Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
Iron_Salvo921

Historical and Paper Ship Lines

35 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

247
[UTWE]
Members
450 posts
10,502 battles

There is an obscene amount of paper ship lines being added into the game nowadays. German and British battlecruisers were mostly blueprint ships with just the low and some mid tier ships being real while the overwhelming majority of Pan-Asian Cruisers, and IJN Light Cruisers are also not real. Now we have a new European DD, USN BB hybrid, and Pan-American cruiser line which are also all full of paper ships. Add these onto German CVs and the DD split off, Soviet BBs, both cruiser lines, CVs, USN BB split off, and the French cruiser split off, and there is an OBSCENE amount of tech tree lines in the game that are either all, or mostly paper ships. And a lot of lines that COULD be full of historical ships like British battlecruisers, and British heavy cruisers have so many ships that SHOULD be much higher placed at like T5-6 which is stupid.

 

Paper ships should be filler as an excuse to justify historical ships being in a tech tree. They should NEVER be premium ships and there should be no lines with all or mostly paper ships until every single historical line that can be added into the game, is. There are still so many historical lines that could be added in that could get to T8-10 without using a paper ship such as: RN DD split off, RN CV split off, USN DD split off, USN CV split off, IJN CV split off, Italian DD split off, Commonwealth DDs, Commonwealth cruisers (Seriously how is a South American line added into a game which is even loosely based on history before a Commonwealth one lol), Pan-American destroyers, and Pan-European cruisers.

 

There are also tons of historically significant ships that could be premiums that somehow aren't in the game yet like: Any Revenge Class BBs, USS Johnston, Somehow there are only two King George V class BBs and somehow they're only T7 lol, USS Saratoga, Lutzow or Admiral Scheer, USS South Dakota, HMS Barham, USS Washington, USS Wasp, HMS Victorious or Formidable (Illustrious should be the T8 of an RN CV split off), HMS Eskimo, HMS Sheffield, USS Samuel B. Roberts, Kirishima, Haguro, HMS Norfolk and Dorsetshire (at T7-8 not T6 dang it WG), HMS Rodney, etc, etc, etc. 

 

The fact that the Russian Navy is one of the largest (and definitely the strongest) in a naval warfare game is disgraceful. I get that it's an arcade game, that it's made by a Russian company, and that historical accuracy is an afterthought, but it should not be an afterthought when it comes to creating new ships. Add in all of these stupid paper lines after all historical ones have been bled dry.

 

The fact that all ships in the American and German sub lines as well as the announced British and Soviet lines are real is nice but I'd like some more real surface ships. It should not be surprising when I see a real ship announced. Please WG just throw us historical nuts a bone. 

 

I know no one from WG will see this, much less listen, but I wanted to say this after the consecutive announcements of more lines filled full of paper ships. 

  • Cool 9
  • Thanks 3
  • Meh 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,364
[WOLF1]
[WOLF1]
Members
2,929 posts
8,973 battles
1 hour ago, Iron_Salvo921 said:

There is an obscene amount of paper ship lines being added into the game nowadays. German and British battlecruisers were mostly blueprint ships with just the low and some mid tier ships being real while the overwhelming majority of Pan-Asian Cruisers, and IJN Light Cruisers are also not real. Now we have a new European DD, USN BB hybrid, and Pan-American cruiser line which are also all full of paper ships. Add these onto German CVs and the DD split off, Soviet BBs, both cruiser lines, CVs, USN BB split off, and the French cruiser split off, and there is an OBSCENE amount of tech tree lines in the game that are either all, or mostly paper ships. And a lot of lines that COULD be full of historical ships like British battlecruisers, and British heavy cruisers have so many ships that SHOULD be much higher placed at like T5-6 which is stupid.

 

Paper ships should be filler as an excuse to justify historical ships being in a tech tree. They should NEVER be premium ships and there should be no lines with all or mostly paper ships until every single historical line that can be added into the game, is. There are still so many historical lines that could be added in that could get to T8-10 without using a paper ship such as: RN DD split off, RN CV split off, USN DD split off, USN CV split off, IJN CV split off, Italian DD split off, Commonwealth DDs, Commonwealth cruisers (Seriously how is a South American line added into a game which is even loosely based on history before a Commonwealth one lol), Pan-American destroyers, and Pan-European cruisers.

 

There are also tons of historically significant ships that could be premiums that somehow aren't in the game yet like: Any Revenge Class BBs, USS Johnston, Somehow there are only two King George V class BBs and somehow they're only T7 lol, USS Saratoga, Lutzow or Admiral Scheer, USS South Dakota, HMS Barham, USS Washington, USS Wasp, HMS Victorious or Formidable (Illustrious should be the T8 of an RN CV split off), HMS Eskimo, HMS Sheffield, USS Samuel B. Roberts, Kirishima, Haguro, HMS Norfolk and Dorsetshire (at T7-8 not T6 dang it WG), HMS Rodney, etc, etc, etc. 

 

The fact that the Russian Navy is one of the largest (and definitely the strongest) in a naval warfare game is disgraceful. I get that it's an arcade game, that it's made by a Russian company, and that historical accuracy is an afterthought, but it should not be an afterthought when it comes to creating new ships. Add in all of these stupid paper lines after all historical ones have been bled dry.

 

The fact that all ships in the American and German sub lines as well as the announced British and Soviet lines are real is nice but I'd like some more real surface ships. It should not be surprising when I see a real ship announced. Please WG just throw us historical nuts a bone. 

 

I know no one from WG will see this, much less listen, but I wanted to say this after the consecutive announcements of more lines filled full of paper ships. 

I approve of this post. 

  • Cool 6
  • Thanks 1
  • Meh 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12,457
[SALVO]
Members
28,062 posts
41,751 battles
3 minutes ago, HyperFish said:

I approve of this post. 

I do not.  This game is not an excuse for making premiums ships out of every ship in every built in steel ship ever launched.  :Smile-angry:

  • Sad 1
  • Meh 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,364
[WOLF1]
[WOLF1]
Members
2,929 posts
8,973 battles
1 hour ago, Crucis said:

I do not.  This game is not an excuse for making premiums ships out of every ship in every built in steel ship ever launched.  :Smile-angry:

You missed the point. He's arguing for more real ships in the tech tree, not paper ships as filler.

He's made the valid point that the RU Navy tree is filled with ships that didn't exist, while other existing ships from other nations have been ignored. WG shouldn't be adding paper ships at the expense of historical ones. 

It's a sentiment I share. 

  • Cool 7
  • Thanks 1
  • Boring 2
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
551
[KIVA]
Members
703 posts

I agree that, when possible, real steel ships should be prioritized for tech lines.

I don't mind paper ships- at least not if they're a logical progression of something that really existed or was planned- but whole tech lines of paper really shouldn't be a thing, at least not until all of the potential real ship lines under a given flag have been explored (looking at you, second paper branch of USN BBs while there are still several lines' worth of real DDs and CVs on the board). There are some interesting ships in the PanAm cruiser line, yeah- even some real ships that aren't all that well known- and it's good that there's finally a tech line to go with the multiple existing premiums, but it should've been a DD line, which could have been created with at most one or two paper ships... instead of most of the line being paper. We got a three-turret paper Halland successor as a Supership before the actual, built-in-steel three-turret Halland variant that was built for the Colombian Navy, and that's silly. The USN Super-CV is paper, when the refitted Essexes and Midways were right there. The first USN BB split should've branched off at a lower tier and included some of the post-refit Standards, not just imaginary refits of paper Tillmans and the SoDak '20. A Commonwealth DD line should've happened before a KM DD split. Etc, etc.

There's still a lot of untapped potential from actual, salt-and-steel history- but it's being buried by powercreep and back-of-the-napkin fleets.

  • Cool 4
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
400
[GC]
Alpha Tester
1,102 posts
5,173 battles
1 hour ago, Wrath_Of_Deadguy said:

The first USN BB split should've branched off at a lower tier and included some of the post-refit Standards,

THIS. Late-war Nevada at tier 6, Pennsylvania at tier 7. Maybe they could have found a way to massage North Dakota (Delaware class, since the name is being used for the stupid new hybrid tier 10) and Utah (Florida class) at tiers 4 and 5, respectively, though that's a bit of a stretch considering they both preceded the Wyomings historically. Revenge is still missing. So is Northampton. Essex, numerically the most important class of aircraft carrier in history, has yet to be reintroduced.

Also, we don't need new gimmicks with each line that comes out.

--Helms

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
551
[KIVA]
Members
703 posts

I expect to see the R Class as a T5 at some point- probably for an event, or a holiday; they're just too famous to get ignored forever. Likewise the Northampton class cruisers; Houston just needs to be in this game. We have every single class of IJN cruiser (save the one-off Oyodo), every class of KM cruiser... but still not all of the ships that won the war. It's shameful how many war-proven ships still haven't gotten a nod...

Edited by Wrath_Of_Deadguy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
400
[GC]
Alpha Tester
1,102 posts
5,173 battles

It'd be a real brute for tier 5. Maybe Royal Oak or Royal Sovereign as a tier 6 prem, with Arkhangelsk as a Russkie clone.

--Helms

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12,457
[SALVO]
Members
28,062 posts
41,751 battles
4 hours ago, HyperFish said:

You missed the point. He's arguing for more real ships in the tech tree, not paper ships as filler.

He's made the valid point that the RU Navy tree is filled with ships that didn't exist, while other existing ships from other nations have been ignored. WG shouldn't be adding paper ships at the expense of historical ones. 

It's a sentiment I share. 

I didn't miss his point at all. You just don't like how I responded.

  • Cool 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39,293
[HINON]
Alpha Tester
27,735 posts
26,570 battles
4 hours ago, HyperFish said:

He's made the valid point that the RU Navy tree is filled with ships that didn't exist, while other existing ships from other nations have been ignored. WG shouldn't be adding paper ships at the expense of historical ones.

The problem is that if they concentrate on introducing as many real ships as possible as soon as possible, they're very quickly going to run out of historical ships, and then everything will be paper. They have to spread out the historical ships to keep interest for longer, otherwise they're just going to end up with a WoT scenario, where most every tank that's being added now is just a complete fabrication. Eventually we're heading there anyways, because eventually they will run out of historical ships, but they're trying to spread the release of historical ships out over as long a period as they can get away with.

That said, not every ship that ever sailed deserves a place. Do we really need like 20+ Fletchers?

Edited by Lert
  • Cool 4
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,422
[QADD]
[QADD]
Beta Testers
713 posts
15,071 battles
13 hours ago, Iron_Salvo921 said:

There are also tons of historically significant ships that could be premiums that somehow aren't in the game yet like: Any Revenge Class BBs, USS Johnston, Somehow there are only two King George V class BBs and somehow they're only T7 lol, USS Saratoga, Lutzow or Admiral Scheer, USS South Dakota, HMS Barham, USS Washington, USS Wasp, HMS Victorious or Formidable (Illustrious should be the T8 of an RN CV split off), HMS Eskimo, HMS Sheffield, USS Samuel B. Roberts, Kirishima, Haguro, HMS Norfolk and Dorsetshire (at T7-8 not T6 dang it WG), HMS Rodney, etc, etc, etc. 

 

All copies of ships in game already or close enough to to a clone.  The fletcher class has like 5 clones by itself. 

  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,871
[WOLFC]
Members
6,105 posts
17,255 battles
14 hours ago, Wrath_Of_Deadguy said:

I expect to see the R Class as a T5 at some point-

14 hours ago, thehelmsman said:

It'd be a real brute for tier 5. Maybe Royal Oak as a tier 6 prem, with Arkhangelsk as a Russkie clone.

--Helms

^This. Eight 15” guns make the R-class tier VI material, likely as a QE that trades a bit of speed for better armor protection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17,311
[WOLF5]
[WOLF5]
Members
38,191 posts
30,943 battles

In 1941, the Kriegsmarine had gotten the 2 Scharnhorst-class Battleships into the Atlantic to attack convoys.  2 modern, fast BBs and their 283mm guns is a daunting threat to the CLs, DDs that were covering the convoys. 

 

The 2 German BBs encounter one such convoy:

Scharnhorst:  "We're looking for trouble."

Battleship_Scharnhorst_broadside_view.jp

 

Gneisenau:  "Yeah, Trouble with a capital T."

801e44a3e9e1c053d8e8113aefbdb9af.jpg

 

However, the German BBs discover the convoy being protected by the old Revenge-class Battleship, HMS Ramillies, commissioned in 1917.  She only went 21.5kts, but she still packed 8 of those excellent, WWI-era 381mm guns.

Ramillies:  "Is there a problem?"

large_000000.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=dccc6f3a

 

The Germans:  "No problem at all.  Sorry to bother you.  Have a nice day!"

Bismarck_rear_view.jpg

 

Source LOL

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Berlin_(Atlantic)#Initial_Atlantic_operations

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,321
[CVA16]
Members
8,896 posts
27,143 battles
21 hours ago, Iron_Salvo921 said:

There is an obscene amount of paper ship lines being added into the game nowadays.

Thats 'cuz that is all they have left to add and they need to have a stream of new content.

Pretty much anything that was built is already in game. At least as a representative of each class if not every variant (how many Fletchers are there?)

Not all that many countries were building BBs and cruisers after WW1. Many of the cruisers and DDs those other nations had were hand-me-downs from the major nations or were sub-par compared to the competition.

  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12,457
[SALVO]
Members
28,062 posts
41,751 battles
9 hours ago, Type_93 said:

All copies of ships in game already or close enough to to a clone.  The fletcher class has like 5 clones by itself. 

Notice here, Type_93, that you've gotten some downvotes (none from me, BTW).  There are ... people  ... who would rather have a ridiculous amount of cloned ships rather than something that's new and interesting.  There's nothing really interesting about slapping a different name on a Fletcher and trying to convince people to spend nearly $80 to buy it.  If anything, all those clones are boring AF.  

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
841
[LOU1]
Members
4,348 posts
14,848 battles

No one has mentioned that WOWS has to receive permission from the owner to model a ship (or Commander) in the game.  There are a few ships they have not been allowed to model (by a country or estate).  Oddly, there are even blueprints that the country in question still deems classified.  I have watched all of the Developer Diaries starting from when the game was about to be released and have been surprised by some of the limitations.

Another thing to take into account is that very few countries actually built ships.  Building a battleship or aircraft carrier is a major undertaking.  That means an awful lot of navies were supplied by a small number of countries.  Finally, WOWS has naval architects complete the designs and use modern techniques to test the ships ability to actually sail.  More than one ship has been shown to not be seaworthy and the design had to be adjusted.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,321
[CVA16]
Members
8,896 posts
27,143 battles
On 11/6/2022 at 8:35 PM, ExploratorOne said:

More than one ship has been shown to not be seaworthy and the design had to be adjusted.

Wondering to what ships you refer. A certain Russian cruiser had its freeboard raised because of the outcry that it had nothing to shoot at. Not due to design impracticalities. The completely unseaworthy Okhotnik remains as it was released.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
841
[LOU1]
Members
4,348 posts
14,848 battles
5 hours ago, Sabot_100 said:

Wondering to what ships you refer. A certain Russian cruiser had its freeboard raised because of the outcry that it had nothing to shoot at. Not due to design impracticalities. The completely unseaworthy Okhotnik remains as it was released.

I will have to look for it this evening, but there was a paper Russian ship that would have capsized if it had been built as initially designed due to the weight of the intended main guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
400
[GC]
Alpha Tester
1,102 posts
5,173 battles
On 11/6/2022 at 4:29 PM, Nevermore135 said:

^This. Eight 15” guns make the R-class tier VI material, likely as a QE that trades a bit of speed for better armor protection.

For that matter, Baden in for the Germans, because I am still annoyed they pulled the historical WWI hull out and left us with a refit configuration that never existed and for which there is no historical basis (unlike Gneisenau, for which a 15" gun upgrade was at least actually planned). A 21-knot Bayern with its full battery of casemate guns would be a real hoot for a secondary brawler in the mid-tiers, where such a thing might actually be able to work with some consistency. I only keep Bayern around as a class 'representative' and it'll instantly get sold out of my harbor if any sort of historical version of the ship gets put in.

--Helms

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11,355
[SALVO]
Members
16,506 posts
10,225 battles

If you go historic then top tiers would be filled CV and Sub and USN TT would be thrive as big as anything else and the only one with SuperCVs ... Not the framework for a fun game.

  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,181
[WPORT]
Members
20,802 posts
22,691 battles
On 11/6/2022 at 11:35 PM, ExploratorOne said:

No one has mentioned that WOWS has to receive permission from the owner to model a ship (or Commander) in the game.  There are a few ships they have not been allowed to model (by a country or estate).  Oddly, there are even blueprints that the country in question still deems classified.  I have watched all of the Developer Diaries starting from when the game was about to be released and have been surprised by some of the limitations.

Another thing to take into account is that very few countries actually built ships.  Building a battleship or aircraft carrier is a major undertaking.  That means an awful lot of navies were supplied by a small number of countries.  Finally, WOWS has naval architects complete the designs and use modern techniques to test the ships ability to actually sail.  More than one ship has been shown to not be seaworthy and the design had to be adjusted.

Interesting.  :cap_hmm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,181
[WPORT]
Members
20,802 posts
22,691 battles
Spoiler
On 11/5/2022 at 9:47 PM, Iron_Salvo921 said:

There is an obscene amount of paper ship lines being added into the game nowadays. German and British battlecruisers were mostly blueprint ships with just the low and some mid tier ships being real while the overwhelming majority of Pan-Asian Cruisers, and IJN Light Cruisers are also not real. Now we have a new European DD, USN BB hybrid, and Pan-American cruiser line which are also all full of paper ships. Add these onto German CVs and the DD split off, Soviet BBs, both cruiser lines, CVs, USN BB split off, and the French cruiser split off, and there is an OBSCENE amount of tech tree lines in the game that are either all, or mostly paper ships. And a lot of lines that COULD be full of historical ships like British battlecruisers, and British heavy cruisers have so many ships that SHOULD be much higher placed at like T5-6 which is stupid.

 

Paper ships should be filler as an excuse to justify historical ships being in a tech tree. They should NEVER be premium ships and there should be no lines with all or mostly paper ships until every single historical line that can be added into the game, is. There are still so many historical lines that could be added in that could get to T8-10 without using a paper ship such as: RN DD split off, RN CV split off, USN DD split off, USN CV split off, IJN CV split off, Italian DD split off, Commonwealth DDs, Commonwealth cruisers (Seriously how is a South American line added into a game which is even loosely based on history before a Commonwealth one lol), Pan-American destroyers, and Pan-European cruisers.

 

There are also tons of historically significant ships that could be premiums that somehow aren't in the game yet like: Any Revenge Class BBs, USS Johnston, Somehow there are only two King George V class BBs and somehow they're only T7 lol, USS Saratoga, Lutzow or Admiral Scheer, USS South Dakota, HMS Barham, USS Washington, USS Wasp, HMS Victorious or Formidable (Illustrious should be the T8 of an RN CV split off), HMS Eskimo, HMS Sheffield, USS Samuel B. Roberts, Kirishima, Haguro, HMS Norfolk and Dorsetshire (at T7-8 not T6 dang it WG), HMS Rodney, etc, etc, etc. 

 

The fact that the Russian Navy is one of the largest (and definitely the strongest) in a naval warfare game is disgraceful. I get that it's an arcade game, that it's made by a Russian company, and that historical accuracy is an afterthought, but it should not be an afterthought when it comes to creating new ships. Add in all of these stupid paper lines after all historical ones have been bled dry.

 

The fact that all ships in the American and German sub lines as well as the announced British and Soviet lines are real is nice but I'd like some more real surface ships. It should not be surprising when I see a real ship announced. Please WG just throw us historical nuts a bone. 

 

I know no one from WG will see this, much less listen, but I wanted to say this after the consecutive announcements of more lines filled full of paper ships. 

 

I welcome a lot of variety and don't mind some repetition or "sisters" among the ships.

Don't like something?  Well, exactly who is twisting your arm to purchase it?  Hmm?

What sells is gonna get the "new and improved" or "found locked away in a vault still in its' original packaging" sales hype and offered to the players in the hope of WG/WOWs making some money.
Surprise, surprise.  :-)

Transformers collaboration.
Azur Lane.
High School Fleet
Arpeggio of Blue Steel.
Legend of the Galactic Heroes (anime').

Just to name a few.
(And I'm still waiting on the "My Little Pony" collaboration, just for giggles.)

There's plenty of room in this game for the "Historic" and the fantastic and/or whimsical, as far as I am concerned.  :-)

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
251
[WOLF1]
Members
258 posts
12,302 battles
15 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

(And I'm still waiting on the "My Little Pony" collaboration, just for giggles.)

I'm horrified that you 'said' that out loud, and perversely curious as to what the company would put out under such a theme.

Nothing good can come of this! :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,181
[WPORT]
Members
20,802 posts
22,691 battles
21 minutes ago, SunkCostFallacy said:

I'm horrified that you 'said' that out loud, and perversely curious as to what the company would put out under such a theme.

Nothing good can come of this! :p

On the contrary, I think a My Little Pony collaboration could be a hilarious counterpoint to the WarHammer40K collaboration.  :Smile_glasses:

Evidence of fans of the cartoon already have been prancing about the forums.  @Princess_Daystar and @Counter_Gambit and others are among us.  :-)

Edited by Wolfswetpaws

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
251
[WOLF1]
Members
258 posts
12,302 battles
14 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

On the contrary, I think a My Little Pony collaboration could be a hilarious counterpoint to the WarHammer40K collaboration.  :Smile_glasses:

Evidence of fans of the cartoon already have been prancing about the forums.  @Princess_Daystar and @Counter_Gambit and others are among us.  :-)

It's been ages since I saw  @Princess_Daystar... she used to be great value in the forums.

Perhaps it would lure her back to the game.

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.

×