Jump to content
canadiantrex

Speculation...

Recommended Posts

fuck this polish mini branch. There are so many cool ships to introduce and now there's a chance to have ships nobody needs nobody wants and nobody knows. Fucking A wargayming. Fucking A.

boo hoo i don't want new, unique ships because they're from Poland

 

jesus fuck, this is september 2015 not september 1939

Link to post
Share on other sites

This has nothing to do with Poland per se. Instead of a cool minibranch like South American dreadnoughts, ww1 German or austro-hungarian bb/bcs, instead of a few selected french or italian ships wargayming is again going the boring easy way and is introducing ships which will add NOTHING special or unique besides a siemka flag.

Edited by Crytis
Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said, intern probably did his job better than expected. These kind of projects tend to come out of internal tinkering that went well rather than concerted design choices. Hell, the company I work for has multi-million pound product lines that came out of that kind of thing.

The ships are new and are definitely different to what we have (the Grom class goes 39 knots, has 7 guns and 6 torps). Being salty about it is stupid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This has nothing to do with Poland per se. Instead of a cool minibranch like South American dreadnoughts, ww1 German or austro-hungarian bb/bcs, instead of a few selected french or italian ships wargayming is again going the boring easy way and is introducing ships which will add NOTHING special or unique besides a siemka flag.

Poland offers one completely unique destroyer class with no close equivalent in any other navy, one destroyer class that could be an alternate hull on a regular French destroyer (if that French destroyer is in the tree, which isn't guaranteed), and maybe some paper projects. Depending on how it goes there are also British destroyers (and one French) which had Polish crews. None of those British and French destroyers are in the game now.

The Polish tree is a few selected French and British ships, and one unique ship. In fact, there is a unique Polish destroyer preserved as a museum right next door to your country.

 

Somehow I don't think there would be this much anger if the new branch were from a nation further to the west.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Again you fail to understand that this branch adds no cool fluff at all. Borrowed ships. WOW. Since there are no stats atm ( or atleast not that I know) it's pure speculation if they are " so unique". Tell me what makes them stand  out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Grom and Wicher classes are not "borrowed ships". What part of this is hard to understand? You can find their information by googling the ship names, it's not exactly hidden.

If the Polish-crewed French and British ships are added as well, they will also be unique, because as you may have noticed there are no French or British cruisers or destroyers in the game right now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Again you fail to understand that this branch adds no cool fluff at all. Borrowed ships. WOW. Since there are no stats atm ( or atleast not that I know) it's pure speculation if they are " so unique". Tell me what makes them stand  out.

Because it's much easier to build models from preserved ships and plans that are probably in the Russian national archives? "Hey modelling intern, I have a cool six month project for you, go visit Grom and Richard Cutland and model me a couple of polish DDs".

So much smoke, so little fire.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Again you fail to understand that this branch adds no cool fluff at all. Borrowed ships. WOW. Since there are no stats atm ( or atleast not that I know) it's pure speculation if they are " so unique". Tell me what makes them stand  out.

One 'problem' of WoT is the rush to high tiers and the current 'damage and kills centric' metric to skill. My understanding was that low tiers are still quite playable in WoWS because of the game structure and that there isn't a whole lot of finger pointing at reds yet. I'd like some DD experience based on spotting too so I can run around undetected screening.

So, adding tier 1-6 national ships sounds like a pretty good fukn idea to me broski because we aren't yet fully penalized here for not averaging high damage per game with the current metric out that's kinda half-assed so far due to the lack of complete data available to metric makers.

As an aside, being a veteran of the US armed forces, it's ultimately enjoyable to me to see all of the ships/tanks/etc that I never needed to know about while serving. Since I'm not a vehicle afficianado, my exposure to foreign vehicles/ships is really through WG titles. That means bring on the Polish ships I've never heard of. There's a modern Greek Navy that has to have it's roots somewhere :), and many countries that have variants that I would like to learn about while playing them. My vehicle silhouette cards were based on USSR tanks/IFVs so I knew what to shoot, and I never needed to really learn about allied vehicles.

Bring on ships of all nations ships and give me a reason to keep playing tier 1-4 please. Any added ships, even with minor stat differences, are welcome.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seeing as it's only a matter of time before there's a second American BB line, how do you think they will end it? The South Dakota would likely be T8 along with the North Carolina, so what could be T9 and T10?

Link to post
Share on other sites

IIRC, SD 1920 will be T9, and Montana will be T10 (and one of the "fast" montana design studies will follow Iowa)

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Grom and Wicher classes are not "borrowed ships". What part of this is hard to understand? You can find their information by googling the ship names, it's not exactly hidden.

If the Polish-crewed French and British ships are added as well, they will also be unique, because as you may have noticed there are no French or British cruisers or destroyers in the game right now.

So why not add the RN and French Navy ships first rather than make them look stale because the Polish had lend lease boats and were added to the game first?

Polish navy? Crewing foreign ships with seamen of a particular nation does not a ship line make.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Polish navy? Crewing foreign ships with seamen of a particular nation does not a ship line make.

Tell that to the Chinese in WOT 

IIRC, SD 1920 will be T9, and Montana will be T10 (and one of the "fast" montana design studies will follow Iowa)

I sure hope the SD 1920 isn't T9 the SD 1939 would make more sense in that spot

Link to post
Share on other sites

So why not add the RN and French Navy ships first rather than make them look stale because the Polish had lend lease boats and were added to the game first?

Polish navy? Crewing foreign ships with seamen of a particular nation does not a ship line make.

finally someone understands.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So why not add the RN and French Navy ships first rather than make them look stale because the Polish had lend lease boats and were added to the game first?

Polish navy? Crewing foreign ships with seamen of a particular nation does not a ship line make.

Because the single Polish ship currently in the client has no close equivalent in any other nation's navy. It is also not a lend-lease ship - it is a Polish ship, but a British shipyard filled the order. Construction on two more similar ships in Poland was interrupted when Germany invaded.

Compare to for example Albany and Mikasa.

 

And let me again repeat that the ridiculous EU player opposition to adding new, unique ships, that probably came about when Wargaming sent a modeling intern to look at Błyskawica and the intern did a good job, is directly related to the ships being from Poland. Elsewhere in this thread, you can see some of those players complaining that we got Polish destroyers instead of South American dreadnoughts, which were likewise built to order in foreign yards. It's sad.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not against unique ships of any kind being introduced into the game. What I object to is WG's obvious attempts to milk cash introducing things like this instead of fulfilling their promise to make bringing out new Navy lines a priority.

In the interests of accuracy the ship in question was a British design and built in Britain.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, I'll reiterate: In any large company doing a thing is not zero sum with doing another thing. Projects get critical path locked for lots of reasons. I can't do much today on my main project because I need the results of a four-hour sim. In the meantime I'm working on a side project. 

This doesn't mean I'm not focusing on the main project but I can't physically do anything on it today. So I'm doing something else that may or may not be of use, but that's okay because I'd be twiddling my thumbs otherwise.

I enjoy bashing WG as much as anyone but this particular line of attack is irrational.

Edited by OnboardG1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Because the single Polish ship currently in the client has no close equivalent in any other nation's navy. It is also not a lend-lease ship - it is a Polish ship, but a British shipyard filled the order. Construction on two more similar ships in Poland was interrupted when Germany invaded.

Compare to for example Albany and Mikasa.

 

And let me again repeat that the ridiculous EU player opposition to adding new, unique ships, that probably came about when Wargaming sent a modeling intern to look at Błyskawica and the intern did a good job, is directly related to the ships being from Poland. Elsewhere in this thread, you can see some of those players complaining that we got Polish destroyers instead of South American dreadnoughts, which were likewise built to order in foreign yards. It's sad.

Look mom, i took one of six examples. Im so smrt. Atleast quote right before pissing at my leg.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Look mom, i took one of six examples. Im so smrt. Atleast quote right before pissing at my leg.

This makes no sense in any context but I assume you are making a personal attack? You should probably try to write intelligibly before you do that.

In the interests of accuracy the ship in question was a British design and built in Britain.

To a Polish order. Just as the South American dreadnoughts were built to order in foreign yards. But for some reason that criticism only applies to Błyskawica.

If anything Wargaming has done was an obvious attempt to milk cash, it was the CBT buy-in or the limited time $70 Tirpitz bundles that couldn't be purchased with in-game gold. Not a tier 6 destroyer.

 

EU posters would not be in a tizzy if the same exact model, with the same statistics, were instead introduced as a British premium destroyer renamed to Nith and flying a Royal Navy flag instead of a Polish flag.

It is sad that even in 2015, they are mad about a single, unique, inexpensive premium ship, that posed no impediment to ship tree development, because of the flag it flies. Nationalism is a hell of a drug.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I sure hope the SD 1920 isn't T9 the SD 1939 would make more sense in that spot

Not sure.  '20 has more guns.  Same diameter, but longer barrels.  Higher velocity too, though the standard shell was lighter.  20 was a pre-treaty design, and more heavily armored than 39.  20 had slightly larger secondaries as well.  

 

Thing is, I can't really figure out a spot for the 39.  It seems too fast for the slow line, and NC/Iowa occupy its likely positions in the fast line.  Unless the split is not along Fast/slow or Treaty/non-treaty lines.  I can't really see SD'39 as a 9 in either tree, though.  Power level seems much more consistent with current 8s.  I also can't see '20's 12 16" guns on something less than a 9.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure.  '20 has more guns.  Same diameter, but longer barrels.  Higher velocity too, though the standard shell was lighter.  20 was a pre-treaty design, and more heavily armored than 39.  20 had slightly larger secondaries as well.  

 

Thing is, I can't really figure out a spot for the 39.  It seems too fast for the slow line, and NC/Iowa occupy its likely positions in the fast line.  Unless the split is not along Fast/slow or Treaty/non-treaty lines.  I can't really see SD'39 as a 9 in either tree, though.  Power level seems much more consistent with current 8s.  I also can't see '20's 12 16" guns on something less than a 9.  

1920 is almost the size of Iowa. It might need some wargaming tweaks to fit in, but it's definitely a tier 9. I guess it's probably the tier 9 before Montana, if the other tier 10 is some Montana pre-design with 30 knots.

Neither NC nor SD1939 make any sense as the ship before SD1920 though.

And you have Lexington too, probably at tier 8 and even faster/less armored.

 

Between that and the heap of standard classes I guess there will be a lot of wargaming tweaks and paper ships to get everything in the lines.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would consider the SD39 on the same level as the NC, if not a little better since it was build after it and incorporated the design changes from the beginning instead of the NC that was changed several times while it was being built. Could make the Iowa T10 along with the Montana and make the NC and SD39 tier 9 and make the SD20 along with the Colorado (since it also has 16" guns, but would need a good buff) Tier 8. My ideal tech tree so that all the USN BBs are in is:

Tier 3 - South Carolina

T4 - Delaware/Florida

T5 - Wyoming/New York

T6 - Nevada/Pennsylvania

T7 - New Mexico/Tennessee

T8 - Colorado/South Dakota (1920)

T9 - North Carolina/South Dakota (1939)

T10 - Iowa/Montana

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...