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

British BBs i still don't understand why...

76 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
475 posts
5,767 battles

When i saw the British tech tree i decided to get the KGV and the Lion. I am now at the Monarch at tier 8 which is a KGV with the triple 15 inch guns design. Why we have the same ship at tier 7 and 8 when we could just have the KGV at tier 8 with the 15 inch guns upgrade and the Rodney at tier 7? Why we have the fake Conqueror design at tier X when we could have one of the late Lion designs with the  3 triple turrets , without spotter plane but with radar? (  The reason of radar is because in the latest Lion  the british designers decided  to remove the spotter plane in favour of radar.  This could be the British BBs special thing at tier X. Personally i don't like to see BBs with radars but in this case at tier X it could make sense. )

so we could have..

QE at tier 6... Great ship , Great history

Rodney at tier 7... Same thing  with a plus from me because i really enjoy this ship design and what the designers achieved with the tonnage limits,

KGV at tier 8 ... With the triple 15 inch guns as an upgrade  and the Monarch AA upgrade available on the hull upgrade

Lion at tier 9 only with the historical 406mm guns

Conqueror at tier X maybe with an upgrade to the 419mm guns but  in the 3 triple turrets and maybe radar. ( without spotter plane - one of the latest Lion designs )

 

And this tech tree would be great , but Instead i don't have the Rodney, i have to grind the KGV 2 times and i have a fake OP tier X ship that i don't have any interest in playing .

I really fail to understand some WG choices in here.

 

Sorry for my poor english.

  • Cool 5
  • Bad 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
361
[ZIPPO]
Members
1,589 posts
3,603 battles

Personally I thought the KGV would have been better at T6, Monarch at T7, Vanguard at T8 (with upgrade to 8 16" guns) and Lion and Conquer remaining where their at. QE wasn't need since we had the Warspite which is the better version

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
522
[LOU1]
Members
3,174 posts
8,432 battles

IIRC, this has all been discussed in great depth in dozens of threads posted when the line was in development.  I believe you'll find all the answers to your questions if you do a forum search.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31
Members
109 posts
490 battles

tbh
irl the KGV had multiple Radar suites for surface contacts
with Anson and Howe both receiving Radar jammers for the patrols in the north altantic

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
475 posts
5,767 battles
40 minutes ago, ExploratorOne said:

IIRC, this has all been discussed in great depth in dozens of threads posted when the line was in development.  I believe you'll find all the answers to your questions if you do a forum search.

Yes i know, It just make me  crazy sometimes to understand how the rich British navy history is represented by WG. It have  so many options but WG decided for the players to grind KGV ( a ship i love ) 2 times? A fake tier X design why? The WG could used one of the latest Lion designs or could use one of the N3 BB design but no they needed to make a fake design. Lack of options? nope. 

Edited by _no_one_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,518
[AHOY_]
Beta Testers
6,536 posts
3,588 battles
7 minutes ago, _no_one_ said:

Yes i know, It just make me  crazy sometimes to understand how the rich British navy history is represented by WG. It have  so many options but WG decided for the players to grind KGV ( a ship i love ) 2 times? A fake tier X design why? The WG could used one of the latest Lion designs or could use one of the N3 BB design but no they needed make a fake design. Lack of options? nope. 

It was more or less about progression and consistency of play-style.

WG already had issues with the fact that Britain went 15" > 16" > 14" historically, which really threw a curveball in balancing. That being said, the original plan seemed ideal; QE > Nelson > KGV w/ mandatory 15" Upgrade.

However, that brought an issue with playstyle, in which Nelson was the only oddball ship of the entire line and a PITA to balance within their desired framework. Thus, WG needed a ship to replace Nelson in the tech tree. Conveniently, they had also been testing a separated KGV (w/ 14") + Monarch (w/ 15") guns, and found the 14" to be too weak to manage at T8. So they just downtiered KGV, nerfed the armoring as-necessary for the tier, and kept 15" KGV (Monarch) at T8.

As for Conqueror, in her original 4x2 form, she's a heavily modified K2 or L2 battlecruiser design, cribbing heavily from Vanguard. True, players would have preferred an L3 or N3 design, but WG apparently wanted to avoid another Yamato-like ship in the form of L3, in addition to a number of other balancing issues (still would be lighter/less armored than some T9/T10s even with projected fictional modernizations), and N3 was too unique to risk at T10; having a virtually useless 3rd turret that can't fire backwards; effectively ending up with another Izumo-like dud.

The bigger issue in all this is that despite all the issues encountered with line creation and balancing, WG never really had proper back-up plans in mind. See the problems they had balancing Conqueror before giving up and giving us HMS Montana, rather than at least having an L3 design backup that could be salvaged later as a split T10 or as a T10 Premium or as a nerfed T9 FXP Premium.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
475 posts
5,767 battles
22 minutes ago, YamatoA150 said:

It was more or less about progression and consistency of play-style.

WG already had issues with the fact that Britain went 15" > 16" > 14" historically, which really threw a curveball in balancing. That being said, the original plan seemed ideal; QE > Nelson > KGV w/ mandatory 15" Upgrade.

However, that brought an issue with playstyle, in which Nelson was the only oddball ship of the entire line and a PITA to balance within their desired framework. Thus, WG needed a ship to replace Nelson in the tech tree. Conveniently, they had also been testing a separated KGV (w/ 14") + Monarch (w/ 15") guns, and found the 14" to be too weak to manage at T8. So they just downtiered KGV, nerfed the armoring as-necessary for the tier, and kept 15" KGV (Monarch) at T8.

As for Conqueror, in her original 4x2 form, she's a heavily modified K2 or L2 battlecruiser design, cribbing heavily from Vanguard. True, players would have preferred an L3 or N3 design, but WG apparently wanted to avoid another Yamato-like ship in the form of L3, in addition to a number of other balancing issues (still would be lighter/less armored than some T9/T10s even with projected fictional modernizations), and N3 was too unique to risk at T10; having a virtually useless 3rd turret that can't fire backwards; effectively ending up with another Izumo-like dud.

The bigger issue in all this is that despite all the issues encountered with line creation and balancing, WG never really had proper back-up plans in mind. See the problems they had balancing Conqueror before giving up and giving us HMS Montana, rather than at least having an L3 design backup that could be salvaged later as a split T10 or as a T10 Premium or as a nerfed T9 FXP Premium.

Yes i understand your point of view but the KGV could be at tier 8 with the 15 inch guns upgrade ( the players could choose to have more guns with better reload or fewer but more powerful . There is no need to have the same ship two tiers. The Nelson is an oddball in the playstyle the same is Richelieu in french tech tree. But i think the players like to have different playstyles in grinding the tech tree and Rodney would be interesting ship to play at tier 7. 

 What i see in this Wg decision is from a profit point of view. They wanted to make the Nelson special to sell more so they didn't give us the Rodney. It is the same  with the Gneisenau. They didn't give us the Gneisenau 11 inch guns to make the Scharhnost a special ship to sell more . But in this case they completely make a mess in the british BB tech tree just to make more money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,661 posts
4,571 battles
1 hour ago, Psycodiver said:

Personally I thought the KGV would have been better at T6, Monarch at T7, Vanguard at T8 (with upgrade to 8 16" guns) and Lion and Conquer remaining where their at. QE wasn't need since we had the Warspite which is the better version

You do realize that the KGVs had one of the best armor schemes of WW2, right? It's not all about freaking guns.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
185
[WOLFB]
Beta Testers
1,446 posts
6,995 battles
1 hour ago, _no_one_ said:

When i saw the British tech tree i decided to get the KGV and the Lion. I am now at the Monarch at tier 8 which is a KGV with the triple 15 inch guns design. Why we have the same ship at tier 7 and 8 when we could just have the KGV at tier 8 with the 15 inch guns upgrade and the Rodney at tier 7? Why we have the fake Conqueror design at tier X when we could have one of the late Lion designs with the  3 triple turrets , without spotter plane but with radar? (  The reason of radar is because in the latest Lion  the british designers decided  to remove the spotter plane in favour of radar.  This could be the British BBs special thing at tier X. Personally i don't like to see BBs with radars but in this case at tier X it could make sense. )

so we could have..

QE at tier 6... Great ship , Great history

Rodney at tier 7... Same thing  with a plus from me because i really enjoy this ship design and what the designers achieved with the tonnage limits,

KGV at tier 8 ... With the triple 15 inch guns as an upgrade  and the Monarch AA upgrade available on the hull upgrade

Lion at tier 9 only with the historical 406mm guns

Conqueror at tier X maybe with an upgrade to the 419mm guns but  in the 3 triple turrets and maybe radar. ( without spotter plane - one of the latest Lion designs )

 

And this tech tree would be great , but Instead i don't have the Rodney, i have to grind the KGV 2 times and i have a fake OP tier X ship that i don't have any interest in playing .

I really fail to understand some WG choices in here.

 

Sorry for my poor english.

Why do we play this game. Oh please not the beeeeezzzzzzzzzzzzz:Smile_teethhappy:

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
492
[VW]
Members
2,059 posts
12,968 battles

This is the case mor most ships in game. Youve clearly never played ijn ca, cause from aoba to ibuki its the exact same ship just gets bigger and harder to turn while the gun range gets longer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
130
[SF-E]
Beta Testers
1,001 posts
4,172 battles
1 hour ago, Battlecruiser_Goeben said:

You do realize that the KGVs had one of the best armor schemes of WW2, right? It's not all about freaking guns.

yes lets put a WW2 battleship with Dreadnoughts ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,470
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
3,628 posts
556 battles
1 hour ago, outwardpanicjoe said:

yes lets put a WW2 battleship with Dreadnoughts ...

 

This already happens. Gneisenau, KGV, Nelson are all post-dreadnought designs, vs the Colorado, Nagato and Lyon. All dreadnoughts.

 

Funny thing I noticed about the Colorado, too. New Mexico has turtlebacks. Colorado does not. Considering that Colorado is a Tennessee with 16" guns, and Tennessee was a New Mexico with new machinery and better TDS, the Colorado should have the same armor scheme as the New Mexico. It does not. Because reasons, I guess. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,106 posts
1 hour ago, ramp4ge said:

 

This already happens. Gneisenau, KGV, Nelson are all post-dreadnought designs, vs the Colorado, Nagato and Lyon. All dreadnoughts.

 

Funny thing I noticed about the Colorado, too. New Mexico has turtlebacks. Colorado does not. Considering that Colorado is a Tennessee with 16" guns, and Tennessee was a New Mexico with new machinery and better TDS, the Colorado should have the same armor scheme as the New Mexico. It does not. Because reasons, I guess. 

I won't pretend to know for sure what the devs were actually  thinking, but by appearance  the New Mexico class in game represents their 1930's post-modernization iteration, with substantially strengthened horizontal and underwater protection. Of the Colorado class, only West Virginia was modernized a la Tennessee and California while undergoing post-Pearl Harbor repairs. The Maryland and Colorado just got some incrementally better AA and fire control systems. Until North Carolina joined the fleet, the New Mexico class were the most modern battleships in the US Navy.

Overall, I think WG does a pretty good job of trying to work historical accuracy in wherever it doesn't bump into game design issues. As has been said many times, WoWS is an arcade game, not a simulation.

Personally. I'd love to be able to "skin" all the Standard battleships with their original dual lattice masts. Not really a successful design, but they just looked so damn cool. :cap_like:

Edited by TF77
Spelling
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
343
[WOLF3]
[WOLF3]
Members
753 posts
4,030 battles
3 hours ago, AdmiralThunder said:

I thought for sure this thread was going to be about the asinine national gimmick of HE spamming BB's.:Smile_amazed:

That's what I thought too!  I was all ready to have a deep  philosop   philles  philaso  intellectual discussion about...

Crap, who am I kidding.  How can I have a p-word discussion when I can't even spell it.  :fish_boom:

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,518
[AHOY_]
Beta Testers
6,536 posts
3,588 battles
6 hours ago, _no_one_ said:

Yes i understand your point of view but the KGV could be at tier 8 with the 15 inch guns upgrade ( the players could choose to have more guns with better reload or fewer but more powerful . There is no need to have the same ship two tiers. The Nelson is an oddball in the playstyle the same is Richelieu in french tech tree. But i think the players like to have different playstyles in grinding the tech tree and Rodney would be interesting ship to play at tier 7. 

 What i see in this Wg decision is from a profit point of view. They wanted to make the Nelson special to sell more so they didn't give us the Rodney. It is the same  with the Gneisenau. They didn't give us the Gneisenau 11 inch guns to make the Scharhnost a special ship to sell more . But in this case they completely make a mess in the british BB tech tree just to make more money.

I do partly agree that the Nelson and Scharnhorst were separated for potential sales, but do recall that WG was also trying to make progression simpler in the case of the KM BB line and avoid issues of refit Gneis being under-utilized due to the 11" as-built form being more popular (as would have likely happened with KGV 14" auto-upgrading to KGV 15" with the hull), and Rodney originally existed before Nelson was moved out of the line; complete with an experimental turret-mounted catapult launcher.

So the plans were more or less there, in some form.

I agree that KGV could have done perfectly fine at T8 having a forced upgrade from 14" to 15" with a hull upgrade, while WG could market DoY or PoW w/ 14" in late-war format. Nelson too would have been fine at T7, though she'd be a glass cannon, having powerful HE and short-fuse AP but having to rely on the regular RN BB Repair Party rather than the Hyper Repair Party Rodney would have gotten. But whatever the reason, WG decided to downtier KGV 14" and keep  KGV 15" as Monarch at T8. The only issue with this I see, is that Monarch doesn't get slightly more HP or better AA/secondaries over KGV, thus they're practically identical outside of armor and guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,788
[PVE]
Members
6,448 posts
11,447 battles
1 hour ago, Captain_Slattery said:

That's what I thought too!  I was all ready to have a deep  philosop   philles  philaso  intellectual discussion about...

Crap, who am I kidding.  How can I have a p-word discussion when I can't even spell it.  :fish_boom:

Yup, was really surprised to see the actual post based on the title...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
585
[-SYN-]
Members
2,758 posts
8,783 battles
7 hours ago, Battlecruiser_Goeben said:

You do realize that the KGVs had one of the best armor schemes of WW2, right? It's not all about freaking guns.

In real life maybe, but in the context of WoWs' the armor scheme is poor. She would have had a fairly high citadel (which got chopped down for balance reasons.) The belt armor thickness is of little use because WoW's battles occur at much closer range than the armor schemes where designed for. And the lack of an armored upper belt or weather deck makes the design stupidly vulnerable to HE spam.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,362
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
7,022 posts
10,699 battles

Apparently WG did try a T8 KGV, but I don't recall them trying very hard or for very long. There is some space to improve KGV, sigma in particular.

It's kind of a shame, my experience with Monarch and KGV is that the 15in guns don't provide much of an upgrade. The pure penetration is better but still pretty poor and T10 matchmaking is highly prevalent.

In a T10 match the Monarch sees a bunch of cruisers the 15in AP can't overmatch, significantly reducing it's advantage. 27mm cruiser extremity armor has been proliferating, and is now present even at T8 on new Baltimore. While it's 'only' USN and KM cruisers, those are by far the most played cruiser lines.

In exchange for better but still bad penetration and no better ability to blap cruisers a lot of the time Monarch loses a gun and 6% fire chance per shell. It's a poor trade. If you do catch a broadside the extra barrel of the 14in might even be worth more.

 

WG constructed Monarch 'on the cheap' copy-pasting the hull of KGV and the turrets of Nelson. That is fairly sensible as a back up plan, but it also had the advantage of allowing them to monetize or at least partially monetize Nelson. WG put in the effort to model KGV and Nelson, by copying KGV into Monarch they generated a very low effort tree ship and at least some people spent doubloons on FXP to get it. Well played.

Vanguard was never going to happen. When she wasn't shown off as part of the line it was curtains, even with problems in test spending the extra months to model her up, animate, do the basic implementation and then test her wasn't going to fly. Nelson in the tree could have been problematic but her premium guise is not the only way to do it. Her citadel could be significantly lowered in exchange for the super heal being toned down or removed. Including some version of the super heal at T8 would also be a less abrupt transition to the T9.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
475 posts
5,767 battles
5 hours ago, TitanicMan2 said:

I would've kicked Monarch out and replaced it with Vanguard instead

True, that would be a better choice.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,992
[WOLF7]
Members
10,359 posts

I think the single biggest reason for WG's choice in ships is the fact that 99% of the player base couldn't identify any of the ships in this game without being told what they are.....:Smile_glasses:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
3,496 posts
3,874 battles

Late Lion/Thunderer/1944 whatever isn't a ship. It's a series of dreams about a ship, that maybe possibly would have come together into a real ship had the UK not run out of money and cancelled the whole program. Hence WG modified an existing ship, which is much easier as it doesn't involve creating a whole new hull and powerplant that may or may not be realistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
3,420 posts
6,193 battles
14 hours ago, Psycodiver said:

Personally I thought the KGV would have been better at T6, Monarch at T7, Vanguard at T8 (with upgrade to 8 16" guns) and Lion and Conquer remaining where their at. QE wasn't need since we had the Warspite which is the better version

The only reason I disagree with having the KJV at 6 is she was a modern design. She was one of the most heavily protected battleships. They could have had her at tier 8 and just buffed her dispersion a bit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×