number of capital ships for each nation when ‘firebirds’ update implemented(tech tree only)
number of capital ships for each nation when ‘firebirds’ update implemented(tech tree + event + premium)
Actually, number of capital ships added for Great Britain is bigger than any nation ingame currently. But why we’re lack of 7.0 capital ships? Reason come from here.
Great Britain has widest variety of BR among all nations.
Germany, France and USSR only has two BR.
Italy and USA has three BR, but one of them is only composed of one ship(6.3 for USA, 7.0 for Italy), so other BR is quite rich with lineup.
Japan is the only nation that has same variety of BR, four(5.7, 6.3, 6.7, 7.0) with Great Britain but it has only one ship in 6.3 and 6.7, making 7.0 super rich line-up.
Meanwhile, Great Britain has every four variety of BR composed of at least two ships. Two for 6.0, three for 6.3, four for 6.7 and three for 7.0)
Great Britain has to rely on event ship too much to compose 7.0 line up. And one is inadequate for 7.0
7.0 line-up is most important for current war thunder naval. And Great Britain has only one tech tree ship for 7.0, HMS Hood, which added in June 2022, makes it more than two year since added. To make 7.0 line-up, you need two event ship(HMS Barham, HMS Renown) to make lineup. And HMS Renown is not a 7.0 worthy ship.
Real life Royal Navy is too big compared to other nations.
Gaijin usually add one nation new captial ship after every nation gets at least one new capital ship. So nation with appropriate number of capital ship has been got similar number of battleship. But Royal Navy is biggest among WW1 navy, and second biggest among WW2 navy. To keep up with other nations, Great Britain at least have to receive two capital ship between one cycle.
yeah i do find it weird that in most cases they put the BC one tier below due to it having one less in the main battery but i guess they are putting it higher due to the AA.
yeah it is a slightly bigger as i belive they have almost the same number of ships with 12" and bigger armed BB’s and BC’s at 49 left to add that were built fully that every nation apart from america has left that were also fully built
Well to be fair, adding a QE class BB wasn’t in the cards due to the proximity of the Barham naval event. Following the timeline of Mississippi → Tennessee, We can expect a TT QE class on the first update for 2025. GJNs going to milk that for a few months at the very least.
Its still possible a Revenge class comes, but with QE on the horizon, I viewed adding Repulse as just a hold over till then.
I have the impression that GJN wants to to decompress top end bluewater, but not all nations are lineup ready for it. Adding Repulse now, decompress and move Hood to 7.3… it will make better sense late next year.
britain is one of the more diverse when it comes to the amount of capital ships that can be spread across the br’s due to having built 50 ish BB’s and BC’s with there being 10 battle ships armed with 15 inch guns that could have realisticly been added from the time hood and the german 15 inch BB’s were added. Also if we had to wait the time since the sister ship of a class was added as an event ship we will be waiting another 14 months in which the next powere jump will have happend leaving britian even further behind
so britain is not short of ships to add and if i have done my maths correctly they have a similer number of ships to add that were actualy built than all of the other nations minus america and russia combined yet they drip feed them and most of if not all of the time when they add ones they are in the overly compressed part of navel called WW1 BB’s
Let’s remove 12-inch and 13.5 inch ones, as we don’t need ones unless Gaijin decompress battle rating and makes BR different between HMS Dreadnought and HMS Colossus, HMS Orion and HMS Iron duke / Marlborough.
Also, it is hard to get more than three ship in one class. Omaha class has four, but because three is on US tree while other one is in USSR. In case of capital ships, only Revenge class can be such case.
Non-comissioned ship cannot be more than one unless there are difference between final design of their ships. Z46 and Z47 has difference on their final design(at least ingame), so they are exception. But maybe Lion and Soyuz class can be two as they change design after keel was laid down.
Non-laid down ships without unique equipment is out of consideration for now. Actually, even non-laid down ships with unique equipment does not implemented at this point. So N3 and Alsace class is out of option.
Well my main reason I put N3 there would be as Yamato equals in fire power and armor. But I do agree that they should try and keep it “realistic” and only add ships that under construction i.e lion and her sister ship. But sometimes balance might be better.
I think there is an argument for two Lions. One in the original refit up to 1942 (when keels were scrapped so we get revised AA) and a 1944 one which is when the prototype MK.IV guns were constructed which reflects a 12-gun lion with better AA and an autoloader.
N3 I do not see us ever receiving, even less likely than Alsace as we do have ‘equivalents’ they’re just treaty limited.
I’m not sure about 1944 version. There are now blueprint, and required ship’s length has seriously changed from original keel, meaning that they couldn’t use original keels. Considering how ‘distorted’ Soviet Project 23 battleships design has become in 1939 because they already laid down keel in 1938, I think 1940 or 1942 version would be limit with already laid down ships, HMS Lion and HMS Temeraire.
Definitely it couldn’t claim to be the original one, it would be the same line of thinking as the A.150 design with its respective 20" guns. This late one is not a laid down design but as you said blueprint.
Frankly I don’t expect to see anything past original Lions up to 1942 configuration and G 3.
But at least these ships should not have guns quite so poor as Nelson class (both shells and reload).
Besides, did you see this? It resembles armor of Nelson(and claimed to be part of Nelson’s blueprint) but little different of 15 degree instead of well known 18 degree. Even more, according to this blueprint, OWL(Operational Water Line) of Nelson is quite deep, making it safe from underwater shell.
Underwater shells’ been seriously nerfed, making even Renown hard to be detonated by underwater shell, so maybe Nelson’s LWL could be okay for now. If we can get her with 30 seconds reload, with good armour, good module layout and forward centered firepower, she would be best among early 16-inches.
How do we feel about one day some of the ships that Britain built for other nations that are unlikely to ever get full naval trees such as some of the south American ones. I do feel that they should be outside the normal tt as event or premium unless like hms Agincourt but we built many of the ships in the military naval arms race for parts of South America
I wouldn’t mind a ‘LatAm’ naval tree to be honest, its quite an interesting concept and for gun-ship br’s its the next big tree that can be added even more then Sweden and certainly more than China for this period.
That said, things like Canada, Erin and the Brazillian versions of the QE class would be good to have in the tree also.
um i feel that if they dont plan to add a LatAm TT they could fit them in as a sub tree possibly for britain as i feel people would like to see them but given how long they took to add french navel they may never add even smaller TT’s and it would be a logical in some way to add them with out it being ahistorical.
