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

Meanwhile, in the Realm of actual ships...

25 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

7,238
[WG]
Administrator, WG Staff
5,875 posts
16,013 battles

And like that, they are gone...

xx.gif

  • Funny 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,019
[NGA-A]
Members
2,571 posts
16,357 battles

Remind me what year the Minnesota-class began construction?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,435
[SALVO]
Members
14,619 posts
9,334 battles
6 minutes ago, JediMasterDraco said:

Remind me what year the Minnesota-class began construction?

Not sure, a couple years before Montana?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
89
[5IN]
Members
194 posts
32,385 battles
50 minutes ago, JediMasterDraco said:

Remind me what year the Minnesota-class began construction?

that would be 1920 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota-class_battleship_(1920)

I think they got named Kansas and Minnesota because the real 1920 ships had names of ships already in the game or planned for the game. I would have been happier if WG gave them the actual names with "20" on the end. It would have also been nice to get a ship without the post Pearl Harbor style fantasy re-builds (with super AA) but it is what it is..... 

Edited by TAM_OH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,019
[NGA-A]
Members
2,571 posts
16,357 battles
2 minutes ago, TAM_OH said:

that would be 1920

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota-class_battleship_(1920)

I think they got named Kansas and Minnesota because the real 1920 ships had names of ships already in the game or planned for the game. I would have been happier if WG gave them the actual names with "20" on the end. It would have also been nice to get a ship without the post Pearl Harbor style fantisy re-builds but it is what it is..... 

Not quite. The 1920 South Dakota-class was intended to use a 16"/50 gun while both Kansas and Minnesota use the 16"/45.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,610
[ARR0W]
Members
5,758 posts
31,311 battles
1 hour ago, ArIskandir said:

Planes are downed

Subs get sunk

 

How do you balance people?

May I always have enemy planes that fly in a straight line, and red subs that potate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
89
[5IN]
Members
194 posts
32,385 battles
6 minutes ago, JediMasterDraco said:

Not quite. The 1920 South Dakota-class was intended to use a 16"/50 gun while both Kansas and Minnesota use the 16"/45.

the 1930's were hard times for the fantasy US navy, and they had to shorten the barrels to save money, a little known fact left out of the history books. That or WG doesn't always get things right 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,019
[NGA-A]
Members
2,571 posts
16,357 battles
1 minute ago, TAM_OH said:

the 1930's were hard times for the fantasy US navy, and they had to shorten the barrels to save money, a little known fact left out of the history books. That or WG doesn't always get things right 

Only issue with that is, as you said, these ships, or at least the Kansas, were built in the early twenties. And I doubt the Navy went almost ten years without a new set of Standards in a time with no Naval Treaty. Not to mention, funding the Navy was one of the few things both interventionists and isolationists favored since the Navy was both a force capable of projecting American power and defending the country from any potential hostiles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,238
[WG]
Administrator, WG Staff
5,875 posts
16,013 battles
13 minutes ago, JediMasterDraco said:

Only issue with that is, as you said, these ships, or at least the Kansas, were built in the early twenties. And I doubt the Navy went almost ten years without a new set of Standards in a time with no Naval Treaty. Not to mention, funding the Navy was one of the few things both interventionists and isolationists favored since the Navy was both a force capable of projecting American power and defending the country from any potential hostiles.

Feel free to continue this discussion in: https://forum.worldofwarships.com/forum/232-historical-discussions-and-studies/

Please try to keep the conversation in this thread game relevant.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,435
[SALVO]
Members
14,619 posts
9,334 battles
44 minutes ago, Pugilistic said:

May I always have enemy planes that fly in a straight line, and red subs that potate. 

These days seem to happen more often than not :fish_haloween:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,476
[WOLFC]
Members
5,675 posts
15,855 battles
15 hours ago, JediMasterDraco said:

Not quite. The 1920 South Dakota-class was intended to use a 16"/50 gun while both Kansas and Minnesota use the 16"/45.

As were the Lexingtons. Constellation also has the wrong guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,455
[SALVO]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
6,587 posts
7,430 battles

@Ahskance - can we get DFAA added to California? 

I do enjoy the fat USN BB's as the AA fortress. 

-eagerly awaits WV44 as a total no flyzone :) -

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,699
[WPORT]
Members
18,062 posts
20,725 battles
18 hours ago, ArIskandir said:

How do you balance people?

Good play is not over-powered.  :cap_like:

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,108
[CAAT]
Members
5,451 posts
7,286 battles
11 hours ago, Dr_Venture said:

@Ahskance - can we get DFAA added to California? 

I do enjoy the fat USN BB's as the AA fortress. 

I DID suggest that as a potential buff for California. It made a lot of sense, given her status as a "floating AA battery". I always found it rather silly that FLORIDA of all ships got the DFAA consumable while California got literally nothing but the standard consumable loadout.

Let me repeat that.

California, the literal "floating AA battery" of 115 AA guns, basically the "Tier VII Texas" in World of Warships, did NOT get DFAA.

But Florida did? Whyyyyyyyyyyyyyy?!

huh-what.gif.b94f4dcde2b57259ce5723b9a1b19140.gif

By the by, still waiting to see if Wargaming saw fit to give California at LEAST 45s turret traverse time and some quick heals, like her cousins, the Vermont line.

She needs SOME kind of buff. That goes without saying. That said, DFAA WOULD make sense for California, given Wargaming's stance on her having "powerful AA". At least it would SOMEWHAT justify a slower main battery reload time. Although she still needs that 45s turret traverse time like the Vermont line, make no mistake. However, I can accept DFAA + 45s turret traverse instead of the quick heals. (of course, quick heals would be more generally useful than DFAA...)

Edited by SaiIor_Moon
  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,353
[LEGIO]
Members
3,714 posts
10,506 battles
On 7/10/2022 at 5:04 PM, JediMasterDraco said:

Not quite. The 1920 South Dakota-class was intended to use a 16"/50 gun while both Kansas and Minnesota use the 16"/45.

Kansas is definitely using 16"/45 caliber guns but the Mark model is wrong. While the Minnesota says it is using the same guns judging from the muzzle velocity they are actually 16"/50 caliber and firing the 2700 lb shell. There is so much wrong with these ships WG should really rework them and fix all of the basic details that are wrong.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16,414
[WOLF5]
[WOLF5]
Members
36,927 posts
29,993 battles
On 7/10/2022 at 2:04 PM, JediMasterDraco said:

Not quite. The 1920 South Dakota-class was intended to use a 16"/50 gun while both Kansas and Minnesota use the 16"/45.

There's also the detail that Tier VIII Premium Constellation, a Lexington-class Battlecruiser, is supposed to have the same 16"/50 guns of the 1920 SD-class.  But WG gave her the wrong and inferior 16"/45 guns, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,562
[WOLF1]
[WOLF1]
Members
2,274 posts
8,421 battles
On 7/11/2022 at 4:55 AM, ArIskandir said:

How do you balance people?

Oi, quit breaking the meta!

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
385
[WFR]
Members
588 posts
13 hours ago, SaiIor_Moon said:

I DID suggest that as a potential buff for California. It made a lot of sense, given her status as a "floating AA battery". I always found it rather silly that FLORIDA of all ships got the DFAA consumable while California got literally nothing but the standard consumable loadout.

Let me repeat that.

California, the literal "floating AA battery" of 115 AA guns, basically the "Tier VII Texas" in World of Warships, did NOT get DFAA.

But Florida did? Whyyyyyyyyyyyyyy?!

huh-what.gif.b94f4dcde2b57259ce5723b9a1b19140.gif

By the by, still waiting to see if Wargaming saw fit to give California at LEAST 45s turret traverse time and some quick heals, like her cousins, the Vermont line.

She needs SOME kind of buff. That goes without saying. That said, DFAA WOULD make sense for California, given Wargaming's stance on her having "powerful AA". At least it would SOMEWHAT justify a slower main battery reload time. Although she still needs that 45s turret traverse time like the Vermont line, make no mistake. However, I can accept DFAA + 45s turret traverse instead of the quick heals. (of course, quick heals would be more generally useful than DFAA...)

California is one of the most beautiful ships in the game, hands down.

 

Unfortunately all those AA guns and secondaries do...nothing basically, and she's basically impossible to get into the fight or redeploy, so I've never been tempted to pick her up.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,108
[CAAT]
Members
5,451 posts
7,286 battles
2 hours ago, Molonious said:

California is one of the most beautiful ships in the game, hands down.

 

Unfortunately all those AA guns and secondaries do...nothing basically, and she's basically impossible to get into the fight or redeploy, so I've never been tempted to pick her up.

Yep. For all that supposed AA power Wargaming has given her, she cannot even extend her AA range to make better/more consistent use of that AA power, and most of her AA power is situated in her short-range AA aura that's only 2km radius anyways.

Also:

72462590_WoWsStock_AA_Cali.png.93a95a45925125eccccc85e3d0e6354e.png

The 70%, 75%, and 75% "accuracy" modifiers/damage limiters kill her Continuous AA numbers. So even though the numbers LOOK impressive, you're only actually getting 343 DPS (Short-Range Aura), 273 DPS (Medium-Range Aura), and only 102.75 DPS  (Long-Range Aura).....a farcry from what her displayed numbers would suggest.

AND she doesn't have access to DFAA either. So she can't even really bump up those numbers to truly impressive levels (remember, she's basically designed as the Tier VII Texas, we're expecting HIGH AA power for the cost of basically almost every other stat. Using Sector Reinforcement (35%) basically brings the AA values CLOSE to the displayed values (but still under them). It's still not really enough to justify building into her AA though and to use her primarily as an AA platform (in other words, as designed).

384304653_WoWsMAX_AA_Cali.png.73e128c65a33c0860826caba7392cb31.png

This is the BEST she can get. 396.2 DPS (Short-Range Aura), 315 DPS (Medium-Range Aura), and only 118.5 DPS  (Long-Range Aura). That's with a FULL AA build. Keep in mind, that the majority of your AA power starts at 3.5km to 2km. Not 5.8km.

If Wargaming isn't willing to give California DFAA, then perhaps an increase to the accuracy modifiers is needed? Give her SOME kind of niche. AA is supposed to be her niche and even Ahskance knows you can't build effectively into her AA, because:

  • she's missing DFAA
  • battleship sector reinforcement is only 35%
  • 2pt AA skill is not remotely strong enough to justify the points (you're better off just using the AA flag, it's a lot cheaper)

Sure, her AA will probably down MAYBE 1 or 2 planes more, I don't deny that (if you're lucky and you use Sector Reinforcement correctly every single time without fail btw, because Sector Reinforcement use IS A MUST to get any decent AA damage), but is that really worth losing on her main battery reload (34.2s on only 356mm guns lols), turret traverse (60s!), speed(20.5 kn sloooowwww) secondaries (standard sadly), even her torpedo protection is lackluster at 35% (freakin' Colorado has more TP at 37%. Come on).

Give California some much-needed love, Wargaming. It's been over 2 years now!!!

6 hours ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

There's also the detail that Tier VIII Premium Constellation, a Lexington-class Battlecruiser, is supposed to have the same 16"/50 guns of the 1920 SD-class.  But WG gave her the wrong and inferior 16"/45 guns, too.

Methinks Wargaming needs to revisit the gun calibers on the Vermont line as well as Constellation then.....

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,455
[SALVO]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
6,587 posts
7,430 battles

Wargaming really fumbled the ball on California - a historical ship thrown into a pack of fantasy ships with gimmicks. 

"Her history is the gimmick" 

Truth be told - she needs SOMETHING to make her stand out. Either an obscene AA battery or a buff to her guns/reload or secondaries.

I'm very curious what WV44 will look like - even if we get it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,435
[SALVO]
Members
14,619 posts
9,334 battles
1 hour ago, Dr_Venture said:

Truth be told - she needs SOMETHING to make her stand out. Either an obscene AA battery

Would totally love having California becoming a true AA monster (able to punish T8 CVs), would give her a truly unique character for the tier. Coupling the AA with the quick reloading Repair Party would be awesome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,455
[SALVO]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
6,587 posts
7,430 battles
21 hours ago, ArIskandir said:

Would totally love having California becoming a true AA monster (able to punish T8 CVs), would give her a truly unique character for the tier. Coupling the AA with the quick reloading Repair Party would be awesome.

Fearsome AA Fortress!

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,474
[TNP66]
Beta Testers
3,104 posts
8,406 battles
On 7/10/2022 at 4:36 PM, Ahskance said:

Feel free to continue this discussion in: https://forum.worldofwarships.com/forum/232-historical-discussions-and-studies/

Please try to keep the conversation in this thread game relevant.

Hmm 🤔 really think that USS Kitty Hawk and the USS John F Kennedy should be in the game. Exploring the ships after the 1950’s is ideal. I think that a feedback session should be made on this topic to gauge player interest in this. As eventually your going to run out of material to work with pre 1960’s and will need to start exploring the ships that came out after the 1960’s. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,435
[SALVO]
Members
14,619 posts
9,334 battles
10 minutes ago, landedkiller said:

Hmm 🤔 really think that USS Kitty Hawk and the USS John F Kennedy should be in the game. Exploring the ships after the 1950’s is ideal. I think that a feedback session should be made on this topic to gauge player interest in this. As eventually your going to run out of material to work with pre 1960’s and will need to start exploring the ships that came out after the 1960’s. 

I'm sure there's interest, the problem is how do you integrate them into the existing game now that Superships are settling in?

That era will be dominated by Smart Weapon Systems and will mark the end of the traditional gun meta and the vision mechanics will possibly need serious tweaking in order to represent the prevalence of advanced sensors. I think possible to make the the necessary mechanical adjustments to make the system work, but I see very difficult to balance both systems for the tiers where they overlap. 

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.

×