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

2nd US BB line

30 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

3,430
[WOLF1]
Beta Testers
12,323 posts
17,497 battles

Once apon a time WG was looking at a full second US BB line. Instead we got a split line of paper ships. Which though interesting seems to be less engaging that a pile of unused real ships might be.

Seems to me that WG has kept the door open on a full second line. 

There are a lot of lead ships (that were built)  that have not made it into the game. We have some of the sister ships as premium ships and I think it is significant that WG used sister ships instead of lead ships because they are saving them for a second line. 

Delaware 

Florida (Actual ship not the paper one we have)

Nevada (We have Oklahoma)

Pennsylvania (We have Arizona)

Tennessee  (We have California)

South Dakota (We have Mass and Alabama)

To round out the line you could use one of the Iowa sisters for tier 9 (New Jersey or Wisconsin) and one of the proposed Montana sisters for tier 10. 

What do you guys think?

Do it WG!

do it GIF

 

  • Cool 5
  • Boring 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,116
[SALVO]
Members
25,857 posts
28,227 battles
19 minutes ago, paradat said:

Once apon a time WG was looking at a full second US BB line. Instead we got a split line of paper ships. Which though interesting seems to be less engaging that a pile of unused real ships might be.

Seems to me that WG has kept the door open on a full second line. 

There are a lot of lead ships (that were built)  that have not made it into the game. We have some of the sister ships as premium ships and I think it is significant that WG used sister ships instead of lead ships because they are saving them for a second line. 

Delaware 

Florida (Actual ship not the paper one we have)

Nevada (We have Oklahoma)

Pennsylvania (We have Arizona)

Tennessee  (We have California)

South Dakota (We have Mass and Alabama)

To round out the line you could use one of the Iowa sisters for tier 9 (New Jersey or Wisconsin) and one of the proposed Montana sisters for tier 10. 

What do you guys think?

Do it WG!

do it GIF

 

That's what I wanted ... up to tier 8.  But at tier 9 and 10, I would 100000000000% NOT want copies of the Iowa and Montana classes.  What WG should have done is saved the Georgia and Ohio for tier 9 and 10 on this sort of line, though perhaps with some tweaks to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,430
[WOLF1]
Beta Testers
12,323 posts
17,497 battles
Just now, Crucis said:

That's what I wanted ... up to tier 8.  But at tier 9 and 10, I would 100000000000% NOT want copies of the Iowa and Montana classes.  What WG should have done is saved the Georgia and Ohio for tier 9 and 10 on this sort of line, though perhaps with some tweaks to them.

I am cool with an Iowa sister since all 4 of them have such amazing histories and would be nice to get the last two in game. As far as another Montana sister yeah could do a full paper ship or a significantly tweaked sister like Ohio. Heck Just do say Maine as an Ohio clone instead of a Montana clone.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,692
[SALVO]
Members
6,035 posts
4,964 battles
3 minutes ago, Crucis said:

What WG should have done is saved the Georgia and Ohio for tier 9 and 10 on this sort of line, though perhaps with some tweaks to them.

Maybe a tech tree underperforming version of those two? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,116
[SALVO]
Members
25,857 posts
28,227 battles
1 minute ago, paradat said:

I am cool with an Iowa sister since all 4 of them have such amazing histories and would be nice to get the last two in game. As far as another Montana sister yeah could do a full paper ship or a significantly tweaked sister like Ohio. Heck Just do say Maine as an Ohio clone instead of a Montana clone.

It's as simple as this. I'm not OK with this, regardless of the history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,692
[SALVO]
Members
6,035 posts
4,964 battles
2 minutes ago, paradat said:

I am cool with an Iowa sister since all 4 of them have such amazing histories and would be nice to get the last two in game. 

I'm fairly sure you'll see them in time, as premiums, one probably in late Cold War configuration... CIWS, Missiles and that stuff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,430
[WOLF1]
Beta Testers
12,323 posts
17,497 battles
1 minute ago, Crucis said:

It's as simple as this. I'm not OK with this, regardless of the history.

Fair enough. So maybe a paper tier 9 and 10? We can always get NJ and Wis in as prem ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,165
[WOLFC]
Members
2,211 posts
10,558 battles

One of the key things WG seems to consider when developing new lines is to try to make them distinct from what already exists in game. While many do not like them, the new US BBs have unique qualities at their tier (slow reload and low speed, but a heavy broadside and access to DFAA on top of a solid AA suite).

My guess as to why WG did not implement a complete new line leading up to them? Two reasons:

1) There is not enough monetization at low tier to justify the expense. We aren’t getting a tier III Italian BB with the new tech tree, after all.

2) The built-in-steel ships that preceded  the Colorado-class that are missing from the game would have played very similarly to the USN BBs already in game at those tiers. Someone at WG HQ decided they weren’t novel enough to generate enough player interest and justify the expense of modeling and developing them.

Edited by Nevermore135

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,116
[SALVO]
Members
25,857 posts
28,227 battles
Just now, ArIskandir said:

Maybe a tech tree underperforming version of those two? 

For the Georgia, I'd remove the speed boost in a heart beat.  Maybe buff its armor as the tradeoff.

As for the Ohio, I don't really know.  It doesn't have any consumable based gimmicks that I know of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,116
[SALVO]
Members
25,857 posts
28,227 battles

                      

2 minutes ago, Nevermore135 said:

The built-in-steel ships that proceeded the Colorado-class

Just an FYI, the word is preceded, not proceeded. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,430
[WOLF1]
Beta Testers
12,323 posts
17,497 battles
1 minute ago, Nevermore135 said:

One of the key things WG seems to consider when developing new lines is to try to make them distinct from what already exists in game. While many do not like them, the new US BBs have unique qualities at their tier (slow reload and low speed, but a heavy broadside and access to DFAA on top of a solid AA suite).

My guess as to why WG did not implement a complete new line leading up to them? Two reasons:

1) There is not enough monetization at low tier to justify the expense. We aren’t getting a tier III Italian BB with the new tech tree, after all.

2) The built-in-steel ships that proceeded the Colorado-class that are missing from the game would have played very similarly to the USN BBs already in game at those tiers. Someone at WG HQ decided they weren’t novel enough to generate enough player interest and justify the expense of modeling and developing them.

You are very likely correct. Still I think eventually WG will go for it. Lot of players are really in to historical ships and I think they would respond to this line positively. 

Regardless there are a lot of lead ships still on the table. I do not think WG is going to leave them there forever. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,692
[SALVO]
Members
6,035 posts
4,964 battles
1 minute ago, Crucis said:

As for the Ohio, I don't really know.  It doesn't have any consumable based gimmicks that I know of.

They can always mess with dispersion, reload and shell characteristics. Maybe a gimped shell like Oklahoma's?  It would need to be significantly worse to justify the resource investment in Ohio.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,116
[SALVO]
Members
25,857 posts
28,227 battles
1 minute ago, ArIskandir said:

They can always mess with dispersion, reload and shell characteristics. Maybe a gimped shell like Oklahoma's?  It would need to be significantly worse to justify the resource investment in Ohio.

Then just remove the great secondaries from the Georgia and Ohio.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,692
[SALVO]
Members
6,035 posts
4,964 battles
Just now, Crucis said:

Then just remove the great secondaries from the Georgia and Ohio.

I think great secondaries would be "the gimmick", removing them wouldn't be logic unless they come up with another gimmick for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,165
[WOLFC]
Members
2,211 posts
10,558 battles
7 minutes ago, Crucis said:

For the Georgia, I'd remove the speed boost in a heart beat.  Maybe buff its armor as the tradeoff.

Just an FYI, the word is “heartbeat” not “heart beat.” :Smile-_tongue:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
92
[SVEN]
Beta Testers
226 posts
7,112 battles

Washington at tier VIII, South Dakota (split the difference between Massachusetts and Alabama) at tier IX with her planned postwar refit.  New Jersey or Wisconsin could then slide in at tier X with their postwar refits.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,300
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
5,199 posts
12,101 battles
1 hour ago, paradat said:

Nevada (We have Oklahoma)

Pennsylvania (We have Arizona)

Tennessee  (We have California)

South Dakota (We have Mass and Alabama

Why I have been raging at them for months because this is the bulk of the line people want. 

Also - no copies, stick with the big, heavy, slower ships - and give us ACTUAL Tillman's. Not this thin armoured target practice that sucks at long and close range, even middle. I'm talking even if it has to be close range balanced so less accurate guns, and not some of the insane number of guns they wanted, I'm talking the full out armoured monstrosities they came up with. I'm talking the one that has more armour than Yamato at tier 10 even if it has smaller guns, keeping the 6 inch secondary but updating them to the Worcester ones which was a consideration for some ship designs, or take this joke split with Kansas as an alternate to the tier 9, and make them what the tier 9 and 10 that tops off a branch of these 4 should be - immovable objects as opposed to the other fast battleships. Ships that don't go anywhere in a hurry, but don't need to because they are like the horror movie monster that just keeps strolling after victims till there's nowhere to run, that doesn't worry about retreating as much because it's not worried about autopens and fires the same way as the rest - it's built to actually handle it. Less intimidating at range - but if it manages to get close encourages fleeing for your life. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
83
[TWE]
Beta Testers
214 posts
1,542 battles

Your proposal is basically what all of the players have been barking up the tree for for the last... what, 2 years now? While I highly doubt that the Delaware or Florida-class ships would come in, everything else you mentioned would be used to create a new brawling focused line that would likely end with the slow Iowa/ Montana prelim designs.  At least, that has been the hope. Instead we got Super Standards so we can have a continuity of the mid-tier playstyle. But hey, it could still happen! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,754
[WOLF9]
Wiki Lead
15,220 posts
4,766 battles
1 hour ago, paradat said:

What do you guys think?

I don't see how just having those ships adds anything to the existing tree.  Got any changes/gimmicks in mind?

IMO, the class-name ships are being reserved for premiums.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,430
[WOLF1]
Beta Testers
12,323 posts
17,497 battles
36 minutes ago, Trophy_Wench said:

Your proposal is basically what all of the players have been barking up the tree for for the last... what, 2 years now? While I highly doubt that the Delaware or Florida-class ships would come in, everything else you mentioned would be used to create a new brawling focused line that would likely end with the slow Iowa/ Montana prelim designs.  At least, that has been the hope. Instead we got Super Standards so we can have a continuity of the mid-tier playstyle. But hey, it could still happen! 

Yeah nothing here is new. I was just thinking that it is still likely since WG has not used any of those lead ships as premiums.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,430
[WOLF1]
Beta Testers
12,323 posts
17,497 battles
32 minutes ago, iDuckman said:

I don't see how just having those ships adds anything to the existing tree.  Got any changes/gimmicks in mind?

IMO, the class-name ships are being reserved for premiums.

I think if they were saving them for premiums they would have used them first. Especially in the case of California and Oklahoma. They just released those why not use the lead ships. WG's pattern for tech tree lines has always been to use the lead ships for Tech tree and the sisters for premiums and of course paper stuff stuff to make the tiers work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,430
[WOLF1]
Beta Testers
12,323 posts
17,497 battles
32 minutes ago, iDuckman said:

I don't see how just having those ships adds anything to the existing tree.  Got any changes/gimmicks in mind?

IMO, the class-name ships are being reserved for premiums.

Yeah that is true. No gimmicks in mind just historical interest and of course fills in another development slot on the calendar.

They could likely do this with the Brits as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
80
[BE-ER]
Beta Testers
115 posts
15,741 battles

I would love to see a complete 2nd line starting as mentioned (Delaware, Florida, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Tennessee) but I'd be perfectly happy with it linking into the Kansas/Minnesota/Vermont line at that point, as I have absolutely no interest in more tech tree Iowas or Montanas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
381
[BB35]
[BB35]
Members
506 posts
14,366 battles

US has (3) Lines of Battleships (And yes US does have a 2ndary Line of boats):

Line #1 - Slow Battleships With Big Guns and SLOW reload ----- VERMONT LINE

Line #2 - Fast Battleships with Good Guns and decent reload --- MONTANA LINE (Starts at North Carolina T8, Iowa T9 and Montana T10)

Line #3 - Secondary Battleships with Good Guns and Great Secondaries --- OHIO LINE (Starts at Massachusetts T8, Georgia T9 and Ohio T10)

Now the Secondary Line, if you want it, will require a lot of work/money to get. (You have to buy the Mass, you can buy the Georgia with resources or cash and the Ohio, you need to do it via research points)

 

5 hours ago, paradat said:

Once apon a time WG was looking at a full second US BB line. Instead we got a split line of paper ships. Which though interesting seems to be less engaging that a pile of unused real ships might be.

Seems to me that WG has kept the door open on a full second line. 

There are a lot of lead ships (that were built)  that have not made it into the game. We have some of the sister ships as premium ships and I think it is significant that WG used sister ships instead of lead ships because they are saving them for a second line. 

Delaware 

Florida (Actual ship not the paper one we have)

Nevada (We have Oklahoma)

Pennsylvania (We have Arizona)

Tennessee  (We have California)

South Dakota (We have Mass and Alabama)

To round out the line you could use one of the Iowa sisters for tier 9 (New Jersey or Wisconsin) and one of the proposed Montana sisters for tier 10. 

What do you guys think?

Do it WG!

do it GIF

 

 

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.

×