Please add Alaska class and B65 class (large cruisers)

[Osi]

The Alaska class (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska-class_cruiser)

 

The B65 class (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_B-65_cruiser)

I'd recommend branching the cruiser lines at some point allowing specialization in either CL or CA- where these 2 would likely be near the top of the tree.

 

Cheers,

 

Osi

[Conkhead_12]

Might Be added, soon

And: This's already in the forums, gonna add this thread to my list now

[Krieg]

Do you know what "Osi" means in Hakka Chinese? 

 

Hint: It rhymes with "sloop" but starts and ends with a "p"

 

I wanna see those ships too but fixing the game mechanics needs to come first.

[Mingfang47]

Soon™

You'll get them when they get implemented, don't ask when.

[Nikolaevna]

The wiki article on the Alaska class is very well written. But you're gonna have to back up your OP with more info if you really want this ship (simply linking the wiki article is not enough), like detailed blueprints which can help the developers to create the in-game model. Preferably original drawings and not an artist's impression. The history only matters for the ship's in-game description and possible module upgrades (if any), but that's it. No detailed drawings, no ship anytime soon.

[Krieg]

The wiki article on the Alaska class is very well written. But you're gonna have to back up your OP with more info if you really want this ship (simply linking the wiki article is not enough), like detailed blueprints which can help the developers to create the in-game model. Preferably original drawings and not an artist's impression. The history only matters for the ship's in-game description and possible module upgrades (if any), but that's it. No detailed drawings, no ship anytime soon.

 

The developers don't read our little Asia forums. There is a lot of evidence to support that statement. However, I'm not gonna get into that as it's not productive and I don't want this to turn into a troll thread. 

 

EDIT: Very happy to be proven wrong. Will not be upset either way. I'm just along for the ride 

[Osi]

Happy to go ferret out more information if required- just would like some degree of interest from the devs before I do this.

Simple reasons:

 

1) My time is valuable too

2) If they've already got the info and have already or are implementing them 

3) For design/balance reasons they're not interested in doing it

 

[Nikolaevna]

 

The developers don't read our little Asia forums. There is a lot of evidence to support that statement. However, I'm not gonna get into that as it's not productive and I don't want this to turn into a troll thread. 

EDIT: Very happy to be proven wrong. Will not be upset either way. I'm just along for the ride 

 

They don't read suggestions because none of them bother to put in any effort to researching the ship before posting, just link the wiki article and done. What would get their attention is if you're an expert on warships or are lucky enough to get in touch with one of the game's developers. The upcoming Czechoslovak and Swedish tech trees in WoT was possible only because the players who suggested them had direct contact with a developer who was working on Japanese tanks with experts from the NA community. IIRC research on those trees took over two years, beginning sometime in 2013.

 

Over in the NA & EU forums, you can see alot of players posting about warships in the historical section. I guess we have them to thank for making the German tech tree a reality instead of the originally planned Russians.

[EvyL]

but isn't the Alaska (or its CA-4D Super Alaska iteration if that was real) slated as a tier 5-7 "fast" battleship? and sides, they have their archive raiders and info raiders, all of which is prevalent in RU, NA and EU, to present crap.

 

I'm still a bit wondering why the Brits didn't archive raid their own stuff since they have a crapton of ships, let alone the Aussies and the Kiwis that have good prem ships

[Nikolaevna]

but isn't the Alaska (or its CA-4D Super Alaska iteration if that was real) slated as a tier 5-7 "fast" battleship? and sides, they have their archive raiders and info raiders, all of which is prevalent in RU, NA and EU, to present crap.

 

I'm still a bit wondering why the Brits didn't archive raid their own stuff since they have a crapton of ships, let alone the Aussies and the Kiwis that have good prem ships

 

WG never bothered raiding the archives for Italian tanks, so I won't be surprised if they neglect the likes of French, Italian, Dutch and Austro-Hungarian warships as well.

[EvyL]

then let's expect something for the RUdevs archive raiders. afaik I remember that a certain official archive and museum raider for EU was responsible(?) for the straining of the Bovington-WoT RUdevs which was why Action X is delayed (until Action X arrives as well as Chieftain, I won't go back to WoT to play for the lulz since I liek sheeps).

 

that aside, I don't know if there are other nations that have supercruisers that literally behave like battlecruisers like Alaska, B-65 or the Dutch supercruiser plan for that matter to archive raid the crap out of it unless EU has dedicated info raiders just like NA.

[Nekrosmas]

I Genuinely think that the Des Monies can be moved to be the CL Line Tier 10 and the Alaska as the CAs T10.

 

After all, DM's Machine-HE-Gun play just like a CL.