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

USN Battleship Split and Friends (please support)

68 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
121 posts
5,012 battles

(This letter is not meant to correct anything; in the sense it would fulfill any kind of entitlement i might have. Seriously though, I have no hostilities regarding this split.)

Hey WG.

First off I think its really cool that we've finally gotten to the point were we're ready for our first battleship split. I especially think its cool that the USN gets that honor, they deserved it.

Me and many from the NA community are rather confused and concerned with the direction the new Battleship Split is going.

For those who haven't seen any pictures, here's what the split currently looks like:

https://blog.worldofwarships.com/blog/45

phpdEKbfc.jfif

phpBIhchc.jfif

phpgMJbAl.jfif

phpGDDCpP.jfif

And so we come to our first concern. We're vastly confused with these ship choices, literally no one saw these coming. Out of the plethora of USN battleships, why is there a need to choose entirely fictitious ships? 

The community has always envisioned a split to somewhat of this extent:

 

VII: Tennessee / Pennsylvania

VIII: South Dakota / Washington 

IX: Washington / New Jersey / Wisconsin / 1940s Draft Design

X: New Jersey (cold war refit) / Wisconsin (cold war refit) / Louisiana (Montana class with cold war refit) / BB 38C / 1945 Draft Design

 

Out of the following:

Michigan, Delaware, Florida (BB-30), Utah, Nevada, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Idaho, Tennessee, Maryland, All 6 cancelled South Dakota Class Battleships, Washington, South Dakota, Indiana, BB 38C, New Jersey, Wisconsin, The 2 cancelled Iowa Class, and the 3 other cancelled Montana class, as well as the Tillman battleships.

Why choose COMPLETELY fictitious ships? That's 32 battleships to choose from your source material. YOU KNOW a portion of your audience is here for the historical portion of your game, so why limit that?

 

Our second concern:

Doesn't it seam a bit silly to base an entire tech tree line of ships on a single premium that was not well received? I.E. the California...

Now we all know stats are preliminary and subject to change.  However I can't recall the last time I witnessed a ship change conceptually since its development. (Exempt: Puolo Emilio)

These ships need to change conceptually. I'm not going to go into the stats of these ships because if anything is likely to change its the stats. 

 

OUR SOLUTION:

1st solution: Change these ships conceptually. Change how they play. Slow ships are not always fun, supper inaccurate ships are not always fun, squishy ships are not always fun, AA is rarely fun, what do you think will happen if you combine all of these terrible things?

2nd solution: (the best solution) Put these ships on the back burner and work on something else for a little while. Qwerky, weird, stand-alone ships don't belong in a tech tree anyways, they belong in the premium shop, the armory and the research bureau. Yes, that means we probably wont get a USN Battleship split in 0.9.7 or 0.9.8 or whenever you have it planed. THAT IS OKAY. It's better to have it done right and to have to wait, then to not have it right. And this my friends, is not right.

 

And I guess that more or less concludes this invitation to WG...

An invitation, or rather a plea, to please change this Battleship split.

sincerely, a consumer, and the community.  

Edited by CAPTAIN_JACK_HOLDEN
  • Cool 14
  • Funny 1
  • Thanks 6
  • Sad 1
  • Boring 4
  • Meh 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,103
[SOV]
Members
4,621 posts

Its amazing how WG can do the simplest things ever to make people happy.  Put the right planes on the right ships.  Captain Evens and the USS Johnsonton.  Simplw things that say tha ks we are listing.

Then this abomination!!!!

With no shortage of real ships we grt these!!! O MY WORD.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
364
[MOOW]
[MOOW]
Members
624 posts
23,362 battles

The community made several usn bb lines for WG...yet we get these 3 oddballs.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
121 posts
5,012 battles
10 minutes ago, Grapefruitcannon said:

The community made several usn bb lines for WG...yet we get these 3 oddballs.

I mean hopefully it's not too late.

I don't want to say this might be it for me, but this might be it for me. 

I've been looking forward to this for a long time and it's just, soooooooo wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
19,013 posts
6,482 battles

No, absolutely not. 
Fictitious? You want to talk fictitious? Tillman battleships are the most ridiculous thing on the planet. They're even beyond Maximum Battleships in nature. They're paper, and therefore at least exist on paper and are not fake. Tillman's also exist on paper, you may say, but they are completely so beyond realism that their designs should probably be burned. Honestly, this is what you get when you have a Senator trying to set the requirements for a battleship. A Senator isn't a naval architect, engineer, or - in Tillman's case - nothing more than an idiot. South Dakota (1920) is a good design. It's just an extension of a Standard. Tillman I gets away with it with a gun change at tier 10. 

WHY DO YOU WANT MORE IOWA'S. What could they POSSIBLY add to the game besides their mere existence? WHAT do you expect them to do that Iowa - or by extension Missouri if you have her - can't? Gonna slap speed boost on one and a superheal on another can call it the "fast" and "survivable" lines? Yeah, as if that makes them tier 10 material. All you're doing is adding the same ships with different gimmicks. Another Montana at tier 10 in this third line, not sure why. Add a superheal to that Montana and you've got OP right out of the box. Changing the playstyle of the same ship with gimmicks/consumables only gets you so far. Why even do that when you have SO MANY better and more varied designs?

 

 

  • Cool 7
  • Thanks 2
  • Boring 5
  • Meh 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
121 posts
5,012 battles

 

3 hours ago, _Sarcasticat_ said:

No, absolutely not. 
Fictitious? You want to talk fictitious? Tillman battleships are the most ridiculous thing on the planet. They're even beyond Maximum Battleships in nature. They're paper, and therefore at least exist on paper and are not fake. Tillman's also exist on paper, you may say, but they are completely so beyond realism that their designs should probably be burned. Honestly, this is what you get when you have a Senator trying to set the requirements for a battleship. A Senator isn't a naval architect, engineer, or - in Tillman's case - nothing more than an idiot. South Dakota (1920) is a good design. It's just an extension of a Standard. Tillman I gets away with it with a gun change at tier 10. 

WHY DO YOU WANT MORE IOWA'S. What could they POSSIBLY add to the game besides their mere existence? WHAT do you expect them to do that Iowa - or by extension Missouri if you have her - can't? Gonna slap speed boost on one and a superheal on another can call it the "fast" and "survivable" lines? Yeah, as if that makes them tier 10 material. All you're doing is adding the same ships with different gimmicks. Another Montana at tier 10 in this third line, not sure why. Add a superheal to that Montana and you've got OP right out of the box. Changing the playstyle of the same ship with gimmicks/consumables only gets you so far. Why even do that when you have SO MANY better and more varied designs?

I swear if you say CIWS is a good idea, I will pray for you to cease brain functions. More so than you're currently operating with. 

 

Tillman was never my first choice.

By Fictitious I mean made up by WG.

I included it the list because it was SOURCE MATERIAL. 

And yes, I think the Iowa is a great platform to build a tier 10. Granted she would probably need better pen angles and better pen. I was thinking a 1950s refit would suffice.

Why not have sister ships to Iowa?

After a refit and a rebuild you wouldn't even recognize her. 

But yeah the Tillman ships are pretty funny...

  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
410 posts
6,036 battles

The Tillmans were designed for the Senator asking what was the maximum possible battleship given the required restrictions the US Navy had (Panama Canal mainly).  Tillman did not design them.  He had the Navy design them because he didn't want to fund more battleships as every year with its was a incremental increase in ability.  He was wanting to know where it would end if the Navy didn't have a budget restriction and could do what they wanted.

 

I was hoping for the more ridiculous of the Tillman designs.  The one with the four sextuple turrets.   That and the Lexington battlecruisers in place of Colorado in the fast part of the battleship line.

 

What we get is basically a modernized South Dakota (1923), an earlier Tillman design, and a later Tillman design.   A theoretical extension of the Standard Battleships if the Washington Treaty never happened, thus the US still not going for fast battleships, because the battle line speed was 21 knots. 

Edited by ithekro
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,070 posts
11,663 battles

Dude come on, what the hell was Washington/New Jersey gonna do at Tier 9 and 10?  Missouri tried Radar and was banished to the fifth dimension.  Alabama tried thicker belt but Mass and Alabama gate effed everything over and now she's an alternate money making North Carolina.  There really is no sense in creating an alternate line made of the "same" ships (Massachusetts was spared the community's ax because of secondary's).  But I do agree with you in that a split with no mid tier BBs was a poor choice.

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 1
  • Meh 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
362
[-ARM-]
Beta Testers
997 posts
10,868 battles
42 minutes ago, _Sarcasticat_ said:

No, absolutely not. 
Fictitious? You want to talk fictitious? Tillman battleships are the most ridiculous thing on the planet. They're even beyond Maximum Battleships in nature. They're paper, and therefore at least exist on paper and are not fake. Tillman's also exist on paper, you may say, but they are completely so beyond realism that their designs should probably be burned. Honestly, this is what you get when you have a Senator trying to set the requirements for a battleship. A Senator isn't a naval architect, engineer, or - in Tillman's case - nothing more than an idiot. South Dakota (1920) is a good design. It's just an extension of a Standard. Tillman I gets away with it with a gun change at tier 10.

With the overwhelming majority of the Russian tech tree as Exhibit A, I think we can say that WG's developers do not give even a single rat's flea bitten rear over whether a design was realistic or not.

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 2
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
362
[-ARM-]
Beta Testers
997 posts
10,868 battles
1 minute ago, Airglide2 said:

Dude come on, what the hell was Washington/New Jersey gonna do at Tier 9 and 10?  Missouri tried Radar and was banished to the fifth dimension.  Alabama tried thicker belt but Mass and Alabama gate effed everything over and now she's an alternate money making North Carolina.  There really is no sense in creating an alternate line made of the "same" ships (Massachusetts was spared the community's ax because of secondary's).  But I do agree with you in that a split with no mid tier BBs was a poor choice.

What I would've suggested was having one line as the Standard Types transitioning to Tillman designs at the end, while the other line would have been the battle cruiser Lexington transitioning into NC, Iowa, and Montana. For a split at tier 6, we'd have to pull a napkin drawing out of somewhere, or use an earlier iteration of Lexington (pre up-gunning to 16") as the tier 6 of the "fast" line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
121 posts
5,012 battles
10 minutes ago, Airglide2 said:

Dude come on, what the hell was Washington/New Jersey gonna do at Tier 9 and 10?  Missouri tried Radar and was banished to the fifth dimension.  Alabama tried thicker belt but Mass and Alabama gate effed everything over and now she's an alternate money making North Carolina.  There really is no sense in creating an alternate line made of the "same" ships (Massachusetts was spared the community's ax because of secondary's).  But I do agree with you in that a split with no mid tier BBs was a poor choice.

Try 38mm extremities. Try increased dispersion, try increased sigma, try increased Penn and bounce, they could make those 16in guns work. 

Shoot, maybe even try a 3 x 3 457mm setup on a Missouri hull. 

They have options. Good options.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
19,013 posts
6,482 battles
17 minutes ago, sulghunter331 said:

With the overwhelming majority of the Russian tech tree as Exhibit A, I think we can say that WG's developers do not give even a single rat's flea bitten rear over whether a design was realistic or not.

Actually, all designs in-game were achievable by the VMF. Only the construction quality and survivability of their battleships was the issue. But if we had that in-game, ships like the Mogami would shake themselves apart. 

Half of the Soviet tree is paper by necessity. Why? Because the VMF was tiny. However, were the designs by the VMF impossible or underdeveloped? No. Not at all, actually. Soviet designs were seriously considered because Stalin pushed for them so harshly in the first place, notably in regards to Battleships. Stalin, the leader of the Soviet Union and man with absolute power tells you to design something seriously and expects it in production? You will do it, or you won't be there for very long. VMF by 1945 and postwar had no issues with cruiser and destroyer production. In fact, ships like the Chapayev weren't half bad at all. Neither were the Project 7/7U. Leningrad wasn't satisfactory for the Russians, but Tashkent (of Italian design and construction) was and Italians helped the Russians pre-war and provided their influence. The Italians, should you not know, are rather exceptional shipbuilders. 

By August 1945, Sovetsky Soyuz, the tier 9, was 20% complete. Stalingrad by the time of her scrapping was 70% complete. Tallinn, was real and planned as a conversion to 18cm or 15.2cm. Project 24 (Kremlin), based off the Sov. Soyuz and upgunned to 457mm, was a real and even realistic design. Nothing is wrong with the Soviet destroyers and the cruisers themselves are just heavy cruisers with 220mm guns and the light cruisers are larger with 18cm guns because Stalin wanted them to be "bigger and better" than the USN/British. After Stalin's death (thankfully) the naval designers were able to return to what they knew was better for their navy: CL, DD, and Carriers. 

 

Edited by _Sarcasticat_
  • Cool 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
362
[-ARM-]
Beta Testers
997 posts
10,868 battles
2 minutes ago, CAPTAIN_JACK_HOLDEN said:

Shoot, maybe even try a 3 x 3 457mm setup on a Missouri hull.

They did that, and it's called Georgia. The only reason it was 6 instead of 9 18" guns was that the barbettes of the hull would not have been wide enough to support the necessary turret for mounting 3 18" guns.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
19,013 posts
6,482 battles
4 minutes ago, CAPTAIN_JACK_HOLDEN said:

Try 38mm extremities. Try increased dispersion, try increased sigma, try increased Penn and bounce, they could make those 16in guns work. 

Shoot, maybe even try a 3 x 3 457mm setup on a Missouri hull. 

They have options. Good options.

3x3 457mm doesn't exist on paper and is completely fake. 

Meanwhile I have a chart that provides over a dozen real designs that would work for tiers 8-10. 

TWZobVG.png

This is what a really good USN BB split proposal looks like. Courtesy of @Kingpin61.

April 1938(I) is an Iowa prelim with 3x3 457's, but that's not the "fast" Iowa we know, and is really just a premium.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
19,013 posts
6,482 battles
8 minutes ago, sulghunter331 said:

They did that, and it's called Georgia. The only reason it was 6 instead of 9 18" guns was that the barbettes of the hull would not have been wide enough to support the necessary turret for mounting 3 18" guns.

Georgia is a Scheme IV gunswap. Also fake. 

 

Edit: your proof
Geo-1-1-1.PNG?width=479&height=671

Image courtesy of @Battleship_60

Edited by _Sarcasticat_
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,088
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
5,026 posts
11,610 battles
2 hours ago, CAPTAIN_JACK_HOLDEN said:

VII: Tennessee / Pennsylvania

VIII: South Dakota / Washington 

IX: Washington / New Jersey / Wisconsin 

X: New Jersey / Wisconsin / Louisiana (Montana class) 

 

Out of the following:

Michigan, Delaware, Florida (BB-30), Utah, Nevada, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Idaho, Tennessee, Maryland, All 6 cancelled South Dakota Class Battleships, Washington, South Dakota, Indiana, New Jersey, Wisconsin, The 2 cancelled Iowa Class, and the 3 other cancelled Montana class, as well as the Tillman battleships.

Why choose COMPLETELY fictitious ships? That's 31 battleships to choose from your source material. YOU KNOW a portion of your audience is here for the historical portion of your game, so why limit that?

Most I saw were -

IV: Delaware/Florida (if not Deleware at III and Florida at IV)

V: Nevada

VI: Pennsylvania

VII: Tennessee

VIII: SoDak 42

IX and X a toss up on where SoDak 20 went and some other design filling the other tier - unless the later outfitting and all basically shifted the whole line upward 1 tier (making it all existed/started construction ships).

Also - some of the ships you list are sister ships, while they'll spin those off for premiums (Mo, California, Arizona) they use lead ships for the tech tree ships name, so they have 6 names for 7 classes, though plenty of names are still available for use, heck they used some.

I get why we don't see another Montana and Iowa class, but they have 7 lead ships they can use that existed or at least started construction. But otherwise, I agree with what your saying.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3
[UNS]
Members
6 posts
6,178 battles

I agree. Please use actual historical warships when there are so many still available.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,431
Supertester
4,143 posts
4,602 battles
2 hours ago, CAPTAIN_JACK_HOLDEN said:

Why not have sister ships to Iowa?

because line ships in this game are representations of a class as a whole, not of a specific ship.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34
[NYAAR]
Members
139 posts
2,288 battles
2 hours ago, Airglide2 said:

Dude come on, what the hell was Washington/New Jersey gonna do at Tier 9 and 10?  Missouri tried Radar and was banished to the fifth dimension.  Alabama tried thicker belt but Mass and Alabama gate effed everything over and now she's an alternate money making North Carolina.  There really is no sense in creating an alternate line made of the "same" ships (Massachusetts was spared the community's ax because of secondary's).  But I do agree with you in that a split with no mid tier BBs was a poor choice.

I don't think radar was the reason Missouri was banished as WG tried putting radar on the new Russian BB line.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
19,013 posts
6,482 battles

Honestly, seriously hope this line of reasoning gets nowhere. It's actually alarming the kind of support it has already.

Edited by _Sarcasticat_
  • Meh 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,590
Members
6,621 posts
20,633 battles

These ships in a tech tree line....use your melon. It allows the others to become premiums down the line and to make money.

If the ships everyone wanted were in the tech tree would you pay for the Vermont and Kansas? Of course not.

 

Money talks boys.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
19,013 posts
6,482 battles
2 minutes ago, Joyous_Vibes said:

These ships in a tech tree line....use your melon. It allows the others to become premiums down the line and to make money.

If the ships everyone wanted were in the tech tree would you pay for the Vermont and Kansas? Of course not.

 

Money talks boys.

This is true, actually. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
817 posts
5,692 battles
1 hour ago, Joyous_Vibes said:

These ships in a tech tree line....use your melon. It allows the others to become premiums down the line and to make money.

If the ships everyone wanted were in the tech tree would you pay for the Vermont and Kansas? Of course not.

 

Money talks boys.

Maybe but maybe they are also holding stuff back for future lines too. There could very well be an additional line split in the future with another T8, T9, & T10 BB. I'd have to guess that WG has at least the next 2 years of ship lines already decided. Can't shoot all your bullets at once. It's why so many notable ships are still missing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
625 posts
19,884 battles

I am not happy with this line split, but I would have been even less happy to get the split you suggested. In gameplay terms there is nothing to be gained by splitting the US BBs with existing ships and classes at high tier. Yeah, sure, new names can be added, great. Gameplay wise? Nah. Sorry, but even if I have massive issues with how WG did this split (and I do) it is still better than just "aDd aLl thE 1940s cLassEs bUt +1 tier". At least WG tried something different here with adding a line of standard BBs, even if I disagree with how they did it. For example, I see no reason not to extend this split below T8, but they didn't. Regardless, doing that is still better than trying to shove Washington into T9 and an Iowa class at T10, plus adding their sisters into the tech tree for no reason.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
897 posts
3,458 battles
5 hours ago, CAPTAIN_JACK_HOLDEN said:

Try 38mm extremities. Try increased dispersion, try increased sigma, try increased Penn and bounce, they could make those 16in guns work. 

Shoot, maybe even try a 3 x 3 457mm setup on a Missouri hull. 

They have options. Good options.

Triple 18" is impossible on a Panama Canal max width beam. Iowa with triple 16" literally scrapes the sides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×