Jump to content
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
3r22r

West Virgina 1944

17 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1
[WWSB]
Members
60 posts
1,524 battles

Maybe its in the future but I was wandering if World of warships will intreduce modernized pre-war US Battleships that served in of WW2

West Virginia 1941 is now on sale but I am interested by the ones that were rebuilt after Pearl Habour.

Disregard if someone already asked that question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23,644
[HINON]
Supertester
19,657 posts
13,234 battles

WV'44 is planned for some time in the future. However, this is probably going to be at least a year, and likely considerably longer than that.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
137
[55TH]
Beta Testers
628 posts
3,286 battles
56 minutes ago, Lert said:

WV'44 is planned for some time in the future. However, this is probably going to be at least a year, and likely considerably longer than that.

Probably never, sadly.  Too good for T7, and too poor for T8.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,011
[SALVO]
Members
17,714 posts
18,486 battles
38 minutes ago, Gasboy said:

Probably never, sadly.  Too good for T7, and too poor for T8.

Yeah, this is the problem.  The WV44's AA may be too good for tier 7 and the rest of the ship isn't good enough for tier 8.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
237
[SVF]
Members
989 posts
1,362 battles
14 minutes ago, Crucis said:

Yeah, this is the problem.  The WV44's AA may be too good for tier 7 and the rest of the ship isn't good enough for tier 8.

Post-rework, mid and long range AA being avoidable, plus no range extension skills or equipment, defangs WV44/45's AA suite more than a bit.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3
[_AFW_]
[_AFW_]
Members
7 posts
7,970 battles

Chances for 1944 West Virginia aren't bad. Judging by their acknowledgement on Facebook that there's controversy around the 1941 version, they may have realized they could make significant money from the 1944 version.

It doesn't hurt that post-refit Tennessee is identical to 1944 West Virginia in every way except the armament, which is identical to New Mexico's. They model one, and the other is a simple copy/paste away. It's basically two ships for the price of one for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,172
Members
4,013 posts
14,864 battles
4 hours ago, Awaited said:

Chances for 1944 West Virginia aren't bad. Judging by their acknowledgement on Facebook that there's controversy around the 1941 version, they may have realized they could make significant money from the 1944 version.

On all of the threads about West Virginia practically every other post mentioned wanting WV 1944. It was clear that the customer base wanted WV 1944. Is WG management blind or stoopid?

I'd buy WV 1944 but I aint opening my wallet for this thing that WG dumped on us.

Edited by ReddNekk
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1
[WWSB]
Members
60 posts
1,524 battles

I was not only talking about a West Virginia, all US Navy battleships that served until the end of the war.

Those ships saw more action the the fast battleships, 

Go the website NavSourse History of the US NavyNavSource Naval History
Photographic History Of The U.S. Navy. 

Edited by 3r22r

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
98 posts
4,143 battles
On 11/30/2018 at 10:10 PM, ReddNekk said:

On all of the threads about West Virginia practically every other post mentioned wanting WV 1944. It was clear that the customer base wanted WV 1944. Is WG management blind or stoopid?

I'd buy WV 1944 but I aint opening my wallet for this thing that WG dumped on us.

As Crucis and Gasboy said above (and as WG acknowledged), it's more of a balance problem for WV '44 than anything else. There have been a number of posts and threads on this, but it basically comes down to having an OP gun/AA ship at T7 (that coincidentally makes Colorado obsolete) or a terribly slow ship at T8 that's just going to get slaughtered. Not sure how (or if) WG is going to be able to figure that one out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35
[BIER]
Members
143 posts
2,311 battles

Best bet on this is a 1944 version of the Tennessee class at T7.  The slow speed is not a complete crippling disability, the increased torp protection helps against T7 drops, and there's enough AA without being a monster.  Retaining the 12 x 14" guns makes more sense as a differentiation over Colorado, and provides a bit of a balance to the significantly increased plane immunity.

Note that such a Tennessee would have significant survivability challenges, because its armor was NOT upgraded, and would be somewhat inferior to Colorado, and would suffer more against the T8/T9 BBs that the current T6 New Mex doesn't have to (often) face. 

I can't see a 44 WVa ever making an appearance, for the reasons stated in other posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
361
[ZIPPO]
Members
1,589 posts
3,603 battles

The 1944 WeeVee would be to the Colorado as the Texas is to the NY so I fail to a the issue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
173 posts

As much as I'd like to see a 1944 Tennessee/California and West Virginia, as the others have stated, it will not balance correctly. The superstructure might be modern and more powerful in terms of secondaries and AA, but the armour remains the same, clearly that would lead to serious problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57
[BRO1]
Beta Testers
352 posts
6,493 battles

I think that War Gaming is totally missing the Money Honey Band Wagon. Premium Ships make money. History Buffs Buy Premium Ships. They need to make these ships in the WW2 Refits. They need to figure out how and where to tier them. If they don't, or won't, then its their loss. These ships were at their sexy epitome's in their last refits. Other than speed and slight armor disadvantages, the Colorado's and Tennessee's were effectively a match for the North Carolina's, South Dakota's and the Iowa's. I'm talking in real life here, not in a Game's Tier system. 

There were 12 standard type U.S. Battleships in 5 classes from Nevada to West Virginia, with 7 ships that were canceled due to Naval Treaties. 13 if you count the first Colorado class BB (Washington BB-47) that was 75% complete when she was scrapped (she was one of the 7 mentioned). Any ways WOWS 19 choices of Standard U.S. Navy Battleships that they could model for the game, although I think there is a logic not to use ships like the first South Dakota 1920 class unless they used a name that wasn't used on latter BBs. They would be forced to use South Dakota, or Indiana since they haven't put those ships from the next South Dakota class into the game. 

I definitely would love to see Nevada, and or Tennessee/California in their last refit condition in the game. The new secondary's and AA should make them better midrange brawlers and I dont know if the AA would be the big problem with CV balance. But I would love to play them and I would pay money for them.

Uss_nevada.jpg

USS_Tennessee_BB43.jpg

USS_West_Virginia_BB-48.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
71
[MOH]
Members
304 posts
1,473 battles
17 hours ago, CaptainKiwi_2016 said:

As much as I'd like to see a 1944 Tennessee/California and West Virginia, as the others have stated, it will not balance correctly. The superstructure might be modern and more powerful in terms of secondaries and AA, but the armour remains the same, clearly that would lead to serious problems.

Why not?  Anything can be balanced accordingly.  The TN and CA with their 14" guns would be easier to balance at T7, but the WV44' could be balanced accordingly to T8. 

Also, the US Standards were very well armored even by WW2.  Not sure where you're getting that they weren't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2
[TOG-N]
Beta Testers
6 posts
3,367 battles

they should design "re-fit" modules (like in the tech line ships with hulls etc.) that you can add to the WV 194,1 which would once selecting those modules would increase it's teir. 

players could add/remove depending on which version/teir  they wanted to play. 

Be easier then a whole new ship, war gaming could make an event to unlock the modules, in random creates or however they want to do it.  plus they'd sell a whole bunch of WV 1941's.  

how many ship could they apply this system to? I think it would really engage the community to get "re-fit" modules for appropriate ships that would change their teir and how they played. they would make money and it may be less time consuming then a "whole" new ship. 

Just an idea.

 

Edited by Glasnost86
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35
[BIER]
Members
143 posts
2,311 battles

The problem is that a Standard-class BB simply isn't suitable for T8, in any shape.

It's too slow, and has insufficient armor. The Standards were NOT up to WW2-era armor standards:  they had insufficient protection against 16" and larger guns, and deficient deck/overhead protection.  After the refit, they did have good torpedo protection.

But the reality is, no matter what the AA suite installed, if it's a 44-refit level, a T8 or higher CV is going to murder a T8 "Standard". They're walk right through that "enhanced" AA, torp drop or AP drop, and it will go Boom!

Same for T8+ BBs - they'll punch right through the Standards the way they do now for the Colorado. 

And the slow speed is crippling on the larger maps. There's no fixing this.

 

There's no way to balance a Standard as a T8 BB. 

 

It's doable as a T7, as I indicated above, as we already have the Colorado, and a T7 Tennessee '44 is reasonable. A T7 WVa '44 is *not*, because she would be straight up better than a Colorado, which is unacceptable.

Edited by LAnybody

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26
[HIT]
Members
80 posts
6,340 battles

Just came out for sale today as a T7 on the mobile game.

At least someone somewhere at WG was listening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×