Jump to content
Hapa_Fodder

ST 0.9.8, new ships

48 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,386
[WOLF8]
Members
7,107 posts
6,092 battles

Hapa, any news about the AL collab camo for Belfast to be enabled on Belfast '43 too? I know WeeGee said they'll look into it, but I can't help but be curious.

Personally for me, this is a deal breaker. If the camo can be mounted on Belfast '43, then I am getting the ship, definitely. Otherwise... I guess I get to skip the ship... lol.

No comment on Oklahoma. She looks okay... lel.

Edited by Blorgh2017

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,903
[SOUP]
Modder, Supertester
8,743 posts

Great, my being constantly harrassed by endless Oklahoma drops in Azur Lane has leaked into WoWS now...     :\

  • Funny 2
  • Haha 2
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
669
[NGA]
Members
1,975 posts
10,847 battles

Anyone else think this Belfast is slightly weaker than the current Belfast? Admittedly that's not really a fair comparison given that old Belf is an exclusive. And am I the only one who has observed that Belfast has been in the game twice now and neither is really in-line with the British CL line>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,884
[TARK]
Members
5,616 posts
2,260 battles

That Oklahoma looks interesting from a firepower perspective. Slow reload and turrets...but interesting in the sense of maintaining the slow but nimble aspect of the Standards.

What will her armor be like?

The AA looks pretty poor...with only flak and not very much DPS. This is fine, IMO. Its a pre-war type anyway (tier5). That rudder shift looks good for damage mitigation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
148
[TAZ]
Members
672 posts

why do Belfast at all; the player base have been begging for other Commonwealth representation (i.e New Zealand, India  etc) or even South American representation. Yet we get a renamed Edinburgh. 

  • Cool 5
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41
[OVRPN]
[OVRPN]
Beta Testers
108 posts
17,031 battles
30 minutes ago, JediMasterDraco said:

Anyone else think this Belfast is slightly weaker than the current Belfast? Admittedly that's not really a fair comparison given that old Belf is an exclusive. And am I the only one who has observed that Belfast has been in the game twice now and neither is really in-line with the British CL line>

It would make sense that this Belfast is weaker since the original was removed for sale due to being OP. Premiums are different from their tech tree counterparts, in varying degrees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41
[OVRPN]
[OVRPN]
Beta Testers
108 posts
17,031 battles
2 minutes ago, Nutaz said:

why do Belfast at all; the player base have been begging for other Commonwealth representation (i.e New Zealand, India  etc) or even South American representation. Yet we get a renamed Edinburgh. 

Some players have been begging for Commonwealth ships. Some have been begging for CVs to be removed, buffed and nerfed. Some have been begging for subs to be added and not.

This isn't a renamed Edinburgh. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
107
[ARC]
Members
773 posts
9,823 battles
35 minutes ago, Nutaz said:

why do Belfast at all; the player base have been begging for other Commonwealth representation (i.e New Zealand, India  etc) or even South American representation. Yet we get a renamed Edinburgh. 

Someone said to rename it Sheffield, that is another Town-class light cruiser, but if they used the blueprints for THE Belfast, then it should not be changed. That's the reason it is not a renamed Edinburgh, but Belfast configuration in 1943.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
708
[PISD]
Members
1,099 posts
4,965 battles

Belfast 1943 shouldn’t have HE. UK need a good captain trainer for their CL, and the Belfast will not be that.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,036
[SIM]
Members
4,721 posts
7,770 battles
27 minutes ago, Y_Nagato said:

Belfast 1943 shouldn’t have HE. UK need a good captain trainer for their CL, and the Belfast will not be that.

While I’m glad to see Belfast ‘43 added to the game, it does seem odd that she won’t be given UK CL AP instead of HE. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,885 posts
5,525 battles
10 minutes ago, SkaerKrow said:

While I’m glad to see Belfast ‘43 added to the game, it does seem odd that she won’t be given UK CL AP instead of HE. 

I don't think it's odd considering that the postwar refit Belfast in game now has HE and standard AP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
708
[PISD]
Members
1,099 posts
4,965 battles
13 minutes ago, RainbowFartingUnicorn said:

I don't think it's odd considering that the postwar refit Belfast in game now has HE and standard AP.

Which is true. But right now there is no captain trainer for the RN CL. More than adding an other fire starter, they shoyld add Belfast with only AP like the other British CL to make her useful and coherent with the rest of the line.

  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
523
[SVF]
Members
1,574 posts
1,871 battles

Oklahoma is underwhelming at best, more likely bad.  Those shell parameters match to stock hull New York values, which means the AP is awful and will only be usable against cruisers.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40
[WHEE]
Members
61 posts
1,942 battles

Just give Oklahoma the range to go with the secondary accuracy. 
 

Accuracy without good range is something I guess, but why though? Just give it the range and it’ll become something unique in gameplay. As it stands now, you really can’t build into it and have it be worth your while. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
607
[WOLFC]
Members
1,309 posts
8,463 battles
47 minutes ago, Y_Nagato said:

Belfast 1943 shouldn’t have HE. UK need a good captain trainer for their CL, and the Belfast will not be that.

While I won’t argue that a CL with British AP would be a better trainer for UK CL captains, this version of Belfast wouldn’t necessarily be bad for the role. At tier VIII with 152mm guns, her HE will pen 30mm, which is workable. It will not be like pre-IFHE rework tier VII Belfast, which needed IFHE to be competitive. Nowadays IFHE on a cruiser is a much more difficult decision to make, and on tier VIII+ CLs it’s very much a matter of taste.

Will she perform better with a dedicated commander? Of course, but that’s true with a lot of premiums since many (at least the memorable ones) tend to have some unique features that differentiate them from their tech tree counterparts and really benefit from an optimized build. Based on my experience playing 152 and 180mm armed cruisers post IFHE-rework, both with and without IFHE, I imagine the only skill I would really miss on this ship if I ran a standard UK CL captain would be DE, and the extra 2% fire chance is nice but not a deal breaker.

And let’s be honest, WG is purposefully aiming to have this ship be similar to Belfast (VII) to boost sales, but not quite as strong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
708
[PISD]
Members
1,099 posts
4,965 battles
17 minutes ago, Nevermore135 said:

While I won’t argue that a CL with British AP would be a better trainer for UK CL captains, this version of Belfast wouldn’t necessarily be bad for the role. At tier VIII with 152mm guns, her HE will pen 30mm, which is workable. It will not be like pre-IFHE rework tier VII Belfast, which needed IFHE to be competitive. Nowadays IFHE on a cruiser is a much more difficult decision to make, and on tier VIII+ CLs it’s very much a matter of taste.

Will she perform better with a dedicated commander? Of course, but that’s true with a lot of premiums since many (at least the memorable ones) tend to have some unique features that differentiate them from their tech tree counterparts and really benefit from an optimized build. Based on my experience playing 152 and 180mm armed cruisers post IFHE-rework, both with and without IFHE, I imagine the only skill I would really miss on this ship if I ran a standard UK CL captain would be DE, and the extra 2% fire chance is nice but not a deal breaker.

And let’s be honest, WG is purposefully aiming to have this ship be similar to Belfast (VII) to boost sales, but not quite as strong.

While it is true that she can work without ifhe, crossing the 32mm threshold is quite useful. And in her case, superintendent may even not be that optimal: with no heal it may become somewhat situational. 
 

Plus she may be a hell to balance with HE: the combo of stealth radar and short bursting smoke may be quite deadly to any DD, but in the other hands the lack of heal will make her even more glass canon than the Champagne. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,993
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
4,922 posts
11,400 battles

Oklahoma, Arizona, California, Massachusetts/Alabama.

Nevada, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and South Dakota. 4 tiers, 5-8, of real ships that existed forming a fuller second branch of American BB's. Ships that in their own right, were upgraded or built with secondary batteries that could do some serious work. Hell - you designed one of those to just that in game. SD 20 updated but maintaining it's 152 mm secondary batteries, carrying over the same to a Tillman BB. Deleware, Florida - that's an entire second branch. 

Your dev team has made 4/8 of a second USN branch as premiums - and after asking for a split, for literal years, because us players knew of these ships, wanted them either for history or because we live in these states - you offer us a split with what at best is paper ships, with no armour and basically akin to UK BB's when what was designed that they are close to would best be described as a bigger, badder, slower American Yamato. None of these 4 historical ship classes - that your team has worked on, not playing in to the all or nothing built like a brick nature of those USN designs, but that. 

Why do we bother Hapa? Why have an area for any suggestions if we just get ignored. There were dozens of write ups on a USN split with these ships. If Wargaming is still doing research when they make these things - which I seriously question after German CV's - there is no way in hell they didn't come across them, especially if their sisters are in the damn game. Aside from the fact you currently have it assigned to a French BB knockoff which if your going to do that call it Louisiana at least (that is not meant as a slight against the state or the like, I'm aware the actual connections the area had with France, only the BB is a knock off), Are we going to have to wait for North Dakota and Utah to be put in as premiums at 3 and 4 before we get a proper damn split with Delaware, Florida, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, SD the second, SD the first and whatever else?

But wait, let me guess 'this i only for discussion on the technical aspect of the ships' - much as the other part is feedback too. 

Oklahoma needs a little more AA and being me, and seeing this is in fact post refit by the masts (as well as the armament that you did give it), I have a historical answer to this. For starters - add back the 3"/50 guns you inexplicably deleted as medium range (since you guys won't put them in long range where they should be). Added bonus -

http://navsource.org/archives/01/pdf/013718.pdf

The actual drawings that show where they, the other armaments and every room and item should be

Secondly while I can not confirm 100% that they were added (I don't see them in the drawing, but it's possible I missed them) I have seen some references point to the addition of 1.1 inch/28 mm guns (2x4) to the ship. Though, my info on this is sketchy at best. At minimum though - add the 3 inch guns that can be confirmed back. That would ensure a little better AA, and actually put her in the setup she had at Pearl Harbor.  

Also - increase the AA range on the long guns to at least 5 km, I'd even dare to push past that, an bring her secondary base range to 5 km if not more to a maximum of no more than 5.5 km. You guys say and I quote - "And if she has to engage in close-range combat, secondary guns with a good accuracy for the tier will be of use.", If your gonna say that, then give her some real useful range of at least 5 km. 

 

Belfast '43

Well, I'm not really thrilled by another 'Ship name+ year', honestly feel like another Town Class could fit. But That's beside the point for now.

If your going to make her the 1943 version, I shouldn't have to say this - make her the 1943 version. She had new bulges installed as well as a new 102 mm belt over them that helped bring the speed down to 30.5 knots (which this should follow). 

Swap Slot 2 to be Repair Party

Slot 3: make it Short Burst Smoke OR Radar - increase number of both from 2 to at least 3.

Slot 4: Fighter Plane OR Hydro

Unless you guys drastically overhaul radar so that it can't see through mountains or some other nerf like it only shows it to your ship to shoot at period, not the team - no ship should have smoke and Radar, ever again, end of discussion. If it's going to have both on it then it should be a choice - player either chooses stealth or chooses to cancel other's stealth - and give them the standard 3 uses. Slot 4 Make the usual choice between plane or hydro most ships get when it's a choice - again, standard number of uses. Slot 2 if it's going to be tier 8 needs to be some kind of repair. 

As is it's like a bizarre 'lets make it stronger to be in tier 8 but nerf it' that seems....off. Also, while she may have torps - I'm not sure they warrant nerfing RoF to a 9 second reload. One per side, maybe get it close to 60 second reload but detect-ability still about .5 km outside torpedo range - while not impossible stealth torping at best be difficult. If there's really concern 7.5 seconds is still too short at tier 8 - then set it at an 8 second reload. Or split the difference at 8.25. 

  • Cool 4
  • Boring 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,884
[TARK]
Members
5,616 posts
2,260 battles
2 hours ago, landcollector said:

Oklahoma is underwhelming at best, more likely bad.  Those shell parameters match to stock hull New York values, which means the AP is awful and will only be usable against cruisers.  

Oklahoma isnt going to be sold based on performance...but on history...

...and speaking of history:

1 hour ago, WanderingGhost said:

Why do we bother Hapa? Why have an area for any suggestions if we just get ignored. There were dozens of write ups on a USN split with these ships. If Wargaming is still doing research when they make these things - which I seriously question after German CV's - there is no way in hell they didn't come across them, especially if their sisters are in the damn game. Aside from the fact you currently have it assigned to a French BB knockoff which if your going to do that call it Louisiana at least (that is not meant as a slight against the state or the like, I'm aware the actual connections the area had with France, only the BB is a knock off), Are we going to have to wait for North Dakota and Utah to be put in as premiums at 3 and 4 before we get a proper damn split with Delaware, Florida, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, SD the second, SD the first and whatever else?

But wait, let me guess 'this i only for discussion on the technical aspect of the ships' - much as the other part is feedback too. 

Oklahoma needs a little more AA and being me, and seeing this is in fact post refit by the masts (as well as the armament that you did give it), I have a historical answer to this. For starters - add back the 3"/50 guns you inexplicably deleted as medium range (since you guys won't put them in long range where they should be). Added bonus -

http://navsource.org/archives/01/pdf/013718.pdf

The actual drawings that show where they, the other armaments and every room and item should be

This is excellent feedback.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,993
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
4,922 posts
11,400 battles
2 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

This is excellent feedback.

Thanks - just wish every time I had to come yelling at them over history - particularly premiums, I stumbled across the damn blueprints that show I'm right and they should have been looking at when they made it in the first place.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,216
[SPTR]
Members
27,094 posts
15,846 battles

Whats the sigma rating on Oklahoma's secondaries? Is it 1.0 like most other ships? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,059
[JMMAF]
Members
2,014 posts
6,668 battles
4 hours ago, ZeroGiven said:

..... Some have been begging for CVs to be removed, buffed and nerfed.....

I would LOVE to see WG buff, and then remove CVs. And in that case, buff them hard!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
239
[MIBR]
[MIBR]
Members
886 posts
4 hours ago, hanesco said:

Someone said to rename it Sheffield, that is another Town-class light cruiser, but if they used the blueprints for THE Belfast, then it should not be changed. That's the reason it is not a renamed Edinburgh, but Belfast configuration in 1943.

just hope AL camo can be mounted on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
4,242 posts
9,256 battles

Belfast and Belfast-43 need to be able to accept Azur Lane Belfast camo.  :-)

Oklahoma?
Another boring and slow USN battleship.  The battle will be over before she can get to use her secondary batteries, possibly.
Great for shore bombardments, though.  Got any scenario operations she can play in, @Hapa_Fodder:-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×