Montana does not fit that criteria.
The criteria is to have been laid down, and it has never changed.
Notice that this very specifically says “is therefore a valid vehicle to be suggested.”
“To be suggested”, not “to be added to the game”.
As for why the suggestion forum has a different rule from that of the game, I have not got a clue, but as it stands Montana cannot be added.
Montana does fit the criteria to be added.
A150 only ever had a 51cm prototype built. It is the single most incomplete ship that meets the criteria to be in the game.
There is an official developer response (somewhere, either in news section/developer’s blog or on the forums) that even states as such.
Tanks and aircraft have different criteria because there’s so many of 'em. Ships do not have that luxury because if we went solely with ships completed, Russia would be a barren wasteland, as would Germany, France and Italy. (Especially in the battleship sections of the techtree)
It is not in the game. It was passed for consideration, and I honestly do not understand why it was anyway since it genuinely does not fit the criteria Gaijin stated themselves, but I digress.
Consideration does not equal “will be added to the game” in the slighest. It just means the suggestion moderators forwarded it to the development team, but the development team has every liberty to discard considerations. We just never get told if/when that happens.
I suspect roughly 33% to 50% of all vehicles passed for consideration will never see the light of day in this game.
You are correct on the Soviets, but these three did have plenty of actual large capital ships in service. More then enough to create a serious top layer of ships in game.
Yet.
A serious layer of free RP for Iowa and SoDak, maybe… Which they currently are.
The requirements for ships being added are vastly different from requirements for tanks and aircraft.
Oh, dunno, seems pretty clear to me
Yeah and so does this
Didn’t you just say the rules are different between tanks and ships?
That is a rule for tanks, not for ships
I got it literally from the same post you got yours
A-150 also does not fit the criteria to be added to the game, only to be suggested.
This is what the suggestion mod said on A-150’s page. Once again, note that it says “A-150 becomes a valid suggestion to be made.” A suggestion, not an addition to the game.
I believe the original statements by the devs on the matter was on the old forums. I know there’s a way to download an archive of the old forums but I don’t have it with me.
I think a tech mod also clarified this already, but I cannot remember whether it was in this forum or outside of it. You could probably ask them for clarification on this matter.
I really wish they wouldn’t apply this logic to ships honestly. Because if “just a part” is enough then, oh boy, prepare for a whole Mariana Trench of worms
This quote is for the suggestion forums. I guess the confusion is that both the suggestion forums’ rules and the implementation rules both share the requirement that the hull needs to be laid down, but the suggestion forums also give you the option of submitting a non laid down ship if a specific part was built (which isn’t valid for actual implementation in the game).
In any case, we don’t have any proper precedent for adding ships that weren’t laid down.
The closest would be the Type 5 boat but that’s more because they modeled the wrong one.
In the same vein, I don’t think they will implement preliminary designs just because they messed up Amagi’s implementation (we got the preliminary design instead of the final one).
Getting the preliminary design F for North Carolina would be very funny though, and hopefully it never gets added.
Cue the “Holy Jesus, what is that-” audio
I wonder if this means we might see the likes of the Minotaur Class for Britain, since it was supposed to be equipped with a new design of turret for it’s 6-inch guns, which were eventually fitted to the two Tigers, but only after that had been intended for the Mino’s.
We’ll probably see the Tigers too.
Only thing I’m looking for in the British naval tree is the Lion tbh.
Edit
Already got my favorite light cruiser (Dido)
Actually, I just realised.
This actually does perhaps exclude Montana on the grounds discussed so far, since the guns manufactured for her are not unique. We already have the 16-inch guns on Iowa, and the 5-inch guns on Murasame.
Notice that I stated “ships” not “battleships”.
Need I remind you that one of the most recent patches added the Z52, a ship who’s existence is derived from a singular book stating it was laid down while every other source, including the shipyard’s own records only states that they received material to begin work but never did?
The only component known to be built for any Z52 style ship was a small subset of engines and thats it, some of the weapons on the ship never even reached completion in the case of being designed in the first place, being the 30mm and 5.5cm guns it has, they are total fabrications.
The ship is another Panther II situation where gaijin has chosen to base it’s creation off of dubious at best third party sources and is most likely just a extrapolation of a number of historians that had little to no information to work with.
I’d like a source for this, as the suggestion forums requirements have always been the requirements for vehicles to be added, regardless of type.
Gaijin even admitted themselves in the past that they will start stretching addition options for naval beyond the requirements for ground and air vehicles for some nations due to their lack of options, Italy and France were specifically mentioned in this.
And?
It does not void the fact that it can be added per their requirements. Nobody here is claiming that it will be added now unlike you and a few other people here.
Reminder again, this thread is to prospect future POSSIBLE additions to the U.S. battleship lines, not what is coming. This is not he rumor roundup thread.
Reminder again, if a vehicle is approved to be suggested and accepted, it has the potential to be added at the devs discretion, at no point is a suggested vehicle unable to be added to the game unless the devs deem it otherwise or it is not accepted.
Once again, accepted suggestion = possibility to be added to the game at devs discretion, such has always been the case.
Same deal later on, as specified, component based suggestions require that said components be made for that vehicle in particular, EG Montana is acceptable because her main battery was built for her specifically, the A-150 was acceptable because her 51cm guns(only tubes) were made for her specifically. General equipment that is not made for a specific vehicle does not make it a valid suggestion and thus not a valid possible addition.
EG, you cant suggest the myriad of Alaska ship design schemes even though they almost all mounted the same secondary guns, why, because only one Alaska scheme had those guns actually made for them.
Casper brings up the concept of HMS Minotaur, and in that case, as far as I am aware, those 6 inch DP guns were never built for Minotaur, the design was made in the program that drafted Minotaur, but they were never procured for Minotaur, rather the Tigers.
See above, her Mark 7s and 5 inch guns were made for her alone, her 5 inch guns in particular required a rebuild to be installed on Midway as they were dual mounts as produced. The only ship that could take the dual mount 5"/54s was Montana, there is also production data that specifically states that her primary and secondary battery were contract ordered for her.
No, my claim is explicitly that Montana cannot be added under the current rules, not now, not in half a year, just not at all.
Yes, and I very much think that Montana is IMPOSSIBLE unless rules are bend to a very serious degree.
I wonder why the US wasn’t mentioned. Maybe because they don’t need the rules to be bend for a good long while.
Did some reading on this and I’ll admit you seem to be correct here. The person one whose book the claim seems to stem from isn’t even an expert in WW2 naval history, but rather WW1 (And then specifically the K.u.K. navy)
And thus as far as I’m concerned we should’ve never gotten this ship.
You just defeated your own argument, since as far as I can find neither any 16-inch guns intended for Montana or any 5-inch guns intended for Montana were actually build. The class was cancelled before either was taken into production and as far as I can tell in the case of the 5-inch gun, only actually started in 1945, two years after cancellation.
Did some reading and you appear to be correct, thus that discredits the Minotaurs from coming to this game as far as I’m concerned.
See above, unless there is some obscure documentation that I have been unable to find, neither any Mark 7’s or any 5-inch guns were actually “made”.
LOL you got the whole class to submit their essays!
This started just because I said Montana is “unlikely” because it breaks addition precedent - as in no ships which were never laid down have been added. I never said it couldn’t happen, but every time someone mentions this, it’s met with a slew of e-lawyering based on a couple of sentences on the suggestion forums.
Truth is, there is no known addition criteria, only suggestion criteria. Thus, we can only go with certainty off of the trends of all current in-game ships having been laid down. Note how there’s been very little discussion of anything else I’ve said because the Montana discussion always “sucks the oxygen out of the room,” so to speak.
which germany never gave them btw
