Jump to content
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
rafael_azuaje

USS Oklahoma (BB-37) for premium T5

USS OKLAHOMA FOR PREMIUM?  

26 members have voted

This poll is closed for new votes
  1. 1. USS OKLAHOMA FOR PREMIUM?


  • Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.
  • Poll closed on 12/10/2018 at 05:00 AM

28 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
65 posts
13,273 battles

I would prefer to see USS Nevada in the game. Same class as Oklahoma but with a longer service life and history.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
251
[TASH]
Members
1,766 posts
3,991 battles
38 minutes ago, ET1_Allen said:

I would prefer to see USS Nevada in the game. Same class as Oklahoma but with a longer service life and history.

Probably implemented as a line ship if WG ever splits. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22,874
[HINON]
Supertester
19,205 posts
12,732 battles

You'd get a lot more responses if you didn't just post pictures, but also some information and history of the ship. Sell it to us, tell us why you want it in the game and convince us it needs to be.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
105
[-WTP-]
[-WTP-]
Members
500 posts
5,584 battles

Absolutely. The more US standards there are in the game the happier my cruisers and DDs will be :D ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,380
[RLGN]
Members
8,246 posts
17,263 battles
25 minutes ago, HeathenForay said:

Absolutely. The more US standards there are in the game the happier my cruisers and DDs will be :D ;)

Unless you encounter one who understands WASD? or one who pays attention to the minimap, and terrain in general, and is ready to deliver a face full of HE pain when some destroyer comes out for a charge or an ambush?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
105
[-WTP-]
[-WTP-]
Members
500 posts
5,584 battles
1 hour ago, Estimated_Prophet said:

Unless you encounter one who understands WASD? or one who pays attention to the minimap, and terrain in general, and is ready to deliver a face full of HE pain when some destroyer comes out for a charge or an ambush?

Yeah yeah there's always the exception...by and large they're food. Slow easy food.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,380
[RLGN]
Members
8,246 posts
17,263 battles
38 minutes ago, HeathenForay said:

Yeah yeah there's always the exception...by and large they're food. Slow easy food.

Where are all these players who apparently just let themselves get killed; and who also apparently have no idea how to shoot at or deal with lolibotes...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
105
[-WTP-]
[-WTP-]
Members
500 posts
5,584 battles
35 minutes ago, Estimated_Prophet said:

Where are all these players who apparently just let themselves get killed; and who also apparently have no idea how to shoot at or deal with lolibotes...

LOL...we play the same game right? They're everywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
255
[REVY]
Members
951 posts
7,515 battles

it's going to be slower as she had triple expansion steam engines, not turbines.

 

She will have the same main gun battery amount as New York-class.

 

I suppose..... :Smile_hiding: you could have two camos. One for the pre-Pearl Harbor, and one for the post recovery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
120
[NGUNS]
Beta Testers
573 posts
3,135 battles
On 7/20/2018 at 7:53 AM, Lord_Slayer said:

it's going to be slower as she had triple expansion steam engines, not turbines.

 

She will have the same main gun battery amount as New York-class.

 

I suppose..... :Smile_hiding: you could have two camos. One for the pre-Pearl Harbor, and one for the post recovery.

Nope, same speed for both Nevada-class, 20.5 knots.  Not that much slower than the following Standards.

Same amount of guns, but in 4 turrets, yay no wonky middle turret.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
126
[FLS]
Alpha Tester
568 posts
2,540 battles

I do hope we'll get a line split with the Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee classes represented, hopefully with late-war refit configurations. Pennsylvania in her late-war guise, with the modernized secondary armament of dual 5"/38s, is my favorite of all the USN standard-type battleships.

Pennsy5.jpg&sp=a3188a38e386e409a5c18171c

And I suppose it'd make sense to put South Dakota at 8, and some paperships at 9 and 10.

--Helms

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
128
[LRM]
Supertester
550 posts
5,163 battles

Oklahoma would be better at T6. Nevada was an intermediate step between New York and Pennsylvania and Oklahoma had the same guns as Arizona.

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
126
[FLS]
Alpha Tester
568 posts
2,540 battles
12 minutes ago, DonKarnage2 said:

Oklahoma would be better at T6. Nevada was an intermediate step between New York and Pennsylvania and Oklahoma had the same guns as Arizona.

Nevada and Oklahoma are the same class and had 10 guns each, compared to the Pennsylvania, New Mexico, and Tennessee classes with 12 guns. The two biggest differences between the New Yorks and the Nevadas came in the form of the all-or-nothing armor scheme on the latter, and the consolidation of the main battery into four turrets instead of five.

--Helms

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22,874
[HINON]
Supertester
19,205 posts
12,732 battles
12 minutes ago, thehelmsman said:

Nevada and Oklahoma are the same class and had 10 guns each, compared to the Pennsylvania, New Mexico, and Tennessee classes with 12 guns. The two biggest differences between the New Yorks and the Nevadas came in the form of the all-or-nothing armor scheme on the latter, and the consolidation of the main battery into four turrets instead of five.

The Puget sound refit alone would be enough to bump it up a tier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
126
[FLS]
Alpha Tester
568 posts
2,540 battles

Eeeeh, maybe. But as poorly as the USN tech tree battleships at tier 5, 6, and especially 7 already stack up to their counterparts in other nations, I'd argue that late-war refits are warranted across the board for all the USN battleship classes from Nevada through Colorado (since New York's late war configuration is already represented by Texas).

--Helms

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31
[XBRTC]
Members
148 posts
7,416 battles

 

43 minutes ago, thehelmsman said:

I do hope we'll get a line split with the Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee classes represented, hopefully with late-war refit configurations. Pennsylvania in her late-war guise, with the modernized secondary armament of dual 5"/38s, is my favorite of all the USN standard-type battleships.

Pennsy5.jpg&sp=a3188a38e386e409a5c18171c

And I suppose it'd make sense to put South Dakota at 8, and some paperships at 9 and 10.

--Helms

Yes, please read below and let me know what you think

30 minutes ago, DonKarnage2 said:

Oklahoma would be better at T6.

Disagree. Oklahoma never go the refits due to being sunk at Pearl and too damaged to complete in a timely fashion. She sunk after the war while being towed to the West coast for scrapping. I'd be cool with seeing her at Tier 5 as a premium in her original 1916 appearance and armament: cage masts and lots of 5" 51cal guns, only 2 x 3" and some .50cal for AA. 

21 minutes ago, thehelmsman said:

Nevada and Oklahoma are the same class and had 10 guns each, compared to the Pennsylvania, New Mexico, and Tennessee classes with 12 guns. The two biggest differences between the New Yorks and the Nevadas came in the form of the all-or-nothing armor scheme on the latter, and the consolidation of the main battery into four turrets instead of five.

--Helms

 

8 minutes ago, Lert said:

The Puget sound refit alone would be enough to bump it up a tier.

I'm re-positing my comment from one of @Lert's other threads about California as a premium (wonderful breakdown, btw, link to that thread is below all).

I think refit Nevada has a better fit at tier 6 because at least you're trading slightly worse armor / survivability (maybe not much here on armor, but less HP based on tonnage), speed (20.5 vs 21kts), and main gun armament (10 vs 12 14" rifles) for making it maybe the dominant AA ship at her tier.

Overall, I think there's potential to split the American line at Tier 6 as follows:

  • 6 - Pennsylvania class, Nevada as premium 
  • 7 - Tennessee class, California as premium 
  • 8 - 1920s South Dakota class, but this one will be very difficult to do correctly, as would a premium West Virginia

On refit vs non-refits, some work will have to be done, since the refits are all upgraded versions and it's not desirable to make one line objectively superior in every way to the others. Maybe the non-refits can be redone into the brawling line with a buff to range and rate of fire on the secondaries, the 5" 51s and 5" 25s could get some work done as the longer caliber guns zip shells into the enemy hulls and the DP guns arc them into the superstructure. I wouldn't advocate to make them German-level brawlers, but maybe they can tie for second place with the French line at fire starting. This maybe allows the refit line to be more focused on long-range AA defense.

As far as the refit Idaho, I don't know what you'd get from her that you wouldn't also get from California aside from a name. This is part of the problem with the standards all being so similar and the decision to not include the refits in the game originally as the top hulls, balancing them becomes harder against what already exists. My above split still runs into a problem of over-capability at mid tier and under-capability at higher tier.

Lert's original thread:

 

Edited by SteveStevenson
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
126
[FLS]
Alpha Tester
568 posts
2,540 battles

Nevada '44 would work as a tier 6 Prem, or possibly a tier 6 tech tree ship, trading two main battery guns for AA power, compared to NewMex and Arizona. That I can see.

Tenn/Cali '45 would work as a tier 7 tech tree ship, having the lesser caliber main battery (and thus lacking overmatch) compared to Colorado, in exchange for the AA power.

Pennsylvania is the problem child. Arizona, her sister, is already in the game as a tier 6 as she was when she was sunk, which both makes sense and compares pretty well against New Mexico without being an objectively better ship.  Penna deserves to see the light of day as she was at the end of the war, in my opinion, but you can't simply throw her in as an alternate tech tree ship in that guise, because she'll be straight up better than New Mexico. To avoid this, I'd give NewMex an optional C-hull refit, representing Idaho or Mississippi. This would keep New Mex competitive with a late-war Penna offering as the tech tree tier 6 in an alternate line.

West Virginia, in my opinion, should be represented in like fashion, as an optional C-hull for Colorado. It's too slow to be viable as a tier 8 premium, and putting it in as a tier 7 premium would make Colorado, which is already suffering from a huge amount of powercreep, completely obsolete. A WeeVee refit for Colorado would breathe a bit of life into that ship and help it maintain a niche in the current meta, while still leaving room in the other line for Tennessee.

--Helms

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31
[XBRTC]
Members
148 posts
7,416 battles
15 minutes ago, thehelmsman said:

Nevada '44 would work as a 6 Prem, or possibly a tier 6 tech tree ship, trading two main battery guns for AA power compared to compared to NewMex and Arizona. That I can see.

Tenn/Cali '45 would work as a tier 7 tech tree ship, having the lesser caliber main battery (and thus lacking overmatch) compared to Colorado, in exchange for the AA power.

Pennsylvania is the problem child. Arizona, her sister, is already in the game as a tier 6 as she was when she was sunk, which both makes sense and compares pretty well against New Mexico without being an objectively better ship.  Penna deserves to see the light of day as she was at the end of the war, in my opinion, but you can't simply throw her in as an alternate tech tree ship in that guise, because she'll be straight up better than New Mexico. To avoid this, I'd give NewMex an optional C-hull refit, representing Idaho or Mississippi. This would keep New Mex competitive with a late-war Penna offering as the tech tree tier 6 in an alternate line.

West Virginia, in my opinion, should be represented in like fashion, as an optional C-hull for Colorado. It's too slow to be viable as a tier 8 premium, and putting it in as a tier 7 premium would make Colorado, which is already suffering from a huge amount of powercreep, completely obsolete. A WeeVee refit for Colorado would breathe a bit of life into that ship and make it suffer less in the current meta, while still leaving room in the other line for Tennessee.

--Helms

Everything you've just said is spot on. That's why I think something has to be done to the existing line, and the only solution that I can figure is to make the 5" 51 secondary gun a potent fire starter (either by increasing ROF or range or both, not altering the per-shell chance) to give the non-refits an advantage over the re-fits. The Arkansas Beta is a lot of fun at tier 4 since we got her secondaries upgraded, I would say we can make that the model for how to do the non-refits.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
126
[FLS]
Alpha Tester
568 posts
2,540 battles

^ Right on. My thinking with making the C-hulls optional is that you can just skip them if you want, but that works too.

Here's what I'd do if it were up to me:

  • Pre-refit ships with 5"/51s get increased RoF or range for those guns, per SteveStevenson's suggestion.
  • Late-war Nevada as tier 6 prem.
  • Possibly Oklahoma, as sunk, as tier 5 prem. Texas will still have its AA advantage, though New York might need some help to keep it viable.
  • Late-war Miss/Idaho as an optional C-hull for New Mex.
  • Late-war Penna as alternate tech tree tier 6.
  • Late-war WV as an optional C-hull for for Colorado.
  • Late-war Tenn/Cali as alternate tech tree tier 7.
  • SoDak '20 as alternate tech tree tier 8, since we already have Mass and Bama in as premiums to represent the South Dakota class that we actually got. A doom-snail 23 knot ship with twelve 16" guns could be a lot of fun at tier 8, if occasionally frustrating to play.
  • At alternate tech tree 9 and 10... Tillman designs, maybe?


--Helms

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31
[XBRTC]
Members
148 posts
7,416 battles
Just now, thehelmsman said:

^ Right on.

Here's what I'd do if it were up to me:

Pre-refit ships with 5"/51s get increased RoF or range for those guns.
Late-war Nevada as tier 6 prem.
Miss/Idaho optional C-hull for New Mex.
Late War Penna as alternate tech tree tier 6.
WV as an optional C-hull for for Colorado.
Late war Tenn/Cali as alternate tech tree tier 7.
SoDak '20 as alternate tech tree tier 8, since we already have Mass and Bama in as premiums to represent the South Dakota class that we actually got. A doom-snail 23 knot ship with twelve 16" guns could be a lot of fun, if occasionally frustrating to play
At alternate tech tree 9 and 10... Tillman designs, maybe?

--Helms

I like it, but I'd just collapse the line back to Iowa at T9. The Tillmans were pretty nutty ships. Not to say we don't have some nutty ones in game (Okhotnik anyone?), but I don't know that we need more.

But I do like it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
126
[FLS]
Alpha Tester
568 posts
2,540 battles

Yeah, the Tillmans were real pie-in-the-sky concepts and don't fit too well into the confines of this game, I think. I guess just branch back into Iowa at that point is probably the best option.

--Helms

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31
[XBRTC]
Members
148 posts
7,416 battles
6 minutes ago, thehelmsman said:

Yeah, the Tillmans were real pie-in-the-sky concepts and don't fit too well into the confines of this game, I think. I guess just branch back into Iowa at that point is probably the best option.

--Helms

I think they were designed to be the best at something that wasn't going to be how reality was. Kind of like the fortresses built after WWI, changes and advances in tactics and technology allowed their strengths to be avoided and their weaknesses more effectively exploited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
126
[FLS]
Alpha Tester
568 posts
2,540 battles

Well, it's easy to say that in hindsight. But naval aviation was in its infancy in the 20s and didn't come into its own until the late 30s. And even then, carrier-based aircraft squadrons did not demonstrate significant threat potential until Taranto and Pearl Harbor. These were the actions that convinced naval theorists that the carriers actually could fulfill the job of primary damage-dealers, instead of big-gun ships. Carrier primacy didn't come to dominate naval thinking until after Midway. At that point, there was no doubt left in anyone's mind that aircraft carriers were the lynchpin of naval supremacy and -the- winning element of warfare on the sea.

The thought process of major naval powers in the 20s and 30s was "well, we can keep building these capital ships that may or may not be obsolete soon, while we also invest in this new and unproven form of combat ship that may or may not even work out at all." Warships, especially capital ships, are not an inexpensive investment. But for the first four decades of the 20th century, it was a question of spending the money or possibly being left behind. The latter was unconscionable to naval theorists of the day.

The Tillman battleships were more conceptual design studies to show how the naval arms race would likely pan out going forward if it kept up. Thanks to the Washington and London treaties, it didn't. Germany's H-class studies were similar; they weren't ever intended to actually be built, but were more to demonstrate, based on wartime experience, just how big and powerful such a ship would have to be in order to stand up to any known threat at that time.

--Helms

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×