Jump to content

TomsonPRD

Players
  • Content Сount

    30
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    12942
  • Clan

    [-MMI-]

About TomsonPRD

  • Rank
    Able Seaman
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

1,178 profile views
  1. TomsonPRD

    Update 0.10.1: Italian Battleships

    For both ARP and AL collabs I can understand why they copied the ships 1:1, since models are never actually touched and are just clones, but with V.V. representing the class as a whole, it's another story. Just imagine the outcry if Tirpitz and Bismarck had the exact same 3D model!
  2. TomsonPRD

    Update 0.10.1: Italian Battleships

    Shame. Shame shame shame. You had more than 4 (four) months to make two simple adjustments to Vittorio Veneto's model, but you did absolutely nothing. Also, it's not like getting the actual plans is really THAT difficult (contrary to what you always said about having an hard time accessing the archives, you didn't even try) And not only that, but instead of making simple but amazing camos like last year's Grigio-azzurro chiaro you created the undoubtedly worst permacamos in the entire game. How could you even miss the chance to add rostra to those confused heaps of junk, they would've at the very least made them slightly more bearable
  3. TomsonPRD

    Developer Bulletin for Update 0.10.1

    At the cost of sounding like a broken record... You had more than 4 (four) months to make two simple adjustments to Vittorio Veneto's model, but you did absolutely nothing. Just... wow Also, it's not like getting the actual plans is really THAT difficult (contrary to what you always said about having an hard time accessing the archives, you didn't even try)
  4. TomsonPRD

    PSA: Santa Containers

    I would like to know this as well
  5. TomsonPRD

    Detailed List of Real and Paper Ships

    Yes, I also found that kind of answer pretty sketchy, just like the recent "V. Veneto is simply based on Roma because it should represent a collective image of a type, with borrowings from different ships", which is just a blatant lie since their Veneto is literally a 100% copy.
  6. TomsonPRD

    Detailed List of Real and Paper Ships

    That's what we thought for the longest time, but WG mentioned in this Q&A how "Odin was designed as one of the possible preliminary variants of a Scharnhorst type battleship (or battlecruiser). The hull is almost the same as of Scharnhorst type battleships, but main guns have a higher caliber, diesel engines and different secondaries. All in all, Odin is a pre-Scharnhorst with diesel engines and 305 mm guns. As for detailed blueprints or schemes we used, unfortunately, we cannot share them with you". Though to be honest, even I found this official response pretty unreliable.
  7. This is an updated version of a previous chart I posted on Reddit 5 months ago: while the image above cannot be edited and'll be out of date in a while, here's a link to the original spreadsheet that I'll try to revise whenever possible. Main sources for ships and dates are here and here respectively. Here's an updated list of clarifications from the other post: A great Thank You goes to Phoenix_jz for allowing me to use his awesome thread and distribution method, as his historical knowledge is far above mine. If you are interested in these kind of things, you should definitely check it out (especially you have questions about the GK designation), and another great chart used for many designations was made by Trainspite on the NA forum, so please go through it as well. 37 ships (and 13 Submarines) are excluded from this chart, as either duplicates or simple reskins: Tachibana Lima, Marblehead Lima, Diana Lima, Kamikaze R, Fujin, Southern and Eastern Dragon, all Black Friday and Arpeggio ships, both WH40K ships, Alabama ST, HSF Admiral Graf Spee, V.I. Lenin, Wukong and Bajie; with the exception of the pan-asian ones, Lenin, WH40K and Graf Zeppelin B, all vessels supposedly entered service in real life. I didn't remove Iwaki Alpha or HSF Harekaze II as they are not duplicates, contrary to the Spee. For the Hakuryu criteria please check this chart by HarunaKai There's a reason both Belfast and Belfast '43 are in the list, even if the hull is basically cloned; many other older ships fall into the same category, just with unrelated names. These are Svetlana and Krasny Krym, Gangut and Okt. Revolutsya, Benson and Lo Yang, Boise and Nueve de Julio, Nürnberg and Adm. Makarov. Exactly the same ships, serving in different times. Odin classification, albeit dicey, is based on this great post by Son_Of_The_Empire, as for the USN and the complicated situation of Bayard. Regarding Florida, as pointed out by aforementioned Kingpin6100, Friedman states that North Carolina was laid down as Florida, even though the escalator clause was invoked and the ship was redesigned before her formal laying down. However, the change was not communicated to the builders until after the ship was laid down. Kansas, albeit a refitted South Dakota 1920 design, was nonetheless laid down and built to a degree, so I prioritized this fact over giving her a red tag. Minnesota, however, differs far too much from the original, including what WG used for the main guns. Even worse with Vermont, as the model is just loosely inspired to Tillman's Maximum Battleships concept (more precisely Tillman I, not IV, as you can read here and here. Monarch falls in the Modified-by-Lesta class as, quoting the "WoWs Wiki" page, "In World of Warships, Monarch is a very loose interpretation of Design 15C of 1935, one of the designs that was put forward alongside those that would later develop into the King George V-class battleships. It is arguable that Monarch doesn't represent design 15C at all due to the numerous major historical inaccuracies and differences from the actual design." More info in this thread. Huang He classification might seem arbitrary too: previously known as HMS Aurora and sunk in 1949 serving the PLAN, is nonetheless depicted in WoWs with a fantasy Soviet refit as the conversion project got cancelled. Now, for the controversial stuff: in the case of Kremlin, while 3 of the 14 pre-drafts contemplated 457mm guns for Project 24 in 1949, there's absolutely not a single chance the Soviet steel/naval industry could have been able to manufacture them (if I'm wrong, please tell me everything you know). And since even Stalin, of all people, basically looked at the proposal and said "what the [edited]are you smoking" at his designers, completely shutting down their deranged fantasies, this variant isn't worth any more than other idiotic plans like the Ferrati's 1915 D-series battleships (3x4 381mm guns on a 1914 hull). As this is already a third, upgraded version of this first chart, if anyone finds more inaccuracies or oversights (because there are some as it's obviously not perfect or definitive) about the aforementioned ships or the graph in general I'll be eager to read their opinions!
  8. TomsonPRD

    ST 0.9.11 - 0.9.12, new ships. (DB 90)

    While Cristoforo Colombo for the T10 is a pretty inappropriate name (especially considering the concurrent existence of an Italian training vessel of the same name, sistership of the famous Vespucci from 1926 to 1963), Marco Polo is unfortunately even worse. For a start, the only warship ever named after him was an armored cruiser laid down in distant 1890, not even reaching 5.000 tons of displacement. As many others have pointed out, it would be like naming a Japanese battleship Suzutsuki, a H-39 Prinz Heinrich or another Montana-class USS Chicago. And in the 1930/40s, as you can see in this official 1931 document for RM Naming Conventions, capital ships' names were starting to steer towards figures of the Risorgimento, Admirals, new Provinces, fundamental concepts of the Nation, the Savoy dinasty or great victories. You put an exceptional amount of logic into the addition of Alighieri, original Cavour, Andrea Doria and Caracciolo (albeit with terrible gun mounts), but then something happened and what we got is a second Roma copy-paste (please, please Lesta, use a bit of the time saved from modeling a T3 to make those two simple changes), a questionable T9 and an absurd T10. We all know how much you care about "consistency" in the progression of Tech Tree branches: so, just like last year's correction of Verona/Torino/Milano in the far better and more appropriate Amalfi/Brindisi/Venezia (for which you have my most sincere gratitude), the T8 Italian Battleship is named after the notorious battle of Vittorio Veneto, and you did the same with Lepanto and the 1571 naval engagement: why not change a totally incongrous name such as Marco Polo into something like Piave? Other options, as noted by Phoenix_jz, would be Patria, Unità, Costituzione, Re (or Re d'Italia), Isonzo, Enrico Dandolo, Francesco Morosini, Giuseppe Mazzini, Vittorio Emanuele II and Regina Elena. There are just so many other choices that would fit late Regia Marina naming conventions.
  9. So, I forgot to share this yesterday, but as said many times before, this reasoning is basically nonsense. Roma is the single member of her subclass. The "collective image of a type" represented by silver ships should be based on Littorio or Veneto herself, almost identical, definitely not the unique third ship. Nothing was borrowed or inspired from other vessels, as Veneto's model as it is now is simply 100% Roma's. If Veneto in game is the epitome of the entire class why would it have the exact same model of the ship that was the only one of the class to have those differences?
  10. Exactly, which is why I understand they just copied Roma again. The VV model we have now is good for the most part, it just needs these two minor adjustments to be the perfect embodiment of the whole Littorio-class
  11. This is the second time Roma's model is copied 1:1 to represent her sisters, like AL Littorio. I understand that, with AL collabs, models are never actually touched and are just clones, but with V.V. representing the class as a whole, it's another story. We're not asking for a complete remodel of the ship, but simple corrections to both Bow and Conning Tower. Lesta did an awesome job tiering from T4 to T8, they shouldn't fall to lazyness regarding these important details.
  12. A small premise: as I wrote on the DevBlog post, since Tech-tree ships are idealistic views of the class as a whole, they may present differences both in specifications and appearance even if based on real ships, so it's okay to have some minor inaccuracies. BUT, since the odd one in the class is actually Roma, while both Littorio and Vittorio Veneto were strikingly similar, it should be the logical choice to model the Tech Tree ship on those two, and not Roma as in game. The collective image should especially reflect those two, not the totally unique subclass which Roma represents. Moreover, it should be clear to everyone that the Art Department has been under constant pressure for the entire year, steadily churning out ship after ship without brakes. Even with the ongoing global pandemic, I understand that this branch was (ironically) announced earlier than expected, and this could be one of the reasons why we don't have Cuniberti's proposal at T3 or that three ships are yet to be fully modeled. Nonetheless, I seriously hope Lesta will read this and, when the time comes, they'll correct the glaring oversights I'm about to list, as they did with countless ships like Kitakami's (lack of) AA suite, Slava's bridge, Småland's AA, Zara's red/white stripes etc. First of all, the most important one, the Bridge. What really tells apart Littorio and V.V. from her sistership is how both rows of windows are positioned at extremely different angles; not only that, but also all the lower small rangefinders of Roma were in different places, as you can clearly see on these renders from Carlo Cestra (many more ships on his website here) This is Littorio, notice how even unfinished (and with the original bow, more on that later) the peculiar shape of the superstructure is radically different from Roma's. First two pics are from 1938 And here is a look at Vittorio Veneto, third pic dated 1941 Now, the second main point: the Bow. While the first two ships had a modification after sea trials to enhance seakeeping, Roma not only was made 3 meters longer during construction, but got a far higher bow with only 2 anchors, not 3 like both her sisters. The appearance of Littorio and V.V. (shown together in 1941 in the last pic) would look completely different with the correct bow (in the second picture B is an arrow pointing to Roma's flared bow. On her sisters (whos bows are identical) the bow is much more straight compared to the heavy curve on Roma's bow, you can find more infos on this post) Other minor inaccuracies: for example, the starting point of the red/white air-reconnaissance stripes. There are multiple sources, usually in conflict over each other, but what's certain is that V.V. and Roma weren't the same in this regard. Morevoer, both Littorio and V.V. had a different optical equipment between the funnels and different secondary fire directors.
  13. TomsonPRD

    ST 0.9.10, Italian Battleships (DB 81)

    Lepanto is actually a very fit name for a major unit of the Regia Marina. If you want, this is the 1931 book for naming conventions of the RM
  14. TomsonPRD

    ST 0.9.10, Italian Battleships (DB 81)

    Okay, I'm terribly sorry to start with a complaint, because you did a great job tiering from T4 to T8 (No T3 though? Very strange), but this can't go unnoticed. Just like what happened to AL Littorio, Vittorio Veneto's model is simply a total copy of Roma's. I know that Tech-tree ships are idealistic views of the class as a whole, so while real they may present differences both in specifications and appearance, but there are just 2 main inaccuracies that must be solved by your Art Department. The flag bridge you modeled is exclusive to Roma, both Littorio and VV had a very different design with angled windows, as shown here. The bow is another main inconsistency: while the first two ships had a modification after sea trials to enhance seakeeping, Roma not only was made 3 METERS longer, but got a far higher bow with only 2 anchors, not 3. While there may be other minor mistakes to the model presented today (like how far the red/white stripes reached the deck, as shown at the end), please, please I beg you to modify just these glaring mistakes, as you did with Zara's bow stripes or Slava's bridge.
  15. TomsonPRD

    PSA: Clans trading steel in CvC 9

    These side effects of Server Migration are probably the worst thing that happened to this game in recent time. On behalf of (I hope) the entire community, many thanks for finally taking action on the matter. They'll presumably outright buy another semi-inactive clan and restart everything in a week-time, just like the SEA clan you disbanded not too long ago for the same reasons, but it's a good sign nonetheless.
×