Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
Jean_Bart

Do you approve removal of historic ships and introduction of fictional ships instead?

Do you support the introduction of fictional/paper/fantasy ships and the removal of historic ships?  

133 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you support the introduction of fictional/paper/fantasy ships and the removal of historic ships?

    • Yes, i like the fantasy ships more than historic ships!
    • No, i prefer to have more historic ships, instead of fantasy ones!

64 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[ZPT]
Players
91 posts

Do you support introduction of multiple fictional/paper/fantasy ships and the ongoing removal of historic ships that really existed at some point of history?

Share your opinions!

:Smile_Default:

 

Soon WG will remove half of the existing carriers, all of which are historic, while they plan to intorduce a full soviet battleships' tech-tree, where most of the tiers will be filled with ships that never existed even as remote projects.

 

If it is acceptable for carriers' trees to have missing tiers, why they fill other branches with many fantasy ships that never existed, for the sole sake of filling missing gaps?

I am puzzled! :Smile_amazed:

  • Cool 4
  • Boring 5
  • Bad 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,818 posts
10,140 battles

Im puzzled as well. I mean if they're removing those cvs and replacing them with fictional ones then yeah il probably be abit concerned. Russian BBs are just another line, thats it.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HAERT]
[HAERT]
Players
1,204 posts
2,467 battles
18 minutes ago, Jean_Bart said:

Do you support introduction of multiple fictional/paper/fantasy ships and the ongoing removal of historic ships that really existed at some point of history?

Share your opinions!

:Smile_Default:

 

Soon WG will remove half of the existing carriers, all of which are historic, while they plan to intorduce a full soviet battleships' tech-tree, where most of the tiers will be filled with ships that never existed even as remote projects.

 

If it is acceptable for carriers' trees to have missing tiers, why they fill other branches with many fantasy ships that never existed, for the sole sake of filling missing gaps?

I am puzzled! :Smile_amazed:

Those CV's are coming back as an alternate line at some point in the future. 

 

  • Cool 5
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
15,380 posts
11,042 battles
19 minutes ago, Jean_Bart said:

Do you support introduction of multiple fictional/paper/fantasy ships and the ongoing removal of historic ships that really existed at some point of history?

Share your opinions!

:Smile_Default:

 

Soon WG will remove half of the existing carriers, all of which are historic, while they plan to intorduce a full soviet battleships' tech-tree, where most of the tiers will be filled with ships that never existed even as remote projects.

 

If it is acceptable for carriers' trees to have missing tiers, why they fill other branches with many fantasy ships that never existed, for the sole sake of filling missing gaps?

I am puzzled! :Smile_amazed:

Yeah, I am sure the historic CV would be impressive in the RU BB line...

  • Funny 2
  • Boring 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
[SCRUB]
Beta Tester
2,372 posts
6,032 battles
1 minute ago, Fat_Maniac said:

Those CV's are coming back as an alternate line at some point in the future. 

 

As was announced.  He is just trying to stir up resentment by telling half of the story. 

  • Cool 6
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weekend Tester
555 posts
5,074 battles

The game is such an arcade fantasy of naval warfare that, to be honest, it might be better if all the ships were fake instead of besmirching the real achievements of famous ships in the name of MM/ balance/ marketing/ etc/.

  • Cool 4
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[1DSF]
Beta Tester
1,436 posts
4,401 battles

You missed the point: "I dont like stupid polls!"

  • Cool 4
  • Bad 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DREAD]
Players
5,725 posts
5,206 battles

Yep all ships should be fictional - given the way how bad WG butchers them in this game.

 

Best fit would be Mickey Mouse and the April fools bath tub boats 

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PMI]
Players
2,487 posts
5,898 battles
28 minutes ago, Jean_Bart said:

Do you support introduction of multiple fictional/paper/fantasy ships and the ongoing removal of historic ships that really existed at some point of history?

Share your opinions!

:Smile_Default:

 

Soon WG will remove half of the existing carriers, all of which are historic, while they plan to intorduce a full soviet battleships' tech-tree, where most of the tiers will be filled with ships that never existed even as remote projects.

 

If it is acceptable for carriers' trees to have missing tiers, why they fill other branches with many fantasy ships that never existed, for the sole sake of filling missing gaps?

I am puzzled! :Smile_amazed:

 

You are getting all riled up because we do not agree with your doomsaying? disliking posts left and right, even older ones.

 

Why are you clearly lying and misleading?

 

If you cant stand the heat, dont get in the kitchen...

  • Cool 3
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BYOB]
Players
3,305 posts
11,625 battles
3 minutes ago, Klopirat said:

the "I don't care" option is missing...

Aye. It's not like WG is removing historic ships permanently.

 

The issue with Russian BBs is that Rusia was never a great naval power between 1914 and 1950. Their naval problems, in having to deal with 4 different deployment zones, would have been a hard nut to crack even for a more industrialized nation. The ships we are getting are mostly paper designs and studies, they aren't however laser armed hovercraft like OP suggests. But that's the problem of having a Russian game dev and a large Russian fanbase, and I'd rather have one paper line than no game at all.

 

Also, having ships that were planned, designed, or in development, will prolong the game's lifetime. Because if we limited the ships to only those that were commissioned we would need to remove several lines as not viable due to gaps. And most lines would end at T8. Another thing is the fact that several ship designs that never materialized are fascinating to see in-game. And I wouldn't have anything against WG doing more of them, because a T8 Hood refit using a different name (HMS St Vincent? HMS Collingwood?) would be really cool.

  • Cool 8
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
48 posts
3,883 battles

I never approved of historical ships to begin with.

 

In other words, I don't give a [edited].

 

 

  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[W-C]
Beta Tester, Players, In AlfaTesters
2,402 posts
6,373 battles

*edited*

Edited by Nebiros_1
Edited due to non constructive, aggressive and provocative
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[POI--]
Players
4,225 posts
5,188 battles

While I see some point to the overall issue, I see not much of a point in the example given of CV removal and RU BBs. In both cases, it's not like you really had great alternative options.

 

Examples I would've given that are a bit more in line with the matter at hand is French mid-tier BBs, where Normandie and Lyon are ships with absolutely bonkers refits in terms of speed and none of them were ever built, while the historic design in this tier was relegated to premium. Unlike Scharnhorst/Gneisenau, this isn't even a case where you can argue about the consistency in performance, as Normandie basically just as fast and small caliber guns as Dunkerque. Or how about PEF that could as well be put into the game at T5 in a more historic layout instead of being T6 with a fantasy refit? These are the cases where I wonder what the hell WG is smoking, because these aren't necessary moves, unlike filling RU BBs with paper, cause there just is nothing after Gangut.

1 hour ago, Aragathor said:

And I wouldn't have anything against WG doing more of them, because a T8 Hood refit using a different name (HMS St Vincent? HMS Collingwood?) would be really cool.

It's basically a Hood with 32 mm at the ends, better AA and a seaplane? I would hope it'd at least get Vanguard ammo, because otherwise, that's a bit meagre. Also, call it Hood '42. Given how WV is handled and that all other Hood names were taken up by actual ships later on, I'd think that's the best approach.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BYOB]
Players
3,305 posts
11,625 battles
6 minutes ago, Seiranko said:

It's basically a Hood with 32 mm at the ends, better AA and a seaplane?

No, the list is much longer including better torpedo protection, upgraded engines, upgraded fire control, besides the things you mentioned. And I really doubt a refitted Hood would have used old ammo anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[POI--]
Players
4,225 posts
5,188 battles
2 minutes ago, Aragathor said:

No, the list is much longer including better torpedo protection, upgraded engines, upgraded fire control, besides the things you mentioned. And I really doubt a refitted Hood would have used old ammo anyway.

Ok, better torp protection helps, but I don't consider it major, because I typically try to avoid eating torps in the first place. Guess with new CVs, it matters more now.

Upgraded engines might just help overcome the effect of weight gain, but I don't see higher top speed. I'd not even think this was really much of an upgrade beyond making the engines more economical. At the very best, I could see the Hood accelerating faster.

Upgraded fire control would be what? That last 0.1 sigma to 2.0?

 

One thing to keep in mind: Hood '42 if given proper ammunition might just powercreep on the Vanguard, being 30 s reload instead of 25 mm, but far tankier and blessed with decent turret angles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WONLY]
Players
199 posts

I don't care. At some day all relevant ships from WW2 will be in the game anyway, so we need the paper ships to get new "content". I'm fine with that.

  • Cool 3
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-AP-]
Players
725 posts
2,857 battles

The "I dont care" option is missing, who cares if the ship is historical or not? The  only important thing is that it has good gameplay and is well balanced, and that has nothing to do with history

  • Cool 5
  • Funny 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[IRQ]
Players
2,753 posts
6,638 battles

I like more ships.

 

The poll falsely implies that there's some sort of correlation between adding fantasy ships and removing historical ones. There is no correlation between removing CVs to make them fit into MM, and adding Russian fantasy ships.

 

Conclusion: Poll is bogus.

  • Cool 5
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,284 posts
9,778 battles
8 hours ago, Jean_Bart said:

Soon WG will remove half of the existing carriers,

*edited*

 

Quote

all of which are historic,

*edited*

Edited by Nebiros_1
Edited due to Provocations
  • Funny 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UTW]
Weekend Tester, In AlfaTesters
8,174 posts
6,741 battles

I have to admit, I'm super pissed at the fact they removed Taihou only to keep the completely fictional Hakuryuu as tier 10.

They should have bumped Taihou to t10. And if they ever want to add another line of IJN CV, add Shinano instead.

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BODEM]
Players
103 posts
4,568 battles
6 hours ago, Jean_Bart said:

Do you support introduction of multiple fictional/paper/fantasy ships and the ongoing removal of historic ships that really existed at some point of history?

Share your opinions!

:Smile_Default:

 

Soon WG will remove half of the existing carriers, all of which are historic, while they plan to intorduce a full soviet battleships' tech-tree, where most of the tiers will be filled with ships that never existed even as remote projects.

 

If it is acceptable for carriers' trees to have missing tiers, why they fill other branches with many fantasy ships that never existed, for the sole sake of filling missing gaps?

I am puzzled! :Smile_amazed:

I'm not voting in a bias poll. Why can't I like both as long as it's well done and true to the historic theme of the game? I haven't been able to uncover the reason why they halved the Carrier trees, but WG doesn't cut it for no reason. And I very much like what I've seen from the Russian BB tree. They look awesome and I am looking forward to see how they play ingame.

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TOXIC]
[TOXIC]
Players
4,172 posts
11,010 battles
8 hours ago, Jean_Bart said:

If it is acceptable for carriers' trees to have missing tiers, why they fill other branches with many fantasy ships that never existed, for the sole sake of filling missing gaps?

I am puzzled! :Smile_amazed:

Missing tiers in CV tree aren't the result of lack of historical carriers, though - it's the decision related to problems with providing a smooth and meaningful progression + the bad experiences with empty CV queues of the past (so WG want to concentrate all the CV players on even tiers). The ships removed are already promised to make a return as alternative branches (also on even tiers) so that the removed Taiho is most likely going to become a second IJN t10. This creates some unnecessary "paper" ships (some paper fillings would be unnecessary if the even-tier-only philosophy was there from the beginning) but it isn't some crusade against historical ships.

 

And as for soviet BBs. Well, stronk Soviet navy, how could we not see them in a game that glorifies Soviet Union and celebrates the symbols of that criminal superpower on each and every occasion (while at the same time banning swastikas and rising sun flag).

 

2 hours ago, ShinGetsu said:

I have to admit, I'm super pissed at the fact they removed Taihou only to keep the completely fictional Hakuryuu as tier 10.

They should have bumped Taihou to t10. And if they ever want to add another line of IJN CV, add Shinano instead.

Personally I have a quiet suspicion that one of the reasons why they didn't keep (uptiered) Taiho instead is because of the Hellcarrier space skin that they would need to re-design for Taiho if they didn't want to face a crowd of pissed off spaceship-owners that were about to actually start seeing their special (and not cheap) skins only to have them suddenly removed (along with the old tX ship) :Smile-_tongue:

  • Cool 2
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TRAV]
[TRAV]
Players
2,608 posts
7 hours ago, Jean_Bart said:

Do you support introduction of multiple fictional/paper/fantasy ships and the ongoing removal of historic ships that really existed at some point of history?

Share your opinions!

:Smile_Default:

 

Soon WG will remove half of the existing carriers, all of which are historic, while they plan to intorduce a full soviet battleships' tech-tree, where most of the tiers will be filled with ships that never existed even as remote projects.

 

If it is acceptable for carriers' trees to have missing tiers, why they fill other branches with many fantasy ships that never existed, for the sole sake of filling missing gaps?

I am puzzled! :Smile_amazed:

You are trying to create a connection where there is none.

You create a very obviously biased poll in an attempt to support a theory that is not based on anything but your own fears.

You downvote anyone who dares to point out the errors in your assumption or who simply disagrees with you.

 

In short: You are trying to create and spread FUD.

  • Cool 2
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[YARRR]
Beta Tester
7,896 posts
14,234 battles
59 minutes ago, ShinGetsu said:

the completely fictional Hakuryuu

 

Isn't Haku the planned Taiho Kai, otherwise known as Project G-15?

She's a paper project to be sure but I don't believe she is completely fictional.

 

And tbh I prefer Haku over Shinano. Getting chased down by anything faster than a Yama doesn't sound like a particularly fun time to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×