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

Modernish ships?

54 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
17 posts
2,064 battles

So with WoT having a "Cold war mode" with modern/cold war tanks what are the chances of WoWs doing the same thing with Modern/cold war ships with modern weapon systems? Missiles, ciws, etc 

  • Cool 1
  • Meh 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,778
[RLGN]
Members
19,167 posts
35,208 battles
9 minutes ago, HamAndCheez said:

Reject missile, embrace pre-dreadnought.

USS Kentucky (BB-6) a Kearsarge-class pre-dreadnought battleship (1900) |  Us battleships, Battleship, Uss kearsarge

So much this.

Mikasa is lonely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,361
[FOXY]
Members
4,717 posts
8,947 battles

Id rather go back and do age of sail fights than Modern fights as right now with current navies its not even fair to compare ship to ship.

  • Cool 2
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11,355
[SALVO]
Members
16,508 posts
10,225 battles
18 minutes ago, bonniegodz said:

So with WoT having a "Cold war mode" with modern/cold war tanks what are the chances of WoWs doing the same thing with Modern/cold war ships with modern weapon systems? Missiles, ciws, etc 

You bet they will.

Question: How did they manage the tier system for Cold War?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39,295
[HINON]
Alpha Tester
27,735 posts
26,570 battles
19 minutes ago, bonniegodz said:

So with WoT having a "Cold war mode" with modern/cold war tanks what are the chances of WoWs doing the same thing with Modern/cold war ships with modern weapon systems? Missiles, ciws, etc 

Sounds great fun, spamming target-seeking missiles from beyond visual range. Sooo enjoyable.

  • Cool 1
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
418
[WOLF5]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
1,538 posts

you think islands camping bad now, missiles would make it 10x worse!!   

 

think back in-time better than forward

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,361
[FOXY]
Members
4,717 posts
8,947 battles
6 minutes ago, Lert said:

Sounds great fun, spamming target-seeking missiles from beyond visual range. Sooo enjoyable.

Not to mention that the real performances of alot of that equipment isnt declassified so theyd be guessing alot with how things function.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
421
[VOP]
Members
1,156 posts
34 minutes ago, bonniegodz said:

So with WoT having a "Cold war mode" with modern/cold war tanks what are the chances of WoWs doing the same thing with Modern/cold war ships with modern weapon systems? Missiles, ciws, etc 

Play Harpoon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
75 posts
10,561 battles

Personally I think they should do naval warfare from tall ships all the way through modern ones. 

Get rid of 'tiers' and have the progression be the different time periods.  From broadsides to throwing missiles over the horizon.  Maybe even 'future era' with rail gun cruisers, advanced point defense, and other directed energy weapons.

  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,360
[LEGIO]
Members
3,738 posts
10,902 battles
42 minutes ago, HamAndCheez said:

Reject missile, embrace pre-dreadnought.

USS Kentucky (BB-6) a Kearsarge-class pre-dreadnought battleship (1900) |  Us battleships, Battleship, Uss kearsarge

This would necessitate WG both revisiting the current Tier system and making secondary and tertiary batteries controllable and worthwhile. Sadly they seem unwilling to do this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
4,533 posts
18,504 battles
27 minutes ago, Lert said:

Sounds great fun, spamming target-seeking missiles from beyond visual range. Sooo enjoyable.

I am pretty sure we all heard WG say  Subs were NEVER going to happen,  I wonder how long they can hold out without cold war ships to keep people cycling thru the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
220
[OGF]
Members
463 posts
9,764 battles
53 minutes ago, HamAndCheez said:

Reject missile, embrace pre-dreadnought.

Sweet jesus, yes.  YES!  I love Mikasa, I want more of her friends.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
389
[OPG4]
Members
1,203 posts
2,920 battles
43 minutes ago, Estimated_Prophet said:

So much this.

Mikasa is lonely.

Er.... there’s two main battery turrets on the bow section...Mikasa has only one dual 11 inch turret each on the bow and stern I remember. There is an American flag in the rear too

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39,295
[HINON]
Alpha Tester
27,735 posts
26,570 battles
16 minutes ago, bonniegodz said:

But guys with missiles wont CIWS fix the spam? Its meant to shoot down missiles and stuff

 

9 minutes ago, Shadowrigger1 said:

I am pretty sure we all heard WG say  Subs were NEVER going to happen,  I wonder how long they can hold out without cold war ships to keep people cycling thru the game.

 

Regardless of both of those, people already claim that people just sit in the back and spam at full range, that that's boring gameplay that ruins the game, and now we're talking about adding target-seeking missiles with even more range? And expect that to be 'fun'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39,295
[HINON]
Alpha Tester
27,735 posts
26,570 battles
1 minute ago, Boomer625 said:

Er.... there’s two main battery turrets on the bow section...Mikasa has only one dual 11 inch turret each on the bow and stern I remember. There is an American flag in the rear too

Please point out where he claimed that that was Mikasa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
389
[OPG4]
Members
1,203 posts
2,920 battles
21 minutes ago, bonniegodz said:

But guys with missiles wont CIWS fix the spam? Its meant to shoot down missiles and stuff

Yes CIWS works but 

1. Uses up its ammo capacity quickly, needing a long reload process that not happing during a combat situation

2. Can be overwhelmed with enough missiles attacking at different angles - believe its the Russian and Chinese strategy in sinking American ships with CIWS and missile interception systems

Edited by Boomer625

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
4,533 posts
18,504 battles
4 minutes ago, Lert said:

 

 

Regardless of both of those, people already claim that people just sit in the back and spam at full range, that that's boring gameplay that ruins the game, and now we're talking about adding target-seeking missiles with even more range? And expect that to be 'fun'?

I don't disagree with you.  The natural Evolution of this game will be to incorporate cold war tech into the game.  [edited] did it,  It seems World of Tanks is doing it.  World of Warships wont be much different in say 2 years

 

*edit..  seems saying WarFlunder is a no no  LOL

Edited by Shadowrigger1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39,295
[HINON]
Alpha Tester
27,735 posts
26,570 battles
Just now, Shadowrigger1 said:

[edited] did it,  It seems World of Tanks is doing it.  World of Warships wont be much different in say 2 years

With tanks, yes. Those don't fundamentally change much. Unlike naval warfare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
4,533 posts
18,504 battles
1 minute ago, Lert said:

With tanks, yes. Those don't fundamentally change much. Unlike naval warfare.

I would disagree, with Sabot and APFSD,  TOW systems,  Composite armors, Computer Stabilized guns and  firing systems

Edited by Shadowrigger1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,055
[WOLF7]
Members
1,380 posts
6 minutes ago, Boomer625 said:

Er.... there’s two main battery turrets on the bow section...Mikasa has only one dual 11 inch turret each on the bow and stern I remember. There is an American flag in the rear too

 

5 minutes ago, Lert said:

Please point out where he claimed that that was Mikasa.

Just for clarity, that's USS Kentucky, BB-6. She's mighty purty.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39,295
[HINON]
Alpha Tester
27,735 posts
26,570 battles
4 minutes ago, Shadowrigger1 said:

I would disagree, with Sabot and APFSD,  TOW systems,  Composite armors, Computer Stabilized guns and  firing systems

They're still mobile armored boxes that rely on line-of-sight to engage with mostly gun tube fired ammunitions. They don't sit behind the horizon lobbing homing missiles from beyond visual range. Which just plain wouldn't be fun. In any way.

4 minutes ago, HamAndCheez said:

Just for clarity, that's USS Kentucky, BB-6. She's mighty purty.

She sure is.

Edited by Lert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
389
[OPG4]
Members
1,203 posts
2,920 battles
3 minutes ago, Shadowrigger1 said:

I would disagree, with Sabot and APFSD,  TOW systems,  Composite armors, Computer Stabilized guns and  firing systems

Not to mention Air-droppable tanks like the XM551 with a Sheridan missile, IR and other night-fighting systems

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
4,533 posts
18,504 battles
Just now, Lert said:

They're still mobile armored boxes that rely on line-of-sight to engage with mostly gun tube fired ammunitions. They don't sit behind the horizon lobbing homing missiles from beyond visual range.

Everything can be modded to fit the current Arcade style system they have.   Artificial range limits, ammunition' Capacity's.  Reload times.    Im not saying lets have them, i'm pointing out all the ways they can easily do it, just like Subs 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×