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

Scharnhorst-Gneisenau

18 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[RONIN]
Players
460 posts
4,263 battles

So they were sister ship, both the same, so why does one has normal 28 cm (11 in) C/34 guns and the other Gneisenau has 38 cm (15 in) SK C/34?

 

So the Germans planned to rearm them with bigger guns but they never did, so i really dont see a point of giving one of them normal guns and the other one guns he never had. Since the difference in damage almost in half, then 19 sec reload on Schnarnhorst is too much? 

 

Maybe just maybe putting an option on Gneisenau to mount 28cm guns? and to research the other one. Grosser Kurfurst has that option of big or smaller caliber guns .

 

While Tirpitz and Bismarck as also the same sister ships, they have the same guns mounted on them,and Tirpitz as premium ship also gets buffed with torpedoes?

 

So my question is, why does wargaming treats ships that are of the same build (class) diffrenty? 

 

 

dddd.jpg

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[THESO]
[THESO]
Players
2,728 posts
25,060 battles

to give options in the 1st place. also, who would buy prem ships if they were exactly the same as techtree?

 

bismarck gets hydro, tirpitz torps. want torps on german bb? buy tirpitz! same kinda for t7.... on a note: gneisenau is a bit of better suited for being lowtier in that regard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
3,019 posts

Tirp was buffed late in the war wit a lot of stuff (few worked or tested) even more buffs were planned. I dont mind it.

 

Gneiss sisters, I guess they were gonna get the guns, and the game gives option. Your idea is good for the Gneiss though.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[RONIN]
Players
460 posts
4,263 battles
4 minutes ago, The_Finnster said:

I think you’ve made the mistake of assuming the game is in any way historically accurate.

Can a man dream? :)

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
3,019 posts
4 minutes ago, The_Finnster said:

I think you’ve made the mistake of assuming the game is in any way historically accurate.

Ok it has a lot of history in it though. For myself I mostly play historical ships. Don't care about the rest.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
160 posts
21,578 battles
1 minute ago, lossi_2018 said:

Ok it has a lot of history in it though. For myself I mostly play historical ships. Don't care about the rest.

It started promisingly enough in that regard and was genuinely interesting to match up similar real ships - albeit with gaming mechanics- and it felt as if there was a real flavour.

 

Now, though?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SHAFT]
Players
11,093 posts
9,479 battles
9 minutes ago, Wulf_Ace said:

While Tirpitz and Bismarck as also the same sister ships, they have the same guns mounted on them,and Tirpitz as premium ship also gets buffed with torpedoes?

 

So my question is, why does wargaming treats ships that are of the same build (class) diffrenty? 

 

Tirpitz got refitted with Torps later on, so its perfectly viable?

Also, we have tons of ships that were half-constructed or even blueprints by this time now, so why not take real ships with supposed refits like Gneisenau?

Afterall, why would we need several identical ships, why would you buy or play them? Its like having a techtree Kongo with 4 Kongo clones from ARP collab. Or same with Myoko, but there we actually have 7 clones :cap_wander:

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CRU_]
Players
361 posts
9,700 battles

The Only thing that connects this game to actual naval warfare, is the player models look like ships.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[RONIN]
Players
460 posts
4,263 battles
6 minutes ago, DFens_666 said:

 

Tirpitz got refitted with Torps later on, so its perfectly viable?

Also, we have tons of ships that were half-constructed or even blueprints by this time now, so why not take real ships with supposed refits like Gneisenau?

Afterall, why would we need several identical ships, why would you buy or play them? Its like having a techtree Kongo with 4 Kongo clones from ARP collab. Or same with Myoko, but there we actually have 7 clones :cap_wander:

Then Tirpitz should have been tech tree ship and Bismarck premium

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
28,176 posts
14,910 battles
20 minutes ago, Wulf_Ace said:

So my question is, why does wargaming treats ships that are of the same build (class) diffrenty?

As explained often enough:

  • To earn money
  • to spoon feed the clueless that are confused by small guns in the middle of the line
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SHAFT]
Players
11,093 posts
9,479 battles
4 minutes ago, Wulf_Ace said:

Then Tirpitz should have been tech tree ship and Bismarck premium

 

Based on what?

Tirpitz got into the game first as a premium, only later followed the german techtree BBs. Nobody knows what plans they had at that time, maybe they just picked it without reason? Or maybe they wanted a BB with torps for a reason? See how it goes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
3,019 posts
2 hours ago, Wulf_Ace said:

Then Tirpitz should have been tech tree ship and Bismarck premium

You know that makes sense actually

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SM0KE]
Players
6,177 posts
14,670 battles
2 hours ago, Wulf_Ace said:

So the Germans planned to rearm them with bigger guns but they never did, so i really dont see a point of giving one of them normal guns and the other one guns he never had.

To be fair, Gneis was quite a long way along in getting the relevant refit (before allied bombers took an interest); the ship's armament in game is a lot more historical than a whole bunch of other ships (<cough>Russians</cough>) and it provides a bit of variety between the two sisters, so I actually prefer that they did it this way.

 

As you probably know, Gneis' original guns were removed as part of the refit, and ended up as coastal defences, and one is still there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrått_Fort

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,883 posts
8,193 battles

What would be the point of making two ships that plays exactly the same? Gneisenau has an upgrade, that existed on paper but was not realized. Gameplaywise, Scharnhorst shoots more shells more frequently, but the shells have less penetration and damage. They are better against cruisers but worse against battleships in general. I enjoyed both of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
8,456 posts
9,251 battles
38 minutes ago, Ocsimano18 said:

What would be the point of making two ships that plays exactly the same? Gneisenau has an upgrade, that existed on paper but was not realized. Gameplaywise, Scharnhorst shoots more shells more frequently, but the shells have less penetration and damage. They are better against cruisers but worse against battleships in general. I enjoyed both of them.

Depends on what cruiser. Heavy cruisers and T8 cruisers can very comfortably tank Scharnhorst these days. Gneisenau only runs into issues with T8 heavies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
4,711 posts
11,176 battles
8 hours ago, Wulf_Ace said:

Then Tirpitz should have been tech tree ship and Bismarck premium

 

Players demanded the bismarck as the tech tree ship since it's the class leader and more famous. WG literally changed it since players asked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×