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

Thoughts about Seattle and Fargo

21 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

216
[-ARP-]
Members
432 posts
3,943 battles

I was wondering why Wargaming decided to use the paper ship Seattle instead of a real ship like Fargo. Seattle is already a copy of Cleveland gameplay wise with a few more consumables and slightly better but unnoticeable stats, it may as well just be Fargo! Which is already a Cleveland that's only slightly improved, but at least it's real! 

If the argument is "oh players won't like playing ships that basically just look the same as the previous ship with minor differences" why do we have Ibuki and Mogami? Why couldn't it be Mogami and Takao? What about Monarch and KGV? 

Literally give it the same consumables as Seattle and the Cleveland hull and it would fit. The only differences would be in the models, the dev team could've saved a lot of time modelling her, because not many will care for or keep Seattle.I know there is no going back, so perhaps we could see Fargo is a tier 9 premium?

Edited by AyanoMidori
  • Cool 3
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,371
[WOLF2]
Beta Testers
5,948 posts
9,842 battles

Because everyone in North Dakota doesn't like Fargo. It's the Granola Bowl of ND.

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,112
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
16,328 posts
11,850 battles

Fargo was a repeat Cleveland, with modified superstructure.  Seattle has a DP main battery.  That's a pretty massive difference.  You can't put DP triple turrets on a Cleveland hull.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,171
Members
4,007 posts
14,829 battles
32 minutes ago, HazardDrake said:

Because everyone in North Dakota doesn't like Fargo. It's the Granola Bowl of ND.

Really? Everyone? I've been to ND many times, including Fargo, and I've never heard any ND resident badmouth Fargo. Or any other town in the state for that matter. I personally aint impressed with Bismarck, to me it's a good town to bypass. (I live in Wyoming so ND aint too far away)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
769
[POD]
Beta Testers
3,058 posts
4,738 battles

why i would want a ship with a name similar to this?

s-l300.jpg

Edited by Cruxdei

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
818
[ARS]
Beta Testers
2,388 posts
2,169 battles

WG trapped themselves with the late decision to not use Nelson as the Tier VII tech tree ship (which is what they ought to have done) and needed something at Tier VII, and the only option for that was KGV (presumably Admiral class is being saved for a second tree), and that left two problems.  1) No ship for Tier VIII.  2) No 3D model for any other British BB.  As a solution they hashed together a mishmash of KGV woth Nelson's turrets and Lion/Conqueror's masts and called it Monarch.

Based on the time it takes them to do a BB 3D model they hadn't planned on anything other than Nelson at Tier VII and KGV at Tier VIII for literally months and at the last moment decided that sudden changes to playstyle, as with Nelson or Izumo, weren't acceptable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,470
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
3,628 posts
556 battles

Indy should be moved down to tier 6 and replaced at 7 with Wichita, while we're at it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
818
[ARS]
Beta Testers
2,388 posts
2,169 battles
39 minutes ago, ramp4ge said:

Indy should be moved down to tier 6 and replaced at 7 with Wichita, while we're at it.

Radar at Tier VI might be a bit much, and because it is a premium they can't remove the radar.  Perhaps if Indy owners received Wichita for free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,112
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
16,328 posts
11,850 battles

Indy would be OK, if they would just buff her survivability a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,371
[WOLF2]
Beta Testers
5,948 posts
9,842 battles
5 hours ago, ReddNekk said:

Really? Everyone? I've been to ND many times, including Fargo, and I've never heard any ND resident badmouth Fargo. Or any other town in the state for that matter. I personally aint impressed with Bismarck, to me it's a good town to bypass. (I live in Wyoming so ND aint too far away)

Oh there's all sorts of small scale political fights just like you find anywhere else. Most of the time nobody cares. It's only when Fargo gets on with their idiocy that we really start talking about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,171
Members
4,007 posts
14,829 battles
41 minutes ago, HazardDrake said:

Oh there's all sorts of small scale political fights just like you find anywhere else. Most of the time nobody cares. It's only when Fargo gets on with their idiocy that we really start talking about it.

I get the impression that you live in North Dakota.

We have idiot towns (Jackson, Casper) here in Wyoming. We don't make a fuss about them and generally ignore them. But we don't pass up a chance to slam 'em either. :Smile_teethhappy:

Edited by ReddNekk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
64
[WOLF6]
Members
202 posts
2,386 battles
19 hours ago, AyanoMidori said:

I was wondering why Wargaming decided to use the paper ship Seattle instead of a real ship like Fargo. Seattle is already a copy of Cleveland gameplay wise with a few more consumables and slightly better but unnoticeable stats, it may as well just be Fargo! Which is already a Cleveland that's only slightly improved, but at least it's real! 

If the argument is "oh players won't like playing ships that basically just look the same as the previous ship with minor differences" why do we have Ibuki and Mogami? Why couldn't it be Mogami and Takao? What about Monarch and KGV? 

Literally give it the same consumables as Seattle and the Cleveland hull and it would fit. The only differences would be in the models, the dev team could've saved a lot of time modelling her, because not many will care for or keep Seattle.I know there is no going back, so perhaps we could see Fargo is a tier 9 premium?

Welcome to discussions from last November.

WG could have used Fargo and Oregon City as the T9s, but they already had the model for Buffalo ready to go.  Apparently they also felt a stepping stone from Cleveland to Worcester should have Dual Purpose Main Battery, so they went looking for a USS Neptune, and found a design that worked. 

Unfortunately, both Buffalo and Seattle are pre war designs, and contain design elements that would not have appeared in US cruisers built during the war (midship aircraft facilities, for the most glaring example).

As you noted, the biggest changes most T9s have over their T8 counterparts is in upgrades/consumables anyway, so all the naysayers that complained Fargo would just be Cleveland again at T9 had no real argument, especially since the split was made to give a more consistent play-style throughout the lines.  But alas, that ship has sailed.  At least the latest dev announcements show improved turret angles on Seattle, but I think they are still worse than Cleveland/Fargo, which is another hint that it's a more dated design.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,654 posts
4,567 battles
20 hours ago, AyanoMidori said:

I was wondering why Wargaming decided to use the paper ship Seattle instead of a real ship like Fargo. Seattle is already a copy of Cleveland gameplay wise with a few more consumables and slightly better but unnoticeable stats, it may as well just be Fargo! Which is already a Cleveland that's only slightly improved, but at least it's real! 

If the argument is "oh players won't like playing ships that basically just look the same as the previous ship with minor differences" why do we have Ibuki and Mogami? Why couldn't it be Mogami and Takao? What about Monarch and KGV? 

Literally give it the same consumables as Seattle and the Cleveland hull and it would fit. The only differences would be in the models, the dev team could've saved a lot of time modelling her, because not many will care for or keep Seattle.I know there is no going back, so perhaps we could see Fargo is a tier 9 premium?

I agree with the overall sentiment. Real > fake any day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
216
[-ARP-]
Members
432 posts
3,943 battles
On 6/17/2018 at 12:35 AM, crzyhawk said:

Fargo was a repeat Cleveland, with modified superstructure.  Seattle has a DP main battery.  That's a pretty massive difference.  You can't put DP triple turrets on a Cleveland hull.

I forgot to visit the forums for a day or too.. but I must reply to this.

Seattle's DP main battery AA is almost the same as Cleveland's 5" AA, in fact the latter actually has more AA power (only by 1) than Seattle. If you were to put Cleveland at tier 9 and give her the same consumables as Seattle, there would be almost no difference. Just saying :D

A premium Fargo or Oregon City would still be nice, they are such sexy cruisers, way more than Seattle IMO.

Edited by AyanoMidori

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,925
Members
18,996 posts
5,340 battles
On Saturday, June 16, 2018 at 6:47 PM, Cruxdei said:

why i would want a ship with a name similar to this?

s-l300.jpg

Or one named after a rebadged Dodge truck?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
838
[TSPC]
Supertester
2,589 posts
8,588 battles
On 6/16/2018 at 7:56 PM, Helstrem said:

WG trapped themselves with the late decision to not use Nelson as the Tier VII tech tree ship (which is what they ought to have done) and needed something at Tier VII, and the only option for that was KGV (presumably Admiral class is being saved for a second tree), and that left two problems.  1) No ship for Tier VIII.  2) No 3D model for any other British BB.  As a solution they hashed together a mishmash of KGV woth Nelson's turrets and Lion/Conqueror's masts and called it Monarch.

Based on the time it takes them to do a BB 3D model they hadn't planned on anything other than Nelson at Tier VII and KGV at Tier VIII for literally months and at the last moment decided that sudden changes to playstyle, as with Nelson or Izumo, weren't acceptable.

Nelson's turrets? Er, not quite. Monarch is either a planned upgrade for the KGVs or what they were supposed to be before one of the treaties was signed (I forget which one). Monarch has 15" guns, Nelson has 16"s

The only reason why the KGVs ended up with the 14" guns that they had was because the Brits wanted to show the other signatories that they were signing in good faith. Then Japan said Screw this, we're out... And it was too late in the design and construction process to up gun the KGVs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,112
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
16,328 posts
11,850 battles
2 hours ago, AyanoMidori said:

I forgot to visit the forums for a day or too.. but I must reply to this.

Seattle's DP main battery AA is almost the same as Cleveland's 5" AA, in fact the latter actually has more AA power (only by 1) than Seattle. If you were to put Cleveland at tier 9 and give her the same consumables as Seattle, there would be almost no difference. Just saying :D

A premium Fargo or Oregon City would still be nice, they are such sexy cruisers, way more than Seattle IMO.

I'm sorry, but 152mm AA and 127mm AA are not really close to comparable.  Also, Fargo is, essentially a 10k ton cruiser.  That's a T7 hull.  fargo has no business at T9.  I love me some American cruisers, but t9 is way out of it's league.  Even Worcester is not truly t10 worthy, it should be a T9 and Seattle should be the T10.  The Worcester was an interim design; the 'final' 152mm AA cruiser was to have 4 triple DP turrets.  ROF was to be 20 RPM, which would clearly need to be nerfed, even for t10.

Edited by crzyhawk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
818
[ARS]
Beta Testers
2,388 posts
2,169 battles
2 hours ago, Show_Me_Your_Cits said:

Nelson's turrets? Er, not quite. Monarch is either a planned upgrade for the KGVs or what they were supposed to be before one of the treaties was signed (I forget which one). Monarch has 15" guns, Nelson has 16"s

The only reason why the KGVs ended up with the 14" guns that they had was because the Brits wanted to show the other signatories that they were signing in good faith. Then Japan said Screw this, we're out... And it was too late in the design and construction process to up gun the KGVs. 

I wasn't saying it had 16" guns.  I was saying it uses the 3D model for Nelson's guns because they didn't have time to do a turret model just for that ship so they copy/pasted the 3D model for Nelson's turrets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,371
[WOLF2]
Beta Testers
5,948 posts
9,842 battles
On 6/17/2018 at 12:18 AM, ReddNekk said:

I get the impression that you live in North Dakota.

We have idiot towns (Jackson, Casper) here in Wyoming. We don't make a fuss about them and generally ignore them. But we don't pass up a chance to slam 'em either. :Smile_teethhappy:

Grand Forks for me. :cap_cool:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,360
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
7,012 posts
10,692 battles

Fargo can't really hack it and Oregon City's so close to Baltimore as to be pointless as others have said.

 

Just because the IJN cruisers have a pretty silly progression doesn't mean others should too. Overall I'd say with the work on the USN cruisers the IJN heavy cruiser line is left looking the most questionable, over-tiered Aoba, silly Myoko with better HP and AA than Mogami, silly Mogami 203 option of uslessness, insufficient difference between Mogami and Ibuki making Ibuki less than compelling. Yeah, no real need to repeat that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×