WG 2017 plans

[NemesisActual]

 

From the technological point of view they are superior in almost every aspect.

http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/499/067/d63.jpeg

 

Today I learned that Italian battleships with obsolete armour schemes, lack of radar, inferior optics, lack of uniform DP secondary battery and questionable torpedo defence are superior to modern British battleships.

[RUSSIANBlAS]

 

You should head over to the "Italian fan made tree" thread, then come back.

The amount of filth in there about the French, and the butthurt is phenomenal.

 

Italian fanboys are almost as bad as British fanboys right now, and it's devastating since I would have loved to see a Italian CA line this year, but now I'd rather just not just in spite.

 

 Why do you hate everything?  

 

You complain about German BBs too...

 

Folk are going to want Navies they've read a lot about and/or are from the country they're from. That's entirely understandable. Blame WG for having nations rather than combined tech trees of assorted ships, it's going to create some discontent for everyone apart from Russians. 

 

I'm so going to get banned one day for bashing WG and their blatant fantasy RU ship biases 

[Cosseria]

http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/499/067/d63.jpeg

 

Today I learned that Italian battleships with obsolete armour schemes, lack of radar, inferior optics, lack of uniform DP secondary battery and questionable torpedo defence are superior to modern British battleships.

 

 

I'm sure you have very solid reference, by which I mean articles and essays written by unbiased naval historians, to write such drastic statements about those ships without fear of losing face. Would you be so kind to share them with us? I'm keen on naval history myself and, while it is a widely known fact that Italian warships lacked radar and a modern DP battery, I never read anywhere that their protection and fire directors were so underwhelming. If there's some valid reference backing this up, I'd be glad to read it.

[Panocek]

 

Do not think so, cold war stuff and missiles for Soviet ships will break the WWII feeling once and for all.

 

Then it should be broken long time ago with Des Moines and RU navy addition...

[El2aZeR]

I'm sure you have very solid reference, by which I mean articles and essays written by unbiased naval historians, to write such drastic statements about those ships without fear of losing face. Would you be so kind to share them with us? I'm keen on naval history myself and, while it is a widely known fact that Italian warships lacked radar and a modern DP battery, I never read anywhere that their protection and fire directors were so underwhelming. If there's some valid reference backing this up, I'd be glad to read it.

 

Dunno about her directors, but I read that on the Littorios shell quality was poor and thus increased dispersion. Apparently protection against plunging fire was lacking as well and the TDS was defective. Nothing about the belt armor being weak, though.

The only thing I definitely know is that their AA sucked, a late war US DD could put up a more effective firestorm than a Littorio.

[Pastaiolo]

Are you guys done with this silly fanboysm on both sides and Navy bashing?

We are lucky we can play a GAME which is FUN, no matter the ships involved. I am sure the Regia Marina deserves a place in WoWS, HOWEVER even if i am italian i don't care on when that happens, as long as the ships introduced are fun to play.

 

If you feel the need to bash someone's pride for its nation based on ships getting introduced or not introduced i would say you are taking this too seriously and would do anyone a favour if you stopped flooding this topic in a hopeless and meaningless discussion

[NemesisActual]

 

 

I'm sure you have very solid reference, by which I mean articles and essays written by unbiased naval historians, to write such drastic statements about those ships without fear of losing face. Would you be so kind to share them with us? I'm keen on naval history myself and, while it is a widely known fact that Italian warships lacked radar and a modern DP battery, I never read anywhere that their protection and fire directors were so underwhelming. If there's some valid reference backing this up, I'd be glad to read it.

 

Okay then:

 

Littorio had an obsolete armour scheme, there's a reason most navies had switched over to all-or-nothing armour. The Italians and Germans didn't and used the older incremental system which was less effective and resulted in needless extra weight. Not to mention that the much vaunted "Pugliese" system never really worked as well as it was supposed to, even against aircraft torpedoes. Their guns had excessive muzzle velocity, which is great in a brawl but makes them very weak at range as faster shells are more likely to impact thicker belt armour rather than the deck. Couple this with the fact that the Italian shells were of dubious quality and often had extreme levels of dispersion, I fail to see how they were technically superior to any other ships built at the time, except maybe Bismarck which had many of the same problems (excessive muzzle velocity, obsolete armour scheme). Littorio's FCS wasn't really that bad, it was quite adequate afaik, but severely limited without gunnery direction radar. 

 

If you want sources, you can check out Naval Firepower: "Battleship Guns and Gunnery in the Dreadnought Era" for information on Littorio's FCS, and "The Littorio Class" by Erminio Bagnasco for information on the ship's armour. The articles on combinedfleet and navweaps are also good sources for information." Axis and Neutral Battleships of WW2" by WH Garzke is another good one to read.

El2aZeR, on 12 January 2017 - 08:44 PM, said:

 

Dunno about her directors, but I read that on the Littorios shell quality was poor and thus increased dispersion. Apparently protection against plunging fire was lacking as well and the TDS was defective. Nothing about the belt armor being weak, though.

The only thing I definitely know is that their AA sucked, a late war US DD could put up a more effective firestorm than a Littorio.

 

To be fair, the Italian 90mm AA gun is pretty good, plus the twin 37mm Breda autocannons were good enough to get the job done.

[Cosseria]

 

Okay then:

 

Littorio had an obsolete armour scheme, there's a reason most navies had switched over to all-or-nothing armour. The Italians and Germans didn't and used the older incremental system which was less effective and resulted in needless extra weight. Not to mention that the much vaunted "Pugliese" system never really worked as well as it was supposed to, even against aircraft torpedoes. Their guns had excessive muzzle velocity, which is great in a brawl but makes them very weak at range as faster shells are more likely to impact thicker belt armour rather than the deck. Couple this with the fact that the Italian shells were of dubious quality and often had extreme levels of dispersion, I fail to see how they were technically superior to any other ships built at the time, except maybe Bismarck which had many of the same problems (excessive muzzle velocity, obsolete armour scheme). Littorio's FCS wasn't really that bad, it was quite adequate afaik, but severely limited without gunnery direction radar.

 

If you want sources, you can check out Naval Firepower: "Battleship Guns and Gunnery in the Dreadnought Era" for information on Littorio's FCS, and "The Littorio Class" by Erminio Bagnasco for information on the ship's armour. The articles on combinedfleet and navweaps are also good sources for information." Axis and Neutral Battleships of WW2" by WH Garzke is another good one to read.

 

To be fair, the Italian 90mm AA gun is pretty good, plus the twin 37mm Breda autocannons were good enough to get the job done.

 

 

This is an informed opinion, which I can agree with. Sorry but at first it seemed you were the kind of biased guy thinking "My cousin's FIAT sux, so any kind of Italian technology sux as well".

[VeteranGamer84]

Horin728, on 11 January 2017 - 05:35 PM, said:

AND NO BLOODY INFO ABOUT THE CV REWORK!

 

This is good news for me. I hope rust eats CVs in this game.

[NemesisActual]

 

 

This is an informed opinion, which I can agree with. Sorry but at first it seemed you were the kind of biased guy thinking "My cousin's FIAT sux, so any kind of Italian technology sux as well".

 

No problem, I can see how I might have given that impression.

[Armo1000]

Can people stop banging on about new ships already. The game is gonna go nowhere if all we want is new ships. 

 

PvE Content guys! finally!

 

more game modes is all i have ever wanted.

 

this with a historical battles mode in the the PvE setting would be awesomee.

 

new ships can come after the actual gameplay is refined fun and varied.

 

I think we all get too carried away by the ships and what new ones are coming next to the extent where we forget that this game is actually very bare bones with only ONE game mode.

[Djansolo]

I think we will receive full RN BB line along with heavy cruiser or CV line. The French will get cruisers + battleships for sure.

 

I am little bit scared about new armament type. I think it will be non-guided missiles for the upcoming russian DDs. I am little bit scared. Will we receive tomahawks for Iowas?  

 

I just got the Iowa, oooooh nice.

Tomahawks and CIWS too please

[El2aZeR]

Tomahawks and CIWS too please

 

Nah, we clearly need Katie shells. 

[Djansolo]

"new armament" I think they called it, not "new weapon"?

What if they mean new ammo?

The one thing everyone fears are ofc premium ammo.

 

But what about highlevel bombing with BB AP shells, just like the japanese did at Pearl Harbour.

How it work, I have no specific idea, but as far as I remember, they used torpedobombers with 16 inch shells from Nagato-class, and flew in 5 plane formations dropping all 5 bombs at once. So an alternative to torping in loadout.

[mtm78]

Can people stop banging on about new ships already. The game is gonna go nowhere if all we want is new ships. 

 

PvE Content guys! finally!

 

more game modes is all i have ever wanted.

 

this with a historical battles mode in the the PvE setting would be awesomee.

 

new ships can come after the actual gameplay is refined fun and varied.

 

I think we all get too carried away by the ships and what new ones are coming next to the extent where we forget that this game is actually very bare bones with only ONE game mode.

 

Folks can we please bang on about new ship lines! That's what we need, more variation in ships so we have more varied tactical choices ( like WG is spoiling us with the new captain perks ). That will make the gameplay more fun, and when we have fun we could even play some PvE scenarios when we're bored

 

sorry, I couldn't resist 

 

edit: I should put a  somewhere but I can't find a proper placement to indicate the sarcasm

[Badameco]

I like both French and Italian ships.... guess that makes me a bad person... 

 

[Admiral_Noif]

 

I hope that I don't need see missiles in this game.

[Trad9]

Maybe they mean unguided rockets on fighter planes? That's totally WWII thing 

[Verdius]

I like both French and Italian ships.... guess that makes me a bad person... 

 

You monster!

 

I hope that I don't need see missiles in this game.

It really takes away from the feel of the game.

How would they even balance high speed high damage guided projectiles? How are WW2 era ships supposed to defend against 1960s soviet guided missiles?

 

Therefore in WoWs in 2018 I would support giving the Yamato a new upgrade:

 

[El2aZeR]

Therefore in WoWs in 2018 I would support giving the Yamato a new upgrade:

 

 

We've been there already, though.

Seriously, that gamemode was fun, can we have that again?

[Cpl_johan11]

I do hope those new PVE modes will actually be worth playing...if they give the same awards as coop battles do right now, it's not really worth it.

[Hades_warrior]

 

Seriously, that gamemode was fun, can we have that again?

 

When was that?

[El2aZeR]

When was that?

 

April Fools' Day in CBT, hasn't appeared since sadly.

[AkosJaccik]

 

I'm eagerly waiting for the new stories on the forum by BB captains.

"...and then I got nuked by a DD. I mean literally."

 

I'm ashamed to admit that I don't know if ships bigger than river boats used unguided surface-to-surface rocket artillery (although I wouldn't be surprised, humanity is rather creative when it needs to shove stuff up onto their war vehicles and en-masse rockets are far from the most ridiculous ideas), but I don't think automatically that it will be the downfall of WoWs. While I somewhat miss the earlier "everything is somewhat specialized, rock-paper-scissors and such"-days, now everything is much more mixed I feel, and after this, some new "gimmick" might be a fun way to increase diversity if done right. I mean, rockets could have the same effect of a manually dropped bomber group strike - but people are accomodated to this, and not the rockets, so the opposition is natural. But again, I feel like this option has the potential to turn out well. Basically, this would not change the game flow significantly, it would rather be some kind of "new shooting effect" more than anything else.

Missiles, not so much, they feel more like a "Press 'N' to deal damage"-kind of situation at first thought. I'm also concerned about possible mines due to the potential to drastically change gameplay (and this could go either way), although I would try to put myself into a "let's just see how it turns out"-state.

 

Basically if something does kind of nothing new but looks like new and does it a bit differently, I'm optimistic about it. This is why I am hoping for aviation cruisers/battleships as well one day: I would expect them to perform worse than their normal counterparts and I would still buy them.

 

...but you know what? If I could choose between getting a missile or some "skill for money"-gold ammo into my face, I'd ask for the missile twice.

 

[thestaggy]

If they put missiles in this game then I am done.