Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
CatOnKeyboard

Tier 10 Destroyers and Anti-Ship Guided Missiles

51 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Players
194 posts
2,055 battles

Proposal: Drop current Tier 10 Destroyers to Tier 9, and add Guided Missile Destroyers as the new Tier 10s. These Destroyers would have Anti-Ship Guided Missiles, as well as Torpedoes. Each major nation would receive one Anti-Ship Guided Missile Destroyer. Currently, the only one I can propose in detail is the USS Farragut (1957) class, also referred to as the Coontz class. Armament of the Farragut 1957s were:

 

1x Terrier Surface-to-Air Missile Launcher

1x 5" Dual Purpose Naval Gun

8x ASROC System (Can be ignored, as we don't have subs.)

 

Technically, the Coontz class couldn't fire Anti-Ship Missiles, but for the sake of this being a game, we can assume it can. There are plenty of fake ships in this game, so adding an unrealistic armament to a real ship should not be a problem. Missiles work in the following way:

 

1. Press the 4 key twice to select your Anti-Ship Missiles. The map will then zoom out to the overhead map view, showing you a circle of the minimum range. You cannot fire within this range.

2. Hover over your target and press X to lock.

3. After several (about 3) seconds, a Launch prompt will show, press the fire button to Launch.

 

When an ASM is Launched, a large plume of smoke is visible to all players, regardless of if the ship is detected or not. Additionally, players within a certain range will receive a "Missile Launch Detected!" prompt. The Anti-Ship Guided Missile acts like an Aircraft, except heading straight towards the target at high speed. Because of it's speed, it's all but immune to most AA fire. The exception is Anti-Air fire with Defensive Fire, or Ships with CIWS (presumably, tier 10 Cruisers). On hit, a Missile will deal large amounts of damage, break modules, potentially cause a magazine detonation and start fires. 

 

 The question being, "How are you supposed to stop this as a Battleship?" Well, you aren't, not alone, anyway. There are several ways you can avoid a Missile. If you begin to change course the moment you see the smoke plume,  depending on the range at which the missile was fired from, you may be able to dodge the missile. A missile doesn't begin to track it's target until several seconds after launch, allowing you to throw it off. Moreover, these Tier 10 Destroyers also carry Anti-Missile Defences, Interceptor Missiles which can be used to shoot down Missiles. These will automatically fire provided your Missiles are in Missile Defence mode, not Anti-Ship Mode. Because of this, the optimal time to launch a Missile back at a Destroyer is just after they have fired a Missile of their own. When the Missile Launch prompt sounds, Ships equipped with Interceptor Missiles will automatically fire an Interceptor missile. This doesn't create a visible smoke plume except to the ships who can already see you, for balance reasons. 

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 4
  • Boring 1
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BYOB]
[BYOB]
Players
4,609 posts
20,401 battles

How about no? The last real ships in the game were all laid down as artillery ships (Sverdlov-class Mikhail Kutuzov was completed 1954). Hell, even the Moskva was a pure artillery design.

Introducing a new weapon type like this would put the whole game on its head. Especially since the T10 DDs would be easy meat for T9s with better close range artillery. Because 1x dual purpose gun is nothing compared with a current T10 which has 3x2 guns (Khaba is a light cruiser :Smile_trollface:).

 

PS: One of the first CIWS systems, the AK-230, was introduced in the 1960s. That's well beyond the scope of the game.

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
467 posts
13,407 battles

Make that ships of tier 11, so tier 10 dont need to fight tier 8... lol

With all the new players that have to grind, and so many have tier 10 already, it is just smart to expand to next tier. Now MM is broken from tier 5 and up.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
2,795 posts
7,088 battles

Missles on ships are a no, concidering jets got removed from TX cv's, just no :Smile_Default:

bug i have to disagree on t5 MM broken, kami r + a t6 ship = t8 BB match = profit :Smile_trollface:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,199 posts
14,266 battles
30 minutes ago, CatOnKeyboard said:

Proposal: Drop current Tier 10 Destroyers to Tier 9, and add Guided Missile Destroyers as the new Tier 10s. These Destroyers would have Anti-Ship Guided Missiles, as well as Torpedoes. Each major nation would receive one Anti-Ship Guided Missile Destroyer. Currently, the only one I can propose in detail is the USS Farragut (1957) class, also referred to as the Coontz class. Armament of the Farragut 1957s were:

 

1x Terrier Surface-to-Air Missile Launcher

1x 5" Dual Purpose Naval Gun

8x ASROC System (Can be ignored, as we don't have subs.)

 

Technically, the Coontz class couldn't fire Anti-Ship Missiles, but for the sake of this being a game, we can assume it can. There are plenty of fake ships in this game, so adding an unrealistic armament to a real ship should not be a problem. Missiles work in the following way:

 

1. Press the 4 key twice to select your Anti-Ship Missiles. The map will then zoom out to the overhead map view, showing you a circle of the minimum range. You cannot fire within this range.

2. Hover over your target and press X to lock.

3. After several (about 3) seconds, a Launch prompt will show, press the fire button to Launch.

 

When an ASM is Launched, a large plume of smoke is visible to all players, regardless of if the ship is detected or not. Additionally, players within a certain range will receive a "Missile Launch Detected!" prompt. The Anti-Ship Guided Missile acts like an Aircraft, except heading straight towards the target at high speed. Because of it's speed, it's all but immune to most AA fire. The exception is Anti-Air fire with Defensive Fire, or Ships with CIWS (presumably, tier 10 Cruisers). On hit, a Missile will deal large amounts of damage, break modules, potentially cause a magazine detonation and start fires. 

 

 The question being, "How are you supposed to stop this as a Battleship?" Well, you aren't, not alone, anyway. There are several ways you can avoid a Missile. If you begin to change course the moment you see the smoke plume,  depending on the range at which the missile was fired from, you may be able to dodge the missile. A missile doesn't begin to track it's target until several seconds after launch, allowing you to throw it off. Moreover, these Tier 10 Destroyers also carry Anti-Missile Defences, Interceptor Missiles which can be used to shoot down Missiles. These will automatically fire provided your Missiles are in Missile Defence mode, not Anti-Ship Mode. Because of this, the optimal time to launch a Missile back at a Destroyer is just after they have fired a Missile of their own. When the Missile Launch prompt sounds, Ships equipped with Interceptor Missiles will automatically fire an Interceptor missile. This doesn't create a visible smoke plume except to the ships who can already see you, for balance reasons. 

you ate some bad mushrooms, aint you mate?

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SICK]
Weekend Tester
5,098 posts
11,146 battles
32 minutes ago, CatOnKeyboard said:

. Moreover, these Tier 10 Destroyers also carry Anti-Missile Defences, Interceptor Missiles which can be used to shoot down Missiles.

 

Ok so, anti ship missiles in the 50's ?
Yeah that works. It's late 50's, but it works.

Interceptor missiles?
You have to wait for the 80's and the American AEGIS cruiser for that.
It's waayyyy out of the time frame.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SM0KE]
Players
5,786 posts
14,064 battles

Presumably, this is the WOWS equivalent to "hey, why don't we have have ATGMs?" that pops up from time to time in WOT?

FWIW I'm a vehement 'no' (as I am for ATGMs as well): the entire game is designed and balanced around gunfire; SSMs would be too hard to implement without buggering up what we already have.

BTW I vaguely remember the commander of one of the US BBs before the first Gulf War being interviewed on TV, and being asked if he was worried about Silkworms (I think) - his response was a rather relaxed words-to-the-effect-of "if a missile flew straight into that window over there, it might crack the glass". Whilst some was bravado for the TV, it does illustrate the point that most anti-shipping missiles are of dubious utility against well-armoured ships...

 

Edit: I'm guessing the above commander might have been a bit less relaxed about some of the monsters that the USSR had at that time though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SM0KE]
Players
5,786 posts
14,064 battles
12 minutes ago, Exocet6951 said:


Interceptor missiles?
You have to wait for the 80's and the American AEGIS cruiser for that.
It's waayyyy out of the time frame.

Strictly-speaking, things like Sea Dart, the precursors to Aegis (the original Standard missiles?), and similar were designed to hit missiles before that.

What Aegis introduced was the ability to engage a *lot* of missiles all at the same time (the VLS version especially).

I attended a talk by the RN whilst I was at uni; the poor chap could only look sheepish when asked what the (Sea Dart equipped, at that time) RN would do if being shot at by more than one missile, after showing us a film about how they dealt with an incoming anti-ship strike...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TORAZ]
Beta Tester
14,101 posts
20,015 battles

Anti ship missiles were tested and discarded along with the 2nd RU DD line split as they were too powerful.

 

Quote

17) (22:37) New weapon type we tested were missiles. They were really really great, but not for this game. You’d have followed a single shot missile and steered it into the target. It was super fun, but it was waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too strong. It’s just not a feature that is suitable for this game. We also tried an unguided variant, but that was just boring, it was just like normal shooting but slower with more damage.

Source: http://kalmaklaani.fi/2017/08/wows-qa-29th-august-2017/

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SOCKS]
Players
790 posts
5,620 battles

HELL YEA.

 

or rather, how about not a chance?. I mean, look at...that...some other game...that began promoting itself as a highly realistic WWII air and tank simulator (KEK to both, btw)...

 

and has just introduced abrahams, Leopard 2s and crap like that.

Nope, nope nope nope and nope. This is a game about the big gun era. Keep it in the big gun era.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BYOB]
[BYOB]
Players
4,609 posts
20,401 battles
2 minutes ago, RAMJB said:

This is a game about the big gun era. Keep it in the big gun era.

Amen to that, also pre-dreadnaught ships and ports please.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
6 posts

My thoughts exactly!

 

Destroyers haring  about launching instant death would thoroughly skew the game.

 

As has already been mentioned, April Fool?  :cap_yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SERBS]
Players
478 posts
14,705 battles

how about submarines with sound guided torpedoes??!!?!?!

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BYOB]
[BYOB]
Players
4,609 posts
20,401 battles

How about USS Wisconsin BB-64 armed with 32x Tomahawk missiles and 16x Harpoon missiles?

The model is already in the game, just add the launchers. :cap_rambo:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WJDE]
Beta Tester
555 posts
8,741 battles

How about SSNs and SSGNs? I like cold waters, and it would be nice in multiplayer - which it's currently lacking... Launching 100+ TASMs at the enemy team from ohio-class ssgn sounds FUN:cap_haloween:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

lol, jk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
467 posts
13,407 battles
50 minutes ago, Verblonde said:



BTW I vaguely remember the commander of one of the US BBs before the first Gulf War being interviewed on TV, and being asked if he was worried about Silkworms (I think) - his response was a rather relaxed words-to-the-effect-of "if a missile flew straight into that window over there, it might crack the glass". Whilst some was bravado for the TV, it does illustrate the point that most anti-shipping missiles are of dubious utility against well-armoured ships...

 

Edit: I'm guessing the above commander might have been a bit less relaxed about some of the monsters that the USSR had at that time though.

I guess that commander totally missed what that old rocket exocet  did during the falklands war in 82, or What Irak did to to USS Stark in 87 - only 3 years before desert storm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,022 posts
5,416 battles
19 minutes ago, CatOnKeyboard said:

I mean if you have any other solution to break the battleship stalemates in tier 10, go ahead.

 

The real problem is that bbs are not vulnerable enough to other bbs. If we would do away with turtle backs and underwater citadels this problem wouldn't exist. 

 

Also, way too many people suck at dds, since they are overall bad or simply do not know how to play their ships to their merits. Just look at all the noobs complaining about radar....

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
194 posts
2,055 battles
4 minutes ago, dCK_Ad_Hominem said:

The real problem is that bbs are not vulnerable enough to other bbs. If we would do away with turtle backs and underwater citadels this problem wouldn't exist. 

 

Also, way too many people suck at dds, since they are overall bad or simply do not know how to play their ships to their merits. Just look at all the noobs complaining about radar....

 

i mean i admit to being crap at this game xd

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
467 posts
13,407 battles
3 minutes ago, dCK_Ad_Hominem said:

The real problem is that bbs are not vulnerable enough to other bbs. If we would do away with turtle backs and underwater citadels this problem wouldn't exist. 

 

Also, way too many people suck at dds, since they are overall bad or simply do not know how to play their ships to their merits. Just look at all the noobs complaining about radar....

yea, and Belfast isnt OP, it can be killed. BB in mid to higher tiers tend to have greater secondary range than dd have torp range. Add radar and buff torps and you get todays situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SM0KE]
Players
5,786 posts
14,064 battles
6 minutes ago, bug said:

I guess that commander totally missed what that old rocket exocet  did during the falklands war in 82, or What Irak did to to USS Stark in 87 - only 3 years before desert storm.

Not so much: Sheffield made a lot of use of aluminium (as, I think, did the USN warships of the same period), which contributed the mess the exocet made. The US BBs were (obviously) good old-fashioned steel etc, designed to cope with AP shells etc.

I seem to recall that after the Falklands, a lot of ship designers made some significant changes to how smaller warships were protected (not to mention getting a lot keener on things like CIWS).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
467 posts
13,407 battles

Give tier 9 to 10 cruisers missiles now - working like deep water torps, only hurting BB, and game suddenly improves, lol

Share this post


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

×