Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
YamatoA150

WV Name Change & Possibilities of Alternate Ship Configurations with the Same Name

11 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,508
[AHOY_]
Beta Testers
6,497 posts
3,435 battles

While I'm sure many have already heard the news, it's been mostly buried under changes to Vanguard and Wichita. So this is to discuss the change specifically, and the possibilities this opens.

So just today, WG finally decided to walk back on their "no year dates in names" policy as well as their "no ships with identical names but alternate configurations" policy, with renaming the current WIP T6 USN BB to West Virginia '41, and plans for the late-war West Virginia '44 as a possibility later on. Full text below for those behind Anti-Fb Firewalls.

Quote

Dear players.

After the announcement of the tier VI American battleship West Virginia, we noticed that many of you would like to see this ship in a later configuration. Thank you for your feedback. We would like to inform you that the battleship, which we plan to add to the game now, will be renamed and called West Virginia ’41, and in the future we plan to create a West Virginia from a later period.

We would also like to note that the creation of a new configuration of the ship is a long process, which is largely similar to the creation of a ship from scratch. To reliably recreate the state of the ship for a certain year, we need to collect a lot of materials and evidence, work on the model, and carry it through all stages of testing. Therefore, we can not promise that West Virginia of the late period will appear in the game in the near future and ask for your patience and understanding as we work to deliver a ship that fits your expectations according to your valued feedback.

With that being said, this is a good thing, as it now opens up both Stock Hull Premiums and Final Hull Premiums for WG to double-dip into, especially in the high-paying battleship fans in general, and further, open up side-grade Premiums that won't fit neatly as a regular line ship of the same name, such as Kongou herself, with her late war AA outfit as Kongou '44 either as a T5 or a slightly buffed T6.

Of course, this does not just apply to battleships, but there's a unique sentimentality for battleships in general that most players would rather see the ships appear in their final or close to final states, rather than as downtiered stock or interwar states. We saw this with Mutsu amongst the IJN fans, and Alabama and WV to a greater extent in more recent times. Conversely, there are also those who refuse to use certain battleships just because it wasn't the actual ship they were hoping for, such as few fans of Bayern but upset that it only comes in a fictional modernization.

While I will admit I still hate the very idea of marketing downtiered Stock Hulls, at least this new path forwards allows WG to sell to the few fans of dreadnought/stock hulls. This does open up sales of predominantly IJN dreadnought hulls, but could include say, a possible dreadnought Bayern or other KM BB, as well as "as built" versions of other ships with fictional or semi-fictional modernizations that had their original dreadnought hulls omitted due to gameplay balance reasons, namely in the KM, RN, MN, and eventual VMF and RM BB lines. On the USN end, it will be interesting to see how that plays out, as there aren't as many unique dreadnought hulls for WG to really market to Collectors.

As for more immediate implications, this could hopefully end the undercurrent of WG having Anti-IJN bias with the possible renaming of the current T6 Mutsu to Mutsu '21-34 (It doesn't quite match the as built armament, and was interwar based), and the later marketing of a T7 Mutsu '43, and also a possible T9 Kii '44 or '45 if they choose to give her a more proper modernization and stats, or even T9 Musashi '42 and a later T10 Musashi '43 or '44. This also ends the need for WG to come up with fictional but realistically possible names for Dreadnought hulls while still marketing final or near final hulls of the actual sister ships. Everyone wins.


With that being said, what are some of your thoughts of possible stock (predominantly Dreadnought) Premiums, tiering, and gimmicks? What are some possible "alternate configurations" of lead ships that might now be appear as Premiums with the same name but different year dates?

 

For example, in my opinion (year date parenthesis means it's not necessary to add it to the name):

T4 Kongou '13 - More of a side-grade to Myogi, but trades range and shell quality (compared to fully upgraded Myogi) for having 2 more guns and retaining identical or better accuracy. Kongou is chosen specifically because of her British origin, so having a dreadnought hull compete against a possible British dreadnought hull rival would be fitting.

T6 Kongou '44 - Any missing HP/Armor/AA is added, and the guns simply given tighter accuracy and maybe a 28-29s reload if necessary. A sniper battlecruiser if you will.

T5 Kirishima ('42) - Literally the IJN equivalent of Texas, except to T5 Kongou itself. Simply having more AA than T5 Kongou, slightly more HP from displacement, but otherwise very similar in performance.

T6 Haruna ('45) - Given that she retains more secondaries than Kongou, but also has far more AA than would be fair (flavor-wise) for T5, she would be an ideal T6 secondary candidate. Given a 6km base secondary range, innate secondary accuracy boost (not Massachusetts levels, but one that could match if paired with the ManSec skill), and any missing HP/Armor, while retaining the same or slightly worse accuracy of T5 Kongou, and she'd be set as a good harasser.

T7 Mutsu '43 - A distinct lack of AA made up for with full maneuverability or a slightly faster reload speed or both, whether it's her historical 25s reload or a more balanced 28s reload. Depending on the degree of the CV overhaul, a 25s reload may be more fitting if her average survivability is lowered much faster by a more continuous assault. To note, I'd avoid fancy consumable gimmicks such as Reload Booster or Super Repair Party, and keep it straightforward, much like Arizona.

T10 Musashi '43 or '44 - Keep the sigma at an average 1.8 or lower it to 1.7, keep the low 72s traverse, but increase the secondary range and improve the maneuverability to be somewhat closer to historical. A fat ballerina if you will, that can dance around some DDs and other BBs and bring her guns to bear that way rather than waiting for them to turn.

T7 CAV Mogami '44 - This is under the assumption WG gets aviation cruisers/BBs to work with the new CV overhaul. I daresay she might be better off as a T6, but at T7 one could add additional consumables to make her work. Namely, adding Radar to compensate for the lack of firepower, or upgrading her torpedo reload speed and torpedo choices to include 12km Anti-Cruiser/BB/CV DWs, and 16km Anti-BB/CV DW torpedoes on top of the standard 10km torpedoes. Her planes would either serve only as controllable recon/light AA aircraft, or be able to load up some depth charges for anti-submarine duties, and very light deck strafing using guns instead of rockets, assuming use of the E13A1c floatplane for gameplay purposes.

T5 Baden ('13 or '18) - Another "big guns at a lower tier" thing, but using the actual as-built hull rather than a fictional refit. While I'm not as familiar with the design, it would have good potential for being punchy but inaccurate, and if the armor is lacking, could be given a modest secondary range boost. She'd be the historical representative of the Bayern-class as they existed and scuttled.

T8 Lyon (Alternate Design) - Swap the B turret with the superstructure, allowing 8 forward and 8 rearward, give it the Reload Booster consumable, and slightly tighten the accuracy to compensate for a lack of caliber. Alternatively, upgrade (or sidegrade) the guns and turrets to Dunkerque's 330mm guns and faster traverse, but leaving it at 30s reload, add the Reload Booster. In either iteration, improve the central armoring to 33+mm and the bow/stern to 32mm, and add the Speed Boost consumable, just so it can keep up in short sprints with faster and more modern BBs.


Again, this does NOT need to be limited to battleships. They just are the most obvious options.

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
248
[NUWES]
Members
1,664 posts
5,598 battles

 I like the idea of alternate versions of ships, I just think it will be confusing to use  the same name. I am also glad they are open to the post-Pearl version of West Virginia.

Edited by Tzarevitch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,807
[SALVO]
Members
17,098 posts
17,769 battles

Interesting stuff, @YamatoA150  But this sort of  begs the question for me.  If they want to allow for the possibility of a late WW2 version of the WV, why not just call the tier 6 version of the ship the Maryland instead?  I think that the idea to allow for the year in the name for different versions is a good one.  But it just doesn't seem necessary in this case since the Maryland would be the same ship (I think) in its pre-WW2 state.  I don't know if the model has the WV's number on it, but even if it does, how difficult can it really be to change it from 48 (the WV) to 46 (the Maryland)?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,807
[SALVO]
Members
17,098 posts
17,769 battles
5 minutes ago, Tzarevitch said:

 I like the idea of alternate versions of ships, I just think it will be confusing to use  the same name. I am also glad they are open to the post-Pearl version of West Virginia.

It could be confusing, which is why I think that they should only use it sparingly.  But I do think that allowing for the possibility *IS* a good idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,376
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
21,447 posts
3,875 battles
6 minutes ago, Tzarevitch said:

 I like the idea of alternate versions of ships, I just think it will be confusing to use  the same name. I am also glad they are open to the post-Pearl version of West Virginia.

I've long floated the idea of using fictional names for older versions of ships that didn't have enough members in the class to support something like this. Mutsu/Nagato is a prime example, there were only 2 ships. So Mutsu '32 and Mutsu '43, well that's confusing, so why not name one of them after a Japanese mountain or province.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,807
[SALVO]
Members
17,098 posts
17,769 battles
2 minutes ago, KiyoSenkan said:

I've long floated the idea of using fictional names for older versions of ships that didn't have enough members in the class to support something like this. Mutsu/Nagato is a prime example, there were only 2 ships. So Mutsu '32 and Mutsu '43, well that's confusing, so why not name one of them after a Japanese mountain or province.

Kiyo, if WG ever gets around to producing a BB based on the Number 13 class, they'll have no choice but to come up with some fictional names, or better yet reuse names from really old IJN ships, like perhaps the Satsuma or Kashima, or a number of other pre-dreadnought BBs whose names weren't used for the IJN's more modern BBs.

I'd also love to see the Tosa class get added to the game.  And yes, the Ise class, though that one's more problematical, because I'm just not sure that a BB/CV hybrid is truly viable in this game, as well as the fact that the Ise's were very similar to the Fuso's.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
248
[NUWES]
Members
1,664 posts
5,598 battles
5 minutes ago, KiyoSenkan said:

I've long floated the idea of using fictional names for older versions of ships that didn't have enough members in the class to support something like this. Mutsu/Nagato is a prime example, there were only 2 ships. So Mutsu '32 and Mutsu '43, well that's confusing, so why not name one of them after a Japanese mountain or province.

That's my feeling as well. I'm a bit worried about seeing a Maryland '21 (when she was commissioned), Maryland '41 (when she was bulged and had some refits), and Maryland '45 (after she got a full AA refit closer to West Virginia). My concern is really in-game where you could run into all of these in the same battle and have to differentiate between them using only the last couple of numbers on a placard floating above the ship. I would prefer giving them names of other ships of the class or even assigning hypothetical names. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,126
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
6,981 posts
7,530 battles

"Therefore, we can not promise that West Virginia of the late period will appear in the game in the near future"

 

That's the only part of all that which matters. This "apology" or whatever it is is nothing more than WG trying to shut people up. There's pretty much no chance a WV '44 ever shows up in game.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,508
[AHOY_]
Beta Testers
6,497 posts
3,435 battles
2 hours ago, KiyoSenkan said:

I've long floated the idea of using fictional names for older versions of ships that didn't have enough members in the class to support something like this. Mutsu/Nagato is a prime example, there were only 2 ships. So Mutsu '32 and Mutsu '43, well that's confusing, so why not name one of them after a Japanese mountain or province.

Personally, that's what would be more ideal for the IJN dreadnought hulls, but if WG would rather be somewhat stubborn, as they've proven in the recent Q&A where Octavian said there were no current plans to rename/change Mutsu, the alternative is just going with year-dates in the name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,843
[WOLF3]
[WOLF3]
Members
16,166 posts
14,583 battles

Iowa-class with Nuclear Shells when?

:Smile_hiding:

2 hours ago, Th3KrimzonD3mon said:

"Therefore, we can not promise that West Virginia of the late period will appear in the game in the near future"

 

That's the only part of all that which matters. This "apology" or whatever it is is nothing more than WG trying to shut people up. There's pretty much no chance a WV '44 ever shows up in game.

Big AA Refit WeeVee I can see getting into Tier VII, but with compromises that may be too much for people to stomach.  Tier VII WeeVee with that refit cannot exist in Tier VII because Colorado will be made 100% useless without compromise.  We can't say, "Well buff Colorado also" because Nagato and Gneisenau are there in similar state.  Tier VIII?  Way in over her head.

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
84
[BOOTY]
Beta Testers
377 posts
6,973 battles
2 hours ago, Th3KrimzonD3mon said:

"Therefore, we can not promise that West Virginia of the late period will appear in the game in the near future"

 

That's the only part of all that which matters. This "apology" or whatever it is is nothing more than WG trying to shut people up. There's pretty much no chance a WV '44 ever shows up in game.

Then why would they literally say they are planning to add it to the game? Pretty sure they are just saying not to expect it for another year or two. Do you really see them passing up the 44 refit after they've seen how many people want it?

Edited by USSWest_Virginia

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.

×