Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
JackSparrow_665

gErMaN aIrCrAfT cArRiErS

55 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

3,481
[-K-]
Members
8,335 posts
14,112 battles

Who knows.

But honestly, I never thought I'd see a ship in game with a mast taller than that of Fuso......that is, until I seen the interesting monstrosity that is T6 Weser.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,644
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
15,730 posts

It smells like desperation.  

WG has spammed new ship lines so fast that they're straining to find more.  

There was a time when they didn't have new ships either in early access or release almost every patch cycle... 

 

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Guest
0 posts
  1. Because we have been asking and hoping for a German CV tech tree since 2015. 
  2. Now that we have British CVs, since last year, a German CV tech tree was inevitable too.
  3. Because numerous German CV designs from the period WOWS is set in, were documented, and are easily available, making research and modelling easy
  4. Because some WOWS forum users, especially Dseehafer (RIP), produced some 1st class proposals in 2016-17.
  5. Because we miss devstriking you.
  • Cool 7
  • Funny 2
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,636
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
8,662 posts
14,743 battles
6 minutes ago, LoveBote said:
  1. Because we have been asking and hoping for a German CV tech tree since 2015. 
  2. Now that we have British CVs, since last year, a German CV tech tree was inevitable too.
  3. Because numerous German CV designs from the period WOWS is set in, were documented, and are easily available, making research and modelling easy
  4. Because we miss devstriking you.

The same kinda goes but moreso for German battlecruisers, while not a perfect analogy a British line split followed by a German one would be logical, and German battleships preceded the British ones so follows that pattern too.

The more interesting question to me is not 'why German carriers' but 'why German carriers before battlecruisers'.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,644
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
15,730 posts

Why not a German line split?  Because the German BB line is awesome the way it is, it doesn't need to be mucked with. 

If they left the existing ships entirely alone, at the same tier, without trying to "correct" them to fit their precious rubrics of each line in the split, then sure, add some more ships.  But the phrase "line split" reminds me of what happened to the Pensacola, and how it went from "meh" to "trashbote" when it was downtiered.   And then there's the Mainz, which was supposed to be a Hipper hull with light cruiser armament... but because it's a "light cruiser", WG just had to change the armor to match their precious vision of what a "light cruiser" is in this game. 

 

Edited by KilljoyCutter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Guest
0 posts
4 minutes ago, mofton said:

.

The more interesting question to me is not 'why German carriers' but 'why German carriers before battlecruisers'.

Zeppelin effect. I think. (I mean, it has created more salt than anything in WOWS history, but also generated a lot of hype, and sales). Maybe the are counting on a German tech tree being popular. Also, Summer 2020 release could coincide with Gamescom (if it takes place this year) and benefit from the EU sales surge just before kids go back to school in September.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,636
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
8,662 posts
14,743 battles
2 minutes ago, LoveBote said:

Zeppelin effect. I think. (I mean, it has created more salt than anything in WOWS history, but also generated a lot of hype, and sales). Maybe the are counting on a German tech tree being popular. Also, Summer 2020 release could coincide with Gamescom (if it takes place this year) and benefit from the EU sales surge just before kids go back to school in September.

Not sure on the hype/sales for Zeppelin overall.

Maplesyrup Q1 NA stats have GZ and GZ-B at about 6,500 combined players and 73,000 games. In contrast Bismarck is about 25,000 players and Tirpitz/B at about 24,000 players with 430,000 and 270,000 battles respectively.

For a more established tree carrier, the most recent release of Implacable is 4,200/64,000 in Q1. Even Lexington on the NA server is 8,000/190,000.

Carriers have always seemed a pretty poor return on investment both pre- and post- rework. Maybe WG feel they 'have' to add something to fill that niche, and value variety (ha!) and having the invested assets of the USN/IJN carriers be 'wasted' I suppose made a costly rework attractive but from a hype/sales perspective carriers seem the worst possible investment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Guest
0 posts
1 hour ago, mofton said:

Not sure on the hype/sales for Zeppelin overall.

Maplesyrup Q1 NA stats have GZ and GZ-B at about 6,500 combined players and 73,000 games. In contrast Bismarck is about 25,000 players and Tirpitz/B at about 24,000 players with 430,000 and 270,000 battles respectively.

For a more established tree carrier, the most recent release of Implacable is 4,200/64,000 in Q1. Even Lexington on the NA server is 8,000/190,000.

Carriers have always seemed a pretty poor return on investment both pre- and post- rework. Maybe WG feel they 'have' to add something to fill that niche, and value variety (ha!) and having the invested assets of the USN/IJN carriers be 'wasted' I suppose made a costly rework attractive but from a hype/sales perspective carriers seem the worst possible investment.

MapleSyrup does not show pure ownership, it only shows "owners who have played a minimum # of battles." During the RTS Graf Zeppelin debacle, stats websites showed only 200 active players for the NA server, I recently discovered over 2000 RTS Graf Zeppelin were sold on the NA server in that single weekend of end August 2017! (which helps to explain the "community balansing result")

from proships which shows ownership, EU server totals,  :

Players/Battles

image.png.bfeecc2732d6728fd3c9c1636af01a30.png

of the premium CVs; Rework Graf is by far the most popular at 22 000 + owners, 500 000 battles + combining Graf and Graf B. Kaga comes a late second. Indomitable has, unsurprisingly, sunk like a lead balloon (not because British, but because it so totally uninspiring). 

this compares well to some premium battleships in game at the same tier :

 image.png.0a8e65a7cf11688555df2ebb63cc10b9.png

https://proships.ru/stat/eu/s/99999-/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
885
[HC]
Beta Testers
3,038 posts
12,715 battles
2 hours ago, JackSparrow_665 said:

Possibly because  WG can reuse the Bf109T's and Ju87C's art assets from the RTS Graf Zeppelin, and if nothing else, use the massive number of German aircraft in World of Warplanes as a reference.

That would probably make it cheaper to do German CV's than say, Italian ones.

Sadly, I expect to see Russian CV's before Italian CV's as the aircraft research is partially done by another WG product where the Italian aircraft would have to be done mostly from scratch.

Adding any CV line is a big plus, as the biggest problem with CV's is lack of variety. There's only 3 tech tree ships at any tier of CV's. And for most of the game's history, there was only 2.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,636
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
8,662 posts
14,743 battles
1 hour ago, LoveBote said:

this compares well to some premium battleships in game at the same tier :

Ownership usually follows battles played, though neither data source is perfect. proships, unless I'm missing something does 'lifetime of the game' which will bias toward older ships out longer. maplesyrup toward actual play more recently rather than ownership.

While GZ sales are impressive compared to some of the least popular battleships at T8, the most popular ship outright in terms of owners is Tirpitz with 165,983 owners and 14,662,918 battles. That is a good order of magnitude above GZ, and in second place is Bismarck with similar numbers. German battleships are clearly pretty popular, you'd have to assume so for battlecruisers in my estimation (Hipper's 5th place).

Despite there only being 2 carriers to choose from the most popular owned T8 carrier on EU by proships is Lexington, sitting in 30th place. You'd think the lack of variety would at least concentrate enthusiasm on the two original carriers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Guest
0 posts
15 minutes ago, mofton said:

While GZ sales are impressive compared to some of the least popular battleships at T8, the most popular ship outright in terms of owners is Tirpitz with 165,983 owners and 14,662,918 battles. That is a good order of magnitude above GZ, and in second place is Bismarck with similar numbers. German battleships are clearly pretty popular, you'd have to assume so for battlecruisers in my estimation (Hipper's 5th place).

indeed, compared to surface warships, CVs, despite the Rework, are"low popularity", while German battleships such as Tirp/Bis, and battlecruisers such as Scharnhorst are extremely popular staples of the game. A German Battlecruiser line would obviously be a hugely popular smash hit. Who knows how WOWS defines priorities, they must have their reasons (though it would be nice to know what they are). 

I for one want to see a Supercruiser/BC line in the game, ASAP, I have never hidden my disagreement with the exclusively premium status of these hybrids, especially in end game competitive content, it is wrong. I am watching KOTS right now, I am glad to see the Supercruisers are rarely used. They bring discredit to the genre. Though I just spotted in the EU finals 2 x Stalingrad, which is not terribly classy.

 image.png.8c169a13bb1fff1016887467bbe91bd1.png 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,651
[SALVO]
Members
4,406 posts
3,801 battles
3 hours ago, LoveBote said:

Because numerous German CV designs from the period WOWS is set in, were documented, and are easily available, making research and modelling easy

That horrible thing at T6 is based in an actual design?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
416
[FGNE]
Members
960 posts
4,568 battles
9 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

That horrible thing at T6 is based in an actual design?

If I remember correctly Weser is the CV converted 5th Hipper.

EDIT:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_cruiser_Seydlitz?wprov=sfti1

Edited by CO_Valle
Added link
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
153 posts
1,064 battles
14 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

That horrible thing at T6 is based in an actual design?

 

yes, she is the Admiral Hipper class heavy cruiser Seydlitz which, when she was already 95% complete as a cruiser, was ordered to be stripped down and converted into an aircraft carrier. Ultimately, she would never see completion.

wes2.png

Seydlitz

 

The tier IV is also a real design proposal to cheaply convert a number of Hansa type A Transport ships into small aircraft carriers.

Hansa

NON-STANDARD 'EMPIRE' SHIPS - transportsofdelight

 

The tier VIII looks to be WG's version of GZ's sistership which was layed down but never launched.

 

 

In other words, 3 out of the 4 ships in the German carrier branch existed IRL in some physical capacity.

 

 

Edited by WirFahrenGegenEngeland
  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Guest
0 posts
1 minute ago, WirFahrenGegenEngeland said:

NON-STANDARD 'EMPIRE' SHIPS - transportsofdelight

 

 

this is a cute ship, where can I adopt one?

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,318
[SIM]
Members
4,928 posts
8,006 battles

Why did you create this worthless topic? No one knows. 

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Guest
0 posts
17 minutes ago, SkaerKrow said:

Why did you create this worthless topic? No one knows. 

see this as an opportunity, to discuss and share interesting stuff about  German CVs. See @WirFahrenGegenEngeland's post above. Maybe not OPs intention, but this thread is looking quite constructive.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
295
[SNGNS]
Members
487 posts
6,026 battles

my question is, do the tech tree versions get the insane secondarys of Zeppelin (which i personally assume so because if they don't muck around with the torpedoes then the Germans seems totally helpless against any dd threat) and how do tier 10 cv secondarys look like (like kurfürst but more accurate? less? some other [edited]?)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Guest
0 posts
18 minutes ago, TobTorp said:

do the tech tree versions get the insane secondarys of Zeppelin

no, they don't.

Perceval, the t8 tech tree Graf Zeppelin sistership, get's dual purpose AA/secondaries, not the 150 mm dd busters.

19 minutes ago, TobTorp said:

how do tier 10 cv secondarys look like (like kurfürst but more accurate? less?

probably fewer in number, deck space will be limited! accuracy will probably be the same as for all German CVs. (but we will have to wait and see)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
295
[SNGNS]
Members
487 posts
6,026 battles
15 minutes ago, LoveBote said:

no, they don't.

Perceval, the t8 tech tree Graf Zeppelin sistership, get's dual purpose AA/secondaries, not the 150 mm dd busters.

probably fewer in number, deck space will be limited! accuracy will probably be the same as for all German CVs. (but we will have to wait and see)

then what do they get to deal with dds that come to close? their ap rocket are if not useless at least very ineffective and their bombers are even worse. that only leaves the torpedo bombers and making them more effective against dds will anger the community.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Guest
0 posts
3 minutes ago, TobTorp said:

then what do they get to deal with dds that come to close? their ap rocket are if not useless at least very ineffective and their bombers are even worse. that only leaves the torpedo bombers and making them more effective against dds will anger the community.

how on earth can a t8 CV driver be unaware that a dd has crept into the German CVs gigantic detection range (14+km)? If a dd gets into torp strike range on a CV, it is the CVs fault, and they deserve to be sunk.

CVs are the best spotters/scouts in WOWS, one of their primary tasks in battle, is to be aware where the enemy dds are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
295
[SNGNS]
Members
487 posts
6,026 battles
Just now, LoveBote said:

how on earth can a t8 CV driver be unaware that a dd has crept into the German CVs gigantic detection range (14+km)? If a dd gets into torp strike range on a CV, it is the CVs fault, and they deserve to be sunk.

CVs are the best spotters/scouts in WOWS, one of their primary tasks in battle, is to be aware where the enemy dds are.

ahhahahah, and how do you propose they DEAL with the dd? knowing a dd is within range and having the ability to deal with it are two very different things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×