Dev Blog : Pan-American Cruisers

[Lord_Slayer]

Is it me, or is it mostly Light Cruisers?

https://blog.worldofwarships.com/blog/388?fbclid=IwAR1wC4NAcCzeZisSfCH8xWUZMwxzAuhMGP5sNEBSDGugaX9Lkqu1lCYchOA

4 actual steel ships, 6 paper 'What-ifs'

Another Fiji-clone at T7 tech tree (only 2 sold to Peru) and no sign of any Brooklyns (2 to Chili, 2 to Brazil, 2 to Argentina (though we already one in game and doubt we'll see the second))

[Iceland_260]

6 minutes ago, Lord_Slayer said:

Is it me, or is it mostly Light Cruisers?

Mostly? It is an entirely CL line. The top of the line is all Worcester guns (including what I assume is the triple turret from the not yet announced super ship).

9 minutes ago, Lord_Slayer said:

Another Fiji-clone at T7 tech tree (only 2 sold to Peru) and no sign of any Brooklyns (2 to Chili, 2 to Brazil, 2 to Argentina (though we already one in game and doubt we'll see the second))

Also absent are the Tre Kronor and D7P clones.

[Citadel_Princess]

1 minute ago, Iceland_260 said:

Mostly? It is an entirely CL line. The top of the line is all Worcester guns (including what I assume is the triple turret from the not yet announced super ship).

Also absent are the Tre Kronor and D7P clones.

DZP Peru version would fit more than the T8 what if tbf, i hope they atleast make it premium or something since is a very good candidate of ship

[commando_brian]

What  happened to the European DD line? I thought they were after the American hybrids

[ArIskandir]

[Lord_Slayer]

31 minutes ago, commando_brian said:

What  happened to the European DD line? I thought they were after the American hybrids

dont we already have Euro DDs?

[Wrath_Of_Deadguy]

Nice to see that there will finally be a Pan-American tech line... but sad that it wasn't a DD line, which could've been almost completely steel. Still, some cool ships here- and a few real not-yet-in-game classes (especially the Tier 1, because let's face it, the only way we'll ever see any new corvettes, frigates, gunboats, etc. will be as starter-botes).

 

[Iceland_260]

6 minutes ago, Lord_Slayer said:

dont we already have Euro DDs?

A second branch (more gun based, less Swedish) was announced in the last Waterline, but we haven't got the ship reveals for it yet.

[HazeGrayUnderway]

Going by what the DevBlog says, this line on its premise looks to be what more Cruiser players are interested in:  Gun Cruisers.  Decent range with good shell flight characteristics, good ROF.  The polar opposite of the not well received Pan Asia and IJN Light Cruisers, which are focused on torpedoes and having issues with their gunnery.

 

"The new ships' main battery guns will have a medium firing range and good ballistics which make them effective at any distance. The guns also have a decent rate of fire. The cruisers' torpedoes have average characteristics. Thier good concealment will allow them to get into a good position and be the first to strike when conditions are favorable or to safely retreat, if necessary."

[WildWitch]

 

This line intrigues me - what could the Combat Instructions be?

[Trophy_Wench]

This whole line just makes me sad

[Sidelock]

What puts me off is the ship's origin and naming from the one supposedly belonging to my country (Yeah I'm from Chile.... Surprise!!! i guess). That is a big deal for me because its historically so wrong that I'm sure if i tell some friends from the navy about this they would be confused at the choice and perhaps even personally offended. No way in hell Italian ships would had been bought in place of British ones, historically most of our ships are from Britain, we have ties with the British Navy and our current main surface combatants are British Type 23s!!!. The Latorre Class BB was chosen from Britain and even the American ambassador at the time considered the contracts to surely fall on the British side unless a revolution of sorts happened here. The naming is also wrong as Cochrane is a name reserved for Main Surface Ships and was the name chosen for the Second in the Latorre class Battleships. A ship that later became the Carrier HMS Eagle on British service.

The whole line seems interesting, at least for now, but considering the job @Talleyrand and his gang had done for years into creating potential (and most of all POSSIBLE) Pan American lines, it seems like a sad and very lazy attempt by WG into pleasing the whole of Latin America by doing the least possible effort into designing this line considering most of the ships are slightly modified and completely fake ships.

Personally, im just confused and like i said above put off by this.

[pepe_trueno]

was looking forward for a pan american line but Cls with cardboard armor... thanks but no thanks.

[Iron_Salvo921]

Yay another primarily paper ship line... 

[COLDOWN]

Wargaming, the content is appreciated.

But this is one of the worst crafted branches ever made.

I hope you will take your time to analyse the critical comments (WIP) and to reformulate the entire project again.

[_GreyBeard_]

3 hours ago, Sidelock said:

What puts me off is the ship's origin and naming from the one supposedly belonging to my country (Yeah I'm from Chile.... Surprise!!! i guess). That is a big deal for me because its historically so wrong that I'm sure if i tell some friends from the navy about this they would be confused at the choice and perhaps even personally offended. No way in hell Italian ships would had been bought in place of British ones, historically most of our ships are from Britain, we have ties with the British Navy and our current main surface combatants are British Type 23s!!!. The Latorre Class BB was chosen from Britain and even the American ambassador at the time considered the contracts to surely fall on the British side unless a revolution of sorts happened here. The naming is also wrong as Cochrane is a name reserved for Main Surface Ships and was the name chosen for the Second in the Latorre class Battleships. A ship that later became the Carrier HMS Eagle on British service.

The whole line seems interesting, at least for now, but considering the job @Talleyrand and his gang had done for years into creating potential (and most of all POSSIBLE) Pan American lines, it seems like a sad and very lazy attempt by WG into pleasing the whole of Latin America by doing the least possible effort into designing this line considering most of the ships are slightly modified and completely fake ships.

Personally, im just confused and like i said above put off by this.

 

Canada says hi. At least none of the are like the Yukon (or at least until more is known about them).

[Cit_the_bed]

There were plenty of real ships to use, instead they just made a bunch of Worcester kitbash ships. 

I guess fake is easier to make than real. 

[Wolfswetpaws]

10 hours ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

Going by what the DevBlog says, this line on its premise looks to be what more Cruiser players are interested in:  Gun Cruisers.  Decent range with good shell flight characteristics, good ROF.  The polar opposite of the not well received Pan Asia and IJN Light Cruisers, which are focused on torpedoes and having issues with their gunnery.

 

"The new ships' main battery guns will have a medium firing range and good ballistics which make them effective at any distance. The guns also have a decent rate of fire. The cruisers' torpedoes have average characteristics. Thier good concealment will allow them to get into a good position and be the first to strike when conditions are favorable or to safely retreat, if necessary."

Personally, I prefer that Cruisers have torpedoes.
Am I bucking the trend?  :-)

[Itsj_p]

16 hours ago, Lord_Slayer said:

Is it me, or is it mostly Light Cruisers?

https://blog.worldofwarships.com/blog/388?fbclid=IwAR1wC4NAcCzeZisSfCH8xWUZMwxzAuhMGP5sNEBSDGugaX9Lkqu1lCYchOA

4 actual steel ships, 6 paper 'What-ifs'

Another Fiji-clone at T7 tech tree (only 2 sold to Peru) and no sign of any Brooklyns (2 to Chili, 2 to Brazil, 2 to Argentina (though we already one in game and doubt we'll see the second))

Well it says light cruisers, so ya.

[commando_brian]

17 hours ago, Lord_Slayer said:

dont we already have Euro DDs?

They announced a second line, with Greek, Norwegian and Polish ships

[YouSatInGum]

16 hours ago, WildWitch said:

 

This line intrigues me - what could the Combat Instructions be?

Probably a replay of French cruiser concept.  Slightly lower DPM but with a burst fire/ MBRB to compensate. 

17 hours ago, Wrath_Of_Deadguy said:

Nice to see that there will finally be a Pan-American tech line... but sad that it wasn't a DD line, which could've been almost completely steel.

 

+1000.

The Pam-Am DD line is one the last remaining possible line that are not mostly paper... especially the high tier ships with more one possible candidates for T10.  A little hard to understand their continued absence.

17 hours ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

Going by what the DevBlog says, this line on its premise looks to be what more Cruiser players are interested in:  Gun Cruisers.  Decent range with good shell flight characteristics, good ROF.  The polar opposite of the not well received Pan Asia and IJN Light Cruisers, which are focused on torpedoes and having issues with their gunnery.

 

"The new ships' main battery guns will have a medium firing range and good ballistics which make them effective at any distance. The guns also have a decent rate of fire. The cruisers' torpedoes have average characteristics. Thier good concealment will allow them to get into a good position and be the first to strike when conditions are favorable or to safely retreat, if necessary."

Returning to bread and butter cruiser characteristics would be nice change, but somehow WG seems to be missing the mark a bit on what players like to play here.  Cleveland is a very popular cruiser, give is a heal and put at T9 and you have a winner.  The absence of the Belgrano is also conspicuous as it would have made a great T8.... Helena with a radar...or no radar and something closer to it's historical 6 sec reload.

As for the paper T10, I am already concerned about it's concept.

A 9 gun Wooster with a 4 sec reload would have 297k DPM, which sounds respectable until you remember that Wooster has 344k and it is increasingly falling out of favor with the current meta and has had some of weakest battle performance numbers in it's class for some time now. Why should players get excited over a similar ship with 14% less DPM or in other words, a nerfed Wooster?

Maybe some gimmick will be added or some stats massaged Vallejo style to give better ballistics.... but I'd say the announced ships are starting life with some extra challenges if they are too be appreciated by cruiser players.

[Nevermore135]

27 minutes ago, YouSatInGum said:

A 9 gun Wooster with a 4 sec reload would have 297k DPM, which sounds respectable until you remember that Wooster has 344k and it is increasingly falling out of favor with the current meta and has had some of weakest battle performance numbers in it's class for some time now. Why should players get excited over a similar ship with 14% less DPM or in other words, a nerfed Wooster?

It compares quite favorably to Seattle’s 243.7k HE DPM, which also being a tier IX is the ship it should be compared to. The tier IX is a 3x3 9-gun Worcester variant, while the tier X looks to be a 2x3, 2x2 10-gun Worcester variant. Both ships also appear to mount torpedoes.

With the mention of the improved ballistics of their guns, it looks like WG is going to try to base these ships off Vallejo, i.e. more focused towards long range, open water gunnery than traditional US CLs. Given that Vallejo was recently released, I wouldn’t be surprised if this line was where she was first conceived, and her rejected model was repurposed as a test bed for some of the new line’s characteristics.

[hexeris]

And STILL no Commonwealth line...