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

Hey WG, how about you give us the italian BB line before you give us more paper rusisan cruisers

21 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

430
[T-R-F]
Members
596 posts
17,088 battles

you guys are planning a split if the russian crusier line and add more in their. a fleet and was never known for numbers till cold war era and even then that was subs. and you ignore a country BB line that had the UK concerned enough they pulled an attack that inspired Pearl Harbor.

  • Cool 4
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
364
[MOOW]
[MOOW]
Members
624 posts
23,386 battles

Its far easier too get blueprints from the russkies than the italians....

 

I say bring all the paper crap in ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1 post
11,474 battles

Italian battleships will probably be the big announcement at Gamescon. Until then EU Destroyers and Russian cruiser split will do fine. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
430
[T-R-F]
Members
596 posts
17,088 battles
8 minutes ago, G3nesis_Pr1me said:

Italian battleships will probably be the big announcement at Gamescon. Until then EU Destroyers and Russian cruiser split will do fine. 

and I don't care about those lines. I want the italian BBs

  • Boring 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,539
[HINON]
Members
13,276 posts

Lesta is literally across the street from the russian archives so making russian ships is low hanging fruit and less expensive.  The new lines should have more logical gun progression. It also is no surprise that they play to their home market some as well. Honestly I found the pan asian line more of a "really?" Moment than this. Don't get me wrong, I'd much rather have more Italian, Dutch, etc ships before them, but when you look at the overall picture this shouldn't be shocking.

Edited by RipNuN2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,922
[KSC]
Clan Supertest Coordinator
5,127 posts
7,992 battles

All things considered I would have preferred Italian BBs first, but I'm happy for the Russian cruiser split so I might as well look forward to it.

Edited by yashma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
187
[ASHIP]
Members
172 posts
11,747 battles
2 hours ago, AdmiralQ said:

you guys are planning a split if the russian crusier line and add more in their. a fleet and was never known for numbers till cold war era and even then that was subs. and you ignore a country BB line that had the UK concerned enough they pulled an attack that inspired Pearl Harbor.

Nope, these commies feel so diminished they have to feel their country actually had something to be proud of haha. Still they ought to fix the fire idiocy, im sick of BBs spitting HC shells. Too bad there is no other competitor for this game.

  • Boring 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,453
[WOLFG]
Members
29,085 posts
8,332 battles

IMO it's all about the content. As soon as they bring out all the stuff people actually want, it's all downhill from there.

Spacing out the good stuff helps with the longevity of the game.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,276
[PVE]
Members
11,854 posts
24,547 battles

Nah, it's fine. Italian BB's will come at some point. I wouldn't be surprised to see a lot more line splits before totally new lines. There is only so much they can add. Their IS a finite amount of new lines unless they change the time frame ships are drawn from. Italian BB and DD are 2 new lines that can be used with big gaps between them to freshen and liven things up down the road. Plus we know the Italians are difficult to deal with for archive access making adding Italian ships more difficult.

And let's not look past how BAD most of the Italian ships are. I am not exactly hyped and waiting with baited breath for more of them. While T5 BB GC and the T8-T10 CA's are pretty good the rest of the Italian ships are meh-average at best (Duca's) or flat out suck (the rest of the Cruisers and Roma especially). I mean I am not flipping out because I am missing a line of Roma's.

Honestly I am kind of looking forward to the RU Cruiser split. Will be interesting to see what the 2 sides will play like with the changes and new ships. Never was a big fan of the CL's but like Moskva so looking forward to the new T8-T10 CA's. Also curious to try out the Kirov replacement at T5 and Moskva's replacement at T10.

WG actually needs to slow down on new line releases not speed it up to add longevity to the game. Line splits are a great filler by adding new ships to existing lines. All kinds of ships we could get there like...

  • US BB/DD/CV
  • BRN BB/DD/CV
  • IJN BB/Cruiser/CV
  • KM BB/DD/CV's? 
Edited by AdmiralThunder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,847
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
24,800 posts
3,895 battles
2 hours ago, RipNuN2 said:

Lesta is literally across the street from the russian archives so making russian ships is low hanging fruit and less expensive. 

Considering all they have to do (and all they have done, in many cases) is make up whatever they want and excuse it with "Secret documents!", the actual physical location of the archive is meaningless.

  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,550
[TARK]
Members
6,648 posts
2,527 battles
7 minutes ago, KiyoSenkan said:

Considering all they have to do (and all they have done, in many cases) is make up whatever they want and excuse it with "Secret documents!", the actual physical location of the archive is meaningless.

Indeed.

The whole, 'we need access to archives' is meaningless excuses. The fact is that they dont use the archive data anyway...

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,847
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
24,800 posts
3,895 battles
Just now, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Indeed.

The whole, 'we need access to archives' is meaningless excuses. The fact is that they dont use the archive data anyway...

It's nothing but an excuse, because all the information you need to accurately represent real steel ships in a video game is in publicly available sources. You don't need the top secret archive documentation.

What proof do I have? It's simple: How many times have knowledgeable players on this very forum posted "WG, you got it wrong, here's the truth in such-and-such books I own" and the source comes from widely recognized, accepted publications like Friedman or the like?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
698
[UFFA]
Members
2,112 posts
75 battles
1 hour ago, AdmiralThunder said:

Nah, it's fine. Italian BB's will come at some point. I wouldn't be surprised to see a lot more line splits before totally new lines. There is only so much they can add. Their IS a finite amount of new lines unless they change the time frame ships are drawn from. Italian BB and DD are 2 new lines that can be used with big gaps between them to freshen and liven things up down the road. Plus we know the Italians are difficult to deal with for archive access making adding Italian ships more difficult.

And let's not look past how BAD most of the Italian ships are. I am not exactly hyped and waiting with baited breath for more of them. While T5 BB GC and the T8-T10 CA's are pretty good the rest of the Italian ships are meh-average at best (Duca's) or flat out suck (the rest of the Cruisers and Roma especially). I mean I am not flipping out because I am missing a line of Roma's.

Honestly I am kind of looking forward to the RU Cruiser split. Will be interesting to see what the 2 sides will play like with the changes and new ships. Never was a big fan of the CL's but like Moskva so looking forward to the new T8-T10 CA's. Also curious to try out the Kirov replacement at T5 and Moskva's replacement at T10.

WG actually needs to slow down on new line releases not speed it up to add longevity to the game. Line splits are a great filler by adding new ships to existing lines. All kinds of ships we could get there like...

  • US BB/DD/CV
  • BRN BB/DD/CV
  • IJN BB/Cruiser/CV
  • KM BB/DD/CV's? 

Why do y’all keep up with this line? There is literally a website built by one person who garnered information from the Archives and other sources. 
 

Business choice? Absolutely. 
 

Archival material given all the completely made up ships in this game? Nope. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
698
[UFFA]
Members
2,112 posts
75 battles
1 hour ago, KiyoSenkan said:

It's nothing but an excuse, because all the information you need to accurately represent real steel ships in a video game is in publicly available sources. You don't need the top secret archive documentation.

What proof do I have? It's simple: How many times have knowledgeable players on this very forum posted "WG, you got it wrong, here's the truth in such-and-such books I own" and the source comes from widely recognized, accepted publications like Friedman or the like?

An example in regards to Italy is Stefsap’s book on the Impero conversion. It gives a clear indication of what post 43 radar would have looked like. Instead we get a copy/paste of a German setup fixed radar on tier X with a EC3? Nothing on IX and meanwhile the Tier V is modeled with a radar set. 
 

The laziness from a company that espouses such exacting research is astonishing. Im not saying it is limited to the Italians. One of the community members had an excellent write up on how Dallas didn’t follow BuShips practices. Or we can go with Monarch and the decision to not differentiate it further from KGV. 
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,847
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
24,800 posts
3,895 battles
7 minutes ago, Sparviero said:

An example in regards to Italy is Stefsap’s book on the Impero conversion. It gives a clear indication of what post 43 radar would have looked like. Instead we get a copy/paste of a German setup fixed radar on tier X with a EC3? Nothing on IX and meanwhile the Tier V is modeled with a radar set. 
 

The laziness from a company that espouses such exacting research is astonishing. Im not saying it is limited to the Italians. One of the community members had an excellent write up on how Dallas didn’t follow BuShips practices. Or we can go with Monarch and the decision to not differentiate it further from KGV. 
 

 

There are also numerous errors on actual ships like Nagato, Yamato, Bismarck/Tirpitz, New Mexico-- countless ships have errors, many of which affect gameplay

For example, Tirpitz is too high in the water, making her citadel more exposed than it should be. Plating on multiple USN battleships and cruisers is the wrong thickness because WG arbitrarily doesn't consider STS as armor, despite it being... you know, an additional layer of steel behind the armor plates. For the longest time Nagato's aft magazine protection was literally half its actual thickness. And all of this is information readily available in public resources widely accepted as accurate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,276
[PVE]
Members
11,854 posts
24,547 battles
25 minutes ago, Sparviero said:

Why do y’all keep up with this line? There is literally a website built by one person who garnered information from the Archives and other sources. 
 

Business choice? Absolutely. 
 

Archival material given all the completely made up ships in this game? Nope. 

I believe WG themselves said this maybe it was on Reddit. I don't say it (ie; archival difficulty) out of any anti Italian Bias. I want the ships in the game and want them to be good. Most of the ones we have though are not good; not even close. So I am in no hurry for more bah ships is all. Make them actually good and bring it on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,095
[KNMSU]
Members
7,086 posts
7,668 battles
5 hours ago, Grapefruitcannon said:

Its far easier too get blueprints from the russkies than the italians....

 

I say bring all the paper crap in ....

You understand that "blueprints" often amount to garbage like this...

Connecticut-class_battleship_line-drawin

... right?

There are no "blueprints" for these ships. If they were ever even design considerations - which I doubt enormously - they were the naval architectural equivalent of a doodle on a napkin.

This entire line split is A) jingoistic fantasy, and B) a further spittle hocked in the direction of traditional heavy cruisers. Why does the Russian cruiser tree - and ONLY the Russian cruiser tree - get to evolve into veritable battlecruisers? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
264
[DOG]
Members
1,109 posts
11,806 battles

They are stringing it out, since Italian BBs and DDs are the last lines left of any major naval power. After that, they'll really have to stretch to find another relevant nation.  Luxembourg CVs? Swiss BBs?  Mongolian DDs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,276
[PVE]
Members
11,854 posts
24,547 battles
1 minute ago, zubalkabir said:

They are stringing it out, since Italian BBs and DDs are the last lines left of any major naval power. After that, they'll really have to stretch to find another relevant nation.  Luxembourg CVs? Swiss BBs?  Mongolian DDs?

I think at that point they will have to consider adding tech trees that may not go all the way to T10. Maybe T1-T7 or so. They could probably fit some WW1 era nations in then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,639
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
8,664 posts
14,770 battles

WG: We need archives.

Also WG: We've never even looked at a picture of Gadjah Mada!

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,095
[KNMSU]
Members
7,086 posts
7,668 battles
5 minutes ago, zubalkabir said:

They are stringing it out, since Italian BBs and DDs are the last lines left of any major naval power. After that, they'll really have to stretch to find another relevant nation.  Luxembourg CVs? Swiss BBs?  Mongolian DDs?

Completely untrue. 

South American ship trees (they even had a fair number of heavy cruisers).

Pan-European cruisers would also be possible. 

British, German, and (potentially) paper American/Japanese/French battlecruisers. But you could do full trees based on real ships for the first two without breaking a sweat. 

There's also the potential of doing Australian and Canadian destroyer trees, though they'd be British knockoffs. I still think people would play them, though, because the Aussie/Canadian love is strong. 

Edited by Battlecruiser_Repulse

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.

×