I don’t think another U.S. ship with a 45 second reload is going to be fun to play. I’m also concerned it’s going to have the same problem that most top-tier U.S. ships have in that it will be way too easy to ammo rack.
The anti-air defenses are nice, but with the current meta of “free” planes being able to drop their ordinance even while missing a wing, an engine, and being on fire I don’t think it will make much difference. Having your 30k+ ship destroyed by a plane that costs nothing to spawn (in AB) is never fun.
The high crew count is nice, but if the ammo isn’t protected well, you could have 10,000 crew and it doesn’t matter.
It’s an iconic ship in real life, and amazing that a ship that has been around since 1914 is being restored and turned into a museum, but that doesn’t mean a lot in-game.
Is this ship going to be good or bad? What will make it good or bad in your opinion? Will it be substantially different than what we have already?
my only thought is that this basically a wyoming with nevadas armament, which means it is gonna be 6.7 and get absolutely anihilated since the ammorack is as always at the waterline. Pretty pointless addition, they could go for New Mexico class already and give US proper 7.0
When naval was first announced, I was super excited. Then they mentioned just small boats. Ruined it for me. Then they announced Blue Water and I was super excited again(Been looking for a good naval game since Navy Field) and have been waiting for them to get to proper ships. The thing that is bugging me though, is just the slow progress to proper WWII big boy ships. It honestly seems like they are scared to progress forward. I want EC with proper BB engagements. So sick and tired of maps where I can basically slap my enemy when they spawn while sitting in some small craft or a WWI Dreadnaught.
Ironically it should be almost impossible to ammorack US ships. Explosive D was preferred as a filler for its extreme resistance to shrapnel impact and the single-base propellant was far, far less likely to combust than the double-base propellant and its nitroglycerin that most other nations used. People should look into what happened to USS Boise when she took an 8" shell to her magazines and lived through 3,000 pounds of powder igniting, or the tests ran on old-ass 16" HC shells in the 1980’s. Spoiler: no real chance of sympathetic detonations for those shells.
Unlike what happened to HMS Vanguard, which sank while in harbor at Scapa Flow to near-complete loss of life among its crew thanks to its propellant deciding to commit seppuku.
Texas wouldnt have been a problem if Gaijin was just sensible on their capital additions! We keep jumping forward with Fuso’s, Hood, Scharnhost and Alaska. Then they do this weird double back by adding Nevada’s and now Texas!
New Mexico shouldve been the obvious choice from all the curret 15" and Russian 12" fantasy railgun in naval already. However, knowing Gaijin, it will have 45 second reload with the elevators again being blamed because ‘it cant go faster.’
Texas is just a bizarre choice with the current competition. The only thing that can make it even slightly redeemable if its the only US ship that can avoid having a 45 second reload. Which doesnt seem likely.
Oh forgot about it, New York class was known for having worse reloading sequence than nevada and pennsylvania classes, since it was manually handled or the most part.
Kronst gun is at the other hand nothing fantastical, it fires basically the same shell as parizkaya, but due to longer barrel and higher speed, its penetration increases. Irl it would cut down the barrel life too, that’s why it is hard to find matching cannons around the world, since nobody else ever wanted to create such a short lived weapon. The topic was dicsussed a million times, people need to stop making a fuss about it.
Everything in Naval is a “proper” vessel!
PT and e-Boots where pivotal in there respective zones (Channel and Island Pac)
Destroyers bore the brunt of employments through both wars, and in-between and after.
You seem to dismiss Cruisers as they are not mentioned.
If you only want Yamato vs Bismarck, Iowa vs King Gorge V, etc, then say so.
I do not read disrespect but frustration, I can get that.
However everything in Naval is “proper”, just have having all the biplanes and super sonic jets. You clearly want to play with the preeminent king of the seas naval ship, simply post that.
When navy was introduced I was surprised too, but I actually do like the unique world of these practically forgotten historic boats. Despite the desire of many to sail the master of the waves, Gaijin did a great service to include this historically important group.
I expect we will have BR 7.3 soon, and I am sure the top would be 8.0. What we need most is better maps.
I 100% agree that we need better maps, and by better, I mean larger maps. What drives me up the wall, is seeing Gaijin devs defend maps where you can spawn in and immediately shoot the enemy. With a game that allows 1 hit kills, that can be the worst feeling. I see no problems with larger maps. I play naval EC, and sometimes the mood fits that, but sometimes that’s too big. But, I’d rather spend a few moments sailing to an engagement, than get done loading in and immediately see a death screen.
100% agreed we need (I’ll say bigger, rather than better because “better” can mean different things to different people, so to avoid any future misunderstanding, I’ll say exactly what I mean) bigger maps before we get the big boys in the game. I just feel that we should have been there already because of the pace of air and ground already.