Jump to content
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
Stauffenberg44

In Praise of Pre-dreadnoughts

Pre-dreadnought Inclusion  

349 members have voted

  1. 1. Would you like to see pre-dreadnoughts included in the game in some manner?

    • Yes
      303
    • No
      18
    • Undecided or 'It Depends"
      28

234 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

223
[SIMP]
Members
1,061 posts
9,375 battles

No, they would be awful to play.

Torn apart by bigger BBs

Torp'd to death, unable to turn worth a damn...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
4,149 posts
9,276 battles

Tier II torps are not so formidable. The French pre-dreadnought Henry IV had 11 inch waterline armour and with a curved torpedo bulkhead. As for being "torn apart by bigger BBs" they face the same situation you do, same for turning circles and rudder shifts. I am sure they would be a gas to play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,933 posts
8,496 battles

Pre-dreadnoughts at tier II please! Mikasa is hilarious, would love to see more like her.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
335
[CZS]
Members
842 posts
7,951 battles

Pre-Dreadnoughts have a problem being playable in WoWS:  the primary/secondary gun concept.

Secondaries, as a whole, are just a bad game mechanic, and severely broken. They're an automatic damage concept, which severely unbalances play.

In the case of pre-dreadnoughts, it's a particular problem, because they have VERY few (usually no more than 4) "main" guns, and then a dozen or so "medium caliber" ones, and then smaller.   A typical 1880-1900s-style predreadnought had 4 10-12" guns, 6-8 8" guns, and 8-10 4-6" guns.  That's not really workable in the game, if you're allowing 8" and 6" guns to regularly score automatic hits on their opponents, and if you don't, then having that few main guns is a severe crippling effect.

The only way to have pre-dreadnoughts in the game is to have the next largest gun caliber (in this case, the 8" ones) require manual control just like the main guns. Not "point me at a target and I'll fire automatically" like the captain skill. No, more like torpedoes:   in order to fire the 8" guns, you'd have to push 3, then aim them just like the main guns.  For simplicity's sake, I'd vote that the main guns always shoot AP, and the 8" guns always shoot HE.

Without a significant code change fixing how secondaries are handled (which, frankly, should just apply to ALL secondaries, as they're now currently massively OP as a concept), predreadnoughts are a bad idea; they're either far too powerful, or far too weak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
4,149 posts
9,276 battles
On 8/13/2017 at 7:59 PM, EAnybody said:

Pre-Dreadnoughts have a problem being playable in WoWS:  the primary/secondary gun concept.

Secondaries, as a whole, are just a bad game mechanic, and severely broken. They're an automatic damage concept, which severely unbalances play.

In the case of pre-dreadnoughts, it's a particular problem, because they have VERY few (usually no more than 4) "main" guns, and then a dozen or so "medium caliber" ones, and then smaller.   A typical 1880-1900s-style predreadnought had 4 10-12" guns, 6-8 8" guns, and 8-10 4-6" guns.  That's not really workable in the game, if you're allowing 8" and 6" guns to regularly score automatic hits on their opponents, and if you don't, then having that few main guns is a severe crippling effect.

The only way to have pre-dreadnoughts in the game is to have the next largest gun caliber (in this case, the 8" ones) require manual control just like the main guns. Not "point me at a target and I'll fire automatically" like the captain skill. No, more like torpedoes:   in order to fire the 8" guns, you'd have to push 3, then aim them just like the main guns.  For simplicity's sake, I'd vote that the main guns always shoot AP, and the 8" guns always shoot HE.

Without a significant code change fixing how secondaries are handled (which, frankly, should just apply to ALL secondaries, as they're now currently massively OP as a concept), predreadnoughts are a bad idea; they're either far too powerful, or far too weak.

Some good critiques, but on the other hand all the liabilities you point out would obtain for the other side in equal measure as well. So.

An earlier, clumsier bash & crash BB play would be a fine intro for new players, and a lot of fun to my mind for beginners and collectors alike. WG likely nerfed the Mikasa so badly because they were worried about the issues you raise: "far too powerful"; however, with more of a focus on bringing these ship in I am sure they could make it all workable. even ramming on this level which many pre-dreadnoughts were designed for (and quickly realized not realistic given mines and torpedoes, but this is WoWs)

In any event I am also crusading for some dreadnoughts, and even the unique *semi-dreadnought" the French Danton, as well as battlecruiser Goeben. I'm clearly all for rounding out the bottom end of all battleship lines in the game. Thanks for posting.

Edited by Stauffenberg44

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
113
[UFEF]
Members
286 posts
5,171 battles

I would literally pay money to get my hands on a Connecticut-class predreadnought in game. 

 

Great White Fleet, anyone? (also USS Minnesota)

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,141 posts
2,059 battles

I love Pre-dreads, from the brutally ugly but steam punk esque French ships to the sleek and refined British ones.  I'm surprised that, what with this being a Russian game, that WG have not put some of their Pre-dreads in the game, but then again the Imperial Russian navy didn't have the best track record when it came to Pre-dreadnought naval battles.  Still despite this, there's lots of handsome ships to call upon.  And I always loved the Imperial Russian navy's paint scheme of jet black hulls and buff funnels.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/10/10/20/101020e6e475cba7ba22e7ffaf7b4971--battleship-naval-history.jpg

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
4,149 posts
9,276 battles
7 hours ago, sharlin648 said:

I love Pre-dreads, from the brutally ugly but steam punk esque French ships to the sleek and refined British ones.  I'm surprised that, what with this being a Russian game, that WG have not put some of their Pre-dreads in the game, but then again the Imperial Russian navy didn't have the best track record when it came to Pre-dreadnought naval battles.  Still despite this, there's lots of handsome ships to call upon.  And I always loved the Imperial Russian navy's paint scheme of jet black hulls and buff funnels.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/10/10/20/101020e6e475cba7ba22e7ffaf7b4971--battleship-naval-history.jpg

 

Agreed! And I chose the Borodino (and that same pic) as this floating pitbull is about my favourite.

Here's another pic of her:

59930323cbac3_FFpredreadnoughts4.jpg.4dec2a9e45a280942f9c057008ae3932.jpg

Edited by Stauffenberg44

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,933 posts
8,496 battles

Not sure why we can't have player controlled primary and secondary batteries, surely it wouldn't be that hard to code. Put the secondaries on button 3 just like torps. Fire your primaries then you've got the time as they reload to use the secondaries. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,141 posts
2,059 battles

I think it would be easier to control than folks are making it if you have something with an intermediate battery. 

Rough idea based on a French Danton class Pre-dreadnought, so you've got 4 x 12-inch guns and 6 x 9.4-inch guns as well 8 x 75mm (so 3-inch) anti-torpedo boat guns.

The 3-inchers work like normal secondaries, firing automatically when somethings in range.  The 9.4's follow the movement of the mouse and the turrets will slew and track like they would on something like a Nassau or the Kiwachi.  And when you fire, the guns that are IN RANGE will fire. So lets say the Danton can reach out to 12 km with its 12-inchers, at 8km with her 9.4s.  At 12km only the 12's will fire, and as soon as you're in range the other guns will fire when you click the mouse.  Of course the rate of fire's different so the 9.4s will fire faster and with different velocity to the 12-inchers so the shell dispersion patterns are different, making it harder to hit a targe with both guns.

In a more 'complex' ship lets turn to the USS Missippspsopsioisiospspoisspioez..the ship you guys sold to Greece which helped you get another New Mex

4 x 12-inch guns
8 x 8-inch guns
8 x 7-inch guns
12 x 3-inch guns

So on a broadside you get 4 x 12, 4 x 8 and 4 x 7 inch guns.  I'd have the 7 and 3-inchers firing on auto, whilst the 8-inch guns follow the movement of the mouse and fire like the Dantons, being able to fire once a target is in range but controlled by the player.  But again you've got different muzzle velocities and shell arcs making hitting with all of them pretty darn tricky.  you could also give the 8-inch guns terrible sigma to represent the shell spotting problems or something.

Basically it would be doable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,141 posts
2,059 battles

Also we could get some real nutty looking ships in the game if they put in pre-dreads

FqygI.jpg

HMS Victoria for all you bow on tankers for example, and her 2 x 16.25-inch guns!

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
4,149 posts
9,276 battles
22 hours ago, sharlin648 said:

Rough idea based on a French Danton class Pre-dreadnought, so you've got 4 x 12-inch guns and 6 x 9.4-inch guns as well 8 x 75mm (so 3-inch) anti-torpedo boat guns.

The Danton is a very unique "semi-dreadnought" and I would love to see her included. Manual control of secondaries would take things to a new level on this ship.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,141 posts
2,059 battles
2 hours ago, Stauffenberg44 said:

The Danton is a very unique "semi-dreadnought" and I would love to see her included. Manual control of secondaries would take things to a new level on this ship.

Not that Unique, there was the Nelson class and they had the same kind of set up with 4 x 12-inch and 5 x 9.2's on a broadside and then a buttload of 12lbers for anti-torpedo boat work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11
[SW]
Members
119 posts
4,707 battles
On 8/13/2017 at 7:59 PM, EAnybody said:

Pre-Dreadnoughts have a problem being playable in WoWS:  the primary/secondary gun concept.

Secondaries, as a whole, are just a bad game mechanic, and severely broken. They're an automatic damage concept, which severely unbalances play.

In the case of pre-dreadnoughts, it's a particular problem, because they have VERY few (usually no more than 4) "main" guns, and then a dozen or so "medium caliber" ones, and then smaller.   A typical 1880-1900s-style predreadnought had 4 10-12" guns, 6-8 8" guns, and 8-10 4-6" guns.  That's not really workable in the game, if you're allowing 8" and 6" guns to regularly score automatic hits on their opponents, and if you don't, then having that few main guns is a severe crippling effect.

The only way to have pre-dreadnoughts in the game is to have the next largest gun caliber (in this case, the 8" ones) require manual control just like the main guns. Not "point me at a target and I'll fire automatically" like the captain skill. No, more like torpedoes:   in order to fire the 8" guns, you'd have to push 3, then aim them just like the main guns.  For simplicity's sake, I'd vote that the main guns always shoot AP, and the 8" guns always shoot HE.

Without a significant code change fixing how secondaries are handled (which, frankly, should just apply to ALL secondaries, as they're now currently massively OP as a concept), predreadnoughts are a bad idea; they're either far too powerful, or far too weak.

 

Perfectly workable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11
[SW]
Members
119 posts
4,707 battles
On 8/18/2017 at 8:14 PM, Gen_Saris said:

Not sure why we can't have player controlled primary and secondary batteries, surely it wouldn't be that hard to code. Put the secondaries on button 3 just like torps. Fire your primaries then you've got the time as they reload to use the secondaries. 

It would solve fire control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11
[SW]
Members
119 posts
4,707 battles

Tier1 ship. Finnish coastal defence ship  Väinämöinen

Coastal defence ships (sometimes called coastal battleships or coast defence ships) were warships built for the purpose of coastal defence, mostly during the period from 1860 to 1920. They were small, often cruiser-sized warships that sacrificed speed and range for armour and armament. They were usually attractive to nations that either could not afford full-sized battleships or could be satisfied by specially designed shallow-draft vessels capable of littoral operations close to their own shores.

 

Name: Väinämöinen
Namesake: Väinämöinen
Ordered: 1927
Builder: Ab Crichton-Vulcan Oy
Laid down: August 1929
Launched: 29 April 1932
Commissioned: 28 December 1932
Fate: Transferred to Soviet Union 29 May 1947
42px-Naval_Ensign_of_the_Soviet_Union.svSoviet Union
Name: Vyborg
Acquired: 29 May 1947
Fate: Scrapped ca 1966
General characteristics
Class and type: Väinämöinen-class coastal defence ship
Displacement: 3,900 t
Length: 93.0 m (305.1 ft)
Beam: 16.864 m (55.33 ft)
Draught: 5.0 m (16.4 ft)
Propulsion:
  • Diesel-Electric powertrain
  • four Krupp engines 875 kW (1,173 hp), two shafts.
  • 3,500 kW (4,700 hp)
Speed: 14.5 knots (26.9 km/h; 16.7 mph)
Range: 700 nmi (1,300 km; 810 mi)
Complement: 410
Armament:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11
[SW]
Members
119 posts
4,707 battles
On 8/7/2017 at 0:59 PM, Stauffenberg44 said:

Tier II torps are not so formidable. The French pre-dreadnought Henry IV had 11 inch waterline armour and with a curved torpedo bulkhead. As for being "torn apart by bigger BBs" they face the same situation you do, same for turning circles and rudder shifts. I am sure they would be a gas to play.

 

One of my points exactly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11
[SW]
Members
119 posts
4,707 battles

Arkansas-class monitors t1 ship ?

 

Builders:
Operators: Flag of the United States (1908-1912).svg United States Navy
Preceded by: Monterey-class
Built: 1899–1903
In commission: 1902–1926
Planned: 4
Completed: 4
Retired: 4
Preserved: 0
General characteristics
Type: Monitor
Displacement:
  • 3,225 long tons (3,277 t) (standard)
  • 3,356 long tons (3,410 t) (full load)
Length:
Beam: 50 ft (15 m)
Draft: 12 ft 6 in (3.81 m) (mean)
Installed power:
Propulsion:
Speed:
  • 12.5 knots (23.2 km/h; 14.4 mph) (design)
  • Arkansas: 12.03 knots (22.28 km/h; 13.84 mph)
  • Nevada: 13.04 knots (24.15 km/h; 15.01 mph)
  • Florida: 12.4 knots (23.0 km/h; 14.3 mph)
  • Wyoming: 11.8 knots (21.9 km/h; 13.6 mph)
Complement: 13 officers 209 men
Armament:
Armor:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11
[SW]
Members
119 posts
4,707 battles
On 8/20/2017 at 3:00 AM, sharlin648 said:

Also we could get some real nutty looking ships in the game if they put in pre-dreads

FqygI.jpg

HMS Victoria for all you bow on tankers for example, and her 2 x 16.25-inch guns!

class and type: Victoria-class battleship
Displacement: 11,020 long tons (11,200 t)
Length: 340 ft (100 m)
Beam: 70 ft (21 m)
Draught: 26 ft 9 in (8.15 m)
Installed power:
  • 8,000 ihp (6,000 kW) (natural draught)
  • 14,482 ihp (10,799 kW) (forced draught)
Propulsion:
Speed:
  • 16 kn (18 mph; 30 km/h) (natural draught)
  • 17.3 kn (19.9 mph; 32.0 km/h) (forced draught)
Complement: 430; as flagship: 583
Armament:
Armour:
  • Belt: 18 in (46 cm)
  • Bulkheads: 16 in (41 cm)
  • Turrets: 17 in (43 cm)
  • Redoubt: 18 in (46 cm)
  • Forward screen to battery: 6 in (15 cm)
  • After screen to battery: 3 in (7.6 cm)
  • Conning Tower: 14 in (36 cm) (sides), 2 in (5.1 cm) (top)
  • Deck: 3 in (7.6 cm)

 

Would love to see this ship.

Edited by borbeck
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11
[SW]
Members
119 posts
4,707 battles

HMS Victoria

:  

Her main armour extended only along some 162 ft (49 m) of her total 340 ft (100 m) length varying from 16–18 in (41–46 cm) thick. By comparison, the French battleship Amiral Baudin, constructed at a similar time, had 21.5 in (55 cm) armour along her whole length. However, the British design produced a faster ship with greater range and larger guns. 

Would any one have more complete info on the   Amiral Baudin?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,141 posts
2,059 battles
18 hours ago, borbeck said:

HMS Victoria

:  

Her main armour extended only along some 162 ft (49 m) of her total 340 ft (100 m) length varying from 16–18 in (41–46 cm) thick. By comparison, the French battleship Amiral Baudin, constructed at a similar time, had 21.5 in (55 cm) armour along her whole length. However, the British design produced a faster ship with greater range and larger guns. 

Would any one have more complete info on the   Amiral Baudin?

The Amiral Baudin's had a problem though, their belt was VERY narrow, barely going above the waterline and she had a very tall hull leaving a huge area of her hull exposed to gunfire as it was unprotected.

 

Amiral_Baudin_class_battleship_diagrams_

 

The Victoria's belt was shorter but she had more armour covering her hull, i've a book at home with details on it and will update this later :)

But as you can see from the above pic, the Baudin's belt does not cover her above the waterline (it was often submerged when fully loaded) and her battery deck for her secondaries was utterly exposed.  HE would LOVE these things.

An example of the hull design can be viewed here in the Battleship Marceau, again she had an absurdly thick belt, but it it was VERY narrow leaving vast tracts of her hull without any protection.

1200px-Marceau_Marius_Bar_2.jpg

 

The French at the time also built their ships so slowly that they didn't take into effect any changes in weapons.  Again, don't have my books to hand but i'll bet you that the armour on the Baudin is a compound type or just solid iron, whilst the Victoria class used more modern and more shell resistant armour.
In that pic above you can just see the Marceau's belt, ots that slightly bulged out line along her waterline. Thats the belt there. Everything above that is totally unprotected. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×