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

Do you prefer "Battlecruisers" or Subs for next ships type?

Do you prefer "Battlecruisers" or Subs for next ships type?  

100 members have voted

  1. 1. What do you prefer for NEXT ship type?

    • Battlecruisers ! British - Indefatigable-Princess Royal-Tiger-Renown-Admiral-J3-G3-K3 (or equivalent paper designs) German - Von der Tann-Moltke-Derfflinger-Mackensen-Ersatz Yorck-?-?-? (as suggested by mofton)
      61
    • Subs !
      26
    • CVs wrapped in Bacon.
      12

51 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

159
[-S-R-]
Alpha Tester
788 posts
7,697 battles

Lets find out if forum user prefer having for NEXT ship type "Battle cruisers" or  "Subs". Please don't argue about definition of Battle cruisers

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,123
[WOLF1]
[WOLF1]
Beta Testers
6,427 posts
9,554 battles

Why both of course.

  • Cool 3
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,463
[-Y-]
Alpha Tester
4,815 posts
7,100 battles

i voted for battlecruisers obviously, but I will be happy to see subs in game too. Actually, subs would also be a great argument for abandoning the rework, because we'll need multiple squadrons to spot and track submarines. (I am dreaming..)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
24 posts
569 battles

I mean, I always thought the Kongo was more battle cruiser than battleship.  I feel like there are slow BBs (looking at you, USN), faster BBS, very fast CAs, and moderate speed CAs.

That bridges the gap enough for me for the play style.  How many more ships can you wedge in there before the lines are blurred with knots and armor and caliber of main batteries?


I'll take subs ... "Now for something completely different," you know?

Edited by Rear_Ensign_King

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,231
[WOLF3]
Members
6,466 posts
2,414 battles

There is a right way and a meh way to do such a poll.  Done right, it might get more than six votes:

  1. Battle cruisers
  2. Subs
  3. Both
  4. Neither
  5. Bacon

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
444
[INTEL]
Beta Testers
1,603 posts
4,032 battles

They're already in the game.  Graf Spee, Hood, Kronshtadt, Kongo (mentioned above) and Scharnhorst (was called a battlecruiser, I think?) to name a few.  Alaska soon to come.

Could they use their own type?  Maybe?  They could also split light and heavy cruiser branches.  I'm not sure that either change would be an improvement, but I'm not sure either would be a bad thing...

My point is, not having a specific type to cover battlecruisers hasn't stopped them from being added to the game already.  Having more discrete ship types doesn't automatically mean being able to add more ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,224
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
15,665 posts
9,071 battles

I voted for BC's and with the insane balancing issues that are guaranteed with subs we may see the BC's in randoms first. Things like how will ships without ASW weapons attack submerged subs. I hear the proponents  getting ready to scream that is what the DD's are for but what happens when a team has no DD's?

16 minutes ago, iDuckman said:

There is a right way and a meh way to do such a poll.  Done right, it might get more than six votes:

  1. Battle cruisers
  2. Subs
  3. Both
  4. Neither
  5. Bacon

 

Yeah, the OP's poll shows a lot of bias.

2 minutes ago, Slumlord_Cheeto said:

So many people that left the game wanted subs, subs will bring people back to the game. 

You wouldn't have any proof by any chance would you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31
[AK]
[AK]
Members
422 posts
22,408 battles
1 minute ago, BrushWolf said:

I voted for BC's and with the insane balancing issues that are guaranteed with subs we may see the BC's in randoms first. Things like how will ships without ASW weapons attack submerged subs. I hear the proponents  getting ready to scream that is what the DD's are for but what happens when a team has no DD's?

Yeah, the OP's poll shows a lot of bias.

You wouldn't have any proof by any chance would you?

https://www.facebook.com/notes/world-of-warships-development-blog/submarines/2188157858177216/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,224
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
15,665 posts
9,071 battles
4 minutes ago, Submarine_M1 said:

That is really about subs in scenarios and it didn't even touch on that elephant in the room question on how will ships without ASW deal with submerged subs?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,231
[WOLF3]
Members
6,466 posts
2,414 battles
Quote

Several torpedo models can be carried by the same submarine simultaneously.

So they can carry anti-ship torps, or wheeled torps that can drive up on the beach and kill trucks?  Or TNT** ? 

 

** Tactical Nuclear Torpedo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
121
[SRPH]
[SRPH]
Members
505 posts
1,037 battles

Looks like not even the mighty Bacon can save CV's in this poll...:cap_haloween:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,231
[WOLF3]
Members
6,466 posts
2,414 battles
1 minute ago, Bonfor said:

Looks like not even the mighty Bacon can save CV's in this poll...:cap_haloween:

Only cuz we can't change our votes.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,815 posts
808 battles
8 minutes ago, BrushWolf said:

That is really about subs in scenarios and it didn't even touch on that elephant in the room question on how will ships without ASW deal with submerged subs?

^^^^^^

While it has been amusing (forum wise), we are a long ways from random game play.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
432
[FAE]
Members
2,161 posts
2,639 battles

Battlecruisers are silly in wows. All they are are faster BBs. There's no real change in gameplay. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,828
[WOLF3]
[WOLF3]
Members
16,150 posts
14,555 battles

Don't know why you included CVs in the poll.  Because CVs are already in the game and their Revamp is underway already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,224
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
15,665 posts
9,071 battles
3 minutes ago, DrHolmes52 said:

^^^^^^

While it has been amusing (forum wise), we are a long ways from random game play.

 

Yeah and I have doubts they will ever get them balanced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
5,336 posts
3,956 battles

I thought we already had battlecruisers.  The Kongos and Scharnhorsts are arguable, but Hood is a battlecruiser.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,789
Members
9,976 posts
1 hour ago, DudeWhereIsMyTank said:

Lets find out if forum user prefer having for NEXT ship type "Battle cruisers" or  "Subs". Please don't argue about definition of Battle cruisers

 

WG just stated that forum feedback is ignored....but good luck with your campaign....:Smile_teethhappy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
99
[SOUTH]
Members
242 posts
2,440 battles
10 minutes ago, Battlecruiser_Yavuz said:

I thought we already had battlecruisers.  The Kongos and Scharnhorsts are arguable, but Hood is a battlecruiser.

Battlecruiser has no definition.

Hood was a more powerful combatant than Kongo or Scharnhorst. Or even Queen Elizabeth, it's full fledged 'slow battleship' contemporary.

Invincible has no design relation whatsoever to the later Tigers and Kongo-like ships. 

Lexington BC is not like Scharnhorst in the least, or Dunkquerue.

Courageous is unlike any of the above despite being a fast lightly armored capital ship with super guns.

Alaska/Kron/A150 are likewise unlike all of the above

---

Basically, Battlecruiser has no place in the in-game designation that isn't already in cruiser or BB categories as alternate lines.

Edited by Neph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51
[SCREW]
Members
118 posts
6,764 battles

We already have battle cruisers in the game. The Kongo, Hood, Gneisenau, Scharnhorst, these are all battle cruisers. We don't need another subsection of ships, and we certainly don't need more invisible torpedo boats, so subs are not happening. This post is a moot point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
404
[WOLF5]
Members
1,538 posts
2,143 battles

BCs, (or CBs) first. Just add the ships. Not that hard, the Alaska is coming soon.

Subs are a completely new ballgame, so they can (and are) come later.

 

Funny that yesterday you would have been getting torched for suggesting adding subs, today it's just normal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
248
[NUWES]
Members
1,661 posts
5,587 battles

I suspect the question of preference won't matter. I don't think they would be able to put the submarines into effect in under a year assuming everything goes very well. Hood is out, Kongo is out, Eitel Friedrich is waiting in the wings and I expect other BCs to appear long before they get sub play worked out. They aren't going to wait on production of other things while they get subs working. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×