Jump to content
Binktor

HMS Nelson Removal?

12 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

4
[BB-63]
Members
22 posts
1,523 battles

I Recently got the HMS Nelson free exp ship for the British. I wonder if wargaming are/is going to remove it from the tech tree? the reason for this concern is that the fact that every other free Exp ship in the game or T9 or T10. Examples Missouri, Musashi, Kronstadt, and the upcoming Alaska or the reward ships. the Nelson is 375k free exp and the others are 750k and if you use gold will cost 120+dollars. I wonder if the dev want to make the T9 free exp the standard for the tech tree lines, and if so the Nelson is the odd duck in the plan. The dev's have shown in the past that they'll remove ships that do not fit what they believe is the plan for the line, i.e the Missouri.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,268
[RKLES]
Members
7,195 posts
8,940 battles

Missouri has Radar and made insanely good Credits, that was what they felt was not fitting into the game. So they removed it from the tech tree. They may or may not bring back Missouri, but I would be surprised if they got rid of any of the ships like Nelson.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
245
[HC]
[HC]
Beta Testers
1,344 posts
9,536 battles
1 hour ago, Admiral_Thrawn_1 said:

Missouri has Radar and made insanely good Credits, that was what they felt was not fitting into the game. So they removed it from the tech tree. They may or may not bring back Missouri, but I would be surprised if they got rid of any of the ships like Nelson.

I suspect we will never see Missouri again, but one or both of the other Iowa sisters with radar and standard tier 9 premium credit earning might make an appearance.

The only reason they would pull Nelson would be to rotate stock, and I haven'd heard anything crazy about her, so she'd eventually return.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,268
[RKLES]
Members
7,195 posts
8,940 battles
1 hour ago, SgtBeltfed said:

I suspect we will never see Missouri again, but one or both of the other Iowa sisters with radar and standard tier 9 premium credit earning might make an appearance.

The only reason they would pull Nelson would be to rotate stock, and I haven'd heard anything crazy about her, so she'd eventually return.

I actually think Alaska may be considered by Wargaming to be the Missouri replacement. Alaska in real life was almost the size and almost the capabilities of the Iowa class BBs, but fell short of Iowa in every category so Alaska class was scrapped after WWII because they would have been about the same cost to maintain as Iowa so that was bad for Alaska. From what I have seen of Alaska in game it seems to be falling into same category as real life version.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
245
[HC]
[HC]
Beta Testers
1,344 posts
9,536 battles
32 minutes ago, Admiral_Thrawn_1 said:

I actually think Alaska may be considered by Wargaming to be the Missouri replacement. Alaska in real life was almost the size and almost the capabilities of the Iowa class BBs, but fell short of Iowa in every category so Alaska class was scrapped after WWII because they would have been about the same cost to maintain as Iowa so that was bad for Alaska. From what I have seen of Alaska in game it seems to be falling into same category as real life version.

Alaska is more the alternate "Giant Cruiser" to the Kronshtadt than a replacement to the Missouri. As a free XP ship, Musashi replaced Missouri, but if WG wants to rotate stock, they're gonna need another tier 9 BB, and the other Iowa's are low hanging fruit there being that the Missouri wasn't OP in actual match, it was the over the top credit earning.

In real life, the reason they sat in mothballs until being scrapped in the early 60's was they were no more useful than a Baltimore, but were massive and costly to operate. The US Navy never saw them was capital ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4
[BB-63]
Members
22 posts
1,523 battles

I agree about the Missouri and Alaska, but the Nelson is the only free exp ship not t9 or higher. it would make sense if the dev's would replace it in the british tree with a t9 bb or cruiser(I.E Battle Crusier) like the HMS Royal Soveriegn, or HMS Repulse. Maybe they will go a different route but if they didn't they would have to remove the Nelson to do so after all they would not allow 2 free exp ships in the same tree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
390
[TF_34]
[TF_34]
Members
1,129 posts
6,772 battles
20 hours ago, Binktor said:

I agree about the Missouri and Alaska, but the Nelson is the only free exp ship not t9 or higher. it would make sense if the dev's would replace it in the british tree with a t9 bb or cruiser(I.E Battle Crusier) like the HMS Royal Soveriegn, or HMS Repulse.

I suspect we will see actual battlecruiser lines for both the British & German navies in the future, they both certainly had enough classes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
281
[-B-Z-]
Alpha Tester
715 posts
2,661 battles

I doubt we will see the removal of the Nelson anytime soon. Right now it's the only tier 7 and at 375K FXP, it's a good alternative for players who want something quicker than waiting to build up 750K. Since it is a good but balanced ship, i doubt we will see it removed anytime soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4
[BB-63]
Members
22 posts
1,523 battles
55 minutes ago, Gen_Saris said:

I suspect we will see actual battlecruiser lines for both the British & German navies in the future, they both certainly had enough classes. 

they already have implemented battlecruisers into the game, the HMS Hood an Admiralty class Battlecruiser is in the game as a T7 BB, the Scharnhorst and Gniesen are t7 BB's as well as Graff Spee which is a t6 cruiser, the Alaska is coming and will be listed as a t9 Cruiser, the Stalingrad and Kronstadt As well as the legendary Battleship Moskva are all listed as t10 Cruisers. the point is if the dev's decide to implement battlecruisers into the game as there own line's there are many classes to choose from for the Brits and Germans true, but the concept of the battlecruiser was not as popular with other naval powers after the battle of Jutland. they would also have rearrange the tech trees to accomidate the changes and if they add sub's into the trees then there will be 5 lines to fill out.      

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,958
[ARGSY]
Members
6,248 posts
4,207 battles
On 10/1/2018 at 1:26 AM, SgtBeltfed said:

Alaska is more the alternate "Giant Cruiser" to the Kronshtadt than a replacement to the Missouri. As a free XP ship, Musashi replaced Missouri, but if WG wants to rotate stock, they're gonna need another tier 9 BB, and the other Iowa's are low hanging fruit there being that the Missouri wasn't OP in actual match, it was the over the top credit earning.

In real life, the reason they sat in mothballs until being scrapped in the early 60's was they were no more useful than a Baltimore, but were massive and costly to operate. The US Navy never saw them was capital ships.

Given their size, I am surprised they were never considered for missile conversion. IIRC the big problem with many of the converted Baltimores and Clevelands (especially the Talos Clevelands) was topweight overcrowding; you'd think an Alaska hull would be an easier fit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
245
[HC]
[HC]
Beta Testers
1,344 posts
9,536 battles
7 hours ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

Given their size, I am surprised they were never considered for missile conversion. IIRC the big problem with many of the converted Baltimores and Clevelands (especially the Talos Clevelands) was topweight overcrowding; you'd think an Alaska hull would be an easier fit.

The Hawaii actually was considered, I don't know why it wasn't carried out, I suspect the operating costs being somewhere around an Essex and lack of spare parts might have been an issue. The Baltimores and Clevelands had a lot of ships in mothballs that could be stripped for parts. The Alaska's shared machinery with the Essex's, so I suspect they were stripped for parts to support the carriers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×