all nations to have all the ship classes

[fighting_lady_tatiyana]

it would be nice to see all the nations have at least 1 of each ship type ( class ) example ;  dd . ca . bb and cv

currently only japan and usa have this variety to choose from , but they ALL including arp should have them . after all the game has gone creative and open minded allowing more ships , so this will be balanced , fair and people will start to enjoy those nations more !     pls give me a yes vote on this peeps !! 

[Hanszeehock]

Don't agree. For example, Germany only had 1 CV and that wasn't even completed. Only the US, IJN and UK have enough ship designs for full trees.

[AnukSuMoon]

I will agree and vote yes , it doesn't matter what they had , this games built for enjoyment , not history

[Spellfire40]

RU CV? Name one. German CV? One nearly compleated one conversion started none finished.

I personaly can live without a techtree that only have pipedreams.

[AnukSuMoon]

Don't agree. For example, Germany only had 1 CV and that wasn't even completed. Only the US, IJN and UK have enough ship designs for full trees.

 

I STRONGLY DISAGREE with you hans

[de_sid]

I will give you a "yes "  vote , it will add the spice of life to the game , besides I want to sink a Russian cv with my german cv lol

[Hanszeehock]

 

I STRONGLY DISAGREE with you hans

 

No problem, but there is no need to shout ! 

[piritskenyer]

Don't agree. For example, Germany only had 1 CV and that wasn't even completed. Only the US, IJN and UK have enough ship designs for full trees.

 

Objection yer honour!

 

I think the french could also "field" a more or less complete CV tree, although in places more strung-up than their RN, IJN or USN counterparts.

[Devantejah]

Do you really think that USN and IJN will be the only nations with all four classes?

[Spellfire40]

Do you really think that USN and IJN will be the only nations with all four classes?

 

I suspect the RN also have all. Just a feelings if I look at the ships they build. ,-))

 

[Deamon93]

it would be nice to see all the nations have at least 1 of each ship type ( class ) example ;  dd . ca . bb and cv

currently only japan and usa have this variety to choose from , but they ALL including arp should have them . after all the game has gone creative and open minded allowing more ships , so this will be balanced , fair and people will start to enjoy those nations more !     pls give me a yes vote on this peeps !! 

 

Eventually there will be more ships. The only class which would be more problematic is carriers: there were projects for carriers but placing them in a line would be complicated at best. Not only that there will be issues with the planes since in most cases the choices done won't help with balance. As example the Italian CVs under construction were planned to carry only fighter-bombers, capable of fulfilling every role a CV required. That kind of flexibility would require a lot of work since it can't fit on the current system where there are strict specialized squadrons

[Blue_Bug]

Why would you make it more dificult as it already is. I don't mind a country without some of the clases. If you look at the amount of CV players you can't tell me that it benefits the game to have 5 more CV techtrees in game.

 

WG should use its limited capacity to develop ships that will be played.

 

 

[KptStrzyga]

I vote for Polish BB and CV lines. 

 

[Historynerd]

Don't agree. For example, Germany only had 1 CV and that wasn't even completed. Only the US, IJN and UK have enough ship designs for full trees.

 

I respectfully disagree with your remark about the German lack of CVs; Germany had more designs (uncompleted, of course) than it's commonly thought. 

 

It's not anything with which you can compete with either of the three navies you mentioned, but it's more than one carrier.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_of_Germany

 

Italy too has some more carrier projects, other than the uncompleted Aquila and Sparviero, and some ideas about converting a few warships; although, again, nothing that brings them on par with the tree carrier powers.

[Srle_Vigilante]

Yes i agree... BUT! There is always a but, there is a problem with making full tech trees. As mentioned already Germany only had 1 aircraft carrier, which means WG have to pull 5 more out of their ***.

It will happen eventually just like happen in WoT. I would also like if they release them over time not just all at once, because lets be honest it would be a stupid idea to release all at once.

[Aotearas]

Disagree conditionally.

 

I like to see more ships and shiplines for nations, currently present or in the future (MN, RM, RN and possibly a pan-european tree for other nations without enough ships to make a full tree). But there is not enough historical ships and some cases not even enough ship design studies around to give every nation a full tech tree. And whilst the game isn't historically realistic, it IS marketed as historically authentic, so throwing obscure paper designs around like confetti during carnival would be inadequate and ultimately detract from the games' attractiveness in that regard. People are already complaining about too many paper designs.

 

What WG can do instead however is look to see if a nation's naval history allows the implementation of a specialized line. For example whilst the German navy would be hardpressed to field a complete aircraft carrier line even including the various conversions (which were mostly little more than escort carriers though, not fit to be implemented as higher tier ships) and some paper designs, the German navy did have an impressive number of battlecruisers. So rather than throwing authenticity to the wind and try to beat the German naval aviation history with a balance sledgehammer until you can field a line of CVs for Germany, they could try to field a line of battlecruisers instead.

 

Some other nations might have enough naval history to field two different lines of destroyers that might play differently.

Some other nations however might simply be out of luck and would plain miss a shipline. I don't feel that would be an issue however.

[TheCinC]

 

Objection yer honour!

 

I think the french could also "field" a more or less complete CV tree, although in places more strung-up than their RN, IJN or USN counterparts.

 

You mean Bearn at tiers IV-X?

I don't even..

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Aircraft_carriers_of_France

 

I don't mind the occasional paper design or ship that was planned, but never completed, but I hate it when a design that never left the drawing board ends up at tier X.

Montana is one of the few exceptions, as that class was actually ordered.

I do not want to see a tree or branch consisting almost solely of blue print pipe dreams that never had a remote chance of being built.

 

Adding one or two ships, for instance Graf Zeppelin, fine.

She could have existed, she will be anything but OP if faithfully implemented (with crappy Stuka dive bombers that were already outdated when war broke out).

But an overpowered H-44 variant or a CV variant of Bismarck?

No thanks.

[Deamon93]

If you hate paper tier Xs then realizing having a paper there will be the norm,excluding the DDs which should be mostly built. Still only the CVs are paper heavy and those aren't exactly the priority

[Getzamatic]

I don't mind the occasional paper design or ship that was planned, but never completed, but I hate it when a design that never left the drawing board ends up at tier X.

Montana is one of the few exceptions, as that class was actually ordered.

I do not want to see a tree or branch consisting almost solely of blue print pipe dreams that never had a remote chance of being built.

 

 

Say hello to the Russian Cruiser line - fully 50% paper designs...

 

What's frustrating is that it doesn't need to be.  The enlarged Kirovs could have been put in to tier 6 - they were a thousand tons larger and had more armour than the earlier ships, not to mention many detail improvements (so certainly a bigger practical difference than that between the Dresden and Kolberg, for example).  Meanwhile putting the Sverdlovs at tier 8 could displace the Chapayevs down to tier 7 (with appropriate rebalancing, of course) thus leaving only tier 9 and 10 requiring paper designs.

 

Adding one or two ships, for instance Graf Zeppelin, fine.

She could have existed, she will be anything but OP if faithfully implemented (with crappy Stuka dive bombers that were already outdated when war broke out).

But an overpowered H-44 variant or a CV variant of Bismarck?

No thanks.

 

That tier would Graf Zeppelin be? 6?  She was quite big but her air group was about the same as the Independance class.  I'd have though the best way to implement her would be single ship class branching off the BB line at the appropriate level.

 

As an aside, the Stuka was actually a rather good dive bomber for the period - the early war B variant was certainly superior to the USNs Curtiss SBC Helldiver (not to be confused with the later SB2C Helldiver) and equivalent to IJNs Aichi 3DA that were used at Pearl Habour.  Meanwhile the D variant of 1941 could carry a heavier load at similar speeds to the SBD Dauntless (albeit over a shorter distance).  The notion that the Stuka was rubbish is wartime RAF propaganda that has persisted to this day.  They were certainly vulnerable to fighters, but all single engine, twin seat dive bombers were dead meat if enemy fighters got anywhere near them - the Stuka was no worse than any of her contempories in that regard.  However, for the task of trucking ordnance around and delivering it accurately the Stuka was at least as good as any naval dive bomber of the period and in some respects superior - for example, the Stuka was very stable and easy to control in the dive, making it easier to put bombs on target.

[Waroch]

 

You mean Bearn at tiers IV-X?

I don't even..

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Aircraft_carriers_of_France

 

I don't mind the occasional paper design or ship that was planned, but never completed, but I hate it when a design that never left the drawing board ends up at tier X.

Montana is one of the few exceptions, as that class was actually ordered.

I do not want to see a tree or branch consisting almost solely of blue print pipe dreams that never had a remote chance of being built.

 

Adding one or two ships, for instance Graf Zeppelin, fine.

She could have existed, she will be anything but OP if faithfully implemented (with crappy Stuka dive bombers that were already outdated when war broke out).

But an overpowered H-44 variant or a CV variant of Bismarck?

No thanks.

 

There's a couple of ships that were in operational service to fill the starter tiers. Then there's the Joffre class which would have entered service somewhere around late 42/early 43 in other circumstances and seems quite legitimate. It's roughly comparable to the HMS Illustrious. Somewhere around T7-8 perhaps?

All we need is an extra four ships.

 

There were a few conversions of existing warships which were studied on various occasions. Particularly the battleship Jean Bart was studied for conversion as a full deck armoured CV after the war; it could make an okay-ish candidate for T10.

 

Three to go. Now, yes we may not avoid paper ships. One of them you might find acceptable though, the PA28 which was ordered for production in the late 1940s... before being canceled for financiary reasons. It was updated and modified some years later to become the Clémenceau class.

There's truckloads of pre-war and post-war studies, and a few wartime blueprints to fill in the blanks.

 

The alternative would be to use foreign CVs which were in service in the Marine Nationale after the war, but these ships are more likely to become premiums. HMS Colossus in particular was extensively rebuilt in the late 1950s, so it might be considered for the standard branch. It would be quite different from the original design in the British tree.

 

On top of that, since there were continuous studies throughout the 1930s to the 1950s, there's also a large pool of naval aircraft which were designed in parallel. There are enough aircraft, and with their own flavour.

 

In conclusion, it's doable. It may not be outstanding but it's not worse than soviet DD or cruiser branches...

 

 

It's a bit off topic, but I don't really agree with your opinion on the Ju 87. Technically it was still a fine dive bomber at the start of WW2. The mistake was rather to use it for close air support of land troops, a role for which the dive bomber is not well suited. When you scratch a bit under the stories of its supposed outstanding achievements you find a bit too often that these stories are largely made up.

It would have been fine in an anti-ship role though. It's rather on the Messerschmitt 109 that I have doubts, it was lacking the qualities required for a good carrier-based fighter.

[Spellfire40]

 

There's a couple of ships that were in operational service to fill the starter tiers. Then there's the Joffre class which would have entered service somewhere around late 42/early 43 in other circumstances and seems quite legitimate. It's roughly comparable to the HMS Illustrious. Somewhere around T7-8 perhaps?

All we need is an extra four ships.

 

There were a few conversions of existing warships which were studied on various occasions. Particularly the battleship Jean Bart was studied for conversion as a full deck armoured CV after the war; it could make an okay-ish candidate for T10.

 

Three to go. Now, yes we may not avoid paper ships. One of them you might find acceptable though, the PA28 which was ordered for production in the late 1940s... before being canceled for financiary reasons. It was updated and modified some years later to become the Clémenceau class.

There's truckloads of pre-war and post-war studies, and a few wartime blueprints to fill in the blanks.

 

The alternative would be to use foreign CVs which were in service in the Marine Nationale after the war, but these ships are more likely to become premiums. HMS Colossus in particular was extensively rebuilt in the late 1950s, so it might be considered for the standard branch. It would be quite different from the original design in the British tree.

 

On top of that, since there were continuous studies throughout the 1930s to the 1950s, there's also a large pool of naval aircraft which were designed in parallel. There are enough aircraft, and with their own flavour.

 

In conclusion, it's doable. It may not be outstanding but it's not worse than soviet DD or cruiser branches...

 

 

It's a bit off topic, but I don't really agree with your opinion on the Ju 87. Technically it was still a fine dive bomber at the start of WW2. The mistake was rather to use it for close air support of land troops, a role for which the dive bomber is not well suited. When you scratch a bit under the stories of its supposed outstanding achievements you find a bit too often that these stories are largely made up.

It would have been fine in an anti-ship role though. It's rather on the Messerschmitt 109 that I have doubts, it was lacking the qualities required for a good carrier-based fighter.

 

 Ju 87 not suited for close ground suport? If you read some reports from the time German tanks were ill suited to face frensh/english conterparts your dont think so. As with the IJN Vals, JU 87 had a well deserved reputation of being VERY dangerous precision dive Bombers. They were quite weak agist Fighters thogh.

Me 109 would have been good enogh Carrier fighter but i agree their tendency to be ver hard to controll on takeoff due to their landing gear would make them not the best. But if the Graf would have been build you can bet they sooner or later would have included FW190 wich are much better suited for lower altitue fighting anyway. Dont forget the most likely oponent werent seafires but planes like Fairey Fulmar. Dedicated Fighters would have eaten the british early to mid war multi role DB/fighters alive. A fight between Arc Royal and Graf Zepelin would most likely have been a masacar of the british airwing.

[de_sid]

I am still voting yes on this idea

[de_sid]

I will agree to this idea and vote yes

[piritskenyer]

 

You mean Bearn at tiers IV-X?

I don't even..

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Aircraft_carriers_of_France

 

I don't mind the occasional paper design or ship that was planned, but never completed, but I hate it when a design that never left the drawing board ends up at tier X.

Montana is one of the few exceptions, as that class was actually ordered.

I do not want to see a tree or branch consisting almost solely of blue print pipe dreams that never had a remote chance of being built.

 

Adding one or two ships, for instance Graf Zeppelin, fine.

She could have existed, she will be anything but OP if faithfully implemented (with crappy Stuka dive bombers that were already outdated when war broke out).

But an overpowered H-44 variant or a CV variant of Bismarck?

No thanks.

 

You really had to go and trigger Waroch while I was not looking, did you? I for one wasn't aware of details (I'm a BB and CA/CL guy), but I did know that there were quite a few designs to make a full tree.

 

About the German aircraft topic (and this has been discussed elsewhere I believe, maybe on the WT forums): 

I for one think the Bf 109 would cut it, but would ultimately be unsuited for carrier use. A bit like the Spitfire which many regard as having been on the whole unsuited for carrier use due to the narrow landing gear arrangement (that apparently allowed for narrower wing-fold) which is always more unstable on the ground, not just on a damn ship. Also, the 109 was starting to show its age by the end of the war (there is only so much you can pack into the original airframe before having tho rebuild it from the ground up)

The Ju 87 while an interesting and effective aircraft in the Spanish civil war and the beginning of the 2nd WW, was also showing its age:

• Fixed undercarriage limited the speed
• The low speed in turn made it an easy target
• Carrying capacity was becoming inadequate
• (that bloody siren is ridiculous against well-trained gunners, I mean come the fnck on)

One thing though to the defense of the Ju 87 being employed as a ground support unit: you have to remember that DB's are at that time the airforces' precision weapons. Bombing from level flight is rather inaccurate* and compared to that aircraft that can "launch" their bombs into a target are with a 20m radius are like a sniper rifle to a HMG.

 

The ideal ship-borne aircraft for the Germans would have been unquestionably the FW190, due to:

• Wide and very robust landing gear
• Low take-off, landing and stall speeds due to the rather large wing surface
• Heavy cannon and MG armament for the fighter role
• High carrying capacity due to the large wing surface
• Can be employed in divebomber and torpedo bomber role 

So in essence had the Germans ever made the 190 work as a carrier-borne aircraft they would have had the ticket: one plane, three roles fulfilled (4 if we count nightfighting).

 

*"B-52 bombing from 30000-40000 feet is very accurate. They hit the ground every time."

[Kais_S012]

I disagree, the Germans only attempted to build 1 carrier in the warring years with maybe 2 or 3 earlier concepts. I'd love to see that German carrier as a one off in the tree (a ship to research off the battleship of that tier) but trying to stretch it out with fake ships like they did with the waffentraager line in WoT would be pushing it.

 

the Russians failed to grasp the concept of carriers until midway into the cold war. they shouldn't even be considered but then... I am a little biased in that area