Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
legoboy0401

Why Lexington Can't Have Her Eight-Inch Guns.

12 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
3,064 posts
1,925 battles

Now, before I begin, is there anyone who has never played WoT and thus will whine that I am comparing the two?

 

There are usually some, so: "hit the road, jack, and please don't come back. I'll wait."

 

Now, are there only former and/or current players of both games?

 

Good, now let's begin.

 

The Lexington and Saratoga were America's first big aircraft Carriers, and it showed in their design.

 

These 30,000+ Battlecruiser-to-Carrier monsters were designed in a way unique from any other USN Carriers ever built.

 

They were semi-heavily armored, but more bizarrely, they had guns to start with. Not little puny five-inchers, but the real deal.

 

8 INCH GUNS.(!)<scary music plays>

 

Now, these, IF it ever had come down to it, could take a real bite out of a DD or Cruiser.

 

As it happens, Lexington was sunk,(at the battle of the Coral Sea) but not in a way that allowed her to use those decorative, but still menacing for a DD, 8 inchers.

 

After this, Saratoga lost her 8 inch guns for dinky five-inch ones instead, as it was obvious that in this war she would never need them,(the eight inch guns) and as it turns out, that prediction was right.

 

Now, enough with the history lesson.

 

What about Lexington in-game?

 

Well, Lexington lacks those fearsome 8 inch guns(perfect for trolling enemy DDs, but we won't get them:(), as well as some AA/secondary configurations.

 

She is also missing some of her(admittedly terrible) historical aircraft.

 

http://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:Lexington

 

However, for those who are drooling at the thought of those 8 inch troll cannons, forget it.

 

Dream on, WG will never give you them, on your life.

 

Why?

 

Well, it's sort of of complicated. If you were wondering where WoT references come into play, it's here.

 

The web of reasons why we can't have them in this game today started before this game had even been seriously considered.

 

In WoT, a Guinness(did I spell that right?) book of World Records holder, and a receiver of numerous other awards, there has been a certain meta that carried over to WoWS.

 

The meta is this:  scouts > support unit or in some cases the trump card launcher, scouts < Jack-of-all-trades vehicle, Jack-of-all-trades vehicle and/or scouts < massive damage sponge with the capability to dish it out too, support unit or trump card launcher > massive damage sponge with the capability to dish it out, too.

 

Now, we do not have a "Trump card launcher" class, one class of ships(DDs) fits two categories.

 

DD > Carriers or in some cases other DDs, DDs < CL/CA, CL/CA and/or DDs sometimes(German BBs) < BBs,

 

Carriers or DDs > BBs.

 

Get it? No?

 

Well, here, I'll try to boil it down to it's essential elements for you.

 

The support unit has to be vulnerable in general to scouts, although others could join in on the hunt theoretically.

 

This balances out the hated support unit mechanic of fire from afar, if you will.

 

A CV having long-range, workable guns with workable damage is unthinkable balance-wise, because that screws up the meta.

 

Don't believe me?

 

Carriers with good guns > DD with little guns that have to DPM their enemies to death(but they wouldn't have time to do so) and relatively short-ranged, not-fast-enough to kill a target at max range torpedoes.

 

See?

 

Now, I mean, it is possible for, say, a well-driven BB to kill a poorly played 8-inch gun CV, but this makes DDs less useful.

 

Not all of this has to do with the Meta, however.

 

This is also a UI problem. The reason I say that is that WG are having a really hard time implementing hybrid -/Carriers, which HAVE EXACTLY THE SAME PROBLEM. Having attack aircraft and guns is not only OP by ruining the meta, but there is also the issue of how to control both. The last time anything like this was dealt with was back when non-CV fighters could be controlled.

 

Does anyone remember how they solved that?

 

Not only this, but a Carrier's HUD is not well-suited for surface combat anyways, as it is set in overhead by default.

 

In all honesty, this would be a terrible idea.

 

Do I still want it? Sure, why not!

 

However, it is still a very bad idea. Until they resolve the Plane and Gun combination problems which are inherent in Ise/Hyuga and Tone, I don't expect to see CVs with guns.

 

Of course, this is all just conjecture, no one really knows why WG don't want CVs with guns, but I do have a reasonable argument here.(it's just my opinion, though.)

 

Edited by legoboy0401

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,373
[INTEL]
Members
3,265 posts
6,614 battles

You don't play high tier much, do you?

 

 

 

Heck, just spot the DD constantly (in any tier) and he's DEAD. I've had times a CV chases me all over the map while everybody and their brother is shooting at me. Not a damn thing the DD can do about it. Smoke? Only lasts so long. Torp? Nope. The CV plane spots them for everybody.

 

 

All it takes is a CV that wants to pay attention to the little DD instead of going after the damage/easy kill glory of battleships.

Edited by CapnCappy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
19,049 posts
8,108 battles

You don't play high tier much, do you?

Yeah. Damage, ROF, and range increase for DDs. Not only that, but also Torpedo range as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,064 posts
1,925 battles

You don't play high tier much, do you?

 

Not all tiers stick perfectly to the meta, lower tiers tend to be closer to WG's perfect meta than the higher tiers are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10
[G0ATS]
Members
47 posts
6,525 battles

This is also a UI problem. The reason I say that is that WG are having a really hard time implementing hybrid -/Carriers, which HAVE EXACTLY THE SAME PROBLEM. Having attack aircraft and guns is not only OP by ruining the meta, but there is also the issue of how to control both.

 

Why not just count the 8-inchers as REALLY big secondaries? The Secondary gunners aren't exactly smart or accurate, and in such a case I think they'd still be fairly balanced seeing as they quite likely would not get the range of an actual Cruiser gun because of WG Arcade Game Magic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,683
[-K-]
Supertest Coordinator, Alpha Tester, WoWS Community Contributors, Wiki Editor
6,522 posts
28,454 battles

I agree Lady Lex needs her guns!  

 

It would allow for some hilarious options...  like Manual Secondaries on a cv!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,064 posts
1,925 battles

 

Why not just count the 8-inchers as REALLY big secondaries? The Secondary gunners aren't exactly smart or accurate, and in such a case I think they'd still be fairly balanced seeing as they quite likely would not get the range of an actual Cruiser gun because of WG Arcade Game Magic.

To be fair, they did do that with Mikasa and people weren't exactly thrilled with the outcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35
[_REKT]
Members
490 posts
4,096 battles

It'd be good experience if they ever put Ise in the game.  Maybe some sort of trade-off, like can't fire them when planes are deploying, or battleship-reload speeds since it's not well set up for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,596
[-KIA-]
Banned
9,382 posts
28,311 battles

To be fair, they did do that with Mikasa and people weren't exactly thrilled with the outcome.

That's more because Mikasa:

 

1. Gets next to no benefit from Manual Secondaries.

 

2. Has the absolute worst main guns of any battleship in the game.  The sigma is bad, the dispersion is bad, the range is bad, and the AP shatters all the time (it's Ishizuchi's).

It'd be good experience if they ever put Ise in the game.  Maybe some sort of trade-off, like can't fire them when planes are deploying, or battleship-reload speeds since it's not well set up for it.

Neither of the battlecarriers could fire their guns very far towards the rear because the front turrets had the chunky superstructure in the way and the rear turrets would demolish the aircraft cranes unless they were almost perfectly broadside.  There's not really a need for an artificial tradeoff, Ise/Hyuga will be like a Fuso that has 2 turrets for about 75% of its existence.  Because we know what broadsiding in a BB is.

Edited by TenguBlade

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×