Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
RightYouAreKen

All these USN Prem BBs, but still no Washington (BB-56)?

66 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

337
[-K--]
Members
1,151 posts
9,208 battles

I've been waiting (im)patiently since the first days of playing in Open Beta to command USS Washington BB-56.  Partly because of her fascinating/sad history, partly because I had recently read Battleship at War: The Epic Story of USS Washington, and partly because she's named for my adopted home state in which I now reside.  You'd think she'd be high on the priority list given her history of being one of the only battleships of WWII to sink an enemy battleship in a direct shooting match, or her pioneering use of radar in naval gunnery, or her extensive stint as flagship for the Admiral Lee.  She can't be much of a difficult release for WG given her being a North Carolina class BB.

 

It can't be that they don't judge her battle record to be impressive enough.  She was awarded more battlestars (13) than either Alabama (9) or Massachusetts (11).

 

I could also see all sorts of interesting angles with which to bring her into the game.  USN BB w/ standard USN radar at tier 8?  Maybe some type of new unique radar consumable which increases main gun accuracy?  Maybe another unique commander (Admiral Lee) with some enhanced radar skills?

 

Heck they could even chose to highlight her brief service in the Atlantic on convoy escort duty serving alongside British warships.

 

Consider this a public plea, WG....bring us "Mighty W"!

 

Photos courtesy of https://www.navsource.org/archives/01/56a.htm

Spoiler

On the flight deck of HMS Victorious (R 38) a Fairey Albacore is ranged for anti-submarine patrol, with two Fairey Fulmars in front. Astern are Washington (BB-56) and Wichita (CA-45) on convoy duty in the North Atlantic.

fsAG71J.jpg?1

Spoiler

Washington (BB-56), and HMS King George V at sea in convoy escort duty in April, 1942.

ROyqFCS.jpg?1

Spoiler

The covering forces of the PQ-17 Convoy (British and American ships) at anchor in the harbor at Hvalfjord, Iceland, May-June 1942. Washington (BB-56) in foreground loading supplies with HMS Norfolk in the rear. Wichita (CA-45) is in the middle.

fFenDDL.jpg?1

Spoiler

HM King George VI accompanied by Admiral Harold Stark are shown inspecting ship's company aboard Washington (BB-56) on 7 June 1942 at Scapa Flow Fleet Anchorage.

7HbWhCk.png

Spoiler

Photo taken during the battle off Savo Island showing the Washington (BB-56) firing upon the Kirishima on 14-15 November 1942. The low elevation of the barrels shows how the close range of the adversaries; only 8,400 yards, point blank range for the 16"/45 caliber main armament of the Washington.

ltTs0nQ.jpg?1

Spoiler

TG 38.3 enters Ulithi anchorage in column, 12 December 1944 while returning from strikes on targets in the Philippines. Ships are (from front): Ticonderoga (CV-14); Washington (BB-56); North Carolina (BB-55); South Dakota (BB-57); Santa Fe (CL-60).

fbkucYg.jpg?1

Spoiler

Washington (BB-56) on 12 November, 1943 with unknown Essex class carrier, (Probably) Yorktown (CV-10) or Lexington (CV-16), steams towards the Gilbert Islands to take part in Operation Galvanic.

syRujsJ.jpg?1

Spoiler

Off the Puget Sound Navy Yard, Washington, 26 April 1944, following repair of collision damage to her bow.

qIEmsMk.jpg?1

 

  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,593
[CRMSN]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
6,021 posts
4,739 battles

I have been waiting patiently for a Tier 8 USN DD. Looks like Kidd is going to be that. 

How about we get some more tier 8 premium USN cruisers and DD's before we start introducing some new BB's? I think at this point we have enough... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,043
[SALTY]
Members
8,930 posts
18,141 battles

Maybe one day when the US BB line possibly splits?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
337
[-K--]
Members
1,151 posts
9,208 battles
7 minutes ago, Cobraclutch said:

I have been waiting patiently for a Tier 8 USN DD. Looks like Kidd is going to be that. 

How about we get some more tier 8 premium USN cruisers and DD's before we start introducing some new BB's? I think at this point we have enough... 

 

I don't disagree with you the we have a lot of premium BBs, but I'd argue we have the wrong ones.

 

This is my history nerd side wanting Washington, whereas my gameplay side could agree that more premium cruisers and destroyers would be nice.  

 

I hope it doesn't have to be an either or, but a both.  

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,593
[CRMSN]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
6,021 posts
4,739 battles
Just now, RightYouAreKen said:

 

I don't disagree with you the we have a lot of premium BBs, but I'd argue we have the wrong ones.

 

This is my history nerd side wanting Washington, whereas my gameplay side could agree that more premium cruisers and destroyers would be nice.  

 

I hope it doesn't have to be an either or, but a both.  

In a perfect world, every museum ship would be a premium. I know there would be a lot of dupes but for me that is a major factor in buying a premium. 

 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,062 posts
25,648 battles
3 minutes ago, Cobraclutch said:

In a perfect world, every museum ship would be a premium. I know there would be a lot of dupes but for me that is a major factor in buying a premium. 

 

 

considering i live 30sec from the haida i would kill to live in that perfect world :)

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
337
[-K--]
Members
1,151 posts
9,208 battles

I'll admit part of me wanting Washington is because she isn't a museum ship...she was scrapped in the 60s.  Sad end to a great and important ship.  I'd like to see her legacy out there somewhere more prominent!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,110
[KSF]
-Members-
5,295 posts
9,217 battles

I have nothing against adding the Washington, but we've been getting a lot of premium BBs as of late, and I'd really like to see more Tier 8 premium cruisers and DDs first.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,039
Members
34,409 posts
10,768 battles

I'd like to see more unique premiums. I've never bought one, but have come really close on several. What dissuades me is knowing that I can play more or less the same ship for free, esp. if I'm willing to wait. 

 

Spee would have been a for sure purchase, if they hadn't awarded it for the campaign.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
485
[-BWS]
Beta Testers
1,896 posts
13,842 battles

First GOD Bless Willis Augustus "Ching" Lee

Second, one in business like this cannot release everything at once.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58
[SOUS]
[SOUS]
Members
301 posts

Yes, the Washington belongs here too. So do the other ships mentioned and there are enough of them to justify splits in all four of the USN lines. That said, I don't care what order this is done. I'm just glad to see progress when it occurs.

Now WG, please balance the existing USN CV line so we can actually look forward to the new CVs you introduce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12,403
[SALVO]
Members
28,054 posts
41,668 battles

Some people won't be happy until every freakin' state is represented by its BB namesake.  Ditto for every city being represented by its cruiser namesake.  

At some point, WG should just say, enough!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,578
Members
4,479 posts
19,839 battles
3 hours ago, Lonewolfpj said:

I can agree with your idea. I would also like to see something other than another B.B. 

This^. WG admits that there's a big time overpopulation of BBs in game yet they encourage it by constantly churning out premium BBs and OPd (British) BB lines. IMHO, If WG spent as much time improving Cruiser survivability as they do developing premium BBs, there'd be more folks playing Cruisers.

Great pics OP! :Smile_great:

 

Edited by ReddNekk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,860
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
24,800 posts
3,947 battles

I'd rather they add the South Dakota.

 

Premium gimmick: Completely lose control and go dead in the water for the rest of the match if you take a broadside from ARP Kirishima.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12,403
[SALVO]
Members
28,054 posts
41,668 battles
27 minutes ago, ReddNekk said:

This^. WG admits that there's a big time overpopulation of BBs in game yet they encourage it by constantly churning out premium BBs and OPd (British) BB lines. IMHO, If WG spent as much time improving Cruiser survivability as they do developing premium BBs, there'd be more folks playing Cruisers.

Great pics OP! :Smile_great:

 

So much to respond to in so short a post.  :cap_book:

1. I actually don't recall that there were quite as many BBs being played before the RN BB line was released.  Also, I don't see the entire RN BB line as OP.  Certain classes, yes.  My gripe with the RN BB line is that it's based on HE spamming and doesn't follow the normal AP-spewing BB meta, which I think has served the game well.

2. There is nothing wrong with cruiser survivability.  I will say that I wish that Heal parties weren't treated as being a) for tier 9+ non-premium cruisers or RN cruisers or b) as a gimmick for some premium cruisers.  I'd like to see all cruisers from say, tier 5 or 6 get Heal parties, though fewer in number.  That said, Heal parties are limited in their capabilities, so they're hardly going to stop BB's from deleting poorly played cruisers, nor should they.

(As a tangential aside, I really dislike how the two consumables are called Damage Control Party and Repair Party.  Mind you, both terms make perfect sense.  The problem I have is that they're very synonymous, and that makes it confusing to tell which consumable is which.  Which is why I tend to think of the "Repair Party" consumable as the Heal consumable, since that term falls a bit outside of the DC and Repair terms paradigm.)

 

3. One thing that might help could be to significantly reduce the service costs for cruisers.  And I mean ... SIGNIFICANTLY.  Make them much less costly to play, which would in turn make them more profitable than battleships.  (If one wanted to really go all in on this concept, one could also make BBs and CVs costlier to play at the same time, though CVs are supposedly already costly to play so maybe they don't need this sort of economic tweak.)  This wouldn't affect the survivability of cruisers in battle, of course. 

My thinking here was to consider a sort of historical perspective.  Damage to capital ships was more costly and time consuming to repair than a similar percentage of damage to non-capital ships.  (Historically, IIRC, CA's were considered "capital ships" by some, but I'm overlooking that here.)  And as a result, navies tended to be a little more cautious with their use of battleships than they would be with cruisers.  So, make the service costs for cruisers much less than for battleships.

 

3a. This one will be controversial.  And I'm not really suggesting it as a serious idea.  I'm just throwing it out there as more of a wild idea.  First of all, think of this idea as an extension of idea #3.  Here's the idea.  Repair Times.  I don't have the idea even close to fully fleshed out in my mind, but here goes.  Assign an amount of time that a ship (possibly only BBs) which has been damaged in battle requires for repairs.  This would be based on the amount of damage taken as a percentage of the ship's total HP.  (Sunk ships would be 100%, I suppose, though a case could be made that perhaps it should be more like 125% or 150% or whatever.)  Then assign certain amount of minutes or seconds for each percentage point of damage. (Or, more simply, assign fixed times to fixed ranges of damage taken.  That is, if you've taken between 51-75%, the ship is locked for X minutes, and if you've taken 76-100%, the ship is locked for Y minutes, and so on.

And here's the kicker.  Capital ships would require longer periods of time to repair for the same percentage of damage taken than smaller ships.  Thus, this would give allow cruisers to get out of "dry dock" more quickly than battleships.  Of course, DD's would get fixed up even more quickly.

I see a number of problems with this idea.  Let me list the ones that come to mind.

1. Free to play people who literally won't even spend money to buy port slots would have a very limited number of ships in their ports.  And locking any ships up for almost any amount of time might be very limiting to their ability to play.

2. People might just plain dislike the idea across the board, no matter how well intentioned or designed it may be. (Very likely, I suspect.)

3. The idea would definitely favor players who like playing a lot of different ships over those who want to grind/play the same ship repeatedly for hours on end.

 

 

Anyways, that's all for now.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12,403
[SALVO]
Members
28,054 posts
41,668 battles
38 minutes ago, AraAragami said:

I'd rather they add the South Dakota.

 

Premium gimmick: Completely lose control and go dead in the water for the rest of the match if you take a broadside from ARP Kirishima.

I'd rather they saved the South Dakota since it's the name ship of the class, which might be used in a second USN BB line at some point down the line.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,301 posts
883 battles
40 minutes ago, AraAragami said:

I'd rather they add the South Dakota.

 

Premium gimmick: Completely lose control and go dead in the water for the rest of the match if you take a broadside from ARP Kirishima.

The South Dakota's electrical problems started well before the actual engagement...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,887
[NSF]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
5,304 posts
9,284 battles
18 minutes ago, DeliciousFart said:

The South Dakota's electrical problems started well before the actual engagement...

 

Shhhhhh... Next he'll be talking about how it took Iowa and New Jersey all afternoon ( 5 minutes ) to sink Katori again.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
650 posts
1,842 battles
16 minutes ago, DeliciousFart said:

The South Dakota's electrical problems started well before the actual engagement...

 

Also, never went "dead in the water." 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17,295
[WOLF5]
[WOLF5]
Members
38,151 posts
30,906 battles

Washington rates a premium entry but right now, there are 2 USN BBs at Tier VIII.  North Carolina (NC-class) and Alabama (SD-class).  Massachusetts (SD-class) is already on the way, we knew this a while back and soon it's going to be 3 USN BBs in Tier VIII.  Washington fits squarely into Tier VIII... And I do not want that downtiering nerfing s--t for her, either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,860
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
24,800 posts
3,947 battles
1 hour ago, DeliciousFart said:

The South Dakota's electrical problems started well before the actual engagement...

There was an existent design flaw but it was knocked loose by the concussions during the combat, as I understand.

 

1 hour ago, Big_Spud said:

Shhhhhh... Next he'll be talking about how it took Iowa and New Jersey all afternoon ( 5 minutes ) to sink Katori again.

Don't you have a torpedo thread to whine in?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×