Jump to content
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
Bullpies322

Tennessee Premium

Tennessee as a new Premium?  

43 members have voted

  1. 1. Should the Tennessee be added as a new premium?

    • yes
      36
    • no
      7

22 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

24,397
[HINON]
Supertester
20,090 posts
13,547 battles

Some more info, for those too lazy to go to wikipedia? Just one copypaste from you would save many people some time.

As for the ship herself - eh. She wouldn't play that differently from ships already in the game. We already have the playstyle that Tennessee would offer. I'd rather they introduce something that plays differently from what we already have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
387
[PROJX]
Members
1,005 posts
17,207 battles

Tennessee was essentially a follow-on to the New Mexico class & has very similar characteristics.  She was damaged at Pearl Harbor, refitted & modernized to a similar configuration for its secondaries ala a number of older “Standard” BBs during WWII.   Perhaps her most notable contribution in WWII was she was a part of Jesse Oldendorf’s shore bombardment fleet that wrecked the IJN Southern force during the battle of Surigao Strait.

 

Agree w/ Lert on this one - in-game she would play like the NMex so I would prefer WG expend resources on new ship lines (already have Alabama/Massachusetts reflecting the premium policy OP is suggesting)

Edited by hangglide42

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,253
[SALVO]
Members
18,309 posts
18,894 battles
16 minutes ago, Lert said:

Some more info, for those too lazy to go to wikipedia? Just one copypaste from you would save many people some time.

As for the ship herself - eh. She wouldn't play that differently from ships already in the game. We already have the playstyle that Tennessee would offer. I'd rather they introduce something that plays differently from what we already have.

And yet, Lert, there are people constantly begging a freaking COPY of an existing ship with the name of a favorite ship or of their home state or whatever.  At least with some of the USN BB classes that aren't in the game, they'd be something that wasn't a copy and paste job.  As for "something that plays differently", heck, pretty much all of the USN "standard battleship" designs from the 1910's are pretty much all the same, except for an occasional detail like main gun size.

This is often the reality of naval ship design.  And honestly it doesn't bother me.  I'd much rather see real designs that may have similar feels than to see WG make ridiculous fakes for no other reason than to create "something that plays differently".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24,397
[HINON]
Supertester
20,090 posts
13,547 battles
7 minutes ago, Crucis said:

And yet, Lert, there are people constantly begging a freaking COPY of an existing ship with the name of a favorite ship or of their home state or whatever.

Yes. There are. And I disagree with them too, for the same reasons.

7 minutes ago, Crucis said:

I'd much rather see real designs that may have similar feels than to see WG make ridiculous fakes for no other reason than to create "something that plays differently".

How about real designs that were produced in some numbers, actually actively served, are not copies from existing ships (or even related classes) yet aren't in this game? Because there's plenty of those left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,253
[SALVO]
Members
18,309 posts
18,894 battles
1 hour ago, Lert said:

Yes. There are. And I disagree with them too, for the same reasons.

How about real designs that were produced in some numbers, actually actively served, are not copies from existing ships (or even related classes) yet aren't in this game? Because there's plenty of those left.

Lert, be fair.  It's not like I was actually asking for a second USN BB line any time soon.  I don't see a crying need for a second USN BB line for quite a while, unlike second German and RN "BB" lines strictly for battlecruisers, while I do see as a legitimate need.

All I was saying relative to the Tennessee (as well as other USN BB classes not yet in the game) is that I have no problem with them being in the game, since they're not cut and paste copies of existing classes.  But they don't need to be added right away or even next year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,592 posts
3,809 battles
USS Tennessee bombarding Guam.jpg
USS Tennessee (BB-43)
Class overview
Name: Tennessee-class battleship
Builders:
Operators: Flag of the United States (1912-1959).svg United States Navy
Preceded by: New Mexico class
Succeeded by: Colorado class
Built: 1916–1921
In commission: 1920–1947
Planned: 2
Completed: 2
Retired: 2
Preserved: 0
General characteristics [1]
Type: Battleship
Displacement:
Length:
  • 600 ft (180 m) pp
  • 624 ft (190 m) oa
Beam:
  • 97 ft 5 in (29.69 m) (original)
  • 114 ft (35 m) (rebuilt)
Draft: 30 ft 2 in (9.19 m)
Installed power:
  • 26,800 shp (20,000 kW) (original)
  • 29,000 shp (22,000 kW) (rebuilt)
Propulsion:
Speed: 21 knots (39 km/h; 24 mph)
Range: 8,000 nmi (15,000 km; 9,200 mi) @ 10 knots (19 km/h; 12 mph)
Capacity: 4,893 tons (1,467,900 gallons) oil
Complement:
  • 57 officers, 1,026 enlisted (peacetime)
  • 1,407 (wartime)
Armament:
Armor:
  • Belt: 8–13.5 in (203–343 mm)
  • Barbettes: 13 in (330 mm)
  • Turret face: 18 in (457 mm)
  • Turret sides: 9–10 in (229–254 mm)
  • Turret top: 5 in (127 mm)
  • Turret rear 9 in (229 mm)
  • Conning tower: 11.5 in (292 mm)
  • Decks: 3.5 in (89 mm)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9
[FFLY]
Members
104 posts
6,062 battles
On 11/5/2017 at 1:25 PM, Crucis said:

Lert, be fair.  It's not like I was actually asking for a second USN BB line any time soon.  I don't see a crying need for a second USN BB line for quite a while, unlike second German and RN "BB" lines strictly for battlecruisers, while I do see as a legitimate need.

All I was saying relative to the Tennessee (as well as other USN BB classes not yet in the game) is that I have no problem with them being in the game, since they're not cut and paste copies of existing classes.  But they don't need to be added right away or even next year.

This is a strange idea and would love to hear back to find out how crazy of an idea it is.  

Why not pull all the battle cruisers out and make a new line of ships.  They could include the Alaska and the the south Dakota's of the 1920.  There are already battle cruisers for British, Japanese and German.  It would add a new play style and make the game more interesting and/or different

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,253
[SALVO]
Members
18,309 posts
18,894 battles
18 hours ago, Capt_Apollo said:

This is a strange idea and would love to hear back to find out how crazy of an idea it is.  

Why not pull all the battle cruisers out and make a new line of ships.  They could include the Alaska and the the south Dakota's of the 1920.  There are already battle cruisers for British, Japanese and German.  It would add a new play style and make the game more interesting and/or different

Apollo, only the Germans and Brits had enough battlecruiser classes from which to build anything approaching a proper line of BC's. 

The IJN had only the Kongos and the Amagis, though there was also some design for a sort of Alaska-like super cruiser that would probably be tier 9-10.  The problem for the IJN is that they only barely have enough legit BBs from which to build a proper BB line.  Oh, they could drop the Fuso down to tier 5 and slide the Ise into tier 6, and free up the Kongo to be a BC.  And they could remove the Amagi from tier 8 and put the Tosa there in its place, since the Tosa was a legit BB while the Amagi really was a battlecruiser.  But after that, anything else is probably going to be pure  fiction.  And even if WG was willing to have only a partial parallel line, these 3 BCs don't really form a continuous series of BC classes for the tech tree, since one is a tier 5, one is a tier 8, and the other is tier 9 or 10.  Regarding the Fuso/Ise, the problem here is that there's really not that much difference between the two.  Really not enough to make one a tier 5 and the other a tier 6, not without some real fudging of their historical capabilities, which were very similar.

As for the USN, it only has two BCs, using the loosest definition possible.  The Alaskas and the early 20's Lexington class.  That's it. The Lexingtons would probably be tier 7 BC's, while the Alaska would probably be tier 9 or 10, and really better suited to be considered cruisers like the Kronstadt and Stalingrad.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
397
[DRG_N]
Members
470 posts
638 battles

Rather than entire new ship, I think what would be better would be a premium "skin" for the New Mexico.  Pay...ten bucks or something.  Get a skin you put on the New Mexico that changes it's appearance, tweaks a couple things to differentiate ti from it's cousin-ship, give the skin some small economic booster, and violla. The southerners on the forums have their sort-of-premium.  It'd sell like crazy, probably making up with volume of sales that it would lack in single purchase.

Too add in a requirement for it, to mount the "Tennessee Skin" on the New Mexico, the player has to have the NM in their port, have it fully researched, and have bought the Colorado.  That way people don't just rush up to T6 and get a premium BB on the cheap.

Edited by Highlord

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
119
[MOH]
Members
436 posts
1,703 battles

A USS Tennessee refit for T7 (alongside the Colorado) would be very similar to the USS New Mexico.  Key differences would probably be improved accuracy and sigma (Tennessee crews would, historically, prove to be very accurate shooters throughout the war), much improved AA, and improved TDS.

Would still play like a Standard though.  I still vote for the South Dakota 1920's to be introduced instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
293
[SVF]
Members
1,067 posts
1,370 battles
19 minutes ago, Ranari said:

I still vote for the South Dakota 1920's to be introduced instead.

12 406mm guns at T7 isn't happening without enough nerfs so as to make the ship not fun to play (like 60s+ traverse, bad sigma/dispersion, poor firing angles, things like that), imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
82
[5D]
Beta Testers
445 posts
8,468 battles

Throw the Cali at T6.. you get a T7 hull with T6 guns. Though I do want the refit with the 5" DP guns... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
119
[MOH]
Members
436 posts
1,703 battles
On 5/28/2018 at 8:49 AM, landcollector said:

12 406mm guns at T7 isn't happening without enough nerfs so as to make the ship not fun to play (like 60s+ traverse, bad sigma/dispersion, poor firing angles, things like that), imo.

Sorry, was thinking for T8.  Despite being 12x guns, it fires the same shell as the Colorado, so the total broadside weights would be fairly similar to the NC, but higher velocity of course.  The rest can be balanced through its low speed, lack of AA, and other stuff.  Could be made to be a fun, true brawler type.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46
[ARGNT]
Beta Testers
78 posts
4,275 battles

I could see Tennessee as a 'lateral development' on the Colorado line, perhaps branching off the 'A' hull but not leading to a new line.  An upgraded Tennessee would make sense as the last development of the 14" Standard BBs.  She'd need improved main battery accuracy, significantly increased AA, upgraded secondaries and an improved torpedo belt to reflect her post-Pearl Harbor rebuild.  As far as the line goes she'd be a dead end, but it'd allow afficionadoes of 'The Rebel Ship' and the USS California a modernized option for play without leading to the unrelated South Dakotas.  This would, however, make the Colorado a VERY long grind to Elite.

My preference, as I've stated in other threads, is for USS West Virginia  as a Tier 7 Premium for the Colorado.  At one point I advocated making her T8, but given her Standard BB speed she'd really suffer without fantasy-level increases in other areas.  Unlike the common thinking, I don't favor making her the Colorado 'C' hull - which means I'm actually asking WG to make me pay for a ship I really want.  All because Wee Vee is a one-of-a-kind ship that'd be kind of 'Tier 7.5' -ish… better than the current bottom performing Colorado, which is the most valid argument for making it the Colorado 'C' hull.  She'd hardly be hardly a 'seal clubber' at T7 but she wouldn't be fast enough, tough enough or shooty enough to warrant Tier 8. 

One could argue a T7.5 WeeVee would open WG to charge of 'Pay to Win'.  Fair enough.  The cash price would have to be high to reflect that - or you could make her the 'C' hull and change the balance of Tier 7 play.  Or not implement West Virginia.  Your choice.

'WeeVee' has a more colorful history than most USS BBs of the era, including a history of gunnery excellence.  I've covered my reasons in detail in another thread, but it's been a long while, so...

West Virginia was laid down in 1920 but was incomplete at the time of the Washington Naval Treaty in 1922.  Scheduled for cancellation, she was saved when the Japanese insisted on keeping an extra BB (I believe it was the Musashi).  The US was allowed one additional BB or BC in return, and the WeeVee got a reprieve.  She was launched in 1924, last of the Standard BBs.

In the interwar period West Virginia won the American Defense Cup and the Spokane Cup for gunnery excellence.  She won Battle Efficiency Pennants in 1925, 1927, 1932 and 1935.

At Pearl Harbor WeeVee was moored outboard of the Tennessee, shielding her from torpedoes.  She was hit by seven; allegedly two of the torps passed through earlier torpedo holes into her interior.   Her skipper, Captain Bannion, was mortally wounded by shrapnel when Arizona exploded but refused to abandon his post.  He received the Medal of Honor posthumously.  Messmate Doris Miller, who evacuated the unconscious Captain and then manned a machine gun in defense of the ship, was the first sailor of color to earn the Navy's Distinguished Service Medal.  Miller was a source of pride for black Americans throughout the war.  West Virginia was saved from capsizing by quick counterflooding, but 66 sailors were trapped below decks.  When she was raised workers found that some of the trapped sailors had survived in an air pocket until December 23rd.

After a complete rebuild WeeVee sailed from Puget Sound in late 1944 and rejoined the fleet in time for Surigao Strait, where she led the BB line.  She was the first BB to engage the Japanese at a range of 22,800 yards - at night - hitting the IJN Yamashiro with her first salvo; her shells hit the Japanese with four of her next five salvoes, arguing for pretty darn sharp accuracy.  In 21 minutes she fired 93 16" shells; the Tennessee fired 69 14" shells, while California fired 63 - an impressive rate of fire from a ship with fewer and larger caliber guns.  Maryland, ranging from the splashes of her modernized sisters, fired 48 16" shells.  Mississippi fired a single salvo of 12 14" rounds, closing the action.  USS Pennsylvania never acquired a firing solution.

The USS West Virginia was the only Pearl Harbor BB present at the Japanese surrender at Tokyo Bay, and her band played at the ceremony.  There was no question that President Truman would designate the Mighty Mo, representing his home state of Missouri, as the site of the surrender.  However, the WeeVee, as a Pearl Harbor vet, would have been a more symbolic choice - and I speculate she might well have been chosen if President Roosevelt had survived.

The 1944 West Virginia would be a significant upgrade from the current final Colorado hull.  With updated 16" rifles, radar, Mark 8 fire directors and a history of superior gunnery she should get better sigma and/or accuracy at longer ranges than the current Colorado (something greater than the current 17.12km up to the 19km initial salvo from Surigao Strait).  An argument could be made for a higher rate of fire than the current Colorado top hull, but that'd be pushing it.  Like the Tennessee WeeVee should have AA approaching that of the North Carolina (but at Tier VII), modestly improved secondaries and an upgraded torpedo belt. 

Wee Vee is kind of a tricky proposition since she's a fully modernized Standard BB, but the only one with 16" guns.   Improved long range gunnery would mitigate the Standard BB speed issue Colorado skippers endure in WoWS and create a play style unique in the US BB line.  Because she's the only ship of her kind and her history is pretty rich I think it warrants making her a Premium.

 

From Wikipedia:

 

USS West Virginia (BB-48) in San Francisco Bay, c. 1934.

USS West Virginia 1934
 
   
   
  The ship at sea
                                                                                                                     USS West Virginia 1944
   

 

 
   
   
   
   
   
   
 
 
 
 
   
 

 

   
 

 

   
   
   
   
   
   
   
 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
293
[SVF]
Members
1,067 posts
1,370 battles
12 minutes ago, Arcolin06 said:

(something greater than the current 17.12km up to the 19km initial salvo from Surigao Strait).

Upgraded Fire Control for Colorado extends the range to 18.8km.

 

12 minutes ago, Arcolin06 said:

Like the Tennessee WeeVee should have AA approaching that of the North Carolina (but at Tier VII), modestly improved secondaries and an upgraded torpedo belt. 

WeeVee's AA suite would be more powerful in the short-range aura than NorCar's (58x1, 1x2, and 1x4 (radar directed) 20mm vs. 44x1 20mm), but weaker yet still formidable mid- and long-range auras (10x4 40mm and 8x2 127mm DP guns compared to 15x4 40mm and 10x2 127mm DP guns).

Edited by landcollector

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46
[ARGNT]
Beta Testers
78 posts
4,275 battles

True enough, Landcollector.  I didn't want to delve the details, but her AA suite is more for self defense than creating a no-fly zone. 

If you added the Upgraded Fire Control to a WeeVee you'd get proportionately longer range for the West Virginia as well.  I didn't go into Upgraded Fire Control because I was comparing apples to apples - and I'm lazy.  I didn't want to bother calculating what WeeVee max range with UFC would be.  It'd favor WeeVee even more though, since UFC increases max range by a percentage of the base.

Frankly, Colorados still can use all the help they can get.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,473
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
3,645 posts
596 battles

Nevada, Pennsylvania and Tennessee need to be in a 2nd US BB tree.

 

Nevada at tier 5, Pennsylvania at tier 6, Tennessee at tier 7.

 

All with their post-Pearl rebuilds. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
293
[SVF]
Members
1,067 posts
1,370 battles
On 6/10/2018 at 4:40 AM, ramp4ge said:

Nevada, Pennsylvania and Tennessee need to be in a 2nd US BB tree.

 

Nevada at tier 5, Pennsylvania at tier 6, Tennessee at tier 7.

 

All with their post-Pearl rebuilds. 

Post-Pearl rebuild Nevada would have an absurdly overpowered AA suite at T5, and I say that as a USN BB player.  Nevada's 20mm (5x1 and 20x2 providing a total of 140 DPS) and 40 mm (10x4 providing 159 DPS) are effectively as strong as Texas' ingame auras, and the long range is what really tips it- the 8x2 127mm DP mounts providing 121 DPS at 5km base.  The main battery's arrangement is much better than Texas/NY as well, 3-2-2-3 rather than the questionable 2-2--2--2-2.

Pennsylvania's post AA would be arguably too strong at T6 too.  Her 20mm suite, 27x1 and 22x2 mounts, would provide a total DPS of 231.4; her 40mm suite, 1x2 and 10x4 mounts, provides 170.3 DPS; and of course the 8x2 127mm DP mounts.  (She reportedly still had 6x1 12.7mm mounts too, but those are nigh-worthless so not counting them).

Both these ships are likely T7s in post-rebuild configs.  They are too slow to be placed at Tier 8, as is the following Tennessee.

Tennessee's 20mm suite, 43x1 mounts, provides a total DPS of 154.8; her 40mm suite, actually rather light with 2x2 and 4x4 mounts, provides just 86.2 DPS; and then the 8x2 127mm DP mounts as above.  (her sister ship California had 8x2 127mm DP, 14x4 40mm and 40x2 20mm guns though, *yikes*)

Edited by landcollector

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,473
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
3,645 posts
596 battles
8 minutes ago, landcollector said:

Post-Pearl rebuild Nevada would have an absurdly overpowered AA suite at T5, and I say that as a USN BB player.  Nevada's 20mm (5x1 and 20x2 providing a total of 140 DPS) and 40 mm (10x4 providing 159 DPS) are effectively as strong as Texas' ingame auras, and the long range is what really tips it- the 8x2 127mm DP mounts providing 121 DPS at 5km base.  The main battery's arrangement is much better than Texas/NY as well, 3-2-2-3 rather than the questionable 2-2--2--2-2.

 

She needs to be better than New York and Texas. New York and Texas have been powercreeped on hard.

 

Amazing AA is supposed to be US's national flavor anyway, so I really don't see the problem with them being extremely strong in this category. It's not like they'd have DF or anything.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
397
[DRG_N]
Members
470 posts
638 battles
On 6/14/2018 at 7:40 PM, landcollector said:

Post-Pearl rebuild Nevada would have an absurdly overpowered AA suite at T5, and I say that as a USN BB player.

On one hand, I agree. On the other, it would serve as an admittedly brutal object lesson to new carrier drivers to avoid striking at USN BB's directly.  By later tier even stumbling over one with a flight of bombers runs a good chance of losing all the planes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×