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

USN Cruiser Line Makeover - Don't Stop at T6

68 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

474
[LUCK]
Members
1,298 posts
19,550 battles

Seeing as how the USN cruiser line is getting an extreme makeover, why does it have to stop at T6?

Can WG not just take Murmansk and turn it into the top hull of Omaha instead what exists for the tech tree now?

Murmansk=Omaha class cruiser=USS Milwaukee-  loaned to Soviet Union in 1944 and RETURNED in 1949.

Anybody have a good reason not to do this? (and can the Russian bias [edited] please)

Edited by hofmannsc
  • Cool 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,097
[_ARP_]
Supertester
11,944 posts
3,934 battles

Omaha C Hull got changed over a year ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
474
[LUCK]
Members
1,298 posts
19,550 battles
4 minutes ago, Goose21891 said:

Omaha C Hull got changed over a year ago.

Well I missed that but still, aside from Omaha's better range on the guns (.4km) fully upgraded, Murmansk has a spotter plane and longer range, more powerful torpedoes.

Hipper and Eugen are virtually identical so I don't understand why it isn't implemented.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,792
[SALVO]
Members
17,049 posts
17,674 battles
5 minutes ago, KommandantPerry said:

All this talk and i'm still sad at how anemic the marblehead torpedos are.

Yes, they are anemic.  They also load a LOT faster than the Murmansk's better torpedoes.  Call it a silver lining. 

Honestly, when I play my Marblehead, I'm not looking to do much if any damage with my torps.  I'm going to be kiting most of the time.  Has a 154k damage game in her sometime in the past week.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
834 posts
4,631 battles

I believe those are the Soviet modifications to the ship. I think it has the same torpedoes as the Gremyaschy? Someone with both ships can correct me on this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LHG]
Members
1,650 posts
4,918 battles
1 hour ago, hofmannsc said:

Seeing as how the USN cruiser line is getting an extreme makeover, why does it have to stop at T6?

Can WG not just take Murmansk and turn it into the top hull of Omaha instead what exists for the tech tree now?

Murmansk=Omaha class cruiser=USS Milwaukee-  loaned to Soviet Union in 1944 and RETURNED in 1949.

Anybody have a good reason not to do this? (and can the Russian bias [edited] please)

Probably because once she was returned she was scrapped maybe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
474
[LUCK]
Members
1,298 posts
19,550 battles
15 minutes ago, BB3_Oregon_Steel said:

Probably because once she was returned she was scrapped maybe?

Many of the ships in the game were scrapped.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
403
[XBRTC]
Members
1,411 posts
7,420 battles
2 hours ago, hofmannsc said:

Many of the ships in the game were scrapped.

 

Point is, USS MILWAUKEE was returned to the US... but she never went back into service in the US Navy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LHG]
Members
1,650 posts
4,918 battles
13 hours ago, hofmannsc said:

Many of the ships in the game were scrapped.

The point is she never served in the US Navy with any of the modifications made to her by the Soviets and as such isn't really a US warship in that guise. Treating her as such is pure fiction, not something deserving of being a ship in WOWS. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
474
[LUCK]
Members
1,298 posts
19,550 battles
16 minutes ago, BB3_Oregon_Steel said:

Treating her as such is pure fiction, not something deserving of being a ship in WOWS. 

Really?1 You're going to make that statement with all the fictitious ships presently in the lines?

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LHG]
Members
1,650 posts
4,918 battles
10 minutes ago, hofmannsc said:

Really?1 You're going to make that statement with all the fictitious ships presently in the lines?

Those few ships which are fictitious (rather than having some basis in a paper design) are used to fill spaces in an otherwise substantially complete line.  What is being proposed here is add a fictional ship to a branch line which serves no purpose other than to move this game further from reality than it already is.

So yep, I'm going to say purely fictional ships added to the game for a purpose like this is a bad bad bad bad bad bad idea. :etc_red_button:

Edited by BB3_Oregon_Steel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Supertester
1,464 posts
16 battles
1 hour ago, BB3_Oregon_Steel said:

Those few ships which are fictitious (rather than having some basis in a paper design) are used to fill spaces in an otherwise substantially complete line.  What is being proposed here is add a fictional ship to a branch line which serves no purpose other than to move this game further from reality than it already is.

So yep, I'm going to say purely fictional ships added to the game for a purpose like this is a bad bad bad bad bad bad idea. :etc_red_button:

*Usually used to fill spaces in an otherwise substantially complete line. I can't really ignore that shadow in the corner that is RN BBs.

 

1 hour ago, hofmannsc said:

Really?1 You're going to make that statement with all the fictitious ships presently in the lines?

The truly fictitious (Made by WG) ships in the game currently are:

- Monarch
- Conqueror
- Roon
- Hindenberg
- Grosser Kurfurst
- Henri IV
- France République

Honourable(?) mentions would be the Huanghe and the other 'real' ships given significant fictional upgrades. 

 

Adding the differences on Murmansk to the top hull on Omaha makes the ship less historical at very little gain for the Omaha. The Murmansk gets slightly more AA and Soviet torpedoes. Neither is really an appreciable reason to give the Omaha a Murmansk hull as top. The other differences are soft stats usually, tied to whatever decision WG makes, outside of the ships historical statistics. Rudder shift, krupp value, turning circle, type of torpedo etc. - If those are the changes you desire for Omaha, then there is no need to put the Murmansk hull over Omahas, just take the data values and and slot them in.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
266
[SEOP]
Members
1,286 posts

I'm not passionate about this by any stretch as I dont play any of these ships much anymore.  However, it has never made sense to me why Murmansk has a fair bit more gun range than Omaha and Marblehead.  I have both prems; and Murmansk is considerably more powerful because of the longer base range plus the range extension via the spotter plane.  Did the Russians really modify the turrets and elevation mechanism in reality to justify the longer range?  Or is this a completely arbitrary game design decision based purely off of Murmansk being a stronk motherland ship.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
266
[SEOP]
Members
1,286 posts

Interesting bit of trivia, but the USS Milwaukee (later Murmansk) and USS Omaha actually collided with each other on 31 May 1943 off the coast of Brazil, although the extent of the damage is not known (but one turned pink for excessive team damage).

  • Cool 2
  • Funny 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LHG]
Members
1,650 posts
4,918 battles
46 minutes ago, Trainspite said:

*Usually used to fill spaces in an otherwise substantially complete line. I can't really ignore that shadow in the corner that is RN BBs.

 

The truly fictitious (Made by WG) ships in the game currently are:

- Monarch
- Conqueror
- Roon
- Hindenberg
- Grosser Kurfurst
- Henri IV
- France République

Honourable(?) mentions would be the Huanghe and the other 'real' ships given significant fictional upgrades. 

 

Adding the differences on Murmansk to the top hull on Omaha makes the ship less historical at very little gain for the Omaha. The Murmansk gets slightly more AA and Soviet torpedoes. Neither is really an appreciable reason to give the Omaha a Murmansk hull as top. The other differences are soft stats usually, tied to whatever decision WG makes, outside of the ships historical statistics. Rudder shift, krupp value, turning circle, type of torpedo etc. - If those are the changes you desire for Omaha, then there is no need to put the Murmansk hull over Omahas, just take the data values and and slot them in.

 

Each of the ships you just listed where utilized to fill out the last tier or two of otherwise complete lines of cruisers and battleships.  

What is being suggested by the OP creates a mod, which never existed in US service, be added as a modification to a ship which actually did exist, but never had these modifications.  I do agree with you in your last paragraph.  

Edited by BB3_Oregon_Steel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Supertester
1,464 posts
16 battles
On 08/03/2018 at 10:09 PM, BB3_Oregon_Steel said:

Each of the ships you just listed where utilized to fill out the last tier or two of otherwise complete lines of cruisers and battleships.  

What is being suggested by the OP creates a mod, which never existed in US service, be added as a modification to a ship which actually did exist, but never had these modifications.  I do agree with you in your last paragraph.  

I know, the point I had was that the RN BBs have tier 10 capable authentic designs, and a tier 8 suitable ship that got stuffed into tier 7 because WG didn't like Nelson in the tech tree. Instead WG made up their own design instead of using a real one (Conqueror), and cobbled together some RN BB parts to fill the gap left by Nelson/KGV moving (Monarch). 

The rest that were listed I have no problem with, as far as I am aware there are no designs that fill the spaces they fill, I just listed them because of the OPs point. Perhaps what would have been more appropriate is the real ships with ahistorical/fictional upgrades. Even if Omaha as a whole represents the class, and Murmansk's "upgrades" can fit in that, there is no point to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,408
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
7,256 posts
2,029 battles

Shhh... Nobody tell them Murmansk's AP has far higher Krupp and penetrates far more armor than Omaha's AP...

 

:cap_tea:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Supertester
1,464 posts
16 battles
1 hour ago, Phoenix_jz said:

Shhh... Nobody tell them Murmansk's AP has far higher Krupp and penetrates far more armor than Omaha's AP...

 

:cap_tea:

Sekrit dokuments for improvved hammer and sickle 152mm shell infused with glorious power of the proletariat. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
430 posts
1,143 battles
On 3/8/2018 at 4:24 PM, Trainspite said:

*Usually used to fill spaces in an otherwise substantially complete line. I can't really ignore that shadow in the corner that is RN BBs.

 

The truly fictitious (Made by WG) ships in the game currently are:

- Monarch
- Conqueror
- Roon
- Hindenberg
- Grosser Kurfurst
- Henri IV
- France République

Honourable(?) mentions would be the Huanghe and the other 'real' ships given significant fictional upgrades. 

 

Adding the differences on Murmansk to the top hull on Omaha makes the ship less historical at very little gain for the Omaha. The Murmansk gets slightly more AA and Soviet torpedoes. Neither is really an appreciable reason to give the Omaha a Murmansk hull as top. The other differences are soft stats usually, tied to whatever decision WG makes, outside of the ships historical statistics. Rudder shift, krupp value, turning circle, type of torpedo etc. - If those are the changes you desire for Omaha, then there is no need to put the Murmansk hull over Omahas, just take the data values and and slot them in.

 

The Omaha has actually had slightly better AA ever since they buffed the 76mm range and nerfed the range of 20mm guns. However everything else is better on the murmansk. It's not as blatantly better and op as it used to be when it first came out but I can't believe after 2 years and a future line split for the USN cruisers that they haven't done anything with the Omaha to rectify this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
3,445 posts
3,871 battles
On ‎3‎/‎9‎/‎2018 at 6:00 PM, Trainspite said:

I know, the point I had was that the RN BBs have tier 10 capable authentic designs, and a tier 8 suitable ship that got stuffed into tier 7 because WG didn't like Nelson in the tech tree. Instead WG made up their own design instead of using a real one (Conqueror), and cobbled together some RN BB parts to fill the gap left by Nelson/KGV moving (Monarch). 

The rest that were listed I have no problem with, as far as I am aware there are no designs that fill the spaces they fill, I just listed them because of the OPs point. Perhaps what would have been more appropriate is the real ships with ahistorical/fictional upgrades. Even if Omaha as a whole represents the class, and Murmansk's "upgrades" can fit in that, there is no point to it.

KGV has never been suitable for tier 8, despite the endless crying about it. It's pretty obvious that was why she was moved, not to get Nelson out of the tech tree. And there is no historical RN tier 10 BB. You'd always have needed a ship with a great deal of construction on WG's part, the baseline K-M designs aren't enough without major changes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Supertester
1,464 posts
16 battles
3 hours ago, Aetreus said:

KGV has never been suitable for tier 8, despite the endless crying about it. It's pretty obvious that was why she was moved, not to get Nelson out of the tech tree. And there is no historical RN tier 10 BB. You'd always have needed a ship with a great deal of construction on WG's part, the baseline K-M designs aren't enough without major changes.

Except that it was tier 8 initially. And was suitable for tier 8. And is most probably a better tier 8 than what is there now given how the line has turned out. Why else was she chosen for tier 8 at the start of development? (Don't challenge me on why it was moved, it should be obvious that the ship was perfectly capable despite the quirky nature of WG implementing it. At least if you know as much as I do.)

Nelson got moved because her playstyle didn't fit. Partly due to her turrets (Which WG used as the main excuse), and partly because her citadel is ahistorically too high. (If you want to raise the KGV/Lion machinery room citadel, you have to lower Nelson's machinery to half it's current height above the waterline, and the magazine spaces directly to the waterline). KGV was moved down because without Nelson, WG didn't have an easy tier 7. Hence, the fabricated the Monarch Mongrel very quickly and lazily late in development, and pushed KGV down. (The number of times I have had to say this and people still don't know...)

 

Go correct me if I am wrong, but the 1945 Plan B design for Lion is rather capable for tier 10. Almost 70,000t displacement full load, 9x 16" (Compatable for a 20s reload system and USN super heavy rounds), 24x 4.5" DP, 32kn top speed, 14" belt. 

This ship doesn't fit the gameplay style that well of the conventional line, though you can draw comparisons with France/Republique. If WG can be satisfied with Republique as is, then it isn't hard to make a 'Thunderer' (Plan B 1945) work as a T10 leading on from the current Lion Temeraire. Instead WG decided to create the Mecha-Vanguard which is Conqueror, and then graft the 419mm guns onto it.

This also doesn't mention the 1920s designs that can be modernised and rebuilt up to tier 10 standards, although I would leave those for heading up the RN BC and Slow BB lines.

 

7 hours ago, Jerkster said:

The Omaha has actually had slightly better AA ever since they buffed the 76mm range and nerfed the range of 20mm guns. However everything else is better on the murmansk. It's not as blatantly better and op as it used to be when it first came out but I can't believe after 2 years and a future line split for the USN cruisers that they haven't done anything with the Omaha to rectify this.

The USN line has been neglected for some time in the smaller aspects like this. Something tells me that if WG try rushing the split, it will end up like the IJN DD split, a mess in need of another rework later on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
405
[VVV]
Members
2,421 posts
4 hours ago, Aetreus said:

KGV has never been suitable for tier 8, despite the endless crying about it. It's pretty obvious that was why she was moved, not to get Nelson out of the tech tree.

Given how strong KGV is at T7 it hardly seems like a stretch to say that adding 1945 AA suites, 32mm extremities and the T8 upgrade slot would be enough to make her work as a T8 BB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
3,445 posts
3,871 battles
21 minutes ago, Trainspite said:

Except that it was tier 8 initially. And was suitable for tier 8. And is most probably a better tier 8 than what is there now given how the line has turned out. Why else was she chosen for tier 8 at the start of development? (Don't challenge me on why it was moved, it should be obvious that the ship was perfectly capable despite the quirky nature of WG implementing it. At least if you know as much as I do.)

Nelson got moved because her playstyle didn't fit. Partly due to her turrets (Which WG used as the main excuse), and partly because her citadel is ahistorically too high. (If you want to raise the KGV/Lion machinery room citadel, you have to lower Nelson's machinery to half it's current height above the waterline, and the magazine spaces directly to the waterline). KGV was moved down because without Nelson, WG didn't have an easy tier 7. Hence, the fabricated the Monarch Mongrel very quickly and lazily late in development, and pushed KGV down. (The number of times I have had to say this and people still don't know...)

So arrogant. Well anyways, WG makes mistakes. They put KGV at tier 8 because it was how to make the line with a minimum of paper ships, and it didn't work out. Hint: if WG felt that KGV worked at tier 8... why move her to 7 and put a new ship in at 8? If Nelson was the problem at 7, which is she still at 7? There would be nothing to stop WG from creating a fairly quick ship to go in the tier at 7- heck they already have Hood, who could have been reworked into a tier 7 tree ship with conventional AA and gun performance.

 

You're basically claiming that WG didn't keep Nelson the tree ship because of something WG is free to change at any time. If the issue is citadel, then WG could have change it no problem. You believe XYZ, but I don't see any proof here. If WG moved it down because of Nelson- have they said so.

24 minutes ago, Trainspite said:

Go correct me if I am wrong, but the 1945 Plan B design for Lion is rather capable for tier 10. Almost 70,000t displacement full load, 9x 16" (Compatable for a 20s reload system and USN super heavy rounds), 24x 4.5" DP, 32kn top speed, 14" belt. 

This ship doesn't fit the gameplay style that well of the conventional line, though you can draw comparisons with France/Republique. If WG can be satisfied with Republique as is, then it isn't hard to make a 'Thunderer' (Plan B 1945) work as a T10 leading on from the current Lion Temeraire. Instead WG decided to create the Mecha-Vanguard which is Conqueror, and then graft the 419mm guns onto it.

This also doesn't mention the 1920s designs that can be modernised and rebuilt up to tier 10 standards, although I would leave those for heading up the RN BC and Slow BB lines.

 

The USN line has been neglected for some time in the smaller aspects like this. Something tells me that if WG try rushing the split, it will end up like the IJN DD split, a mess in need of another rework later on.

There is no "1945 Plan B" Lion. This design is fake, fake, fake. It has a 16"/50 gun that didn't just never leave the drawing board- it never arrived at the drawing board. 100% conjecture based purely off of a vague desire for a more powerful gun than the 16"/45 Mark II. Same goes for the "USN super heavy rounds" which weren't USN and were purely conjectural as well. And the conjectural 20s loading system, which is probably impossible- no navy, ever, built a major-caliber gun with a loading cycle that short, even at the loading angle. 32kts is extremely generous. It's possible, but for comparison the USN when they considered a similarly fast Montana derivative, ended up with a 320 meter ship that required 320,000 HP(implying 6 shafts). I doubt that the ship as described would actually be capable of such speed.

 

But okay, let's ignore the reality that this design would be just as much a WG construction as Conqueror is. Is it tier 10? It would be the least armored tier 10. Gun performance specs are unclear- if it doesn't inherit the borked shell drag from the 16"/45 it will be bad(worse than Montana, USN AP has better pen coefficients). But either way it's not approaching the 18" gun penetration. 27 rpm means a bit more DPM output than the 24 rpm 12 gun ships. AA will be good. Honestly, the uninclined 14" kills it. That right there is going to get this ship chewed up and spat out by every battleship it sees. The super low cits on Lion and Conq don't make them survivable with more armor than that- and this ships is supposed to compete at this tier?

 

Also, Conqueror isn't Vanguard. It's basically a Lion with a 4th turret. It only shares Vanguard's superstructure design because WG wants the ship to look like it is a mid 40's ship, so it has the same upperworks equipment. The hull form isn't very Vanguard-like.

4 minutes ago, Lord_Magus said:

Given how strong KGV is at T7 it hardly seems like a stretch to say that adding 1945 AA suites, 32mm extremities and the T8 upgrade slot would be enough to make her work as a T8 BB.

The problem always circles back to main battery firepower. KGV simply doesn't have enough of it, and it's because of the 14" guns. She can HE spam but HE spam fails to win matches according to WG statistics. 14" guns mean her pen is bad and many battleships will be able to tank it at even close-mid ranges(305mm ships can 45/45 angle at 10km).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,579
[5BS]
Members
4,766 posts

Realistically, they could put the Omaha at T4 with little problem. As it stands, the original reason it wasn't (and the ridiculous 'prototype' Phoenix (which in reality was JUST a regular Omaha)) placed at T4 was that WG didnt want turreted ships at T4. But now, given the subsequent lines released since then, there is an abundance of turreted ships at T4 and T5 and as such, the old rules need not apply. With little nerfing needed, they could drop the Omaha to T4 and place something else at T5.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×