Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
Schnitchelkid01_

Some Clarification.

10 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

122
[-TD-]
[-TD-]
Members
690 posts
1,246 battles

Notser says that it will be an alternate Soviet Tier X BB. I though this was going to be a premium BB. What did I miss will this be an alternate tech tree ship??? How will this work???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
952
[C-CA]
[C-CA]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
3,142 posts
4,934 battles

That is apparently the plan for it, but they haven't said how exactly the implementation will work. Best guess is that it will literally just be a "branch" consisting of only a tier 10 ship coming off of Sovetsky Soyuz, like they do the alternate tier 10s that the Russians ALSO get in Tanks.

This also means we might see HMS Thunderer as a tier 10 Conqueror alternative with 457s, so keep your eyes peeled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
122
[-TD-]
[-TD-]
Members
690 posts
1,246 battles
1 minute ago, Landsraad said:

That is apparently the plan for it, but they haven't said how exactly the implementation will work. Best guess is that it will literally just be a "branch" consisting of only a tier 10 ship coming off of Sovetsky Soyuz, like they do the alternate tier 10s that the Russians ALSO get in Tanks.

This also means we might see HMS Thunderer as a tier 10 Conqueror alternative with 457s, so keep your eyes peeled.

Thanks

Hmm... They should make a German Sniper Tier X BB. lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29
[NOBLE]
Members
79 posts
7,830 battles

Kurfurst is pretty accurate.....HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA....sorry...i said that out-loud while i was typing.  But seriously, I built my Kurfurst for main battery and it actually does a very nice job at being a battleship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,484 posts
9,672 battles

WG has done alternate lines in WoT at T10, same kinda deal here. Example, Object-140 and T-61 on the russian medium tank tech tree. Small differences in "flavor" and imo, a good thing. Good variety.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
952
[C-CA]
[C-CA]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
3,142 posts
4,934 battles
Just now, _Rumple_ said:

WG has done alternate lines in WoT at T10, same kinda deal here. Example, Object-140 and T-61 on the russian medium tank tech tree. Small differences in "flavor" and imo, a good thing. Good variety.

Except there it's completely different vehicles that just happen to have similar designs. The thing that baffles me about this is that the main guns are apparently the ONLY difference between Kreml and Slava. Same hull, same engine, same secondaries, same AA, etc. I'm all for variety, but that's an alternate module at best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,484 posts
9,672 battles
8 minutes ago, Landsraad said:

Except there it's completely different vehicles that just happen to have similar designs. The thing that baffles me about this is that the main guns are apparently the ONLY difference between Kreml and Slava. Same hull, same engine, same secondaries, same AA, etc. I'm all for variety, but that's an alternate module at best.

Yeah, but the differences are generally small. Like my example, slightly different turret, 1 degree or so of gun depression, and marginally different soft stats if memory serves. But you do have a point about the alternate module. Still, keep in mind, I doubt they are finalized yet. There may be more changes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,006
[ARGSY]
Members
10,317 posts
6,746 battles
28 minutes ago, Landsraad said:

Except there it's completely different vehicles that just happen to have similar designs. The thing that baffles me about this is that the main guns are apparently the ONLY difference between Kreml and Slava. Same hull, same engine, same secondaries, same AA, etc. I'm all for variety, but that's an alternate module at best.

I vaguely recall them saying something about the Slava being set up as a long-range sniper, hence the need for a separate hull; those facing her would deserve to know what they are facing so they can weigh the risks appropriately when it comes to showing side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
952
[C-CA]
[C-CA]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
3,142 posts
4,934 battles
7 hours ago, _Rumple_ said:

Yeah, but the differences are generally small. Like my example, slightly different turret, 1 degree or so of gun depression, and marginally different soft stats if memory serves.

More along the lines of "completely different armor model with only cosmetic similarity", but I digress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,043
[ARS]
Beta Testers
2,922 posts
2,810 battles
12 hours ago, Landsraad said:

Except there it's completely different vehicles that just happen to have similar designs. The thing that baffles me about this is that the main guns are apparently the ONLY difference between Kreml and Slava. Same hull, same engine, same secondaries, same AA, etc. I'm all for variety, but that's an alternate module at best.

The Slava has a lot more 32mm plating than does Kreml.

The thing about the guns is that they aren't just a different set of guns as on Conqueror, but they have completely different dispersion curves.  Kreml is very accurate at short range, almost cruiser accurate, but beyond 12km it gets pretty mediocre and by max range it is almost pure luck to hit something.  Slava is the most accurate BB at range, more accurate than Yamato, but at short range it is mediocre at best.

I vaguely recall, but am not certain, that I read something about WG not being able to make Conqueror's 457mm guns have their own dispersion table compared to the 419mm guns because in the code the dispersion table is tied to the ship's hull, not the guns.  If I recall correctly that would explain one reason why Slava and Kreml need to be separate.  IDing the threat posed, as stated earlier, is also a good reason for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×