One ship multiple configuration should now be allowed

Machinery of War Discussion Navy
1

It’s been a long time since Gaijin sticks on ‘one ship, one configuration’. This means that if one ship comes into game of specific year configuration, that ship’s modernized or pre-modernized configuration cannot be in game. This was okay when ship class was limited in coastal, destroyer and cruiser. Usually those kind of ship classes were built with at least two sister ship, so Gaijin could fill tree and line-up freely. Of course there is case of IJN Yubari and Tashkent, but they are really rare cases.

But Capital ships, I mean, battleships and battlecruisers, were not the case. Some of this ships were composed of only two ships per class, and their performance significantly differs between pre-modernization and post-modernization. In worst case, one nation can lost chance of making stable lineup because one ship comes in pre-modernization, and other ship came in post-modernization.

My thoughts on this gets bigger recent days as Italian and Japanese fleet shows signs of this. Dante Alighieri/Andrea Doria at 6.3, Duilio at 6.7, and Conte di Cavour at 7.0 makes this nation’s 6.7 and 7.0 lineup very deformed. Maybe Guilio Cesare at 7.0 could make Italy at least getting proper 7.0 lineup, but it goes to USSR, who is also short of capital ships. Breaking ‘one ship one configuration’ rule can give Andrea Doria modernized version at 6.7, and Guilio Cesare WW2 version in 7.0, finally making stable lineup for Italy.

Japan is also other nation that would need new rule. Gaijin making terrible mistake of giving IJN Mutsu as 1922 version, making Nagato the only Japanese modernized 16’’ battleship. As modernization of Nagato class gives magnificent increase in turret/turtleback armor and firepower, ‘loss’ of modernized Mutsu would be very bad news for Japanese fleet. Even Kaga class and Amagai class retain fragile 305 mm turret frontal armor of current Mutsu. Japan needs both 1922 and 1943 version of Mutsu if they dont want to be fall behind in 16’’ age.

Great Britain would be the nation that is not in such situation right now, but would be in future. Nelson class is composed of only two ship, and HMS Nelson(1945) is having the best AA among all British WW2 capital ships, which her sister ship, HMS Rodney cannot gain in her entire life. It is not confirmed which version of HMS Nelson would come, but if HMS Nelson gets like 1942 version or inter-war version, GB players would also need ‘one ship multiple configuration’

14 Likes
2

I’m certainly not opposed to the idea, but given we’ll also have laid-down-but-incomplete ships to work with it won’t be this bad. Japan, for example, can also get two Kaga-class, four Amagi-class, and two Kii-class, before the four Yamato-class.

But yes, I would like to see different refits, especially for neat things like the Mogami/Ise/Hyuuga hybrid carriers.

2 Likes
3

We need ships that were used and made in WW2 and the Korean war. That would be super cool to see it would be fun to have them with missiles and face higher tier jets. Would being a lot more people to navel

2 Likes
4

that is what I am looking for， agree

5

I don’t think Kaga and Amagi class will fill out absence of modernized IJN Mutsu. Old AP of current Mutsu, Old turret armor of current Mutsu. Plus no hydroplane and AA.

1 Like
6

It’s been almost two week I made this thread and by those times, my belief of multiple configuration just got bigger and bigger. Current Mutsu is such a dissapointment, seeing as worse Ise except penetraiton…

7

agree

8

Could have the original as the first and the refits/modernizations in a folder together.

1 Like
9

Yeah, I’d kill for a WW2 version of HMS Belfast not her post war refit like we have

10

Or the older version be stock and then the later version a modification (like jaguar Gr1B modification for the Gr1A) if the changes were minor like more AA

3 Likes
11

I think it would cause problem as there are numerous difference between ship much more than aircraft(ex. draft, deck armor, type of round can use), so it would create critical bug.

It would be best if developers ‘can’ make it modification properly but I would satisfied with foldering.

1 Like
12

Yeah, with significant changes, should be a second ship, folders below the first

1 Like
13

That would also require dynamic BR changing between modifications for some ships, doubt thats gonna happen

14

Yeah that’s true, though I’d love dynamic BRs, but they ain’t happening

15

I think when the matter will be more pressing for they will start adding multiple configs of some ships. Right now I think it js still pretty fine. Japan is most competitive nation rn and still has amagi kii and kaga in its sleeve. As for italy incomplete francesco class comes to my mind

16

Yeah, as a Brit main, I just want something not inter-war at top tier. King George V would do rather nicely I think.

Adding different ship configs should be a relatively simple way of padding a tree with additions without having to model totally from scratch

17

Oh the britain has enough original classes of ships to fill every lineup from 6.0 to 7.0 twice. Too bad gaijin best shot was orion class lol

1 Like
18

Yeah… Get ready for another WW1 Dreadnought next update too

19

I would not complain if it was HMS Erin or Canada, or any battlecruiser tbh. But Queen is much more of a treat rn

20

Perhaps, but would be nice to get one of our WW2 ships, like KGV or large calibre ships like Nelson before returning to ships like that. Though I have heard the QE would be pretty good