USN missing a couple of Battlewagons....

[bridder01]

Hi all, Brian here.  I just have a quick question I'd like to ask the community.  In the USN Battleship tech tree, Wargaming seemed to skip over a couple of classes.  Missing are the Nevada-class and Pennsylvania-class battlewagons which should slot between the Tier V USS New York and the Tier VI USS New Mexico.  Also missing is the Tennessee-class which should slot between the Tier VI USS New Mexico and the Tier VII USS Colorado.  Is there a chance these classes could be available down the line?  Also, is there any thought to also having (in Premium ship format) the never-completed South Dakota-class battlewagons that were cancelled because of the Washington Naval Treaty?  Since they have other battlewagons that were never put into service in the game (wink wink to the Tier X USS Montana), could it be possible that the original South Dakotas be given a chance in game?  Or, maybe move the USS Montana to premium ship status and insert either the Nevada, Pennsylvania, or Tennessee into the tech tree?  I would really enjoy hearing some feedback

 

Cheers and happy hunting,

Brian

[Red_Raven_168]

http://forum.worldofwarships.com/index.php?/topic/1697-what-we-know-about-ships-updated-25102015/

[The_GoDDfather]

Pearl Harbor disrespect b.s. close those off IIRC.

[Brofisticus]

Also, is there any thought to also having (in Premium ship format) the never-completed South Dakota-class battlewagons that were cancelled because of the Washington Naval Treaty? 

 

Are you confused or uninformed? 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_South_Dakota_(BB-57)

[ZombieFlanders]

 

Are you confused or uninformed? 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_South_Dakota_(BB-57)

 

there was a south dakota 'maximum battleship' design study in the teens and 20s.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_battleship

 

[Seraphil]

 

Are you confused or uninformed? 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_South_Dakota_(BB-57)

 

Different South Dakota.

[Killjoy1941]

 

there was a planned south dakota 'maximium battlehip' edfsign study in teh late 20s or early 30s. first paragraph:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_battleship

 

That's most likely what the OP is referring to.

 

That said, the real SoDak had better make it in eventually, and she had better be effing amazing. 

[Neph]

Nevadas and Pennsylvania are effectively near-identical to New Mexico in performance. All were Standard-type, with comparable speed and armament. It doesn't make sense to put them all there, as they'd be redundant.

[Gunship14]

Nevadas and Pennsylvania are effectively near-identical to New Mexico in performance. All were Standard-type, with comparable speed and armament. It doesn't make sense to put them all there, as they'd be redundant.

I'm sure WG would have no problems doing that. Dresden - Kolberg - Karlsruhe comes to mind.

[Patton5150]

Nevadas and Pennsylvania are effectively near-identical to New Mexico in performance. All were Standard-type, with comparable speed and armament. It doesn't make sense to put them all there, as they'd be redundant.

 

Nevada class only has ten 14" guns as opposed to the twelve 14" guns that the following 3 Standard classes had.

[ryuukei8569]

Nevadas and Pennsylvania are effectively near-identical to New Mexico in performance. All were Standard-type, with comparable speed and armament. It doesn't make sense to put them all there, as they'd be redundant.

 

No Nevada was a good bit lighter than New mexico and had 10 14 inch guns. she would be more of a tier 5. And honestly a better T5 choice than New York

[1nv4d3rZ1m]

OP what are you proposing to do? The Montana is the most powerful BB the USN ever designed and currently it has trouble competing with the Yamato. You want to replace it with another ship? What would be able to compete? 

 

The devs a while back said they have enough material for 4 US BB lines, I am sure they will flesh those other lines out once they get a couple other nations into the game. 

 

As for the standards the Nevada was the smallest and weakest with 2 less guns (one of only two US classes to mount turrets of different sizes fyi), the Pennsylvania replaced the double turrets with triples, the New Mexico class and increased elevation and a new propulsion system, The Tennessee class mainly was a repeat with a better TDS, and the Colorado switched to dual 16" guns from triple 14" while mostly otherwise being a repeat of the Tennessee. There are more details but basically they were all pretty similar just incremental upgrades. It does not really make sense to spread the standards over 5 tiers when the Colorado already struggles at tier 7, WG needs to double them up a little. The NM can fit at tier 5 and the Penn after it was refit was pretty similar to the NM. The Tennessee is harder to say but it might be able to compete at tier 7 if it had good enough gun stats. 

[dseehafer]

 

No Nevada was a good bit lighter than New mexico and had 10 14 inch guns. she would be more of a tier 5. And honestly a better T5 choice than New York

 

Whats wrong with NY at 5? 

 

 

To OP: Also i believe the word you looking for is Battleship ;)

[bridder01]

 

Are you confused or uninformed? 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_South_Dakota_(BB-57)

 

I'm neither.  There was a 6-ship class named the South Dakota-class that was to be build after the Colorado-class and before the North Carolina-class.  These ships were designed and had begun construction shortly after World War I but were scrapped due to the terms of the Washington Naval Treaty.  Here's the link for more info:

 

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

 

Cheers,

Brian

[SeaAdmiral]

 

Whats wrong with NY at 5? 

 

Nothing wrong with it in particular, but the firing angles are pretty limited both in approach and retreat. This, combined with an incremental armor scheme that still has a decently weak superstructure and upper hull means it doesn't have HE resistance like IJN BBs or AP resistance (through less partial pens) of say, the New Mexico. Nevada would just be more comfortable and allow you to access more of its power more often. 

[bridder01]

OP what are you proposing to do? The Montana is the most powerful BB the USN ever designed and currently it has trouble competing with the Yamato. You want to replace it with another ship? What would be able to compete? 

 

You're right, nothing the USN had could've beaten Yamato.  The Montanas would have, at best, slowed Yamato down but that's it.  The Yamato-class was the pinnacle of Battleship design.  Also remember that the IJN didn't have to worry about their battlewagons going through the Panama Canal as the USN did.  So the Japanese could really max out their battleship design.  Oh, sorry, I forgot the later South Dakota-class which would slot between the Tier VIII USS North Carolina and the Tier IX USS Iowa.  They should be included in the game too

[Hans_Von_Lohman]

There isn't anything special about those missing US battleships that makes me want one.

 

Realistically, it would probably be better for the art guys at Wargaming to work on British or German battleships instead.

[bridder01]

OP what are you proposing to do? The Montana is the most powerful BB the USN ever designed and currently it has trouble competing with the Yamato. You want to replace it with another ship? What would be able to compete? 

Pretty much the only way you could beat a Yamato-class battleship is either send your entire fleet after once it's spotted or overwhelm it carrier aircraft attacks.  Her AA defense was pretty weak and in Operation Ten-Ichi-Go, that's how the USN destroyed her.  They just unleashed every bomber they had on her.

 

 

[bridder01]

There isn't anything special about those missing US battleships that makes me want one.

 

Realistically, it would probably be better for the art guys at Wargaming to work on British or German battleships instead.

 

I agree, but as a US Battlewagon enthusiast, I'd still like to see them.  It would be cool to have some of the Pearl Harbor vets in game even if they are not really needed

[dseehafer]

Pretty much the only way you could beat a Yamato-class battleship is either send your entire fleet after once it's spotted or overwhelm it carrier aircraft attacks.  Her AA defense was pretty weak and in Operation Ten-Ichi-Go, that's how the USN destroyed her.  They just unleashed every bomber they had on her.

 

 

 

H44 and her 21" guns say hi 

[Madwolf05]

You're right, nothing the USN had could've beaten Yamato.  The Montanas would have, at best, slowed Yamato down but that's it.  The Yamato-class was the pinnacle of Battleship design.  Also remember that the IJN didn't have to worry about their battlewagons going through the Panama Canal as the USN did.  So the Japanese could really max out their battleship design.  Oh, sorry, I forgot the later South Dakota-class which would slot between the Tier VIII USS North Carolina and the Tier IX USS Iowa.  They should be included in the game too

 

I'm not so sure the Montana couldn't have done the job. The extra firepower, size, and armor would have made her a much better match than anything else.

[dseehafer]

Pretty much the only way you could beat a Yamato-class battleship is either send your entire fleet after once it's spotted or overwhelm it carrier aircraft attacks.  Her AA defense was pretty weak and in Operation Ten-Ichi-Go, that's how the USN destroyed her.  They just unleashed every bomber they had on her.

 

 

 

Her AA fit was at its strongest for Ten-Go... its the 25's themselves that suck.

[1nv4d3rZ1m]

You're right, nothing the USN had could've beaten Yamato.  The Montanas would have, at best, slowed Yamato down but that's it.  The Yamato-class was the pinnacle of Battleship design.  Also remember that the IJN didn't have to worry about their battlewagons going through the Panama Canal as the USN did.  So the Japanese could really max out their battleship design.  Oh, sorry, I forgot the later South Dakota-class which would slot between the Tier VIII USS North Carolina and the Tier IX USS Iowa.  They should be included in the game too

 

I mean if you base the tier system off of the number of BB classes maybe but 10 tiers is a good number and some of the differences are not that great. There is plenty of material to create a second line. 

[Eisennagel]

Nevadas and Pennsylvania are effectively near-identical to New Mexico in performance. All were Standard-type, with comparable speed and armament. It doesn't make sense to put them all there, as they'd be redundant.

 

Redundancy doesn't stop Wargaming eventually.  WoT is full of redundant tanks because once they run out with the big ideas, they go after the kitchen sink next.  Having said that, Wargaming is more likely to go through all nations with a broad sweep first, then add redundancies in a second pass on the content.  

 

Though similar to the New York, Nevada class won't play the same and I think it would have been a better choice than the New York now.  Both New York and Nevada has 10 guns, but Nevada doesn't have a middle turret.  It has two triple mounted turrets, one front and one aft, then two dual mounted turrets superfiring over the triple mounts both fore and aft.  In terms of firing arcs and shot groupings, the Nevada is likely to be better, considering how well the triple mounted 14" gun turrets play on the New Mex.  

 

The Pennsylvania class would be a duplicate of the New Mex but then that's also a complement.  I think the New Mex is one of the best US battleships in the tree line.  But it retains the tripod mast aesthetic of the earlier battleships compared to the office building superstructures of the later battleships like the New Mex.  There is also little doubt about the historical visibility of this class.  

 

The Tennessee class would be like the Colorado's hull with the New Mex guns.  As a possible Tier 7 ship, that makes a very good combination, as I like the USN 14" guns which delivers in accuracy and groupings.  

 

All three classes also have a strong connection to one event --- Pearl Harbor.  The omission of these classes feels like you're that character in a TV show that is missing parts of his memory and always obsessing over those missing parts because without it, you won't feel complete.

 

I really like to see the South Dakota in the game, one of my dream ships.  Its likely to be a Tier 8, even if it had better armor than the NC, the improvements not enough to put it at Tier 9.  

 

The game will have more redundancies later on.  The number of USN cruisers with 9 x 8" guns on triple mounts, with 12 x 6" guns on triple mounts, with 15 guns on triple mounts.  We have a lot of omitted German light cruisers (they are either armed with lots of 105mms and 150mms).  We have a lot of omitted destroyers on all nations especially on the IJN and USN side.  

 

And there are IJN battleships I like to see in the game despite their near redundancy.  The Ise class.  It would be similar to the Fuso, has the same number of guns but the guns have more of the Wyoming's arrangement.  The Fuso rocks and I want to rock with this battleship though with a slightly different taste.  The Kii and Tosa would fit on the same overlapping space as the Amagi, though the Tosa would be slower, smaller and a bit more armored.   

 

The British are going to have a lot of redundancies, starting with a battleship line full of 8 x 15" gunners.  The Russians have three other battleships that fit within the same space as the Nikolai.  

[Super_Dreadnought]

 

H44 and her 21" guns say hi 

Too bad for H44 that:

 

A) The Germans never seriously thought about building it. It was just a design study.

 

B) Wargaming has set a weight and gun calibur limit in WoWs. H44 will never be included.

 

Kinda hard to say hi to Yamato when it doesn't exist.