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

ST 0.9.8, new ships

16 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[WG]
WG Staff
3,918 posts
4,294 battles

Read the text.

 

Please note that all information in the development blog is preliminary and subject to change during testing. Any showcased features may or may not end up on the main server. The final information will be published on our game's website.

  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
6,754 posts
245 battles

Shame, could of had the usn line split from tier 4-5 and focus on secondaries, hp/armour, gun amounts and AA. Oh well.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,381 posts
5,980 battles

Seriously another US BB? Enough has already been announced. In contrast to Odin, Ludenpommerndorff or Brandenburg no fantasy junk.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ENUF_]
Beta Tester
290 posts
16,758 battles

It's great that we get a British premium Cl finally, but I'm still disappointed because I really like the tech tree playstyle and this ain't it. Maybe I'll be more lucky when we get some more information about the indian Cls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quality Poster, In AlfaTesters
1,469 posts
13,420 battles
On 7/29/2020 at 3:58 PM, YabbaCoe said:

Read the text.

 

Please note that all information in the development blog is preliminary and subject to change during testing. Any showcased features may or may not end up on the main server. The final information will be published on our game's website.

Despite having a higher number of DP and AA mounts the tier 8 Belfast somehow has worse AA in all respects compared to tier 7 Belfast?

 

Pleased to finally see Nevada.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
397 posts
24,586 battles

The Ships could be interresting, but I would be more excited if you would introduce the Italien BB Line

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[T-N-T]
Players
3,574 posts
16,350 battles

So, instead of making a tech tree branch out of real ships like say this Oklahoma, you instead make Oklahoma (another!) US BB premium and start the tech tree branch from only T8 upwards with paper ships. WG logic right there... :Smile_facepalm:

Oh, and instead of finally creating a RN CL premium that plays like the tech tree (IE, that doesn't need IFHE etc.), you just make a lame copy of Belfast again with smoke, again with radar and again with HE (and now torps to boot). Am I supposed to die from head trauma induced by all the facepalming WG warrants?! So be it then! :Smile_facepalm::Smile_facepalm:

  • Cool 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
6,754 posts
245 battles
42 minutes ago, Toivia said:

So, instead of making a tech tree branch out of real ships like say this Oklahoma, you instead make Oklahoma (another!) US BB premium and start the tech tree branch from only T8 upwards with paper ships. WG logic right there... :Smile_facepalm:

Oh, and instead of finally creating a RN CL premium that plays like the tech tree (IE, that doesn't need IFHE etc.), you just make a lame copy of Belfast again with smoke, again with radar and again with HE (and now torps to boot). Am I supposed to die from head trauma induced by all the facepalming WG warrants?! So be it then! :Smile_facepalm::Smile_facepalm:

Yeah, but then im not surprised peegee were never good at making consistent tech trees, world of danks being a prime example although more forgaven in the older patches due to its being new to them i guess. The french heavy tank line (the armoured one) being a good example witht her tier 8 being trash and not following the tier 7, which ironically enough the premium did (AMX M4 49 and AMX 65 (the latter being trash)).

 

Could of had the line from tier 4 to tier 10 focusing on better armour, or higher HP, better heals, better secondaries and also better AA, but worse accuracy and moblity and similarish concealment.

Tier 4: Florida.

Tier 5: Nevada.

Tier 6: Pennsilvanyia.

Tier 7: Tennessee.

Tier 8: South dakota Modern version.

Tier 9: Washington or Similar made up design.

Tier 10: Tier 10 version of the tier 9, bigger and meaner.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,467 posts
3,089 battles
4 minuti fa, CptBarney ha scritto:

Yeah, but then im not surprised peegee were never good at making consistent tech trees, world of danks being a prime example although more forgaven in the older patches due to its being new to them i guess. The french heavy tank line (the armoured one) being a good example witht her tier 8 being trash and not following the tier 7, which ironically enough the premium did (AMX M4 49 and AMX 65 (the latter being trash)).

 

Could of had the line from tier 4 to tier 10 focusing on better armour, or higher HP, better heals, better secondaries and also better AA, but worse accuracy and moblity and similarish concealment.

Tier 4: Florida.

Tier 5: Nevada.

Tier 6: Pennsilvanyia.

Tier 7: Tennessee.

Tier 8: South dakota Modern version.

Tier 9: Washington or Similar made up design.

Tier 10: Tier 10 version of the tier 9, bigger and meaner.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
6,754 posts
245 battles
4 minutes ago, wot_2016_gunner said:

 

 

Ye, but the line i mentioned is due to peegee not going for the more obvious route and also promoting familiar play so they stick 1-3 shite vehicles with 1-2 very good/very strong vehicles and the rest are varying degrees of average to entice peeps to fly up the tiers.

 

Sad really, like the french line could of had dunkerque at tier 7, ricchy at tier 8, jean bart at tier 9 and Charlemange with 3 hyperfiring quads at probs around 420mm's or something. would of made it far more consistent.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[T-N-T]
Players
3,574 posts
16,350 battles
2 hours ago, CptBarney said:

Ye, but the line i mentioned is due to peegee not going for the more obvious route and also promoting familiar play so they stick 1-3 shite vehicles with 1-2 very good/very strong vehicles and the rest are varying degrees of average to entice peeps to fly up the tiers.

 

Sad really, like the french line could of had dunkerque at tier 7, ricchy at tier 8, jean bart at tier 9 and Charlemange with 3 hyperfiring quads at probs around 420mm's or something. would of made it far more consistent.

I was so looking for Strasbourg at T7 as an improved Dunkerque when french BBs were first announced...

I mean, Lyon is still sorta fun in that 16 gun shotgun way, but damn I wanted one of those french beauties as well.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
6,754 posts
245 battles
15 hours ago, Toivia said:

I was so looking for Strasbourg at T7 as an improved Dunkerque when french BBs were first announced...

I mean, Lyon is still sorta fun in that 16 gun shotgun way, but damn I wanted one of those french beauties as well.

Same with the french non-autoloading line, with the max arl 44, amx m4 45, amx m4 49, amx 51, amx 55. but take out the amx m4 49 put it as a prem and shove in the abomination known as the amx 65 which doesn't even fit the lines aesthetics half the time.

 

Does my head-in with inconsistent lines,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
560 posts

So Belfast has a max of 3 pretty hopeless smokes. mmm, Jury out but not really exited about it any more :Smile_sad:

And basically another in what seems an endless line of the same old, same old US Battle Snails with a reload of 33 seconds on 14 inch guns, I won't be buying that sorry sack of junk then, at my age I could fall asleep between salvos :cap_old:

PS Is anyone else starting to get depressed after reading the Dev Blog, I used to be like a Kid in a Toy Shop

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,156 posts
15,099 battles
Am 29.7.2020 um 16:58, YabbaCoe sagte:

Read the text.

 

Please note that all information in the development blog is preliminary and subject to change during testing. Any showcased features may or may not end up on the main server. The final information will be published on our game's website.

Out of curiosity since we stopped having  the choice between running premium consumables and standard one. 

 

Do the numbers in the dev blog already include the additional charge from the new standard consumables or do we have to add +2 to get the number for running a ship with SI? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WG]
WG Staff
3,918 posts
4,294 battles
Před 16 hodinami Khaba_Gandalf řekl/a:

Out of curiosity since we stopped having  the choice between running premium consumables and standard one. 

 

Do the numbers in the dev blog already include the additional charge from the new standard consumables or do we have to add +2 to get the number for running a ship with SI? 

The number of consumable charges are already from the new standard consumables. Basically as this ship was introduced after this consumable changes, you can just ignore, what was before. So if there is written, that Radar has just 2 charges, it means, that with unskilled captain it still will have 2 charges. With Superintendant you would have 3, but not 4...

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
217 posts
11,942 battles

Would of preferred to see the Sheffield (or any town or other say say, Swiftsure), rather than another version of the Belfast. Would make ore sense than an older version of the same ship sat a tier higher. But i guess that wouldn't get players unwittingly buying this T8 version thinking they have just purchased the t7 radar version.

 

The slow British heavy cruisers haven't been popular, I can see the new American BB's going a similar way.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


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

×