Jump to content
Flandre Bug Read more... ×
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
OptimusBeard

New coal ships?

32 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[K3RLS]
Players
44 posts
10,312 battles

Hi,

Does anyone know if there will be new coals ships (and which one) in the near future? I have enough coal to buy a Yoshino for example but if there are new coal ships within a few weeks, I rather wait.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SV]
Players
1,322 posts
15,607 battles

vampire 2 possibly i think that would be free xp (since småland is being removed) but it could be coal.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BFS]
Beta Tester
2,125 posts
14,348 battles

I have over 600K coal and the only two ships I haven't got (Salem and the Japanese cruiser) I'm not interested in (I have the Des Maines and Zao).

 

So, new coal ships would be welcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
2,928 posts
5,321 battles

A British super-cruiser for coal or FXP would be nice, that's something we're missing :Smile-_tongue: although I guess the regular British heavy cruisers are kind of super-cruisers at T9 and T10, not sure what historic designs or fantasy ideas exist for making something more equivalent to the Alaska/Kronstadt/Siegried/Agir/Azuma/Yoshino.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-TPF-]
Players
4,464 posts
18,486 battles
3 minutes ago, VC381 said:

A British super-cruiser for coal or FXP would be nice,

The existence of Plymouth might be a problem.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(and there's a Cruiser available for Steel, too). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
2,928 posts
5,321 battles
1 hour ago, invicta2012 said:

The existence of Plymouth might be a problem.

I don't see how Plymouth affects it, it's a totally different type of ship. Room for a T9 with really big guns. Isn't that one steel as well?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-TPF-]
Players
4,464 posts
18,486 battles
1 hour ago, VC381 said:

I don't see how Plymouth affects it, it's a totally different type of ship. Room for a T9 with really big guns. Isn't that one steel as well?

Plymouth is for steel, I was just joking about the city. 

 

The RN did look at some super-cruisers with 10 and 12 inch guns early in WW2 but they didn't really have the means to build them, so the plans aren't well advanced and neither Drake nor Goliath - which are perfectly good hardy cruisers with heavy calibre guns - seem to have set the game world on fire. I can't see WG making more.

 

I think there are more interesting ships loitering in the late war design diaries - the X class BBs, which are rather like French BBs with an all forward main battery of 16 inch guns, or the 1944 BBs which are the UKs version of GK, Republique, etc and not the scaled-up KGV line that WG made when they created Conqueror/Thunderer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
2,928 posts
5,321 battles
1 minute ago, invicta2012 said:

Plymouth is for steel, I was just joking about the city. 

 

The RN did look at some super-cruisers with 10 and 12 inch guns early in WW2 but they didn't really have the means to build them, and neither Drake nor Goliath - which are perfectly good hardy cruisers with heavy calibre guns - seem to have set the game world on fire. I think there are more interesting ships loitering in the late war design diaries - the X class BBs, which are rather like French BBs with an all forward main battery of 16 inch guns, or the 1944 BBs which are the UKs version of GK.

 

I'd be curious about the 12 inch designs, not sketched up I assume? The other nation's 12" super-cruisers aren't that wildly different from each-other but are all perceived as strong. It would be a very safe game design space to make an RN equivalent, assuming at least some basic stats exist. Mind you, given how hideous and unrealistic Albermarle/Drake/Goliath are, I should probably be careful what I wish for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-TPF-]
Players
4,464 posts
18,486 battles
6 minutes ago, VC381 said:

I'd be curious about the 12 inch designs, not sketched up I assume? The other nation's 12" super-cruisers aren't that wildly different from each-other but are all perceived as strong.

Mentioned but I've never seen sketches. From the Norman Friedman book on British Cruisers...

 

"...Based on this work, in December 1938 DNC asked for details of an Alaska-like super-cruiser, at 20,000 tons, armed with six 12in guns, with 7in belt and 3in deck, which was what the Japanese were (incorrectly) reported to be building"

 

and

 

"On 10 February John reported to Lillicrap that a ship with six 10in guns, otherwise armed as Belfast and protected against 8in shell, with a speed of 33kts, could be built on 18,000 tons (weights added up to 18,550 tons). The ship had 9in belt armour over her magazines and 8in over her machinery, covered by 3½in and 2½in decks respectively."

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
2,928 posts
5,321 battles
10 hours ago, invicta2012 said:

Mentioned but I've never seen sketches. From the Norman Friedman book on British Cruisers...

 

"...Based on this work, in December 1938 DNC asked for details of an Alaska-like super-cruiser, at 20,000 tons, armed with six 12in guns, with 7in belt and 3in deck, which was what the Japanese were (incorrectly) reported to be building"

 

and

 

"On 10 February John reported to Lillicrap that a ship with six 10in guns, otherwise armed as Belfast and protected against 8in shell, with a speed of 33kts, could be built on 18,000 tons (weights added up to 18,550 tons). The ship had 9in belt armour over her magazines and 8in over her machinery, covered by 3½in and 2½in decks respectively."

 

 

Very interesting, but Alaska is a 9-gun 30,000t design, those are hardly equivalents unfortunately. Seems DNC was more concerned with copying Graf Spee than Alaska :Smile_hiding: Of course, WG could always extrapolate it and add another turret. I suppose those snippets at least add some credibility to the idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-TPF-]
Players
4,464 posts
18,486 battles

There were other ideas, including a large cruiser with quadruple 9.2 inch gun turrets and a heavily armoured one (more so than Drake) with 3 x 3 9.2in and substantial armour (9inch / 225mm belt), but the RN never got anywhere near a cruiser of 30,000 tons - the choice was always between two 20,000 ton super heavy cruisers or Vanguard

 

There are French super cruiser / battle cruiser designs - one of 23,000 tons with 10 x 12 inch/305mm guns, and a 37000 ton design with 3 x 4 inch/305 or an alternative armament of 3x2 16in/406mm guns. But these are compromises, treaty-dodging wheezes and by the time war seemed inevitable, the focus was on fully fledged designs like Richelieu. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weekend Tester
867 posts
10,222 battles

IRL even by early WW2 the RN was ahead of the curve in seeing the limited utility vs. resource cost of heavy/super cruisers. The 6" CAs were already extremely efficient in covering most roles, and KGVs/Vanguard/CVs were there to give capital ship cover.

 

WG could of course just create something. Vanguard's hull form and armour scheme scaled down would be the obvious choice, with 3x3 or 4x2 9.2", and a radar/AA/secondary suite similar to Vanguard.

 

Actually the current Tier 8 Vanguard is so misrepresented in game that perhaps they should remodel that one into a supercruiser and have BB Vanguard at tier 9 - more appropriate to its advanced design and equipment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,029 posts

I'd like to see some mid-tier stuff personally, T6s and T7s would be useful for Ops. As a KuKK fan I'd be pretty happy to see Viribus Unitus available for coal, given that I wouldn't want to spend real money on her in any way...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BOATY]
Players
878 posts
15,249 battles
18 hours ago, BrusilovX said:

I have over 600K coal and the only two ships I haven't got (Salem and the Japanese cruiser) I'm not interested in (I have the Des Maines and Zao).

 

So, new coal ships would be welcome.

Salem often gets a bum rap as many see it as just another Des Moines with weaker radar, which is true. It also has slightly less aa and UK style heal. In theory this would make it a great ship, till you realize anything over 406mm overmatches most of the ship and that great healing means nothing when you are taking citadels. The yoshino on the other hand is actually a fun ship. To put it simply. It can play the long range HE support role rather nice and at those distances can easily mitigate most incoming return fire. Nothing says fun like 10k in HE damage and multiple fires. It is also a great punisher of other super cruisers thanks to this garbage rework and it can punish all bbs rather nicely when played correctly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
330 posts
5,026 battles
1 hour ago, NobleSauvage said:

I'd like to see some mid-tier stuff personally, T6s and T7s would be useful for Ops. As a KuKK fan I'd be pretty happy to see Viribus Unitus available for coal, given that I wouldn't want to spend real money on her in any way...

Me too

Nelson is currently a bit lonely in the sub 500k FXP category

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BFS]
Beta Tester
2,125 posts
14,348 battles
1 hour ago, NobleSauvage said:

I'd like to see some mid-tier stuff personally, T6s and T7s would be useful for Ops.

As WG has decimated operations (nerfing rewards on Narai and removing several of them) my guess is a number of players no longer play operations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,029 posts
4 minutes ago, BrusilovX said:

As WG has decimated operations (nerfing rewards on Narai and removing several of them) my guess is a number of players no longer play operations.

At the same time, they're not likely going to make ships available for coal/FXP that they expect to sell a lot of for cash/doubloons, so the two would seem to dovetail nicely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
17 posts
2,122 battles
4 hours ago, VC381 said:

 

Very interesting, but Alaska is a 9-gun 30,000t design, those are hardly equivalents unfortunately. Seems DNC was more concerned with copying Graf Spee than Alaska :Smile_hiding: Of course, WG could always extrapolate it and add another turret. I suppose those snippets at least add some credibility to the idea.

I have this book, and it seems DNC (and the Admirality in general) always asked for designs with a long list of requirements (weapons, armour, torp tubes, catapults etc) on half the displacement it would've been possible to do :)
 

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LAFIE]
Beta Tester
5,622 posts
6,078 battles
10 minutes ago, yagron_the_real said:

I have this book, and it seems DNC (and the Admirality in general) always asked for designs with a long list of requirements (weapons, armour, torp tubes, catapults etc) on half the displacement it would've been possible to do :)
 

And given the British habit of having the various items involved heavier than their American equalients, it'd no doubt have grown past the Alaska in size during the detailed design phase, if it had ever reached that far.

4 hours ago, invicta2012 said:

There were other ideas, including a large cruiser with quadruple 9.2 inch gun turrets and a heavily armoured one (more so than Drake) with 3 x 3 9.2in and substantial armour (9inch / 225mm belt), but the RN never got anywhere near a cruiser of 30,000 tons - the choice was always between two 20,000 ton super heavy cruisers or Vanguard

Not saying Vanguard is the  greatest ship ever, but I don't think there's any reasonable argument against the RN having made the right choice here..

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
17 posts
2,122 battles
2 minutes ago, lafeel said:

And given the British habit of having the various items involved heavier than their American equalients, it'd no doubt have grown past the Alaska in size during the detailed design phase, if it had ever reached that far.

Very likely. So it was probably a wise choice to built Vanguard instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LAFIE]
Beta Tester
5,622 posts
6,078 battles
1 minute ago, yagron_the_real said:

Very likely. So it was probably a wise choice to built Vanguard instead.

Not even close to a doubt, given that the nearest equalients to actually leave the drawing  board (the Alaskas) were essentially a wasted effort, they should just have built more Iowas instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BAD-A]
[BAD-A]
Beta Tester
2,051 posts
20,221 battles
On 2/6/2021 at 12:39 PM, CannonChris said:

Hi,

Does anyone know if there will be new coals ships (and which one) in the near future? I have enough coal to buy a Yoshino for example but if there are new coal ships within a few weeks, I rather wait.

For Steel, Tier X the Carrier Iosif Stalin - Old Midway style Jets semi guided munitions

For Coal Tier IX Kitakami - Just to troll the population a bit more

For Free XP, Tier 9 Submarine Krasny Oktyabr II - Super stealthy with 'special' featured Captains voiceover - magnetic torpedoes and a Missile Consumable that acts like a CV rocket attack and Hydro consumable for that epic "One ping only" narrative. 

  • Funny 2

Share this post


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

×