puxflacet

Do you want more pre-dreadnoughts?

  • You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.

101 posts in this topic

Their cruiser counterparts occupy tier II and some even tier III (Bogatyr, St. Louis) but we have only one pre-dreadnought battleship in the game - the infamous and misconcepted Mikasa which caused a lot of hate among players. Still these ships are in my opinion very interesting and beautiful and would be a shame if WoWs just skipped them.

 

2ECvxSr.jpg

but there is a major issue what to do with pre-dreadnoughts if we shall ever see another. mikasa right now really struggles and that's just because her role in the game was not really thought out. these are my suggestions for mikasa and every other pre-dreadnought eventually:

 

IDENTITY: DEDICATED BRAWLER

 

  • item 1: strong secondaries  done (almost)

mikasa's secondaries were always considered strong except their range. no wonder - those 152mm were in fact not secondaries but primaries on pre-dreadnought battleships since they were still built around 19th century principle of "the more guns the better" which resulted in designs with even 3 different calibers for main armament. it is worth note that in reality those 152mm had same effective firing range as 305mm. however i think we should not argue about that these should be player-controlled because it would be hard to balance them (better armored st. louis with extra health and  4x305mm says hello) and we should reconcile with that these would be just secondaries. for the brawling purpose they are ok anyway.

the only issue is their range. i personally think that their range should be increased to 4 - 5km. another suggestion, proposed in this thread, which is worth to be mentioned, is different ranges for different calibers: give 152mm lets say 5km and 76mm 3km range. although both 152mm and 76mm had pretty much same effective firing range, nevertheless separate ranges for different sencodary calibers would  be definitelly needed for semi-dreadnoughts (see below).

 

  • item 2: torpedos ✖ missing

there were already debates about submerged torpedo tubes for battleships and my stand to this issue is that pre-dreadnoughts should be the only ships which should have them. to balance this weapon we can stick to their historical performance since torpedos at the beginning of 20th century were rather slow and short range, so pre-dreadnought's torpedos in the game would be something like 30-40 knots and 3km range. that would make them reasonably balanced since they would be useful practically only for brawling against battleships. fast and manouverable ships should not have much troubles to evade them.

another issue is their aiming. placement of these tubes was usually 1 bow, 1 stern and 1 or 2 on each side (mikasa is exception with just 4 tubes - 2 on each side). there is frequently stated myth on the forum that these have to be aimed with whole ship, but in fact they were equipped with gyro-angle mechanism (like on submarines) so their firing arc was pretty much unlimited, however i'm not sure if they should have this ability in the game since it would make a precedent for other ships. maybe they could work even with very limited arc since the placement of those tubes is very convenient (...also, do you remember bathtub boats?)

 

  • item 3: ram! ✖ missing

another feature typical for pre-dreadnought battleships is bow strenghten for ramming with significant beak (exception are french pre-dreadnoughts which frequently lacked this feature). indeed in those times naval tactitians and designers believed that ramming an enemy is still viable tactic. that however never happend in combat since 1866 (but unfortunately several times unintentionally) but we have different situation in the game with lot of close fights, especially at low tiers. i think that pre-dreadnought should have permanent bonus for ramming - something like permanent hotel yankee (die hard) signal. just look at mikasa's ram!

i know early dreadnoughts still had something like a ram, but usually these were just fake shapes which were not from solid steel like on pre-dreadnouts and were there just for stability purpose or because of stereotype - however i'm not completely sure about that, so please correct me.

 

with all these features pre-dreadnoughts would have identity as dedicated brawlers and would have an edge over dreadnoughts in close fight which would make them viable - hugging islands and guarding straits would be optimal use for them, while at long range dreadnoughts would have their edge over pre-dreads as they should have...

 

WHERE TO PLACE THEM:

YZcJKKy.jpg

clearly pre-dreadnoughts should cease in 1910 as it was superseded design, however i believe semi-dreadnoughts like lord nelson-class, satsuma-class, mississippi-class, danton-class, radetzky-class etc. would be still viable brawlers at tier 3

 

 

but i cant resist to place here my suggestion about ideal game timeline which would solve a lot of other issues low tiers currently have, like patrol boats at tier 1, fictional refits for battleships, uneven matchmaking rules and overall shrinked time distribution

R18Awcw.jpg

 

so what do you think?

 

42jLQ4p.jpg


8 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

In the current game design there is hardly any place for pre-dreadnoughts. I always thought that they should have started the game earlier, not in the 1920-30s but at the end of the nineteenth century.

 

The WoT has to start in the 1920-30s because very few tank designs existed prior to this period, i.e. during the first world war, and some of them did not have a cannon, just machine guns for fighting infantry.

 

With ships, we should have had battleships, cruisers and destroyers of the Tsushima Era, tech tree possibly going to high than 10 tiers (say till tier 15) from the onset. This would have an added bonus of carriers appearing starting from, say, tier 7/8 (out of 15), when the players have more experience and the ships have AA. Nice!

 

But No. They are just slavishly copying their tech tree concepts over and over. Really, WG needs to innovate more to stay interesting.

 

Pre-dreadnoughts are beautiful ships, as are armored cruisers.

 


14 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about HMS Inflexible .... 17.7 inch guns and 24 inches of armour..!  


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree totally :) would like to see more pre dreadnoughts and early dreadnoughts. It's a shame we rush through WW1 by tier IV


4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about HMS Inflexible .... 17.7 inch guns and 24 inches of armour..!  

 

Actually, the Inflexible carried 16-inch guns (the two Italian ironclads Duilio and Dandolo were the ones with the bigger gun)... that probably needed some ten minutes or something like that to be reloaded. And the protection, although on practice impressive, is nothing special compared to the progress undergone by armor plates (even considering just the Mikasa, I'd say).

 

Right now their cruiser counterparts occupy tier II and some even tier III (Bogatyr, St. Louis)

 

Hmmm... let's not forget that there were two cruiser counterparts for the pre-dreadnoughts: the armoured cruiser, and the protected cruiser. And we don't have any pure example of the former (since the St. Louis might be considered for its protection scheme an armoured cruiser, but it's tolerable game-wise because, instead of having a 10-inch main battery akin to the pre-dreadnoughts it has a uniform battery of 6-inch guns).


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a real shame what was done to Mikasa in game, badly implemented. I love that era of naval warfare but never play her, it's not worth it. I'd love more of this but not if it's the same as Mikasa.


4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The balance would be complicated, especially when you consider the ones which had a larger secondary armament(Radeztky or Regina Elena as examples). Especially the latter would be sort of problematic since you have only two 12" guns at your disposal but you have six 8" guns per side plus a plethora of 3" guns


1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Technically the Kawachi is not a full dreadnought. Yes all her guns are the same caliber (12") but have different calibers (barrel length), with the fore and aft turrets being 12"/50 and the wing turrets 12"/45. This means they would have different ballistics, which IRL defeats the point of being able to aim and spot all your big guns together. I don't believe this is implemented in game unless that's their excuse for the god-awful spread, it's simply hand-waived so the IJN can have a low tier BB.

 

As far as cruisers are concerned, note all the ones we have are of the light cruiser or protected cruiser variety, and this is no coincidence because those had a uniform armament of small rapid fire guns and are therefore easy to balance according to what WG want cruisers to do. The true counterparts, the armored cruisers, would be a nightmare to balance since a lot of them had something like 2x 9" guns and the rest 6". If they are implemented like Mikasa you would be aiming a pair of theoretically strong but poor spread and long reload weapons while most of your firepower would be nerfed to the ground since it would count as "secondary" armament.

 

Plus, as has been said, the time scale of the game means it's very hard to squeeze a pre-dreadnought in, with Tier 2 being your only real option and then you have the problem of new players trying to learn an artificially nerfed ship type.

 

Don't get me wrong, I think they look awesome but I started a thread a while back discussing options for balancing them and while a few good ideas came out the consensus was that it wasn't worth the effort.


1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Technically the Kawachi is not a full dreadnought. Yes all her guns are the same caliber (12") but have different calibers (barrel length), with the fore and aft turrets being 12"/50 and the wing turrets 12"/45. This means they would have different ballistics, which IRL defeats the point of being able to aim and spot all your big guns together. I don't believe this is implemented in game unless that's their excuse for the god-awful spread, it's simply hand-waived so the IJN can have a low tier BB.

 

They were meant to have the same guns on all turrets, if I'm not mistaken; only the contingent financial situation forced the designers to turn to what they perfectly knew was an inferior design.

 

Also, again if I'm not mistaken, centralized fire control took some more time to be implemented; the first dreadnoughts all over the world didn't have such a system.

Edited by Historynerd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

They were meant to have the same guns on all turrets, if I'm not mistaken; only the contingent financial situation forced the designers to turn to what they perfectly knew was an inferior design.

 

Also, again if I'm not mistaken, centralized fire control took some more time to be implemented; the first dreadnoughts all over the world didn't have such a system.

 

I believe you are referring to the fire control director, which enabled the guns to be aimed and fired remotely from a single position and indeed did not see widespread use until 1915. However, it seems (according to the Wiki) that Dreadnought as built did have her guns controlled from the spotting top, even if these were then aimed and fired individually, and of course the spotters still needed to tell which splashes belonged to which gun. I can imagine that giving gun corrections from the spotting top was still more difficult in a Kawachi than it was in Dreadnought even without the fire control director.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe you are referring to the fire control director, which enabled the guns to be aimed and fired remotely from a single position and indeed did not see widespread use until 1915. However, it seems (according to the Wiki) that Dreadnought as built did have her guns controlled from the spotting top, even if these were then aimed and fired individually, and of course the spotters still needed to tell which splashes belonged to which gun. I can imagine that giving gun corrections from the spotting top was still more difficult in a Kawachi than it was in Dreadnought even without the fire control director.

 

Yes, the different gun caliber apparently made co-ordinated fire for the Kawachis extremely difficult, if not impossible.

 

HMS Dreadnought's system seems like a step in the right direction, yet it doesn't look to me as a proper central-controlled fire system.


1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you want more pre-dreadnoughts?

Yes, next question.....

 

Seriously though, and I am probably alone in this but I actually like the Mikasa and think it an good/fun ship. So I would love to see more ships of her age. :honoring:


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jellicoe  and  I have started  similar  threads,  they would all be  very vulnerable  to  torpedoes,   found an  excellent  site  of the history of the torpedo which also examines  the various means of  protecting warships through the ages....

 

https://nemaloknig.info/read-266943/?page=1#booktxt

 

HMS Inflexible did indeed have 24" thick armour, but iron,  the plate  evolved  through iron, to compound, Harvey Nickel and  Krupp Cemented.  The Royal Navy stopped  building armoured cruisers in this period as the armour weighed too much.  Inflexible's  guns were also muzzle-loaders...so  gameplay would be very slow  as the gun have only one loading position.  The  British Government insisted  the Royal Navy bought their guns  from  the Woolwich Arsenal so that limited them to 16.25", whereas  the Italians went down the road and bought their 17.7"  from Armstrongs.  Ironclad wargaming  with these Italian monsters means  a 5 minute reload,  and for 2 minutes of that 5 you can't use  your secondary armament as the crews are taking cover/returning from cover to protect them from the blast.  You would probably have to have a cut-off date of 1890 or so so you don't get  black powder or muzzle-loading guns, and breechloaders with a single action rather than a 3 action breech.  The late 1880s and early 1890s were really the end of the experimental period...but there were still  left overs,  I think the last time  naval exercises were conducted in the RN under sail was as late as 1893.


1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pre dreadnoughts rely on their secondaries just as much if not more than on their primary weapons, since we can not actively control secondaries pre dreadnought are kind of insta gimped. In Navyfield 2 pre dreadnoughts were insanely fun until they introduced submarines which made the whole game go belly up in record time but there you could actually control your secondaries and it was a lot of fun. Braunschweig 17cm secondaries or Nelson (1906) 9.2" were very cool,  same for USS Kearsarge (BB 5) with 8" intermediates and 5" secondaries.

Edited by warsinger2

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As some people already said,the plethora of different calibre of guns will be difficult to balance,not to say their control.

 

Mikasa was a "prototype test" of some sorts to see the stats and player reaction to the Pre-Dreadnought era BB. The results went as expected since the ships of the time relied on secondaries more than primaries. Mikasa is considered a dissapointing ship by most of the playerbase.

 

From the moment there are not player controlled secondaries (a thing that it wont be introduced in the game as far as i am aware of), Pre Dreadnought BBs are a waste of time and money...

Edited by Mister_Greek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As some people already said,the plethora of different calibre of guns will be difficult to balance,not to say their control.

 

Mikasa was a "prototype test" of some sorts to see the stats and player reaction to the Pre-Dreadnought era BB. The results went as expected since the ships of the time relied on secondaries more than primaries. Mikasa is considered a dissapointing ship by most of the playerbase.

 

From the moment there are not player controlled secondaries (a thing that it wont be introduced in the game as far as i am aware of), Pre Dreadnought BBs are a waste of time and money...

 

Which in my opinion was and is a major blunder by Wargaming, the game would and could be far more fun with player controlled secondaries and even AA guns especially when playing ships with long loading times on their guns, However I suspect that the reason for not doing it is that the game engine simply can not support it like in WoT where tanks with mulitple guns or turrets can only use 1 gun, which shows a lack of foresight and creativity from Wargaming as WoWS playerbase will be vulnerable to flight to better naval games with player controlled secondaries and AA guns. Also I did not mention the lack of weather effect and influence on ship movement and gunnery accuracy which is implemented in other games and working quite nicely.

 

Wargaming really dropped the ball on this one with regards to the above.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the moment there are not player controlled secondaries (a thing that it wont be introduced in the game as far as i am aware of), Pre Dreadnought BBs are a waste of time and money...

 

I would not say a waste of time and money. Some additional thought, perhaps.

 

1). Mikasa sucks in the current meta of newer designs, and because it is a rare ship. If we had battles of Mikasas against Mikasas, everything would be balanced and fair,

 

2). It is true that secondaries were relatively more important on pre-dreadnoughts. But the main caliber is still there, just make it a bit more accurate. Having a higher percentage of fire power controlled by the AI might actually be good for new players. Recall, we are talking low tiers,

 

3). The complete absence of carriers for a larger number of initial tiers is a blessing. Again for new players,

 

4). The actual ships were varied, fascinating and beautiful. In general, more historical ships fewer paper designs. What is not to like?

 

5). Finally: WG don't be afraid of making this stupidly simple game a tad more complex.


3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way. I see no reason why we could not have started with sailing ships!

Don't forget: It is a World of Warships. That world has started ages earlier.


1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd take the Lord Nelson-class with their ten 9.2 inch secondary battery.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would of been interesting to have 20 tiers instead of 10 and starting from somewhere 1500 century Wooden Sailing Ships with CANNONS :D

 

 

EDIT: Oh and pirates!.... lots of PIRATES!!!

Edited by Kenliero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ironically despite my dislike and none interest in the whole Russian Navy thats being offered and expended at a relentless pace I would love to see that era modeled more. Perhaps in time we could have a line of ships that is accessed via "free" experience generated and stored on elite ships, in my idea the ships would fight within there own battles outside the "normal game"


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would not mind seeing more pre-dreadnought ships introduced in the game, even though these ships would be limited to tiers 2 and 3. There are some historical candidates that spark interest, such as the opponent of the Mikasa, the pre-dreadnought Borodino. WG made an interesting video about this vessel too.

 

Another candidate is the Schleswig-Holstein, a pre-dreadnought that was retained in the post-WW1 in the German navy and modernized to some extent during the interbellum. It fought in the battle of Jutland in 1916 and fired the first shots of WW2 at Danzig when Germany invaded Poland in 1939.

 

Cheers, M


1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about HMS Inflexible .... 17.7 inch guns and 24 inches of armour..!  

 

HMS Inflexible (1907)

or

HMS Inflexible (1876)

Both had torpedoes.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

5). Finally: WG don't be afraid of making this stupidly simple game a tad more complex.

 

Seeing the IQ of the average Joe since March 2015, i REALLY believe this game is already too complicated for the vast majority of the playerbase:amazed:

Edited by Mister_Greek

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

HMS Inflexible (1907)

or

HMS Inflexible (1876)

Both had torpedoes.

 

Well, did they use them? Did any battleship, other than HMS Rodney, actually hit an enemy ship with them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.