Cluid Players 35 posts 278 battles Report post #1 Posted December 11, 2016 why is the RN list of ships smaller than the other big nations, is it the fact its a new game and the developers haven't got round to putting them in yet?? and also how accurate are the stats on each vessel? or is it a case of balancing the game so people don't moan about a certain ship/vessel/boat being OP thanks in advance for any help and advice Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mtm78 Alpha Tester 19,378 posts 6,105 battles Report post #2 Posted December 11, 2016 why is the RN list of ships smaller than the other big nations, is it the fact its a new game and the developers haven't got round to putting them in yet?? and also how accurate are the stats on each vessel? or is it a case of balancing the game so people don't moan about a certain ship/vessel/boat being OP thanks in advance for any help and advice 1. RN is not the holy grail. 2. Searching is a thing. 3. Game balance >>>> historical accuracy. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[_GG_] Kuningas_Arthur Weekend Tester 261 posts 5,803 battles Report post #3 Posted December 11, 2016 As far as historical accuracy goes, the armour is modeled as close to real as possible, and armaments are usually either historically accurate or at least planned upgrades that are now brought to life in the game (*cough* Gneisenau *cough*). Ships are then balanced with other stuff like accuracy, reload, turret traverse, maneuverability, hit points, consumables etc. This doesn't apply 100% always, of course, the policy WG has does lean on gameplay over historical accuracy, so if some historical numbers have to be bent to make a ship (or a tank) fit the game better, they are more than willing to bend them. For the RN, the official reason they are not yet fully fledged in the game I think is that the RN archives aren't fully open to the public yet, so getting real historical info on all of the RN ships was harder than, say, the Japanese or American ships. They are coming, but not yet. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[WAR] Kiwi1960 Players 428 posts Report post #4 Posted December 12, 2016 As far as historical accuracy goes, the armour is modeled as close to real as possible, and armaments are usually either historically accurate or at least planned upgrades that are now brought to life in the game (*cough* Gneisenau *cough*). Ships are then balanced with other stuff like accuracy, reload, turret traverse, maneuverability, hit points, consumables etc. This doesn't apply 100% always, of course, the policy WG has does lean on gameplay over historical accuracy, so if some historical numbers have to be bent to make a ship (or a tank) fit the game better, they are more than willing to bend them. For the RN, the official reason they are not yet fully fledged in the game I think is that the RN archives aren't fully open to the public yet, so getting real historical info on all of the RN ships was harder than, say, the Japanese or American ships. They are coming, but not yet. Oh yes, God forbid that the Russian spooks should get a hold of the plans for the latest WW1 battleship plans.... LMAO! The plans would all have been released by 1968 (50 years after 1918) or WILL be released by 2017 (99 years after 1918) assuming they were not released sooner, these are out dated ships after all. I believe its more likely that they haven't gotten around to it yet... then again, was there EVER a good RN BB? Hood (sunk with one shot by the Bismarck) or the Rodney and Nelson... sunk by Japanese bombers before they even left the Indian Ocean... most of the time, they were locked up at Scapa Flow waiting for a German breakout to the Atlantic... or used on convoy duty... Name one modern RN BB that would be worthy of getting into the Wows game? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HatsuzukiKaiNi Beta Tester 215 posts 6,656 battles Report post #5 Posted December 12, 2016 Oh yes, God forbid that the Russian spooks should get a hold of the plans for the latest WW1 battleship plans.... LMAO! The plans would all have been released by 1968 (50 years after 1918) or WILL be released by 2017 (99 years after 1918) assuming they were not released sooner, these are out dated ships after all. I believe its more likely that they haven't gotten around to it yet... then again, was there EVER a good RN BB? Hood (sunk with one shot by the Bismarck) or the Rodney and Nelson... sunk by Japanese bombers before they even left the Indian Ocean... most of the time, they were locked up at Scapa Flow waiting for a German breakout to the Atlantic... or used on convoy duty... Name one modern RN BB that would be worthy of getting into the Wows game? Hood was an outdated and unmodernized battlecruiser by the time of WW2, Rodney and Nelson both survived the war and served fairly well despite mechanical problems. The Japanese sank Repulse and Prince of Wales who were caught alone and without any air cover barring their escorts which was practically a death sentence for any battleship of the time. If you count failures as a reason for not being in the game you may as well take half of the ships out, The Royal Navy has plenty of ships worthy of addition. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[BAD-A] cherry2blost [BAD-A] Beta Tester 2,078 posts 22,274 battles Report post #6 Posted December 17, 2016 Oh yes, God forbid that the Russian spooks should get a hold of the plans for the latest WW1 battleship plans.... LMAO! The plans would all have been released by 1968 (50 years after 1918) or WILL be released by 2017 (99 years after 1918) assuming they were not released sooner, these are out dated ships after all. I believe its more likely that they haven't gotten around to it yet... then again, was there EVER a good RN BB? Hood (sunk with one shot by the Bismarck) or the Rodney and Nelson... sunk by Japanese bombers before they even left the Indian Ocean... most of the time, they were locked up at Scapa Flow waiting for a German breakout to the Atlantic... or used on convoy duty... Name one modern RN BB that would be worthy of getting into the Wows game? And another 12 year old with 'opinions'...... go back to tanks bro... just go ... please ! 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[KLUNJ] bushwacker001 [KLUNJ] Players 2,870 posts Report post #7 Posted December 17, 2016 (edited) Oh yes, God forbid that the Russian spooks should get a hold of the plans for the latest WW1 battleship plans.... LMAO! The plans would all have been released by 1968 (50 years after 1918) or WILL be released by 2017 (99 years after 1918) assuming they were not released sooner, these are out dated ships after all. I believe its more likely that they haven't gotten around to it yet... then again, was there EVER a good RN BB? Hood (sunk with one shot by the Bismarck) or the Rodney and Nelson... sunk by Japanese bombers before they even left the Indian Ocean... most of the time, they were locked up at Scapa Flow waiting for a German breakout to the Atlantic... or used on convoy duty... Name one modern RN BB that would be worthy of getting into the Wows game? I love idiot opinions like this.......A pity the RN didn't design immense BB's like germany to mainly go and beat up dangerously armed merchant ships or hide in a port for most of the war. Edited December 17, 2016 by bushwacker001 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mtm78 Alpha Tester 19,378 posts 6,105 battles Report post #8 Posted December 17, 2016 Oh yes, God forbid that the Russian spooks should get a hold of the plans for the latest WW1 battleship plans.... LMAO! The plans would all have been released by 1968 (50 years after 1918) or WILL be released by 2017 (99 years after 1918) assuming they were not released sooner, these are out dated ships after all. I believe its more likely that they haven't gotten around to it yet... then again, was there EVER a good RN BB? Hood (sunk with one shot by the Bismarck) or the Rodney and Nelson... sunk by Japanese bombers before they even left the Indian Ocean... most of the time, they were locked up at Scapa Flow waiting for a German breakout to the Atlantic... or used on convoy duty... Name one modern RN BB that would be worthy of getting into the Wows game? 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[VT] Drachinifel Weekend Tester 32 posts 8,371 battles Report post #9 Posted December 17, 2016 As far as historical accuracy goes, the armour is modeled as close to real as possible, and armaments are usually either historically accurate or at least planned upgrades that are now brought to life in the game (*cough* Gneisenau *cough*). Ships are then balanced with other stuff like accuracy, reload, turret traverse, maneuverability, hit points, consumables etc. This doesn't apply 100% always, of course, the policy WG has does lean on gameplay over historical accuracy, so if some historical numbers have to be bent to make a ship (or a tank) fit the game better, they are more than willing to bend them. For the RN, the official reason they are not yet fully fledged in the game I think is that the RN archives aren't fully open to the public yet, so getting real historical info on all of the RN ships was harder than, say, the Japanese or American ships. They are coming, but not yet. Which is an absolute nonsense because all the RN archives on battleship design etc have been open to the public for decades. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[BAD-A] cherry2blost [BAD-A] Beta Tester 2,078 posts 22,274 battles Report post #10 Posted December 17, 2016 (edited) Which is an absolute nonsense because all the RN archives on battleship design etc have been open to the public for decades. No it was 'economic'... they looked at IJN /USN at launch as they 'presumed' that they would get the most spending from NA/SEA..... then their Russian overlords demanded Stalins Specials.... then the 'mainly inactive' German (Port based) Navy followed.... as per usual in Wargamings mindset (looking at you WoT) the British had absolutely no part to play in either world wars... neither did they have a navy anywhere near as powerful or numerous as the 'mighty' [paper] USSR Navy....... To paraphrase... "Between 1921 and 1922, the world’s largest naval powers gathered in Washington, D.C. for a conference to discuss naval disarmament and ways to relieve growing tensions...." (Note Largest naval Powers) "In 1921, U.S. Secretary of State Charles Evans Hughes invited nine nations to Washington, D.C. to discuss naval reductions and the situation in the Far East. The United Kingdom, Japan, France and Italy were invited to take part in talks on reducing naval capacity, while Belgium, China, Portugal, and the Netherlands were invited to join in discussions on the situation in the Far East." (Note USSR/Germany absent... heck even Portugal got invited to comment... NOT USSR; or Germany because they had been soundly thrashed in round 1) "The Five-Power Treaty, signed by the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, France and Italy was the cornerstone......." (seeing the trend here yet? @ WG maybe you should have concentrated on NAVAL POWERS for a Naval Game?) Please to whichever idiot next talks about Modern Battleships.... have a quick Google search and you may discover that there are NO SUCH ships currently in service in ANY Major Navy worldwide........ Edited December 17, 2016 by cherry2blost 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[HELLA] Anthoniusii Players 1,188 posts 24,230 battles Report post #11 Posted December 17, 2016 Why do you expect British Battleships? Didn't the fiasko with the British light Cruiser was not enough? If the British War Museum or the Royal Navy will give their permision to WG to make those ships will be like admitting that they (the British) had the worst ships ad crews in WW2 like WG is trying hard to show to WoWs players! Why having a British tier 7 Battleship when an US DD can sink you ONLY with HE shells ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mtm78 Alpha Tester 19,378 posts 6,105 battles Report post #12 Posted December 17, 2016 Why do you expect British Battleships? Didn't the fiasko with the British light Cruiser was not enough? If the British War Museum or the Royal Navy will give their permision to WG to make those ships will be like admitting that they (the British) had the worst ships ad crews in WW2 like WG is trying hard to show to WoWs players! Why having a British tier 7 Battleship when an US DD can sink you ONLY with HE shells ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[SCRUB] lup3s Players 5,744 posts 32,717 battles Report post #13 Posted December 17, 2016 Belgium We had warships? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[TACHA] triumphgt6 Players 1,870 posts 22,590 battles Report post #14 Posted December 17, 2016 The Washington Treaty The treaty strictly limited both the tonnage and construction of capital ships and aircraft carriers and included limits of the size of individual ships. The tonnage limits defined by Articles IV and VII (tabulated) gave a strength ratio of approximately 5:5:3:1.75:1.75 for Britain, the United States, Japan, Italy, and France. The qualitative limits of each type of ship were as follows: Capital ships (battleships and battlecruisers) were limited to 35,000 tons standard displacement and guns of no larger than 16-inch calibre. (Articles V and VI) Aircraft carriers were limited to 27,000 tons and could carry no more than 10 heavy guns, of a maximum calibre of 8 inches. However, each signatory was allowed to use two existing capital ship hulls for aircraft carriers, with a displacement limit of 33,000 tons each (Articles IX and X). For the purposes of the treaty, an aircraft carrier was defined as a warship displacing more than 10,000 tonnes constructed exclusively for launching and landing aircraft. Carriers lighter than 10,000 tonnes, therefore, did not count towards the tonnage limits (Article XX, part 4). Moreover, all aircraft carriers then in service or building (Argus, Furious, Langley and Hosho) were declared "experimental" and not counted (Article VIII). All other warships were limited to a maximum displacement of 10,000 tons and a maximum gun calibre of 8 inches (Articles XI and XII). The treaty also detailed by Chapter II the individual ships to be retained by each navy, including the allowance for the United States to complete two further ships and for Britain to complete two new ships in accordance with the treaty limits. Chapter II, part 2, detailed what was to be done to render a ship ineffective for military use. In addition to sinking or scrapping, a limited number of ships could be converted as target ships or training vessels if their armament, armour and other combat-essential parts were removed completely. Some could also be converted into aircraft carriers. Part 3, Section II specified the ships to be scrapped to comply with the treaty and when the remaining ships could be replaced. In all, the United States had to scrap 30 existing or planned capital ships, Britain 23 and Japan 17. So Britain and US 100%, Japan 60% and France and Italy 35%. Of course that relied on everyone sticking to the rules!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[2DQT] RUSSIANBlAS Players 8,241 posts Report post #15 Posted December 17, 2016 Every time someone starts a RN BB topic, WG pull one of the developers working on them and places them into the RU ship development team. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mtm78 Alpha Tester 19,378 posts 6,105 battles Report post #16 Posted December 17, 2016 Every time someone starts a RN BB topic, WG pull one of the developers working on them and places them into the RU ship development team. Hence the 3 new VMF DD's which will be released next year... thanks to OP 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[CHATS] Webley_Mark WoWs Wiki Team 12,258 posts 9,687 battles Report post #17 Posted December 17, 2016 1. RN is not the holy grail. But... But.... But..... Name one modern RN BB that would be worthy of getting into the Wows game? HMS Vuangard... Or maybe just the damn HMS Dreadnought? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mtm78 Alpha Tester 19,378 posts 6,105 battles Report post #18 Posted December 17, 2016 Sorry man but we all know Russia's navy is the reason we won WWII and that's a fact... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[CHATS] Webley_Mark WoWs Wiki Team 12,258 posts 9,687 battles Report post #19 Posted December 17, 2016 Sorry man but we all know Russia's navy is the reason we won WWII and that's a fact... Yes, we all remember the great battle between the Yamato and the Russian navy. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[SBSWS] CyberHellcatMorpho Players 35 posts 9,680 battles Report post #20 Posted December 18, 2016 Historical Accuracy mmm that can't be very true when you talk about the RN ships especially tier X Minotaur, which never ever served in the RN, so the developers got that one wrong, it was sold to Canada and became the HMCS Ontario and so the Tier X RN ship in the Tech Tree is a complete farce and no where near right Period!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[OEL] Rabid_Turnip Players 367 posts 14,165 battles Report post #21 Posted December 18, 2016 Historical Accuracy mmm that can't be very true when you talk about the RN ships especially tier X Minotaur, which never ever served in the RN, so the developers got that one wrong, it was sold to Canada and became the HMCS Ontario and so the Tier X RN ship in the Tech Tree is a complete farce and no where near right Period!! By that logic, Kongo would be a Royal Navy tier 5... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[CHATS] Webley_Mark WoWs Wiki Team 12,258 posts 9,687 battles Report post #22 Posted December 18, 2016 Historical Accuracy mmm that can't be very true when you talk about the RN ships especially tier X Minotaur, which never ever served in the RN, so the developers got that one wrong, it was sold to Canada and became the HMCS Ontario and so the Tier X RN ship in the Tech Tree is a complete farce and no where near right Period!! But the Minotaur In Game never existed.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Agantas Players 1,059 posts 7,793 battles Report post #23 Posted December 18, 2016 British BBs will get added at some point. I recommend grabbing a few thousand extra xp points for your Caledon so that you don't have to revisit the ship when the British BBs are published. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[BLOBS] Spellfire40 Beta Tester 5,330 posts 13,776 battles Report post #24 Posted December 18, 2016 Which is an absolute nonsense because all the RN archives on battleship design etc have been open to the public for decades. Difine open to the Public. Last Thing i heared that you ask for the Information then someone of the arceive (if you know wich one holds what in the 1st place) will look were the Information is and arange for a Termin for you to look at said Information. Both cost Money and time. When was the last time you heared the britsh goverment spend Money on personal for such requets? This is no local libary Thing were you walk in look thogh the shelfes and and grab precios and ireplaceble historical documents by yourself. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[SPUDS] Comrad_StaIin Beta Tester 4,594 posts 20,080 battles Report post #25 Posted December 18, 2016 But the Minotaur In Game never existed.... it did on paper here it is Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
