Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
MaliceA4Thought

HMS Repulse can now come to WoWs

59 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Alpha Tester
2,285 posts
4,371 battles

Soooooooooooooo  I was looking at our new favorite ship, the Khronshtadt and realised that this means we can have HMS Repulse in game finally.

Around April last year we were having a huge discussion on this forum as to whether it would be a Tier 5/6 or 7 BB and lots of good points were raised.  Then the Khronshtadt arrives and everyone is now saying.. yep T9 Cruiser is correct for a ship like that.

Well, now it's obvious..  HMS Repulse comes in as a T9 cruiser.

Lets compare HMS Repulse 1939 ww2 configuration for example shall we...

Repulse  1939                   Khronshtadt as designed     Khronshtadt as imagined by WG

                                            and at scrapping

242 meters long               242 meters long                     242 meters long

27 meters wide                28 meters wide                       31.6 meters wide

34,600 tons disp.            36,000 tons disp                      39000 tons disp

max armour 229mm      max armour 210mm               max armour  230mm

6x 381mm guns              6 x 380mm guns                     9 x 305mm guns

31knots speed                 30 knots speed                       32 knots speed

1,180 crew                       1,600 crew                                1800 crew

Soooooooo  I can Haz Repulse as a cruiser in the game right?  Come on WG  lets go.

M

 

  • Cool 9
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,092
[SPTR]
Members
3,459 posts
5,674 battles

As demonstrated by Scharnhorst, only RUSSIAN BBs gets to be in the cruiser line :cap_haloween:

But yes, please Renown and Repulse, as BB or CA, I'm begging you WG.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
214
[LWA]
Members
615 posts
8,782 battles
30 minutes ago, The_first_harbinger said:

As demonstrated by Scharnhorst, only RUSSIAN BBs gets to be in the cruiser line :cap_haloween:

But yes, please Renown and Repulse, as BB or CA, I'm begging you WG.

and the Russian cruiser gets put on the DD line....Khab

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
3,338 posts
3,779 battles

Kronshtadt was designed as a 3x3 305mm ship originally, mate. Don't just read the Wikipedia summary... take the 5 minutes to read the whole page. Then at least you'll only be mostly a joke, instead of a complete joke.

  • Boring 2
  • Bad 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,347
[-Y-]
Alpha Tester
4,541 posts
6,689 battles
1 hour ago, MaliceA4Thought said:

Soooooooooooooo  I was looking at our new favorite ship, the Khronshtadt and realised that this means we can have HMS Repulse in game finally.

Around April last year we were having a huge discussion on this forum as to whether it would be a Tier 5/6 or 7 BB and lots of good points were raised.  Then the Khronshtadt arrives and everyone is now saying.. yep T9 Cruiser is correct for a ship like that.

Well, now it's obvious..  HMS Repulse comes in as a T9 cruiser.

Lets compare HMS Repulse 1939 ww2 configuration for example shall we...

Repulse  1939                   Khronshtadt as designed     Khronshtadt as imagined by WG

                                            and at scrapping

242 meters long               242 meters long                     242 meters long

27 meters wide                28 meters wide                       31.6 meters wide

34,600 tons disp.            36,000 tons disp                      39000 tons disp

max armour 229mm      max armour 210mm               max armour  230mm

6x 381mm guns              6 x 380mm guns                     9 x 305mm guns

31knots speed                 30 knots speed                       32 knots speed

1,180 crew                       1,600 crew                                1800 crew

Soooooooo  I can Haz Repulse as a cruiser in the game right?  Come on WG  lets go.

M

 

top quality post!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
640 posts
18,452 battles

Repulse is very suck! He’s sunk at 1941 the battlecruiser not haven’t hood AA , bad secundaries . Is really GARBAGE! 

It BETTER ADD RENOWN 

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
2,285 posts
4,371 battles
31 minutes ago, Aetreus said:

Kronshtadt was designed as a 3x3 305mm ship originally, mate. Don't just read the Wikipedia summary... take the 5 minutes to read the whole page. Then at least you'll only be mostly a joke, instead of a complete joke.

who was using Wikipedia..  I prefer reading the translated Russian documents personally.

M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,092
[SPTR]
Members
3,459 posts
5,674 battles
5 minutes ago, goldeagle1123 said:

No thank you, battlecruisers really don't fit into this game well.

You tell that to SerB

gDErVjw.png

Tell him to delete Myogi Dunkerque Scharnhorst Gneisenau Hood Graf Spee Moskva

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,654 posts
13,535 battles

I would guess that WG's solution to Cruiser survivability is to classify all future Battleships as "Cruisers".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,258
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
8,783 posts
14,864 battles
24 minutes ago, goldeagle1123 said:

No thank you, battlecruisers really don't fit into this game well.

Neither do CV's; hasn't stopped WoW yet!

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,450
[5BS]
Members
4,540 posts

Yes, and put it at T4. Since the Kron  is fair at T9 and everyone seems fine with that I can see no argument to not putting the Repulse at T4, T5 MAX. Oh and it counts as a CRUISER, of course.

Edited by _RC1138

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
5,021 posts
2,958 battles
1 hour ago, Umikami said:

Neither do CV's; hasn't stopped WoW yet!

And likewise you will never see me defend CV's implementation into this game. WG really should think twice before adding game changing silly mechanics to the game, like deep water torps, AP dive bombers, etc.

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
626 posts
1,630 battles
2 hours ago, goldeagle1123 said:

No thank you, battlecruisers really don't fit into this game well.

battlecruisers are almost exactly the same as battleships. Do BB's not belong either? 

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
5,021 posts
2,958 battles
25 minutes ago, Aristotle83 said:

battlecruisers are almost exactly the same as battleships. Do BB's not belong either? 

They are very different. They have nowhere near the levels of protection, and their armaments oftentimes inadequate. And what's more, most are WW1 era, and it is doubtful that WG will devote much time and effort, if any to adding tier 3 or 4 ships, that won't perform well without ahistorical number fudging. 

Edited by goldeagle1123
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,086
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
6,700 posts
10,050 battles

Battlecruisers would be fine in my view, heck we already have the 203mm armored Kongo, Ishizuchi, Myogi, and 225mm armored Dunkerque in the game, plus Hood.

The way game mechanics favor use of armor angling rather than thickness and autobounce helps out a lot, and speed's always a valuable resource.

For the RN, would you like a T5 with 80% the firepower of Iron Duke, doing 30kts instead of 22kts and with an RN distributed armor scheme? For T4, a similar Orion sounds nice. For T3, well Bellerophon's fun, want a 26kt version? For T6 do you want a Warspite that can do 30kts while having the same bow-on firepower with the AA of a Queen Elizabeth strapped on? For T7 do you want a refitted Hood with better general AA and likely better guns?

Sounds pretty nice to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
626 posts
1,630 battles
18 minutes ago, goldeagle1123 said:

They are ver different. They have nowhere near the levels of protection, and their armaments oftentimes inadequate. And what's more, most are WW1 era, and it is doubtful that WG will devote much time and effort, if any to adding tier 3 or 4 ships, that won't perform well without ahistorical number fudging. 

Many WWII BB's especially the US ones are BC's by WWI standards. The reason BC's have less protection is to go faster, and their armament was usually either equal or lacking a turret from what the typical BB had. Another difference is that BC's are typically larger than their navy's BB peers. This is almost nothing and there are BB's that are larger than others and who had one(or two or even three)more turrets than others. However the BC is a BC because it could go considerably faster than the BB's at the time it was commissioned, that is it and when you look at the ships that are classified as BB's from T6 onwards it's clear he definitions have merged.  

The German BC's will probably be OP, while the British BC's will probably be detonation's waiting to happen(I kid, I kid) seeing what they did in history, the Germans are able to hold their own at T6. The German BC's performance at Jutland might be better than any performance a BB in WOWS has had. 

Also it's arguable the most in demand BB content right now is at T2, so I'd hope they'd spend some time on the lower tiers. Of course the IRL German BC's can be spread to T6 so it's not just low tier ships. 

Edited by Aristotle83

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
222 posts
4,112 battles

All I know is the German battlecruisers should be classed as BBs in this game. BBs with smaller guns than their same tier actual battleship counterparts. Their armor is much more BB like. Maybe the British battlecruisers could be implemented in the cruiser class? I think they should be BBs but I guess an argument could be made to go the other way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,258
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
8,783 posts
14,864 battles
1 hour ago, goldeagle1123 said:

WG really should think twice before adding game changing silly mechanics to the game, like deep water torps, AP dive bombers, etc.

Welcome to "WORLD OF INCREDIBLY GIMMICKED WARSHIPS!", please deposit your cash on the right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
813
[_ARP_]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
3,737 posts
3,195 battles
3 hours ago, Aristotle83 said:

Many WWII BB's especially the US ones are BC's by WWI standards. The reason BC's have less protection is to go faster, and their armament was usually either equal or lacking a turret from what the typical BB had. Another difference is that BC's are typically larger than their navy's BB peers. This is almost nothing and there are BB's that are larger than others and who had one(or two or even three)more turrets than others. However the BC is a BC because it could go considerably faster than the BB's at the time it was commissioned, that is it and when you look at the ships that are classified as BB's from T6 onwards it's clear he definitions have merged.  

The German BC's will probably be OP, while the British BC's will probably be detonation's waiting to happen(I kid, I kid) seeing what they did in history, the Germans are able to hold their own at T6. The German BC's performance at Jutland might be better than any performance a BB in WOWS has had. 

Also it's arguable the most in demand BB content right now is at T2, so I'd hope they'd spend some time on the lower tiers. Of course the IRL German BC's can be spread to T6 so it's not just low tier ships. 

United States never built any Battlecruisers. All of their Battleships were the slow 21kt Standard Battleship and Super Dreadnought Classes, but no Battlecruisers. America then built in the 30s, their new Standard Battleships, the North Carolinas and South Dakotas. (Despite 27 and 28kt top speeds, they weren't regarded as Fast Battleships by USN Standards.) USN's first Fast Battleships were the Iowas at 33kts. 

The USN did Design and Lay-down some Battlecruisers though, the Lexington Class, but they were rebuilt into Carriers because of the Washington and London Naval Treaties. 

Battlecruisers in Low Tiers do not belong in anything lower than Tier 4. Tier 3 is for Dreadnoughts and VERY Early Battlecruisers (Some Nations built Battlecruisers first instead of All Big Gun Dreadnoughts since some didn't jump onto the bandwagon until the British built the Battlecruiser.) 

Tier 2 needs more Pre-Dreadnoughts, we have Mikasa already, but I'd like to see ships like HMS Thunderchild or some of the US Pre Dreadnoughts. Hell, EVERY nation had Pre-Dreadnoughts, there's many Russian ones, French Ones, Italian Ones, Spanish Ones, Dutch Ones and even Latin American ones that deserve to be brought to the game as premiums. 

~Hunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,347
[-Y-]
Alpha Tester
4,541 posts
6,689 battles

surprised nobody has asked for submarines to be introduced under the designation "cruiser" in WOWS.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
2,285 posts
4,371 battles
1 hour ago, nuttybiscuit said:

surprised nobody has asked for submarines to be introduced under the designation "cruiser" in WOWS.

Surcouf  ** cough **  actually classified as a Submarine Cruiser???    only 2x8" guns though..  not a huge threat at 18knots on the surface :)

M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
5,308 posts
3,887 battles
23 minutes ago, Cruiser_Fiume said:

The moment Renown and Repulse are added as cruisers is the moment I delete the client permanently.

I think the Renown / Repulse will probably be in the game as a battleship.  I mean...the Hood (another famous UK battlecruiser) is in the game as a battleship...

  • Cool 1
  • Angry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×