Do you like or dislike British BB graphics

[Helstrem]

I had a brief chance to look over the British BB models this morning.  They look noticeably higher quality than the US and Japanese models I've been using, which given release dates is expected.  I am a bit surprise how nice looking Bellerophon is.  Just based on its appearance I am hoping it doesn't suck so I can justify keeping it. 

 

Are there any that you like or dislike?  Any that look better, or more interesting than you expected, or worse and less interesting than you expected?

[Unabletony]

Perhaps it's because the British BBs look way better than the IJN and USN is because.. they're newer. And look nice as well, which WG plans to do. And Bella looks to be a beast. Armor at waterline level, spreading everywhere. Truly bowtanking.

[VTAdmiral]

they look like frumpy battleship grannies compared to the sleek modern lines of the USN or the distinctive towers and curves of the IJN.

[Cruxdei]

1 minute ago, AraAragami said:

they look like frumpy battleship grannies compared to the sleek modern lines of the USN or the distinctive towers and curves of the IJN.

until late tiers right? and even then montana and the tier7 and below ships look fat like the average american.

iowa itself is a exception,it's slim and futuristic.

ijn ships are funny,big towers for small people.

[Doomlock]

Some of the older models could use some updating I feel, but I am too much of a fan of the IJN ship designs and Iowa's designs to say the RN BBs look better. 

 

But I will say they do look really good. I am a personal fan of KGV and Nelson.

[VVoony]

I noticed this too, RN BBs have more detailed texture and overall it looks better in graphics term, but I still enjoy USN BB designs more.

[Helstrem]

Late American BBs, North Carolina, North Dakota, Iowa and Montana classes, all look too generic to me.  The bridges are too low and, other than Montana, the gun layouts too similar.  Maybe it is due to overexposure, but they just don't do anything for me.  Later British BBs are also overly similar, but at least they have interesting superstructures and haven't been in my face for decades.

[GoldPile]

Basically, they're newer. Generally speaking, the newer models have more polygons. Take a look at the IJN DD line, it's full of holes between old legacy models & newer up to date models. Older models don't have see through windows, use normal map substitution for polygons more often, have less depth to their normal maps, and/or have lower resolution textures.

Even between Iowa & Missouri, the Iowa doesn't have see through glass while Missouri does.

[Estimated_Prophet]

Only dislike so far is that HMS Dreadnought isn't one of them.

[Fedge_123]

I think the German battleships are the best looking.

 

[HazeGrayUnderway]

I prefer the linework, distinct silhouettes of IJN BBs (especially Yamato) and the modern look of the Tier VIII+ USN BBs.  Regardless, as long as the ships play fine, I'll give them a whirl.

[HazeGrayUnderway]

2 hours ago, Cruxdei said:

until late tiers right? and even then montana and the tier7 and below ships look fat like the average american.

iowa itself is a exception,it's slim and futuristic.

ijn ships are funny,big towers for small people.

 

It's called GLORY.

 

 

For some 1930s fun.

[Middcore]

The high-tier British BB's have a stately, castles-of-the-sea look which seems to suit the national character. High-tier US BB's have a sleek aggressiveness. High-tier IJN BB's don't really evoke a particular feeling or trait to me but they're not bad looking aside from Izumo. High-tier German BB's (and actually the cruisers too) all look too much alike for my taste, their superstructures are cluttered and I find their bridges unattractive. 

Most of the lower-tier BB's are aesthetically rubbish though regardless of nation if we're being honest. The US ones are stubby, fat, and disproportionate and the cage masts are godawful. Some of the IJN ones look like they forgot to build most of the superstructure. The KM ones look, at best, unremarkably functional up until Bayern, which in its fantasy refit final hull looks so topheavy I always expect it to spontaneously capsize in the middle of a game. By those standards the RN low-tier lot isn't so bad. Bellerophon at least has a sort of well-balanced look. Orion is kind of a mess, but Iron Duke has some dignity to her with the high flying bridge. I'll be interested to see if any of them get fictional refit hulls in-game, as I think all the art we've been shown is stock configurations?

[VTAdmiral]

6 minutes ago, Middcore said:

The high-tier British BB's have a stately, castles-of-the-sea look which seems to suit the national character. High-tier US BB's have a sleek aggressiveness. High-tier IJN BB's don't really evoke a particular feeling or trait to me but they're not bad looking aside from Izumo. High-tier German BB's (and actually the cruisers too) all look too much alike for my taste, their superstructures are cluttered and I find their bridges unattractive. 

 

 

I'm not sure how you can say this isn't extremely distinctive.

 

 

[Middcore]

3 hours ago, AraAragami said:

 

 

I'm not sure how you can say this isn't extremely distinctive.

 

 

 

I'm not sure whether you read what I said.

I didn't say anything about whether or not they were distinctive. I said they don't evoke a particular emotional or aesthetic quality for me, the way the US ships look fast and aggressive and the RN ones look proud and stately. 

[mofton]

I have an issue where there's no real difference between the T7-T9, not sure if it's a graphics bug or what though...

[Big_Spud]

11 minutes ago, mofton said:

I have an issue where there's no real difference between the T7-T9, not sure if it's a graphics bug or what though...

 

And YOU get a KGV derivative, and YOU get a KGV derivative, and YOU get a KGV derivative!

[Middcore]

16 minutes ago, mofton said:

I have an issue where there's no real difference between the T7-T9, not sure if it's a graphics bug or what though...

 

Eh. Same is true of KM BB's T7-T10. Basically copy-and-paste superstructure except for number of funnels. 

[Helstrem]

1 hour ago, Middcore said:

 

I'm not sure whether you read what I said.

I didn't say anything about whether or not they were distinctive. I said they don't evoke a particular emotional or aesthetic quality for me, the way the US ships look fast and aggressive and the RN ones look proud and stately. 

To me Yamato looks more aggressive than any other BB, period.

[Ditos]

go away with British US or Japanese BBs

german BBs its where its at 

[mofton]

19 hours ago, Middcore said:

 

Eh. Same is true of KM BB's T7-T10. Basically copy-and-paste superstructure except for number of funnels. 

You get varying funnel numbers! Lucky sods.

Spot the difference.

[Middcore]

17 minutes ago, mofton said:

You get varying funnel numbers! Lucky sods.

Spot the difference.

 

Masts. Funnel caps. You could throw in Conqueror also and make this even funnier but at least she has a different turret layout. 

I think its a little unfair to make fun of Monarch looking the same as KGV though since Monarch is literally just the upgunned KGV concept inserted into the game as an attempt to mollify both sides of the debate about what tier the historical KGV should be at.

It's a little disappointing that Wargaming didn't put a bit more effort and creativity into making the papers ships in both of these lines look more distinct from each other... but it's plausible in real life, they designed these ships to be functional rather than pretty and if they had a superstructure design that worked there would be no reason not to stick with it. 

[mofton]

24 minutes ago, Middcore said:

I think its a little unfair to make fun of Monarch looking the same as KGV though since Monarch is literally just the upgunned KGV concept inserted into the game as an attempt to mollify both sides of the debate about what tier the historical KGV should be at.

Monarch is a copy/paste of KGV, and not 15-C which would have a different hull, superstructure and secondary battery.

Monarch is a mongrel of nothing. She is an incredibly lazy copy/paste. I'd be far more on board if for instance they had put a 4.5in secondary battery on her.

If you contrast the T7-T9 Germans you get for instance the different turret arrangement, different secondary arrangement, different number of funnels, size. Even Scharn/Gneis they did a nice job on differentiating with Gneis' different hangar arrangement.

If you contrast to Colorado-North Carolina-Iowa you again get far more variety. Size, secondary placement, gun arrangement, funnels.

 

If funnel caps are enough then I suppose that's fine but color me underwhelmed.

[Inigo_M0ntoya]

They just get better and better and modeling stuff. Newer technology, more skilled artists.

[Middcore]

36 minutes ago, mofton said:

If you contrast to Colorado-North Carolina-Iowa you again get far more variety. Size, secondary placement, gun arrangement, funnels.

 

There's a 20 year gap in design between Colorado and North Carolina which accounts for their radically different looks (it would be interesting if the top Colorado class hull represented West Virginia or if there were a WV premium, since her superstructure got rebuilt in the Alabama style). The British BB line from T7 up is all an extrapolation of the KGV design so you could imagine they were all designed and "built" within 10 years of each other or so. 

I still think you're underselling how lazy the FDG (bigger Bismarck with an extra funnel) and GK (slightly bigger still with triple turrets) designs are. But again, you can argue that the duplication in both lines makes practical sense from a real-world perspective. At least I find the copied RN design aesthetically pleasing, the copied KM one not so much. YMMV.