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

With all the controversy about the West Virginia how about this

19 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
326 posts
31 battles

With the near riots in the forums about the West Virginia, I suggest that a second US BB line is introduced that would feature some of the Standard US Battleships that received major refits after Pearl Harbor. You have the Nevada, Tennessee, California, and West Virginia that had major refits or reconstructions. Make them secondary brawlers and AA ships as a trade off they would give up long range accuracy. I know it is not historically accurate but an acceptable compromise. The refit and rebuilt ships were some of the most aesthetically pleasing US ships and just look modern compared to the current standard battleships with their WW1 appearance. For me having a line that can slug it out with the German BB's at close range would be a heck of a lot of fun.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
925
[WOLF9]
Members
1,104 posts
1 hour ago, Theokolese said:

With the near riots in the forums about the West Virginia, I suggest that a second US BB line is introduced that would feature some of the Standard US Battleships that received major refits after Pearl Harbor. You have the Nevada, Tennessee, California, and West Virginia that had major refits or reconstructions. Make them secondary brawlers and AA ships as a trade off they would give up long range accuracy. I know it is not historically accurate but an acceptable compromise. The refit and rebuilt ships were some of the most aesthetically pleasing US ships and just look modern compared to the current standard battleships with their WW1 appearance. For me having a line that can slug it out with the German BB's at close range would be a heck of a lot of fun.

And this will touch off a new round of rioting, as the purists decry the defilement of their sacred cows. The problem is the U.S. Navy produced a lot of battleships, and there aren't enough tiers to go around. The problem is compounded by the fact that Uncle Sam kept building waddling, 21kt manatees, apparently having never actually looked at a map of the Pacific and seeing that is it, shall we say, sizeable. War plans for the Pacific called for a decisive naval engagement in the Philippines, probably around 1963 or so, when the Walker Brigade managed to actually get there. Then the navy went a whole new direction with fast battleships. The problem in game terms is the two different styles of battleship are incompatible. WG could have easily filled out the tech tree all the way to tier ten with the sea turtles, but they would have been completely outclassed and useless.

I doubt WG wants to introduce a second American BB line, because they would much rather produce an endless string of premiums that people actually pay money for. From a business standpoint, they find it much more profitable to make players pay for that obsessive desire to have their home state's battleship, or the one their grandfather's brother's cousin's roommate served on, or whatever distinction makes one particular ship that player's Holy Grail.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,918 posts
1,365 battles

Well if WG added a premium 1942 refit nevada at like t6, id buy it.

T7 WV44 id buy that

Not to many other sea slugs interest me that much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
243
[NUWES]
Members
1,655 posts
5,562 battles
1 hour ago, Theokolese said:

With the near riots in the forums about the West Virginia, I suggest that a second US BB line is introduced that would feature some of the Standard US Battleships that received major refits after Pearl Harbor. You have the Nevada, Tennessee, California, and West Virginia that had major refits or reconstructions. Make them secondary brawlers and AA ships as a trade off they would give up long range accuracy. I know it is not historically accurate but an acceptable compromise. The refit and rebuilt ships were some of the most aesthetically pleasing US ships and just look modern compared to the current standard battleships with their WW1 appearance. For me having a line that can slug it out with the German BB's at close range would be a heck of a lot of fun.

They don't really need a second line to do this. I think that your suggestion is reasonably likely for a premium, but there really isn't enough playstyle differentiation between the standard BBs to require an entire second line. It isn't like CAs vs CLs, or BCs vs. BBs, or even Gunboat DDs vs. Torpboat DDs where the play capabilities are very different. It wouldn't surprise me if full-refit USS California showed up as a T7 premium with good secondaries, but there really isn't enough to justify a whole line of them that otherwise play the same as the main line. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,541
[WOLF2]
Beta Testers
3,866 posts
5,255 battles
38 minutes ago, KnightFandragon said:

Well if WG added a premium 1942 refit nevada at like t6, id buy it.

T7 WV44 id buy that

Not to many other sea slugs interest me that much.

Nevada should be Tier 5.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
273
[HCH]
[HCH]
Beta Testers
876 posts
7,236 battles

My idea would be that we'd have the US Standards form a sort of brawler line, being topped off with the South Dakota (planned/canceled) and one of the Tillman designs, and the second line would consist of US battle cruiser designs followed by the US fast battleships, topped off by Iowa and Montana as the current BB line is now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,918 posts
1,365 battles
Just now, Seadog_Supreme said:

LOL, whut? Do a search about Alabama when it was released to a select few.

Yeah cuz its a running theme to bone the US line in WG games when it comes to.....highly desired or popular vehicles.


Wot, I recall alot of clamour for the M60, it ends up a t10 clan reward, same for the T95E series tanks.

Then they were going to try the same thing with AL, hinting at ST status for a ship tons of people wanted, and were not going to even let WG pretend to pull that [edited].

Same with WV44, its been a highly sought after ship and come time for its release, it comes in a boned pitiful t6 in its trashy sunk at pearl form.

Me personally, I support the riots cuz im tired of the craptreatment US lines get and im tired of all the ships in wows only getting their garbage builds when better ones ate available.

Cry about op or whatever, they can be made to fit if WG puts forth the effort.  All this about WV being op, so you nerf her AA instead of MB.  Even mild nerfs to her AAA will still leave it incredible, its basicall t8, so a 30 point nerf and maybe mild range nerfs wouldnt hurt but would allow it to remain in t7.  Not up tiered where it will get trashed, nor t6 where its just pathetic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
309
[KRAB]
Members
615 posts
6,029 battles

I thought the upgraded Colorado was supposed to be the 1944 configuration for the hull.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
326 posts
31 battles
3 minutes ago, KnightFandragon said:

Yeah cuz its a running theme to bone the US line in WG games when it comes to.....highly desired or popular vehicles.


Wot, I recall alot of clamour for the M60, it ends up a t10 clan reward, same for the T95E series tanks.

Then they were going to try the same thing with AL, hinting at ST status for a ship tons of people wanted, and were not going to even let WG pretend to pull that [edited].

Same with WV44, its been a highly sought after ship and come time for its release, it comes in a boned pitiful t6 in its trashy sunk at pearl form.

Me personally, I support the riots cuz im tired of the craptreatment US lines get and im tired of all the ships in wows only getting their garbage builds when better ones ate available.

Cry about op or whatever, they can be made to fit if WG puts forth the effort.  All this about WV being op, so you nerf her AA instead of MB.  Even mild nerfs to her AAA will still leave it incredible, its basicall t8, so a 30 point nerf and maybe mild range nerfs wouldnt hurt but would allow it to remain in t7.  Not up tiered where it will get trashed, nor t6 where its just pathetic.

It is funny that the two dominant naval powers of WW2 and Japan have the weakest lines. The fact that Russia is even represented in a Naval combat game alone is pretty hilarious. It is typical though, they have to present military hardware from the 60's and 70's to compete with ships from the 30's and 40's.  

  • Cool 2
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
420
[NATO]
Beta Testers
1,774 posts
5,809 battles

There is a definite need for a second line of US BB's and they dont need to be significantly different in play style, just different. There could even be a case made for a second line of CV's which would include a Yorktown at T8 and Wasp at T7 however with the rework apparently eliminating the need for different types of CV's Im not sure why WG would.

The IJN could have a second line of cruisers, the Ise as a premium BB, the UK a second line of cruisers and possibly 2 lines of CV's (but again, why would they).

IMO WG is limiting/risking the life expectancy of the game by pounding out premiums instead of improving the content

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,866 posts
10 minutes ago, Theokolese said:

It is funny that the two dominant naval powers of WW2 and Japan have the weakest lines. The fact that Russia is even represented in a Naval combat game alone is pretty hilarious. It is typical though, they have to present military hardware from the 60's and 70's to compete with ships from the 30's and 40's.  

 

gulag.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
396
[TF_34]
[TF_34]
Members
1,138 posts
6,777 battles

Give me a refit Nevada at T6 with Mass style secondaries, I'm there all day. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,918 posts
1,365 battles
4 minutes ago, Gen_Saris said:

Give me a refit Nevada at T6 with Mass style secondaries, I'm there all day. 

Same, I dont even need the 11km, ill take the 7.2km with the better acc and 15 rpm base rof.

Give me that on all my usn ships and im good.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
196
[SVF]
Members
944 posts
1,286 battles
10 minutes ago, Gen_Saris said:

Give me a refit Nevada at T6 with Mass style secondaries, I'm there all day. 

She would be on the lower end of the HP range at T6, call it around 49k-50k HP, in her end-war state.  That said, she'd still do well at T6 imo due to the combination the AoN armor scheme with 343mm belt and potent AA suite and secondary batteries for that tier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,918 posts
1,365 battles
26 minutes ago, landcollector said:

She would be on the lower end of the HP range at T6, call it around 49k-50k HP, in her end-war state.  That said, she'd still do well at T6 imo due to the combination the AoN armor scheme with 343mm belt and potent AA suite and secondary batteries for that tier.

She would be a perfect candidate for T6, 2 sigma, brawler secondary ship, given she only has 10 guns vs NM and AZ 12.  Improved secondaries to make up for the loss of guns.

Would be a fun ship.  Short, squat little thing flinging accurate 14 inch shells and tearin it up with accurate secondary fire.  Literally my wet dream USN ship.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,104
[WUDPS]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
4,838 posts
4,729 battles

You could easily do two lines.

Florida (4) Nevada (5) Pennsylvania (6) Tennessee (7) South Dakota (8) Fantasy BB (9) Fantasy BB (10)

Tier 5 on will have the post pearl refits.....add in California and the 1920 South Dakota as premiums. Make this a line based on the Mass, brawlers. 

  • Cool 2

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.

×