Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Asmodaeus

An Open Suggestion to Wargaming – The Nelson-class battleships, Premiums, and Tech trees

22 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[OLDG]
Beta Tester
22 posts

An Open Suggestion to Wargaming – The Nelson-class battleships, Premiums, and Tech trees.

 

As most people will be aware, the British battleship line was probably the most anticipated line in World of Warships this year,– and probably one of the most asked for lines since the release of the game. However, it is my impression,– I could be mistaken,– that there has been a fairly ambivalent response from the community as to how the Nelson will be released as a XP premium like the Missouri. While I would argue that the Nelson-class should not be released as XP premium ships, I would like to take the opportunity to show precisely why,– for historical and tech tree reasons,– Wargaming should not inadvertently close potential future avenues of expanding the British tech tree by blocking the Nelsons in as premiums.

 

In this short essay, I would therefore like to suggest a simple alternative solution to releasing HMS Nelson as a premium ship as well as also suggest how an in-depth look at the historical development of British battleships and British battlecruisers could show Wargaming how it could in future bring in the Nelson-class battleships as regular members of a fully-fledged line of British battleships.

 

(For the tl;dr version, please skip down to the conclusion. For a more technical look at why, continue on.)

 

 

Historical development and its implications on the British battleship line.

 

There is a tendency to conflate the historical order in which ships were built with design evolution,– e.g. Queen Elizabeth => Nelson => King George V,– even though this does not reflect the reality of warship design from the First to the Second World Wars. An understanding of the broadly linear nature of naval architecture actually makes building a tech tree for World of Warships easier, and is essential to understanding the place of as unique a class of ships as the Nelsons, which neither resemble the battleships the preceded nor followed them.

 

World War I battleship design in Britain was heavily influenced by the ideas of Jackie Fischer, whose championing of the battlecruiser caused the British naval establishment to develop concurrently two types of capital ships, as opposed to one homogenous type like the US Navy’s Standard-type battleships. Slow and heavily armoured battleships were relegated to a 23knt speed for homogeneous line-of-battle actions, while battlecruisers were used as light cavalry as thus were built to be significantly faster but more lightly armoured. While this seems simple in theory, the significant overlap between battleship and battlecruiser design makes this very had to keep in mind with the appearance of the Queen Elizabeth-class battleships, which were touted as the world’s first ‘fast’ battleships. What is most important to take from this is to remember that the British naval architects of the period thought in terms of ‘slow’ battleships and battlecruisers as this affected warship design in the immediate interwar period and thus has important ramifications on how any British battleship line is to be developed in World of Warships.

 

Essentially, British design was built in linear fashion, which each succeeding class being more heavily armed, more heavily armoured, or faster. One can trace a clear line of improvement,– much like the tier system in World of Warships,– just by a cursory glance at the battleships and battlecruisers up till the Washington Naval Treaties. For our purposes, we will concentrate on the relationship between the final classes of World War I, Revenge-class battleships, the Queen Elizabeth-class battleships, the Renown-class battlecruisers and the Admiral-class battlecruisers. Slower than the preceding Queen Elizabeths, the Revenge-class is a quintessential ‘slow’ battleship, featuring similar armour and armament, but slower and consequently smaller. At 21knts, she matches the speed of earlier ships like the Iron Duke-class battleships. In contrast, the Renowns shed a gun turret and significant amounts of armour to reach 32knts. Originally laid down as improvements of the Revenges, they were around 30 meters longer and fit in as a battlecruiser analogue to the Revenges and the Queen Elizabeths.

 

The odd one out are the Queen Elizabeths, who, featuring heavy armour and a top speed of 25knts,– comfortably in between the speed of the ‘slow’ Revenges and the battlecruiser Renowns,– they fit into neither category of ‘slow’ battleship or battlecruiser. In contrast, the Admiral-class is what you get if you stretch the Queen Elizabeth class into a battlecruiser without compromising armour or armament: a 32knt Queen Elizabeth at Tier VII that is unsurprisingly squishy when placed against Tier VIIIs. However, convergent evolution and universal utility is what led to the Queen Elizabeths becoming the template for future battleships, with the slow, all-gun-forward arrangement of the Nelsons being discarded and the lightly armoured battlecruisers seeing general extinction after the 1920s, the Alaska large cruisers and a number of unrealised designs notwithstanding.

 

Revenge, Renown and Queen Elizabeth essentially illustrate three different paths of development that British naval design could go down: the ‘slow’ battleship, the battlecruiser, and the ‘fast’ battleship which acts as a synthesis and middle ground between the former two. In terms of World of Warships. What this means is that Wargaming actually has the potential to develop three battleship/battlecruiser lines rather than the current one or even the potential two that most were thinking of when building their own versions of the British tech tree.

 

 

The place of the Nelson-class battleships

 

One argument seen in the discussions and Q&As regarding the Nelson-class is that the developers did not wish to disrupt the gameplay style of the Queen Elizabeth-Conqueror line by introducing a slow all-gun-forward battleship into an otherwise conventional line. Speaking frankly, this seems a fairly weak argument when one takes certain examples already in-game into account.

 

We have already seen significant gameplay changes when switching tiers in World of Warships. The clearest illustration of this would be to bring up the Amagi-Izumo shift, where a modernized battlecruiser which is arguably more heavily armed in the rear leads to a broad beamed all-gun-forward battleship. Other ships which feature similar shifts would be the move from the armoured St. Louis to the fast but fragile Phoenix, or the slow but manoeuvrable Bayern to the speedy Gneisenau.

 

A more convincing argument against placing Nelson after the Queen Elizabeth would be to point to the development of warship design around the end of the First World War, where Nelson and its progenitor design, the N3 battleships, represent the ‘slow’ battleship line perfectly. In contrast, the Queen Elizabeth-class after modernization and the King George V-class are much closer relations, with the KGVs being faster, far better armoured, more lightly armed and visually similar to the earlier modernized class.

 

 

Building three lines: ‘slow’ battleships, ‘fast’ battleships, and battlecruisers

 

While I hesitate in building a tech tree, I would like to at least suggest how historical development would translate in terms of the tech tree, where gaps in the lines exist and thus need further research to fill them in. This tech tree would be predicated on the idea that we have three different lines to accommodate the different evolutionary trees of British battleship and battlecruiser design: ‘slow’ battleships, ‘fast’ battleships, and battlecruisers. As most here are probably aware, there are quite enough historical classes to easily fill out three lines, from tier III to tier V. However, it is from tier VI up that things get complicated, which is why I’ll focus primarily on those. A preliminary outline of how things would look follows thus:

 

Tier VI :   Revenge;    Queen Elizabeth;    Renown

Tier VII :  ???;             King George V;       Admiral

Tier VIII : Nelson;       (Monarch);               J3

Tier IX :   ???;             Lion;                        G3

Tier X :    N3;             (Conqueror);             I3

 

Each line should have a theme or idea behind it so as to differentiate them from one another and also offer players an incentive for grind up the different lines. While speed would be the primary theme of the battlecruisers and, as it seems to be shaping up with the Conqueror, heavy armament for the ‘fast’ battleships, heavy armour should be the theme of the ‘slow’ battleship line, where ships were designed to fight in broadside battles and still come out swinging.

 

Here, the Nelson-class sits at tier VIII with their heavy armour and 16-inch guns, as they were capable of pummelling the Bismarck under favourable circumstances and thus toe-to-toe should they meet equally in-game. However, the one that would appear at tier VIII would be Nelson in her 1945 configuration, with a greatly bolstered anti-aircraft battery to allow her to fend off enemy carrier planes which become increasingly lethal as you rise in the tiers. 

 

The N3-class, with their even heavier armour and 18-inch guns would sit at the top of the line. Although they possess a turret less than the Conqueror, the N3s outclassed all other contemporary battleships when it was designed in terms of armour and armament, and after some modernization of their anti-aircraft armament, it would not be unrealistic to imagine them slugging it out with the other tier Xs.

 

The G3-class is actually a surprise in terms of its placement in the tree as they are, in truth, battlecruisers only in name. Featuring heavier armour than the Iowa-class battleships, they would play more like fast battleships, essentially revealing how the different evolutionary branches eventually converged towards the idea of a universal battleship,– similar to how heavy tanks and medium tanks eventually converged into the modern main battle tank.

 

As can be seen, gaps exist in both lines, for the tiers VII and IX of the ‘slow’ battleship line, and the tiers VIII and X or the battlecruiser line. Knowing British design history after the end of the First World War will reveal no shortage of high-tier potentials due to the number of super-battleship designs that were cut down by the Washington Naval Treaties, including the J3, a battlecruiser design very similar to the Monarch-class, which feature three triple 15-inch guns in conventional arrangement; and the I3 which features somewhat heavier armour than the G3s but an 18-inch main armament.

 

For those missing in the ‘slow’ battleship line, I have deliberately chosen to omit them as there are possibly two potential areas where one could find candidates. Either one could look at the preliminary designs of the Nelsons, i.e. P3 & Q3, to find potentials to fill in the gaps in tiers VII, or one could look instead to the 1928 and 1935 design studies for potential tier IXs.

 

 

Conclusion

 

As shown above, it is fully possible for Wargaming to build three fully fledged battleship-battlecruiser lines for the British in World of Warships,– an opportunity which should not be squandered by placing the Nelson-class battleships outside of the regular tree. Were the lead ship of the Nelson-class to become a premium, it would make for some awkward tech tree shuffling and renaming in future should Wargaming later on decide that it would like to build a second or third British battleship line, which is highly probable as adding new tech tree lines is the most viable way Wargaming has of expanding the game.

 

Instead, if Wargaming nonetheless insists on releasing a Nelson-class battleship as a premium ship, I think if would be a better decision,– in light of the reasons above,– to make the premium HMS Rodney, rather than HMS Nelson. Premiums should always be there to offer something special to players, which is why they by and large should represent specific members of a class rather than ship-classes as a whole. This is something that makes them an attractive purchase for players without removing the free2play aspect of a MMO,– better to let all players experience a ship class rather than placing something as well-known and iconic as the Nelson-class battleships (or even the Kii-class battleships but that’s an argument for another day) behind a monetary or experience wall that most players will need to use substantial real money to overcome.

 

If nothing else, Wargaming will be better able to deflect critics of the game economy while also retaining the goodwill of players who wish to experience these ships but have not the means to pay for what would be a fairly expensive bit of experience conversion. With HMS Hood, the Bismarck and the Prinz Eugen already in the game, the addition of another veteran of the drama surrounding the sinking of the Bismarck will be very much welcomed by the history buffs amongst the community, as well as leaving Wargaming the option in future of using the Nelson-class as a regular ship in a ‘slow’ battleship line for the British in future.

 


 

I was uncertain as to whether this should have been posted here or in the gameplay forum, so if a moderator would be so kind as to help move it if I've placed it in error, then I would very much appreciate it.

 

To everyone reading this, I only ask that you be kind and constructive with your criticism. Thank you.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
26,732 posts
14,356 battles

Why does a premium for money make a difference to a premium for free XP in light of your suggestion of future lines?

Why should a future line with the Rodney not be possible?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[OLDG]
Beta Tester
22 posts
8 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

Why does a premium for money make a difference to a premium for free XP in light of your suggestion of future lines?

Why should a future line with the Rodney not be possible?

 

A pithy answer would be to say that anything is of course possible, but that's obviously not a helpful answer. Ahem.

 

To answer your first question, I'm not opposed to the issue of xp vs money. A premium ship is there as an option for purchase, not a necessity, hence why it's not something I take issue with or something that I address above.

 

However, I think, by and large, premium ships have by and large always represented individual members of a class,- consider the difference between the Kirov and the Molotov, or the Missouri vs the Iowa,- whereas regular ships in the tech tree should represent classes as a whole. As it is Nelson which is the name- and lead-ship of the class, I feel that it should be kept as a regular member of a future tech tree line, whereas Rodney should be made the premium and thus modelled as such. I am merely making the suggestion that Wargaming rather hedge its bets now rather than later, and that it would be rather strange, if Rodney were to represent her class rather than Nelson who was, as I've said, the leadship and thus foremost representative thereof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[OLDG]
Beta Tester
22 posts
13 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

Would not be a problem.

Btw. Scharnhorst is a premium too and not a silver ship.

 

I did think of the Scharnhorst, and while I would agree with you, there are at least 2 reasons why the Gneisenau was chosen as the regular 'representative' ship over the Scharnhorst.

 

Firstly (and more superficially), Gneisenau was, while never considered the leadship of her class by western publications, laid down and commissioned earlier than her sister ship the Scharnhorst. Indeed some publications call it the Gneisenau-class although I think,- and don't quote me on this,- those were primarily German publications near and around the period.

 

Secondly and much more pertinently, the specific model we have of Gneisenau in WoWs is actually that of her proposed rebuild after she was bombed in 1942. WHile there were intentions of replacing the 11-inch guns of both ships before the outbreak of war, the model we have in-game, with the longer bow, updated secondary battery and 15-inch guns, is very specifically the one drawn up for Gneisenau in 1942 and was never intended for Scharnhorst. If you had renamed it Scharnhorst, that would not merely be unhistorical, it would be outright wrong.

 

In the case of Gneisenau and Scharnhorst, you have a very exceptional circumstance which has allowed Wargaming to make a lead ship a premium. To stress: this is an exception, not a rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
26,732 posts
14,356 battles

Scharnhorst was launched earlier.

 

And the game did not break down because of making Gneisenau the tree ship.

The same will happen should WG make Rodney the tree ship. No difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BLOBS]
Beta Tester
5,179 posts
12,645 battles

Wonder why they cant give options of 2 BBs at the same Tir like they do in WOT were you have sometimes 2 ways to progress in line. Anyway not a huge fan of fantasy ships that werent even laid down vs real ones and i say that as someone hy will have Nelson the second it goes live,,,,,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[OLDG]
Beta Tester
22 posts
6 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

Scharnhorst was launched earlier.

 

And the game did not break down because of making Gneisenau the tree ship.

The same will happen should WG make Rodney the tree ship. No difference.

 

I think if firstly, there is at least a modelling issue should they bring in Rodney as the regular ship as she and Nelson differed fairly noticeably by the end of the war. Secondly I should like to say that while Scharnhorst was launched earlier, it is still not the ship in the tech tree,- which is the 1943 plan to rebuild the Gneisenau and was never applied to the Scharnhorst,- nor was it universally acknowledge as the lead ship of the class by some publications outside of the west which instead went by which was commissioned first.

 

And I've not said the game is going to break down in any way. My point is more focused on the message of making a lead ship a premium rather than a regular, as well as how it would fit into game considering one of the reasons why Wargaming took it out of the current tech tree in the first place was because it played too differently to the Queen Elizabeth and the King George V. I just think making it a premium is a bad idea in the first place. What I said was if they must introduce it into the game,- and they are planning to in patch 6.10,- that they should instead make it HMS Rodney so that the class as a whole remains accessible for those who may not which to purchase or convert experience, while the premium should be there to offer a unique version to those who may wish to purchase it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[OLDG]
Beta Tester
22 posts
12 minutes ago, Spellfire40 said:

Wonder why they cant give options of 2 BBs at the same Tir like they do in WOT were you have sometimes 2 ways to progress in line. Anyway not a huge fan of fantasy ships that werent even laid down vs real ones and i say that as someone hy will have Nelson the second it goes live,,,,,

 

I actually agree, with that as not every ship has a line it could fit in, Vanguard being a prime example. With regards to paper ships, I'm in two minds about them as on the one hand, many do represent linear developments of ships and can thus fill in a tech tree that would otherwise be difficult to stretch to tier X. On the other hand, the fact that they are paper ships makes it very easy to jiggle around the stats into something that can only be called 'ill-advised'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BLOBS]
Beta Tester
5,179 posts
12,645 battles

Well Vangaurd would fit T8 as much as a Bismark.  Hell a lots of people thogh old tirpitz would never be able to hold its own agist amagi and NC with having not only higher caliber guns but also more of them. Its just sad that one of the navys wich fielded the most ships in 2 World wars is unable to fill a techtree whilw US can (Montana was laid diwn at least) 1 or 2 i could kind of understand due to the lack of latewar developments but Monach is really unneeded. Their griping abut gun progression is something they take out only when it fits their argument anyhow. Well its a shame that they hide real ships as premiums instead as part of the techtree anyhow free exp or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[OLDG]
Beta Tester
22 posts
9 hours ago, Spellfire40 said:

Well Vangaurd would fit T8 as much as a Bismark.  Hell a lots of people thogh old tirpitz would never be able to hold its own agist amagi and NC with having not only higher caliber guns but also more of them. Its just sad that one of the navys wich fielded the most ships in 2 World wars is unable to fill a techtree whilw US can (Montana was laid diwn at least) 1 or 2 i could kind of understand due to the lack of latewar developments but Monach is really unneeded. Their griping abut gun progression is something they take out only when it fits their argument anyhow. Well its a shame that they hide real ships as premiums instead as part of the techtree anyhow free exp or not.

 

True enough, especially when there are probably more than enough real ships laid down to fill up a tech tree. And I do agree with you about the gun progression argument. Scharnhorst here would be an excellent example of a ship that is nominally under-gunned for its tier but still very playable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,678 posts
13,636 battles

Not picking up every detail because I don't have an opinion on most part. Just this:

I always hoped for Nelson being a T7 so she can represent the "Big Seven" (the only ships that were allowed to have 16" guns during the Treaty) alongside Colorado and Nagato. Mutsu being a T6 is okay gameplaywise due to the WWI setup but it bothered me tbh.

And tech tree succession is not always the historical development. The most drastic example for this is probably within the USN CV tree: CV-1 was USS Langley, the T4 CV and the first CV of the line. CV-2, however, was USS Lexington which you find at T8. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[JUNK]
[JUNK]
Beta Tester
1,933 posts
8,398 battles

Sorry, Nelson really isnt tier 8 material and N3 isnt tier 10 material. You should research more on how historical stats translate to gameplay stats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ST-EU]
Supertester, Players, Sailing Hamster
1,920 posts
3,882 battles
13 hours ago, Affeks said:

Sorry, Nelson really isnt tier 8 material and N3 isnt tier 10 material. You should research more on how historical stats translate to gameplay stats.

 

In past I would charge into these threads like a crazed missionary and preach the word of my tech tree. But I don't like that image of myself. 

 

Anyway, long story short, Nelson VII, M2, VIII, N3, IX, L3, X. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DREAD]
Players
9,704 posts
6,864 battles
7 minutes ago, Trainspite said:

 

In past I would charge into these threads like a crazed missionary and preach the word of my tech tree. But I don't like that image of myself. 

 

Anyway, long story short, Nelson VII, M2, VIII, N3, IX, L3, X. 

 

Feeling the age old chap?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ST-EU]
Supertester, Players, Sailing Hamster
1,920 posts
3,882 battles
3 hours ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

 

Feeling the age old chap?

 

I shouldn't be, given my age. I am a bit worn out on repeating myself over and over on RN BBs though. To devs and forum alike :I

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DREAD]
Players
9,704 posts
6,864 battles
2 minutes ago, Trainspite said:

 

I shouldn't be, given my age. I am a bit worn out on repeating myself over and over on RN BBs though. To devs and forum alike :I

 

I was just pulling your leg. I guess the line is set now - if we like it or not. Hell would it be nice to design your own game...

 

I am (as you might expect) curious to see Bellerophon and Orion. Might even keep these two :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ST-EU]
Supertester, Players, Sailing Hamster
1,920 posts
3,882 battles
Just now, 1MajorKoenig said:

 

I was just pulling your leg. I guess the line is set now - if we like it or not. Hell would it be nice to design your own game...

 

I am (as you might expect) curious to see Bellerophon and Orion. Might even keep these two :-)

 

I can tell, don't worry. Set until WG decide to change it, like RU or IJN DDs. Other priorities first though, so we are stuck with the fake Monarch and KGV at the wrong tier. 

 

Bellerophon & Orion don't escape from my list of complaints about the RN BB line unfortunately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DREAD]
Players
9,704 posts
6,864 battles
6 hours ago, Trainspite said:

 

I can tell, don't worry. Set until WG decide to change it, like RU or IJN DDs. Other priorities first though, so we are stuck with the fake Monarch and KGV at the wrong tier. 

 

Bellerophon & Orion don't escape from my list of complaints about the RN BB line unfortunately.

 

Isn't the NDA lifted? What is wrong with Bellerophon and Orion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ST-EU]
Supertester, Players, Sailing Hamster
1,920 posts
3,882 battles
On 16/08/2017 at 6:37 AM, 1MajorKoenig said:

 

Isn't the NDA lifted? What is wrong with Bellerophon and Orion?

 

Community Contributors and Supertesters are not equal. :I

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[OLDG]
Beta Tester
22 posts
On ‎15‎/‎08‎/‎2017 at 7:04 AM, Affeks said:

Sorry, Nelson really isnt tier 8 material and N3 isnt tier 10 material. You should research more on how historical stats translate to gameplay stats.

 

I'll grant you the Nelson is probably more suited to being at Tier VII with the other Big Seven, but I'd at least like to think that the N3 has potential considering the 18-inch guns and heavy armour, although the 23knt speed does count heavily against it. Unfortunately, I don't know enough about how real life stats directly correspond with gameplay stats so I can't much comment on that aspect. WHat are your thoughts on the G3 though? I remember reading in Brown's Nelson to Vanguard which suggests that the G3 was comparable if not superior !on paper! to the Iowa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DREAD]
Players
9,704 posts
6,864 battles
On 17.8.2017 at 4:57 PM, Trainspite said:

 

Community Contributors and Supertesters are not equal. :I

 

I see. Having seen the first gameplay impressions on YouTube it appears as if Bellerophon and Orion are grossly overpowered. However visually they look good - if you don't mind - once the NDA - is lifted - I would be curious what your problem with Orion is?

 

The Duke is clearly fictional but that wasn't the point.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


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

×