Jump to content

NEW SHIPS — CLOSED TEST 12.10


MidnightPhoenix07

Recommended Posts

It would be very nice if RI was the crown of a tech tree and not a probable RB Ship. That said radar on a BB is nice, but 9km is very short ranged to t10. I see why they did it (not to replace Radar cruisers) but I'm Happy Radar is back on the menu for radar nations.

  • Bored 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MidnightPhoenix07 said:

Three new ships entering testing in 12.10: Tier VI American carrier Independence, Tier IX Pan-Asian cruiser Tianjin, and Tier X American battleship Rhode Island.

Link: https://blog.worldofwarships.com/blog/484

In the right hands, thie Rhode Island could deliver plenty of damage.
 

Quote

A battleship based on one of the variants of the 1938 “fast battleship” design but with an alternative set of main battery weaponry. The ship's main armament consists of 356 mm guns, originally planned for development in 1937 for the North Carolina-class battleships. The ship is named after the State of Rhode Island, one of the first U.S. states, and inherits the name from an old pre-dreadnought battleship scrapped in 1923.

Rhode Island is armed with twelve 356 mm main battery guns—a rather low caliber for her Tier—that have decent accuracy thanks to improved dispersion, and AP shells with improved ricochet angles. The ship is also armed with a large number of relatively fast-firing secondary guns, but has overall low survivability for its class and Tier. However, consumables are the strong suit of this ship, as she is equipped with an Enhanced Repair Party consumable with reduced reload time, a choice between Fighter, Spotting Aircraft or Surveillance Radar in the same slot, and Engine Boost on a separate slot.

Rhode Island's gameplay is closer to that of a (Battle)cruiser, as she is mobile and can be very effective against destroyers and lightly armored ships thanks to her accurate and fast-firing guns. In close combat situations, this ship can maneuver through enemy torpedoes, while her secondary guns can also deal good damage and her Surveillance Radar consumable can provide vision even through smoke screens, making it difficult for enemy ships to hide. Due to her small HP pool and weak armor, it's not recommended to engage in open confrontations against other Battleships or to engage in extended fights against other ships.


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Crokodone said:

It would be very nice if RI was the crown of a tech tree and not a probable RB Ship. That said radar on a BB is nice, but 9km is very short ranged to t10. I see why they did it (not to replace Radar cruisers) but I'm Happy Radar is back on the menu for radar nations.

Not so sure that will be RB. They just did Illinois for RB recently so it has a good chance to be Steel or Coal. Also, we always get a dockyard at Christmas so it could be a dockyard ship too (probably not but possible).

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ranger vs Independence planes

Attack: F4F Wildcat vs Independence

12 aircraft on deck vs 5

58 second regen timer vs 80 second restoration time

1340 hp vs 1270 hp

153 knots vs 153 knots

2x6 rockets (1900 damage, 7% fire chance, 27mm pen) vs 5x6 rockets (1900 damage, 7% fire chance, 27mm pen)

Thoughts: Much depends on the reticle here. Could be brutally overpowered, or just slightly overpowered. One wonders if the special fighters will be tied to this attack squadron?

 

Torpedo Bombers: TBD Devastator vs Independence

12 aircraft on deck vs 16 aircraft on deck

73 second restoration time vs 70 second restoration time

1710 vs 1780 hp

112 knots vs 115 knots

2x1 torpedoes (5567 damage, 35 knots, 45% flooding) vs 2x1 torpedoes (4367 damage, 43 knots, ? flooding chance)

Thoughts: These are pretty nearly a straight upgrade. Plus, useable against more targets with that higher speed.

 

Dive Bombers: SB2U Vindicator vs Independence

14 aircraft on deck vs 6

56 second restoration time vs 101 seconds

1810 hp vs 2400 hp

117 knots vs 117 knots

3x1 HE bombs (9200 damage, 53mm pen, 52% fire chance) vs 6x1 HE bombs (6200 damage, 42mm pen, 35% fire chance)

Thoughts: Yes, you get more bombs...but they aren't as good. I bet you won't hit all of them ever (depends on the reticle).

 

The lack of a fast plane squadron not tied to a consumable is going to limit the usefullness of the Bearn style fighter consumables (which rely on the 123 knot speed of the bombers to pursue and trap enemy squadrons).

The nightmare is if the fighter consumables are only on the tactical squadrons...which would make them practically useless...since you won't be able to time them properly.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, AdmiralThunder said:

Not so sure that will be RB. They just did Illinois for RB recently so it has a good chance to be Steel or Coal. Also, we always get a dockyard at Christmas so it could be a dockyard ship too (probably not but possible).

She almost certainly won’t be this year’s NY/Christmas dockyard ship, as it’s already early October and release less than three months after being announced would be a short development cycle. She’s a likely candidate for a later dockyard, though. American BBs sell well, after all, and after putting IL in the RB I suspect WG will want to make some money off of this ship.

I expect the upcoming dockyard to feature a ship that has been in development longer, with Defense and Navarin both being good candidates.

Edited by Nevermore135
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, AdmiralThunder said:

Not so sure that will be RB. They just did Illinois for RB recently so it has a good chance to be Steel or Coal. Also, we always get a dockyard at Christmas so it could be a dockyard ship too (probably not but possible).

Too short on the turnaround for Christmas Dockyard, plus they already revealed Kutuzov's nerfed sister (Dmitry Pozharsky) will be earnable for free during the New Year's event, so take that into consideration as well. 

Rhode Island feels like a coal ship to me, the more I think about it. It's fun, but doesn't feel OP. I will say that you are right about it not being RB, with both Illinois and Ohio sitting in there already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, _KlRlTO_ said:

Too short on the turnaround for Christmas Dockyard, plus they already revealed Kutuzov's nerfed sister (Dmitry Pozharsky) will be earnable for free during the New Year's event, so take that into consideration as well. 

The devs have also been quiet regarding Soviet submarines for quite some time. We might be getting a big Soviet event with the event for DP wrapping up, a Navarin dockyard, and a submarine release around NY.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Nevermore135 said:

The devs have also been quiet regarding Soviet submarines for quite some time. We might be getting a big Soviet event with the event for DP wrapping up, a Navarin dockyard, and a submarine release around NY.

 

I think you are forgetting something obvious: Early (re-)release event for VI Independence, VIII Yorktown, and X Essex will almost certainly start in January/February based off the testing schedule. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, _KlRlTO_ said:

I think you are forgetting something obvious: Early (re-)release event for VI Independence, VIII Yorktown, and X Essex will almost certainly start in January/February based off the testing schedule. 

I didn’t forget. The simple fact is we don’t know what the timetable for the US CV release is. Besides, the Soviet subs have been sitting in development, unchanged, for months. They are apparently ready to be released now, so I don’t understand where one gets the idea that the US CV release would have to release earlier just because it has been in the news lately.

There’s also the fact that previous submarine release events only had the spotlight for a single patch vs. the standard two patches. Both the original US/German release and the UK sub release were immediately followed in the very next patch by Japanese light cruisers and US hybrid battleships, respectively. So a sub release in December or January (depending on if the NY patch is without an EA event like the current patch is) after Japanese battleships would not rule out a CV release in January/February anyways.

Until we get the next roadmap from WG, we simply don’t know what the release schedule/order is.

Edited by Nevermore135
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Ensign Cthulhu said:

Imagine working your way up a line of BBs with 12, 14, 16 inch guns, and suddenly you drop back down to 14 inches. 

Not the point I was making but historically, that literally did happen: Alaska (305s) to Des Moines (203s) to Worcester (152s) to Cold War Cruisers (127s.)

All in all, it's about the efficiency of the weapons, not their size. The improved penetration angles can make a substantial difference in Effective fire power.

  • Bored 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Crokodone said:

but historically, that literally did happen: Alaska (305s) to Des Moines (203s) to Worcester (152s) to Cold War Cruisers (127s.)

Yes and no. The Alaskas were a parallel development, and a dead end. The DMs are really the successors to the Baltimores, the Worcesters an evolution of the Clevelands, and the Cold War cruisers' true main armament was missiles. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sigh...carriers and pretend ships. Meanwhile real historic ships still go unrepresented. Tier 9 tier 10..how many freaking ships do you need at tier 9 and tier 10???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Kalishnikat said:

Sigh...carriers and pretend ships. Meanwhile real historic ships still go unrepresented. Tier 9 tier 10..how many freaking ships do you need at tier 9 and tier 10???

That's they way of this game...

I've started playing Ultimate Admiral Dreadnoughts with an 1890 campaign start to get my fix of the golden age of this game.

If I get into a war, I might start talking about my Austro-Hungarian navy designs in the Off Topic section here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Ensign Cthulhu said:

Yes and no. The Alaskas were a parallel development, and a dead end. The DMs are really the successors to the Baltimores, the Worcesters an evolution of the Clevelands, and the Cold War cruisers' true main armament was missiles. 

That's an interesting observation, but no: the  design predated the Des Moines by a considerable margin and follows a different pholospophy. Parallel would require "same time" which wasn't the case, and even the details were different. Des Moines was drawn from the experiences of Guadalcanal and the unsatisfactory performance of the CA's that fought there. The Des Moines class was an opportunity to remedy that shortcoming with the Baltimore hull and technology that did not exist in the late 30s. In addition, Des Moines 203mm guns were DP, which so too were the Worcester's. But, the armament layout of Worcester is blatantly obvious; they're a continuation of the Atlanta AA cruiser concept that was eventually replaced with missiles. Regarding Missiles, it's irrelevant to the period of what was "Main" as the USN didn't field a SSM until the harpoon near the end of the 70s; fact is, the Navy were strapping DL 5/54s to their Cruisers to this day. The fact they're there makes 5in guns still cruiser armament regardless of priorities.

  • Bored 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Crokodone said:

Regarding Missiles, it's irrelevant to the period of what was "Main" as the USN didn't field a SSM until the harpoon near the end of the 70s

The US Navy's anti-ship punch in the period before Harpoon arrived was the carrier aircraft. The missile cruisers were predominantly there to protect the carriers. 

Both Tartar and Talos had an anti-surface capability, and if all else failed there was Terrier BT-3(N) and nuclear Talos. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ensign Cthulhu said:

The US Navy's anti-ship punch in the period before Harpoon arrived was the carrier aircraft. The missile cruisers were predominantly there to protect the carriers. 

Both Tartar and Talos had an anti-surface capability, and if all else failed there was Terrier BT-3(N) and nuclear Talos. 

Irrelevant: those weapons were so unreliable that the Navy maintained and maintains 5/54s on their Cruisers and DDGs; other Navy as well. Those weapons you listed were technology demonstrators; the Navy didn't get a reliable SAM system until AEGIS in the 80s. How much of that was stolen Soviet tech... we'll never know. But every single AEGIS warships (DD or Cruiser) has a WW2 sized DD gun: for a reason. Anything else is wishful thinking. The USN was confined to WW2 tactics until the Tomahawk and gps in the 90s.

  • Haha 1
  • Bored 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Crokodone said:

 

In addition, having to put a nuclear warhead on a SAM was absolute proof they wouldn't and couldn't works; not to mention just like your PBY wet dream, every ship didn't have an invisible airfield of CV nearby.

 

Edited by Crokodone
  • Bored 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Crokodone said:

Irrelevant: those weapons were so unreliable that the Navy maintained and maintains 5/54s on their Cruisers and DDGs; other Navy as well. Those weapons you listed were technology demonstrators; the Navy didn't get a reliable SAM system until AEGIS in the 80s. How much of that was stolen Soviet tech... we'll never know. But every single AEGIS warships (DD or Cruiser) has a WW2 sized DD gun: for a reason. Anything else is wishful thinking. The USN was confined to WW2 tactics until the Tomahawk and gps in the 90s.

Ouch....

 

The surface-to-air versions also saw action in Vietnam, with a total of four MiGs being shot down by USS Chicago and Long Beach. On May 23, 1968, a Talos fired from Long Beach shot down a Vietnamese MiG at a range of about 65 miles. This was the first downing of a hostile aircraft by a missile fired from a ship. The hit also destroyed a second MiG which flew through the debris. In September 1968, Long Beach scored another MiG destroyed at a range of 61 miles. On May 9, 1972, Chicago's forward Talos battery scored a long-range kill on a MiG. The Talos missile also had surface-to-surface capabilities.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-8_Talos

 

Just because the URSS fielded successful land based SAMs,s it doesn't mean that their navalized version (S125 Neva/Pechora - Volna - SA-1N-Goa) would have performed in the same manner. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Crokodone said:

Irrelevant: those weapons were so unreliable that the Navy maintained and maintains 5/54s on their Cruisers and DDGs; other Navy as well. Those weapons you listed were technology demonstrators; the Navy didn't get a reliable SAM system until AEGIS in the 80s. How much of that was stolen Soviet tech... we'll never know. But every single AEGIS warships (DD or Cruiser) has a WW2 sized DD gun: for a reason. Anything else is wishful thinking. The USN was confined to WW2 tactics until the Tomahawk and gps in the 90s.

Oh, that would be why Talos had confirmed kills at 65 miles and why Terrier shot down at least one SAM.

You're full of it. Blocking you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

I just keep waiting for WGs interpretation of the early missile era.

Pretty sure it will also be 'full of it'...but the question will be if they can make it fun...

😄

Oh......glorious Komradskiy hit chance 89%, decadent Capitalissimuss 76%.

 

Flagships...... doesn't count  A48E2DD6-327E-4E69-B995-CD0955AA6217.gif

  • Bored 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.