jokes aside, it’s exactly what an event vehicle should be IMO
-interesting and unique enough to be desirable
-not (overly) competitive enough to be a must have
-wouldn’t really fit in the normal tech tree/doesn’t leave an unfillable gap
last one is debatable in Furious’ case (foldering under Glorious is an option), but 2/3 aint bad
Since we’re on the topic of weird gimmick ships, it’d be neat to see some Monitors in warthunder. Like the german Wespe class or even HMS Terror or Erebus.
Or Novgorods
More of an Abercrombie man myself (they just look more shiplike than earlier ones), but I’d grind Terror just for the name
gonna be a mess to place in a TT/balance though given their bizarre firepower/protection/speed characteristics but I guess we’ve passed the point of reason a long time ago
1 Like
Iirc a suggestion moderator said the A-150 was allowed (at the very least suggested) as one of the guns were complete and weren’t to be used on any other IJN ships, constituting it as a unique vehicle part. Much late the Ersatz Monarch class ship suggestion was posted as that also had completed guns that weren’t used by the navy in other projects.
2 Likes
The reason I type “as design” in this case it would be both cannons over a single one & flight deck.
Still two is better than one & the long reload would probably result in it being the sane BR as the halfsister.
Still not the worse design I ever uttered… CASTORE CLASS FLATIRON GUNBOAT WHEN??? I’M A NADMAN FOR WANTING A SLOW YET DAFTLY ARMED VESSEL, 10KTS, 660T & A 16" KRUPP CANNON WAHAHAHAHAHAHA…
we could settle for Drudge in the meantime
Spoiler
3 Likes
I’m against canceled ships in general, but at least if they are added don’t give them unrealistic and unbalanced characteristics compared to fully-completed vessels. It’s not fun to play in Littorio class with nerfed accuracy and almost double reloading time compared to Soyuz.
2 Likes
Yep, I’ve heard that. The suggestion guidelines appear to be different from anything we’ve received in the game and have never really been backed up. Point being, I don’t think Gaijin even knows what they’ll accept, but want to make it broad so as not to discourage things. Ultimately, some of those suggestions that get passed to Gaijin are complete nonsense so no clue if they’ll actually consider a ship of that size and completion or not in the future.
1 Like
Actually, even Soyuz ingame is not at full-characteristic based on design.
I think it is inevitable for most nation to compete with USA at top tier, it would be productive if we can make every ships at best condition - then adjust BR than trying to nerf one with characteristic.
Yeah, since it isn’t possible to avoid projects, I wouldn’t mind if built ships had projected theoretical characteristics.
Although imo RoF should be a balance parameter just like for ground forces.
I don’t think you know what the words ‘paper ship’ means.
I wouldn’t mind that if it were applied consistently, but we all know it won’t be. Currently, we are told that all reload times are based on reality, but there are so many examples of one ship getting its theoretical best firing rate, while others that have documented combat firing rates are still somehow slower.
paper viacles will never come to the game, but i think some nation are laking ships, and almost nobady playes naval, so i think ,paper ships" can be added to warthunder