Jump to content
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
m8i

What would the British Carrier Line look like if it was released before the rework?

11 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

38
Members
62 posts
388 battles

Before the rework, the American and Japanese Carrier lines had seven ships each. What would a British Carrier line look with seven ships from tier 4 to tier 10? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
213
[TF16B]
Modder
426 posts
607 battles

Perhaps the Argus class could take the IV spot and bump up Hermes to tier V. Furious could stay where it is and put the Illustrious class in Tier VII. Implacable class remains at tier VIII and for tier IX, Majestic class perhaps?

As for a premium ship, Unicorn class at tier IV; since this was a mostly used for maintenance, perhaps it can launch planes at a faster rate than other CV's. The Colosus class at tier VII; since this ship would be smaller than a full sized carrier, it could be one of the faster or fastest CV's of the British line. That would be my list.

Edited by Mailman653

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,189
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
11,848 posts
17,412 battles
40 minutes ago, m8i said:

What would a British Carrier line look with seven ships from tier 4 to tier 10? 

Probably a bit fuller than the US line, as the British had purpose built carriers from the beginning. More classes, fewer ships per class.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,422
[DEV_X]
[DEV_X]
Members
2,111 posts
19,694 battles

Speaking of which, whatever happened to Indomitable?

I am very eager to see what the CV line splits will specialize in. Many of the ships @Mailman653 listed could be a line split as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
521
[DENY]
Members
834 posts
9,847 battles

They have to fix the godlike AA first no point to play CV these day

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,570
[SALVO]
Members
22,364 posts
22,775 battles
2 hours ago, Umikami said:

Probably a bit fuller than the US line, as the British had purpose built carriers from the beginning. More classes, fewer ships per class.

The USN seemed to have a sufficient number of choices to fill out a full CV line, particularly when you consider that they left out the Yorktown class.  Frankly, they could have done the USN CV line better if the Ranger had been originally at tier 6, the Lex at tier 7, and the Yorktown at tier 8.  But that's history.

I personally still wish that WG would back fill the odd tiers, though I agree with @dad003 that they need to get AA fixed before anything else CV related. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,189
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
11,848 posts
17,412 battles
1 hour ago, Crucis said:

I personally still wish that WG would back fill the odd tiers, though I agree with @dad003 that they need to get AA fixed before anything else CV related. 

AA is just one of many, many issues CVs have. WoW has a crap record for fixing anything. Obviously I understand your optimism.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,570
[SALVO]
Members
22,364 posts
22,775 battles
11 hours ago, Umikami said:

AA is just one of many, many issues CVs have. WoW has a crap record for fixing anything. Obviously I understand your optimism.

I'm not sure that I'd say that I'm "optimistic" about the things I mentioned in this thread.  I'm not optimistic about  WG reverting their decision on odd tiered CVs and back filling those tiers.  It's sad because IMO that's one of the things that makes like more difficult on tier 8 CVs, particularly the T8 tech tree CVs.  Why? 

First, because not having odd tier CVs means that the non tier 10 even tier CVs have to earn more XP and spend more battles earning that XP to advance.  If the odd tier CVs were added back in, the tier 8 tech tree CVs, for example, would probably only have to earn about 40% as much XP to advance (to tier 9) as they do now to advance to tier 10.  And of course, play fewer games at that tier to do it.

Second, if tier 9 CVs were reincluded in the mix, that would somewhat relieve a little of the pressure on tier 8 CVs since all the tier 9 CVs in the queue would take the place of tier 8 CVs, and probably cause some of those tier 8 CVs to end up not being in tier 9 or 10 battles quite as often.

Note that this is only some theory crafting, but it seems to make sense to me, which is one reason I wish that WG would revert to reincluding odd numbered tier CVs back into the current CV lines.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,189
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
11,848 posts
17,412 battles
54 minutes ago, Crucis said:

Note that this is only some theory crafting, but it seems to make sense to me, which is one reason I wish that WG would revert to reincluding odd numbered tier CVs back into the current CV lines.

Like I said in a previous post, one of many, many issues CVs have. The every other tier thing was total nonsense from the start. Lazy implementation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,570
[SALVO]
Members
22,364 posts
22,775 battles
3 hours ago, Umikami said:

Like I said in a previous post, one of many, many issues CVs have. The every other tier thing was total nonsense from the start. Lazy implementation.

I don't disagree.  I guess, sure, if they only wanted to implement the even numbered tiers first and then the odd numbered tiers a little later, I could deal with that.  But I'm not fond of the idea of these odd tier ships being turned into even tier ships and turned into this nonsense "support carrier" crap.

The USN CV line should be:

  • T4: Langley
  • T5: Bogue (I suppose) or maybe the Independence*
  • T6: Ranger
  • T7: Lexington
  • T8: Yorktown
  • T9: Essex
  • T10: Midway

Or I could see the Independence as a tier 6 prem CV, I suppose. Or maybe the USS Wasp as a tier 6 or 7 prem CV.  (The original USS Wasp was really just a one-off, cut down Yorktown.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,189
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
11,848 posts
17,412 battles
5 hours ago, Crucis said:

I don't disagree.  I guess, sure, if they only wanted to implement the even numbered tiers first and then the odd numbered tiers a little later, I could deal with that.  But I'm not fond of the idea of these odd tier ships being turned into even tier ships and turned into this nonsense "support carrier" crap.

The USN CV line should be:

  • T4: Langley
  • T5: Bogue (I suppose) or maybe the Independence*
  • T6: Ranger
  • T7: Lexington
  • T8: Yorktown
  • T9: Essex
  • T10: Midway

Or I could see the Independence as a tier 6 prem CV, I suppose. Or maybe the USS Wasp as a tier 6 or 7 prem CV.  (The original USS Wasp was really just a one-off, cut down Yorktown.)

I would have liked to have seen Ranger dropped down a tier to tier 5 and Wasp put in at tier 6. And yes, Yorktown should have been included!

(With Hornet and Saratoga as premiums.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×