Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
WM1957

New Coal ships?

20 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

135
[PHD]
Members
333 posts
11,105 battles

Any new coal ships coming before Autumn? I am hoping USS Constellation, when it comes out, will be a coal ship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,099
[KWF]
Members
6,567 posts
7,175 battles

From what I know the following ships are currently in testing: Napoli, Druid, Constellation, Borodino, Yukon. 

Two tier Xs, two tier VIIIs, one tier VII. Out of these Druid will potentially fill Smaland's shoes for a 2mil FXP ship. To be honest there is the possibility for Napoli to be up for coal; Austin recently came out for steel, Vampire will be available for RP so that leaves a spot. Alternatively Napoli could be the 2 mil FXP ship and Druid the coal one, considering we already have Hayate anyway.

Edited by warheart1992

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
205
[WOLFG]
Members
250 posts
4,420 battles
48 minutes ago, WM1957 said:

Any new coal ships coming before Autumn? I am hoping USS Constellation, when it comes out, will be a coal ship.

I highly doubt that Constellation will be for coal, WG's policy to sell ships for coal that are below T9 seems to be they must be several years old and probably haven't been selling very well. WG has only released two ships for resources that below Tier 9 from their release which are Nelson and Charleston. the former being a casualty of a rework of the British bb tech tree early in its development and the latter was designed as cheap premium for new players.  

There are however several ships currently in development which could be for coal. 

Tier 10 British Destroyer Druid

Tier 10 Italian Cruiser Napoli

Tier 10 Japanese Cruiser Kitakami (high unlikely but Georgia, Thunderer, Smolensk, and Jean Bart were also released for coal so you never know)

Edited by cheekywarship2018

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
486
[GOCRY]
Members
1,004 posts

What’s this Constellation that you guys are talking about?  I’ve heard about Congress. Is that what you mean, or is Constellation another ship?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,531
[WKY19]
Beta Testers
2,313 posts
15,141 battles
10 minutes ago, SeaGladius said:

What’s this Constellation that you guys are talking about?  I’ve heard about Congress. Is that what you mean, or is Constellation another ship?

Constellation was the planned third Lexington class battlecruiser but got canceled after the Washington Naval Treaty. She was announced a few weeks ago as a tier 8 premium with what I think was a theoretical modernization had the Lexingtons been built as BCs.

Congress is basically a tier 8 Alaska with seven barrels instead of 9.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,009
[PVE]
Members
7,464 posts
23 minutes ago, cheekywarship2018 said:

Tier 10 Japanese Cruiser Kitakami

Is Kitakami still in testing?  I thought WG say they shelved her, am I remembering that wrong?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
562
[BUOY]
Members
1,422 posts
17,232 battles

AFAIK, with the single exception of the blue ARP Takao way back when, no premium T8 has ever been released that didn't require $ / dubs or RNG crate luck.

IE if it's T8, don't expect to ever get it for resources.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
205
[WOLFG]
Members
250 posts
4,420 battles
30 minutes ago, Slimeball91 said:

Is Kitakami still in testing?  I thought WG say they shelved her, am I remembering that wrong?

WG announced sometime back that Kitakami would being going back into testing as a tier 10

https://blog.worldofwarships.com/blog/46

Edited by cheekywarship2018

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,009
[PVE]
Members
7,464 posts
17 minutes ago, cheekywarship2018 said:

WG announced sometime back that Kitakami would being going back into testing as a tier 10

https://blog.worldofwarships.com/blog/46

I'm asking if has gone back into testing more recently.  I though after last year's testing WG said they were going to shelf her.  Like I said earlier, I could be remembering that wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
205
[WOLFG]
Members
250 posts
4,420 battles
14 minutes ago, Slimeball91 said:

I'm asking if has gone back into testing more recently.  I though after last year's testing WG said they were going to shelf her.  Like I said earlier, I could be remembering that wrong.

That I cannot comment on though I do keep up to date with the dev blogs and news surrounding wows and I have not heard of Kitakami being shelved. I will say though that in all of the devblogs since Kitakami's announcement, not a single balance change to Kitakami has been made nor has she been mentioned at least to my knowledge. 

Edited by cheekywarship2018

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,517
[DEV_X]
[DEV_X]
Alpha Tester
3,058 posts
27,797 battles
1 hour ago, Slimeball91 said:

Is Kitakami still in testing?  I thought WG say they shelved her, am I remembering that wrong?

 

1 hour ago, cheekywarship2018 said:

WG announced sometime back that Kitakami would being going back into testing as a tier 10

https://blog.worldofwarships.com/blog/46

 

I asked on the official stream about her and Mr. Conway said something about it being hard to balance basically.  He didnt really elaborate on if she was still testing or being considered for testing.

Edited by Skuggsja

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
486
[GOCRY]
Members
1,004 posts
3 hours ago, Zaydin said:

Constellation was the planned third Lexington class battlecruiser but got canceled after the Washington Naval Treaty. She was announced a few weeks ago as a tier 8 premium with what I think was a theoretical modernization had the Lexingtons been built as BCs.

Congress is basically a tier 8 Alaska with seven barrels instead of 9.

Ha!  That’s funny.  I was reading about the Lexington class just a couple of days ago on Wikipedia.  Though I was more interested in the Lexington herself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,745
[WOLFC]
Members
3,155 posts
11,804 battles
11 hours ago, WM1957 said:

Any new coal ships coming before Autumn? I am hoping USS Constellation, when it comes out, will be a coal ship.

Constellation is almost certainly going to be a cash-only release. The reason WG has tacked on so many gimmicks (accuracy, radar, torpedoes) is to justify her placement at tier VIII as a replacement for MA.

Edited by Nevermore135

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,390
[-BCO-]
Members
2,924 posts
5,022 battles
8 hours ago, Skuggsja said:

 

 

I asked on the official stream about her and Mr. Conway said something about it being hard to balance basically.

LOlz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
647
[VVV]
Members
2,951 posts
5,065 battles
4 hours ago, Nevermore135 said:

Constellation is almost certainly going to be a cash-only release. The reason WG has tacked on so many gimmicks (accuracy, radar, torpedoes) is to justify her placement at tier VIII as a replacement for MA.

Now if only WG would give her the correct 406mm/50 guns instead of copy-paste Colorado guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,563
[SGSS]
Members
6,267 posts
15 hours ago, WM1957 said:

Any new coal ships coming before Autumn? I am hoping USS Constellation, when it comes out, will be a coal ship.

They just released Max for coal so they might release another one for a long time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18,060
[ARGSY]
Members
25,131 posts
19,133 battles
15 hours ago, cheekywarship2018 said:

I highly doubt that Constellation will be for coal, WG's policy to sell ships for coal that are below T9 seems to be they must be several years old and probably haven't been selling very well. WG has only released two ships for resources that below Tier 9 from their release which are Nelson and Charleston. the former being a casualty of a rework of the British bb tech tree early in its development and the latter was designed as cheap premium for new players.  

There are however several ships currently in development which could be for coal. 

Tier 10 British Destroyer Druid

Tier 10 Italian Cruiser Napoli

Tier 10 Japanese Cruiser Kitakami (high unlikely but Georgia, Thunderer, Smolensk, and Jean Bart were also released for coal so you never know)

We've never had a T10 cruiser for FXP before, but we've had more than one for coal (Salem, Yoshino, Moskva). 

We have, however, had a T10 DD for coal (Marceau), so there is at least some precedent for Druid being a coal ship.

14 hours ago, Slimeball91 said:

Is Kitakami still in testing?  I thought WG say they shelved her, am I remembering that wrong?

Kitakami got a brief moment back in the spotlight after five years, but subsequently seems to have sunk into development hell. Personally, I am of the opinion that she should stay there. IIRC she is the only ship in WOWS ever to literally be removed from the game, i.e. taken out of the hands of all the players who had her, as opposed to merely being removed from further availability. WG doesn't do that without good reason, and while I don't blame them for trying her out again, I also wouldn't blame them for saying among themselves, "You know what? Putting her back out in limited testing reminds me of the reason why we pulled her in the first place."

Edited by Ensign_Cthulhu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,745
[WOLFC]
Members
3,155 posts
11,804 battles
5 hours ago, Lord_Magus said:

Now if only WG would give her the correct 406mm/50 guns instead of copy-paste Colorado guns.

I would be more upset about that if I hadn’t already exhausted all my disappointment around that ship. IMO, she should be brought in at tier VII, in a hypothetical rebuild without all the bells and whistles (the idea that the USN would have retained her torpedo armament, for example, is highly unlikely given that they were removed from all capital ships and most cruisers at the time) as a faster but less armored CO and a  better armed but less armored/possibly slightly slower Hood (all that added weight in armor and secondary/AA armament would in all likelihood reduce her top speed somewhat). Instead we got this... thing whose characteristics are better suited for a tier X supercruiser than a tier VIII BB, to say nothing about the absurdly high freeboard.

I’ve wanted this ship for a long time, but I just can’t get excited about the way WG has chosen to implement her.

Edited by Nevermore135

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
647
[VVV]
Members
2,951 posts
5,065 battles
7 minutes ago, Nevermore135 said:

I would be more upset about that if hadn’t already exhausted all my disappointment around that ship. IMO, she should be brought in at tier VII, in a hypothetical rebuild without all the bells and whistles (the idea that the USN would have retained her torpedo armament, for example, is highly unlikely given that they were removed from all capital ships and most cruisers at the time) as a faster but less armored CO and a  better armed but less armored/possibly slightly slower Hood (all that added weight in armor and secondary/AA armament would in all likelihood reduce her top speed somewhat). Instead we got this... thing whose characteristics are better suited for a tier X supercruiser than a tier VIII BB, to say nothing about the absurdly high freeboard.

I’ve wanted this ship for a long time, but I just can’t get excited about the way WG has chosen to implement her.

If it were up to me we'd get a T7 Constellation and T8 United States (or vice versa) as part of CC/fast BB line split instead of either being premiums. Move Iowa into the fast line at T9 and BB-65 Scheme 8 at T10. IIRC there's an early Montana preliminary design with 3x3 406mm, 390mm belt and the same 27.5 knot top speed as the North Carolina and South Dakota classes that could replace Iowa in the main BB line. While the pre-Lexington CC design with 10x 356mm guns and 7 funnels could be the T6 of the line.

And yes, the torps on a 1940s refit are silly. I know that torps on BBs are situationally fun gameplay-wise, but I'm not a fan of historically implausible refits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
102
[PVE]
Members
294 posts

What about Stalingrad #2? :CA:

Has anyone heard anything about this ship? I'm not even sure if it's real (in the game that is) :Smile_unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×