love gaijin giving britain a fake ship instead of adding tirpitz not like germanys next highest BB after BISMARCK is the 7.3 scarnhorst britain atleast has prince of wales(8.0) and warspite(7.7) and other 7.7s
literally every other country has 2 8.3s but germany and britain ??? and germany should have been next to get there second ship so they have a actual line up
Aye, that it did, with Giulio Cesare explicitly. So we could totally get a few variants of Lion, I’d imagine
Aye, and at this point the finalized 1939 fit would be pretty redundant, so she could come in any of the other fits as well.
Whilst the Snail has decided its ok do to multiples of the same ship, I really really hope it is only done for ships that have been on sold by the USN, RN, Deutsche Marine etc. I’d hate to have multiple versions of the same ship esp. HMS Lion.
A good example would be HMS Dido. On sold to the RNZN with a number of its British weapons being replaced with American systems, renamed as HMNZS Southland.
I do wish Hermes was in game in its original config as we could then have her as INS Viraat as the ski jump modernised version.
So… Why did you remove the Ho-Ri, Panther 2, Tiger 105, RyuKai jets, exactly?
Honestly i start to believe that the people working on this game have several entirely different teams that work on shifts and have no communication with each other. Every decision made doesnt correlate with other decisions whatsoever.
Look at the entire soviet Bluewater naval trees rank VI and VII that isn’t the Revenge and Cavour class and there’s your answer.
Now the USA is the only naval tree without a project ship.
Naval has always operated on different rules to air or ground. So this is nothing new. The core difference is that the number of available vehicles is significantly higher for ground and air. Let alone that there are a load of prototypes built too, even if they dont enter production/service, can be added to the game.
Naval is different. You have far fewer options and rarely a “prototype” version. The available pool of vehicles is significantly smaller.
My only real issue with this policy is the cherry picking of data used for these unbuilt ships, which results in dramatically overpowered ships that probably wouldnt exist IRL like Soyuz
Depends on your definition. USS Flagstaff for example was an experimental ship that never entered production. I think there are others as well
I think they released several statements why they went with a diffferent handling for ships compared to ground vehicles and planes. Have you seen those?
The main things i can think of, that differs them is:
A ship is planned, designed and then laid down in singular, or very low numbers. So lots of designs and plans are made for 1 ship.
It requires insane amounts of resources, planning, different modules and technical stuff compared to one prototype tank/plane (that ofc still take insane hours and money to get to that stage)
So id come to think that, to even start laying down a ship, because of the time, money and material needed it usually has to be very clear that: theres enough money to get it done, theres enough people to build, crew, and maintain it as well as facilities to do so. The likelihood to get it done has to be a bit higher than of something like a coelian, just testing the possiblites and needs to slap a aa turret (wooden) on a panther chassis. You dont wanna cancel a billion dollar ship when its 60% finished. The panther chassis that was lying around anyhow and now has a funny wooden turret? Yeah not that much of a deal…Probably was more of an idea proposed by the manufacturer themselves and not ordered straight by the nation that wanted to use it.
Still debatable, obviously, but idk man, they gonna run out of stuff to add anyhow, without prototypes and weird stuff that was never rly put into service and used we would have maybe 30% less vehicles in the game…I think its fine with the idea it has to be laid down (plans finished, probability to provide enough materials high and probability to finish it in a reasonable amount of time is there…somewhat…cough cough sojuz …cough…)
See, they wouldnt have laid it down if they didnt think it would make sense to build/have/crew/maintain and use it or that it wouldnt get finished…
I more ment ships that were either not complete or added as a planned refit that never came to be. Though I guess now everyone has a planned or experimental ship.
Yeah, I guess its just lack of necessity. Britians first, (Lion) was only added because we lacked something equivalent to Iowa. If Iowa (and Soyuz, though nothing really has equal to it) hadnt been added, Vanguard would have been fine as our top tier for a while yet
Because Naval has always had a different requirement for a ship to be considered to be added. Unlike aircraft and tanks, which often had prototypes and expermental vehicles, bluewater vessels very rarely had prototypes.
This has been a rule for naval for a very long time, announced in a developer Q&A.
Q. Will there be projects for series H battleships for Germany in the game? They were laid, but were soon dismantled. The battleship Bismarck will not be able to withstand Yamato and Iowa on equal terms. We would like to see the H-39 project.
- We consider as possible the addition of similar ships, those that were laid down, but were not completed in reality.
Lion isn’t “fake”. She was a real ship that was laid down and simply not completed. Several nations already have ships of this type in game (laid down but not completed) including Germany and the Soviet Union.
HMS Lion =/= Tirpitz. They are not connected.
Lion was not added “instead of” another ship for another nation. She was added for the British tree. Not to take something away from the German tree.
Germany has future additions to look forward too.
And yet from all the “huge” pool of tanks and planes dev still add copypastes under the “no X” rules, that they keep from time to time forget. Even then, they also have inconsistency here. They added that machine wuth some configuration it was “supposed to have” yet the - for example - the Chieftain 900 is “like it was, not supposed”, and same for the 292. But Japs get “how could be” for plane armament. I cry for their blatant inconsistency here which both is frustrating AND hurts the game with all the clones and strange decisions.
Yes, there was something like that, not as a statement tho but as an explanation in some threads.
I do think so too, but i want to have same judgements all round the game, as SO MUCH of interesting projects both on planes and tanks had “same” story.
That still makes little sense in terms of “varying and completed content” theme. And that answer looks less like a rule, but more of a suggestion, which then must lead to further elaboration. That being said, thank you for answering
Ah i see. i thought ur point was that you disagree with adding laid down ships, my bad. Though, from the point of ships that really served and were used having to fight ships that never were finished and put into service and being completely clowned on by them i am also a bit opposed to just adding ships of which a couple of 100 tons of metal existed (especially when adding that as a complete ship with the most optimal specs it could only have dreamt of achieving). Its simply very disappointing for ships which some of them are quite famous and have a rich history and seen actual combat to be represented badly or worse than they were irl, while other ships that never were finished are basically perfect…And nothing can be reported or proven wrong about their implementation, because they never fully existed in the way that is depicted in game. Its just a paradoxon. You can with enough research report 100s of things of a vehicle in game with enough research that can result in (onesided, if someone would maybe theoretically just want to butcher a certain vehicle) nerfs (or buffs) with enough research, but there is 0 research that can prove or disprove almost anything about something like the in game sojuz or even worse, upcoming h-class or possibly montana whenever they might or might not appear.
But i think more variety and the possibility to add more things (has to be in a reasonable way and not like the sojuz for example) is more important.
But yeah, i think they might come to a point where they will have to revise their doctrine with adding blueprint or never finished tanks as well, as long as it is likely and plausible that they might have been completed (so not like the 105 tiger 2 that basically cant fit the giant breech of the gun into the turret afaik…or was that the panther 2? Doesnt matter…but like that. If its physically not possible with that gun/turret combination then obviously shouldnt be in the game with that model. Then a different turret design based on blueprints that are very possible to have been manufactured would need to be added). Simply because otherwise there wont be a whole lot of things left to add soon, and it feels like that is the whole marketing scheme of the game. Well if nothing, having gazillions of different vehicles definitely is one of its main strenghts. But im happy already that they really work on some new gamemodes as well that get you out of the deathloop of endless esports ground and air rb matches…which are fun, thats why we’re all playing and loving the game, but something additional with a different pace and different gameplan like naval ec, nuke thunder is really awesome and keeps it interesting even after playing 10000s of matches.
As long as an agreeable boundary is set (and maybe some in game thingy of letting the player know if a vehicle was only planned or partially made) I agree (If only PZL-230 went beyond a wind tunnel model and the Legkiy Boiviy Litak a miniature model).
Worst offender is the pancake. Never flew, so flight model is pure fantasy, and it gets to carry “planned” secondary ordnance too. Literally same situation as the Coelian (guns were built in metal but installation was never done as the turret was never built).
I think this is the actual problem ngl. It’s fine for them to be in game, but the implementation should always be about trying to give them realistic flaws, which it would have if it was produced IRL.
Honestly, I think it would be fine, especially if one ship has multiple unique fits. But I can definitely see your point.
It would be tricky in instances where there was a lot of changes, but for ships that just got a load of extra AA slapped on, it would be rather good.
im not connecting them in any other way other than germany have horrible line ups past 7.0 but the devs give ships to everyone but germany
1 ship at 7.3
1 ship at 8.3
no 8.0 no 7.7 i dont count premiums do you know how many ships britain has at 7.7 ? HMS Rodney 1 HMS Hood 2 HMS Warspite 3
so not only do they have more 7.7s and 8.0s with wales WHY ARE THEY GETTING ANOTHER SHIP BEFORE GERMANY