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

proposed revamp of US battleship line

63 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

43
Members
32 posts
2,012 battles

HI WG

I think this this is how the US battleship line should of been laid out...

Tier 3-USS South Carolina

Tier 4-USS Wyoming upgrade to à USS New York

Tier 5-USS Nevada upgrade to à USS Pennsylvania

Tier 6-USS New Mexico

Tier 7-USS Tennessee 1941 upgrade to à Colorado Class-1944 USS West Virginia

Tier 8-USS North Carolina

Tier 9-USS Iowa

Tier 10-USS Montana

  • Boring 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
278 posts
5,007 battles
9 minutes ago, iDuckman said:

Why?

 

We need more BeeBee content.

Forget french DD, italian ships, Dutch ships, actually good ijn premiums. 

We need more BeeBee.

  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,065
[WOLF3]
Members
5,862 posts
2,191 battles

There has been some talk of a USN BB line split.  I don't see it.  Up until 1939 the design principle was for a "standard" BB.  Thus most USN BBs are very similar until 1941 rebuilds.  While it would be nice to get some of the "skipped" classes into the game, there's nowhere else to go for Tiers 9 & 10.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14
[FTH]
Members
108 posts
10,578 battles

In all seriousness with the question...why Pennsylvania at T5? With her sister, Arizona, at T6, I'm just not seeing how you put the only other "Superdreadnought" of the Standards a tier lower, below the New Mexico, when Arizona is considered an upgrade over New Mexico, let alone over a T5?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20
[BOTES]
Members
121 posts
3,100 battles

So you'd want 14" guns stock at T7 to satisfy the urge to have more standards instead of having them be in an alternate line or as premiums.
I'm sure nobody would complain about this at all.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
227
[NGA-B]
Members
1,187 posts
7,580 battles
3 minutes ago, iDuckman said:

There has been some talk of a USN BB line split.  I don't see it.  Up until 1939 the design principle was for a "standard" BB.  Thus most USN BBs are very similar until 1941 rebuilds.  While it would be nice to get some of the "skipped" classes into the game, there's nowhere else to go for Tiers 9 & 10.

 

I could potentially see one utilizing the Pearl Harbor rebuilds. They'd be moved up a tier compared to similar ships and have their stats tweaked accordingly. Nevada could be at tier VI, Tennessee at tier VII, and West Virginia at tier VIII. Their defining trait could be boosted AA and "weaker" guns that have their accuracy/sigma/RoF boosted. Sort of the opposite of the Mutsu and Ashitaka. I'll admit it's no a great idea, but I'm real tired of people banging on about a US BB split and this is about the only way I could see that happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,010
[WOLF1]
Beta Testers
6,022 posts
9,182 battles

Lets do the second US BB line before we revamp the first one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59
[PQUOD]
Members
190 posts
5,944 battles

There will be some additions to the USN BB line. They have been announced. However a split? Wouldn't hold my breath. If I was guessing. I'd say this will be the last changes to the USN BB line you see for awhile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,925
[PVE]
Members
8,770 posts
7,225 battles
2 hours ago, JediMasterDraco said:

I could potentially see one utilizing the Pearl Harbor rebuilds. They'd be moved up a tier compared to similar ships and have their stats tweaked accordingly. Nevada could be at tier VI, Tennessee at tier VII, and West Virginia at tier VIII. Their defining trait could be boosted AA and "weaker" guns that have their accuracy/sigma/RoF boosted. Sort of the opposite of the Mutsu and Ashitaka. I'll admit it's no a great idea, but I'm real tired of people banging on about a US BB split and this is about the only way I could see that happening.

So it would be like this maybe?

T6 refit Nevada

T7 refit Tennesse

T8 WV '44

T9 New Jersey or Wisconsin in some other configuration than Iowa and Missouri? Not sure what that would be. A secondary version maybe?

T10 Montana class (Ohio, Maine, New Hampshire or Louisiana) I think some in the past have posted design studies on the Montana class with 18in guns (457mm) in a 3x3 configuration, so that could be the alternative T10 possibly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20
[BOTES]
Members
121 posts
3,100 battles
1 minute ago, Kizarvexis said:

So it would be like this maybe?

T6 refit Nevada

T7 refit Tennesse

T8 WV '44

T9 New Jersey or Wisconsin in some other configuration than Iowa and Missouri? Not sure what that would be. A secondary version maybe?

T10 Montana class (Ohio, Maine, New Hampshire or Louisiana) I think some in the past have posted design studies on the Montana class with 18in guns (457mm) in a 3x3 configuration, so that could be the alternative T10 possibly.

I'm going to veto that off of not wanting to play T10 maps in a 20 knot ship alone.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,925
[PVE]
Members
8,770 posts
7,225 battles
1 minute ago, HP_Lovesauce said:

I'm going to veto that off of not wanting to play T10 maps in a 20 knot ship alone.

Well there will be T10 subs that will be that slow or slower. Yes, they will be more stealthy, but if the WV '44 has enough range, being slow would be mitigated somewhat. Especially if they have decent secondaries. Gotta have some trade off and nod to accuracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20
[BOTES]
Members
121 posts
3,100 battles
4 minutes ago, Kizarvexis said:

Well there will be T10 subs that will be that slow or slower. Yes, they will be more stealthy, but if the WV '44 has enough range, being slow would be mitigated somewhat. Especially if they have decent secondaries. Gotta have some trade off and nod to accuracy.

Why are you assuming subs in PVP will even be a thing given the mountain of issues they'd face from a gameplay and balance perspective?
It's also not the best argument to simply say that a BB being that slow will be fine because an entirely different class with different mechanics will be as slow or slower. Range won't entirely fix the issue of flexibility and being able to kite or push properly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,925
[PVE]
Members
8,770 posts
7,225 battles
1 minute ago, HP_Lovesauce said:

Why are you assuming subs in PVP will even be a thing given the mountain of issues they'd face from a gameplay and balance perspective?
It's also not the best argument to simply say that a BB being that slow will be fine because an entirely different class with different mechanics will be as slow or slower. Range won't entirely fix the issue of flexibility and being able to kite or push properly.

Because it is looking more and more like subs will be there.

 

Yes, being slow would be a problem. Sounds like something to differentiate between the US BBs that are already at T8.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20
[BOTES]
Members
121 posts
3,100 battles
Just now, Kizarvexis said:

Because it is looking more and more like subs will be there.

 

Yes, being slow would be a problem. Sounds like something to differentiate between the US BBs that are already at T8.

I won't get into the sub argument here, neither the place nor time.
I just don't think I'd enjoy 90% of my games being in maps that take me the whole game to traverse, but if you want to subject yourself to that, go for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
4,704 posts
4,491 battles

There is no point behind a split...the USN basically repeated the Pennsylvania class 2 times and then called it progress. 

I'd just make free XP ships at this point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,925
[PVE]
Members
8,770 posts
7,225 battles
10 minutes ago, Dr_Venture said:

There is no point behind a split...the USN basically repeated the Pennsylvania class 2 times and then called it progress. 

I'd just make free XP ships at this point. 

But, but... moar botes! :Smile_teethhappy:

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
4,704 posts
4,491 battles
Just now, Kizarvexis said:

But, but... moar botes! :Smile_teethhappy:

I mean I get that, Florida, Delaware, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Tennessee...are all great classes.

Then you realize that the USN repeated the same design before and tweaked it slightly....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,493
[WOLF2]
Beta Testers
3,788 posts

They’ll just sell us the others as premiums.  We need a Tier 5 Nevada premium.   Honestly it should have been the tech tree with Texas as it is now, but whatevs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,925
[PVE]
Members
8,770 posts
7,225 battles
Just now, Dr_Venture said:

I mean I get that, Florida, Delaware, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Tennessee...are all great classes.

Then you realize that the USN repeated the same design before and tweaked it slightly....

I know, the Standards were all pretty...standard. There is not much difference between them. The refit Nevada, Tennessee and WV '44 would have better AA & Secondaries than the regular tree counterparts, subject to balancing. WV '44 being a tech tree ship would be great for the people who are mad about WV '41 premium and it would be something of an Alabama/Massachusetts hybrid with a slow speed I think. Maybe even boost it a few knots? Would definitely be an interesting ship to play since it is so slow. Having a secondary Iowa class (NJ or WI) would be interesting vs the Iowa and Missouri. IIRC about the 18" Montana design studies, then that would be different than the current Montana.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
192
[NMKJT]
Members
1,726 posts
4,962 battles
3 hours ago, The_Painted_Target said:

We need more BeeBee content.

Forget french DD, italian ships, Dutch ships, actually good ijn premiums. 

We need more BeeBee.

Only if Italian BeeBee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
4,704 posts
4,491 battles
1 minute ago, TheDreadnought said:

They’ll just sell us the others as premiums.  We need a Tier 5 Nevada premium.   Honestly it should have been the tech tree with Texas as it is now, but whatevs.

Honestly the USN BB line has been power creeped so much...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
4,704 posts
4,491 battles
3 minutes ago, Kizarvexis said:

I know, the Standards were all pretty...standard. There is not much difference between them. The refit Nevada, Tennessee and WV '44 would have better AA & Secondaries than the regular tree counterparts, subject to balancing. WV '44 being a tech tree ship would be great for the people who are mad about WV '41 premium and it would be something of an Alabama/Massachusetts hybrid with a slow speed I think. Maybe even boost it a few knots? Would definitely be an interesting ship to play since it is so slow. Having a secondary Iowa class (NJ or WI) would be interesting vs the Iowa and Missouri. IIRC about the 18" Montana design studies, then that would be different than the current Montana.

Nah, the line was power creeped by basically everything....Colorado is horrible even with buffs. You could WeeVee 44 it at tier 7 and it would be a solid contender...gimped by it's speed. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,037
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
6,645 posts
9,957 battles
1 minute ago, Dr_Venture said:

Nah, the line was power creeped by basically everything....Colorado is horrible even with buffs. You could WeeVee 44 it at tier 7 and it would be a solid contender...gimped by it's speed. 

It's been power crept by it's own premiums most of all, I feel limited sympathy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×