fumtu

That is a bad argument. It was always possible to smack a Belfast, in the end it is just an CL. IFHE affected all ships in some way and Belfast was not affected in any way worse than any other T7 CL. So while it did get somewhat weaker overall it didn't loose its strength compared to other T7 CL.

Dockyard event will last for two patches, just like those for Odin and Anchorage ... ... so there should be enough time to grind it.

I'm pretty sure that we will see a lot of copy/pasta in the future. Just because you don't want it, it doesn't it won't happen. I mean I wouldn't be surprised if we get another version of Blefast ... of wait ... Or it could be just that his meaning is ... Still WG could "give" a ship but just ask something in return ... like money for example. I mean he could demand a unicorn with it but what he will get depends only on WG. Still this argument by you seems just like weak excuse to not include a Turkish ship in the game.

How is that even worse? It would sell for money. I mean Pan American line literally has only one premium ship, Commonwealth line only has three of which one is unavailable for purchase. So what is a problem. And sure, I guess it would be hard to "research and code" a Fletcher or Gearing or Allen M Sumner or M class destroyer as a Turkish premium.

He asked for one Turkish ship, to be more precise one premium ship, not whole line. And there is more chances for either high tier premium or low tier premium than for mid tier.

So what? Are you suggesting that any of current Pan Asian ships is domestically build ships? Only Pan American premium ship so far is actually ex US Navy ship. And same would be true for majority of those small country navies from that period as their ship were mostly bought from somewhere else, like Britain or US. Turkish tree is highly unlikely to happen but some Turkish ships in Pan European Tree or some future Mediterranean Tree or whatever are quite probable. The oldest surviving Gearing is now a museum ship in Turkey.

IRL yes, in the game no. In game Puerto Rico is not an Alaska class but one of the studies considered during developing Alaska class, marked as CA2-D WG just reused name of the never built Alaska class ship for it. I wouldn't be surprise if eventually we get Hawaii or Samoa if WG decide to add some other studies in game, like this one for example

I completely understand you. I'm not quite happy with the state of the game either. Sad to hear that but good for you. I'm planing to quit one I use all my premium time but thanks to those anniversary SCs now I have little less than 500 days left. Game just don't want to let me go.

Joke on the side but how many US could claim beside DM and Worcester classes? Not a single one more, at least not a real one. Sure there are projects which were used for Puerto Rico and .... well maybe some preliminaries for DM and Worcester, of which one was used for Seattle for example. Just because US had a huge number of ships that doesn't mean that there is as much projects as for example for Soviet cruisers. US tends to produce ships in large batches, 27 Cleveland class and 14 Baltimore class cruisers, but there is not much diversity, 41 cruiser in just two classes. Even the following classes Fargo and Oregon respectively were more quality changes based on war experiences than new concepts. Or just look at the Royal Navy? How many cruisers projects could be used as T10 premium?

Well just putting a Belfast '38 would not be completely correct as none of those two version would represent ship as she looked when commissioned for the first time. So maybe we could use Belfast '38 - Refit '43 and Belfast '38 - Refit '59 instead.

There is much more differences than just "5 metres (20 ft) difference in waterline length". Edinburgh/Belfast had their engines moved backwards in comparation with the previous Town class cruisers. For game this would mean different position of the citadel. Which means it is not just lengthening, and widening a hull but also implementing number of changes. And also completely different superstructure, even turrets would require changes. So this will require quite a work and WG would not do that, not this late in production. We will get some of other Town class cruisers eventually, but don't expect from WG to just drop Belfast '43 for that as that ain't gonna happen.

While both Belfast and Sheffield are Town class cruisers, Belfast belongs to Edinburgh subclass which is longer and looks different when compared to previous sisters

HMS Sheffield lost a gun turret by that time and only had 3x3 6inch guns, just like all other Towns kept in the service after the war. Still loss of DPM it could compensated by leaving torps which could have shorter range, for example Jervis 7km torps or even Icarus stock torps with 6km range. If WG gives current owners also a new T8 Belfast together with new T7 ship, they could even support this. But ... ... this. WG would never do something like that and with announcing new T8 Belfast '43, any chance that we might see 1959 version of her in the shop again is gone.

Torps were still present when this photo is taken and this is after post war refit IMO post war Sheffield, with only three turrets but with torps would be much better fitting T7 than current Belfast (which should be at T8), even with smoke and radar.

Well ... it isn't, it is basically an Edinburgh under different name. Thing is Edinburgh in the game don't represent a ship but whole subclass, so elements of both Edinburgh and Belfast should be there. But hull is completely Belfast one and you can easily distinguish it from Edin's one by bulges. They were added to Belfast during reconstruction after hitting the mine. Edinburgh never had them as it was sunk before any significant modification happened. So Belfast '43, while different from T7 Belfast, is slightly modified, if not the same, base model of T8 Edinburgh.

You know that forum is not the only way of communication with WG. There are things like reddit, discord and twitch, which are probably even more active than this forum. And through all time, there is way more request for Belfast than any other Town class cruiser. And they will arrive eventually I just don't see what is a problem with getting Belfast 43 now and some other Town class latter. It is just that they have Belfast model ready, any other Town class would require more work and time, maybe even completely new model, to add. Time which they might not have now but, sooner or latter, for sure there will be representative of the first two batches of the Town class cruisers.

Sure I would like to see HMS Sheffield too but, as @T0byJug said, HMS Belfast is museum ship and much more requested than "Shiny Sheff" Well if you have a Town model somewhere ready you can send it to WG and ask them to include it in the game. If you don't than you have to wait for WG to make one. And guess what, unlike other Town class cruisers, WG already have a model of improved Town class cruiser which by coincidence is a model of HMS Belfast. What the hell is that does with anything? Do you think that we are still not get Sheffield because WG decided to make SG in the game? Like it was a choice between SG and Sheffield and WG decided to go with first one? Why would we not have SG in the game? I still think that you are the one that missing the point. You are not arguing should WG add Sheffield in the game but why they are giving a Belfast instead of Sheffield. And we will in time. But that would require a new model and that require time. Just ... LOL Yup, so much changed and it is still OP. Imagine how good she was originally. when you compare it with current stats for Belfast '43, original one is way better ship at one tier lower. Why would we think of weebs? Not everyone is into that stuff.

Yes they are. I'm not comparing RN CAs to SU CAs, I'm just saying what was the concept of RN CAs, to be more HE and fire "resilient", not to be browlers with lot of armour. SU CAs are tanky against almost everything. RN CAs basically somewhat smaller versions of RN BBs.

RN CA concept was not general 'tanky' cruiser but HE 'tanky' cruiser or the cruiser that could sustain lot of HE spam. That is why Goliath has 40mm deck and higher tiers have super heal. Basically, CA line was released during the high of Smolensk spam, when everyone was complaining about it. Those cruisers are offered as an solution for that.

It is from WG secrit archives, probably some old design from 2019 or 2020.

There is always a chance that there will be subbranch with larger caliber guns or for some premium BB. Belfast had radar during 1943.

In the case of CLs , I think that WG did reasonable good job as they probably had much better defined concepts for Neptune and Mino There are also better defined projects of turrets as, for example, Mino turrets were actually built and used on Tiger class cruisers and HMS Cumberland. But RN CAs were basically based on rough sketches and concepts and WG simply reused a lot of elements already developed for other RN ships. Albemarle is basically using Neptune hull if I'm not wrong and WG really let their imagination go wild with designing bridges of those cruisers. I really don't like end results as those high tiers RN CAs just look hideous to me.

Yup, all RN CAs from T7 to T10 looks horrible to me. I don't like how they look at all. But at least Devonshire looks great.

Yes and no. We are getting a model of HMS Belfast from 1943, but just that. All other things a subject to balance to fit in the game. I mean we also got a USS Helena how she looked on 1943, but without radar which in IRL she used with great efficiency during the Battle of Cape Esperance and the First Naval Battle of Guadacanal in 1942. Also one note about post I quoted previously: HMS Belfast didn't lost a spotter plane in 1943, it was just not carried as radar was installed but she was still capable to launch planes as all equipment was retained on the ship. It was during refit for the service with the British Pacific Fleet in 1945, that catapult for a plane was removed and she lost capability to launch planes.