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

Comments on the announced Pan American CL line

67 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

11,355
[SALVO]
Members
16,503 posts
10,225 battles

I'm really glad for finally having a PanAm line coming into the game, even if it is being done "on the cheap" by reusing assets from existing lines, some observations for further discussion:

  • Brazil is surprisingly under represented in the tree with just the T2 ship, I do wonder why the biggest South American economy/market with a very significant player base is given so little representation...curious :cap_hmm:
  • The T6 Italian ship (Abruzzi clone) looks really out of place for a line that has a very distinctive British flavor. I understand Abruzzi is a "sub-used" asset, and there's the precedent of the Brown-class Cruisers being of Italian design, but IMO the line would had better consistency using a British based ship for its T6. If it is heavily modified (like a Bellona/Dido with 8 x 6in guns) all the better :cap_haloween:
  • Wondering about the Combat instructions thingy, for Cruisers is most likely some form of "burst fire"... I just hope it doesn't imply some form of "magical" buff to shell performance (like Canarias original concept), that type of "magic" is hard to digest, very off putting.
  • What ship is the T8 based on? I like it, looks like a real possible ship. Much better than Zeiten and Co,
  • I like the consumable choice, the heal is a welcomed new... can you make it the 9 de Julio version?
  • There seems to be a lot of animosity on the PanAm community with the "Export Wooster" concept. I see no major problem tbh, I hope we manage to warm up to the idea in time. 
  • Is there some tentative release date for the line?
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,549
[BWC]
Beta Testers
3,442 posts
9,987 battles

I'm not certain about some of their assumptions.  Such that the USN would develop such progressions of their ship classes and export them without incorporating them into their own forces.  Especially if they offer some advantages over the original class they were developed from.  Perhaps these CLs lack radar and hydro options?  Probably too early to tell.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11,355
[SALVO]
Members
16,503 posts
10,225 battles
3 minutes ago, Jakob_Knight said:

I'm not certain about some of their assumptions.  Such that the USN would develop such progressions of their ship classes and export them without incorporating them into their own forces.  Especially if they offer some advantages over the original class they were developed from.  Perhaps these CLs lack radar and hydro options?  Probably too early to tell.

It was stated their consumables will be Heal and a selection of Hydro/Def AA. No Radar. Also they´ll have fewer barrels and presumably lower DPM so those can be abstracted as "watered down" export versions. In any case I don't give it too much relevance the the historical "fluff" for this line, we all know it is just fantasy without any relation to the historic reality... like so many of the existing lines. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,436 posts
9,473 battles

If it's yet another line full of clones, I'll pass since I didn't participate the first time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11,355
[SALVO]
Members
16,503 posts
10,225 battles
5 minutes ago, khorender_1 said:

If it's yet another line full of clones, I'll pass since I didn't participate the first time.

Imo, at this point on the game history a lot of new lines will be heavy on clones and chimeras. Remaining "Real" ships are so scarce that I'm sure most will be kept for Premium release (not necessarily paid, there are Coal, Steal, Rb, Event rewards, etc). 

Edited by ArIskandir
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,871
[WOLFC]
Members
6,105 posts
17,255 battles

Going with tier VIII-X of the line being Worcester variants is indeed an odd choice, as it certainly does stretch the boundaries of believability that the US would export such capable vessels to other nations.

The only thing I can think of is that WG is looking to make AA a significant feature of the ships in this line, and using two “proto-Worcesters” and a hypothetical post-Worcester design means they are equipped with the auto loading dual-purpose 152mm gun.

Edited by Nevermore135

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,861
[TDRB]
Members
7,372 posts
16,186 battles
43 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

I'm really glad for finally having a PanAm line coming into the game, even if it is being done "on the cheap" by reusing assets from existing lines,

 

23 minutes ago, khorender_1 said:

If it's yet another line full of clones

What would a Pan-American look like in WW2?

Mostly obsolete ships for the Brazilian navy.

The Great Depression cause Chile to retire older ships without replacing them until after WW2. 

Argentine had very few ships.

WG had to dream up something.
 

  • Cool 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,935
[WOLF1]
Beta Testers
16,334 posts
23,700 battles

Hmm... well I will get all of them and then maybe not play any of them again lol. 

Will see. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
465
Members
496 posts
9,115 battles
41 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

There seems to be a lot of animosity on the PanAm community with the "Export Wooster" concept. I see no major problem tbh, I hope we manage to warm up to the idea in time.

The issue people have with the line is not that it's paper. Paper ships filling out parts of a tech tree are perfectly fine imo. The issue people have is that there were actual real designs by and for latam countries at the time that would have been much better suited to fill the gaps. For example vickers was contracted by various latam countries to create designs for ships they could then build and export (I am not 100% on all of this and I'm not as in tune with that part of the world's history, but these designs definitely existed). For example vickers design 1124A was a concept for a light cruiser armed with 12 152mm guns in triple turrets. Design 758 had 8 152mm guns in dual turrets, similar to the Arethusa Class but with a different turret layout. There's more but I won't pretend to know what I'm talking about there.

To make it worse however, wargaming was presented with these designs in a community proposal years ago. I'll link this forum post by one of the members who worked on that proposal because they explain it a lot better than I could:

https://forum.worldofwarships.com/topic/260930-devblog-388-pan-american-cruisers-closed-testing/?do=findComment&comment=5857525

14 minutes ago, kgh52 said:

 

What would a Pan-American look like in WW2?

Mostly obsolete ships for the Brazilian navy.

The Great Depression cause Chile to retire older ships without replacing them until after WW2. 

Argentine had very few ships.

WG had to dream up something.
 

See the above comments

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11,355
[SALVO]
Members
16,503 posts
10,225 battles
10 minutes ago, Nevermore135 said:

Going with tier VIII-X of the line being Worcester variants is indeed an odd choice, as it certainly does stretch the boundaries of believability that the US would export such capable vessels to other nations.

But what else could you use to fill a line up to T10 and keep it relatively competitive? It is natural for the post-war Pan Am line to be US flavored, the other existing CL model was used for the recent Pan Asian line so if you are building a CL line it becomes natural to use proto-Worcesters unless you want to use some Super-Cleveland refit, which could had being interesting too honestly... Now that we are on this, a line made up of heavily upgraded and modernized "vintage" ships would had been interesting too, maybe even more interesting and plausible  :cap_yes:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
512
[ERK]
Members
960 posts
15,027 battles

I guess there was a better representation of ships presented to WG and they completely ignored it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11,355
[SALVO]
Members
16,503 posts
10,225 battles
1 minute ago, mcgibe said:

The issue people have with the line is not that it's paper. Paper ships filling out parts of a tech tree are perfectly fine imo. The issue people have is that there were actual real designs by and for latam countries at the time that would have been much better suited to fill the gaps. For example vickers was contracted by various latam countries to create designs for ships they could then build and export (I am not 100% on all of this and I'm not as in tune with that part of the world's history, but these designs definitely existed). For example vickers design 1124A was a concept for a light cruiser armed with 12 152mm guns in triple turrets. Design 758 had 8 152mm guns in dual turrets, similar to the Arethusa Class but with a different turret layout. There's more but I won't pretend to know what I'm talking about there.

Yes, I am familiar with the proposals but even loving all of them, I objectively think most of them are not actionable...

  • The proposed designs would make the Tech Tree very reminiscent of the RN CL line, conflicting with a possible Commonwealth CL line
  • The proposed designs would require a lot of modeling of new hulls/assets, likely it isn't economically viable to use such modeling resources on a Pan Am line of "free" CLs that are likely among the least popular ship types in the game. In other words the juice is not worth the squeeze.
  • The proposed designs relay heavily on Venezuelan designs, which likely isn't a significant market for WoWS. It is more reasonable to give more focus to ARG-CHL-MEX-COL as they are likely more significant markets. 
  • It makes more sense (at least for the average player not well versed in the depths of naval design) to make the post war tiers "American" flavored. 

I agree that there were better candidates for the T4 and particularly the T6 ships, but for the end of the line I don't think the current choice is bad when contrasted with the option of export Edimburgh/Mino. 

Share this post


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

The proposed designs would make the Tech Tree very reminiscent of the RN CL line, conflicting with a possible Commonwealth CL line

This makes a lot of sense, if true.  A Commonwealth CL line would almost certainly be super heavy on British designs, so it doesn't make much sense beyond strict reality for a Pan American CL line to rely too heavily on British designs.  

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,790
[-THG-]
Members
2,644 posts
8,035 battles
54 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

The proposed designs would make the Tech Tree very reminiscent of the RN CL line, conflicting with a possible Commonwealth CL line

It's easy! Canada bought some ferry from Italy so it may be assume that the Commonwealth could have, maybe, in an hypothetical way, buy some Italian ships!

Edited by Karstodes
  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
367
[-BMV-]
Members
651 posts
26,080 battles
52 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

The proposed designs would make the Tech Tree very reminiscent of the RN CL line, conflicting with a possible Commonwealth CL line 

This is not a valid reason for the Latam community to swallow such an insulting, ignorant and half assed line.

53 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

The proposed designs would require a lot of modeling of new hulls/assets, likely it isn't economically viable to use such modeling resources on a Pan Am line of "free" CLs that are likely among the least popular ship types in the game. In other words the juice is not worth the squeeze. 

Then dont make them. Im pretty sure the Latam community (me personally) would rather not have a line representing us than having this horrible, lazy attempt WG did.

55 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

The proposed designs relay heavily on Venezuelan designs, which likely isn't a significant market for WoWS. It is more reasonable to give more focus to ARG-CHL-MEX-COL as they are likely more significant markets.

Perhaps. Ill concede this to a point considering you and me dont have access to such market data.

1 hour ago, ArIskandir said:

It makes more sense (at least for the average player not well versed in the depths of naval design) to make the post war tiers "American" flavored. 

Not when the US actively worked into preventing any Latin American nation into modernizing their fleets. This, from a political and historical stand point is so wrong that is hillarious. No way, absolutely no way the US Navy would cede such ships to any Latin American Nation, and sure as hell not Mexico of all countries. There's a reason why Argentina, Brazil and Chile got Brooklins and Mexico got nada. Average player and whatnot is not relevant and certainly not a reason to justify copy-paste the same ship three times and called it a day. That is lazy work.

I don't care if this line gets in the way of a potential Commonwealth line. That is absolutely irrelevant. If WG is willing to sacriffice an entire community with such sham of a line in favor of another still not even announced line to please commonwealth players because originality and crap, then that means WG has so little respect for us in Latam that they are not bothered to even try making anything decent.

"Okay, here's your tech tree line, we don't care if its ahistorcial, we are not gonna make new models for you because too much time, resources and is a hassle. You are not, after all, a market we care so be grateful, shut up and enjoy it".

That's the message they are sending to an entire community with this insulting, ignorant thing they made.

If Wg is not willing to make it right, then don't make it, simple.

  • Cool 6
  • Haha 1
  • Meh 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
385
[LWC]
Members
448 posts
951 battles

Oh no, more choices of a reasonable, not cv or sub related nature, the horror!!!!!

 

I'm all for them.  Doubt they'll be as good as the German battlecruiser line was, but its still more options. 

  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11,355
[SALVO]
Members
16,503 posts
10,225 battles

I understand it is probably too late to change the proto-Worcester concept, but the more I think about it, the more I'm liking the path of having "vintage" ships refited with modern technology for post-war configurations. Bizarre refits like what the Israeli did to their Shermans and Centurions to extend their life. A lot of interesting bizarre "what ifs" that would give the Pan Am tree a less "clone" character and more of a "Junkyard Wars" vibe. For example:

  • T8: One of the historical Brooklyns but heavily modified with a "Fantasy" refit, slap a superheal, Radar, an improved AA suite and improve the gunnery with better ballistics/range/dispersion to reflect a more modern Fire Control System.
  • T9: "What if" Cleveland post war refit on the same line of the Brooklin. Cleveland is such a good ship, slap a heal on her and she'll be almost ready to go. Massage shell ballistics and it would be a wonderful T9.
  • T10: Fully customized and pimped refit for Cleveland, slap all the utility, moar dakka! If it were down to me I would replace the triple 6in turrets for some Otobreda 127mm with F. Sherman ridiculous level of DPM. The idea would be having a Cleveland class so modified that would make Orks proud.

 

 

Edited by ArIskandir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11,355
[SALVO]
Members
16,503 posts
10,225 battles
15 minutes ago, Sidelock said:

This is not a valid reason for the Latam community to swallow such an insulting, ignorant and half assed line.

I am Latam, I don't feel insulted..  where's the insult?

16 minutes ago, Sidelock said:

Then dont make them. Im pretty sure the Latam community (me personally) would rather not have a line representing us than having this horrible, lazy attempt WG did.

I disagree, I very much prefer to have a line than not having it. La Argentina and Bolognesi are "real steel" historical ships, the proposed T8 is not historical but looks cool and I can easily imagine it as an export ship. The T9 and T10 are not particularly exciting but what viable option there is that "represent us"? Other than post war refits for "vintage" WW2 ships I see no better option. The T6 is garbage and I hope they change it, I will certainly be making some noise to get something historical there.

23 minutes ago, Sidelock said:

Not when the US actively worked into preventing any Latin American nation into modernizing their fleets. This, from a political and historical stand point is so wrong that is hillarious. No way, absolutely no way the US Navy would cede such ships to any Latin American Nation, and sure as hell not Mexico of all countries. There's a reason why Argentina, Brazil and Chile got Brooklins and Mexico got nada.

Bro, you are letting your "feels" get ahead of reason. IF Latam Navies were ever to be renewed and refitted during the Post War in any serious way (and let's be frank, there was no real need for such a thing, Latam navies only need to perform police/sovereignty duties) it would had been done with USN surplus stuff. Imagine an hypothetical "what if" Cold War scenario with the Warsaw Pact and whatever allies having actual navies able to project power overseas, it could had been in US best interest to provide her Pan Am allies with equipment for them to be able to defend themselves and protect their seas... in such scenario Latam Navies would have 100% received more modern equipment from the US. But the historical reality was there was no need to have such ships.

35 minutes ago, Sidelock said:

I don't care if this line gets in the way of a potential Commonwealth line. That is absolutely irrelevant.

Wrong. This is a game and providing variety and a defined identity to each tech tree line is a requirement. "Duplicating" a tech tree line would be stupid.

 

  • Cool 2
  • Thanks 2
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,861
[TDRB]
Members
7,372 posts
16,186 battles
2 hours ago, mcgibe said:

See the above comments

As I said WG had to dream up something since there was almost nothing to pick from. I have no problem giving other American countries their own ships as long as they are with the same parameters as the other ships of the same tier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
500
[CAZA]
Members
466 posts
17,639 battles

 Hello

4 hours ago, ArIskandir said:
  • Brazil is surprisingly under represented in the tree with just the T2 ship, I do wonder why the biggest South American economy/market with a very significant player base is given so little representation...curious :cap_hmm:

 There are 15 Panamerican warships:

  • Brazil (5): Juruá, Abreu, Barroso, Rio de Janeiro & Atlántico.
  • Argentina (4): Hércules, La Argentina, Nueve de Julito & San Martín.
  • Chile (1): Cochrane.
  • Colombia (2): Córdoba & Santander
  • Mexico (2): Guerrero & Allende.
  • Peru (1): Bolognesi.

 Brazil has 2 cruisers.

 Brazil representation is not a big deal until the Battleships arrive.

4 hours ago, ArIskandir said:
  • The T6 Italian ship (Abruzzi clone) looks really out of place for a line that has a very distinctive British flavor. I understand Abruzzi is a "sub-used" asset, and there's the precedent of the Brown-class Cruisers being of Italian design, but IMO the line would had better consistency using a British based ship for its T6. If it is heavily modified (like a Bellona/Dido with 8 x 6in guns) all the bette:cap_haloween:

 I agree with Wg that the possibility of that purchase could be made. There were negotiations between Chile and Italy but the characteristics of the ships are very superficial. Now, I would have liked that aesthetically it is not a mere clone. I don't agree with the Brown reference; Argentina is not Chile.

4 hours ago, ArIskandir said:
  • Wondering about the Combat instructions thingy, for Cruisers is most likely some form of "burst fire"... I just hope it doesn't imply some form of "magical" buff to shell performance (like Canarias original concept), that type of "magic" is hard to digest, very off putting.

.I hope the same.

 I think is some kindo of support thing for the division or the team. I was thinking about some kind of range or selected space (as the aircraft strike vs submarines) in which one can upgrade temporary the atributes of the allied warships (rate of fire or something like this). I would like it a lot. But still is very intriguing. 

4 hours ago, ArIskandir said:
  • What ship is the T8 based on? I like it, looks like a real possible ship. Much better than Zeiten and Co,

 Not attractive to me.

4 hours ago, ArIskandir said:
  • I like the consumable choice, the heal is a welcomed new... can you make it the 9 de Julio version?

 I hope so. A superheal is more than welcome.

4 hours ago, ArIskandir said:
  • There seems to be a lot of animosity on the PanAm community with the "Export Wooster" concept. I see no major problem tbh, I hope we manage to warm up to the idea in time. 

 Because its an american concept, not a latinamerican concept.

4 hours ago, ArIskandir said:
  • Is there some tentative release date for the line?

 I think they mentioned March. Idk if this means testers or final product.

Regards

Edited by COLDOWN
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
149 posts
15,023 battles

With the proposed line up, its another line I won't feel like playing above Tier 7. This puts WG at 0 out 6 on announced upcoming lines that I am interested in, jury is still out on the Euro DD split until we get more details but I'm not hopeful.

It sucks because I was looking forward to the PanAm lines but this is a mess of a line with horrible justifications.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
500
[CAZA]
Members
466 posts
17,639 battles
1 hour ago, ArIskandir said:
  • T9: "What if" Cleveland post war refit on the same line of the Brooklin. Cleveland is such a good ship, slap a heal on her and she'll be almost ready to go. Massage shell ballistics and it would be a wonderful T9.

Cleveland class is a good option for Brazil. They tried to get them from the USA.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,374
[DRFTR]
Beta Testers
7,757 posts

noo combat instructions... yet more gimmickry and now coming to "normal" tiers...

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17,311
[WOLF5]
[WOLF5]
Members
38,191 posts
30,943 battles
4 hours ago, ArIskandir said:

Imo, at this point on the game history a lot of new lines will be heavy on clones and chimeras. Remaining "Real" ships are so scarce that I'm sure most will be kept for Premium release (not necessarily paid, there are Coal, Steal, Rb, Event rewards, etc). 

There's plenty of real ships to still choose from in the future, but more and more of them would have to be sisters of existing classes in the game.  How many Iowas, Kageros, and Fletchers do we want?

 

But there should still be historical classes not represented in the game.

Sendai-class CLs - Huge players in IJN success in 1941-42.

Sendai.jpg

Nagara-class CLs - Isuzu shown below in 1944.

Japanese_cruiser_Isuzu_1944.jpg

The above would only be fit for Low Tiers though.  They were very old and their armament was pretty light, except for Long Lances.

 

Northampton-class CAs - The 2nd CA class the USN made, they started being commissioned in 1930-1931.  They were major combatants of the USN early in the Pacific Theater, seeing some of the nastiest fights, just like the New Orleans-class.  Both classes as a result suffered the heaviest losses.  WoWS has all the USN CA classes represented in the game, except for the Northamptons.

Northampton in Pearl Harbor, December 8, 1941.

1920px-USS_Northampton_(CA-26)_entering_

Allen M. Sumner-class DDs - We actually have one of these in the game, but not for the USN.  She is Tier X Yueyang, formerly USS Haynesworth during WWII.  There needs to be a ship of this class for the USN as a Premium Ship.  58 of these DDs were built, so there were plenty of them and need representation in the USN.  The class was the bridge between the Fletcher and Gearing classes of Destroyers.

Allen M. Sumner in 1944.

1920px-USS_Allen_M._Sumner_(DD-692)_unde

 

Just some examples.  I'm excluding sub-classes from this short list.

  • Cool 2

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.

×