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

Tec Tree for the Commonwealth ? Why not .

37 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

51
[SYN]
Members
60 posts
6,129 battles

There have been many that have said a Commonwealth tec tree is not viable… Their ships will simply be duplicates of their British and/or US counterparts and as such are irrelevant…  But I beg to differ…   

Just take a look at the upcoming Pan Asia destroyer line and you’ll see a group of IJN, RN, USN, and Soviet Navy discards that make up this tree….   If WoW can make a go of these, then they can certainly do the same for a Commonwealth tec tree… And to some extent it would be much easier…

Let’s say they do a Commonwealth tec tree for DDs. Where would these ships come from…  Well for the most part, except for the lean/lease USN ships of WW2, Commonwealth ships were mostly build in Britain..   So for a destroyer tec line we have a large number of options available….

From 1900 through 1920, the RN build destroyers at a frantic pace…  33 classes of destroyer built in that time, that’s 500+ ships, with many finding their way into the Canadian or Australian navies...

From the interwar and early years of WW2, 16 classes were built accounting for 200+ ships… Plus 50 lend/lease USN Wickes and/or Clemsons…  Again Australia and Canada equipped their navies with these ships…  Some being built in their respective countries…

During WW2, Britain enacted the War Emergency Programme, building destroyers that incorporated the lessons learned in combat. These comprised of 13 classes accounting for 140 ships built…   And again the Commonwealth navies were equipped with these ships…   

Certainly there are enough ship classes and numbers that there need not be any duplicated in  future British and/or Commonwealth tec trees… 

 

Australia’s navy was equipped with the following destroyer classes/quantities..    The first 6 classes(17 ships) were built before or during WW1.. The rest being built interwar or WW2…

Daring class (1957) – 4 ships designed late war (1945) and built over the following 10 to 12 years.

 

Canada’s navy was equipped with the following destroyer classes /quantities... The first 2 classes (4 ships) were built in WW1.  The rest being built interwar or WW2…

  • Thornycroth M class (1920) – 2 ships
  • Thornycroth S class (1928) – 2 ships
  • A class(1931) – 2 ships
  • C class(1936-39) – 5 ships
  • Wickes/Clemson class (1940) – 16 ships that where built just after WW1
  • D class (1940-43) – 2 ships
  • E class (1943) – 1 ship
  • F class (1943-44) – 2 ship
  • G class(1943) – 1 ships
  • H class(1943) – 1 ships
  • Tribal class (1940-46) – 8 ships
  • Cr class (1945-46) – 2 ships
  • V class (1944) – 2 ships

 

 

New Zealand’s navy only came into existence in WW2 and were then equipped with ex RN cruisers..

 

Aso a case could be made for a Commonwealth cruiser tec tree comprising of WW1 era RAN Town, Chatham and Birmingham light cruiser classes (similar to the RN Weymouth class)… RAN County class heavy cruisers.  (8” guns).. RNZN Leander class light cruiser Achllies.. RNZN Dido class light cruisers… and RCN moidified Colony class cruisers Quebec and Ontario..

Possibly throw in HMAS Australia (Indefatigable class) battlecruiser and HMCS Niobe (Diadem class) cruiser as premiums…

And of course.. HMCS Haida…

just my two cents....

 

 

 

  •  

 

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,619
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
6,710 posts
11,324 battles

I am not saying it's not viable (though not a line I personally care to see). But WG has said they currently do not plan on doing a Commonwealth tech tree line. 

There is a major difference between a pan-Asian line and a commonwealth line, the player base and there money. Way more Chinese and SEA players then Canadian/ANZAC players. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51
[SYN]
Members
60 posts
6,129 battles

65 million Canucks, Aussis and Kiwis... should be at least a few thousand WoW players in there... It shouldn't always be about the numbers..... There needs to be a least a little historical content even in an arcade based game....  

 

Oh well, we can only hope....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,258
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
8,780 posts
14,828 battles

The first requirement for a "Commonwealth" line would be the completion of the Royal navy lines, all of them (well, maybe not CV's, but certainly DD's), because taking away the DD's used in that tree, and selecting any ships left which were given to Commonwealth nations but not currently modeled in WoW, will give you the basis for the Commonwealth DD tree.

Then add in any USN ships which were sold to Commonwealth nations, again using any which are not currently modeled first, and after that any ships which were either captured by or given to the Commonwealth nations during and after WW1 and WW2.

By beginning with any ships not currently modeled in game the line could contain significant differences from both the RN and USN standard lines, as well as changing their armaments to types most often available to Commonwealth ships. Add in the ships built by enemies and it is my opinion there would be enough for a viable tree.

Besides, I think there can never be enough new ships, and Haida would be the perfect ship to start this line with, effectively killing two birds with one stone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
91
[HMCS]
[HMCS]
Beta Testers
196 posts
4,572 battles

Did someone say Haida? When?

 

I'm Canadian and I would love the commonwealth tree to be added to finally. I live only a few hours from Haida herself and a few american warships on the other side of Lake Ontario. Also I would like a Canada Day event for once, I hate it being overshadowed by Independence day

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,708
[ARGSY]
Members
5,781 posts
3,932 battles

I can see it being viable if you make the British tech tree a British Empire tech tree. You could populate the destroyer tree with the usual suspects (the major ship classes that WoW chooses), but some of them could bear the names of their Commonwealth sisters (cousins?). Likewise the British 8-inch cruisers; if they are fully developed, HMAS Australia (cruiser) could go in there as a representative of her class without necessarily having to be a premium ship.

 

If they develop the British battlecruisers, I could imagine being able to purchase them from the shop, with the option to buy the early class as either HMS Indefatigable, HMAS Australia (battlecruiser) or HMS New Zealand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,323
[-Y-]
Alpha Tester
4,483 posts
6,657 battles

Arguably, it would have made more sense to implement a Commonwealth Navy from the start, using the RN as its foundation. This is still a possible way forward, and would allow cross decking RN captains to Commonwealth navy ships (such as HMCS Haida). I say possible, definitely sensible, but sadly nor probable! A branch of ANZAC dds for example, starting at tier 2 on the current RN tree, why not? Add a voice pack, and presto.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,582
[SALVO]
Members
16,618 posts
17,283 battles
On ‎9‎/‎15‎/‎2017 at 0:07 PM, Platnumsniper said:

Did someone say Haida? When?

 

I'm Canadian and I would love the commonwealth tree to be added to finally. I live only a few hours from Haida herself and a few american warships on the other side of Lake Ontario. Also I would like a Canada Day event for once, I hate it being overshadowed by Independence day

You're dreaming if you think that July 4th wouldn't always "overshadow" Canada Day.  That said, there's no reason why there couldn't be a smaller Canada Day event.  Think of it this way.  Independence Day event might be over the weekend, and the Canada Day event could be during the weekdays before the IndDay weekend event.

But having said that, what do you do for a Canada Day event?  There aren't any Canadian ships in the game (yet).  And there's certainly no Canadian tech tree (and likely never will be).  So again, what do they do for a Canada Day event, other than offer something like a generic 1st time bonus for first wins of the day, or something.

I suppose that a mildly interesting and amusing thing WG could do would be to create a special Canadian red and white "maple leaf" camo. I suppose that it could either be a perma camo to put on the Haida (once it comes out) like the special US flag camo for the Texas.  Or it could be a premium consumable camo, that they could put in the prem shop that (a) got the usual -3%/-4% bonuses, plus some combination of other economic/XP bonuses.

Another thing they could do is find some special Canadian captain from WW2 who distinguished himself, and create a campaign to give him away (perhaps with some of the aforementioned camos).  Maybe such a captain would have special skills that were particularly useful for DDs or light cruisers.  Maybe the smoke skill and the Torp reloading skill?

 

Anyways, there are some ideas for ya.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,582
[SALVO]
Members
16,618 posts
17,283 battles
On ‎9‎/‎16‎/‎2017 at 6:13 AM, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

I can see it being viable if you make the British tech tree a British Empire tech tree. You could populate the destroyer tree with the usual suspects (the major ship classes that WoW chooses), but some of them could bear the names of their Commonwealth sisters (cousins?). Likewise the British 8-inch cruisers; if they are fully developed, HMAS Australia (cruiser) could go in there as a representative of her class without necessarily having to be a premium ship.

 

If they develop the British battlecruisers, I could imagine being able to purchase them from the shop, with the option to buy the early class as either HMS Indefatigable, HMAS Australia (battlecruiser) or HMS New Zealand.

I could see those BC's being used as premiums, though low tier premiums are never particularly interesting and seem to be more for the sake of collecting than playing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
82
[WUDPS]
Members
512 posts
7,657 battles

The real reason.  The guy who does the Tier balancing hates Crocodile Dundee, and resents Canadian Hockey.  They know he is just waiting to take his revenge out on those lines of ships.  So, they just avoid the problems that would bring by not doing the line.  And even worse, he commiserates with the guy who does the MM; who's pet peeve is the fact the Aussies are always bragging about their dangerous wildlife.  And he's not too fond of how they shortened Bar-B-Que to the same name for a doll.  In fact he is so put out by it that he has already put code in the MM to make sure all Commonwealth ships are up-tiered every time. (even the T-10s, go figure?)  So they just can't afford to let these guys have their outlet.

Oh yeah, BTW these guys both hate J.R. Tolkin, and we know where that leads...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,708
[ARGSY]
Members
5,781 posts
3,932 battles
12 hours ago, Crucis said:

I could see those BC's being used as premiums, though low tier premiums are never particularly interesting and seem to be more for the sake of collecting than playing.

 

Speaking of low tier premiums, I'm actually surprised they gave us the Mikasa, seeing as her moment of glory in battle was associated with one of the most humiliating defeats ever suffered by the Russians as a nation. That being said, as a collectors' item I am sorely tempted by her because apart from minor tweaks they could deliver in armour and gun loading time, she is EXACTLY what a British Tier 2 pre-dreadnought would be if such a thing existed (and the Umikaze bears a very close resemblance to the early WW1 British destroyers in many respects).

 

The advantage of the British battlecruisers would be their speed; any pre-war cruiser in anybody's tech tree could just about give up living as soon as one of them hove into view. Killing cruisers of that era was their design mission, and they did it well.

 

Proposed British WW1 battlecruiser attraction - main-gun rapid fire consumable. Lasts five minutes and decreases reload time by 50%... but while it's active, a turret disabling hit translates to automatic detonation and the anti-detonation flag does not save you. (This reflects the true reason for the detonation of the battlecruisers at Jutland - they bypassed the safety interlocks on their cordite hoists to fire faster, but the turret hits which would ordinarily have just started nasty fires had the ultimate consequence.) Oh, and British shells of that era were Lyddite filled, so fire chance +++++

 

Now if they offered a Renown or Repulse as a premium, that would be a very different matter - what you would have then is basically a British Gneisenau (6 x 15 inch guns), but with a different secondary armament.

Edited by Ensign_Cthulhu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,582
[SALVO]
Members
16,618 posts
17,283 battles
2 hours ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

 

Speaking of low tier premiums, I'm actually surprised they gave us the Mikasa, seeing as her moment of glory in battle was associated with one of the most humiliating defeats ever suffered by the Russians as a nation. That being said, as a collectors' item I am sorely tempted by her because apart from minor tweaks they could deliver in armour and gun loading time, she is EXACTLY what a British Tier 2 pre-dreadnought would be if such a thing existed (and the Umikaze bears a very close resemblance to the early WW1 British destroyers in many respects).

 

The advantage of the British battlecruisers would be their speed; any pre-war cruiser in anybody's tech tree could just about give up living as soon as one of them hove into view. Killing cruisers of that era was their design mission, and they did it well.

 

Proposed British WW1 battlecruiser attraction - main-gun rapid fire consumable. Lasts five minutes and decreases reload time by 50%... but while it's active, a turret disabling hit translates to automatic detonation and the anti-detonation flag does not save you. (This reflects the true reason for the detonation of the battlecruisers at Jutland - they bypassed the safety interlocks on their cordite hoists to fire faster, but the turret hits which would ordinarily have just started nasty fires had the ultimate consequence.) Oh, and British shells of that era were Lyddite filled, so fire chance +++++

 

Now if they offered a Renown or Repulse as a premium, that would be a very different matter - what you would have then is basically a British Gneisenau (6 x 15 inch guns), but with a different secondary armament.

No doubt that the Mikasa is a good example of pre-dreadnoughts (PDs), though I'm hesitant to say that she's 100% exactly what they'd be like, since there were many varieties of PDs.

I agree about the advantage of RN BCs.  I just hope that WG remembers or learns that all battlecruisers didn't follow the RN model of BCs.  German BCs weren't the cruiser-fast, eggshells armed with hammers.  German BCs were only a bit faster than contemporaneous German BBs, were slightly less well armored than those BBs, and carried slightly smaller guns than those BBs.  (That is, on guns, if the Germans were building a BB and BC class at the same time, it was likely that, for example, the BB had 12" guns while the BC had 11" guns ... another tonnage savings.)  The result was that German BCs were slower than RN BCs, probably with slightly smaller guns, but were overall a LOT tougher and could take a LOT more punishment.

As for the consumable, I don't like it.  The detonation problem of those RN BC's was, as you point out, largely due to a flaw in ammo handling procedures, though IMO, those same procedures and shells were likely also used on the RN BB's of the same era.  So arguably, the BBs should have also had an increased risk of detonation.  However, I suspect that we didn't see any BB detonations due to the BB's being much better armored than the BC's, which left the BCs and their magazines (with their sloppy ammo handling) more vulnerable to detonations.  Honestly, I wouldn't do anything with RN WW1 era BCs in the game to make them any more vulnerable to dets beyond the simple fact of their weak armor.  In short, I'd just let their weak armor "speak for itself" and leave it at that.

Regarding the Repulse/Renown as a premium, I could see WG adding in 1 or 2 RN BC premiums.  Maybe a tier 3 one and perhaps something around tier 5 or 6.  I'd suggest tier 5 because tier 6 already has the Warspite, so perhaps maybe the Tiger?  The thing is to me, that before they start picking ships for premiums, the designers need to pick the ships for a RN BC line, even if they don't intend to work on that line for a while.  This would let them know what other BC's might be unused, or whatever.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,352
[SYN]
Members
4,525 posts
11,433 battles

If the "Asian Commonwealth" already gets a line, there is no reason whatsoever why the British Commonwealth of Nations shouldn't get one also.  I'm not against the Pan-Asia line.  In fact, I'm all for it and looking forward to it, but I hope this isn't at the expense of the BCoN - navies who showed significantly more prominently in period than any of the participants in the Pan-Asia line.

 

On a side note, it's funny that Indonesia gets in the game before the Dutch navy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51
[SYN]
Members
60 posts
6,129 battles

On the Asian server, testing is presently ongoing for the RAN destroyer HMAS Vampire...Tier #3   (ex HMS Wallace) Admiralty V Class (1917) 

 

Not sure why they would pick this particular ship other than as a possible Halloween giveaway/reward...  Haida doesn't quite fit that bill...

 

 So that makes for 7 British DDs available, or soon to be on WoW..

 

(USN lend/lease) HMS Campbeltown  at tier 3  

RN G class HMS Gallant at tier 6 (premium) 

RAN Admiralty V class HMAS Vampire at tier 3 (more that likely a premium) 

Pan-Asian Phra Ruang (ex HMS Radiant)  R class at tier 3  (tec tree) 

Pan-Asian Jianwei (RN 1929 proposed design) at tier 5  (tec tree) 

Pan-Asian Gadjah Mada (ex HMS Nonpareil ) N class at tier 7 (tec tree)  

 

also, remember Operation Dynamo (Dunkirk evacuation)  HMS Anthony is on the shelf and ready to go and will most likely to be part of a RN tec tree… when that’s released…. Possibly at tier 5 

 

 

Cheers.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,708
[ARGSY]
Members
5,781 posts
3,932 battles
On 25/09/2017 at 9:16 PM, Crucis said:

No doubt that the Mikasa is a good example of pre-dreadnoughts (PDs), though I'm hesitant to say that she's 100% exactly what they'd be like, since there were many varieties of PDs.

I agree about the advantage of RN BCs.  I just hope that WG remembers or learns that all battlecruisers didn't follow the RN model of BCs.  German BCs weren't the cruiser-fast, eggshells armed with hammers.  German BCs were only a bit faster than contemporaneous German BBs, were slightly less well armored than those BBs, and carried slightly smaller guns than those BBs.  (That is, on guns, if the Germans were building a BB and BC class at the same time, it was likely that, for example, the BB had 12" guns while the BC had 11" guns ... another tonnage savings.)  The result was that German BCs were slower than RN BCs, probably with slightly smaller guns, but were overall a LOT tougher and could take a LOT more punishment.

As for the consumable, I don't like it.  The detonation problem of those RN BC's was, as you point out, largely due to a flaw in ammo handling procedures, though IMO, those same procedures and shells were likely also used on the RN BB's of the same era.  So arguably, the BBs should have also had an increased risk of detonation.  However, I suspect that we didn't see any BB detonations due to the BB's being much better armored than the BC's, which left the BCs and their magazines (with their sloppy ammo handling) more vulnerable to detonations.  Honestly, I wouldn't do anything with RN WW1 era BCs in the game to make them any more vulnerable to dets beyond the simple fact of their weak armor.  In short, I'd just let their weak armor "speak for itself" and leave it at that.

Regarding the Repulse/Renown as a premium, I could see WG adding in 1 or 2 RN BC premiums.  Maybe a tier 3 one and perhaps something around tier 5 or 6.  I'd suggest tier 5 because tier 6 already has the Warspite, so perhaps maybe the Tiger?  The thing is to me, that before they start picking ships for premiums, the designers need to pick the ships for a RN BC line, even if they don't intend to work on that line for a while.  This would let them know what other BC's might be unused, or whatever.

 

I nominate the Mikasa as representative of British pre-dreadnoughts because she was designed and built in British yards to a British philosophy - she is as similar to the Majestic, Formidable, London and Canopus class as they are to each other, if you know what I mean.

 

With respect to ammo handling procedures, my reading (Andrew Gordon's "The Rules of the Game", D.K. Brown's "The Grand Fleet", Norman Friedman's "British Battleships 1906-46" etc) indicates that the dangerous practices were the sole or overwhelming province of the battlecruisers; certainly as the reason for their destruction, it should be attributed to them in-game.

 

The battlecruisers that did NOT detonate took in some cases quite severe damage and survived; their weak armour was certainly NOT the major factor in their lethal vulnerability.

 

I also hope that other BC's are not like the British - the trouble is that hardly anyone else built any (the Japanese and the Germans), and the Japanese converted theirs to full BB's before they ever saw meaningful combat (ironic then that Hiei got wrecked as a fighting unit by cruiser and destroyer gunfire, showing how lethal smaller-calibre guns could be to battleships if the engagement was at close range, and justifying their fitment on predreadnoughts in the days when long engagement ranges were unheard of). We are going to see a lot of paper ships in the non-British, non-German lines. We have one already, of course; the Kongo. She too is a perfect example of British design and building practice, having (like Mikasa) been built in British yards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,582
[SALVO]
Members
16,618 posts
17,283 battles
2 hours ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

I nominate the Mikasa as representative of British pre-dreadnoughts because she was designed and built in British yards to a British philosophy - she is as similar to the Majestic, Formidable, London and Canopus class as they are to each other, if you know what I mean.

 

With respect to ammo handling procedures, my reading (Andrew Gordon's "The Rules of the Game", D.K. Brown's "The Grand Fleet", Norman Friedman's "British Battleships 1906-46" etc) indicates that the dangerous practices were the sole or overwhelming province of the battlecruisers; certainly as the reason for their destruction, it should be attributed to them in-game.

 

The battlecruisers that did NOT detonate took in some cases quite severe damage and survived; their weak armour was certainly NOT the major factor in their lethal vulnerability.

 

I also hope that other BC's are not like the British - the trouble is that hardly anyone else built any (the Japanese and the Germans), and the Japanese converted theirs to full BB's before they ever saw meaningful combat (ironic then that Hiei got wrecked as a fighting unit by cruiser and destroyer gunfire, showing how lethal smaller-calibre guns could be to battleships if the engagement was at close range, and justifying their fitment on predreadnoughts in the days when long engagement ranges were unheard of). We are going to see a lot of paper ships in the non-British, non-German lines. We have one already, of course; the Kongo. She too is a perfect example of British design and building practice, having (like Mikasa) been built in British yards.

I'll respond to each paragraph in turn.

1. And those make for a perfectly good reason to compare the Mikasa to British PD's.

2. I disagree that the reason the RN BC's were vulnerable should be modelled in game.  In WoT, WG doesn't model the known and documented unreliability of certain tanks.  I don't think that they should model this either.

3. This small 3rd paragraph seems to miss the point.  The bad ammo handling practices only become an issue when the armor around the ammo handling areas is weak.  The fact that other RN BCs were able to take major damage and survive only tells me that they didn't happen to get unlucky and take that major damage to a magazine.

4. Much as people will say that the Kongos were converted to full fledged BB's, I tend to think that this was mostly in name only.  Even with the uparmoring of the Kongos, they were still less well armored than WW1 era US BB's.

As for paper designs, honestly, I'd prefer if the BC lines just merged with the Battleship lines rather than having to include a whole bunch of truly fake BC designs.  I don't mind ships based on actual designs, but I'm not particularly aware that the RN had any serious BC designs after 1920's.  I do seem to recall that the German navy did include some BC designs in their Z Plan (IIRC).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,708
[ARGSY]
Members
5,781 posts
3,932 battles

Interesting. My reading indicates that what killed all the BC's was turret hits flashing downwards. The  exception which proved the rule was Lion, whose Q turret was obliterated without destroying the ship and whose gunnery officer had put his foot down and absolutely refused to relax the rules.

 

If we were to see any paper BB's/BC's it should have been the G3 battlecruisers (which were really fast battleships, but the battleship they were measured against was a 9x18" gun monster), not that fictitious obscenity they put at Tier 10. The G3's at least got as far as blueprints and an intent to purchase before the Washington treaty scuppered them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,258
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
8,780 posts
14,828 battles
On ‎9‎/‎25‎/‎2017 at 0:54 AM, Crucis said:

You're dreaming if you think that July 4th wouldn't always "overshadow" Canada Day.

Montreal, Toronto, Quebec ... I'm thinking there may be some dreamers out there!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,582
[SALVO]
Members
16,618 posts
17,283 battles
4 hours ago, Umikami said:

Montreal, Toronto, Quebec ... I'm thinking there may be some dreamers out there!

I'm thinking that there are ten times more people in the US than Canada.  

Look, I'm not saying that things couldn't be done to give Canada Day some "time in the sun" so to speak.  But you are delusional if you think that WG would or should not do US Independence Day one year in favor of Canada Day.  That would end every bit as poorly for them as these anthem kneelings are ending for the NFL.  You don't anger a larger group of customers just to appease a much smaller group of customers.  At least, not if you want to stay in business.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,582
[SALVO]
Members
16,618 posts
17,283 battles
On ‎9‎/‎29‎/‎2017 at 6:08 PM, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

Interesting. My reading indicates that what killed all the BC's was turret hits flashing downwards. The  exception which proved the rule was Lion, whose Q turret was obliterated without destroying the ship and whose gunnery officer had put his foot down and absolutely refused to relax the rules.

 

If we were to see any paper BB's/BC's it should have been the G3 battlecruisers (which were really fast battleships, but the battleship they were measured against was a 9x18" gun monster), not that fictitious obscenity they put at Tier 10. The G3's at least got as far as blueprints and an intent to purchase before the Washington treaty scuppered them. 

I seriously doubt that WG would have put the G3 at tier 10.  It was another one of those horrid designs that included a waist turret.

Also, I'm not entirely sure why you think that the Conqueror is fictitious.  It appears to be the 1944 version design of the earlier Lion BB design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,258
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
8,780 posts
14,828 battles
1 hour ago, Crucis said:

I'm thinking that there are ten times more people in the US than Canada.

I'm thinking both are equally important; especially to the people who live there, no matter how many that is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,708
[ARGSY]
Members
5,781 posts
3,932 battles
5 hours ago, Crucis said:

I seriously doubt that WG would have put the G3 at tier 10.  It was another one of those horrid designs that included a waist turret.

Also, I'm not entirely sure why you think that the Conqueror is fictitious.  It appears to be the 1944 version design of the earlier Lion BB design.

I have books covering the period by both D K Brown and Norman Friedman, both of whom are reliable authorities, and I can't find any mention of a 12x16 inch BB. I will go back and look again, but in the meantime a reference or two would be appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,582
[SALVO]
Members
16,618 posts
17,283 battles
6 hours ago, Umikami said:

I'm thinking both are equally important; especially to the people who live there, no matter how many that is.

They can't be equally important because they're not equal in numbers.  Would you claim that Lichtenstein is equally important as the US or France or even Canada?  I sure hope not.  Stop living in this PC delusion.

 

I also notice that in your delusionary state, you ignored the second paragraph of my post on this topic.  Shame on you.

 

Edited by Crucis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,582
[SALVO]
Members
16,618 posts
17,283 battles
2 hours ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

I have books covering the period by both D K Brown and Norman Friedman, both of whom are reliable authorities, and I can't find any mention of a 12x16 inch BB. I will go back and look again, but in the meantime a reference or two would be appreciated.

I would say that it has less to do with history and more to do with balance, because a nine 16" gunned BB at tier 10 just wouldn't cut it, when all of the rest of the competition is using nine ~18" guns or twelve ~16" guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,258
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
8,780 posts
14,828 battles
14 minutes ago, Crucis said:

They can't be equally important

They can, and ARE, equally important; just not to you. Think about what that says about you as a person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×