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

The new precedent of Vampire II

44 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

954
[IND8]
[IND8]
Members
1,047 posts
10,782 battles

As many of you already know, the Vampire II has been announced as an upcoming special ship for the Commonwealth. Unlike the Belfast 43 or the promised West Virgina 44, this is a new historical ship that shares it's name with another lower tier premium ship that was its real life predecessor. That Wargaming has decided to release two ships that had the same name is a big deal, because it opens the door for other such situations to potentially happen. Some possibilities are:

X Lexington II - Essex class aircraft carrier that still exists as a museum ship in Texas.

X Ark Royal II - Audacious class aircraft carrier.

VII St. Louis II - Sister ship to VII Helena

VII Phoenix II (also Admiral Belgrano) - Sister ship to VII Boise (Nueve de Julio) sunk during the Falklands war.

VIII Chikuma II - Siter ship to VIII Tone, which could very easily be implemented with a different air squadron from Tone.

I am sure there are others that I am forgetting about, but this is a good starting point for this discussion. What successor ships would the rest of you like to see in the game?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,969
[USCC2]
Members
6,182 posts

I have no issue with new ships yada-yada, but I do wish WG would spend some of that money on new maps, new Ops etc

Maybe create scenarios from history like the Dunkirk Op.

Gameplay experiences that benefit the community.

 

Yes WG have to make money - I'd just like to see some of that money spent on true game development, rather than the link with money money money always being primary. 

  • Cool 8
  • Thanks 7
  • Boring 2
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,522
[POP]
Members
2,923 posts
23,659 battles
3 hours ago, Shannon_Lindsey said:

As many of you already know, the Vampire II has been announced as an upcoming special ship for the Commonwealth. Unlike the Belfast 43 or the promised West Virgina 44, this is a new historical ship that shares it's name with another lower tier premium ship that was its real life predecessor. That Wargaming has decided to release two ships that had the same name is a big deal, because it opens the door for other such situations to potentially happen. Some possibilities are:

X Lexington II - Essex class aircraft carrier that still exists as a museum ship in Texas.

X Ark Royal II - Audacious class aircraft carrier.

VII St. Louis II - Sister ship to VII Helena

VII Phoenix II (also Admiral Belgrano) - Sister ship to VII Boise (Nueve de Julio) sunk during the Falklands war.

VIII Chikuma II - Siter ship to VIII Tone, which could very easily be implemented with a different air squadron from Tone.

I am sure there are others that I am forgetting about, but this is a good starting point for this discussion. What successor ships would the rest of you like to see in the game?

Putting numerals sounds lame, a prefix like IJN Chikuma  or HMAS Vampire or USS St Louis is way better. 

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
954
[IND8]
[IND8]
Members
1,047 posts
10,782 battles
35 minutes ago, z9_ said:

Now we're arguing about ship names? Look what they've done to us!

I can speak for the silent majority on this issue.
Nobody gives a rat's behind what the dang ship name is. Just give us a good ship!

Actually, anyone who cares about the history does care, and there are enough of such people to make a difference, otherwise Belfast 43 wouldn't be a thing.

  • Cool 5
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,969
[USCC2]
Members
6,182 posts
1 hour ago, z9_ said:

Now we're arguing about ship names? Look what they've done to us!

I can speak for the silent majority on this issue.
Nobody gives a rat's behind what the dang ship name is. Just give us a good ship!

Only you mentioned 'argument' lol.

This is a forum for discussion - you want a good ship - great!

Personally I like @tm63au idea of the HMAS prefix. No argument - maybe a nice cup of tea will relieve any stress that made you think an argument was taking place? :Smile_teethhappy:

  • Cool 3
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11,211
[WOLF3]
Members
28,180 posts
24,550 battles
4 hours ago, _WaveRider_ said:

I have no issue with new ships yada-yada, but I do wish WG would spend some of that money on new maps, new Ops etc

Maybe create scenarios from history like the Dunkirk Op.

Gameplay experiences that benefit the community.

 

Yes WG have to make money - I'd just like to see some of that money spent on true game development, rather than the link with money money money always being primary. 

Operations got the NKVD treatment.  Big improvements there aren't happening.  Hell, Operations today in Late October 2020 is way worse than it was in December 2018 before the CV Rework hit.  The CV Rework era has done an unholy amount of things to worsen Operations.

  • Cool 2
  • Confused 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,969
[USCC2]
Members
6,182 posts
8 minutes ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

Operations got the NKVD treatment.  Big improvements there aren't happening.  Hell, Operations today in Late October 2020 is way worse than it was in December 2018 before the CV Rework hit.  The CV Rework era has done an unholy amount of things to worsen Operations.

Yep, aware of that.

Wishing it may come one day is part of what keeps me playing - although other games have now taken over WoWs for me, I'll hold on to these snippets of hope lol :Smile_teethhappy:

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
331
[PHD]
Members
1,678 posts
7,031 battles

They must throw a bone to OZ regardless of using a name twice. The IJN uses names over, though not in game yet.

Once again the WG details will determine if it will be OP or a train wreck. Hopefully neither. 

You can bet when the ship tour events restart it will be on the list.

In the south (US) we do coffee in the morning tea at all other times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
416
[5D2]
Members
390 posts
10,378 battles

Honestly, I'd be surprised if it remains "Vampire II" and doesn't get changed to Vampire 56 or something of that nature to reflect it's fitting out year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SuperTest Coordinator, Beta Testers
6,455 posts
11,550 battles

I know how we can fix this and let both ships keep their names.

 

ǝɹᴉdɯɐΛ

 

:Smile_trollface:

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,534
[WOLF9]
Privateers
14,818 posts
4,733 battles
  • Cherry Blossom II
  • Hermes II
  • Dynamo II
  • Ultimate FU 0
  • Channel Dash I
  • Dardanelles I
  • Cool 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
556 posts
57 battles

Emerald II

1 hour ago, Dr_Drunk_AKA said:

Honestly, I'd be surprised if it remains "Vampire II" and doesn't get changed to Vampire 56 or something of that nature to reflect it's fitting out year.

it isn't the same ship as Vampire (1), it was a completely different dd (Daring class design, apparantly built in Australia).

I know nothing about Australians, or Australian ships, somebody around here should be able to tell us more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,954
[WG]
Administrator, Developers, Community Department, WG Staff, In AlfaTesters
4,010 posts
14,389 battles
1 hour ago, hateboat said:

Emerald II

it isn't the same ship as Vampire (1), it was a completely different dd (Daring class design, apparantly built in Australia).

I know nothing about Australians, or Australian ships, somebody around here should be able to tell us more.

A really cool site! And informative!

https://www.navy.gov.au/hmas-vampire-ii

Mahalo,

-Hapa

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
416
[5D2]
Members
390 posts
10,378 battles
1 hour ago, hateboat said:

Emerald II

it isn't the same ship as Vampire (1), it was a completely different dd (Daring class design, apparantly built in Australia).

I know nothing about Australians, or Australian ships, somebody around here should be able to tell us more.

I know very well it's a different ship.  Dozens of ships have had names repeated.  My comment here is it would make more sense (WV41 and Belfast 43) to see something like Vampire 56.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
894
[SHOOT]
[SHOOT]
Beta Testers
3,909 posts
12,318 battles
2 hours ago, hateboat said:

 thankyou, it is indeed an excellent website, with many photos of her long service career.0003%20copy.jpg?itok=RAa0Njvo

 

Possible hint at the testing of ASW helicopters?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
894
[SHOOT]
[SHOOT]
Beta Testers
3,909 posts
12,318 battles
7 hours ago, Hapa_Fodder said:

A really cool site! And informative!

https://www.navy.gov.au/hmas-vampire-ii

Mahalo,

-Hapa

Was it really foo hard to give Vampire her actual service time superstructure? It's only an enclosed bridge.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,433
Supertester
4,153 posts
4,643 battles

She's called Vampire (II) because that's how she's referred to by the RAN...

It's how other ships with similar names function in the RAN throughout history, like Sydney (I), Sydney (II), Sydney (III), Sydney (IV), and Sydney (V).

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,534
[WOLF9]
Privateers
14,818 posts
4,733 battles
2 hours ago, Crokodone said:

Possible hint at the testing of ASW helicopters? 

WG has said explicit No to helicopters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
85
[CTU]
Members
141 posts
17,573 battles
21 hours ago, Shannon_Lindsey said:

VII Phoenix II (also Admiral Belgrano)

Actually "General Manuel Belgrano", not Admiral, but close enough. I don't think the addition of the Belgrano- Phoenix will add to this game at all. But the rest of the ships could be interesting to see

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
808
[ANK-A]
Members
1,319 posts
10,982 battles
1 hour ago, iDuckman said:

WG has said explicit No to helicopters.

and subs and guns larger than 18"

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
808
[ANK-A]
Members
1,319 posts
10,982 battles
15 hours ago, GrayPanther2018 said:

They must throw a bone to OZ regardless of using a name twice. The IJN uses names over, though not in game yet.

Once again the WG details will determine if it will be OP or a train wreck. Hopefully neither. 

You can bet when the ship tour events restart it will be on the list.

In the south (US) we do coffee in the morning tea at all other times.

Unless it gets buffed, it's a pretty lean bone.

As proposed the Vampire II gets a 25% gun dpm nerf and 50% torp nerf.... in exchange it gets smoke that is slightly easier to farm BB with...but all in all, an inferior Daring.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,415 posts
40,676 battles
58 minutes ago, YouSatInGum said:

Unless it gets buffed, it's a pretty lean bone.

As proposed the Vampire II gets a 25% gun dpm nerf and 50% torp nerf.... in exchange it gets smoke that is slightly easier to farm BB with...but all in all, an inferior Daring.

Maybe they will load it with vegemite as a consumable sort of like when Popeye eats spinach. Activate and the ship is OP.  It glows and makes Thunder.  

Unfortunately, the glow, while it is in smoke actually gives away its position. The Thunder it makes only works on planes causing CV players to complain of lag. 

Most players will think this Vampire sucks. Once Bitten, Twice Shy. 

I wonder what the Easter Egg will be? I hope it is a bat.

But I hear Count Chocula is available. Nobody eats his cereal anymore. That sucks, too. :cap_haloween:

 

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×