Ryuukazi

American BB Sub-Branch

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

50 posts in this topic


I don't know about you all, but I really hope they add a US BB sub-branch that starts at tier 5 and ends at 8 that starts with Nevada (she would be too much of a seal clubber a 5 unless heavily made weaker, maybe only up to the 30s upgrades only) , then Pennsylvania, then Tennessee then North Dakota class, their "thing" can be better AA or faster guns, or better armor, or secondaries, I honestly don't care I just want these ships! Especially the badass USS Nevada, such a ship needs to be in the game! I don't expect to see these ships anytime soon, just please not as premiums...... 

 


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Id like...

 

Nevada with ending hull with 5 icnh dp's at t5.

 

Tennessee at 6... Got the hull of T7 colo, but guns of T6 new mex... So i can see it work... With 5inch DP

 

West VA at T7 premium.

 

SoDak T8 or Alaska.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Id like...

 

Nevada with ending hull with 5 icnh dp's at t5.

 

Tennessee at 6... Got the hull of T7 colo, but guns of T6 new mex... So i can see it work... With 5inch DP

 

West VA at T7 premium.

 

SoDak T8 or Alaska.

 

I'd bet the bank Alaska comes in as a unique premium one day.

 

She's too unique to be a lowly tech tree ship.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SoDak T8 or Alaska.

 

Alaska would get its aft handed to it at tier 8. At best I see her at T7 as BB.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has been discussed and is very likely but not any time soon.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'd bet the bank Alaska comes in as a unique premium one day.

 

She's too unique to be a lowly tech tree ship.

 

Alaska is slotted to be a tier 10 cruiser for the eventual heavy branch for the USN tree.:read_fish:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alaska is slotted to be a tier 10 cruiser for the eventual heavy branch for the USN tree.

 

Yeah no.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yeah no.

 

it was historically designated as a "Large cruiser", look it up.:sceptic:

 

besides WG never said that cruisers had to only have 8 inch guns for max caliber! just look at the new french tier 10!:read_fish:


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it was historically designated as a "Large cruiser", look it up.

 

Which means ... what, exactly, in relation to this game? Hood was a batlecruiser, is a battleship in this game. Kongo pre-refit was a battlecruiser, is a battleship in this game. Bougainville was an AVISO, is a cruiser in this game. Graf Spee was a panzerschiff, is a cruiser in this game. In WoT tanks have switched classification more than once. Just because one nation historically gave it one ambigious designation doesn't mean that WG has to 100% classify it the same in this game. Even then, 'large cruiser' is just a political term.

 

besides WG never said that cruisers had to only have 8 inch guns for max caliber! just look at the new french tier 10!

 

Please point out where anyone ever said that cruisers can only have up to 8". I mean, we have Moskva, Graf Spee, HIV ...

 

Besides, it's not the caliber of the guns that make Alaska completely and totally unsuitable to being a cruiser in this game at any tier, its her hull. She has far more tonnage than Moskva - using WG's own cruiser hitpoint formulas she would have almost 74k hp. Alaska has a 228mm side belt, Moskva only a 170mm one. The very idea that she would fit in this game as a T10 cruiser is preposterous, akin to slotting in Iowa at tier 7. She would powercreep all other T10 cruisers into non-relevance and utter and complete obsolescence. And all that just because they called her a 'large cruiser' historically? Do you really want to ruin this game completely? Read up on the actual ship and its capabilities, instead of just what it was called. Insisting she should be a cruiser in this game because that's half of what she was called historically is just shortsightedness and shows a lack of understanding of game balance.

 

Here is a write-up treating Alaska as a battleship, and she would fit in almost perfectly without powercreeping the hell out of everything else at tier.


6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There will not be a 'sub branch' for USN battleships. There are enough designs for an entirely new second line.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lot's of yelling..

Lert hates Alaskans..


1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lert hates Alaskans..

 

Not at all. I'd love to see Alaska in this game. Which means it's not going to be as a cruiser.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want this to happen very much. There are plenty of American designs that could be used for an entirely new line, but I would be happy if they added the West Virginia, the Lexington class battlecruiser, and the South Dakota, with my favorite ship (Alaska) slotted in at T7. I agree it is a bit unfair to put a full battleship (albeit a small one in the Scharnie) in the same place as an oversized cruiser (Alaska), but it is what it is unless WG adds a battlecuiser category, which is not going to happen. Just give me my ship and everything is cool, right?


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's enough BBs as it is in the game.  I don't need more morons driving those on my teams, especially not when their top speed doesn't break 21 knots until T8.


1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's enough BBs as it is in the game.

 

There are two lines of carriers, three lines of BBs, 4.5 lines of DDs and 6 of cruisers. We don't have enough BBs.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are two lines of carriers, three lines of BBs, 4.5 lines of DDs and 6 of cruisers. We don't have enough BBs.

Explain to me why 4-6 battleships per match is acceptable when WG themselves said it's a population issue.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Id like...

 

Nevada with ending hull with 5 icnh dp's at t5.

 

Tennessee at 6... Got the hull of T7 colo, but guns of T6 new mex... So i can see it work... With 5inch DP

 

West VA at T7 premium.

 

SoDak T8 or Alaska.

 

Tennessee would do fine in t7, it would have the best performing 380s in the game, not like the 283s make the Scharn unplayable, and I do just fine in t8 games as the Arizona. 

 

There's enough BBs as it is in the game.  I don't need more morons driving those on my teams, especially not when their top speed doesn't break 21 knots until T8.

 

There are morons on all ships, nor do I see how new lines mean more battleships, since I don't see how any BB line would bring DD, CV, or CA players to play BBs more.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are morons on all ships, nor do I see how new lines mean more battleships, since I don't see how any BB line would bring DD, CV, or CA players to play BBs more.

The problem isn't that it won't bring new players in.  The problem is there's already too many battleships in most matches.  WG balanced this game around teams being composed primarily of cruisers, with DDs taking up the mantle if necessary, BBs always being in the severe minority,

and CVs being in absolute minority.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem isn't that it won't bring new players in.  The problem is there's already too many battleships in most matches.  WG balanced this game around teams being composed primarily of cruisers, with DDs taking up the mantle if necessary, BBs always being in the severe minority,

and CVs being in absolute minority.

 

What's the difference between someone playing the Navada instead of the New York? BB players will play any available ship line they want. With all the cruiser additions, haven't seen and increase in what percentage of cruisers there are. Also, how sad, people playing the ships they want to play.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem isn't that it won't bring new players in.  The problem is there's already too many battleships in most matches.  WG balanced this game around teams being composed primarily of cruisers, with DDs taking up the mantle if necessary, BBs always being in the severe minority,

and CVs being in absolute minority.

 

Also, today I saw a grand total of 3 Franch ships today, and 90% of cruisers being Japanese, Russian, and British. Boy such a massive difference then before the French. Again, people will play the line they like no matter how new it is.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Explain to me why 4-6 battleships per match is acceptable when WG themselves said it's a population issue.

 

Because choice of battleships in the game is something different from the percentage of population playing them.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Because choice of battleships in the game is something different from the percentage of population playing them.

 

Yea after mm normalizes it becomes the same amount of the same class just with more diversity. The normalization is the time it takes for matches to not have all of a class be all one ship at a tier, the time required really depends, for French ships its nearly immediately. With German BBs it took longer because its the line that plays the way people want BBs to play like, but even then, after a day their stopped being games where half the team were German BBs. Now its the same amount of battleships playing as before, just slip between three trees instead of two. Who would've guessed people play what they wanted to play.

 

Funny how 4-6 a game (2 to 3 a team) is somehow unacceptable to him.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because choice of battleships in the game is something different from the percentage of population playing them.

And so clearly the solution is to introduce more battleships to draw more players to the class.  I understand there are dedicated BB players, but a lot of people play more than one class.  Remember T3-5 and T7 in the first two weeks after German BBs released.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh, sure. You're right, I'm sure. Surely the game is doomed if more BB lines are introduced, and population in a class has nothing to do with inter-class balance and meta, but purely with how many different ships of a certain class exist within the game.


1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here... Increase player count to 20v20 or 18v18.. And put hard caps for ship classes..except in clan battle/special events and training.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.