Admiral_Karasu Posted May 17 Share Posted May 17 4 hours ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said: You actually believe WG on things like this? Don't. Some elaboration is required, maybe, as I think that is how the tech tree ship names are supposed to be interpreted. We could see a premium Iowa 'XX but the problem is that I don't think there is more than one refit ever made, so that would be Iowa '84 which... only made sense if the game were to incorporate 80s technology. Not that things have make the slightest bit of sense when it comes to Wargaming, apart from the obvious monetization logic, that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New_Jersey_prpr Posted May 17 Share Posted May 17 3 hours ago, Project45_Opytny said: This. The problem should be considering what role should San Francisco play that would also be different enough from Indianapolis, Wichita, Rochester, Anchorage, etc. These four ships all lacked heal, so that can be the first difference if a new T8 US CA is introduced. Wichita in fact is designed with "dual purpose" in mind, having both radar and spotter to choose, but very few choose the spotter option. I've played Wichita with spotter and feels that it's a viable way of playing this ship. The first problem is the spotter takes 4 min to cooldown (makes spotter skill mandatory if want to play comfortably), second problem is teammates always wanted you to use radar for them (should be less of a problem since we can know what consumable teammate brings now). Maybe the combination of heal+fast cd spotter is a good choice. But that's too 'boring' for many, just my two cents. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Navalpride33 Posted May 17 Share Posted May 17 (edited) 7 hours ago, Helstrem said: And? A second New Orleans class ship, particularly, and conveniently, both the most decorated and the most different New Orleans class CA, USS San Francisco, is hardly equal to adding all of the New Orleans class CAs into the game. It isn't like we're asking for a ship of a class with many of her sisters already in game. Unfortunately, WG disagrees with this statement. If I remember correctly, there was a ship named San Francisco at the initial unveiling. At the last moment the name was changed... What im saying is... The naming commission for WG is ultimately responsible for naming a model.. In this case, New Orleans (and all others like her) was the stated choice.. Now you may disagree which you can do so. That's way with a new ship reveal... There's always a battle for the final name of the ship model. For the must part ships' name dont change.. Then again, changes have occurred in the past. Edited May 17 by Navalpride33 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gillhunter Posted May 17 Share Posted May 17 On 5/14/2024 at 9:44 AM, Wolfswetpaws said: "If it's stupid, but it works, then it's not stupid." No, it's still stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Project45_Opytny Posted May 17 Share Posted May 17 26 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said: Unfortunately, WG disagrees with this statement. If I remember correctly, there was a ship named San Francisco at the initial unveiling. At the last moment the name was changed... What im saying is... The naming commission for WG is ultimately responsible for naming a model.. In this case, New Orleans was the stated choice.. Now you may disagree which you can do so. That's way with a new ship reveal... There's always a battle for the final name of the ship model. For the must part ships' name dont change.. Then again, changes have occurred in the past. You are talking about moot and completely irrelevant matters while we are discussing the possibilities of adding another New Orleans-class cruiser, USS San Francisco CA-38, as a new premium ship rather than renaming the tech tree VII New Orleans. That is fine as it is and we have no intention at all to change it. WG's established practice has been naming tech tree ships after the mostly recognized "lead ship" of the class in most circumstances, and that "tech tree ships represent the amalgamation of class members". There have been compromises, like Karlsruhe (duplication of "Konigsberg" name), Nurnberg (dispute on two one-off ships or distant sisters), Gneisenau (premium Scharnhorst and her historical reconstruction proposal), August von Parseval (premium Zeppelin, though like Nurnberg it is debatable that whether the Germans will radically modify their CV design had they actually completed and tested Graf Zeppelin), Kansas and Minnesota (rather than "South Dakota", perhaps to preserve historical names for future use), Charles Martel (generally accepted historical name assigned to the finalized design at T9), Jaguar (a case of debated lead ship), Cassard (duplication name), Baleares, Galicia (unique configuration?), Hobart... and instances like sole example built to the design, or characteristics exactly from the lead ship. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Project45_Opytny Posted May 17 Share Posted May 17 21 hours ago, Navalpride33 said: No mention of any major changes to the San Francisco. Its safe to conclude.. The New ORleans in game is the representative of the San Francisco in game. While many pages of the Wikipedia has been well written and maintained many are also not. Like "warmhearted" editors who rounded up 5-inch (127mm) guns into "130mm" that just bugs any enthusiast. 15 hours ago, Navalpride33 said: Again its only another cut and paste ship. I mean we already have a lot of those IMO. A historical copy-paste is anyway better as she is a sister ship of New Orleans IRL and a decorated veteran. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Helstrem Posted May 17 Share Posted May 17 (edited) 3 hours ago, Navalpride33 said: If I remember correctly, there was a ship named San Francisco at the initial unveiling. At the last moment the name was changed... You do not remember correctly. San Francisco has never been in the game. No other tech tree will ever use San Francisco. If another US CA tech tree is added the Tier VII will be the lead ship of a class, such as Northampton or Portland (Indianapolis is a Portland class ship so it is likely WG would reuse that model as tech tree USS Portland). The only ship eligible to carry the name San Francisco in WoWS is the New Orleans class USS San Francisco CA-38 and the only way she will ever be in the game is as a premium. USS San Francisco is NOT being reserved the way USS Nevada, USS Pennsylvania, USS Tennessee and USS South Dakota are being reserved as lead ships. Edited May 17 by Helstrem 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Navalpride33 Posted May 18 Share Posted May 18 13 hours ago, Project45_Opytny said: You are talking about moot and completely irrelevant matters while we are discussing the possibilities of adding another New Orleans-class cruiser, USS San Francisco CA-38, as a new premium ship rather than renaming the tech tree VII New Orleans. As I pointed out... WG will not repeat WILL NOT... Put a whole class of ships into the game.. Its been their policy for years and I dont see a change happening anytime soon. The naming situation... Just listing off priors WG have done.. All Im saying, at reveal, when they suggest a name change (the name does change from time to time). Advocate for the NAME San Francisco rather then something else (like the NO). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Navalpride33 Posted May 18 Share Posted May 18 11 hours ago, Helstrem said: You do not remember correctly. San Francisco has never been in the game. Not in the final inclusion of the game no I thought I made that clear... I do remember the guys at EU revealing a bunch of US cruisers back in the day and yes, one of them had the NAME San Francisco and it was changed later. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Helstrem Posted May 18 Share Posted May 18 4 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said: Not in the final inclusion of the game no I thought I made that clear... I do remember the guys at EU revealing a bunch of US cruisers back in the day and yes, one of them had the NAME San Francisco and it was changed later. This is incorrect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Navalpride33 Posted May 18 Share Posted May 18 Just now, Helstrem said: This is incorrect. The same thing happened to the "FRANCE" Changed to the Republic. Mind you this was years ago.. Thats why im saying.. When a new ship with a temp name comes out... Advocate for you fav ship name in the class. Otherwise, as I mentioned.. WG will not put all the ship classes in the game as per their statement not mine.. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Helstrem Posted May 18 Share Posted May 18 29 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said: The same thing happened to the "FRANCE" Changed to the Republic. Mind you this was years ago.. Thats why im saying.. When a new ship with a temp name comes out... Advocate for you fav ship name in the class. Otherwise, as I mentioned.. WG will not put all the ship classes in the game as per their statement not mine.. I've been here since closed beta. There has been no opportunity for there to be a San Francisco. New Orleans was the Tier VIII CA and there has been no New Orleans class CA added since. If San Francisco had been announced in any way, shape or form it would have been on the list of "what happened to X in development" types of posts, and it has never been. You are simply wrong about this claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Project45_Opytny Posted May 18 Share Posted May 18 1 hour ago, Navalpride33 said: As I pointed out... WG will not repeat WILL NOT... Put a whole class of ships into the game.. Its been their policy for years and I dont see a change happening anytime soon. The naming situation... Just listing off priors WG have done.. All Im saying, at reveal, when they suggest a name change (the name does change from time to time). Advocate for the NAME San Francisco rather then something else (like the NO). There is currently only one New Orleans-class cruiser represented in game (the researchable New Orleans), how can anyone with sanity and logicality interpret a proposal of adding a premium San Francisco CA-38 as Quote Put a whole class of ships into the game ? There are 5 (that is fewer than the New Orleans-class cruiser) King George V-class battleships and there has already been both KGV (researchable, "generic amalgamation") and premium Duke of York. Among the Iowa-class battleship we've already even seen 5 hulls: Iowa ("generic representation"), Missouri, Wisconsin, Illinois (presented in a proposed radical modification scheme) and Delaware (hypothetical modern napkin project). How WG has named researchable tech tree ships back in (presumed) Alpha testing stage is irrelevant with what we are discussing now if not completely moot. 1 hour ago, Navalpride33 said: The same thing happened to the "FRANCE" Changed to the Republic. Mind you this was years ago.. Thats why im saying.. When a new ship with a temp name comes out... Advocate for you fav ship name in the class. WG's renaming of France/Republique cannot prove your claim of a rename of New Orleans from something else. You need some more concrete proof like screenshots from Alpha. We have no intention to rename the current researchable New Orleans. I have been keeping civil, but your responses are draining my patience with their complete lack of logicalness. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invicta2012 Posted May 18 Share Posted May 18 On 5/16/2024 at 4:05 AM, Asym said: I am late to this thread...... Has anyone asked: to what end? Historical infers History and History is and really, has never has been in the game seriously.... Other than snippets of this or that Action or names or........ We play on Imaginary waters that look like they were made for World of Tanks.... Have we really ever seen real engagements with the ships that were there - to see what "could have happened?" A real Axis and Allies mode of play? It's inspirational, I suppose. I find the history of certain ships and the attitudes of their commanders fascinating, and this chimes with a sense of heroism which might inspire certain modes of gameplay. The commanders can also be given skills which reflect their qualities in battle. For the D-Day event, for example, there's a special camo for HMS Jervis, which is nice, but I would rather have her skipper as a commander in the game. Roger Hill was one of those Royal Navy Destroyer captains whose attitude was *extremely* can-do (see his bio here) and would certainly make a decent special Captain. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral_Karasu Posted May 18 Share Posted May 18 7 hours ago, Navalpride33 said: The same thing happened to the "FRANCE" Changed to the Republic. Mind you this was years ago.. Thats why im saying.. When a new ship with a temp name comes out... Advocate for you fav ship name in the class. Otherwise, as I mentioned.. WG will not put all the ship classes in the game as per their statement not mine.. When the WoWS Wiki states that the Republique is "A version of the battleship design of the post-war period" it does not inspire in me any confidence in its historicity. If there was no finalized design, with a name picked for the class, it doesn't matter what WG calls it (other than that there was a real pre-dreadnought Republique class which I would have preferred to see in the game instead). The New Orleans class, instead, is a real historical class of US cruisers, and the New Orleans was the lead ship of that class and WG consistently uses the lead ship name for the tech tree ship. It's certainly been like this since open Beta. If someone who was around Alpha can remember something to the contrary, I don't think they've yet turned up to either confirm or deny anything. I don't know if they had other ideas originally, prior to the launch, but I don't know of any such ideas, the Internet doesn't know of any such ideas.... Based on available sources and information the case seems rather closed in my opinion. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New_Jersey_prpr Posted May 18 Share Posted May 18 (edited) New Orleans did have another name before, however it's Astoria instead of San Francisco. https://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:New_Orleans Edited May 18 by New_Jersey_prpr 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral_Karasu Posted May 18 Share Posted May 18 20 minutes ago, New_Jersey_prpr said: New Orleans did have another name before, however it's Astoria instead of San Francisco. https://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:New_Orleans Probably a place holder name. Unless... WG initially had not decided on any naming scheme yet. I'm actually having a little trouble with this. Did we only get the US cruisers in 2018? Or.. is this an indication that they tested the ship as clone named Astoria at that point? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Astoria_(CA-34) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New_Jersey_prpr Posted May 18 Share Posted May 18 (edited) 19 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said: Probably a place holder name. Unless... WG initially had not decided on any naming scheme yet. I'm actually having a little trouble with this. Did we only get the US cruisers in 2018? Or.. is this an indication that they tested the ship as clone named Astoria at that point? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Astoria_(CA-34) Astoria is the test ship for T7 New Orleans back in 2018. This is the only info I can find on the topic about New Orleans having another name. Edited May 18 by New_Jersey_prpr 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral_Karasu Posted May 18 Share Posted May 18 3 minutes ago, New_Jersey_prpr said: Astoria is the test ship for T7 New Orleans back in 2018. This is the only info I can find on the topic about New Orleans having another name. Thanks for settling this issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clammboy Posted May 18 Share Posted May 18 Lol @Navalpride33 the same guy downvoted everyone of your posts for 2 pages. Could be a record I love it pile on the reputation points. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unlooky Posted May 18 Share Posted May 18 12 hours ago, Navalpride33 said: As I pointed out... WG will not repeat WILL NOT... Put a whole class of ships into the game.. Its been their policy for years and I dont see a change happening anytime soon. The naming situation... Just listing off priors WG have done.. All Im saying, at reveal, when they suggest a name change (the name does change from time to time). Advocate for the NAME San Francisco rather then something else (like the NO). Yamato and Yorktown classes are both represented in their entirety in game. It's almost certain that WG keeps the last ships in a class in reserve for future content since this is a live service game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Helstrem Posted May 18 Share Posted May 18 2 hours ago, Unlooky said: Yamato and Yorktown classes are both represented in their entirety in game. It's almost certain that WG keeps the last ships in a class in reserve for future content since this is a live service game. More directly, we are not asking for USS San Francisco to be added to the game in addition to New Orleans, Astoria, Minneapolis, Tuscaloosa, Quincy and Vincennes as he implied. We're asking for San Francisco to be added to the game in addition to New Orleans, as the second New Orleans class CA in the game, not the seventh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Navalpride33 Posted May 18 Share Posted May 18 16 hours ago, Project45_Opytny said: WG's renaming of France/Republique cannot prove your claim of a rename of New Orleans from something else. You need some more concrete proof like screenshots from Alpha. Unfortunately, I'm not WG's historian or record keeper. I'm not going to record everything WG does just to convince the masses. I'll i'm saying. There's a policy in place, WG will not instill all members of a ship class into the game. Names change from unveiling to final application to the game. This is not the first nor the last time this will happen.. Keep your eyes peeled because it will happen again.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Navalpride33 Posted May 18 Share Posted May 18 10 hours ago, Admiral_Karasu said: The New Orleans class, instead, is a real historical class of US cruisers, and the New Orleans was the lead ship of that class and WG consistently uses the lead ship name for the tech tree ship. I know, the naming committee is to blame. That's why I saying, when the new batch of US cruisers come out... Advocate for the San Francisco. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Navalpride33 Posted May 18 Share Posted May 18 4 hours ago, Unlooky said: Yamato and Yorktown classes are both represented in their entirety in game. It's almost certain that WG keeps the last ships in a class in reserve for future content since this is a live service game. There's only two.. Mushashi and Yamato. A reminder, WG favors CV/BBs over cruisers... Cruisers in game are gun fodder for BBs especially, at high tiers. When it comes to BBs... They will get every single BB and create some fake ones into the game. In context of US cruisers... Thats not the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now