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

Going price for USS Sherman

38 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,092
[TOG]
Members
4,751 posts
33,820 battles

 

Starts at 12:18

 

232000 coal or 34950 doubloons at the Armory in 2 weeks after 0.11.1 goes live.

That's around $150.00, I believe.

Egad. I got no problem with the coal. It's the doubloon price that made me choke.They didn't mention that in December.

I suppose they have to pay the bills.

 

 

 

Edited by Bill_Halsey
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
517
[BTLST]
[BTLST]
Members
1,128 posts
18,427 battles
28 minutes ago, Bill_Halsey said:

 

Starts at 12:18

 

232000 coal or 34950 doubloons at the Armory in 2 weeks after 0.11.1 goes live.

That's around $150.00, I believe.

Egad. I got no problem with the coal. It's the doubloon price that made me choke.They didn't mention that in December.

I suppose they have to pay the bills.

 

 

 

T10 ships always have an outrageously high cash/doubloons price. Nothing new here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,092
[TOG]
Members
4,751 posts
33,820 battles
1 minute ago, monpetitloup said:

Uss austin?

*Sigh*

Fixed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24,361
[ARGSY]
Members
30,553 posts
28,064 battles

So long as it has a coal price, the doubloon price is 100% irrelevant. But that does seem to be the going price for T10 ships for dubs now.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
472
[EDEG]
Members
464 posts
13,555 battles
47 minutes ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

So long as it has a coal price, the doubloon price is 100% irrelevant. But that does seem to be the going price for T10 ships for dubs now.

Shouldn't be selling T10s for cash anyway. If they're going to do it, might as well make it stupidly expensive so nobody buys them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24,361
[ARGSY]
Members
30,553 posts
28,064 battles
3 minutes ago, JamesTomb said:

Shouldn't be selling T10s for cash anyway. If they're going to do it, might as well make it stupidly expensive so nobody buys them.

Yes and yes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,568
[TDRB]
Members
7,081 posts
15,850 battles
15 minutes ago, JamesTomb said:

Shouldn't be selling T10s for cash anyway. If they're going to do it, might as well make it stupidly expensive so nobody buys them.

$150 for renting a ship, that is outrageously expensive. All ships are the property of WG, you pay for using them in the game.

Some whales will pay twice the price to have a ship, they can't help themselves.

1 hour ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

So long as it has a coal price

The problem is the length of time it remains available for coal. I've had coal ships removed before I accumulated the necessary coal. 

The cost of playing a F2P game can get very expensive if you have trouble managing your $$$.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
843
[FRFR]
Members
1,607 posts
Just now, Captain_Rawhide said:

Save your money and learn to lose play one of the hundreds of other fun ships in the game.

That's my sentiment, at least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
174
[WHS]
Beta Testers
1,071 posts
13,874 battles
23 minutes ago, kgh52 said:

$150 for renting a ship, that is outrageously expensive. All ships are the property of WG, you pay for using them in the game.

Some whales will pay twice the price to have a ship, they can't help themselves.

The problem is the length of time it remains available for coal. I've had coal ships removed before I accumulated the necessary coal. 

The cost of playing a F2P game can get very expensive if you have trouble managing your $$$.

Get coal faster! I've got all the coal ships (never bought any with doubs) and I have nearly 400k coal sitting there waiting for the next ship to roll around. And the one after that. (almost)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16,863
[WOLF5]
[WOLF5]
Members
37,566 posts
30,498 battles

A quick browse in the Armory for Tier X Coal Ships yield the following results:

X CV Max Immelman 264k Coal

X CA Napoli 252k

X CA Yoshino 248k

X CA Moskva 244k

X CA Salem 240k

X DD Marceau 236k

 

So Forrest Sherman going for 232k Coal as a brand new Coal Ship is already cheaper than Marceau.  As for whether she rates acquisition, I don't know.  She's got a lot of red flags on her as a DD, but that's just my opinion.

1 hour ago, JamesTomb said:

Shouldn't be selling T10s for cash anyway. If they're going to do it, might as well make it stupidly expensive so nobody buys them.

You're late to the party.  FreeXP ships were the same thing also.  People buy Doubloons and use them to convert EliteShipXP -> FreeXP.  I don't recommend doing so, but I know people out there do it and I used to do it when I was new until I realized it was a bad idea.  I considered how much I spent and how much I got in return and saw it was bad, bad, bad.  Regardless, people do that conversion.

 

It's really "buying" Tier X with 2 extra steps.

 

Back when the game launched in 2015, Tier VIII was the cap of Premium Ships:  Tirpitz and Atago led that way.

Then WG introduced IX Premium Ship Missouri as the first FreeXP Ship.

You remember what was going on when WG announced that they were pulling Missouri from acquisition years and years ago?  People were in a frenzy.  They grinded like mad to get the FreeXP to get her, and FreeXP was harder to accumulate back then.  Or, for the guys knowing full well they couldn't get the time for the FreeXP grind, they did the Doubloons route with EliteShipXP -> FreeXP Conversion.

Just as WG intended.

 

Many more Tier IX Premiums followed.  I remembered when Alaska was made available.  Not just for resources, but also as with a straight up, regular buy series of bundles.  She's a Tier IX.

 

The goal posts were literally moved years ago.

 

Research Bureau Ships?  They're the new FreeXP Ships.  And you can bet a bunch of guys out there are buying their way to speed up the RB Ship Line Regrind.

Just as WG intended.

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,449
[BWC]
Beta Testers
3,325 posts
9,849 battles
1 hour ago, JamesTomb said:

Shouldn't be selling T10s for cash anyway. If they're going to do it, might as well make it stupidly expensive so nobody buys them.

 

I agree T10 ships should have remained only reachable through playtime to preserve one tier that could be kept for the experienced game modes, but that ship has sailed.

 

At least coal is so easy to accumulate that I don't see how anyone who wants the ship can't save up enough to get her in a reasonable amount of time.  Not like steel, that can take years to get enough for a worthwhile ship.

 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
119 posts
9,423 battles
59 minutes ago, kgh52 said:

$150 for renting a ship, that is outrageously expensive. All ships are the property of WG, you pay for using them in the game.

So, if you're going to be technical at least use the correct terms.  It would be a license.

 

1 hour ago, kgh52 said:

The problem is the length of time it remains available for coal. I've had coal ships removed before I accumulated the necessary coal. 

Get coal faster, it's really not that hard.  WG warns you when ships are going to be leaving armory, and afaik they haven't removed any coal ships that have only been there a short while.  You've had more than enough time to grind for the coal necessary for all these ships and if you didn't get the coal, that's honestly more on you than on them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,220
[-TRM-]
Members
5,566 posts

I pretty much have the coal for it, but frankly need to shoot at one with battleship HE and AP in battle to see how they hold up. If they can withstand three salvos at less than 10Km then I would want to buy it.

The Sherman will be the new Smolesk. It has burned everything and anything down already with damage output that is really fantastic over time. No need for the crappy torpedoes.

 

Wee Gee may have to increase the server tick to 30 or so in order to accomodate a herd of new shermans spamming all map without falling on his [edited].

Edited by xHeavy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,441
[D-PN]
Members
3,709 posts
17,186 battles
27 minutes ago, xHeavy said:

I pretty much have the coal for it, but frankly need to shoot at one with battleship HE and AP in battle to see how they hold up. If they can withstand three salvos at less than 10Km then I would want to buy it.

The Sherman will be the new Smolesk. It has burned everything and anything down already with damage output that is really fantastic over time. No need for the crappy torpedoes.

 

Wee Gee may have to increase the server tick to 30 or so in order to accomodate a herd of new shermans spamming all map without falling on his [edited].

HE DPM is about half of Smolie.

The love child of Friesland and Khaba would be more accurate.  Chunky hull, smoke, hydro, and dakka of Friesland with ballistics of Khaba...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,449
[BWC]
Beta Testers
3,325 posts
9,849 battles
12 minutes ago, YouSatInGum said:

HE DPM is about half of Smolie.

The love child of Friesland and Khaba would be more accurate.  Chunky hull, smoke, hydro, and dakka of Friesland with ballistics of Khaba...

 

And torpedo armament that makes you cry with joy when you step back aboard a Gearing.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,568
[TDRB]
Members
7,081 posts
15,850 battles
14 hours ago, TheBlackWind said:

Get coal faster! I've got all the coal ships (never bought any with doubs) and I have nearly 400k coal sitting there waiting for the next ship to roll around. And the one after that. (almost)

Not everyone can spend the time it takes to get the coal. Great if you can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,568
[TDRB]
Members
7,081 posts
15,850 battles
13 hours ago, Todd_Howards_Radiant_AI said:

So, if you're going to be technical at least use the correct terms.  It would be a license.

You get the license when you agree to the game's EULA. No one else can pay to use a premium ship.

 

13 hours ago, Todd_Howards_Radiant_AI said:

You've had more than enough time to grind for the coal necessary for all these ships and if you didn't get the coal, that's honestly more on you than on them.

Believe what you wish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24,361
[ARGSY]
Members
30,553 posts
28,064 battles
16 hours ago, kgh52 said:

The problem is the length of time it remains available for coal. I've had coal ships removed before I accumulated the necessary coal. 

And I'm sure I'll have steel ships removed before I accumulate the necessary steel. Big deal. What did you do with yours? What else did you spend it on, that you thought was a good idea at the time?

I don't even play to the third crate most nights, but over the years I've still managed to get Jean Bart, Georgia, Smolensk, Thunderer, Blyskawica, Napoli, Aigle, Salem, Marceau, Immelmann, Marblehead, Duke of York, Flint (at full return intro price), Neustrashimy (at full return intro price), two legendary commanders (Lutjens, Kuznetsov) and a few of the 10pt coal captains, finish some collections for commanders and permacamos and buy a few smoke generators for Commonwealth ships and Huang He, and I'm STILL sitting on just over 400,000. I didn't even use coupons for most of the ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,673
[WOLFC]
Members
5,897 posts
16,496 battles
15 hours ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

Many more Tier IX Premiums followed.  I remembered when Alaska was made available.  Not just for resources, but also as with a straight up, regular buy series of bundles.  She's a Tier IX

To add to this, the two most recent tier IXs have been released for only cash/doubloons. MO is a third if you count her limited re-release last summer.

Edited by Nevermore135

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16,863
[WOLF5]
[WOLF5]
Members
37,566 posts
30,498 battles
14 hours ago, Jakob_Knight said:

And torpedo armament that makes you cry with joy when you step back aboard a Gearing.

This DD has so many red flags for me.  A few of them:

 

Torpedo launch arcs are just simply abysmal.  The launch arcs can be seen in the "Sector" window below for "Torpedoes."  There's next to no launch arcs.

cpRGbag.jpg

For reference of a normal torpedo launch arc is same tier Shimakaze.

pLWZ1dq.jpg

 

It's a big joke.

 

F.Sherman's torpedo launchers are simply abysmal.  2 single launcher FIXED mounts per side.

This is historical, but WG misses the point as to why Forrest Sherman's torpedo launchers are like this.  You see, the days of DDs having big racks full of torpedoes are long gone with the Cold War.  In the Cold War, DDs weren't about racks filled with many torpedoes anymore, they were about AA and ASW capabilities.  By the 1950s there was a plethora of acoustic torpedoes in service with different navies for ASW.  Sherman would not have to fire torpedoes for a perfectly lined up shot like their counterparts did in WWII.  Sherman would have just fired the torpedoes and the homing would take care of the rest.

That's not represented in WoWS, so Sherman has trash torpedo capability with trash torpedo launch angles, with none of the technology going into why the Americans designed it that way.

 

Then there's the AA on Sherman.  It's barely better than a Shimakaze.

"How can that be, Haze?  Why is a 1950s Cold War US Navy Destroyer having such terrible AA capabilities"

 

The answer is simple.  By the time Forrest Sherman was commissioned in November 1955, aircraft were too fast, too sturdy for the 40mm Bofors.  Even in WWII the Kamikaze were dangerous even for USN AA capabilities and a premium was placed on 127mm guns and their VT Fuses to more reliably kill aircraft further away.  The USN had developed the 76mm/50 guns towards the end of WWII to replace the 40mm Bofors.  76mm was the smallest size shell that the USN could fit VT fuses with.  127mm guns still had the better range and lethality, but behind that the 76mm/50 would have brought faster AA firepower while still having VT fuses.

So by the time the Forrest Sherman was commissioned, all the old school 20mm, 40mm guns were gone.  Sherman's AA consisted of long range 127mm/54 DP guns and 76mm/50 AA guns, all fitted with VT fused shells, etc.

 

But VT fuses, one of the secret weapons of the US in WWII, are not in WoWS.  So what we have in Cold War-era Forrest Sherman in WoWS is a Cold War DD without the Cold War technology, and you suddenly have an American Destroyer with AA so bad that Shimakaze looks comparable in AA.

 

What a joke.


Those guns on Sherman better make up for the many other deficiencies of this DD.  Like, they better be Super Amazing Guns because the concealment, agility, torpedoes, AA are F-grade trash.

Forgot to add:  On top of bad concealment, Sherman also only has 2 Smoke charges.

Just LOL!  Those guns better be Super Duper Amazing!

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway
  • Cool 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
119 posts
9,423 battles
3 hours ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

This DD has so many red flags for me.

Dang, imagine trying to build what's clearly not a torpedo boat for torpedoes and then wondering why it doesn't work...  And imagine thinking AA numbers really even matter in the first place.

Some of the best "DDs" in the game rely on their guns for success.  In fact, most of the best randoms DDs in the game do.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
631
[CUDA]
Members
1,373 posts
13,153 battles

What they should do is give the torpedoes a 1km wide forward arc and any ship that crosses that arc the torpedo curves into them. then 2 torpedoes with fixed launch arcs don't sound so bad.

Share this post


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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×