Dev Blog 516 - New ships (Incheon and Johnston)

[MidnightPhoenix07]

https://blog.worldofwarships.com/blog/516
 

Tier X Pan Asian cruiser Incheon, basically a Buffalo with Tulsa guns (but Petro AP), deep water torps with torp reload booster, and no hydro. 

Tier IX US destroyer Johnston (it’s finally coming!) — Mostly typical US DD, with HE/SAP main guns and burst fire, Gearing torps with 13.5 km range and long reload. Model still WIP, will be tested as “Frank Friday.”

[_KlRlTO_]

Surprised no one has commented on this yet.

[Wolfswetpaws]

2 hours ago, MidnightPhoenix07 said:

https://blog.worldofwarships.com/blog/516
 

Tier X Pan Asian cruiser Incheon, basically a Buffalo with Tulsa guns (but Petro AP), deep water torps with torp reload booster, and no hydro. 

Tier IX US destroyer Johnston (it’s finally coming!) — Mostly typical US DD, with HE/SAP main guns and burst fire, Gearing torps with 13.5 km range and long reload. Model still WIP, will be tested as “Frank Friday.”

I just finished a game with a Tier-9 ship, the Louchan, on my team.
First time I've seen that ship name, too.

[MidnightPhoenix07]

12 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

I just finished a game with a Tier-9 ship, the Louchan, on my team.
First time I've seen that ship name, too.

Pan asian (so you’d need another captain) 100% clone of what’s often considered one of the worst Tier IX battleships — Lion. And it was or random bundles or overpriced and bloated bundles only, so very few people would have likely bought it.

I know I saw one or two when it first released. But that’s it. I don’t think I even saw any during Christmas flakes just two months later. 

[Nevermore135]

That 8.5km smoke firing detection on Incheon will be awkward. It’s proportionally equivalent to Anchorage’s 8km penalty with 15.6km firing range.

I thought I would be more excited for Johnston, but I can’t say I find this concept very appealing. Will have to see what state she comes out of testing in.

Edited March 7 by Nevermore135

[MidnightPhoenix07]

58 minutes ago, Nevermore135 said:

That 8.5km smoke firing detection on Incheon will be awkward. It’s proportionally equivalent to Anchorage’s 8km penalty with 15.6km firing range.

That’s generally the problem with smoke heavy cruisers. Kind of awkward on Anchorage, and definitely uncomfortable on Gibraltar (and imo one of its biggest issues).

Even the Italians have that same issue, although it never feels as bad for me because of their higher range and different play style. 

[SunkCostFallacy]

I admit to some interest in the Incheon.

She appears, at this point at least, to have the Dakka I crave.

She looks a bit fragile though, at first glance ... so I'd say no lighthouse build for her!

[Schnitchelkid01_]

The Johnston is coming!!!! I hope it is a Coal Ship I really do

[Nevermore135]

7 hours ago, MidnightPhoenix07 said:

That’s generally the problem with smoke heavy cruisers. Kind of awkward on Anchorage, and definitely uncomfortable on Gibraltar (and imo one of its biggest issues).

Even the Italians have that same issue, although it never feels as bad for me because of their higher range and different play style. 

Italian CA smoke isn’t really designed for farming (it’s primarily a defensive tool for repositioning), so while the long detection penalty is annoying it’s not as crippling. The only CA with smoke that is actually comfortable to use offensively is Rochester with her 6.8km smoke firing penalty, and she made Anchorage obsolete upon release (the latter’s recent buff of moving the spotter plane to a separate slot has helped somewhat, though). Even Defense’s short-duration smoke feels less awkward, because like with Italian CAs it lends itself to use to quickly disengage and reposition. The devs do seem to at least be conscious of this general issue, as Cerberus will be released next patch with only a 7.3km penalty to go with her 18.5km range and 102s long crawling smoke.

Incheon does have the characteristic PA smoke, with its shorter duration and cooldown relative to American versions of the consumable, so it won’t fell quite as bad if the player is forced to abandon it. I still foresee lots of players being caught out by the smoke firing penalty and being deleted in their smoke as a result. Buffalo isn’t exactly nimble and the hull eats citadels, and Incheon won’t have 27mm extremity plating either.

Edited March 7 by Nevermore135

[Tpaktop2_1 NA]

Uh a few questions. Who is the Union Navy Lieutenant John W. Johnston that is referred in the WoWs Dev blog? Is WG meant to be referring to Union Navy Lieutenant John V. Johnston in which DD-537 (Fletcher class) is named after? Was the name translated from German? Where is the ship picture in the blog?

[Nevermore135]

21 minutes ago, Tpaktop2_1 NA said:

Who is the Union Navy Lieutenant John W. Johnston that is referred in the WoWs Dev blog? Is WG meant to be referring to Union Navy Lieutenant John V. Johnston in which DD-537 (Fletcher class) is named after? Was the name translated from German?

You are surprised that a dev blog contains at least one typo? It’s been pretty obvious for a while that WG doesn’t really proofread these communications (remember all the corrections that needed to be made to the one about new ASW parameters?).

21 minutes ago, Tpaktop2_1 NA said:

Where is the ship picture in the blog?

The model isn’t finished yet. This is in line with several recent announcements (including tech tree ships) having ship characteristics but no model to show. The most likely conclusion to draw from this pattern (and the prevalence of clones or same-class near clones that have been pumped out recently) is that the art team is understaffed and struggling to keep up after the WG-Lesta split.

Edited March 7 by Nevermore135

[Tpaktop2_1 NA]

2 hours ago, Nevermore135 said:

You are surprised that a dev blog contains at least one typo? It’s been pretty obvious for a while that WG doesn’t really proofread these communications (remember all the corrections that needed to be made to the one about new ASW parameters?).

The model isn’t done yet. This is in line with several recent announcements (including tech tree ships) having ship characteristics but no model to show. The most likely conclusion to draw from this pattern (and the prevalence of clones or same-class near clones that have been pumped out recently) is that the art team is understaffed and struggling to keep up after the WG-Lesta split.

Well WG QA is always on the ball. 🤪So WG is announcing a copy/pasta ship for testing that is already in WoWS and they cannot create a picture? Then why make the announcement at all if not completed? Is there a two ship WG requirement to announce new ship releases?

 

Update: I ran a Bing AI on Wargaming surprise and pondering reactions on WoWS QA

I am surprised by Bing AI at times.

 

Edited March 7 by Tpaktop2_1 NA
typo

[Nevermore135]

33 minutes ago, Tpaktop2_1 NA said:

Well WG QA is always on the ball. 🤪So WG is announcing a copy/pasta ship for testing that is already in WoWS and they cannot create a picture? Then why make the announcement at all if not completed? Is there a two ship WG requirement to announce new ship releases?

Because they are trying very hard to stick to the pre-split release schedule. We also just got a French DD branch Dev blog for a line that will likely drop two patches from now. Some models are missing, others are half-complete, and the devs haven’t even decided on what role/characteristics the ships will have.

[Frostbow]

27 minutes ago, Nevermore135 said:

Because they are trying very hard to stick to the pre-split release schedule. We also just got a French DD branch Dev blog for a line that will likely drop two patches from now. Some models are missing, others are half-complete, and the devs haven’t even decided on what role/characteristics the ships will have.

1 hour ago, Tpaktop2_1 NA said:

Then why make the announcement at all if not completed?

In an industry crowded with lucrative titles, Wargaming is surely desperate for attention for World of Warships. 

 

[Project45_Opytny]

15 minutes ago, Nevermore135 said:

Because they are trying very hard to stick to the pre-split release schedule. We also just got a French DD branch Dev blog for a line that will likely drop two patches from now. Some models are missing, others are half-complete, and the devs haven’t even decided on what role/characteristics the ships will have.

Every new content announcement bulletin helps to keep the faith in the Belgrade developers in the backdrop of the Russian-Global studios split drama by proving that they, despite being hastily established and have been suffering from understaffing and inexperience, are still actively working on the game and bringing new contents. They did enjoy a tremendous surge in confidence, from the nadir just days before, with the announcement of Commonwealth cruisers with T5~8 being altered models and T9~10 largely new ones in December 2023. The events of those couple of days eliminated most of the ultra-pessimistic criticism against WG Belgrade.

What interests me is also that why WG seems to have much trouble in creating permacamo schemes (and creating horrible ones like that for Cerberus). I've seen community modders, from China, Russia and Canada doing excellent third-party ship exterior mods, so excellent that readers often wonder why they aren't officially working for WG.

1 hour ago, Nevermore135 said:

the prevalence of clones or same-class near clones that have been pumped out recently

It should be noted that Lesta has also been doing so. Their respective list include Patagonia (Argentinean 1920 South Dakota-class), Ben Ma (Pan-Asian themed clone Adriatico), Kerch (ex-Regia Incrociatore Duca d'Aosta in Soviet service), Severomorsk (Project 1058 hybrid acutally delivered to the Soviet Union), New Hampshire, Pasopati (Indonesian Whiskey-class submarine), Mayo ("C-hull" Benson), Callenburgh (A-hull Johan de Witt bumped to T10 a la Van Speijk), Changzheng (Pan-Asian Yamato hull with Soviet weapons and electronics), Pfalz (Bayern hull with Scharnhorst turrets) and Tolyatti ("Brindisi was actually built and transferred to the Soviet Union as war reparations").

[tfcas119]

Incheon looks kind of interesting. Anchorage with Tulsa turrets and Jinan torps and smoke. 8.5 smoke penalty might be nasty to deal with but would be something I'd get for co-op or ops if WG ever decides to make T10 ops.

Johnston is basically just use funny button and don't bother with regular fire. Might also look like the most balanced ship they've released in a while.

[KJ82]

6 hours ago, Tpaktop2_1 NA said:

 

Surprisingly well done by the A.I. program. No wonder artists feel threathened.

 

 

[Minihannibal65]

On 3/7/2024 at 9:30 AM, Project45_Opytny said:

What interests me is also that why WG seems to have much trouble in creating permacamo schemes (and creating horrible ones like that for Cerberus). I've seen community modders, from China, Russia and Canada doing excellent third-party ship exterior mods, so excellent that readers often wonder why they aren't officially working for WG.

Bear in mind that the Art Department also got hammered majorly in the split. WG seems like it is finally coming out of the post-Split chaos, but they may sitll be lagging behind in competent people in the Art Department for Perma-Camos.

[I_cant_Swim_]

@Minihannibal65 Good point, and welcome to the forum!

[yss_turtleship]

15 hours ago, I_cant_Swim_ said:

@Minihannibal65 Good point, and welcome to the forum!

@Minihannibal65 is one of my favorite streamers. I am still suffering PTSD from when he b* slapped me, in stream,  while in my DD,  with his CV....lol...Welcome aboard!

[Minihannibal65]

8 hours ago, yss_turtleship said:

@Minihannibal65 is one of my favorite streamers. I am still suffering PTSD from when he b* slapped me, in stream,  while in my DD,  with his CV....lol...Welcome aboard!

Sorry about that!
Good to see you and @I_cant_Swim_!