No it isn’t, ship development is completely different than tanks and planes.
1 Like
Ok, please post exactly where it says that. Thanks.
(So then in that case can we have the USS Montana?)
If part of it was layed down, yes
It had exactly the same naval rifles, turrets, superstructure cathedrals, 5" dual purpose mounts and power plants as Iowa class. So it satisfies:
It is dumb. I don’t like it.
Meaning that none of these are specific to the Montana class. if you can find a part that was made and was specific to the Montana please feel free to make a suggestion. However considering that even on the old forum dedicated people never found anything, I doubt that there is such a part.
1 Like
I was referring to the implications of adding vehicles should not be 2 standards. It should be 1.
Which is ->If it existed in any parts, that were planned to be installed on it and were solely produced for that but the project was canceled and then those parts were sent to other projects. It should still be under consideration for being added.
1 Like
Because otherwise russia would be screwed, and we know that can’t be allowed lol.
On a serious note, thanks to Russia’s inability to produce anything actually capable boatwise (note how Novorossiysk is actually Italian, Kron is a proposed BC, etc etc) they basically can’t have much else unless its captured or its paper.
However, that ruleset is fine by me because I expect a Lion Class Battleship for the Brits.
1 Like
The truh is, Russia has an excellent WW2 coastal fleet. Which is why it was the only thing Gaijin was interested in at first when they started working on naval, probably because anything bigger than a destroyer would be problematic for smaller navies like USSR.
But when they realized naval players were mostly interested in bluewater stuff, they started adding bigger and bigger ships, and ultimately hit this roadblock for the USSR. Being a Russian game, they bent their own rule to accomodate their country’s navy which is not surprising.
To be frank, I personlly am not as annoyed by something like the Kronstadt as by the multitude of cold war Soviet warship that are mowing down any opposition, be it with their completely absurd (and probably completely inaccurate) resistance to any kind of damage, their absurd guns and absurd missiles. They’re the one that completely screw up matches in anything lower that cruisers.
3 Likes
That’s why. Imagine my surprise when my torpedo P108 (year 1940) was blowed out by a guided missile fired by a 1967 Bravy…
Ooo, if that would be the case, then IF we will ever see a Czechoslovakia in game, there is one very fun SPAA to be added. HEHEHE
Ah yes the Bravy.
I mean to be fair the Douglas and Bravy both just shouldn’t be at the BRs they’re at thanks to their EC ruining Anti Ship capabilities (curious, I hear you say, they’re supposed to be Anti Air missiles), and probably shouldn’t be anywhere near the BRs they do now.
1 Like
How did you get a custom pfp
Yep. We have plenty of unfinished ships of varying types, and being laid down is very much the appropriate requirement for ships. Ships are inherently an entirely different scale and design/build process compared to planes/tanks, thus should not have the same inclusion requirements; laid down makes sense.
We’re likely to get quite a bit more soon, now that we’re on the edge of seeing 16" ships, with things like the Amagis and Lexingtons which were cancelled due to the Washington treaty.
Actually that’s a point - where the requirement is being constructed, does it matter particularly if it was completed as another type of ship?
If you’re referring to the Montanas, I don’t know whether this would or wouldn’t be enough to allow them in. It’s perhaps a grey area that would maybe allow for them once we get to the very “end” of all nations’ battleships.
Edit: I am dumb, you mean the two carrier-converted classes I mentioned. Yeah, being completed as carriers shouldn’t prevent them from being added in intended battlecruiser form.
1 Like
so just any part of the vehicle has to be produced? So 1 screw would be enough?
I mean I was angling for the Lexingtons and Amagis, but the Montana is definitely a question worth asking.
1 Like
Actually Douglas’ missiles are anti ship ones, just based on the Tartar AA missile. In-game it just has the standard Tartar, but they were called the ISSM (Interim Surface-to-Surface Missile) and were apparently based on the Tartar-Bullpup ASM that was offered to Germany.
Nevermind in which case I told a lie. Though still, it does ruin Naval EC, and i’ll stand and die on that hill.
1 Like