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

Solving the 1944/45 WV Issue + T7 Premium USN BB Proposal

57 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,305
[PNG]
WoWS Community Contributors
1,027 posts
6,125 battles

 

They did change the name of the West Virginia to West Virginia 41...but the one we all want...well it still doesn't fit anywhere but tier 7...so maybe this could be the solution? Although I think a 14" NC is actually a better T7 premium ship

What are your thoughts?

  • Cool 5
  • Bad 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
202
[SVF]
Members
954 posts
1,289 battles

Hm, putting aside the issue of WeeVee, which I would welcome at either T7 or T8, something that may be an issue with the Scheme 16 design for a proto-NC is the turret arrangement.  It looks as though B turret is not superfiring, which means just 4 guns available bow-in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
459
[BOTES]
Members
1,919 posts
6,658 battles

I just don't want WG to go the WoT route and release the same premium tank with minor variations and make you pay for both versions. If there are multiple distinct versions of a ship, the premium should let you select hulls and other characteristics just like you can already do on certain premium CVs, Monaghan, and Harekaze. If the ship is so dramatically different that changing these characteristics would move the ship up or down a tier, make more dual premium purchases like what you did with Boise and Nueve de Julio.

Ex. sometimes I want to play Nagato, but I don't want to retrain my Yamato captain just to play it. That's why I have Mutsu, but then I'm forced into a pre-refit version of the class at T6. What if I want to play at T7 with her refit? One of the advantages of premiums is not having to respect captains.

Different issue, but I noticed this difference in philosophy with the recent camouflages WG offered for ships like DoY. I already earned DoY; why would I spend more money on a historical camo that provides the same benefits? What if I had bought DoY? At what point do you stop milking customers and realize that we're already spending a ton more on your game than a traditional single-time purchase? Throw us a bone WG.

Edited by awildseaking
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,066
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
16,180 posts
11,693 battles

I really wish they would just call the ship Maryland rather than West Virginia 41.  That's the worst possible solution to the issue.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,383
[RLGN]
Members
8,269 posts
17,307 battles

All this WV ‘41 talk...

I still want a Lex/Sara with the 4 x 2 203mm config.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
126 posts
1,900 battles

I love the idea of the alternative FXP upgrade in a tech tree ship.  It solves a lot of issues and opens up quite a lot of wiggle room for additional content and sales opportunities.  Win win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
202
[SVF]
Members
954 posts
1,289 battles
1 minute ago, Snarky_Wombat said:

I love the idea of the alternative FXP upgrade in a tech tree ship.  It solves a lot of issues and opens up quite a lot of wiggle room for additional content and sales opportunities.  Win win.

That said, it's not entirely without downsides.  In a hypothetical situation where you want to use two ships (in this case, WeeVee and Colorado) to stack First Win bonuses, the FXP hull for a tech tree ship idea doesn't allow that to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
678
[-VT3-]
Members
1,626 posts
3,364 battles

If we're in the business of downtiering no longer used A-hull ships and selling them as premiums, when can I have my T5 Fuso?

VxnVVjj.jpg

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
427
[PVE]
[PVE]
Beta Testers
1,682 posts
3,824 battles
27 minutes ago, crzyhawk said:

I really wish they would just call the ship Maryland rather than West Virginia 41.  That's the worst possible solution to the issue.

Except it is not the Maryland as its 3d model is based on the West Virginia before Pearl Harbor with distinct features on it that the Maryland never had.

 

WG has already finalized the model to be tested, so might as well have them release it as soon as possible so that they can move on to the next project where eventually West Virginia 44' can be worked on. Doing things like renaming a ship when it's not actually based on the Maryland does not fly with WG and in fact the worst thing they could do on a historical quality.

 

  • Cool 2
  • Bad 1

Share this post


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

I could definitively support Scheme 16 as a t7 prem.

Would be hella fun.

Only thing you left out was Scheme 16 secondary count and stats.  I counted 6 of the 127*2 midship and possibly 4 127*1 fore and aft of the super strutcture, if I was reading that picture correctly.  Leave the citadel below the water line and id grab her.

Oh, also, what would rudder shift look like?  Similar to NC?

I think 1.8 sigma would be good.  If Lyon gets 1.7, well, she has 16 shells...  With T7 MM, I could see Scheme 16 being good.

Give her decent secondaries so Scheme 16 can really mix it up.

Idk how I feel about your WV proposal though...im not honestly a fan of that FXP grind lock on ships.

Edited by KnightFandragon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
126 posts
1,900 battles
Just now, KnightFandragon said:

im not honestly a fan of that FXP grind lock on ships.

Yeah, there is a possibility it gets abused by WG no doubt.  The idea though is to find a way to introduce premium ships in a more flexible way, they could just charge for the premium extension too I guess.  I think the positives would outweigh the negatives provided WG doesn't go crazy with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,305
[PNG]
WoWS Community Contributors
1,027 posts
6,125 battles
5 minutes ago, landcollector said:

Lyon's sigma is 1.5.

Kinda why I gave the range of 1.7 - 1.9 depending on how she ends up performing. I just think the USN really needs a premium battleship that doesn't do 21 knots

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,469
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
3,628 posts
550 battles

It should be the top hull for the tier 7 tech tree Colorado.

 

Period, end of story.

 

 

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,177
[SIM]
Members
2,540 posts
4,182 battles
37 minutes ago, Vader_Sama said:

Except it is not the Maryland as its 3d model is based on the West Virginia before Pearl Harbor with distinct features on it that the Maryland never had.

 

WG has already finalized the model to be tested, so might as well have them release it as soon as possible so that they can move on to the next project where eventually West Virginia 44' can be worked on. Doing things like renaming a ship when it's not actually based on the Maryland does not fly with WG and in fact the worst thing they could do on a historical quality.

 

So make the minor changes needed to turn the existing model into the Maryland? This really isn't that hard. Also, isn't the Kongo in the game actually modeled as the Hiei? It's not like WG are sticklers for historical accuracy. They do an impressive job of bringing these ships to life, but their accuracy is far from perfect

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,469
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
3,628 posts
550 battles
48 minutes ago, Vader_Sama said:

Doing things like renaming a ship when it's not actually based on the Maryland does not fly with WG and in fact the worst thing they could do on a historical quality.

 

[edited]. The New York is actually Texas and the upgraded Kongo is actually Hiei.

 

That's the only reason we have Texas as a premium. It was an upgrade hull for "New York" (which is actually Texas) that they didn't want on the tech tree.

 

Wargaming has numerous ships on the tech tree that carry the lead name but are actually other ships of the class. 

 

Wargaming could care less about the model matching the ship's name. They've made that perfectly clear.

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


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

Kinda why I gave the range of 1.7 - 1.9 depending on how she ends up performing. I just think the USN really needs a premium battleship that doesn't do 21 knots

Id love a fast USN BB with good secondaries.  Id take 1.7-1.8 sigma with a higher top speed ship, able to run people down, firing large volleys of 14" with nice supporting secondary fire.  Id take a shorter range, like 16-18km on a scheme 16.  CO does the longer range gun boat work, Scheme 16 is the USN T7 Tirpitz, brawler bote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,469
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
3,628 posts
550 battles
24 minutes ago, iChase said:

I just think the USN really needs a premium battleship that doesn't do 21 knots

 

The Lexington or the South Dakota 1920. The options are there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Modder
341 posts
14 battles

not a fan of either of them...

1.) freexp hull for a tech tree ship doesnt make any sense. either make WV44 T7 freexp ship or just C hull for Colorado ...or even T8 premium

2.) regarding T7 prem proposal: project 16 is interesting, but shouldnt be in the game before USS California 1944.

1 hour ago, Vader_Sama said:

Except it is not the Maryland as its 3d model is based on the West Virginia before Pearl Harbor with distinct features on it that the Maryland never had.

 

WG has already finalized the model to be tested, so might as well have them release it as soon as possible so that they can move on to the next project where eventually West Virginia 44' can be worked on. Doing things like renaming a ship when it's not actually based on the Maryland does not fly with WG and in fact the worst thing they could do on a historical quality.

Thats right. They cant named it straight up Maryland. However i would rather see the ship to be Maryland and WG spending another month or so to do the proper adjustmets to the model

1 hour ago, SkaerKrow said:

So make the minor changes needed to turn the existing model into the Maryland? This really isn't that hard. Also, isn't the Kongo in the game actually modeled as the Hiei? It's not like WG are sticklers for historical accuracy. They do an impressive job of bringing these ships to life, but their accuracy is far from perfect

Yeah, Kongo is Hiei. But techtree ships are rather merge of a class rather than individual ships. Premium ships on the other hand are in historical configurations.

I hope one day we will see some of Kongo sisters as proper premium as well - with accurate model. Because those ARP ones are just techtree Kongo with neon paintjob slapped on.

 

 

Edited by puxflacet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
308
[S0L0]
Members
879 posts
4,914 battles
43 minutes ago, landcollector said:

Lyon's sigma is 1.5.

 

Just now, KnightFandragon said:

Just eeeewwwwwwww

 

It has 16 guns. Total Shotgun O' Doom. You are guaranteed to hit your target, as well as the cruiser screening him, the green DD 3km away, and some unsuspecting sod sailing on the next map over...

 

Matt

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
202
[SVF]
Members
954 posts
1,289 battles
12 minutes ago, ramp4ge said:

 

The Lexington or the South Dakota 1920. The options are there. 

For a Lexington battlecruiser, I'm uncertain a ship whose belt armor is thinner than either the Kongous or the Dunkerque's at T7 would be very enjoyable.  Both designs would require fantasy AA suites to not be complete plane food though, as the Lexington design had 4 or 8 WW1 vintage 3in. guns while the 1920 SoDak had 4 of those 3in. guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
427
[PVE]
[PVE]
Beta Testers
1,682 posts
3,824 battles
42 minutes ago, ramp4ge said:

 

[edited]. The New York is actually Texas and the upgraded Kongo is actually Hiei.

 

That's the only reason we have Texas as a premium. It was an upgrade hull for "New York" (which is actually Texas) that they didn't want on the tech tree.

 

Wargaming has numerous ships on the tech tree that carry the lead name but are actually other ships of the class. 

 

Wargaming could care less about the model matching the ship's name. They've made that perfectly clear.

Can't really compare using tech tree ships that is based on a whole class than one specific premium ship with a name that matches up with it.

New York in the tech tree is not the "USS New York" it's the name for the class which allows WG to have flexibility to alter them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
142
[VVV]
[VVV]
Members
683 posts
10,546 battles
21 minutes ago, puxflacet said:

Yeah, Kongo is Hiei. But techtree ships are rather merge of a class rather than individual ships. Premium ships on the other hand are in historical configurations.

I hope we will see some of Kongo sister as proper premium as well. Because those ARP one are just techtree Kongo with that neon camo

What's even funnier is the ARP Anime and Manga had the Correct models for each Kongo sister and Wargaming STILL screwed up the models 

Edited by yamato6945

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.

×