Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
thewargod2000

Accurate ship portrayals and namings

4 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

56
[5D4]
Beta Testers
163 posts
23,982 battles

This post, as the title implies, is about the accurate naming and portrayals of mostly US ships that we have in game, in particular US battleships. 

Lets start at Tier 4. The USS Wyoming in game is actually the USS Arkansas. The USS Arkansas beta in game is actually the USS Wyoming. Why can we not get the names of these ships reversed to get an accurate portray? 

At Tier 6 we have the New Mexico, which seems to have very limited changes between the original hull and the modified hull and whose appearance is no where near accurate to it's appearance late in war, like every other US battleship. In fact the most advanced hull is the 1941 USS New Mexico. In 1945 any ship of the New Mexico class had hundreds of additional AA mounts on the ships. So why can't we get this in game? I mean we produced the USS Texas, USS California and even the USS Colorado with these AA mounts in game and they have to face off against the same CVs. So why can't we get an accurate representation of this class?

And since we are on Tier 6 here I have another question. Why is it that every US Premium other than the USS Texas below Tier 8 is a ship that sank at Pearl Harbor? USS California sank, USS West Virginia sank, USS Oklahoma sank, USS Arizona sank. What about the USS Nevada, the USS Pennsylvania, the USS Tennessee or the USS Maryland? How about something that wasn't utterly destroyed and went on to have a productive career? And how about their updated models for the war in 1944/1945? And if we are going to get a USS West Virginia 1944, as the developers have promised, why did we get a 1941 USS West Virginia instead of a USS Maryland? Would it of killed you to have renamed the ship so we don't have more Belfast 43s at higher tiers than Belfast 51s? Give us one ship with one name and eliminate the confusion. And my argument is that the naming should be accurate to the ship. 

At Tier 7 why after all these years, updates, changes and visual ship improvements can we not get an accurate USS Colorado model? Seriously? Years ago we asked you to add the shields to the 5" guns Colorado carried. This still hasn't happened. Why? I have yet to hear a plausible explanation from the developers as to why this hasn't happened.

Why is the USS Lexington still called Lexington and not USS Saratoga, which is the ship it accurately portrays? Is there anyone in the accuracy department? What is really going on in Russia? 

These issues vex me. I have more things I can bring up but today I'd just like to stick to these issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,178
[WOLF5]
Supertester
5,233 posts
4,348 battles

The general rule is that tech tree ships are named after the class they were part of, even if the ship modeled is one of the sister ships and slightly different. Premiums are exact ships. This is indicated by premium ships having the ship name on the stern, but tech tree ships don't. Wyoming, New York, New Mexico, and Colorado are all the lead ship of the their class, and so are the tech tree. Same with Lexington. The tech tree is representative of the class, not a single ship. As for what refit level they have it really depends on what WG think would work. Same with what ships are in the game, there's a LOT of USN BBs, WG had to pick which ones to implement. I guess we'll see them all eventually, but I think there's only so many slow standard BBs we need.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,634
[ARS]
Beta Testers
6,698 posts
6,704 battles
13 minutes ago, thewargod2000 said:

Stuff

Premium ships are the specific ship named, if it was a real, built in steel ship.  There are still errors, but those are errors rather than being an entirely different ship.

Tech tree ships are named after the class lead, but can be any ship of the class.

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.

×