British heavy cruiser 3D models

[Pametrada]

You've done it again, WG. The standard of modelling and texturing is simply superb. My particular favourite is HMS Devonshire - the amount of detail is remarkable. A huge 'well done' to all involved.

 

 

[ClappingLollies]

WG's model and texture artists are very good. No doubt about that.

They deserve so much more credit.

 

The PR departement however is a different story. 

[Hopeless_Guppy]

Nice to see WoW's getting some praise here, and it is true, the modelling of ships in general is second to none.

[BLUB__BLUB]

 

2 hours ago, Inappropriate_noob said:

Nice to see WoW's getting some praise here, and it is true, the modelling of ships in general is second to none.

...which is why it would be a waste to have submarines that cannot be on the surface. 

[Chaos_Umbra]

Yep the Team working on the 3D models always do an amazing job! 

 

Shame that the Gimmicks... I mean Balancing department ruin all their work most of the time... 

[lovelacebeer]

Very true the level of detail in the models is truly beautiful, I admit I often enjoy exploring the ships in my port checking out all the little details.

[peoplescavalry]

Even the lowly Oleg down at tier 3 is a superb model.

[El2aZeR]

10 hours ago, MortenTardo said:

The PR departement however is a different story. 

 

I'd also pan either management or coders for their unwillingness or inability to fix the incredible amount of bugs still left in the game.

Seriously, CN server on 0.7.3 isn't nearly as buggy as the current one.

[Mad_Dog_Dante]

49 minutes ago, lovelacebeer said:

Very true the level of detail in the models is truly beautiful, I admit I often enjoy exploring the ships in my port checking out all the little details.

It is one of the few reasons I still play this game, the awesome ships, and (some) of the basic gameplay. Well done art team, you are close to the only department that keeps me here.

[Pametrada]

On 1/16/2020 at 10:56 PM, lovelacebeer said:

Very true the level of detail in the models is truly beautiful, I admit I often enjoy exploring the ships in my port checking out all the little details.

 

I do the same. For anyone interested in ships, these models can be quite educational. For example, the different methods of stowing anchors in early 20th century ships - compare Diana with Bogatyr. There are also some very interesting details if you look closely for them -  the Diana has a 'monorail' running above the deck on both sides, to convey ammunition to the guns. The T2 Russian cruiser Novik has a pair of small field guns secured to the deck, presumably to be used by landing parties. All fascinating stuff.

[Jvd2000]

While the details are great i find this line of cruisers the most ugly cruiser line we have now. Compared with French, Italians and then Japanese and Russian ships they are sure bulky..

[Fodder1978]

Uh... the thought occurs... well, I know there’s a ton of specialist kits, etched brass etc out there, some being a total sod to get hold of or out of print - but with so many 3D models out there in WG’s archives, have they ever considered making kits? Or licensing some via third parties?

[Pametrada]

4 minutes ago, Fodder1978 said:

Uh... the thought occurs... well, I know there’s a ton of specialist kits, etched brass etc out there, some being a total sod to get hold of or out of print - but with so many 3D models out there in WG’s archives, have they ever considered making kits? Or licensing some via third parties?

WG did have some kind of commercial partnership with one of the main plastic kit manufacturers ( Hasegawa ? Italieri maybe ? ), but there's nothing in the Wargaming store now.

[VallhallNOP]

Agreed, the artists of WG are some of the best in the business, as others have mentioned, i have used more hours in the port than i like to admit🙈 stunning work! Designers table tends to be my favourite "port view", but, I would absolutely love a kind of designers table, but with a cleaner look, and maybe a bit more lighting, to cater to the "look at ALL the details" mode..😜

[MyopicHedgehog]

1 hour ago, Fodder1978 said:

Uh... the thought occurs... well, I know there’s a ton of specialist kits, etched brass etc out there, some being a total sod to get hold of or out of print - but with so many 3D models out there in WG’s archives, have they ever considered making kits? Or licensing some via third parties?

That would be good - especially for 3D printing they should be able to get good results with their models.

[Chaos_Umbra]

4 hours ago, Jvd2000 said:

While the details are great i find this line of cruisers the most ugly cruiser line we have now. Compared with French, Italians and then Japanese and Russian ships they are sure bulky..

It's called being sea worthy something that the game doesn't take into account, and considering the RN had to cover most of the globe having your ships able to handle any storms will be much more important than to let say the Italians that only operated in the Mediterranean Sea.

[iJoby]

1 hour ago, Chaos_Umbra said:

It's called being sea worthy something that the game doesn't take into account, and considering the RN had to cover most of the globe having your ships able to handle any storms will be much more important than to let say the Italians that only operated in the Mediterranean Sea.

Superb reply, giving chaos_umbra some valuable education.

[Seaman_Staines1]

On 1/17/2020 at 12:47 AM, Europizza said:

It is one of the few reasons I still play this game

Same.

[Marblehead_1]

Interesting did this models had easter eggs like Koala on Perth or canvas with text on Graf Spee?

[Fodder1978]

11 hours ago, Chaos_Umbra said:

It's called being sea worthy something that the game doesn't take into account, and considering the RN had to cover most of the globe having your ships able to handle any storms will be much more important than to let say the Italians that only operated in the Mediterranean Sea.

On that side-topic, yesterday I saw some old archive footage of Repulse, Hood and KGV at sea - so old it was totally stained yellow. They were shipping heavy seas with Repulse wet, Hood almost a submarine, and KGV very wet. The Royal Navy had a fixation with being able to fire flat at point blank range, so many capital ships did not have a flared bow.

 

The Hood’s wetness allegedly led to her having the highest TB incidence in the whole fleet...

 

Anyway, sea handling isn’t really part of WoWs, else you’d have turrets and secondaries you can’t fire and DDs that would be barely able to do half speed, let alone fire torps. Could be interesting, though...

[Floofz]

Am I the only one that thinks Goliath looks absolutely terrible? Its way out of proportions, its too short and way too tall. Doesnt look remotely like anything that would ever sail the seas in real life.

[invicta2012]

53 minutes ago, Floofz said:

Am I the only one that thinks Goliath looks absolutely terrible? Its way out of proportions, its too short and way too tall. Doesnt look remotely like anything that would ever sail the seas in real life.

It looks like Vanguard with a tower-block brutalist bridge. That is quite British, but I agree it looks way too tall for its beam.

 

There are few annoyances with the high Tier cruisers (and the event) - Goliath is too tall, Albemarle has the wrong secondary turrets (should be the ones on Lightning or Jutland, which Drake has).  And to be really finicky - the poster behind the container opening screen says that the Royal Navy is made in England (about half of it being made in Scotland) and - worst of all - on the RN Directive screen there is a cup of tea without milk. I don't know who that officer is supposed to be, but I suspect he is a spy for the Boche.....

 

1 hour ago, Fodder1978 said:

Anyway, sea handling isn’t really part of WoWs, else you’d have turrets and secondaries you can’t fire and DDs that would be barely able to do half speed, let alone fire torps. Could be interesting, though...

It's not, but clearly the ships look the way they do because of real-world considerations. It's why the KGV class had nearly double the designed range of a Bismarck... they had to keep slogging out to Ceylon, Singapore and Australia.

[Chaos_Umbra]

15 hours ago, Fodder1978 said:

On that side-topic, yesterday I saw some old archive footage of Repulse, Hood and KGV at sea - so old it was totally stained yellow. They were shipping heavy seas with Repulse wet, Hood almost a submarine, and KGV very wet. The Royal Navy had a fixation with being able to fire flat at point blank range, so many capital ships did not have a flared bow.

 

The Hood’s wetness allegedly led to her having the highest TB incidence in the whole fleet...

 

Anyway, sea handling isn’t really part of WoWs, else you’d have turrets and secondaries you can’t fire and DDs that would be barely able to do half speed, let alone fire torps. Could be interesting, though...

The reason why Hood was known as the biggest submarine in the RN was cause the design was changed during construction due to what happened at the Battle of Jutland with all those Battle Cruisers Detonating so the Engineers increased Hood's Deck armour, obviously this affected the weight of the ship and thus how high it sat in the water, which is why the aft deck was seen almost completely submerged in any sort of rough seas. And yes you are correct about the crew of the Hood suffering a lot from TB.

[Lakedaemonios]

On 1/18/2020 at 5:27 PM, Jvd2000 said:

While the details are great i find this line of cruisers the most ugly cruiser line we have now. Compared with French, Italians and then Japanese and Russian ships they are sure bulky..

like US they have to operate in ocean and in grate distances. So they haven't grate speed but endurance.

[Jvd2000]

6 hours ago, Agis_D said:

like US they have to operate in ocean and in grate distances. So they haven't grate speed but endurance.

It seems that Japan managed both. At the cost of being overweight. 
 

My problem with UK CA is that they are neither good looking nor have a usefull contribution to the game. What is their function in the game since other nations simply do better. 
 

Basic: why would i pick an  ( imo ugly) UK CA when the current existing cruisers are just better. No disrespect against the historical contribution by the Royal Navy but this line brings nothing extra to the game.