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

USN BB Tree split - NEEDS filling out.

19 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

244
[CROOK]
Modder, Beta Testers
549 posts
5,294 battles

Today WG announced the introduction of a new tech tree for the US Battleships, starting a T8 to T10.
These ships I have no particular issue with, however, for the gimmicks this tree has, there are plentiful warships both built and designed that could of filled out an entire tech tree, featuring the main gimmicks of the high tiers.

The gimmicks of the new tree are: Being slower then their same tier counterparts, having slower reload speed, pretty standard accuracy at best, but longer range, more HP,  and much heavier broadsides then their same tier counterparts.

These gimmicks, all of them, except for being slower then their counterparts can easily be done at mid and low tiers, and even that gimmick can be forced unto the lower tiered ships if you wanted.

The new USN Battleship tree, I would propose the T3-T7 ships to fill out the tree to be these warships and designs:

Tier 3: USS Delaware:

838048089_USSDelaware.thumb.png.857ab7d10f2d7040adff6dc2058e6b94.png

Armament:
5x2-12inch/45 Mk. 5
-Reload: 40s
-Range: 14.5km/16.5km (Stock/Upgraded)
-Traverse: 45s
-Shells: Same as the South Carolina/Wyoming

14x1-127mm/45 Mk. 5
-Range: 3km
-Reload: 6s
-Same as the shells equipped to the 127's of Wyoming

HP: 34,900/37,300 (Stock/Upgraded)

Speed: 21knots (or nerf it to 18knots to match South Carolina)
Rudder Shift: 14s/10s(Stock/Upgraded)
 

Tier 4: Nevada 
955941835_USSNevadaOriginal.thumb.jpg.e9eaf8ab4d6aeadd31a2875d9851bb65.jpg
(Stock)
255348839_USSNevada.thumb.jpg.f01282e127ff73f90819aa30fd0e6f2f.jpg
(Upgraded)

Armament:

2x2+2x3-14inch/45
-Reload: 40s
-Range: 15km/16.5km (Stock/Upgraded)
-Traverse: 60s
-Shells: Same as what is equipped to New York's 14inch guns.

21x1-127mm/45 (Stock) 8x2-127mm/38
-Range: 3.5km
-Reload: 7s
-Shells:
--Stock: Same as Wyoming's 127mm secondary shells
--Upgraded: Same as North Carolina's 127mm secondary's shells.

HP: 42,800/46,800 (Stock/Upgraded)

Speed: 20.5 (No Upgrade)
Rudder Shift: 14s/10s(Stock/Upgraded)

(The Nevada has been highly requested as late, from what I have observed moderating World of Warships Global Fanbase on Facebook, this ship being in the tech tree would be greatly satisfying to many players. I've listed stats for both a stock configuration and an upgraded one, however for a production costs stance, if only one can be made, I would prefer the refit version of the ship, to fit the aesthetic of the tech tree as a whole)

T5: USS Pennsylvania
1828728385_USSPennsylvania.thumb.jpg.73323d5dbfed3c53d86f3932489e56f8.jpg
(Stock)
USS_Pennsylvania_(BB-38)_drawing_1943.thumb.png.3e9f7b45eca3b40722cd8abdcaeca585.png
(Refit)

Armament:

4x3-14inch/45
-Reload: 40s
-Range: 17km/19km (Stock/Upgraded)
-Traverse: 60s
-Shells: Same as what is equipped to New York's 14inch guns.

10x1-127mm/51 + 8x1-127mm/25 (Stock) 8x2-127mm/38 (Upgraded)
-Range: 4.0km
-Reload: 7s/6 (Stock/Upgraded)
-Shells:
--Stock: Same as Arizona's 127mm secondary shells
--Upgraded: Same as North Carolina's 127mm secondary's shells.

HP: 48,500/51,500 (Stock/Upgraded)

Speed: 21 Knots (No Upgrade)
Rudder Shift: 18s/12s(Stock/Upgraded)

T6: USS Tennessee 
USS_Tennessee_BB43.thumb.jpg.1afdba356a7c28de0d268aa981353d93.jpg
 

Armament:

4x3-14inch/45
-Reload: 40s
-Range: 17km/19km (Stock/Upgraded)
-Traverse: 45s
-Shells: Same as what is equipped to California

8x2-127mm/38 (Upgraded)
-Range: 4.5km
-Reload: 6s
-Shells: Same as California's 127mm secondary's shells.

HP: 49,200/58,300 (Stock/Upgraded)

Speed: 20.5 Knots (No Upgrade)
Rudder Shift: 18s/12s(Stock/Upgraded)

(Note, this ship would fundamentally be the easiest ship to create, as its just re-tier-ing the already built model of the USS California to T6. I am sure some small differences between the sisters exist, but thats an easy modification of a model, not needing to make a new one entirely. A stock version of the ship could be made, but I don't think that is necessary, given the aesthetic of the tech tree seems to be to revolve around refit "standard" american BBs)

T7: Design 167
1582876357_Design167.thumb.jpg.ed414fedcb8b78dd3839bfb914fab554.jpg

 

Armament:

5x2-16inch/45
-Reload: 40s
-Range: 17km/20km (Stock/Upgraded)
-Traverse: 45s
-Shells: Same as what is equipped to the Colorado

22x1-127mm/51 (Stock) 8x2-127mm/38 (Upgraded)
-Range: 5.0km
-Reload: 7s/6s (Stock/Upgraded)
-Shells: Same as California's 127mm secondary's shells.

HP: 55,100/62,200 (Stock/Upgraded)

Speed: 21 Knots (No Upgrade)
Rudder Shift: 19s/14.7s(Stock/Upgraded)

Notes: This ship having no historical refit I made my own guesses for its tonnage increase for the HP calculation, for refitting it I added 4000 tons plus another 2000 for its full load displacement, increasing the stock tonnage from 37,500 to 43,500, which inputted to the BB HP formula gives us roughly a refit ship hitpoint value of 62,200. Design 167 is one of a set of preliminary designs for the Colorado class battleship, these designs being Designs 164 to 168, all which are armed with the same main battery in different arrangements to the 5 turrets. I chose 167 as this ones arrangement most closely resembles gameplay to the North Dakota class ship "Kansas" that WG has already implemented for the T8 ship of the new tech tree, having both 167 and the Kansas having 6 guns on the bow. This design should be the best candidate for transitioning gameplay from low tiers to high tiers in the tech tree I have put together. The stock configuration in the picture can similarly as I suggested on the lower tiered ships be skipped entirely to save on budget for the modelling of this tech tree.


Final Comments on this tech tree:
These ships being added to the tech tree should alleviate the biggest complaint about the new tech tree, the fact they are all paper designs. (The Balance complaints can be sussed out after testing) I tried to at least emulate the speed disadvantage this tech tree features at the top tiers by providing no engine upgrades to the ships I picked, plus, giving worse rudder shifts at every tier compared to the main tech tree counterparts. This balances out each of these ships having a greater broadside, range, and hitpoints, as well the accuracy of the main battery should be no better at any tier to the tech tree counterparts. I am well aware to add these ships would take many more months of work that cannot be done before the USN BB split is planned to occur (The Arc event likely starting in 0.9.8.0, and running until the end 0.9.9 patch)
So it is more my hope these ships can be added later. Similarly to how the Harugumo tech tree wasn't completed until many months after the Akizuki was added to the game

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,432
[-KIA-]
Clan Supertest Coordinator, Volunteer Moderator, Supertester, Privateers
6,507 posts
8,375 battles

It would've been cool if it was a full line and included these, the designs in op make sense for progression

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
92 posts
2,073 battles

I think you need to up tier every ship in your line because there is no way you can balance Nevada at tier 4, or Pensilvania at tier 5. All they would do is completely destroy any and all ships at said tiers regardless of how you try to balance them.

  • Confused 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
244
[CROOK]
Modder, Beta Testers
549 posts
5,294 battles
4 minutes ago, skytank_invader said:

I think you need to up tier every ship in your line because there is no way you can balance Nevada at tier 4, or Pensilvania at tier 5. All they would do is completely destroy any and all ships at said tiers regardless of how you try to balance them.

Have you not seen the new USN ships announced?
The Kansas, T8, and the Minesota, T9, both have 4x3-16inch guns, thats far more then what any other T8 and T9 battleship in the game has.
The ship's I have picked I picked purposely on that design principle, or did you not notice how most of the ships in my tree have 40s reload to balance their firepower?
(Kansas has 40s reload to balance its firepower, as does the new T10, the Vermont, with its 4x3-18inch broadside)

If I uptiered every ship in my proposal, they'd be pretty darn similar to the main tree, thusly, removing anything special from them, making them pointless to add for gameplay variety

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,747
[KWF]
Members
4,363 posts
6,405 battles

While I applaud the proposal, and yes, it should be a full tree, dunno how big a following slow standards with shotgun accuracy would end up having.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
92 posts
2,073 battles
46 minutes ago, Shipmaster_Crook said:

Have you not seen the new USN ships announced?
The Kansas, T8, and the Minesota, T9, both have 4x3-16inch guns, thats far more then what any other T8 and T9 battleship in the game has.
The ship's I have picked I picked purposely on that design principle, or did you not notice how most of the ships in my tree have 40s reload to balance their firepower?
(Kansas has 40s reload to balance its firepower, as does the new T10, the Vermont, with its 4x3-18inch broadside)

If I uptiered every ship in my proposal, they'd be pretty darn similar to the main tree, thusly, removing anything special from them, making them pointless to add for gameplay variety

I only found out about it thanks to your suggestion. 

As for Kansas if she has the same shells as Colorado than she can easily have a 33sec reload. 

So what if their similar, their the US standards that's the point, plus with the accuracy, range, and secondary changes you made it's different enough to warrant being different ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
244
[CROOK]
Modder, Beta Testers
549 posts
5,294 battles
9 minutes ago, skytank_invader said:

I only found out about it thanks to your suggestion. 

As for Kansas if she has the same shells as Colorado than she can easily have a 33sec reload. 

So what if their similar, their the US standards that's the point, plus with the accuracy, range, and secondary changes you made it's different enough to warrant being different ships.

A 12x 406mm broadside at T8 every 33s? what?! thats ridiculous. 40s is pretty balanced.

Read the stats:
https://blog.worldofwarships.com/blog/45

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
92 posts
2,073 battles
12 minutes ago, Shipmaster_Crook said:

A 12x 406mm broadside at T8 every 33s? what?! thats ridiculous. 40s is pretty balanced.

Read the stats:
https://blog.worldofwarships.com/blog/45

If it doesn't use the MK8 then there's no problem because at higher tiers it'll have trouble penning ships with the shell used on Colorado.

Also I just found out that WG deleted my third USN BB split which had a tier 9 BB named Minnesota that had 12 406mm guns the biggest difference between WG's Min and mine are the shells and top speed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
244
[CROOK]
Modder, Beta Testers
549 posts
5,294 battles
2 minutes ago, skytank_invader said:

If it doesn't use the MK8 then there's no problem because at higher tiers it'll have trouble penning ships with the shell used on Colorado.

Also I just found out that WG deleted my third USN BB split which had a tier 9 BB named Minnesota that had 12 406mm guns the biggest difference between WG's Min and mine are the shells and top speed.

The Kansas shells do 12,500 damage, per AP shell. Thats not a huge difference to the Montanna that has 13,500 per shell. And its the same number of guns, but Kansas will see the likes of Kongou, Fusou, Colorado, and the rest of the T6/7/8 BBs, with an almost montanna strength broadside. The Minnesota is even stronger as it does do 13,500 damage per shell, it has a full genuine montanna broadside at T9.

Suffice to say, these ships have firepower which usually comes from a tier higher atleast. Aswell as greater HP pools and range then their same tier counterparts. Thats the theme of this tech tree, and that is what i modeled in my ship selection. I picked ships which have a broadside stronger then what you normally find at the tier, and picked my stats to balance around those factors. Greater range, greater broadside, better HP pools, but terrible speed/maneuverability, and terrible reload speed.

As it is above in the tech tree, I have made it so below.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
4,540 posts

Why couldn't they put some of the older, real ships into the game at the lower tiers?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,542
[V_KNG]
Beta Testers
12,461 posts
24 minutes ago, Wowzery said:

Why couldn't they put some of the older, real ships into the game at the lower tiers?

I'm gonna guess and say "They see no money to be gained by doing so." This is just my guess. 

I'm holding out for a whole new "addition to WoWS" which goes back pre WWI... but I'm not holding my breath. Maybe to get into that addition, you'd need a couple of tier X in this edition? 

Share this post


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

It would've been cool if it was a full line and included these, the designs in op make sense for progression

Would have been, if lower tiers yielded profits enough for WG to consider researching, modeling, and implementing them with their respective premiums. 

Which is why a tier system that rewards/features the ultimate goal of only playing at the upper tier is both boring, bad for game design, and a massive waste of resources. 

Edited by _Sarcasticat_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,251
[WOLF5]
Supertester
4,097 posts
4,081 battles

Yeah, I'm disappointed they went with a nation with plenty of real ships or very historical refits, but instead of utilizing that they dug up the Tillman designs and went to town with ships that are nearly as paper as the Russian BBs. There's a load of real ships that could have been made, and plenty to make up a whole other line, but nope, WG pulls 3 high tier ships out of nearly thin air. The T8 funnel, for one thing, is in no way an American design. That thing looks like they pulled it straight off an IJN ship, and the USN never used a curved funnel like that. That was a major identifying factor IRL, the IJN had slanted or combined stacks, while the USN had straight and separated funnels. And then there's their stats. I think the slow speed would be workable (maybe a few more knots). But there's an inherent contradiction in the slow reload and terrible accuracy. Give them regular stats and their OP as hell sure, but you can either shoot fast like a shotgun, or slowly with precision. But waiting 40sec to hope your shells land in the same post code isn't fun on any level. 12 18" guns is terrifying, but you have to be able to hit things. And at 23 knots with 32mm plating and that size every HE cruiser is going to LOVE you. Sitting at long range, watching shots disperse to all corners every 40 sec while being burned down by every cruiser on the red team isn't my idea of fun.

I thought the new line was going to be fast BBs, almost battlecruisers. Lexington, a fast Montana, maybe shifting the top of the line around a bit. But the good news is a fast BB line is still perfectly possible. We can hope. In the meantime, hopefully these things get some changes in testing, otherwise I don't see them being real popular. The main reason people hate playing the CO is the speed. I don't know why WG would think that would be the trait to take to T10.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
244
[CROOK]
Modder, Beta Testers
549 posts
5,294 battles
2 minutes ago, AJTP89 said:

Yeah, I'm disappointed they went with a nation with plenty of real ships or very historical refits, but instead of utilizing that they dug up the Tillman designs and went to town with ships that are nearly as paper as the Russian BBs. There's a load of real ships that could have been made, and plenty to make up a whole other line, but nope, WG pulls 3 high tier ships out of nearly thin air. The T8 funnel, for one thing, is in no way an American design. That thing looks like they pulled it straight off an IJN ship, and the USN never used a curved funnel like that. That was a major identifying factor IRL, the IJN had slanted or combined stacks, while the USN had straight and separated funnels. And then there's their stats. I think the slow speed would be workable (maybe a few more knots). But there's an inherent contradiction in the slow reload and terrible accuracy. Give them regular stats and their OP as hell sure, but you can either shoot fast like a shotgun, or slowly with precision. But waiting 40sec to hope your shells land in the same post code isn't fun on any level. 12 18" guns is terrifying, but you have to be able to hit things. And at 23 knots with 32mm plating and that size every HE cruiser is going to LOVE you. Sitting at long range, watching shots disperse to all corners every 40 sec while being burned down by every cruiser on the red team isn't my idea of fun.

I thought the new line was going to be fast BBs, almost battlecruisers. Lexington, a fast Montana, maybe shifting the top of the line around a bit. But the good news is a fast BB line is still perfectly possible. We can hope. In the meantime, hopefully these things get some changes in testing, otherwise I don't see them being real popular. The main reason people hate playing the CO is the speed. I don't know why WG would think that would be the trait to take to T10.

The South Dakota class, the original one, was very much intended to use the wierd trunking design to its funnel. Would of been built ifnot for the 1922 washington treaty.1672995362_SouthDakotaOriginal.thumb.png.4f7dad08afa5da4e60a3663d3cb03221.png
1656188637_SouthDakotaFinalized.thumb.jpg.9163e93e290c8de426fd0e9930481825.jpg
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,251
[WOLF5]
Supertester
4,097 posts
4,081 battles
19 minutes ago, Shipmaster_Crook said:

The South Dakota class, the original one, was very much intended to use the wierd trunking design to its funnel. Would of been built ifnot for the 1922 washington treaty.1672995362_SouthDakotaOriginal.thumb.png.4f7dad08afa5da4e60a3663d3cb03221.png
1656188637_SouthDakotaFinalized.thumb.jpg.9163e93e290c8de426fd0e9930481825.jpg
 

Huh, well you learn something new everyday. Wonder whey they went with that, doesn't seem to be any huge need to route things like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,174
[HINON]
[HINON]
Members
7,897 posts
11,584 battles
16 hours ago, warheart1992 said:

While I applaud the proposal, and yes, it should be a full tree, dunno how big a following slow standards with shotgun accuracy would end up having.

you'd be surprised, just the mere existence of them in the tech tree would be enough for people but sadly WG seems to not be able to be bothered with doing something that'd make players happy for once

Edited by tcbaker777

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
536
[VVV]
Members
2,681 posts

This is my own preference for how to fill out this split, by adding 5 additional ships and moving 3 of the current BB line's ships over to the new line.

Tier 1st BB line 2nd BB line
3 South Carolina Delaware (5x2 305mm/45, 36s at least reload)
4 Florida (5x2 305mm/45) Wyoming
5 Kansas (BB-36 Scheme A4x2 356mm/45) New York
6 Nevada (post-Pearl Harbor refit, 2x2 2x3 356mm/45, 30s at most reload) New Mexico
7 Colorado (pls gib Maryland as C hull) Minnesota (1917 Preliminary Design No.164: 2x2 2x3 406mm/45)
8 North Carolina South Dakota (SoDak 1920: 4x3 406mm/50)
9 Iowa Indiana (more refitted SoDak 1920: 4x3 406mm/50)
10 Montana Kearsarge (Tillman IV-2 minus a turret: 4x3 457mm/48)

I favor transferring the names Kansas and Minnesota to the paper ships I've proposed at T5 and T7, and using the names South Dakota and Indiana for the SoDak 1920 designs at T8-9. Since those are the actual names assigned to the first 2 ships of the class. And the ships of those names in the 1939 SoDak class are very unlikely to come to WOWS (we already have 2 ships of that class, and WG specifically skipped out on putting the 1939 South Dakota as this line's T8 since she'd be insufficiently distinct from North Carolina), so there's no particular reason to keep those names held in reserve for later use.

And give the name Vermont to the upcoming T7 premium (early North Carolina with quad 356mm guns) to free up Florida for the early dreadnought of that name. I've also long favored the name Kearsarge in the event that a Tillman battleship ever came to WOWS, because those are odd ships and deserve an odd name. USS Kearsarge was the only US Navy BB to ever be named for something other than a state.

I reluctantly left out Pennsylvania and Tennessee (as a Tennessean I really wanted her) because they already have sister ships in the game, Pennsylvania would be insufficiently distinct from New Mexico and Tennessee sadly doesn't fit the theme of the line. To fit the theme of the 3 ships WG gave us for this line to start with, I prioritized making sure every ship in main line would have fewer guns than the counterpart in the 2nd line and that the 2nd line's main gun caliber would never be smaller than that of the main line.

Beyond this, I'd strongly suggest buffing the T9's speed to 25 knots and the T10's to 26 knots. Those are still slow compared to everything else in the tier, but 23 knots will render a BB painful to play on the big top-tier maps.

This is how I'd be inclined to handle a 2nd USN BB line when constrained by the theme that WG chose for it.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
244
[CROOK]
Modder, Beta Testers
549 posts
5,294 battles
4 hours ago, Lord_Magus said:

This is my own preference for how to fill out this split, by adding 5 additional ships and moving 3 of the current BB line's ships over to the new line.

Tier 1st BB line 2nd BB line
3 South Carolina Delaware (5x2 305mm/45, 36s at least reload)
4 Florida (5x2 305mm/45) Wyoming
5 Kansas (BB-36 Scheme A4x2 356mm/45) New York
6 Nevada (post-Pearl Harbor refit, 2x2 2x3 356mm/45, 30s at most reload) New Mexico
7 Colorado (pls gib Maryland as C hull) Minnesota (1917 Preliminary Design No.164: 2x2 2x3 406mm/45)
8 North Carolina South Dakota (SoDak 1920: 4x3 406mm/50)
9 Iowa Indiana (more refitted SoDak 1920: 4x3 406mm/50)
10 Montana Kearsarge (Tillman IV-2 minus a turret: 4x3 457mm/48)

I favor transferring the names Kansas and Minnesota to the paper ships I've proposed at T5 and T7, and using the names South Dakota and Indiana for the SoDak 1920 designs at T8-9. Since those are the actual names assigned to the first 2 ships of the class. And the ships of those names in the 1939 SoDak class are very unlikely to come to WOWS (we already have 2 ships of that class, and WG specifically skipped out on putting the 1939 South Dakota as this line's T8 since she'd be insufficiently distinct from North Carolina), so there's no particular reason to keep those names held in reserve for later use.

And give the name Vermont to the upcoming T7 premium (early North Carolina with quad 356mm guns) to free up Florida for the early dreadnought of that name. I've also long favored the name Kearsarge in the event that a Tillman battleship ever came to WOWS, because those are odd ships and deserve an odd name. USS Kearsarge was the only US Navy BB to ever be named for something other than a state.

I reluctantly left out Pennsylvania and Tennessee (as a Tennessean I really wanted her) because they already have sister ships in the game, Pennsylvania would be insufficiently distinct from New Mexico and Tennessee sadly doesn't fit the theme of the line. To fit the theme of the 3 ships WG gave us for this line to start with, I prioritized making sure every ship in main line would have fewer guns than the counterpart in the 2nd line and that the 2nd line's main gun caliber would never be smaller than that of the main line.

Beyond this, I'd strongly suggest buffing the T9's speed to 25 knots and the T10's to 26 knots. Those are still slow compared to everything else in the tier, but 23 knots will render a BB painful to play on the big top-tier maps.

This is how I'd be inclined to handle a 2nd USN BB line when constrained by the theme that WG chose for it.

Your 2nd tree at the mid and low tiers kind of negates the game design of the new USN BBs, its not just about having bigger broadside then the montanna tech tree, its about having bigger broadsides, hp, and range then all other bb tech trees, and you've skipped this fact and only put bigger broadsides in comparison the montanna tech tree.

Also, buffing the Vermont speed is not good for her design. 25 knots means she almost matches Yamato in speed, and that just doesn't suit the design of the new tech tree at all. The Vermont is already going to have more armor then any other battleship in the game if she is historically accurate to her armor scheme. Plus her top speed makes sense for what the Vermont is.

She isn't a Tillman IV-2 with a removed turret, she is a Tillman 1 with her main battery replaced with 457's. The increase in weight from upgunning has dropped Tillman I's speed from 26.5knots to 23 knots. Tillman I also makes this slow gameplay work, because she has some pretty absurd armor thicknesses, such as having a 460mm armor belt, which alot thicker then the next best, Kremlin, which has patches of 430 at most. 
761115898_TillmanI.thumb.jpg.bb561d62192d67fbfa90d4082a7857da.jpg
Her main battery was replaced with this turret, which is a 3 barreled version of the turret used by the Georgia and Ohio:
WNUS_18-48_mk1_triple_pic.thumb.jpg.030c234b5460c8434b1e7a963926f7c2.jpg
dsfgshjk.thumb.jpg.1a83bf8755339c0e09aa621dc9ac423b.jpg

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
244
[CROOK]
Modder, Beta Testers
549 posts
5,294 battles

Some relevant news, the USS Oklahoma has been announced as a T5 Premium.
unknown.thumb.png.88fc548cda40cf1319ce5e404ddc9fc7.png
 

Many of the stats are similar to the Nevada, which I propose for the tech tree to be Tier 4. I still standby this statement, as compared to the Oklahoma which is recieving 34s reload time, the Nevada at tier 4 in my propositon should recieve 40s reload.

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×