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

Please Create alternative US BB line

15 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

8
[DBL-D]
Members
9 posts
5,782 battles

Please world of warship developers, create an alternative line for US battleships. I know that wargaming likes making money, but y'all keep releasing "so-so" US BBs that people aren't super excited about. You have plenty of content to use, from the Tennessee class BBs to the South Dakota class. And even more of the Iowa class. 

Instead of putting the Ohio in the research bureau, your should make her the top tier of the alternative line. I know this seems like complaining but the community has wanted this for a very long time. More than they wanted West Virginia and more than they want California. And yes, even more than they want to regrind for an Ohio. 

Stop releasing premiums and make an alternative line for US BBs. 

  • Funny 1
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,306
[PN]
[PN]
Beta Testers
8,144 posts
20,319 battles

@SweetBabyRuth the one BB in the tech tree represents all of the BBs in that class. If a ship of the same class as a tech tree ship is added it usually has some unique history or significant difference from the tech tree ship. The Scharnhorst and Gneisenau  are an example. They were sister ships with the same specs but here the one is as it was the other as it would be with a proposed main battery change. 

It would make no sense to create another line other than to use ships that are of a class not already represented.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,269
[SALVO]
Members
23,440 posts
24,062 battles
3 hours ago, CAPTMUDDXX said:

@SweetBabyRuth the one BB in the tech tree represents all of the BBs in that class. If a ship of the same class as a tech tree ship is added it usually has some unique history or significant difference from the tech tree ship. The Scharnhorst and Gneisenau  are an example. They were sister ships with the same specs but here the one is as it was the other as it would be with a proposed main battery change. 

It would make no sense to create another line other than to use ships that are of a class not already represented.

[edited]  There's absolutely no good reason that WG couldn't add a complete second BB line from tier 3 up to tier 10, without any faked up gimmicks, etc.  There are real ships that can cover tier 3 through tier 8, and they could have put the Georgia and Ohio at tiers 9 and 10.  

This idea that a second line would have to have a special feature that differentiates it from the first line is garbage.  Real ships don't need faked up crap to defend their presence in a second BB line.  Their existence is justification enough!!!

Edited by Shinsengumi918
removed profanity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,306
[PN]
[PN]
Beta Testers
8,144 posts
20,319 battles

@Crucis I did not say to not make an alternate US BB line. I only pointed out how the current line is made. However if say the tier 3 SC had 100 sister ships what sense does it make to use another ship that the only difference is the name to start another line? NONE! 

But if the US has 5 other tier 3 through 10 BB classes then sure make 5 more complete lines. In fact I would like to see those lines start with a tier 1 that branches off to DDs, CL/CAs and CVs just as the current lines do.

But to just have a line of ships already represented just because the hull number/name is different makes no sense. It would make better sense to let us give a current ship the name in the class we want.

Or better yet give us a point pool and choice of hulls, weapons, power plants and other specs for us to mix and match design or own USS Mudd or Crucis or SweetBabyRuth!

Now go ahead and find something in this to criticize.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,269
[SALVO]
Members
23,440 posts
24,062 battles
4 hours ago, CAPTMUDDXX said:

@Crucis I did not say to not make an alternate US BB line. I only pointed out how the current line is made. However if say the tier 3 SC had 100 sister ships what sense does it make to use another ship that the only difference is the name to start another line? NONE! 

But if the US has 5 other tier 3 through 10 BB classes then sure make 5 more complete lines. In fact I would like to see those lines start with a tier 1 that branches off to DDs, CL/CAs and CVs just as the current lines do.

But to just have a line of ships already represented just because the hull number/name is different makes no sense. It would make better sense to let us give a current ship the name in the class we want.

Or better yet give us a point pool and choice of hulls, weapons, power plants and other specs for us to mix and match design or own USS Mudd or Crucis or SweetBabyRuth!

Now go ahead and find something in this to criticize.  

YOU think that it makes no sense.  I disagree completely.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,306
[PN]
[PN]
Beta Testers
8,144 posts
20,319 battles

@Crucis Well then please tell me what would make sense since you refuse to accept what I feel makes sense?

The one example I gave would give another 35 USN ships and another 50 more USN ships. There would be even more if done for all nations.

Still making new lines using ships that the only difference are the names.

I suppose you just want more ships just to have more ships that will likely be used if used at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
285
[UN1]
Members
753 posts
2,808 battles
On 8/16/2019 at 7:42 PM, Crucis said:

YOU think that it makes no sense.  I disagree completely.  

@CAPTMUDDXX is correct, actually.  Because this is an arcade game and not a realistic simulation, without there being something to differentiate between the current US BB line, a second US BB line that mirrors the first would only flop.  You also have to understand how the US BB line is designed:

  1. Each tier represents the first class of battleships that introduced a new gun caliber (except the Montana).  I'll even list them out for you:
    1. USS South Carolina - 12"/45cal
    2. USS Wyoming - 12"/50cal
    3. USS New York - 14"/45cal
    4. USS New Mexico - 14"/50cal
    5. USS Colorado - 16"/45cal Mark 1
    6. USS North Carolina - 16"/45cal Mark 6
    7. USS Iowa - 16"/50cal Mark 7
    8. USS Montana - Moar guns!
  2. Ships are built to operate best in the mid tier with reliable armor profiles, decent TDS, and excellent turret protection.  This is different from other nations:
    1. Germany - Close range
    2. Russian - Medium-close range
    3. USA - Mid range specialists
    4. Great Britain - Medium/long range
    5. Japan - Long range
    6. France - Most ships fall in the medium/long range category, but some ships can effectively operate in all combat ranges.
  3. Gun performance is defined by strong AP broadside potential with either high penetration and moderate to low accuracy, or excellent accuracy and low penetration.  Main battery firing angles are generally very good.  When both are present, as is the case with the USS Colorado, then broadside potential is reduced.
  4. The AA strength is a progressively larger balancing factor the higher the tier you get (ie, the AA of the Iowa is factored into its overall balance).
  5. Ships now have a slightly better heal and faster rudder shift compared to other nations.

So if you want another US BB line, you're going to have to come up with something different.  And for the most part, the playstyle of the USS Massachusetts/Georgia/Ohio is a great alternative to build off of.

  • Angry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,306
[PN]
[PN]
Beta Testers
8,144 posts
20,319 battles

@Ranari I wouldn't go so far as to say an alternate line with nothing different but the names would be a flop. There are likely quite a few players who would love to have only a single nations navy no matter how many ships were duplicates except for the names. There might also be some that would want to have every ship that every nation ever had. Of course I doubt anyone could play every ship of every nation in a lifetime. But what the heck. Whatever blows their skirts up.

WG has already shown that it can be done. The ARP ships are proof of that. Four BBs and 2 cruiser tiers that the only differences are the names and the paint job from the tech tree ships.

So yes it still makes no sense but WG seems prone to doing anything else that makes no sense.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
285
[UN1]
Members
753 posts
2,808 battles
3 minutes ago, CAPTMUDDXX said:

@Ranari I wouldn't go so far as to say an alternate line with nothing different but the names would be a flop. There are likely quite a few players who would love to have only a single nations navy no matter how many ships were duplicates except for the names. There might also be some that would want to have every ship that every nation ever had. Of course I doubt anyone could play every ship of every nation in a lifetime. But what the heck. Whatever blows their skirts up.

WG has already shown that it can be done. The ARP ships are proof of that. Four BBs and 2 cruiser tiers that the only differences are the names and the paint job from the tech tree ships.

So yes it still makes no sense but WG seems prone to doing anything else that makes no sense.  

ARP ships are more premium territory.  For a new tech tree line though, it would need to be unique in order for it to be played en mass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,306
[PN]
[PN]
Beta Testers
8,144 posts
20,319 battles

@Ranari The ARP ships are just an example that it can be done for any tech tree and premium ship. I suppose the uniqueness would be that one could have every ship of a particular class that a nation built. The ARP BBs represent all of that class that is already represented by the Kongo. One thing for sure is that a player could have 100s of DDs and when they are added Subs.

I don't have any idea how en mass usage might be but I certain that many players would try it. 

WG would/could make a killing off of it at 300 doubloons per port slot x 1000s of port slots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,191
[WOLF3]
Members
22,951 posts
20,872 battles

A second USN BB Line isn't happening because they're being rolled out as Premiums.

 

I really hope people aren't holding their breath for a tech tree West Virginia '44 / '45.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,740
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
4,622 posts
10,879 battles
On 8/16/2019 at 1:53 PM, CAPTMUDDXX said:

It would make no sense to create another line other than to use ships that are of a class not already represented.

And that's why we have different split branches in other nations?

There's reason to add them because there are enough ships and designs to basically make another line, one that can have a different play style to the typical USN one. I disagree with the op's idea that Ohio should be top of the alternate branch, I think an updated armament version of the 1920 SD design should go there, but given how Mass and all worked a slow but tough line of secondary using USN BB's could be interesting. AZ, the other PA class, as is is pretty tough and can shrug rounds well, now add in PA's later war upgrades that can open up better secondaries. Nevada, the likely tier 5, also was upgraded similarly, Tennessee as well. SD 39 we've seen the Mass already so we know that'll be similar if not the same, tier 9 is a question mark maybe some generated inbetween of SD 39 and SD 20, and SD 20 with it's similarities to Montana at 10 sporting 6 inch twin turrets like what we see on Worcester as a main battery. 

While the highest tier ones may be faster than the 21 knot standards, maybe a couple/few knots slower usually than other ships of the tier, using their armour protection combined with possibly a some what faster DCP cooldown and maybe a different repair party (faster CD like mass, maybe UK style "zombie" heals that repair a higher percent of pen damage, whatever). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,306
[PN]
[PN]
Beta Testers
8,144 posts
20,319 battles

@WanderingGhost banging your head on the desk wont make it happen and neither will posting it here. Submit a support ticket and message WG Staff members with your ideas.

Sure they could make plenty of additional lines.

The  op's desire was to have duplicate lines of US BBs just to have the different names.

Also you missed my thought on adding every single ship that every nations navy had during the time frame the game represents. WG would make a killing selling thousands of port slots.

So please urge them to fill your desires.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
136
[LOIN]
Supertester
711 posts
On 8/18/2019 at 10:54 AM, HazeGrayUnderway said:

A second USN BB Line isn't happening because they're being rolled out as Premiums.

 

I really hope people aren't holding their breath for a tech tree West Virginia '44 / '45.

The U.S has tons of designs, paper or not. Actually they would have enough for like 5 different lines. So, it will eventually happen. Just no information has shared about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,452
[ARS]
Beta Testers
3,617 posts
3,743 battles
On 8/18/2019 at 10:54 AM, HazeGrayUnderway said:

A second USN BB Line isn't happening because they're being rolled out as Premiums.

No they aren't.  The class ships have been held in reserve.

Pennsylvania hasn't been added. Arizona was.
Tennessee hasn't been added. California is.
South Dakota hasn't been added.  Alabama and Massachusetts were added.

Tier IX and X don't matter as they are fictional ships anyways and WG can do whatever they want namewise. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×