Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
Lert

The reason that the Kronshtadt announcement pisses me off

273 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

22,432
[HINON]
Supertester
18,903 posts
12,441 battles

By now most people have seen this:

And there are a few threads about it already. Well, here's another.

All my issues with its tiering and typing aside - enough has been written about that - why the [edited] this thing, that was never built in steel more than 10% (and scrapped post-war), instead of actually famous, historical battlecruisers like HMS Tiger or Lion,  any of the Invincibles, the Queen Mary, Mackensen, Seidlitz, von der Tann or my favorite, any of the Derfflingers?

What the ever living [edited], Wargaming?

Is this your way of testing the battlecruiser-as-high-tier-cruiser concept? Is this just pandering to the Russian audience? Why this never-completed paper project, instead of something that actually mattered and has pedigree?

  • Cool 36
  • Boring 4
  • Bad 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
2,280 posts
4,354 battles

Yeah, and can we reclassify HMS Hood as a Cruiser please, perhaps at T8 and resolve the logjam of T7 British BB's.

Oh yes, and I'll take 3 Invincible class "CRUISERS" please and perhaps we can now add in G3 design with 9x16" guns since that was a BattleCruiser design as well and smaller than this russian design.

Bloody hell.  this is just stupid.

M

  • Cool 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,302
[PVE]
[PVE]
Members
4,112 posts
8,676 battles
7 minutes ago, Lert said:

By now most people have seen this:

And there are a few threads about it already. Well, here's another.

All my issues with its tiering and typing aside - enough has been written about that - why the hell this thing, that was never built in steel more than 10% (and scrapped post-war), instead of actually famous, historical battlecruisers like HMS Tiger or Lion,  any of the Invincibles, the Queen Mary, Mackensen, Seidlitz, von der Tann or my favorite, any of the Derfflingers?

What the ever living hell, Wargaming?

Is this your way of testing the battlecruiser-as-high-tier-cruiser concept? Is this just pandering to the Russian audience? Why this never-completed paper project, instead of something that actually mattered and has pedigree?

 

Just now, MaliceA4Thought said:

Yeah, and can we reclassify HMS Hood as a Cruiser please, perhaps at T8 and resolve the logjam of T7 British BB's.

Oh yes, and I'll take 3 Invincible class "CRUISERS" please and perhaps we can now add in G3 design with 9x16" guns since that was a BattleCruiser design as well and smaller than this russian design.

Bloody hell.  this is just stupid.

M

100% agree with you both, and we need the USS Alaska.

  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
926
[PSP]
Members
1,332 posts
7,287 battles

And God forbid we ever get any British R class anything...better  sci-fi Russian abomination. But this ties in with recent WG ideas...more anime, more paper ships, more Halloween, less history. I don't like the trend at all.

  • Cool 6
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,021
[OPG]
Members
3,882 posts
5,476 battles

I don't care, I love it.  

1.  It has the potential to be the fist Tier 9 Free XP ship that is not a BB.  (Well, technically not a BB, but it's still progress)

2.  It is a completely new and unique gameplay concept that gives it a massive novelty bonus in my book.

3.  It looks to be very similar to the Stalingrad, which should alleviate complaints about the Stalingrad being a unique gameplay experience locked behind clan battles.  

Edited by yashma
  • Cool 5
  • Bad 11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
1,940 posts
11 minutes ago, Lert said:

All my issues with its tiering and typing aside - enough has been written about that - why the hell this thing, that was never built in steel more than 10% (and scrapped post-war), instead of actually famous, historical battlecruisers like HMS Tiger or Lion,  any of the Invincibles, the Queen Mary, Mackensen, Seidlitz, von der Tann or my favorite, any of the Derfflingers?

I'm more upset that the name "Lion" has been taken by the abomination at T9, meaning it's very unlikely I will ever see my beloved Beatty's flagship. And don't get me started with the name Hindenburg...

Anyway, this isn't the first time that WG has prioritized paper/fake designs over real historical ships. Just look at Strasbourg, overlooked in favour of a hypothetical Lyon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,052
[OPG]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,872 posts
10,416 battles

We could have tested Alaska as a t9 cruiser but we end up with this. Need more Russian botes

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,386 posts
2,172 battles

I feel like we've been expecting something like this or something to Russian BB lines as a whole for a while now, why are people all riot like over it now? I'm with Yashma, should be interesting to see what it does. 

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
926
[PSP]
Members
1,332 posts
7,287 battles

The big issue with WOWS is the entire tier system. The thebig gun era of warships was of course early 20th century. Here you have a wealth of ships to choose from, R class BBs battle cruisers, German battlecruisers, Austro Hungarian ships etc etc. But these ships would flood T4 and T5, so since they are determined to have every line of ships go up to T10 they make stuff up. I'd rather see more attention paid to improving gameplay at lower tiers and giving us some real ships than all the invented crap we've been getting of late. 

  • Cool 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
2,280 posts
4,354 battles
17 minutes ago, yashma said:

I don't care, I love it.  

1.  It has the potential to be the fist Tier 9 Free XP ship that is not a BB.  (Well, technically not a BB, but it's still progress)

2.  It is a completely new and unique gameplay concept that gives it a massive novelty bonus in my book.

3.  It looks to be very similar to the Stalingrad, which should alleviate complaints about the Stalingrad being a unique gameplay experience locked behind clan battles.  

You do realise that adding this as a CRUISER makes every other cruiser in the game obsolete overnight?

It DOUBLES the hit points of otther cruisers in the trees.. It outranges them, It does more damage than them, has a better fire chance, and it in effect gives any team that has one on their team an extra Battleship because of the way MM works.

Oh and its a mostly fictional piece of %^&* when theres so many real ships missing from the game..  I'm surprised it hasn't got a fictional missile post war armament on it just to seal the deal.

Oh well..  makes tiers 3/4/5/6  look more fun for the future games.

M

 

  • Cool 5
  • Bad 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,302
[PVE]
[PVE]
Members
4,112 posts
8,676 battles
5 minutes ago, MaliceA4Thought said:

You do realise that adding this as a CRUISER makes every other cruiser in the game obsolete overnight?

It DOUBLES the hit points of otther cruisers in the trees.. It outranges them, It does more damage than them, has a better fire chance, and it in effect gives any team that has one on their team an extra Battleship because of the way MM works.

Oh well..  makes tiers 3/4/5/6  look more fun for the future games.

M

Yeah I get it, I am just amazed the rest of the posters do not.

And I want the RN Battlecruisers too WG!

Edited by Chaos_EN2
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
387
[POP]
Members
1,224 posts
8,015 battles
4 minutes ago, MaliceA4Thought said:

You do realise that adding this as a CRUISER makes every other cruiser in the game obsolete overnight?

It DOUBLES the hit points of otther cruisers in the trees.. It outranges them, It does more damage than them and it in effect gives any team that has one on their team an extra Battleship.

Oh well..  makes tiers 3/4/5  look more fun for the future games.

M

 

I was going to say... 

It has more hit points than a full spec Iowa. It has about 2/3s the damage output of the Iowa and better concealment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
2,280 posts
4,354 battles
3 minutes ago, Chaos_EN2 said:

Yeah I get it, I am just amazed the rest of the posters do not.

And I want the RN Battlecruisers too WG!

Fixed that for you :)

M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,416
[5BS]
Members
4,465 posts
35 minutes ago, Lert said:

Is this your way of testing the battlecruiser-as-high-tier-cruiser concept? Is this just pandering to the Russian audience?

A- duh...

If this *was* testing high tier CC's as Cruisers concept, then the Alaska would make most sense as it was actually built.

Also T4 Indefatigable Cruiser when?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
359
[-TAB-]
Members
1,317 posts
6,885 battles
24 minutes ago, yashma said:

I don't care, I love it.  

1.  It has the potential to be the fist Tier 9 Free XP ship that is not a BB.  (Well, technically not a BB, but it's still progress)

2.  It is a completely new and unique gameplay concept that gives it a massive novelty bonus in my book.

3.  It looks to be very similar to the Stalingrad, which should alleviate complaints about the Stalingrad being a unique gameplay experience locked behind clan battles.  

@#3, doesn't alleviate nor change anything.

Edited by zarth12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,386 posts
2,172 battles
9 minutes ago, MaliceA4Thought said:

You do realise that adding this as a CRUISER makes every other cruiser in the game obsolete overnight?

It DOUBLES the hit points of otther cruisers in the trees.. It outranges them, It does more damage than them, has a better fire chance, and it in effect gives any team that has one on their team an extra Battleship because of the way MM works.

Oh and its a mostly fictional piece of %^&* when theres so many real ships missing from the game..  I'm surprised it hasn't got a fictional missile post war armament on it just to seal the deal.

Oh well..  makes tiers 3/4/5/6  look more fun for the future games.

M

 

 

4 minutes ago, Chaos_EN2 said:

Yeah I get it, I am just amazed the rest of the posters do not.

And I want the RN Battlecruisers too WG!

Because this thread isn't about it's stats. Its about the audacity that a high tier RU paper ship just comes out of nowhere (let alone our first free exp cruiser maybe) and not something real, more important or beloved.  

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,416
[5BS]
Members
4,465 posts
10 minutes ago, MaliceA4Thought said:

You do realise that adding this as a CRUISER makes every other cruiser in the game obsolete overnight?

It DOUBLES the hit points of otther cruisers in the trees.. It outranges them, It does more damage than them, has a better fire chance, and it in effect gives any team that has one on their team an extra Battleship because of the way MM works.

Oh and its a mostly fictional piece of %^&* when theres so many real ships missing from the game..  I'm surprised it hasn't got a fictional missile post war armament on it just to seal the deal.

Oh well..  makes tiers 3/4/5/6  look more fun for the future games.

M

 

Pretty much all this, especially the MM part. If they added this as a BB, I wouldn't mind. I mean it's stupid, but at least it means there's a chance one team gets this thing and the other gets a Musashi to counter it. But as it stands this thing, with 305mm guns and a monstrous amount of health is considered FAIR AND BALANCED against an Ibuki. Let that sink in. The Ibuki is 'equal' to this thing. The Ibuki. Against 305mm guns and 82k health, 10k more than a Missouri.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,352
[SYN]
Members
4,525 posts
11,433 battles
49 minutes ago, Lert said:

Is this just pandering to the Russian audience?

You just answered your own question, Lert.  :Smile_teethhappy:

One of the premiums, and more than 1/3 of the entire line of researchable Russian ships in the game are fictionalized.  That includes the few ships that never completed construction and were scrapped, as well as the fantasies that never saw the light of day in any form.

I have to agree with the sentiment, however.  It gets annoying.  With all the talk in WoWS ads and banners about "historical" ships in "historical" period, there is an awful lot of fabrication showing up when it comes to certain ship lines in this game.  All while a great many ships with the pedigree that you mentioned remain conspicuously absent.

 

Edited by Kuckoo
  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,021
[OPG]
Members
3,882 posts
5,476 battles
17 minutes ago, MaliceA4Thought said:

You do realise that adding this as a CRUISER makes every other cruiser in the game obsolete overnight?

It DOUBLES the hit points of otther cruisers in the trees.. It outranges them, It does more damage than them has a better fire chance than any of them and it in effect gives any team that has one on their team an extra Battleship because of the way MM works.

I disagree.  

Out ranges them?  18km is about par for the course at Tier 9 when compared to things like the Saint Louis, Donskoi and Roon.  Not to mention any one of those ships can take the range mod if needed.

Does more damage than them?  Maybe, but she has half the base reload, worse Sigma(1.8 vs 2.05), and far worse dispersion.  Her dispersion is almost identical to that of the Scharnhorst for reference sake.

Better fire chance?  No, her longer reload and worse accuracy is not going to come close to making her a better fire starter.  This ship is not going to be an HE spammer.

As to your concerns about HP and MM?  Yes, that is the real issue.  The Kronshtadt itself looks like it's basically a Tier 7 BB that takes the spot of a Tier 9 cruiser.  I honestly don't know how big of a balance issue this is going to be, but it is the one area that has me somewhat concerned.  

Edited by yashma
  • Cool 3
  • Bad 2
  • Angry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
1,940 posts

Gotta admit, I'm actually glad to see someone reputable like Lert finally have his say on paper/fake ships. When others do it their threads just gets slammed by the forum community.

But you know WG. Most of the battlecruisers he mentioned are at least T4-6 material. That won't get WG much profit. Gotta keep milking those loyal cash cows, and T8-10 is where the money is.

CharmingGiddyGrackle.gif

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22,432
[HINON]
Supertester
18,903 posts
12,441 battles
2 minutes ago, Wolcott said:

Gotta admit, I'm actually glad to see someone reputable like Lert finally have his say on paper/fake ships.

You misunderstood my post, then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×