Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
Ronin69

Tier by Year

17 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

33
[HITHG]
Members
70 posts
8,756 battles

OK, because I was curious I took a look at the tiers for type of ship in this case battleships.  I wanted to group closer by year, roughly a five year span.  Based on this I had the following changes.  Yes, I realize WOW is not historically accurate, but the graphics are very good usually.  I posted the summary.  The raw data looked a little ugly on copy and paste. 

 

 

Name Current Corrected
Amagi 8 6
Montana 10 9
Iowa 9 10
Gneisenau 7 8
King George 7 8
West Virginia 4 7
Scharnhorst 7 8
Vanguard 8 10
Dunkerque 6 8
Jean Bart 9 10

WoW Ships.xlsx

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32,583
[HINON]
Alpha Tester
24,181 posts
19,031 battles

Arguing that Vanguard should be equal to Yamato just because of year built ... Year of introduction means nothing. Design does.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
526
Members
596 posts
10,570 battles
9 minutes ago, Lert said:

Arguing that Vanguard should be equal to Yamato just because of year built ... Year of introduction means nothing. Design does.

year of design also is not a clear factor for quality. I'm not much of a naval history guy (still leaning about this glorious floating cities) but in tanks or planes you have wonderful and amazing machines being designed at the same time as completely garbage projects in the same nation for example the Panther (the wonderful) and the Tiger II (only designed in 1.943 but even when built had so many troubles), Arado Ar 234 or Junkers 390. Maybe I'm wrong and it's completely different with ships but looking at the other two main warfare arts of WW2, doesn't seem to be the case although if I'm wrong don't dough on correct me :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,263
[WOLF5]
Supertester
4,130 posts
4,088 battles
48 minutes ago, Lert said:

Arguing that Vanguard should be equal to Yamato just because of year built ... Year of introduction means nothing. Design does.

True, but often design improvements track with year introduced. The later designed, the better the design usually, at least within nations.

Also, Vanguard is a bad example. The ship is an earlier design, it was then pushed back, and finally completed with what was available. If the design course had been completed, she would have been much better. Not stuck with 15" guns from early interwar ships that the brits had laying around.

Better way to say it might be year of design matters.

 

56 minutes ago, Ronin69 said:

OK, because I was curious I took a look at the tiers for type of ship in this case battleships.  I wanted to group closer by year, roughly a five year span.  Based on this I had the following changes.  Yes, I realize WOW is not historically accurate, but the graphics are very good usually.  I posted the summary.  The raw data looked a little ugly on copy and paste. 

 

 

Name Current Corrected
Amagi 8 6
Montana 10 9
Iowa 9 10
Gneisenau 7 8
King George 7 8
West Virginia 4 7
Scharnhorst 7 8
Vanguard 8 10
Dunkerque 6 8
Jean Bart 9 10

WoW Ships.xlsx

OK, clearly label your columns, and explain your method. I shouldn't have to hunt through your raw excel data to figure out what the hell you're doing. Also, WV is a T6 BB, not T4.

Second, you have the Iowas and Montana mixed up. They were designed simultaneously (two different roles, IA as CV defense and battle cruiser killers, MT as full BBs). Building began in 1941, with the Iowas launching in 1942 and fully in service by 43. MT construction was stopped in 1942. So going by year launched, the time for IA would be 1942 and MT 1943. 

The Amagi in game isn't real, so whatever 1919 ship you have it's the wrong one.

Gnei assumes a fictional upgrade, so hard to judge there.

Vanguard as I said above is actually a much older design than the 1946 you have. The Brits stopped BB construction, and after the war just threw what they had laying around together to get Vanguard.

Some of the French and German BBs you have being uptiered. But some of them while being later designs weren't meant to be full BBs. So they get put in the game at lower tiers. Dunk is a good example. Latest FR design, but not as a full BB. So WG downtiered it, quite rightly. Putting her against the Bismark and NC would be slaughter.

So once you account for the intended purpose, delayed construction, and paper designs, you'll find that tier scales quite well with year. Just not the raw year, there's a lot more too it.

Edited by AJTP89
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,846
[GWG]
[GWG]
Supertester
26,432 posts
14,165 battles

The Amagi in the game is what an Amagi class BC would have been like if they hadn't been converted to CV's  and had been upgraded in the 1930's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33
[HITHG]
Members
70 posts
8,756 battles
12 hours ago, Lert said:

Arguing that Vanguard should be equal to Yamato just because of year built ... Year of introduction means nothing. Design does.

What matters is when the ship hit the water.   This also highlights the different abilities of ships and nations.

Placing ships that are 10 years ahead in design is a large advantage.  Hence the reason why there are tiers in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32,583
[HINON]
Alpha Tester
24,181 posts
19,031 battles
1 minute ago, Ronin69 said:

What matters is when the ship hit the water.

....... no it doesn't. Or are you arguing that two equal ships built today but one launched tomorrow and the other 10 years from now, the second one is somehow magically better? Are you actually arguing that a 52k ton ship with a 14" belt and 8x 15" guns is somehow more powerful than a 72k ton ship with a 16" belt and 9x 18.1" guns? Are you somehow arguing that if I put some plate steel on a dinghy and mount a .50 cal it's somehow magically a better ship than the USS Iowa because it was launched in 2019, and Iowa in 1942?

Technology matters. Specs matter. Year of introduction matters as much as how many toilets there are onboard.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33
[HITHG]
Members
70 posts
8,756 battles
On 8/11/2019 at 9:48 AM, Lert said:

....... no it doesn't. Or are you arguing that two equal ships built today but one launched tomorrow and the other 10 years from now, the second one is somehow magically better? Are you actually arguing that a 52k ton ship with a 14" belt and 8x 15" guns is somehow more powerful than a 72k ton ship with a 16" belt and 9x 18.1" guns? Are you somehow arguing that if I put some plate steel on a dinghy and mount a .50 cal it's somehow magically a better ship than the USS Iowa because it was launched in 2019, and Iowa in 1942?

Technology matters. Specs matter. Year of introduction matters as much as how many toilets there are onboard.

You are missing the point.

In no way am I saying that because the ships released the same year are equal.  That was your conjecture.  I am merely saying that from a historical perspective a match-up with similar year ranged ships would be interesting.  

Newer technology is typically better than old technology.  The suggestion would be more of historical significance where nations send their newest and "best" ships into battle.  Having a ship from 1940 (UK) battle one from 1917 (Russia), a 23-year difference.  This would seem to be a mismatch in the same tier.  Since we allow for a three-tier span, the difference can be as much as  32 years with battleships. 

If you want to go to battle with 20 to 30-year-old technology... go ahead.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32,583
[HINON]
Alpha Tester
24,181 posts
19,031 battles
16 minutes ago, Ronin69 said:

Newer technology is typically better than old technology.

... Which is what I've been saying all thread long. Technology matters. Not year. There is no guarantee that just because a ship is newer it has better technology. See Russian cruisers vs USN ones, for example. Or things like the Jagdpanzer 38t, erronously called Hetzer by many, compared to, say, an IS/2. You'd be an idiot to consider them equal, even though they're the same vintage.

Year. Does. Not. Matter. Technology does. Design does. But, sure, keep arguing that year is what matters. Have de Ruyter go up against New Orleans class cruisers. After all, they're both 1935 vintage. Should be equal, right? Vanguard should be superior to Yamato - after all, laid down later, commissioned later. Sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,806
[WORX]
Members
10,694 posts
18,577 battles

This excel work is sloppy, tried to follow the logic but, I rather discord it... No integrity, No direction, just time wasted in a spreadsheet..

This is not how shared work documents are done.

I just didn't get the point, reason,purpose nor conclusion of your work for that matter. Sorry OP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
105
[NG-NL]
Members
265 posts
9,192 battles

This looks like a really interesting topic, if I understood what the topic is.

Is it that WoWS groups ships roughly by year? Except when they don't? The "year" is the date the ship was launched? But the launch date doesn't actually matter, it's the date of technology?

So is the original point that WoWS is wrongly grouping ships by year of launch, when they should be grouping them by age of technology in the ship? And the spreadsheet starts with the year of launch and then corrects each ship according to the era of technology used in the ship?

I'm curious how you assess the age of technology for each ship. The spreadsheet shows only the year, not how it was determined.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32,583
[HINON]
Alpha Tester
24,181 posts
19,031 battles
30 minutes ago, imaginary_b said:

I'm curious how you assess the age of technology for each ship. The spreadsheet shows only the year, not how it was determined.

He's sorting by year of launch and nothing else. He's not even looking at the design and technology.

There is no simple rule for judging technology and design either, you have to look at every ship separately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,679 posts
8,104 battles

lmbo this thread is so funny

Ahaha, hahaha, hahahaha.... Yamato at tier 8 while Jean Bart and Vanguard are tier 10...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
887
[HC]
Beta Testers
3,049 posts
12,728 battles

Year of launch doesn't matter at all, every ship is upgraded throughout it's service life.

It's best to break them down by where they fit in the evolution of battleships.

You've got,

Pre-Dreadnoughts, Mikasa, 'nough said.

Dreadnoughts (first all big gun battleships) (tier 3 & 4)

Super Dreadnoughts (same idea, bigger guns, made in time for WWI) (tier 5 & 6)

Washington Naval Treaty Survivors (the big 7, many of them are at tier 7, Nelson and Rodney got built to fit this) (tier 6 to 7) Missed WWI.

Washington Naval Treaty Victims (Amagi, Tosa, KII, South Dakota 1920, and G3) True monsters unchecked by common sense, reality, or budgets. (tier 8 to being nightmare to fit in game)

The little European treaty ships (Dunkerque, Gneisenau and the Italian Rebuilds) built just before the big treaty battleship rush before WWII. (tier 5.5 through 7)

Treaty Battleships, 35,000 tons standard load, fast, generally compromised somehow (North Carolina structurally weak, South Dakota cramped, King George under gunned, Bismarck seriously overweight, and Richelieu being weird) (7 & 8)

Escalator Clause Battleships (Iowa) bigger than a treaty battleship, fixed some of the problems, Vanguard fits this as well (her turrets were left over from the two Courageous class after they were converted to CV's.) (8 and 9)

Treaty, what Treaty? I don't see no stinking treaty. Yamato and Littorio, what happens when a country doesn't even give lip service to the treaties. (8 through 10)

 

It's notable that they don't fit into neat tiers, each nation built ships based on what their likely opponent built, what they could afford, what they could technically build,  and whatever treaty they were following (or ignoring) at the time.

 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
105
[NG-NL]
Members
265 posts
9,192 battles
2 hours ago, Lert said:

He's sorting by year of launch and nothing else. He's not even looking at the design and technology.

There is no simple rule for judging technology and design either, you have to look at every ship separately.

Thanks for explaining. That makes sense.

So the original poster made a spreadsheet and a forum thread with information that we all (even OP) agree isn't important.

I'm okay with that. At least some of the replies are worth reading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
164
[LOIN]
Supertester
810 posts

I also dont get this either. I mean the title sounded interesting.l, but as I read. The Author's argument is kind of flawed and don't really quite understand it. That being said. I'm out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×