Jump to content


World of Battleships Tech Tree Speculation KM, IJN, USN, RN

Battleships World of World of World of Battleships Ships

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
100 replies to this topic

Poll: World of Battleships Tech Tree Speculation KM, IJN, USN, RN (118 members have cast votes)

You have to complete 250 battles in order to participate this poll.

What are you looking forward to in WOB?

  1. Battleships (49 votes [12.37%])

    Percentage of vote: 12.37%

  2. Ultra Heavy Battleships (47 votes [11.87%])

    Percentage of vote: 11.87%

  3. Carriers (24 votes [6.06%])

    Percentage of vote: 6.06%

  4. Destroyers (34 votes [8.59%])

    Percentage of vote: 8.59%

  5. Cruisers (39 votes [9.85%])

    Percentage of vote: 9.85%

  6. Subs... lol (32 votes [8.08%])

    Percentage of vote: 8.08%

  7. Japanese Navy (33 votes [8.33%])

    Percentage of vote: 8.33%

  8. American Navy (26 votes [6.57%])

    Percentage of vote: 6.57%

  9. German Navy (47 votes [11.87%])

    Percentage of vote: 11.87%

  10. British Navy (51 votes [12.88%])

    Percentage of vote: 12.88%

  11. Russian Navy (14 votes [3.54%])

    Percentage of vote: 3.54%

Vote Hide poll

Grand_Moff_Tano #21 Posted 29 June 2012 - 04:29 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 1776 battles
  • 10,800
  • [BC28] BC28
  • Member since:
    05-20-2011

View PostGigaton, on 29 June 2012 - 02:40 PM, said:

I'm mostly waiting for USN and IJN cruisers, though I'm also interested in some of the older battleship classes (Fuso, especially).

Under no circumstances should ships like H44 ever make it into game. Crack pot design study like that has as much reason to be in WoBS as Ratte has reason to be in WoT. Pushing down the techtree compared to OP would also give us room to fiddle with the interesting pre-dreadnoughts and other pre-WW1 ships at low tiers. Dreadnoughts should start at tier 3-4 at earliest, and Super-Dreadnoughts (Orion was the first) should start at tier 4-5.

I think these should be the primary tier 8-10 BBs for USN, IJN, and the KM:

USN: NC/SD (the treaty ones, can easily be made same tier as, say, Bismarck due to excellent guns for the caliber), Iowa, Montana.
IJN:  Tosa and/or Kii, Yamato, Super Yamato.
KM: Bismarck, H39, H41.

It's interesting to see what kind of ship they decide to use for the tier 1 lolship. A WW1 style destroyer or light cruiser (I feel destroyer would be too niche)? A pre-WW1 protected cruiser (or even armoured cruiser)? I'm personally guessing we will see protected cruiser as the tier 1, especially as Aurora is such a famous vessel in Russia.

Aurora, my vote for Russian tier 1:

Spoiler                     

Probable american tier 1?

Spoiler                     

The glorious German tier 1?

Spoiler                     

Note how the German ship is clearly underpowered as it has the least funnels...
you forgot about the Polish Tier 1
Spoiler                     


Gigaton #22 Posted 29 June 2012 - 04:38 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Beta Tester
  • 4675 battles
  • 860
  • Member since:
    11-11-2010

View PostDemons_Bain, on 29 June 2012 - 04:29 PM, said:

you forgot about the Polish Tier 1

Hey, I'm actually dead serious here. Tier 1 lolship won't likely meet carriers in the first place, and it would be nice to have some 1900-1920s style action in tiers 1-4. The tiers can be bracketed so that advances in gunnery (maximum range of efficient gunnery in particular, going from about 5kms in Tsushima to 15-20kms during WW2), speed and protection don't kill the low tiers. And who knows, the early carriers might actually be seaplane carriers (which already existed during WW1 and slightly before), Hosho and Langley and pals might be bit higher tiers.

But likely the game will be more geared towards WW2 than I'd like, with peoples' general obsession towards it and all. I personally see the WW1 and thereabouts as the "high" age of steel warships, with WW2 era being more of a twilight. In the same way, I see WW2 as the "high" age of steel AFVs, with '50s and '60s being the twilight.

I guess the suggestion for the German tier 1 might be bit far out as it's from 19th century (but it's the last protected cruiser they made), but at least it has Krupp steel armour rather than compound armour or somesuch.

IBLiTZKRiEGI #23 Posted 29 June 2012 - 06:05 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 3275 battles
  • 1,960
  • [WOLVE] WOLVE
  • Member since:
    04-03-2011
Very nicely made! I'm so much more excited about this than WoWP.

Xindox #24 Posted 29 June 2012 - 06:16 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 10527 battles
  • 256
  • Member since:
    05-27-2011
Hey, cruisers for tier 1 is unfair. I want destroyers! the tree doesnt have to be only 10 tiers long. What about these sketches (american, not including blueprints) :elco PT - Clemson - Fletcher - Atlanta - Cleveland - Brooklyn - Northampton - Alaska - South Dakota - Iowa  - Montana
Japanese: PT boat - Minekaze - Fubuki - Kuma - Agano - Oyodo - Izumo - Mogami - Fuso - Nagato - Yamato.

Gigaton #25 Posted 29 June 2012 - 06:45 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Beta Tester
  • 4675 battles
  • 860
  • Member since:
    11-11-2010

View PostXindox, on 29 June 2012 - 06:16 PM, said:

Hey, cruisers for tier 1 is unfair. I want destroyers! I want destroyers! the tree doesnt have to be only 10 tiers long.

Aren't they planning to balance every class with full tree here (unlike in WoT). Fletcher would equate to something like tier 6-8 destroyer, depending if you go with OPs or my take.

These are the tier 1 options I though of for US:

Protected cruiser (the one I posted picture of): http://en.wikipedia....s_cruiser_(1905) Last USN protected cruiser.
Light cruiser: http://en.wikipedia....r_class_cruiser Frankly, I'd just ignore this early light cruiser and use the US armoured cruisers to fill the gap between St. Louis class and Omaha class (Omaha would be about tier 4 I guess).
Destroyer: http://en.wikipedia....class_destroyer First US turbine destroyer. Could also be the Paulding class which had more torpedo tubes (and that's what DDs will be all about in WoBS). Not really sure how much further I'd venture into four stack destroyers for tier 1, though I guess the thousand tonners are possible..

theta0123 #26 Posted 29 June 2012 - 06:56 PM

    Brigadier

  • Beta Tester
  • 7744 battles
  • 4,481
  • [FHA] FHA
  • Member since:
    07-08-2010

View PostXindox, on 26 June 2012 - 10:34 PM, said:

Hahaha bloody well said :Smile_veryhappy:
Wait... you call De Ruyter awesome? Ah, ok, there's also Java and some others... De Ruyter was intended to be a good ship, but suffered from budget cuts. 7 150s? Errr, too little. And no torpedoes! No match for the really awesome Japanese Mogamis etc.
If the dutch navy had there way, my god the Dutch navy would have kicked the Japanese there asses :p

They would have had those battlecruisers for a long time! The problem was, pacifist movements severly struck the budget of the Dutch navy before WW2. Otherwise they would have been much much better equipped

http://en.wikipedia....7_battlecruiser

Very impressive. If you compare the weight and size of guns

Very impressive is also the 12 120mm secondary batteries. Very powerfull dual purpose guns. And not to forget the, for that time, good anti-aircraft weapons

bofors guns where the way to go, the Dutch quickly realized this

Edited by theta0123, 29 June 2012 - 07:00 PM.


Xindox #27 Posted 29 June 2012 - 07:57 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 10527 battles
  • 256
  • Member since:
    05-27-2011
That project is cool indeed... just like Alaska class.

theta0123 #28 Posted 30 June 2012 - 12:56 PM

    Brigadier

  • Beta Tester
  • 7744 battles
  • 4,481
  • [FHA] FHA
  • Member since:
    07-08-2010
Does anybody knows what  ship this is?

http://www.worldofba...s_screen_07.jpg

Edited by theta0123, 30 June 2012 - 03:52 PM.


Xindox #29 Posted 30 June 2012 - 03:35 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 10527 battles
  • 256
  • Member since:
    05-27-2011
Maybe a prototype... to the left it's Fuso

theta0123 #30 Posted 30 June 2012 - 03:52 PM

    Brigadier

  • Beta Tester
  • 7744 battles
  • 4,481
  • [FHA] FHA
  • Member since:
    07-08-2010
so beautifull with those casemat guns

kodos #31 Posted 30 June 2012 - 04:03 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 14438 battles
  • 2,032
  • [RENO] RENO
  • Member since:
    01-28-2011
Should be Fuso and Yamato Class Ships.

And the only thing I want from WG is the KuK Tegetthoff-Class (3D Model)as low Tier Premium Battleship

Edited by kodos, 30 June 2012 - 04:06 PM.


JagdTigerPanzer #32 Posted 30 June 2012 - 11:39 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 62 battles
  • 6
  • Member since:
    05-15-2011

View PostGigaton, on 29 June 2012 - 02:40 PM, said:

I'm mostly waiting for USN and IJN cruisers, though I'm also interested in some of the older battleship classes (Fuso, especially).

Under no circumstances should ships like H44 ever make it into game. Crack pot design study like that has as much reason to be in WoBS as Ratte has reason to be in WoT. Pushing down the techtree compared to OP would also give us room to fiddle with the interesting pre-dreadnoughts and other pre-WW1 ships at low tiers. Dreadnoughts should start at tier 3-4 at earliest, and Super-Dreadnoughts (Orion was the first) should start at tier 4-5.



1:

You cannot compare Ships like the H44 to the Ratte because other nations have comparable ships. It will be just like the Maus in WOT, which weighs more than double of it's rivals t10 tanks. The reason why the Ratte is not in WOT is because the only other comparable tank would be the soviet "Bolshevik" tank.

2: Devs have already said that the game starts with dreadnaught, so no pre-drednaughts in the tech tree. Only premium ships that will most likely have more than one ship like a cruiser or destroyer.

Gigaton #33 Posted 01 July 2012 - 12:32 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Beta Tester
  • 4675 battles
  • 860
  • Member since:
    11-11-2010

View PostJagdTigerPanzer, on 30 June 2012 - 11:39 PM, said:

1:

You cannot compare Ships like the H44 to the Ratte because other nations have comparable ships. It will be just like the Maus in WOT, which weighs more than double of it's rivals t10 tanks. The reason why the Ratte is not in WOT is because the only other comparable tank would be the soviet "Bolshevik" tank.

2: Devs have already said that the game starts with dreadnaught, so no pre-drednaughts in the tech tree. Only premium ships that will most likely have more than one ship like a cruiser or destroyer.

I'm talking about practicality and inter-class balance. The later H designs were really thought games to determine what "maximum" battleship could look like. They were not directly involved with Navy's construction bureau nor were they drawn to any Navy requirements for new ship. No sane person was ever planning to order these ships, much less build them. Did Germany even have harbour facilities to ever operate them (or drydocks to maintain/repair them)? That's one reason I compared it to Ratte. It was an utopian design study that was hinged free of all practicality. Just like Ratte, and unlike Maus, it was not, nor would have it ever been, built.

Second is inter-class balance. WG seems to have already learnt their lessons of having one class go tier beyond the rest in World of Heavy Tanks (eg. techtrees of WoWB and introduction of tier 10 TDs and Meds). Why would they want to get a Super BB that was designed to be protected against all conventional threats? Especially when they can make a fine techtree without relying on ships later than H41. DDs will be the paper against the rock of BBs in WoBS, do you seriously feel matching something like Gearing (or some bit later post-war design) against H44 as tier 10 would be a good idea? I guess it could work, but only if the mechanics were made downright silly or if the H44 was made H44 in only name.  And another Ratte point, even if everyone had dreamed a super land battleship, I don't think it would have any place at all in WoT.

Can we just have real or realistic ships instead of going out of our way to implement rather obscure and very unrealistic ships only for the sake of having them?


Too bad about the pre-dreadnoughts, though I doubt every nation will get to start with a full dreadnought (Japan for one, since Fuso was their first true dreadnought, and also their first super-dreadnought).

Your last sentence was news to be though. We are supposed to control destroyers and cruisers by divisions/flotillas in the game and not as single ships? Can you give the source for that (I have been on vacation from WoT fora for last 3 months or so).

CritticalError #34 Posted 02 July 2012 - 08:13 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 8125 battles
  • 235
  • Member since:
    02-20-2012
I'm quite a bit pissed of at the moment. Just waisted about 30 min trying to create an own Techtree for the Imperial Japanese Navi, but realising, that I have no programm, that can handle my Idea:
I wanted to create a "Tree" with the Tier 1 standing in the Middle and the ´Tiers adding in 9 cycles around T1. This would allow a better movement in the system than the tree used in WOT. (Or can you imagine how a resarch from the left end to the right would look?
Anyway:
Could imagine the Cruiser line something like this:
Kuma (1921)-T2-l
Yubari(1923)-T3-l
Nagara(1926)-T4-l
Furutaka(1926)-T5-h
Myoko(1928)-T6-h
Takao(1932)-T7-h
Mogami(1935)-T8-h
Tone(1941)T9-h
???(never)T10-? =WG freaking fantasy Cruiser

(h=Heavy Cruiser, l=Light Cruiser)

Destroyers:
Momi(1920)-T2
Wakatake(1922)-T3
Mutsuki(1925)-T4
Fubuki(1926)-T5
Akatsuki(1932)-T6 (I'm missing something around 1929......so from here on Cruisers will be earlier designs compared to Destroyers....
Shiratsuyu(1936)-T7
Kagero(1939)-T8
Yugumo(1941?)-T9
T10: Other WG fantasy, or design study....


Hope they do it about that way....qouldn't be to happy to see the last vessels that realy have seen battle during WW2 on T7....

And I Absolutely hope they put in the ISE-Class as a battlebarge with a research for an airfield.
Equiped with airfield the ISE-Class loses a part of its firepower (caused by removing 2 of 6 turrets) but GAINS A F****** AIRFIELD and acts therefore as a hybrid Carrier-Battlebarge, that hosted up to 22 planes mix of YokosukaD4Y and AIchiE14A........And best of all: This conversion was done! No fantasy......Want to drive around in that thing!!!!!

Xindox #35 Posted 03 July 2012 - 09:36 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 10527 battles
  • 256
  • Member since:
    05-27-2011
Tone was weaker than Mogami... That's basics, a - for you.
No one mentioned Shimakaze, the fastest destroyer. It should be top class destroyer, i suppose.
That's too bad they're going to make the trees like that... I'll have to fight yamatos in a tiny destroyer  :arta:

CritticalError #36 Posted 03 July 2012 - 12:28 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 8125 battles
  • 235
  • Member since:
    02-20-2012
Yup, you are actualy right. I made this up from a seminar paper, which I've written when I was at school, so basicaly about 5 years ago. I mainly looked at the building year and only payed attention to the power of ships I still could remember.

If you don't like to fight Yamatos in destroyers I would recomend to be a yamato or Iowa yourself :).

On the other hand: Type 93 had about the reach of the yamato maingun and the destroyer will be spotted much later and an escape quite easy.....If Yamato would try to fire a maingun over the curvature of the globe on a tiny destroyer, I doubt that the hitting ratio would be that good. Especally if you consider the travelling time of the shot. Bringing to bear, that the Yamato is much easier to spot than the destroyer, I would believe, that a few destroyers can wolfpack/sniper a battleship.
Overall I think the destroyer is in a better position than the scout tank, since it can actually give a good punch!

SuperTechmarine #37 Posted 03 July 2012 - 06:01 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 2401 battles
  • 167
  • Member since:
    04-27-2011
German navy IMO

Tirpitz FTW!

theta0123 #38 Posted 03 July 2012 - 07:44 PM

    Brigadier

  • Beta Tester
  • 7744 battles
  • 4,481
  • [FHA] FHA
  • Member since:
    07-08-2010

View PostSuperTechmarine, on 03 July 2012 - 06:01 PM, said:

German navy IMO

Tirpitz FTW!
Surface fleet wise...The kriegsmarine was miles behind the japanese and hundreds of miles behind the US navy

Even the regia marina was in some ways better then the kriegsmarine

the Littorio class for example(the famous Vittorio Veneto)had simular main gun armament then the Bismarck class, but backed up by much more effective 152mm secondary battery(12 guns), supplanted by 4 very accurate 120mm guns. the 12 90mm Dual purpose guns, where much much more accurate and effective then the 10.5CM of the Bismarck. The 37mm AA guns where greater in number, and fully automatic unlike the Semi-automatic 3.7CM C/30.


IMO, but i will be flamed and shot death for this, They should add the Italian navy BEFORE the kriegsmarine, because surface wise, they saw more action then the Kriegsmarine...
Yeah! FIGHT THE POWAR!


In order=

1.US navy/imperial japanese navy
2. Royal navy/regia marina
3.Kriegsmarine/la royale
4. Soviet navy, Dutch navy(The dutch and soviets had there own cruisers, destroyers and such. Both had battleship and battlecruisers in design even postwar)
5. Norwegian navy, Swedish navy, finnish navy, Danish navy, Peruvian navy, Brazilian navy, Chilean navy (The latter had there own battleships! While the scandinavian fleets where equipped with powerfull coastal defense ships)

Xindox #39 Posted 03 July 2012 - 07:52 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 10527 battles
  • 256
  • Member since:
    05-27-2011
I think you're right, theta. Kriegsmarine was neglected by Hitler, who didn't like warships at all and didn't care about marine domination. That's one of the reasons why German navy shouldn't be a prime objective for this game. For Japan, USA and UK the navies were of great interest.

Gigaton #40 Posted 04 July 2012 - 06:03 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Beta Tester
  • 4675 battles
  • 860
  • Member since:
    11-11-2010

View PostCritticalError, on 02 July 2012 - 08:13 PM, said:

???(never)T10-? =WG freaking fantasy Cruiser

T10: Other WG fantasy, or design study....

Ibuki class was an improved Mogami design (based on Suzuya) and was the last heavy cruiser Japanese laid down. Both ships of the class were scrapped before being completed in any form, though Ibuki was launched. I think we could use Takao as tier 10 if requred as well, though the later cruisers did have various improvement in myriad of "little" and not so little things (efficiency of engine, habitability, more fridge space and such, and, IIRC, better computer as well).

Of those, the greater volume of fridge space is obviously the most important one for WoBS. Who doesn't like a cold beer now and then?

For tier 10 Japanese DD, the Shimakaze is more or less obvious choise. In terms of raw surface combat potential it was one of the if not the most powerful DD of the war (15 Long Lance torp tubes).

Akizuki could be another potential ship, and would be excellent AAA DD.

View PostXindox, on 03 July 2012 - 09:36 AM, said:

Tone was weaker than Mogami... That's basics, a - for you.

I disagree, mostly because the Mogami class were more or less failures due to poor stability and structural weakness (whereas Tone was the probably the best seaboat of the Japanese CAs).They could put Mogamis below Myoko and I wouldn't complain much. Tone also had slightly superior protection., though admittedly the main battery arrangement was rather... crap.

A thing like stability isn't inconsequential factor for actual combat, since it affects performance in rough seas and also accuracy of gunnery (for accuracy. both too low and high stability are bad).





Also tagged with Battleships, World, of, World of, World of Battleships, Ships

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users