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

A hypothetical Dutch Tech Tree

20 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Players
26 posts
1,547 battles

A Dutch Tech Tree?

Discussing the possibilities of a hypothetical full Dutch tree

 

Update

I'll be frank. Though this project isn't dead, I've lost most of the motivation to work on it. With the new Dutch line Wargaming didn't just throw any semblance of historical basis out of the window, they also went outside to douse it in oil and set it ablaze. So instead of working on this pet project I've tried to get wargaming to fix even the most basic thing. They have confirmed to have heard me, yet have not even lifted a finger.

 

Anyways, to more positive stuff.

I've collected a metric fuckton of sources and drawings. Heavy cruisers fit for all tiers, Battlecruisers with 14x 24cms or 38cms and planned light cruisers and purchases. Since neither most of you nor Wargaming care about it I'll go into numbers and gimmicks instead.Before doing so, there are a couple of issues needing to be addressed.

 

Firstly, the previous 4x2 15cm Celebes seems to be based on misinformation. It is filled with inconsistencies and the sources’ sources are a mess. As such, it has been removed from the demonstrated tree.

Secondly, the fleet leader line has been updated to account for both 15cm and 12cm options.

 

Furthermore, I would like to elaborate that the original scope of the project was to create a tech tree mostly for logging every Dutch design fit for warships and keeping them in a flexible and highly compatible tree, mostly for my own benefit. As such, discussing numbers in detail was not considered. Although I am able to give accurate numbers and design elements, the balancing is going to be lacking some.

Da Techtree

Full image

Spoiler

cowLXGE.png

Techtree Only

Spoiler

nRWnu0d.png

Techtree Only (but in 4 parts)

Spoiler

kXO2Mee.png

0U7ACoN.pngtl8n8dM.png1pnKeRw.png

More Details

Stat estimations

Spoiler

gLgNoN6.jpg

DD 10 Leeuwarden - 17200 HP, 36 kts.

2x2 DP 120mm: 2100 AP 1700 HE 7% fire 45 RPM

Hydro, Smoke, Air-Search Radar, Engine Boost

 

DD 10 Utrecht - 17200 HP, 36 kts.

2x2 DP 120mm: 2100 AP 1700 HE 7% fire 33 RPM

2x4 Torps: 16700 damage 280% flood, 15km @61 kts.

Hydro, Smoke, Air-Search Radar, Engine Boost

 

DDL 10 Willem van der Zaan - 25100 HP, 35 kts.

4x2 DP 150mm: 3000 AP 2200 HE 11% fire 10 RPM

2x3 Torps: 16700 damage 280% flood, 15km @61 kts.

Repair, Radar, Engine Boost, Spotter/Fighter or Hydro

 

CL 8 De Ruyter II - 32500 HP, 33 kts.

4x2 DP 152mm: 3000 AP 2200 HE 11% fire 15 RPM

Hydro or Air-Search Radar, Repair, Radar, Engine Boost

 

CA 10 Alkmaar - 47600 HP, 34 kts. (Note, ship not balanced yet, needs revision)

3x3 24cm: 5700 AP 3300 HE 18% fire 4½ RPM

Belt: 175mm, deck: 100mm?

Improved Repair, Hydro, Radar, Spotter/Fighter

 

CB 10 Heldin - 56900 HP, 34½ kts.

3x3 28cm: 7600 AP 3800 HE 21% fire 3½ RPM

Belt: 250mm, deck: 130mm.

Repair, Hydro, Spotter/Fighter, Engine Boost

 

Premiums:

 

BB 7 Freyr - 52200 HP, 34 kts.

3x3 305mm: 8600 AP 5400 HE 49% fire 3¼ RPM

Belt: 250mm, deck: 130mm

Repair, Hydro, Air-Search Radar, Spotter/Fighter

 

CB 10 Nuboer P1047 - 56100 HP, 35 kts.

14x 24cm: 5700 AP 3300 HE 18% fire 4 RPM

Belt: 250mm, deck: 130mm.

Repair, Hydro, Spotter/Fighter, Engine Boost

 

DD 8 Isaac Sweers - 13500 HP, 37½ kts.

4x2 DP 102mm: 1800 AP 1400 HE 5% fire 17,5 RPM

Smoke, Speed Boost, Air-Search Radar, Defensive AA Fire

 

DDL 10 Jackob Van Heemskerck - 25300 HP, 34½ kts.

5x2 DP 102mm: 1800 AP 1400 HE 5% fire 17,5 RPM

Repair, Speed Boost, Air-Search Radar, Defensive AA Fire

 

New Mechanics

Spoiler

hArWFNo.jpg

Air-Search Radar (Consumable)

On activation, for [value] seconds increases AA range by [50%] and reduces overlap penalties with allied AA by [100%].

Destroyers

Spoiler

hc3CDgr.jpg

The Foreign Destroyer line would play very similar to the United Kingdom line, but would have better team support value and play more on tools than raw power. Possibly with better smoke and radar. Being equipped with SAP is also not out of the realm of possibilities, though I expect this to be reserved for the Italians.

 

The Destroyer Leaders continue carrying airplanes from at least tier 4. The tier 10 will come with 35 kts of speed, either 4x2 12cm or 4x2 15cm DP guns and 2x3 torpedo tubes either centerline or not.

 

There's the question of how to implement the plane consumable. A reworked spotter/scout concept is feasible, though I can't predict it's balance value, nor how well it interacts with the game. But if we go by WG's current trend then the airplane is to be removed for airstrikes. I won’t push for incompletely thought-out mechanics though. Unlike a certain company.

 

The next few are simple:

The main Destroyer line will end up as a Friesland with 2x4 torps.

The gunboat line will end up as Friesland with up to their full 42-50 RPM guns (instead of 33 RPM)

 

All destroyers will have great AA and possibly share the light cruiser consumable.

Cruisers

Spoiler

skHFlZp.jpg

Light cruisers will have strong AA as well as an AA consumable to increase AA range and negate overlap penalties. They’ll remain fragile gunboats. With some mid-tier cruisers having torpedoes.

 

The Hoffmann and Coster heavy cruisers will have low firepower in exchange for high armour. The 1930 version of Hoffmann doesn’t carry torpedoes by design, but the 1934 version and Coster designs do.

 

Supercruisers will go even further with heavier armour and 3x3 28cms. The T10 is expected to go 34 to 35 kts and has an armour scheme very similar to Gouden Leeuw, of which the buffed icebreaker and nerfed turtleback are made up by Wargaming. They’ll be more suited to flanking instead of bowtanking.

Capital Ships

Spoiler

GdRg2hs.jpg

The Dutch armour scheme will make them resilient to HE as well as hard to citadel. But heavy AP will penetrate more often. They can be tweaked by wargaming as close range brawlers using secondaries and citadel advantage to triumph - or as long range snipers with excellent gun properties and good layered deck armour.

Carriers

Spoiler

zzPWpc1.jpg

Dutch carriers would have no dive bombers.

 

Will come with regular attack fighters with an extra support consumable. Think torpedo spotters, smoke, hydro or radar deployment.

Another feature could be that the planes cannot boost outside of attack runs and won't receive a speed consumable, but cruise speeds would be higher in return.

 

Torpedo bombers will be a single big wave and will have a longer arming time. They come with a consumable that spawns in a (weaker?) reserve flight of floatplanes at your current squadron's location. After completing your attack control is moved to the spawned floatplanes. This provides players with an optional second wave for burst damage that requires more decision making.

Meta Info

Skip this, unless you wanna hear me talk regarding how real and how Dutch the mentioned ships are.

Degrees of realism

Spoiler

 

To differentiate between the realistic levels of each entry one must separate them into categories. For this the following tiers are considered:

    (R)eal: actually served as a vessel in any navy

    In (P)rogress: the ship was laid down, worked on, but never completed; or the ship was completed in a different iteration (hereby including preliminary designs in this category).

    (D)esigned: the ship was never laid down, but was conceptualised with a physical design.

    (C)onsidered: the ship was at some point mentioned in a non-fictitious manner.

    (S)ekrit (D)okjuments: the ship itself has no direct relation to reality, but has some basis in reality in the form of components being used from other entities, likewise the practice of kitbashing.

    (F)iction: anything not categorised above.

 

If unrealistic leeway is given on a small scale for the advantage of creating a better game any entity will be mentioned as (M)odified.

Nationality

Spoiler

 

For a vessel to be considered its design has to relate to the Netherlands in one of the following criteria:

    Intended for Dutch use:

    The vessel is designed by someone and offered to the Dutch.

    The vessel is designed as a request by the Dutch.

    Of Dutch design:

    The vessel is designed by an entity of Dutch nationality.

In addition, these criteria extent to other forms mentioned in degrees of realism. If any are met, the vessel qualifies to be mentioned here.

However, it may still be contentious as to whether vessels are Dutch or belong elsewhere, such as the Flottentorpedoboot, Zerstorer Holland and Kreuzer Holland series. This post does not differentiate between those degrees and leaves those up to interpretation and discussion.

 

A special case is made for vessels that have (or, as per degrees of realism would have) served the Netherlands, or (would) have been made by Dutch companies and/or labour. These will be considered as foreign with their specific navy of origin mentioned.

How to read

Spoiler

 

Hullcodes are in the bottom left of each entry. The columns mostly align with classes but not entirely.

 

Quoted names are without official historic reason; and used to keep better track of ships than mentioning their source in conversation all the time. 

 

SD = Sekrit Documents, all elements were designed or referenced but the vessel itself has never existed.

💡 = Mentioned but not designed.

📋 = Designed without drawing

✏️ = Designed, never laid down

🔨 = Designed, laid down but not completed - or - earlier drawing of existing ship and design similar to the final version

🔧 = Slight unhistorical modification for continuity.

 

Unless otherwise noted, assume referenced displacements are standard or trial displacements. WoWs uses full load displacement for B hulls.

Old post:

Spoiler

 

Intro

A lot is to be said about the Dutch navy. But the most apparent to me is the common perception at their insignificance. That, I do not understand. They sank more of the IJN navy than the British colonies have; and they operated more dedicated carriers than Russia and Germany combined. They were small in the first half of the 20th century, but not insignificant. Hence why I will ask the question:

 

Why is there only a single Dutch ship in the game?

 

Wargaming is no stranger to imbalanced representation. The Russian tree is overrepresented, but can be attributed to (a perhaps slight overdose of) patriotism. The Italian tree, too, is underrepresented. Most notably in comparison with Germany; Yet this can be attributed to wheraboo popularity. But a complete lack of Spanish and Greek ships; and only a single Dutch pewpew is unsettling. Especially when compared to the Swedish whom got eight botes. I cannot deny the Swedes deserved some representation. Even as a neutral country they have indirectly participated in the war. But why might I ask; why are other countries, especially the Netherlands so unrepresented?

 

Anyhow, by providing information on Dutch ships and designs I hope to reinvigorate interest in her navy - and help to give her the tech tree she may or may not deserve.

 

I must disclaim, my gameplay knowledge will be lacking. After the removal of RTS carriers the gameplay of WoWs simply ceased to captivate me; as a result I will be belting less experience in World of Warships. However, I hope that, with my history in level design; and my interest in game design and military history, I can still provide a relatively accurate overview.

Meta Info

Skip this, unless you wanna hear me talk regarding how real and how Dutch the mentioned ships are.

Degrees of realism

Spoiler

 

To differentiate between the realistic levels of each entry one must separate them into categories. For this the following tiers are considered:

    (R)eal: actually served as a vessel in any navy

    In (P)rogress: the ship was laid down, worked on, but never completed; or the ship was completed in a different iteration (hereby including preliminary designs in this category).

    (D)esigned: the ship was never laid down, but was conceptualised with a physical design.

    (C)onsidered: the ship was at some point mentioned in a non-fictitious manner.

    (S)ekrit (D)okjuments: the ship itself has no direct relation to reality, but has some basis in reality in the form of components being used from other entities, likewise the practice of kitbashing.

    (F)iction: anything not categorised above.

 

If unrealistic leeway is given on a small scale for the advantage of creating a better game any entity will be mentioned as (M)odified.

 

Nationality

Spoiler

 

For a vessel to be considered its design has to relate to the Netherlands in one of the following criteria:

    Intended for Dutch use:

    The vessel is designed by someone and offered to the Dutch.

    The vessel is designed as a request by the Dutch.

    Of Dutch design:

    The vessel is designed by an entity of Dutch nationality.

In addition, these criteria extent to other forms mentioned in degrees of realism. If any are met, the vessel qualifies to be mentioned here.

However, it may still be contentious as to whether vessels are Dutch or belong elsewhere, such as the Flottentorpedoboot, Zerstorer Holland and Kreuzer Holland series. This post does not differentiate between those degrees and leaves those up to interpretation and discussion.

 

A special case is made for vessels that have (or, as per degrees of realism would have) served the Netherlands, or (would) have been made by Dutch companies and/or labour. These will be considered as foreign with their specific navy of origin mentioned.

 

Da techtree

Composition of the tech tree

Considering the available known material at the moment it can be assumed that if stretched the following lines should be possible:

1 CV line

1 BB line (though with great leeway)

2 cruiser lines branching into 3: CB, CA and CL

2 destroyer lines branching into 4: two regular DD lines (1 foreign), a gun-only line and a DD leader line.

 

In addition, surplus designs for premiums will be found, in great volumes, in:

Tier 3 and 4 Battleships. Looooots of those.

Tiers 5 to 8 ish Cruisers, derived from Kruiser 1939 / 1940 designs.

 

Submarines will be omitted for now. 

 

Key features

Good AA across the board.

Foreign Destroyers had HE/SAP historically and lean towards torpedoes.

Native Destroyers would all be gunboats to varying degrees.

Early tier Destroyers come with planes.

Super Cruisers will be tonky.

Battleships come with thinner belt armor, but better coverage against CA-calibres. Good secondaries and above all: speed.

Carriers will probably be delayed until submarines are added. Planes will have good cruise speeds.

Personal rendition of the tech tree

5yiDMb9.png

How to read

Spoiler

 

Hullcodes are in the bottom left of each entry. The columns mostly align with classes but not entirely.

 

Quoted names are without official historic reason; and used to keep better track of ships than mentioning their source in conversation all the time. 

 

SD = Sekrit Documents, all elements were designed or referenced but the vessel itself has never existed.

💡 = Mentioned but not designed.

📋 = Designed without drawing

✏️ = Designed, never laid down

🔨 = Designed, laid down but not completed - or - earlier drawing of existing ship and design similar to the final version

🔧 = Slight unhistorical modification for continuity.

 

Unless otherwise noted, assume referenced displacements are standard or trial displacements. WoWs uses full load displacement for B hulls.

 

Notes

Spoiler

 

Regarding naming, all quoted names are unofficial. They are picked from either earlier used shipnames, placenames or from one of the top 40 admirals by number of paintings made as is tradition, except when otherwise noted.

 

The carrier line is overtiered. However, there is no way around it as there isn't a line of super heavy battleships you can strap a flight deck on and call it a day like with the Germans.

 

Sumatra - Added even though similar to Java; because a fire caused her machinery to be replaced; and because of her history.

Middelburg - It’s Campbeltown, Dutch tried to call her Middelburg and Campbeltown is in use.

Flottentorpedoboot 40 - Never completed. Already in the game as T61.

Overijssel - Added because Wargaming like to add premium versions of existing ships at t10; and because her name was used nowhere else. She was also one of the two testbeds with torps.

 

Odd names:

Adriaen - De Ruyter's father

Sint Nicholas - Because a politician compared her to a gift from the saint.

Vrede - Taken from Fr05ty's article; same ship.

Maria Henriëtte Stuart - spouse of Dutch Stadholder, English Princess Royal

Karel de Grote - Dutch for Charlemagne

Charlemagne - Holy Roman Emperor; King of the Franks

 

Gameplay

I've been asked to go into more detail about the lines; projected role and consumables etc. 

Unfortunately gameplay is out of my domain. As far as consumables go… well, they all fit. The Dutch botes may have been poor in the number department (armour, guns etc.) but they were very modern.

 

I did manage to think of something unique, a new consumable. On the basis of their excellent gun stability and firing directors, especially for the AA guns, I propose a consumable that temporarily increases AA range and removes overlapping fire penalties.

Leftover comments about design history

Battleships

The Dutch found increasing the calibre of coastal guns and battleships any higher than necessary, besides economical reasons, would simply reduce the chance to get hits on the target.

Fleet battle ranges were studied and it was found that although engagement at 20km was possible, it would be a waste of ammo and barrel life. Expected effective battle ranges would be 8 to 12km for capital ships. (data based on Dutch Jutland observations, probably does not reflect actual expectations for WW2 fleet combat. Source lost)

1913/1914 battleships were to have only 250mm of armor, but covering a larger surface area, they would boast better secondary firepower whilst being immune to the enemy’s. (staatscomissie 1912)

 

Destroyers

Destroyer gun calibre was to be increased at the cost of barrel length, since the range was unneeded on those types of vessels.

Da Botes

I will not go into much detail on the more commonly known vessels; but instead focus on more obscure details. If you want to see more detailed information about a hypothetical Dutch cruiser line, see Fr05ty’s post.

 

Here you will find more information about the outliers and sources. If it’s not listed here, I have nothing to say about it that isn’t already known or easily findable.

Cruiser Tier 2

Spoiler

 

At this tier, you'll find a ton of pantserschepen and pantserdekschepen as well as their German refits to AA batteries with 105mms.

 

Soerabaja (formerly De Zeven Provinciën), although technically a battleship she is best considered a cruiser, even more fitting would be her 2x2 240mm original planned armaments.

 

 

Spoiler

ti15sX6.jpg

A drawing from the archives with all 3 aft torpedolaunchers.

 

Holland-class cruiser, with the 120mms refit of Noord-Brabant. She also had three above water torpedo launchers in her bum, Let’s leave that for tier 3 however, to keep tier 2 a bit more comfortable for newcomers.

 

Cruiser Tier 3

Spoiler

 

Spoiler

kANcxRv.jpg

Image from Warship Internatinoal

 

Soerabaja with Van Broecke Hoeckstra’s refit. - Might be Pantserschip 1912. (sc: Warship International no. 4, The Drawingboard Battleships for the Royal Netherlands Navy part III)

 

Vickers 767. Length: 139m. Displacement: 5150. Speed: 28-29 kts. Armament: 10x 152mm, 4x3 TT

Suggested to be an enlarged Cassandra based on data. Carried five twin 6in./50s and two 4in HA guns. Later offered to Romania as design 808 and Turkey as variation 836X. Had a length of 455’pp and 40.000 SHP for 29 kts. 5x2 6inL50, 2x4inHA (105mmHA), 4x3 21”. Protection of belt-deck 3”mch; 2”mag;1,5”ends;1+1”mags (Directory of British Cruiser Designs, David Murfin, Table 52 pg. 77, from apparently Thurston Notebooks and B36) (alt source, British Cruisers and Two World Wars after, Norman Friedman, not sure about this)Tiering placement might be too low due to her firepower.

 

Cruiser Tier 4

Spoiler

 

 

Spoiler

h0IwiRH.png

Low quality image of VA1002 (Directory of British Cruiser Designs)

 

Vickers-Armstrong design 1002. Length: 152,4m pp; 161,5m o.a. Displacement: 6300 - 6900 fld. Speed: 32 kts. Armament: 6x 150mm

Equipped with four 10,5cm AA guns, four 40mm AA and two depth charges. No torps. Two planes and 1 catapult. (Directory of British Cruiser Designs, David Murfin, Table 54 pg 79, from apparently Thurston Notebooks and B36) Date of design suggests it to be a response to Dutch inquires for Kruiser 1930 (later De Ruyter)(found in begroting 1932), also referred to as “ruim 5200 ton” and “5250 ton” (source lost, should be from parliamentary documents 1930-1932)

 

Cruiser Tier 5

Spoiler

 

Celebes - lost the sources. Java-class went into refit in late 20s/early 30s. Possibility for Celebes to be constructed then was mentioned. She would have been a mix between Java and De Ruyter.

 

Spoiler

iBVzFUG.jpg

The various armament plans of Kruiser 1938

Kruiser 1937 - Eendracht, but originally she had only twins until changed in 1937. Same twin layout can be found in the armament layout proposal H of 1938.

 

Cruiser Tier 6

Spoiler

 

“Adriaen” - De Ruyter (max planned specs) - De Ruyter had essays submitted, 2 of the 3 were with 6 20cm cannons and a displacement of 8500t std. (sc: Warship Profile 40 De Ruyter).

 

Spoiler

nziPrS6.jpg

Drawing from Taiwan's archives

IvS 6000t for China. Length: 166m; 171 o.a. Displacement: 6000 washington. Speed: 32 kts. Armament: 9x 152mm 2x3 553mm

Has about 1 inch main deck, 2 inch at 40 degrees to the side. 10/16’’ to 7/16’’ side armor. (source: Taiwan’s archives, found by Tzoli at secretprojects forum)

 

“Claeszen” Van Dijk 10.000t Battleship - from discussions in the parliament - a proposal to create Deutschland-like battleships instead of Project 1047. (source lost) This was a stupid idea; and I pressume the data from 16.000t Cruiser variant of P1047 was drafted from similar circumstances to explain how stupid the idea was.

 

Cruiser Tier 7

Spoiler

 

“Kijkduin” Vlootplan Deckers CA - There were a bunch of fleet plans with heavy cruisers in the interbellum. This one is practically a Carte blanche for WG.

 

Kruiser 1946 and 1947 - a redesign on the original hull of Kruiser 1938. Can be considered a De Zeven Provinciën / De Ruyter (II) preliminary. Also has a couple of fancy alternative loadouts in the archives. 

 

“Noordzee” Kruiser 1945 HQ ship - After the ‘liberation’ of the Netherlands and before the fall of Japan it was suggested to tow the hulls of Eendracht and De Zeven Provinciën to the UK for completion as HQ ships with BL mk XXIII turrets. (source lost)

 

Cruiser Tier 8, 9 and 10

Spoiler

 

16.000 tonnes class. Data derived from Warship’s article. Can be found here.

Originally to be armed with a main battery ranging from triple 28cms to twin 24s; with the lighter armed versions having more armour. 100mm belt and 50 deck armour for the triple 28cm and 175mm belt 75 deck for a later triple 24cm design. The length would be around 200 meters, a speed of 33 kts (tropical?) and had a secondary battery of 4 twin dual purpose 120s.

As for the reasoning behind the 21cm pick, in Marineblad jrg 55 1940 no.3 was said (translated): “Evaluated to be in a 16000 tonner would be available a speed of 33 kts, 8 canons à 21cm or 6 à 25cm, belt of 15 à 18 cm and armor deck of 75 cm.”

 

Destroyer Tier 2

Spoiler

 

Spoiler

3ldwirl.jpg

Drawing from Taiwan's archives

IvS 600t for China - Length: 72,00m; 72,90 o.a. Displacement: 600 trial. Speed: 34 kts. Armament: 2x 102mm, 2x2 533mm.

Guns were 45 calibres. (Ship from Taiwan’s archives, found by Tzoli at secretprojects forum)

 

Roofdier-Class - Length: 70,104 oa. Displacement: 510 std. Speed: 30 kts. Armament: 4x 75mm, 2x1 450mm

Rapport van de Staatscommissie (1913) suggested replacing the rear 7,5cm and respective munitions with a torpedo installation.

 

Destroyer Tier 3

Spoiler

 

Staatscommissie 1913 recommended building torpedo cruisers of 1200t with thoughts towards the Catamarca. Draft of fleetlaw 1922 stated ‘12 destroyers, displacement about 1250t, armed with at least 3 QF cannons of about 12 cm and at least two launch implementations and with a speed of at least 30 kts.’; the latter mentioned are what became the Admiralen class.

Vickers offered the Netherlands destroyers of 280ft and 300ft; three 4,7in or four 4in. (British Destroyers from the earliest days to the Second World War, Norman Friedman, pg. 182)

3 Drawings were distributed in the tweede kamer regarding torpedobootjagers during discussion of the staatsbegroting 1924.

 

Destroyer Tier 4 and 5

Spoiler

 

Spoiler

https://imgur.com/rM6y0aY rM6y0aY.jpg

Image from the national archives

De Zeeuw, had single torpedo launchers mounted to the sides.

 

Spoiler

B4YrdTi.jpg

Image from Taiwan's archives

IvS 1300t for China - Length: 88,00m; 93,00 o.a. Displacement: 1300 trial. Speed: 36 kts. Armament: 4x1 127mm. 2x3 553mm

Guns were 50 calibres. (Ship from Taiwan’s archives, found by Tzoli at secretprojects forum)

 

Spoiler

l71akpO.jpg

One of multiple drawings with the quad torpedo launcher.

Admiralen Class - had drawings of quad torp launchers.

 

Destroyer Tier 6, 7 and 8

Spoiler

 

Spoiler

PplTfya.png

Thornycraft T290, a close relative.

T291 - Length: 106,7m dwl; 104,24m bp. Displacement: 1700 std. Speed: 37,5 kts. Armament: 4x 140mm, 2x3 533mm

Thornycroft’s design, modified from T290. Armed with 4 single 5,5in guns, two twin 40mms, two twin 0,5in machine guns and four depth charge throwers. Claimed speed of 38 kts with low fuel, 37,5 with normal. (source: British Destroyers From Earliest Days to the Second World War, Norman Friedman, pg. 184)

 

T548 - Length: 128 dwl; 125m bp; 131m o.a. Displacement: 3000 std. Speed: 33+ kts. Armament: 8x 120mm, 2x3 533mm

Thornycroft 548, armed with 4,7inch/50 twins. Alternative 549 had a ‘more conventional destroyer hull with forecastle’, two funnels and would be slightly shorter (425ft oa. instead of 430ft.) Another two-funnel design was 560 at 3070 tons 422ft bp 432 wl 444 oa. (source: British Destroyers From Earliest Days to the Second World War, Norman Friedman, pg. 188)

 

Spoiler

P8JITzM.png

Some parliamentary logs with numbers.

Fleet leader 29/30 - 3000 ton with 34 kt speed and 8x 120mm (source: Dutch parliament referencing begroting 1930)

 

Spoiler

m7hiYbH.png

Drawing from the national archives dated 1931.

Fleet leader 1931 - Length: 130m; 132,3 o.a. Displacement: 3662 std. Speed: 33 kts. Armament: 8x 120mm 2x3 533mm

(sc: national archive blueprints), another source from parliament notes “ruim 3000 ton” standard and “ruim 3900” full load.

 

Destroyer Tier 9 and 10

Spoiler

 

Weapon & Battle Class

When the British planned to cancel some Weapon class destroyers, they instead approached the Dutch to sell them before they would salvage the in-progress ships. Since it went through unofficial channels the Dutch would come back later on it. After being declined the purchase of Battle class destroyers the Dutch reinquired about the weapon class ships, but they were scrapped. (source lost)

 

Spoiler

bpf9DbP.png

Alvama's old drawing titled "Grote Friesland".

Friesland-Class for export - there’s a drawing from the old shipbucket never built archive, and this.

 

 

Battleship Tier 3

Spoiler

 

Vickers 558 - Length: 152,4m. Displacement: 18600 ?. Speed: 21 kts. Armament: 8x 343mm, 2x1 533mm TT. Belt: 230, Citadel: 100-150, Turrets: 76, Barbettes: 250, CT: 250

 

Vickers 592 - Length: 137,2m. Displacement: 14000 ?. Speed: 21 kts. Armament: 6x 356mm, 2x1 533mm TT. Belt: 230, Citadel: 150, Turrets: 150, Barbettes: 230, CT: 230

Denied due to being too expensive according to The British Battleship 1906-1946 by N. Friedman.

 

Panterschip 1913 -  Displacement: 17000 std. Speed: 20+ kts. Armament: 8x 305mm L50 4x or 6x submerged TT. Belt: 300, Deck: 25 or 75, Turrets: 300, Barbettes: 300, CT: 350, Bulkheads: 300

(source: Marineblad jrg 27 1912/1913 volgno 4. )

 

Battleship Tier 4

Spoiler

 

Spoiler

SNtelAe.jpg

Germaniawerft 743

Germaniawerft 743 - Length: 174m. Displacement: 21300 std. Speed: 22 kts. Armament: 8x 343mm 4x submerged TT 533mm. Belt: 250, Deck: 25+25, Turrets: 300, Barbettes: 300, CT: 300, Bulkheads: 37

Torpedo tubes were two single mounts either side and carried minution was 3 per tube.

Will be too strong for tier 3, but it’s the one with an actual drawing. (source: Warship International no. 4 part II)

 

Spoiler

KFvCpGV.jpg

Germaniawerft 753

Germaniawerft 753 - Length: 174m. Displacement: 22000 std. Speed: 22,5 - 23 kts. Armament: 8x 343mm, 3x submerged TT 533mm. Belt: 250, Deck: 25+25, Turrets: 300, Barbettes: 250, CT: 250, Bulkheads: 40

Torpedo tubes were mounted 1 in the rear, 1 either side.

(source: Warship International no. 4 part II)

 

Spoiler

lM1YPnP.png

Armstrong 793 from the mentioned book.

Armstrong 793 - 

“Design 793 was dated 26 May 1914: 25,600 tons (560ft/597ft oa x 89ft x 28ft, with

forecastle depth 43ft amidships/50ft to forecastle), armed with eight 14in, sixteen 6in,

eight 3in (anti-torpedo guns), four 3in anti-aircraft guns and the rather powerful

battery of seven 21in torpedo tubes, one of which would have been in the stern.

Design 793A had the same displacement but was longer (580ft/617ft x 89ft x 28ft),

without the stern tube. The belt amidships would have been 10in thick. Speed was 22

knots, burning oil fuel only. A drawing in the Armstrong album shows what looks like

a reduced scale Royal Sovereign class battleship.” (source: The British Battleship 1906-1946 by Norman Friedman)

 

Battleship Tier 5

Spoiler

Lichtendahl Superdreadnought / Battlecruiser - In a 1919 published essay titled De economische, politieke en strategische ligging van Indisch-Nederland by Dutch infantry lieutenant 1st class N.F. Lichtendahl recommendations were made for a 30 000 ton Super Dreadnought - and a cruiser fleet led by a battlecruiser of 27 000 tonnes going 26kts - 30 mph (sc: Warshipsresearch and Jong Indië, economisch en militair weerbaar, Lichtendahl, 1918)

Battleship Tier 6

Spoiler

 

Spoiler

eUXf58g.jpg

A photo of the scale model mentioned in the newspaper.

30.000t Battleship - Early prototype model of Slagkruiser 1940. Armed with 15cm secondaries. (Sc: De Locomotief 1 June 39 pg. 3) The image of the scale model shows, in contrast to the P1047, only a single funnel, two catapults on either side, a superfiring rear 15cm twin turret, two twins on either side and another single more forward.

Considering that 28cms might be underperforming it could be considered to be armed with 30,5cm cannons, as “De Economische Verdediging van Nederland'' recommended a calibre of above 30cm.

 

Queen Elizabeth-Class - “(...) tot het aanbouwen van zwaar gepantserde snelle slachtschepen waarvan de vaart zal moeten zijn gelijk aan die der slagschepen van groote mogendheden, plus 4 à 5 mijl, aldus dezelfde soort vaartuigen als thans de Queen Elisabeth-klasse der Engelsche Marine.”

~ If the League of Nations doesn’t hold up; build fast battleships equal to the large powers but 4 to 5 knots faster; likewise the Queen Elisabeth class. (source: Het Huidige Marinevraagstuk, 1919, Kapitein-Lieutenant ter Zee L, J, Quant)

 

Battleship Tier 7, 8, 9 and 10

Spoiler

 

Jager Slagschip: 

Rost van Tonningen (NSB) argued for modern 35.000t standard battleships armed with 8 pieces of 38mm (LOL!) (sc: 21th Feb 1940 Het Nationale Dagblad pg. 8)

Vice Admiral J.C. Jager too recommends building 35.000t, 5 in fact. (sc: De verdediging van Indië, 1939) Also with 38cm? (Het Nationale Dagblad 5th January 1940)

 

Richelieu-class:

Eerste Kamer, 26ste vergadering 22 Februari 1939

De geachte afgevaardigde de heer Blomjous stelt wat minder hooge eischen, en zegt: 2 slagschepen, maar dan van het type-Richelieu.

It can be assumed this refers to a battleship of “35 000” ton displacement. But if it doesn’t...

 

40.000t Battleship & 45.000t Battleship

Engineer Reinder Frits Scheltema de Heere argued for upping the displacement of the 30.000 ton Battleships (more commonly known as P 1047) to 40- or 45.000 ton. Whilst preserving the 33kts (presumably tropical). Mr Van Heerdt (S.I.) argued for the same. Nuboer argued the limit to be 40.000 ton for this speed. (sc: Marineblad Jrg. 55, 1940 no.1 & Het Vaderland evening 22 june 1939 & Maasbode 24th dec. 1939 morning 2nd page)

 

Vaderland letters

Original source not found. Secondary source found here. (warshipsresearch)

 

 

Carriers

Spoiler

 

Spoiler

eo0i2yH.png

Staatsbegroting with funds allocated for the purchase of a modern cruiser and construction of a lightfleetcarrier.

Light Fleet Carrier - No blueprints or statistics found, aside from an estimation of 14.000 to 18.000 ton. She can be found in the begrotingen of 1946 and 1947.

 

Project 1047 Conversion - Yeah, fake bote. But probably what would have happened to her hull if it went through similar circumstances as Kruiser 1939 and Kruiser 1940.

 


 

 

Credits

Special thanks:

Fr05ty - Kindly telling me why things won’t work.

Kingpin6100 - For his resources and knowledge.

Tzoli - For the discovery of IvS designs in the Taiwanese archives.

Lert - Being an inspiration

 

Edited by Sanglune
Updated TT
  • Cool 12
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[R3B3L]
Players
1,505 posts
34,371 battles

Nice work!

I guess the Dutch tree would end up as a branch (or several branches) in the EU-tree.

I will gladly take a detailed look later and add some thoughts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ADRIA]
Players
335 posts
11,437 battles
On 1/7/2021 at 10:12 PM, Sanglune said:

Discussing the possibilities of a hypothetical full Dutch tree

If you want people to read and discuss your post, perhaps you shouldn't be using a black font that is unreadable for dark theme users.

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SLUG]
Players
118 posts
13,804 battles

Good work. 

 

I’m not Dutch but I would love to see some Dutch cruisers in the game—a full tech tree line would be great.

 

Very interesting info about the battleships.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[URUC]
Players
457 posts

Looks good, but the question is: would someone play them?

 

 

To make an example: how often do you see Pan-Asian, Pan American or Commonwealth ships? Today in 2 hrs i've seen only 3 italian ships. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,972 posts
5,228 battles
13 minutes ago, S_h_i_v_a said:

how often do you see Pan-Asian, Pan American or Commonwealth ships? Today in 2 hrs i've seen only 3 italian ships.

Not too often but there's some real gems in there and rarity is a strength because people often don't know what to expect from your ship.

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-TPF-]
Players
4,947 posts
20,189 battles
44 minutes ago, NikolayKuznetsov said:

Not too often but there's some real gems in there and rarity is a strength because people often don't know what to expect from your ship.

The main problem for these lines (especially Commonwealth ones) is the lack of ships means a lack of trained captains. The solution... more ships, more events, more training opportunities. If WG are concerned about a lack of interest then perhaps a trial Premium? Tromp might be a nice place to start. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,972 posts
5,228 battles
15 minutes ago, invicta2012 said:

The main problem for these lines (especially Commonwealth ones) is the lack of ships means a lack of trained captains. The solution...

It's only really a "problem" with commonwealth ships as europeans, asians and italians have one full line. If you really want a commonwealth ship, there's ways to do it. I really wanted Gadjah Mada but wasn't interested in the rest of the line, so I got it with free XP, bought Quan Rong and pumped him up with elite xp. You could do that with any commonwealth ship. Though I wouldn't mind RN captains being able to captain commonwealth ships, it would make sense. Would make more sense than the hockey player going in US and Soviet ships.

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-TPF-]
Players
4,947 posts
20,189 battles
8 minutes ago, NikolayKuznetsov said:

as europeans, asians and italians have one full line.

True, although they have one line of a particular class, which makes finding captains for Roma, GC, etc and other "atypical" ships a bit of a problem. Perhaps the captain skills rework will fix that (although it will break a few other things). 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TACHA]
Players
1,210 posts
On 1/7/2021 at 8:12 PM, Sanglune said:

A Dutch Tech Tree?

Discussing the possibilities of a hypothetical full Dutch tree

 

Looks like some very thoughtful work there OP, nice job! It seems like the Dutch would be a strong contender for the lion's share of a Euro cruiser line, which hopefully we'll see before too long; an idea I've heard which I quite like is splitting the Euro cruisers between North (Netherlands, Scandinavia, Poland etc.) and South (Mediterranean) countries.

 

I think that the tiering system as it currently stands in the game has quite significantly gotten in the way of allowing (worthwhile) representation of smaller navies, but then the chosen period doesn't seem to have helped much either. If things started earlier, even just twenty years or so before the earliest ships we currently have, I get the impression that there would be a lot more material (notably Russian...) for WG to work with!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
2,703 posts
7,762 battles

@Sanglune Could you perhaps cut the image of the tech tree up in multiple sections, so it's easier to see the entire tree? I had some trouble scrolling to the right and down and have to adjust zoom levels. If you could post a separate image for DDs, Cruisers, Premiums, BBs and CVs, that'd make it a lot easier to overview and evaluate. :)

 

On 1/9/2021 at 11:53 AM, S_h_i_v_a said:

Looks good, but the question is: would someone play them?

 

 

To make an example: how often do you see Pan-Asian, Pan American or Commonwealth ships? Today in 2 hrs i've seen only 3 italian ships. 

 

Wrong question. The right question would be "What does this line bring in in-game performance and variety that would make it worthwhile to play?" The country flag is far less relevant.

 

But since you've asked:

 

Q: How many ships are there of those trees compared to other trees?

A: Not many. One line, which means most players probably only have one ship from that tree at any time, not counting premiums. So 3 Italians in 2 hours is significant enough given the amount of choice. I also wonder if your sampling is accurate, because I see quite a few pan-Asian DDs every day. I'm also quite sure most of those ships on an EU server aren't played by Pan-Asians either. Have you noticed the amount of Venezia's in ranked? Quite a few, but even if radar ships are more popular, I doubt it's because of their nation of origin, rather than their ingame special capabilities.

 

Q: How many Friesland DDs do you see in-game?

A: A lot. Despite a hefty Free Exp price and no torpedoes.

 

 

So the next question then is:

 

Q: How forgiving is the gameplay?

A: Pan-Asians need to be able to cope with the DDs in gunfights due to deepwater torps which are therefore more circumstantial. SAP takes some getting used to for many players. The use of smoke too is a difference in playstyle that isn't for everyone. There are just two ships in pan-America - they're both premiums - and five in the Commonwealth line. You can't compare this to a full line.

 

As for, would there be a market for it if we look at just the national interest?

 

Q: How big is the Dutch/Belgian game market relative to other markets?

A: Big. The combined Belgian/Dutch game revenue is roughly half that of Spain or Italy. Belgian + Dutch population is currently ~28million people, opposed to Spain (46 million) and Italy (60.5 million). It's a wealthy enough market. The Dutch market was in 2014 16th of the world on its own, with Belgium following at #22. Poland was #23 with a current population of 38 million. It would have made more sense for WG to release a Belgian premium than a Polish premium ship if we go by game market revenue, but here we are. Note that Russia is only twice as big a market compared to the Netherlands in total gaming revenue, but they've had huge amounts of investment time in comparison (65 Russians ships, 1 (officially) Dutch ship). Of course this is in part because of "USSR Stronk" and easy access to government databases for WG. Sweden is a smaller market than the Netherlands and they've received most of the pan-EU line and I must say I see those ships often.

 

https://www.newzoo.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/small_Newzoo_W-EU_Game_Revenues_2014_ori.jpg =

https://www.newzoo.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/small_Newzoo_E-EU_Game_Revenues_2014_ori.jpg =
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
2,703 posts
7,762 battles
On 1/9/2021 at 2:30 PM, NobleSauvage said:

Looks like some very thoughtful work there OP, nice job! It seems like the Dutch would be a strong contender for the lion's share of a Euro cruiser line, which hopefully we'll see before too long; an idea I've heard which I quite like is splitting the Euro cruisers between North (Netherlands, Scandinavia, Poland etc.) and South (Mediterranean) countries.

That's a bit arbitrary, since you don't know how well they'd complement each other, rather than having a lot of competition for the same spaces in the tech tree.

Quote

 

I think that the tiering system as it currently stands in the game has quite significantly gotten in the way of allowing (worthwhile) representation of smaller navies, but then the chosen period doesn't seem to have helped much either. If things started earlier, even just twenty years or so before the earliest ships we currently have, I get the impression that there would be a lot more material (notably Russian...) for WG to work with!

I'd personally like to see trees end at different tiers (tier X is arbitrary) with improved matchmaking to ensure they're top of the line at that tier in game. I'd also like to see more horizontal growth, so at the same tier. This could make it interesting for people who don't want to grind to the top, populate lower tiers more and create more diversity overall.

 

The linear and rigid basic tree design creates more problems than it solves. Sure, not every nation might be able to go all the way to tier X. But that's only a problem if you base your entire game around high tiers. And sadly WG does just that with ranked, matchmaking and clan wars in particular.

 

I'm quite sure you could have for instance Dutch and Danish trees stand entirely on their own then. You could define "paths" to require ten side and upgrades total from the tier I Cruiser to wherever the path ends, with uptiering splits here and there down the horizontal tree branch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TACHA]
Players
1,210 posts
2 hours ago, Figment said:

That's a bit arbitrary, since you don't know how well they'd complement each other, rather than having a lot of competition for the same spaces in the tech tree.

As is delineating between heavy and light cruisers, or torpedo- and gunboats for destroyers (given that again they're being differentiated based on a single attribute). Separating geographically would at least be a break from the norm, and allow for a little more national character in the different lines of the Euro tree. Don't forget as well that it's WG that sets the stats, so regardless of what ships were like in real life they can be made to provide a smooth progression in the game's tech tree (the Euro destroyers tree already being an example; it's not like Tatra and Visby had anything really in common historically).

2 hours ago, Figment said:

I'd personally like to see trees end at different tiers (tier X is arbitrary) with improved matchmaking to ensure they're top of the line at that tier in game. I'd also like to see more horizontal growth, so at the same tier. This could make it interesting for people who don't want to grind to the top, populate lower tiers more and create more diversity overall.

 

The linear and rigid basic tree design creates more problems than it solves. Sure, not every nation might be able to go all the way to tier X. But that's only a problem if you base your entire game around high tiers. And sadly WG does just that with ranked, matchmaking and clan wars in particular.

 

I'm quite sure you could have for instance Dutch and Danish trees stand entirely on their own then. You could define "paths" to require ten side and upgrades total from the tier I Cruiser to wherever the path ends, with uptiering splits here and there down the horizontal tree branch.

This is my point: the way the game is designed and run makes it difficult or impossible to introduce lines which don't follow the same progression as the others, ie. tier 2-10 for cruisers etc. Personally I prefer T5/6 most of the time, and horizontally branching tech trees would be great, but I can't see WG going for it anytime soon unfortunately; higher tiers are much more profitable for them.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
26 posts
1,547 battles

Update time!

After some requests to provide stats by Reddit I have started to improve my collection and archival of data on the vessels. This is still ungoing and should make it easier to eventually put together estimates for values without interfering with the historically sourced statistics. Furthermore, I have started working more with some lovely people on the official discord server and on those of some streamers, ensuring that whatever conjecture comes out of it will be properly done.

 

Secondly, more information has been dug up. Whilst efforts to find more information about battleships have resulted in very litte - I've found hoards of informations on Dutch heavy cruisers designs around 1930. Most notably 2 out of 3 submissions for De Ruyter preliminaries (A 10k tonner by Hoffmann and a 8,5k tonner by Coster), a combined proposal of the aforementioned two (8k tons), a little bit of information on Post Uiterweer's plans and two more ships by authors of yet unknown calibre. Above all, there were drawings among them.

Spoiler
Spoiler

KKhLU8b.jpg

above: 10k proposal by Hoffmann.

Spoiler

fyZeUjm.png

above: 8k proposal by Coster and Hoffman.

They come with quite some statistics and design philosophies - and would fall where 'Adriaen' and 'Kijkduin' are categorised. - But more on that once I've made more progress.

 

 

Now as to what some of you said:

 

On 1/9/2021 at 2:30 PM, NobleSauvage said:

I think that the tiering system as it currently stands in the game has quite significantly gotten in the way of allowing (worthwhile) representation of smaller navies, but then the chosen period doesn't seem to have helped much either. If things started earlier, even just twenty years or so before the earliest ships we currently have, I get the impression that there would be a lot more material (notably Russian...) for WG to work with!

Indeed, tiering seems to be a problem; but mostly for ships above cruiser displacement. If you were to look at how many Cruisers and Battleships in T9 and T10 were actually launched you come to a staggering low number. For the tech-tree ships it's an astounding 4: the Iowa, Yamato, Worcester and Des Moines.

Regarding another timeframe - it would also facilitate the burden for other navies, but I doubt they would captivate the playerbase as much as the ships from the world wars. You'd also run into problems getting good sources. There is more to be speculated about this but such a discussion is beyond my intention and scope of information for now.

 

On 1/11/2021 at 2:12 PM, Figment said:

I'd personally like to see trees end at different tiers (tier X is arbitrary) with improved matchmaking to ensure they're top of the line at that tier in game. I'd also like to see more horizontal growth, so at the same tier. This could make it interesting for people who don't want to grind to the top, populate lower tiers more and create more diversity overall. 

This does provide a solution to the lack of available material in some parts of the tech tree. But without precedent, it is hard to tell how an 'incomplete' line would fare in the game as a whole (economy, matchmaking, gamemodes, competition etc.). Though that does not mean I disagree. It is more a case of reservations.

Yet, in my rendition, I could have been more liberal withn the placement of some ships -if- the precedent for tech trees were less linear. However, considering the unrefined state of my sketch I doubt that going far beyond the linear system that is currently in place would be for the better - it would probably just confuse things more. And ultimately, going into specifics, speculation and taking liberties were not part of my approach in making this rendition.

 

On 1/9/2021 at 9:47 AM, Gebe_ said:

If you want people to read and discuss your post, perhaps you shouldn't be using a black font that is unreadable for dark theme users.

I guess copying rich text didn't turn out that well, woops!

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TACHA]
Players
1,210 posts
12 hours ago, Sanglune said:

Indeed, tiering seems to be a problem; but mostly for ships above cruiser displacement. If you were to look at how many Cruisers and Battleships in T9 and T10 were actually launched you come to a staggering low number. For the tech-tree ships it's an astounding 4: the Iowa, Yamato, Worcester and Des Moines.

It's the well-documented phenomenon of expense increasing with technology, to the point where smaller countries were less able to afford bigger ships. Then again, my point was that there are more ships available to choose from in earlier periods, not necessarily that there are less from later ones; that still holds true regardless of what the upper tiers are doing.

Quote

Regarding another timeframe - it would also facilitate the burden for other navies, but I doubt they would captivate the playerbase as much as the ships from the world wars. You'd also run into problems getting good sources. There is more to be speculated about this but such a discussion is beyond my intention and scope of information for now.

It depends on what players are here for: naval history enthusiasts are roughly as likely to be interested in new historical ships whatever the period, and the wider variety between different designs is likely to appeal to people who come for the interesting and well-executed ship models. It won't appeal to the whole or majority of the playerbase (if anything actually does), but then again the 'not from world wars equals no/low interest' argument would seem to fly in the face of what we're discussing in this thread, namely a navy that had much less presence in either war than most of the navies already in-game (which the fans of world wars are more likely to go for). This is already a niche subject, and world war cred is not much going to affect specific interest in it; why arbitrarily discount other (broader) areas in similar situations? Aside from anything else I should imagine it would allow an expansion of the Dutch cruiser line as much as anyone else's ;)

 

As far as sources are concerned, I should imagine that in many way they'd be much easier than a lot of the ones available for slightly later periods, given that most ships from the time I'm talking about were built in just the largest shipbuilding countries; the manufacturers' information is often still available, enough to make detailed plans of the ships in a lot of cases. There's certainly already plenty of published material to attest to that.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
26 posts
1,547 battles

Since the Dutch cruisers are about to be released I thought I'd publish an update to this post. It has been expanded and reworked some, but I've mostly worked on cataloging stuff in the background. And since Wargaming's Russian "Dutch" Cruiser line is that egregiously bad I'll be spending my efforts to get them to fix stuff; rather than promoting the addition of new stuff that's going to be f**ked up anyway if this direction persists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SM0KE]
Players
7,526 posts
16,134 battles
6 minutes ago, Sanglune said:

I'll be spending my efforts to get them to fix stuff; rather than promoting the addition of new stuff that's going to be f**ked up anyway if this direction persists.

I would suggest thinking hard before doing anything for WG for free, given how they've treated LWM lately. It seems that they simply do not deserve your effort.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
2,703 posts
7,762 battles
3 hours ago, Sanglune said:

Since the Dutch cruisers are about to be released I thought I'd publish an update to this post. It has been expanded and reworked some, but I've mostly worked on cataloging stuff in the background. And since Wargaming's Russian "Dutch" Cruiser line is that egregiously bad I'll be spending my efforts to get them to fix stuff; rather than promoting the addition of new stuff that's going to be f**ked up anyway if this direction persists.

Can I point out to you that Dutch Captains in WoWs have skillset options for ALL classes of ships, unlike the Pan-EU captains and De Ruyter has explicitly improved skills for DDs/Cruisers/BBs? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×