Jump to content
badperson

Vanguard?

35 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

5
[E-WAR]
Members
21 posts
3,158 battles

As per title.  Just raising the question.  If others would like to discuss possible specs, role, playstyle etc that's fine too.

Edited by badperson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
370
[HELLS]
Members
1,702 posts
15,518 battles

Warspite on steroids with the pissant gun range from WW I? No thanks. Even when upgraded Monarch at T8 cannot match most of the BBs and some CAs at her tier and is handicapped when uptiered with those 15-inchers because WoWs refuses to recognize the 30-degree elevation and heavier shells that she actually would have had if built. Vanguard had Warspite-era guns off Courageous and Glorious with the 30-degree elevation modified turrets from WW I. Vanguard would be effectively an improved version of KGV without the hitting power and speed needed at T8, even with beefed-up secondaries and top-of-the-line AA. Without 22-km range and excellent dispersion as a T8 premium, slower than Hood,  she would not cope well when uptiered. IMHO she would be a waste of money, and she does not fit in at T7 as a postwar BB. Playstyle is not even worth dicussing. I am a huge RN fan, but I have stated many times that WoWs did not get the RN BB line anywhere close to what it could have been. I love the ship, and would probably buy her anyway, but I don't think they will do her justice in the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46
[NGA]
[NGA]
Members
316 posts
4,656 battles
21 hours ago, GrandAdmiral_2016 said:

Warspite on steroids with the pissant gun range from WW I? No thanks. Even when upgraded Monarch at T8 cannot match most of the BBs and some CAs at her tier and is handicapped when uptiered with those 15-inchers because WoWs refuses to recognize the 30-degree elevation and heavier shells that she actually would have had if built. Vanguard had Warspite-era guns off Courageous and Glorious with the 30-degree elevation modified turrets from WW I. Vanguard would be effectively an improved version of KGV without the hitting power and speed needed at T8, even with beefed-up secondaries and top-of-the-line AA. Without 22-km range and excellent dispersion as a T8 premium, slower than Hood,  she would not cope well when uptiered. IMHO she would be a waste of money, and she does not fit in at T7 as a postwar BB. Playstyle is not even worth dicussing. I am a huge RN fan, but I have stated many times that WoWs did not get the RN BB line anywhere close to what it could have been. I love the ship, and would probably buy her anyway, but I don't think they will do her justice in the game.

 

I respectfully disagree, she would be a tankier, beefed up version of hood with a decent armour scheme and a massive AAA suite. The guns never came from Courageous or Glorious, they came from a common pool shared by all 15" armed ships in the Royal Navy at the time (itself an interesting and complex story). It was the turrets that were recycled and they were extensively modified for use on Vanguard which included work to allow the ship to use super charges at 30 degrees elevation. She wouldn't be the hardest hitting ship at Tier VIII but she would be able to hold her own with some balancing and tweaking.

And to say Monarch is not a match for most BBs at her tier is also false and while I despise the ship for what it is (a quick and nasty bodge job to represent a 15" KGV when in reality the ship was much larger and had a completely different secondary battery) she remains a competitive ship and is more than capable of inflicting serious damage at and above her tier.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,338 posts
2,701 battles
2 minutes ago, Monty9185 said:

 

I respectfully disagree, she would be a tankier, beefed up version of hood with a decent armour scheme and a massive AAA suite. The guns never came from Courageous or Glorious, they came from a common pool shared by all 15" armed ships in the Royal Navy at the time (itself an interesting and complex story). It was the turrets that were recycled and they were extensively modified for use on Vanguard which included work to allow the ship to use super charges at 30 degrees elevation. She wouldn't be the hardest hitting ship at Tier VIII but she would be able to hold her own with some balancing and tweaking.

And to say Monarch is not a match for most BBs at her tier is also false and while I despise the ship for what it is (a quick and nasty bodge job to represent a 15" KGV when in reality the ship was much larger and had a completely different secondary battery) she remains a competitive ship and is more than capable of inflicting serious damage at and above her tier.

 

People forget that soft stats such as sigma, shell dispersion, krupp and reload buffs can easily make Vanguard more than viable for Tier 8.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46
[NGA]
[NGA]
Members
316 posts
4,656 battles

Yup, and I was also considering that if any BB was to have radar as a consumable Vanguard would be a very obvious candidate, though I am fully away that radar on battleships in this game is a hot potato.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,971
[ARGSY]
Members
6,258 posts
4,224 battles

With multiple SEXTUPLE BOFORS turrets and the best fire control the RN has to offer (probably better than the Lions' would have been, since she was a newer design), she is a natural for a DFAA monster with low main armament dispersion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
377 posts

The Vanguard would be a nice novelty battleship to offer up in premium. It is however a pageantry ship used to ferry the Queen on visits to the Commonwealth. It's a great ship, but it's guns were WWI vintage, which would have made her a B-grade BB in war time. Had she been equipped with dual 16 inch guns of the modern sort she would have been something to talk about. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
626 posts
1,630 battles

Honestly bothered they didn't put her in the original line and instead made everything after KGV paper ships. I get making paper ships if you didn't have enough real ones or completed ones to fill out the entire line but no excuse to not put Vanguard in, seeing as after KGV, they used 2 Lion class ships at different tiers and a ship that didn't exist. She deserves to be in the game far more than the "Monarch", Lion or Conqueror. We don't need two Lion class battleships at different tiers and we don't need a make believe ship either when there is an actual completed battleship that fits in that role on the tech tree.

USA has real BB's up to T9, Germany up to T8 and Japan up to T10(though Myogi wasn't a real ship) though they mix the battlecruisers in there quite a bit. The UK though only has real BB's up to T7. For the UK naval history buff the best ship that actually was finished is the KGV at T7. Now I know WG has compensated for this with 3 UK BB T7 premiums and there should probably be 4 by the time it's all said and done(POW deserves to be a premium just as much as DOY,)but still there is tons of rule for Vanguard above T7. Why not buff the Lion and make it a T10 premium, it's one of those ships that WG gives a different tier to than it's sister which makes no sense and you slip Vanguard in at 8 or 9? Easily fixable mistake. Honestly surprised no one else was really that upset about this. 

Edited by Aristotle83

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,971
[ARGSY]
Members
6,258 posts
4,224 battles

Lion and Temeraire were not paper ships; their keels were physically laid down. For various reasons they were never finished, but they had physical reality to some degree unlike that Tier 10 monstrosity, which for all my searching I still cannot find IRL references to.

I agree that buffing Lion could make it a viable T10 and that would allow Monarch to be swapped out in favour of Vanguard.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
626 posts
1,630 battles
9 hours ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

Lion and Temeraire were not paper ships; their keels were physically laid down. For various reasons they were never finished, but they had physical reality to some degree unlike that Tier 10 monstrosity, which for all my searching I still cannot find IRL references to.

I agree that buffing Lion could make it a viable T10 and that would allow Monarch to be swapped out in favour of Vanguard.

Fair enough there is a difference between ships like them and the Monarch. Tbh don't even have a problem with ships like the Conqueror that were actually planned as long as they aren't replacing anything else historical, I get WG needs to fill in the tech tree but when you have a real alternative to paper ships there is no excuse. 

Another issue I have in general is ships in the same class being different tiers. I get one sister is going to be stronger than the other but the result is almost always the ship in the lower class being OP as hell as they really belong a class above. Just makes no sense to put sister ships in different tiers if their within the WG creative license zone. Again, somewhat understandable if you're trying to fill in a tech tree but WG does it where there was no reason to do so, Konig Albert is super OP at T3, so is Mutsu at T6 etc, Lion and the Musashi at 9(though I guess at this rate, it's becoming a T9 tradition). None of those ships are needed at their respective tiers(I guess Musashi would be, but WG already found a paper ship for the T9 job. 

Anyway for definitions sake here's the tiers as accuracy goes

1)real ships

2)realish ships, the ones that were physically existant but never came to be. Guess the Lion would be one. 

3)paper ships, ships that were ordered and planned but never were physically real(I see 2 and 3 as basically the same thing, tbh to me the Lion and Conqueror are both paper ships regardless of the real parts the Lion had, because they were real but they never sailed as they were planned to )

4)fantasy ships-ships that were never anything more than a vague blueprint and/or fragments of WG imagination. Shoehorned into the game to fill in trees. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,787
[SALVO]
Members
17,043 posts
17,674 battles
On ‎12‎/‎29‎/‎2017 at 9:57 PM, Aristotle83 said:

Honestly bothered they didn't put her in the original line and instead made everything after KGV paper ships. I get making paper ships if you didn't have enough real ones or completed ones to fill out the entire line but no excuse to not put Vanguard in, seeing as after KGV, they used 2 Lion class ships at different tiers and a ship that didn't exist. She deserves to be in the game far more than the "Monarch", Lion or Conqueror. We don't need two Lion class battleships at different tiers and we don't need a make believe ship either when there is an actual completed battleship that fits in that role on the tech tree.

USA has real BB's up to T9, Germany up to T8 and Japan up to T10(though Myogi wasn't a real ship) though they mix the battlecruisers in there quite a bit. The UK though only has real BB's up to T7. For the UK naval history buff the best ship that actually was finished is the KGV at T7. Now I know WG has compensated for this with 3 UK BB T7 premiums and there should probably be 4 by the time it's all said and done(POW deserves to be a premium just as much as DOY,)but still there is tons of rule for Vanguard above T7. Why not buff the Lion and make it a T10 premium, it's one of those ships that WG gives a different tier to than it's sister which makes no sense and you slip Vanguard in at 8 or 9? Easily fixable mistake. Honestly surprised no one else was really that upset about this. 

Dammit, the Montana *IS* a real ship.  It was designed, ordered, and contracts awarded.  It was in every way except one a REAL SHIP!!!  It is NOT some fake design created by WG to fill a hole in a tech tree line.  It is every bit as real as the 1920's South Dakota class BBs or Lexington class battlecruisers, or the IJN's Amagi class BCs or Tosa class BBs, and so on and so on. 

Just because something didn't get built doesn't make it not a fake or a paper ship or not real!!!  Not all ships that didn't get built are not "real"!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,787
[SALVO]
Members
17,043 posts
17,674 battles
On ‎12‎/‎18‎/‎2017 at 4:18 PM, Dunk_Master_Flex said:

 

People forget that soft stats such as sigma, shell dispersion, krupp and reload buffs can easily make Vanguard more than viable for Tier 8.

There's no doubt that the devs could adjust the soft stats in ways to make the Vanguard viable at tier 8.  But if one looks at just the historical data on her, she seems barely better than the KGV's.    I have no real problem with her being put at tier 8 with the right tweaks, etc.  Indeed, it's what I've been expecting all along, since she was a one-off "quickie" build rather than the start of a whole new class of BBs.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,971
[ARGSY]
Members
6,258 posts
4,224 battles
1 hour ago, Crucis said:

There's no doubt that the devs could adjust the soft stats in ways to make the Vanguard viable at tier 8.  But if one looks at just the historical data on her, she seems barely better than the KGV's.    I have no real problem with her being put at tier 8 with the right tweaks, etc.  Indeed, it's what I've been expecting all along, since she was a one-off "quickie" build rather than the start of a whole new class of BBs.

 

I recall reading (possibly in Friedman) that plans were afoot to make more of her if necessary and appropriate, using the main guns from the R-class battleships as they were retired. This makes good sense if you want battleships in a hurry and would have made her the first of class, although subsequent ships in her line would have been half-sisters - mostly because of the detail design differences in adapting them for different turret sets.

All this ended with the end of the war, and the end of the BB as the primary capital ship. The right time to have done it was between the wars as a hull-for-hull swap, but the various treaty obligations and the need to preserve the Royal Navy's line strength by keeping the R-class ships available prevented that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
626 posts
1,630 battles
5 hours ago, Crucis said:

Dammit, the Montana *IS* a real ship.  It was designed, ordered, and contracts awarded.  It was in every way except one a REAL SHIP!!!  It is NOT some fake design created by WG to fill a hole in a tech tree line.  It is every bit as real as the 1920's South Dakota class BBs or Lexington class battlecruisers, or the IJN's Amagi class BCs or Tosa class BBs, and so on and so on. 

Just because something didn't get built doesn't make it not a fake or a paper ship or not real!!!  Not all ships that didn't get built are not "real"!

 

It wasn't physically in existence. It's existence was planned though making it by definition a paper ship. Is there a difference between the Monatana and something like the Monarch WG pulled out of their butts? Of course there is but it's a PAPER SHIP that was only put in the tech tree specifically because they ran out of real ships. It is more fake than any of the examples you've cited because all of the examples you've cited at the very least physically existed to some extent and in the case of the Lexington's, Amagi's and Tosa's some of the planned ships were converted to CV's. 

Montana is a paper ship, it is not made up but it never sailed on the seas or physically existed in any limited capacity. Don't really have a problem with it being in the game as the US doesn't use even one other 100% real ship on it's BB line(nor does it put sisters in different tiers, another issue) which cannot be said for any other nations line. I think the US could have shoehorned the Alaska or Guam BC in at T10 at the end but I get why they picked the Montana and they did a great job with the history compared to the other lines. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,787
[SALVO]
Members
17,043 posts
17,674 battles
29 minutes ago, Aristotle83 said:

It wasn't physically in existence. It's existence was planned though making it by definition a paper ship. Is there a difference between the Monatana and something like the Monarch WG pulled out of their butts? Of course there is but it's a PAPER SHIP that was only put in the tech tree specifically because they ran out of real ships. It is more fake than any of the examples you've cited because all of the examples you've cited at the very least physically existed to some extent and in the case of the Lexington's, Amagi's and Tosa's some of the planned ships were converted to CV's. 

Montana is a paper ship, it is not made up but it never sailed on the seas or physically existed in any limited capacity. Don't really have a problem with it being in the game as the US doesn't use even one other 100% real ship on it's BB line(nor does it put sisters in different tiers, another issue) which cannot be said for any other nations line. I think the US could have shoehorned the Alaska or Guam BC in at T10 at the end but I get why they picked the Montana and they did a great job with the history compared to the other lines. 

Horse puckey.

To me, paper ships are those that existed as nothing more than design studies.  The Tilson (?) "maximum battleship" designs studies are "paper ships" because that's all they were, design studies.

Ships that were blueprinted, ordered, contract awarded, etc. are very real in my book.  I'm not defining "reality" as in they were "really" built.  I'm defining it as they were really intended to be built but circumstances changed and contracts got cancelled.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
626 posts
1,630 battles
17 minutes ago, Crucis said:

Horse puckey.

To me, paper ships are those that existed as nothing more than design studies.  The Tilson (?) "maximum battleship" designs studies are "paper ships" because that's all they were, design studies.

Ships that were blueprinted, ordered, contract awarded, etc. are very real in my book.  I'm not defining "reality" as in they were "really" built.  I'm defining it as they were really intended to be built but circumstances changed and contracts got cancelled.

 

Well these ships didn't exist in any way except paper whether it be contracts, designs etc. Again there is a difference between them and ships like the Monarch etc that are just a fragment of WG's imagination but shouldn't there also be a difference between ships that actually physically existed and never saw service and ships like the Montana that never got beyond the paper stage?

 

Ordering something and contracting something substantially changes nothing about the ships existence if the ship is never launched or steel is never laid. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,540 posts
8,172 battles

Hey

I would love to see a premium Vanguard to hit the game.  It makes a good logical choice and would do well in the T7 or T8 range, and if done correctly could be a good seller.  And it was a real ship to boot.

 

Pete

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5
[FFLY]
Members
80 posts
4,339 battles
On 1/21/2018 at 9:06 AM, Crucis said:

Dammit, the Montana *IS* a real ship.  It was designed, ordered, and contracts awarded.  It was in every way except one a REAL SHIP!!!  It is NOT some fake design created by WG to fill a hole in a tech tree line.  It is every bit as real as the 1920's South Dakota class BBs or Lexington class battlecruisers, or the IJN's Amagi class BCs or Tosa class BBs, and so on and so on. 

Just because something didn't get built doesn't make it not a fake or a paper ship or not real!!!  Not all ships that didn't get built are not "real"!

 

Just like the t9 and t10 German battleship.   They were laid down but construction stopped.  It was wargaming that combined a couple of plans to make the Fredrick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52
[FTH]
Members
252 posts
10,879 battles

Regarding how they might balance her at T8, with the supercharge loads available, they could possibly give her a higher muzzle velocity so rounds would be flatter shooting? It would make her something different from the rest of the line anyways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,540 posts
8,172 battles

Hey

With Vanguard and what tier to put her at, she could easily fit into T7 or maybe even shoehorned into T8 by giving it good armor and a super heal like the Nelson, maybe even a slightly faster reload of around 26-28 seconds.  I think it would make a welcome premium ship and I would love to see it at T8, since the Monarch is kind of a stinker overall.  Just make it so the guns are more reliable than the Hood which was good when it came out but less so now, like so many premiums we have.

 

Pete

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
151
Members
541 posts
2,943 battles

Vanguard is going to be a T9 FXP or coal premium. I'd almost bet money on it. Seeing them do it with Jean-Bart sealed it for me. Even if the guns are WWI tech they were the best weapons fielded by the admiralty and Vanguard itself was the largest BB ever built (by them), had the armor to back it up, and also had extremely good AA. Its going to have a gimmick, but it will be T9 some way. Vanguard had a very lengthy armor belt so they could easily justify something like a 50mm bow. 15" guns with a 24 second reload and high accuracy with that bow? I'd buy that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
166
[D-H-O]
Alpha Tester
1,600 posts
9,202 battles

People know that she is slated as a tier 8 premium (probably free xp) ship right? Big thing for me is the DCP and RP 3 that she will have access too.

 

https://thedailybounce.net/2018/09/21/world-of-warships-supertest-hms-vanguard-full-details/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50
[MOH]
Members
233 posts
1,250 battles

StuntMan9630 did a stat preview of this ship.  Not sure if all the stats are 100% correct since they were mined, but I dunno guys.  If those stats are correct, this ship looks very underwhelming to me unless there's something hidden about the ship that makes it awesome. 

Looks like an AP ship though.  It appears to have the normal AP fuse delay, and doesn't have the British-style HE damage and fire chance.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,789
[WOLF3]
[WOLF3]
Members
16,057 posts
14,457 battles

Flamu briefly covers Vanguard also as part of this video:

9:48 is when he starts talking about it if the timestamped bookmark in the video link doesn't work.

 

It looks very mediocre, the citadel is just like how Iowa / Missouri / Montana used to be before they were lowered.  In those days we used to delete those specific USN BBs easily.  2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Citadel hits.  All possible.  No BB in the game before or since the USN Tier IX-X BB citadel lowering were as vulnerable.  Until Vanguard as she is right now, arrives.

 

This was how vulnerable it was when your citadel was this high and exposed:

Iowa / Missouri before the citadel got lowered.

b0dkiTl.jpg

HL8mYmB.jpg

Any hint of a mistake, it didn't matter what HP you had, you were dead.

 

Now, none of these videos, previews have shown Vanguard sailing around, fighting.  Maybe there's a gimmick to make it useful?  We don't know.

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×