 twin Mark 22 single purpose mounts. These were anti-surface weapons only and with a maximum elevation of 30-35 degrees useless for AA fire. Later 2 of the Porters had their single-purpose mounts swapped to 2 dual-purpose twin mounts and 1 dual-purpose singe mount but none of the Somers were modified. Because they were very top heavy both classes lost 1 twin mount, usually Mount 53.

 

 

 

I personally think an Allen M. Summers class ship would be a better choice as a high tier American destroyer premium.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

Then there is the IJN Shinano and the Ise class battleship carrier hybrid.

 

I don't think players would like the hybrids. (Don't forget the converted Tone CA/CVL). The hybrids carried catapult floatplanes only. They were meant to be the eyes of the fleet freeing up space for the CVs to carry more combat aircraft. But unless the point system changed in the game this would mean they would be the lowest scoring ships played. No combat AC (Catapult fighters maybe?) reduced surface combat capability. Not something I would spend money on.

 

 

The Shinano was intended as a CV aircraft replenishment/aircraft workshop ship not a fleet  CV.

Edited by 2CRsgt

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would also consider USS Wichita.  My profile has a good deal of info on her, but in short, a unique Heavy Cruiser that served in the Arctic runs, Operation Torch, Southern Pacific, Alaska, and the final islands of the Pacific War.  If she can come in for Halloween...

HoNiXlP.jpg


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I agree.

 

Alaska was NEVER A BATTLECRUISER.

The USN had ordered some battlecruisers, back before the Washington naval treaty.

They were Lexington and Saratoga (there were two others but I honestly do not remember their names) which,

about halfway through their construction, were converted into CV's.

 

Alaska is what the USN refers to as a LARGE CRUISER, which is totally different than a BATTLECRUISER.

(End of rant)

 

Alaska has way too much tonnage to be classified as a cruiser along with too much armor and high performance guns. Her guns are just as powerful as the 14 inch guns of WWI era dreadnoughts.

 

Placing her as a Tier 7 battleships makes a lot more sense. Then she would play as a Scharnhorst who trades a lot of armor and a bit of HP for better guns, AA and speed.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I, for one, would really appreciate having the USS Yorktown in game. But CV-10, not CV-5. This is partly because it's the ship that sunk the Yamato, and partly because I have familial connections to it.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.