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

Which are we most likely to see an Ijn BB split or a Usn Bb split?

22 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Beta Testers
1,330 posts
3,591 battles

I have seen posts on both topics now I find it would be good to discuss what would be ideal first. So let’s have some fun speculation which is coming first let’s say late 2019 or early 2020. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
358
[CUTER]
[CUTER]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
1,621 posts
8,903 battles

WG said at one point they could do something like 3 USN BB lines at somepoint. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,819
[SALVO]
Members
17,111 posts
17,776 battles

I don't think that there are enough IJN BBs to do a line split without using some truly fictional designs.

At tier 6, there'd be the Ise, which was built, of course.

At tier 8 (probably), there'd be the Tosa, which was real and ordered, but cancelled due to the Washington Naval Treaty. 

At tier 9, there'd be the "Number 13" class battleship, a BB design intended to follow the Kii class.  See: Number 13 class BB

At who knows what tier, there could be the "Design B-65" cruisers, which were essentially battlecruisers.  See: Design B-65 Cruiser  I'm not sure what they'd do with the B-65.  It could be a tier 9 FXP cruiser, similar to the Kronstadt. It is, after all, armed with 9 12.2" guns, so that doesn't seem unreasonable.  Of course, that leave it outside of an IJN BB line split, but it was still worth mentioning.

Beyond that, any other historical designs are less well known (at least to me).  Or we're looking at purely fictional stuff.

 

OTOH, the USN could do a second BB line without much trouble.  It might start getting a little dodgy at tiers 9 and 10.  But the devs could certainly have 100% built in steel BBs from tier 3 up to tier 8 without any trouble.

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,640 posts
7,482 battles
12 minutes ago, Crucis said:

I don't think that there are enough IJN BBs to do a line split without using some truly fictional designs..

That's the last on the list, if its even on there, for reasons to prevent it. I don't think theres a line ingame without some sort of fictional design in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
280
[PVE]
[PVE]
Members
1,238 posts
4,807 battles
6 minutes ago, Crucis said:

don't think that there are enough IJN BBs to do a line split without using some truly fictional designs.

Most of the famed hallmarks of the line are already in game. While Ise and Tosa are real possibilities any more paper ships would be a bit of a waste IMO.

As for USN sure there's lots of options but only at low to mid tiers which may or may not garner real interest at this point. As for upper tiers seems like we're talking class sister premium clones like Mass or Washington although a secondary brawler Washington would be interesting indeed..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,819
[SALVO]
Members
17,111 posts
17,776 battles
1 minute ago, Jim_Byrnes said:

Most of the famed hallmarks of the line are already in game. While Ise and Tosa are real possibilities any more paper ships would be a bit of a waste IMO.

As for USN sure there's lots of options but only at low to mid tiers which may or may not garner real interest at this point. As for upper tiers seems like we're talking class sister premium clones like Mass or Washington although a secondary brawler Washington would be interesting indeed..

Depends on what you're calling a mid tier.  I'd think that the early 20's USN Lexington class and South Dakota classes would be very interesting.  The SD would be a tricky class to tier, because she seems too strong for tier 7.  But tier 8 would already have the late 30's South Dakota class.  The 20's SD class is sort of like a slow Montana, due to its 4x3 16" guns.

And I think that there'd be at least some interest in the T5 Nevada, the T6 Pennsylvania, and the (probably) T7 Tennessee class BBs.  Obviously less so for tiers 3 and 4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,093
[DAKI]
WoWS Wiki Editor
7,328 posts
6,609 battles
30 minutes ago, Akeno017 said:

That's the last on the list, if its even on there, for reasons to prevent it. I don't think theres a line ingame without some sort of fictional design in it.

At the moment we have the two Japanese Destroyer lines and the American carrier line which in General does not have a single fictional/paper (there is a difference between fiction and paper) ship in them. Although the Japanese Destroyers do have some really questionable AA, like Shiratsuyu with her absurd four twin 25mm guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
304
[KNTAI]
[KNTAI]
Members
1,152 posts
6,037 battles
46 minutes ago, Crucis said:

And I think that there'd be at least some interest in the T5 Nevada, the T6 Pennsylvania, and the (probably) T7 Tennessee class BBs.  Obviously less so for tiers 3 and 4.

T3: Delaware Class (BB-28 & 29)
T4: Florida Class (BB-30 & 31)

I'd like to play those, if just for completeness sake. :cap_viking::fish_viking::Smile_playing:

Edited by Cruiser_SanJuan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
902
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
3,463 posts
8,131 battles
40 minutes ago, Crucis said:

Depends on what you're calling a mid tier.  I'd think that the early 20's USN Lexington class and South Dakota classes would be very interesting.  The SD would be a tricky class to tier, because she seems too strong for tier 7.  But tier 8 would already have the late 30's South Dakota class.  The 20's SD class is sort of like a slow Montana, due to its 4x3 16" guns.

And I think that there'd be at least some interest in the T5 Nevada, the T6 Pennsylvania, and the (probably) T7 Tennessee class BBs.  Obviously less so for tiers 3 and 4.

For SD you have to look further down the line than her as designed stats. As built, 4 16 inch guns of a heavier design than what went on Iowa, NC, etc. That could easily hurt traverse and ship speed, albeit, it's not impossible down the road they may have opted to replace those main batteries with the lighter model. 16 single mount 6" anti-ship guns and 4 3" DP guns, likely replaced in the 30's or later by 5 in DP guns in twin mounts, likely 8-10 of them for 16-20 guns, unless perhaps they kept some 6 inch guns/a new type. Obviously in there like most other ships, they would add 20 and 40 mm AA guns, unknown numbers. New machinery, possible weight savings in areas and turret replacement if it is lighter could actually increase her speed to mid/upper 20's. Fire control, radars, etc as well. Taking possible changes over the ships lifetime it could well exceed tier 8 and be a tier 9, coming after the built 1939 SD class. 

Also, partially due to the rebuilding, it's hard for me to say PA would be tier 6 and not be possibly a tier 7 option. Armour is similar, weapons, speed, etc other than Pennsylvania has 10 more 20 mm guns, which give Tenn and Penn double the 5" DP's, 2 quad 40 mm guns, and 4 and 14 respectively more AA guns than Colorado. Much as Arizona is already in game, between altered armament, possibly armour (getting mixed info on that), removing the rear tripod mast, etc, Arizona to Pennsylvania could be as Mutsu to Nagato in game. And as slow as Arizona is, it takes a hell of a beating. Not sure how exactly the new USn "brawler" plays, but I could definitely see the shapings of a line of maybe a bit slower (least till maybe the upper tiers) brawlers that are basically kinda like the Maus in tanks (or at least as it was last I played it) - thick walls of steel that just absorb punishment. And, can't believe I'm saying this as a CV player, maybe because they are slower and what not, maybe, where as USN currently is kinda equal with UK, this line actually goes that bit heavier on AA per tier and is the real AA king, with solid secondaries/dp guns that sorta and just slowly pushes through the enemy team. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,640 posts
7,482 battles
2 hours ago, SireneRacker said:

At the moment we have the two Japanese Destroyer lines and the American carrier line which in General does not have a single fictional/paper (there is a difference between fiction and paper) ship in them. Although the Japanese Destroyers do have some really questionable AA, like Shiratsuyu with her absurd four twin 25mm guns.

DAMN. I forgot about the US CVs. Completely ignorant of the IJN DDs myself tbh, but harugumo certainly wasn't built so it'll lose its hallowed status soon. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
46 posts
4,282 battles

I like adding new ships and lines.  A IJN and US BB split would be great, where the trouble begins is when WG tries to always take the line to T10.  Then they get a lot of fiction mixed in.  Why not stop at T7 or T8?  For example the RN and KM could have really fun Battle cruiser lines until T6 or T7.  Although after those tiers the lines become filled with paper ships.  Why not have these splits end when they run out of actual ships?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17
[D-H-O]
[D-H-O]
Beta Testers
85 posts
3,859 battles
On 7/22/2018 at 9:39 AM, landedkiller said:

I have seen posts on both topics now I find it would be good to discuss what would be ideal first. So let’s have some fun speculation which is coming first let’s say late 2019 or early 2020. 

I think the 2 BB lines that could be logically split and have real steel on water would be the USN and RN rather than the IJN. RN could very easily have a battlecruiser line.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54
[MOH]
Members
243 posts
1,273 battles
4 hours ago, Aratnomis said:

I think the 2 BB lines that could be logically split and have real steel on water would be the USN and RN rather than the IJN. RN could very easily have a battlecruiser line.

I agree.  Japanese designers tended to focus more on heavy firepower and speed, and so most of their designs emphasized those two more-so at the expense of armor protection.  The USN and RN tended to favor heavy armor and firepower for their battleship designs, but also designed battlecruisers, too.  So, at least they have something to work with.

From a gaming playstyle and design perspective, any split would have to signify a difference in playstyles.  My issue with making ships like the Florida, Nevada, Pennsylvania, etc a separate ship line is that, well, at their core they're the same exact ships to what's already present, and they don't really offer any difference in playstyles compared to the present USN BB's.  Fans would love it, as I would too, but it doesn't add any value to the game play.  Additionally, the current USN BB sees an upgrade gun with every new tier (sans the T10 Montana and T6 Arizona).

For any split to be interesting and add value to the game, you'd have to break it down into playstyles.  And, since there is a lot of history behind battleship design and actual ships put into the water, it actually makes it easy to break down:

  1. Battleship Tree #1 - Dreadnoughts that transition into South Dakota and Tillman designs as if the 1922 Washington Treaty never happened
  2. Battleship Tree #2 - Battlecruisers that transition into Fast-Battleships at the high tiers that we already see in the game

And you can paper that out:

Dreadnought Tree #1 - Very slow, tight tactical turn radius, very heavy armor and armament, more emphasis on brawling capabilities, poorer concealment and AA

  • T6 - USS New Mexico or USS Arizona
  • T7 - USS Colorado
  • T8 - USS South Dakota 1920
  • T9 - Modified Tillman design
  • T10 - Modified Tillman design

Battlecruiser/Fast-Battleship Tree #2 - Fast, poor tactical turning radius, good bow armor and excellent gunnery, very good AA, great concealment, and more balanced designs that we already see in-game

  • T6 - USS Lexington 1916 design (14" guns)
  • T7 - USS Lexington 1919 design (16" guns)
  • T8 - USS North Carolina
  • T9 - USS Iowa
  • T10 - USS Montana

It would require a little bit of creative licensing, but it provides two different playstyles for players to choose from.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30
[RED2]
Members
114 posts
6,635 battles

The only real ships from the IJN BB line that are not in the game are the Tosa and Ise classes. both are extremely similar to ships already included in the line, Nagato and Fuso receptively. We alreayd have a lot of Japan's paper designs as premiums so i really think there will only be one IJN BB line. The USN has several more unused completed ships with several more unfinished and paper designs on standby. So USN definitely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,330 posts
3,591 battles
On 7/26/2018 at 11:40 AM, Aratnomis said:

I think the 2 BB lines that could be logically split and have real steel on water would be the USN and RN rather than the IJN. RN could very easily have a battlecruiser line.

Revenge class I am looking forward to seeing when it comes.

 

On 7/26/2018 at 4:51 PM, Ranari said:

I agree.  Japanese designers tended to focus more on heavy firepower and speed, and so most of their designs emphasized those two more-so at the expense of armor protection.  The USN and RN tended to favor heavy armor and firepower for their battleship designs, but also designed battlecruisers, too.  So, at least they have something to work with.

From a gaming playstyle and design perspective, any split would have to signify a difference in playstyles.  My issue with making ships like the Florida, Nevada, Pennsylvania, etc a separate ship line is that, well, at their core they're the same exact ships to what's already present, and they don't really offer any difference in playstyles compared to the present USN BB's.  Fans would love it, as I would too, but it doesn't add any value to the game play.  Additionally, the current USN BB sees an upgrade gun with every new tier (sans the T10 Montana and T6 Arizona).

For any split to be interesting and add value to the game, you'd have to break it down into playstyles.  And, since there is a lot of history behind battleship design and actual ships put into the water, it actually makes it easy to break down:

  1. Battleship Tree #1 - Dreadnoughts that transition into South Dakota and Tillman designs as if the 1922 Washington Treaty never happened
  2. Battleship Tree #2 - Battlecruisers that transition into Fast-Battleships at the high tiers that we already see in the game

And you can paper that out:

Dreadnought Tree #1 - Very slow, tight tactical turn radius, very heavy armor and armament, more emphasis on brawling capabilities, poorer concealment and AA

  • T6 - USS New Mexico or USS Arizona
  • T7 - USS Colorado
  • T8 - USS South Dakota 1920
  • T9 - Modified Tillman design
  • T10 - Modified Tillman design

Battlecruiser/Fast-Battleship Tree #2 - Fast, poor tactical turning radius, good bow armor and excellent gunnery, very good AA, great concealment, and more balanced designs that we already see in-game

  • T6 - USS Lexington 1916 design (14" guns)
  • T7 - USS Lexington 1919 design (16" guns)
  • T8 - USS North Carolina
  • T9 - USS Iowa
  • T10 - USS Montana

It would require a little bit of creative licensing, but it provides two different playstyles for players to choose from.

A nice detailed post now I think what this thread is missing is pictures or diagrams of the designs. A good discussion nevertheless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
0
[FLNVY]
Members
2 posts
2,976 battles
On ‎7‎/‎29‎/‎2018 at 10:20 AM, landedkiller said:

Revenge class I am looking forward to seeing when it comes.

 

A nice detailed post now I think what this thread is missing is pictures or diagrams of the designs. A good discussion nevertheless.

Revenge class would end up being a poor man's QE- slower, higher citadel, less deck armor. You might be able to do something with the super charges for the main guns- but it would prob have to be some kind of lower tier brawler- which might be a lot of fun. IMO, Renown Battlecruisers would be the more interesting class to see developed... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54
[MOH]
Members
243 posts
1,273 battles

You could definitely make a case for a second line of some sort for the Royal Navy.  They produced a number of battlecruisers that could function as a second battleship line, culminating with the G3 and N3 designs at T9 and T10, respectively.  Those would have been monsters.

I mean take the Nelson, give it 3x3 457mm guns, much thicker armor, retcon the propulsion to something more akin to the 1940's, and give it the Conqueror's AA bubble.  You've got yourself an N3. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30
[--1--]
Members
186 posts
2,682 battles
On 7/22/2018 at 11:25 AM, Akeno017 said:

That's the last on the list, if its even on there, for reasons to prevent it. I don't think theres a line ingame without some sort of fictional design in it.

British destroyers, USN destroyers, IJN torpedo boat destroyers, USN aircraft carriers.

Edited by Iron_Salvo921

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
764
[ARS]
Beta Testers
2,253 posts
1,860 battles
23 hours ago, Iron_Salvo921 said:

British destroyers, USN destroyers, IJN torpedo boat destroyers, USN aircraft carriers.

Tier V USN DD Nicholas was not a real ship.  The real USS Nicholas was a Clemson class DD that was wrecked in 1923.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30
[--1--]
Members
186 posts
2,682 battles
23 hours ago, Helstrem said:

Tier V USN DD Nicholas was not a real ship.  The real USS Nicholas was a Clemson class DD that was wrecked in 1923.

Oh yeah I forgot about Nicholas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,847
[WOLF3]
[WOLF3]
Members
16,175 posts
14,605 battles

I don't see either a USN or IJN BB split happening in the next year or two.  There's lots more ship lines (Italian & RU BBs, Italian Cruisers, RN CVs), CV Revamp, the addition and refinement of Submarines occurring.  Premium Ships?  Yes, Premium BBs are always a safe bet to happen, but a USN / IJN BB split, nah.

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway

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.

×