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

WV 1944 Refit as a C Hull for Colorado?

19 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

314
[SKDSH]
Members
732 posts
12,305 battles

 This post was inspired by the current upset over how Renown is represented in game. IMO, this is an even bigger issue as it has been prevalent for years now. I'm well aware this suggestion isn't historically accurate. However, given how much time has passed since the disappointment that was WV 41, it seems quite obvious that WG has no intention of giving us the WV we should have gotten in the first place. Giving this 1944 refit as an upgrade on Colorado would help in multiple ways. 1, it would make the Colorado grind much more bearable. While it would not increase her speed, it could give her another 6-10k hp. I don't think it would be wrong for her to have the most HP at her tier since she is so slow and easy to hit compared to other T7 BBs. 2. it could be used to increase the base range on her main guns. With the plotting room mod, her range is good when she is top tier, but a little lacking when she is bottom tier, which is very frequent giving the butchering T7 mm took some time ago. 3. being a very slow BB, she is a very attractive target for CVs. This hull upgrade would give her potent AA and make her a less appealing target. WG couldn't really argue this would make her AA too strong, as her AA would be almost exactly the same as California, which has been in the game for a while now with no issues. Finally, this would get rid of WG's biggest argument for not adding WV 44 as a premium, which is that she would have unfair advantages over Colorado. With a 1944 refit as a C hull, or a replacement for the current B hull, WV 44 could be added as a T7 premium without this problem. She could get some consumable that is abnormal for USN BBs to have, maybe radar like Missouri, a hydro, or maybe a short duration fast recharging speed boost. This would still allow WV to be a unique ship, but not power creep the Colorado into irrelevance. I think this would greatly improve the USN BB line as a whole. Most people who have ground this line, me included will usually tell you that Colorado is more or less the worst grind in the line, which is sad because Colorado actually has great guns at her tier, but she is kept from greatness by having to constantly play against T9 ships without the option to fit a more modern hull. With a 1944 refit hull, the Colorado grind would be much more pleasant.

west virginia 2.jpg

Edited by admiralsexybeast
  • Boring 1
  • Meh 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
467
[KIVA]
Members
626 posts

WV '44 named anything but West Virginia will start a riot- guaranteed. All three Colorados ended up in different final configurations, but only WV got the full post-Pearl makeover, and thus is not representative of her class in that form. The resurrected Pearl Harbor BBs are iconic, and should each stand on their own if/when the remaining three (Nevada, Pennsylvania, WV '44) are added to the game, rather than being part of the tech tree.

  • Cool 2
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,398
[CAAT]
Members
5,872 posts
7,638 battles

No, no, no. West Viriginia was the ONLY Colorado class refitted akin to the Tennessee-class battleships.

HOWEVER! Colorado DID receive her OWN refit (as did her sister ship Maryland, as seen in this picture):

Uss_maryland_bb.jpg.c66ffc895d6561698bd3768cfcaa999d.jpg

You'll notice if you look closely that Maryland here actually has the iconic dual-purpose 127mm/38 mounts! Albeit without the complete refit look that Wee Vee '44 got. So Hull C Colorado (or Hull B even) COULD be THIS version. Probably SHOULD be this version, frankly.

OR this version (which is Colorado herself):

1268100020_USS_Colorado_(BB-45)_1944.thumb.jpg.da71b3ab0cdcc05cc337173b6a6015eb.jpg

(notice the 127mm/38 single mounts as opposed to the double mounts on Maryland)

Knowing Wargaming though, they will probably just release the Maryland refit as a premium Colorado named Maryland instead of as a Tech Tree hull. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

But they COULD replace Hull B Colorado with the Colorado refit with the single 127mm/38 mounts.... 👀

Edited by SaiIor_Moon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
528
[-GF-]
Beta Testers
1,058 posts
12,572 battles
1 hour ago, SaiIor_Moon said:

No, no, no. West Viriginia was the ONLY Colorado class refitted akin to the Tennessee-class battleships.

HOWEVER! Colorado DID receive her OWN refit (as did her sister ship Maryland, as seen in this picture):

Uss_maryland_bb.jpg.c66ffc895d6561698bd3768cfcaa999d.jpg

You'll notice if you look closely that Maryland here actually has the iconic dual-purpose 127mm/38 mounts! Albeit without the complete refit look that Wee Vee '44 got. So Hull C Colorado (or Hull B even) COULD be THIS version. Probably SHOULD be this version, frankly.

OR this version (which is Colorado herself):

1268100020_USS_Colorado_(BB-45)_1944.thumb.jpg.da71b3ab0cdcc05cc337173b6a6015eb.jpg

(notice the 127mm/38 single mounts as opposed to the double mounts on Maryland)

Knowing Wargaming though, they will probably just release the Maryland refit as a premium Colorado named Maryland instead of as a Tech Tree hull. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

But they COULD replace Hull B Colorado with the Colorado refit with the single 127mm/38 mounts.... 👀

not adding those hulls to the game makes sure they can make more premiums in the future!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,398
[CAAT]
Members
5,872 posts
7,638 battles
14 minutes ago, Copperhead550 said:

not adding those hulls to the game makes sure they can make more premiums in the future!

Well as I said, Wargaming would probably just give us Tier VII Maryland as a premium battleship. Same as SMS Baden (probably Tier VI Hull A Bayern), same as Pennsylvania '45 (probably Tier VI), and a few other ship hulls....

That said, I DON'T think Colorado's refit (the one with the single mounts) would REALLY sell as a premium....soooo that COULD replace Hull B Colorado......maybe :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,900
[ARS]
Beta Testers
8,255 posts
9,217 battles
2 hours ago, admiralsexybeast said:

However, given how much time has passed since the disappointment that was WV 41, it seems quite obvious that WG has no intention of giving us the WV we should have gotten in the first place.

This is not obvious at all.  WG has repeatedly stated West Virginia ‘44 is in the queue for a 2023 release and there is no evidence suggesting they are lying.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,215
[SVF]
Members
2,893 posts
2,776 battles
1 hour ago, Helstrem said:

This is not obvious at all.  WG has repeatedly stated West Virginia ‘44 is in the queue for a 2023 release and there is no evidence suggesting they are lying.

They've said similar in the past and pretty much admitted to lying about it.  I'll believe them when we see ST stats for WV '44 and not before then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,900
[ARS]
Beta Testers
8,255 posts
9,217 battles
34 minutes ago, landcollector said:

They've said similar in the past and pretty much admitted to lying about it.  I'll believe them when we see ST stats for WV '44 and not before then.

When?  When have they given a date range and then said they lied?  I’ve been here since 2015 and been an active member of the community, paying attention to the news and I’ve never seen something comparable to that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,215
[SVF]
Members
2,893 posts
2,776 battles
6 minutes ago, Helstrem said:

When?  When have they given a date range and then said they lied?  I’ve been here since 2015 and been an active member of the community, paying attention to the news and I’ve never seen something comparable to that.

Remember the October 2018 facebook blog?  And then that one stream around the time of the CC exodus last year when they admitted "Yeah, we kinda forgot about WV44 and have done no work on her at all in 3 years"?  I sure do. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,398
[CAAT]
Members
5,872 posts
7,638 battles
3 hours ago, Helstrem said:

This is not obvious at all.  WG has repeatedly stated West Virginia ‘44 is in the queue for a 2023 release and there is no evidence suggesting they are lying.

Agreed. I choose to believe Wargaming when they have said MULTIPLE times (on record) that West Virginia '44 IS queued for a 2023 release.

Quote

I'll believe them when we see ST stats for WV '44 and not before then.

That said, I'll admit that it would be nice to actually see a MODICUM of development work, just to show that they ARE working on it, and not sidelining it like they've been doing for....well, quite a while now. But I do still believe that WG IS going to release WV '44, probably by July 4th of next year (which would make a lot of sense).

Edited by SaiIor_Moon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
528
[-GF-]
Beta Testers
1,058 posts
12,572 battles
4 hours ago, SaiIor_Moon said:

Well as I said, Wargaming would probably just give us Tier VII Maryland as a premium battleship. Same as SMS Baden (probably Tier VI Hull A Bayern), same as Pennsylvania '45 (probably Tier VI), and a few other ship hulls....

That said, I DON'T think Colorado's refit (the one with the single mounts) would REALLY sell as a premium....soooo that COULD replace Hull B Colorado......maybe :P

And i would love an as built Warspite but what we have is the refit

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,900
[ARS]
Beta Testers
8,255 posts
9,217 battles
2 hours ago, landcollector said:

Remember the October 2018 facebook blog?  And then that one stream around the time of the CC exodus last year when they admitted "Yeah, we kinda forgot about WV44 and have done no work on her at all in 3 years"?  I sure do. 

That isn't the same thing.  Since then we have had multiple updates on West Virginia '44's progress, starting with "It is in the queue and we're working on gameplay concepts" to "It should be released in '22 or '23" to "It is set for a 2023 release" and that has been consistently maintained since.

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,673
[WOLFC]
Members
5,898 posts
16,516 battles

At this point, WG has repeatedly committed to WV’44 sometime in 2023, so barring the WoWs apocalypse we can expect the ship to show up in some form next year. Now, whether the ship will be in any state that her proponents are hoping for or if she will be another California is another story.

Given what we know about the planning that goes into the release schedule, WV’44 would have had to have “fallen through the cracks” multiple times to be so delayed from the original assurance that she would be released back when WV’41 dropped. It is much more likely, IMO, that the devs hoped that the community would collectively forget about the ship, as she represents a bit of a balancing conundrum at either tier VII or VIII given her historical characteristics and the ships already in game (notably CO and KS). There is a reason WG originally tried to get away with a tier VI WV, after all.

Edited by Nevermore135
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,900
[ARS]
Beta Testers
8,255 posts
9,217 battles

@Nevermore135 Seems the OP doesn't like contrary opinions in his thread and just wants yes men to coddle him and tell him how right he is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,215
[SVF]
Members
2,893 posts
2,776 battles
59 minutes ago, Helstrem said:

@Nevermore135 Seems the OP doesn't like contrary opinions in his thread and just wants yes men to coddle him and tell him how right he is.

It's not the OP, it's me.  You're apparently willing to trust WG's words, I'm not.

 

3 hours ago, Nevermore135 said:

Given what we know about the planning that goes into the release schedule, WV’44 would have had to have “fallen through the cracks” multiple times to be so delayed from the original assurance that she would be released back when WV’41 dropped. It is much more likely, IMO, that the devs hoped that the community would collectively forget about the ship, as she represents a bit of a balancing conundrum at either tier VII or VIII given her historical characteristics and the ships already in game (notably CO and KS). There is a reason WG originally tried to get away with a tier VI WV, after all.

Then they should have had the common courtesy to say "unfortunately, we could not find a method to make WV44 viable and/or unique (whichever the case would have been) at her expected tier.  Therefore we are suspending development until a later date." instead of ghosting the players for nearly three years before the issue was forced and they *had* to make a statement.

Edited by landcollector
  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,673
[WOLFC]
Members
5,898 posts
16,516 battles
7 minutes ago, landcollector said:

Then they should have had the common courtesy to say "unfortunately, we could not find a method to make WV44 viable and/or unique (whichever the case would have been) at her expected tier.  Therefore we are suspending development until a later date." instead of ghosting the players for nearly three years before the issue was forced and they *had* to make a statement.

I’m not defending WG’s actions.

As I said, I’m of the belief that they were hoping the “problem” would just go away if they ignored it. The ship must have constantly been pushed to the bottom of the development pile during those nearly three years, if it was even really in the pile to begin with.

WG tried to originally release West Virginia at tier VI. This was a conscious decision because the rebuilt CO-class was a balancing nightmare even then. The promise to later release WV’44 was made under duress after the pushback following that decision. Unfortunately for WG, there is a small groups of players that are passionate about WV’44 and the playerbase did not simply forget.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,900
[ARS]
Beta Testers
8,255 posts
9,217 battles
8 hours ago, landcollector said:

It's not the OP, it's me.  You're apparently willing to trust WG's words, I'm not.

What's to trust?  It comes in 2023 or it doesn't.  I am not prejudging, you are.  I am not wrong regardless, you are wrong if it comes.  The OP is so sure they are lying he wants them to sabotage their stated plans and make his claim self fullfilling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,215
[SVF]
Members
2,893 posts
2,776 battles
Just now, Helstrem said:

I am not wrong regardless, you are wrong if it comes. 

And I would be happy to be wrong, because it meant WG actually followed through on their promise, regardless of the ship's Stats and tiering (That's another discussion...).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
924
[NUWES]
Members
3,843 posts
15,402 battles
16 hours ago, SaiIor_Moon said:

 

That said, I'll admit that it would be nice to actually see a MODICUM of development work, just to show that they ARE working on it, and not sidelining it like they've been doing for....well, quite a while now. But I do still believe that WG IS going to release WV '44, probably by July 4th of next year (which would make a lot of sense).

The devs used to show off some of the pre final work and the community got riled up and absolutely rabid about pre release things they didnt like. The devs has to soend so much time calming people down that they stopped doing it. There is basically zero chance they will ever do that again.

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.

×