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

CV Mega Thread 2 - The Reckoning (suggestions of reworking current trees and for new ones)

7 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

2,090
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
5,039 posts
11,620 battles

So - when they deleted the section for player tech tree suggestions without warning, those familiar with my previous thread will notice that my last one of these got nuked with it. Insult to injury that I had lost a considerable amount of work because my primaries and backups were lost before that and figured 'well at least I have the forum thread'. So between that and any proposals lost in that as well - I basically am going to be rebuilding it all ground up from memory. 

Odds are this specific thread will not be as insane as the other with like 8 reserved posts broken out for each nation/grouping. It's going to have the proposed line/lines, aircraft, and maybe some bits on ordnance and the like, but after the last time - I'm likely going to save anything more detailed to specific threads like say one on the 'USN Conversion Branch' and  then post the links with the info here as a 'for further reading' as opposed to this being something of a brief (for me anyway) overview. But my stance has not changed - where I can, I'm going to create full tech trees with ships actually built, planned, or proposed resorting to fiction only when I need to fill a gap and generally only one or at most 2 ships, and I'm going to stay as close to history as I can. There will however be one difference - in the previous iteration I tried to work around what Wargaming had in game already and not have too many problems of duplicates that need a year added (like WV) or tier shifting, or moving/deleting ships. But after Ark Royal and the recent release of German CV's of which exactly 1 historical ship made it to the line, 1 seems like it may be another version of GZ, the obvious needed fictional tier 10 and the seeming use of 'Flightdeck Cruisers' - the literal translation of what the seeming bases for the Rhein are in which they are actually armed cruisers with a flight deck for limited aerial operation's (cruiser first, aerial platform second in design, why the German's differentiated them from Graf Zeppelin because that was a pure CV and these were hybrids), I'm throwing that rule out the window this time. Because Ark Royal deserves a spot in the tech tree, and if Wargaming wants to have a line of pure German Fantasy and hybrids they can go ahead I want one using the actual ships they designed and in cases started working on converting to CV's. 

 

USN

Name/Tier Purpose built Conversion Escort
4   Langley  
5 Commencement Bay Sangamon  
6 Ranger Independence Bouge
7 Yorktown Alaska Class Conv.  
8 Essex Lexington Casablanca
9 Midway Iowa Class Conversion  
10 Forrestal (Axial) Montana Class Conv. Saipan Type CVL

 

Notes: 

  • Bouge - The ship may need a speed buff, it may not. The end design is to primarily be the CV equivalent of a DD that while it will still have weapons to use on other ships (rockets/bombs) it's main goal would be ASW with a secondary of Anti-DD (as they are very much like subs in-game), with the idea being that their impact will be low enough to not require 1-1 MM.
  • Independence - Originally moved it to tier 5, I'm not thrilled at the idea of CVL vs Fleet CV's (a sticking point I've had with Ryujo vs Ranger) - however I've decided to forgo my original T6 suggestion which was the Pre-Saipan conversion of Baltimore class CA that honestly would have looked like a smaller version of Alaska Conversion ('Hawaii class' working name) and Iowa Class (Kentucky/Illinois working name) - which aesthetically looked similar to the Essex class in ways. 
  • Forrestal - Because I know some people will freak out, and Wargaming may try and quote the 'no angled decks/super carriers' line from years ago I am not suggesting the as built Forrestal Class CV's that are the first modern Supercarriers by definition (the term 'supercarrier previously was used to describe other CV's such as I think it was Ark Royal when it was built if not one of the other UK ones) but instead the design tey were originally meant to be built too - which did not include an angled deck, and in fact does not quite meet the definitions of a Super carrier, and is basically a bigger and badder Midway.

IJN

Name/Tier Purpose Built Conversion CVE/L
4   Hosho  
5 Ryujo Zuiho Kaiyo
6 Soryu Shinyo Taiyo
7 Hiryu Junyo Ryuho
8 Shokaku Akagi  
9 Taiho Modified Tosa Class Chitose
10 Hakuryu Shinano Ibuki Conv

Notes:

  • Not included - Possible mini-split from Soryu to Unryu (7) and Ikoma (8) back in to Taiho. Otherwise premiums.
  • Ibuki/Chitose - Basically Ibuki wins out at top due to armour, but may need modification or to swap with Chitose due to lack of DP guns.
  • 'Modified Tosa' - simple version - think super Kaga. Newer 203 mm guns, better AA, etc. 

 

UK

Name/Tier      
4      
5      
6      
7      
8      
9      
10      

Germany

Name/Tier Main Line Other ships/line  
4   Rhein  
5 Weser    
6 Elbe    
7 ???    
8 Europa Conv Wargaming GZ Alt  
9 GZ Alteration    
10 Richthofen or ship x    

Notes: 

  • Weser - Before anyone reads me the riot act on this I've reevaluated the ships even since the other day. Yeah - it goes 32 knots vs Elbe/Jade's 22 because we've never fudged speed numbers for balance. Elbe can carry more planes in the larger hanger, has more DP guns and AA, higher displacement so more HP, etc. Even De Grasse conversion beats it on weapons and planes, though maybe losses in HP. 
  • ??? - Yeah, at the moment, I have no idea what to do at tier 7 for the moment. I don't want to use the hybrid designs, I don't want to move Elbe/Jade to tier 7 to add De Grasse or put De Grasse over Elbe/Jade (though that may inevitably happen), not sure I want to go to a second fake (possibly 3rd if Wargaming insists on tier 4 ).
  • GZ Alt - It'd likely take the Strasser name intended for Hull B. Based on the plan to remove GZ's 15 cm guns during construction, and instead add additional 10.5 cm guns in sponsons just below the flight deck. However it was passed on because of how far along GZ was and cost and delays having to undo and redo work were too high. 

Aircraft: Bf 109 (B, E, G), Fw 190, Ta 152, Me 410, Ju 88, Ju-87 (C,E)

 

Link to 2019 discussion of Commonwealth, French, and Pan-American lines (Italian proposal as well by Pheonix_jz bottom of page 2) - basics to be copied over here later.

https://forum.worldofwarships.com/topic/199822-some-other-cvs-france-commonwealth-pan-america-more-discussion-than-suggestion/

 

Yes this is largely incomplete at the moment I'm posting it, will update it later with UK ships, planes for other nations and possibly broken out to tier/type of plane - at the moment want to just have it up/saved as well as to just generally take a break, maybe sleep. To say nothing of the other lines to potentially add.

Edited by WanderingGhost
  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,559
[TARK]
Members
6,661 posts
2,535 battles

If you need help with Russian CVs, I probably still have my excel notes on possibilities...

Plus maybe a look at commonwealth CVs, French and Italian CVs...

It was really mean of WG to just delete the tech tree suggestion topic threads and then refuse to acknowledge it in any way.

Im still grumpy.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
719
[UFFA]
Beta Testers
3,784 posts
5,052 battles
7 hours ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

It was really mean of WG to just delete the tech tree suggestion topic threads and then refuse to acknowledge it in any way.

Oh wow. That was a scummy move. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,090
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
5,039 posts
11,620 battles
8 hours ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

If you need help with Russian CVs, I probably still have my excel notes on possibilities...

Plus maybe a look at commonwealth CVs, French and Italian CVs...

It was really mean of WG to just delete the tech tree suggestion topic threads and then refuse to acknowledge it in any way.

Im still grumpy.

Definitely need RU CV info, I can stumble through planes (one reason or another I'd never found a book on WWII Russian aircraft till around the time WoWp came out) but everything I had on possibles ships is completely gone. 

After some digging - it turns out that because I posted it in General Discussion (because at the time it was meant to be a discussion on the possibility of adding these ships and what not as opposed to an actual suggestion at the time) my thread with Commonwealth, France, and PA survived the culling, with a bonus the last post in it has the materials to make a evens only Italian line at minimum as far as ships.

However - I think I'm going to need help on getting aircraft for them figured out again - all my notes are gone for them.

Undoubtedly I need to maybe rework/evaluate those ships/lines, but at least having found that one I'm not looking at completely starting from scratch, likely just have to deal with the arguments over placement of Colossus and Majestic class ships and possibly removing angled decks again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,559
[TARK]
Members
6,661 posts
2,535 battles

Looks like my Russian CV tech tree thread is gone forever (the only one of my threads to be missing).

Ill see if my spreadsheet still exists...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,559
[TARK]
Members
6,661 posts
2,535 battles

The following were my ideas for Russian CVs:

Tier 4: Komsomolet

Planes:

image.thumb.png.814158524fa2f372b921ba8643f2c171.png

 

Tier 6: Project 71

Planes:

image.thumb.png.cb3fd878fc2dc56a48623a3e27a1bb34.png  image.thumb.png.58af6932bf6e37599beb9aca8fde638c.png

Tier 8: Project 72

Planes:

image.thumb.png.25b5f584b5420bfb6a054c12e7618b2f.png   image.thumb.png.ca247dcce7ed604d4bd47bd777c6aac7.png

 

Tier 10: Project 69-AV

Planes:

image.thumb.png.f2f03274a3d8c93674fbf98ea7a678b9.png   image.thumb.png.24ee9a087c0af094571841d0e4e0e982.png

Edited by Daniel_Allan_Clark

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.

×