France T10 French Battleship Preview – World of Warships

2,903 views
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (126 votes, average: 4.96 out of 5)
Loading...

Close ×

I’ve got a of , the T10 , not the country. All I’ve got to say is this ship is a lot of fun. The line is going to bring World of Warships fans a lot of battleships they can enjoy, and the is the reward for the grind. No matter a player’s style of play, the can be molded to match that particular player. It can brawl, it can kite, it can delete cruisers and it can snipe!

Related Ship Rage!

42 Comments:

  1. Please, this POS do not deserve the tier 10 spot.

    • Shes had good reviews from just about everyone . . .

    • Alsace got better reviews comparing to this one. And not to mention that if someone is dirty enough to knock out just one of your turret, you are pretty much done for the entire game.

    • Yeah the tier 9 seems amazing but the reviews of France all seem good as well.

    • Don’t underestimate it. From people I know who’ve tested it in TS, she’s a damn good ship.

    • Here’s my problem with France.
      To make her “FUN” Wargaming buffed the default firing-cycle to 21 second.
      That’s not fun by “Plausible” design. That’s fun by BULLSHIT programming.
      So why do I have to suffer a T10 BB with a 431 mm gun with a base reload of 21 second in a far more complex turret way faster than Montana’s 406 mm 30 seconds. Where’s the sense of engineering plausibility.
      Then why not take the Izumo, Lion and Iowa and give those 20 second base firecycles and viola. T10 level DPM.
      I can take a Tier 3 battleship then and give her a 3 second reload time, shoot depleted Uranium bullets at 1000 meters a second, speedboost to 40 knots, give her Adamantium armor and make her turn on a dime.
      That would be fun too right? But where’s the sense of “Plausibility” in such a ship.

      Gascogne was the result of strict treaty limits imposed by major battleship builders.
      France took a calculated risk to put the most amount of firepower on two turrets and make a fast battleship within 35,000 ton limitation.
      Everything on the Gascogne design points to weight saving and design compromises.
      That’s why the Gascogne resembles the Graf Spee which had to be built under similar imposed tonnage limits.
      France is a 64,000 ton Behemoth.
      No naval engineer in his right mind with so much free tonnage to play around with will design a Super battleship that has half of its main armament fixed in one Turret.
      Nobody is going to make Design Compromises on a ship that big (Unless you put 500 mm guns but that would open up another engineering can of worms).

      The fact that Wargaming had to reduce France’s fire cycle from the standard 30 second of that caliber size to 21 second just to make her “balanced” as a T10 ship is an indication that they dun fucked up with this design.

  2. Speaking as someone who actually has less than zero interest in getting this ship, I wanted to say that IMHO you’ve done a very good job selling her to potential interested parties, warts and all. Great vid.

    • +jsm666 LoL… Yeah… it’s an oddball ship, but there is a definite fun factor. She won’t be for everyone, that’s for sure.

  3. Still waiting for the US cruiser split. Not to into french BB’s atm or french ships at all for that matter. But thanks for the video, at least now I know what I’ll be going up against when they are released.

    • +Kyle Raszman I am so pumped for the cruiser split. I think the FBBs will likely come first though 🙁

    • Well guess I’ll be waiting just abit longer it seems. Also one of my friends just started playing WoWS and I want to gift him a ship/gold for a ship so he has a money grinder/something fun to play. Any recommendations? (budget for it is $20.)

  4. That rate of fire though. Tier 10 Scharnhorst in effect, what’s not to like?

  5. Im excited for the France and the rest of the line. They seem fun and interesting. France seems like a giant Graf Spee.

  6. Grnnn please never joke again!!! Lol dad jokes you must be writing for Darth Vader!:)
    I play cruisers and cv (I have them all) but I am looking forward to this line.
    The US and French crusier are my favorite ships and the bb look very fun as well. A different play stile than every other bb in the game. Not as boring as British and not as stationary as IJN and us. Should be a good time.
    Can wait to try them out.

  7. Ooh I am really really looking forward to this now. I just hope they don’t mess her up before release. ^-^

  8. When does the French BB line get released?

  9. A 20 second reload time. On those guns. Yeah okay…

    Did anyone hear about them adding a special captain to the game with a special adrenaline rush buff? That 20s reload will be even faster with that captain in this thing. That’s just outrageous and stupid.

  10. Excellent review. You didn´t complain about everything, you found a way to make her work. Great job!

  11. I thought speed boost only helped in the forward direction?

    ETA: Tested and I was wrong, it helps in both directions.

  12. “Four in the rear” Lol

    • anyone who can take “four barrels in the rear” is impressive, even if it permanently damages them *if you get what i’m sayin*

  13. France was a real ship, the only difference is one world war and about 20 or 30 years. Wargaming loves to reassign WW1 ship names to the nameless paper ones. “Napoleon” would’ve been better.

  14. Funny. Flamu says this ship is absolute dogshit. And so has everyone else who has tested her.

  15. I enjoyed the preview Zoup! Not sure I will go up the line yet. I do like that she is flexible enough not to be pigeonholed to one particular play style.

  16. I made my choice after i watched your video! Good job.

  17. “Neither did Montana”

    … That, sir, is an insult to that class of ship. It was laid down and never completed, the keels getting scrapped. But had there been a need to continue construction(and not just build even more carriers), they would have seen completion, and there would have been not 1, not 2, but FIVE ships in the class(this compares with the 3 Yamato’s planned, 2 or 3 H41’s planned by Germany, and the 3 or 4 planned by other nations to around that same level). There was two Iowa class ships which weren’t completed either, and the bow of one of those unfinished ships was used to repair the bow of the USS Wisconsin when it accidentally rammed into a destroyer several decades after the war ended(IIRC). Had things been different, they would have been completed a couple of years after the war ended. The majority of the others were scrapped completely once war started(cough cough H41), and did not see completion because they were now at war, with no time to build said ships. The US had the luxury to build whatever it wanted, and built the largest fleet to ever sail the seas. The Montana class was cancelled to make sure there was still some budget for things like the Essex class, and the Midway class(which uses the hull design and secondary guns of the Montana). Put simply, they were very expensive, and were cut for exactly that reason(besides, they thought a Montana would not be good anymore. The age of the carrier had come. And while nukes were not a factor, they would have been if construction had continued).

    The Lion class was almost completely cancelled except for one ship(HMS Vanguard, a discount Lion with 8 381mm guns in 4 turrets to save on cost and time(the 406mm guns were not ready)), and the HMS Conquerer is not based on the Lion class, the lion class only has 3 turrets, not 4. HMS Lion at tier 9 was the actual design for the Lion class of ship. The Conquerer was never planned or conceived beyond a paper drawing.

    • To be honest, there were 5 Yamato’s planned, 3 laid down, 2 cancelled due to the War needing more Carriers, Destroyers and Auxiliary ships.

    • HunterSteel29 Ummm… 2 of said Yamato’s you mentioned are of the A150 class of ship(AKA the ‘Super’ Yamato), which is completely different than the actual Yamato class. Unless you are referring to the super over the top lofty estimates that governments like to make. The US had the capability to build all the ships of the Montana class(and the two of the class that weren’t laid down were going to be laid down in a matter of months). Japan did not have that option(in fact, they probably would have been better off without them, but that’s hindsight). The A150 class was a lofty goal that Japan wanted, but ultimately would never get(it took them 6 or 7 years to complete the Yamato…).

    • Yamato was laid down n 1937 and launched in 1940. There’s also Warship Number 111, and her sister Warship Number 797. The 5th sister was cancelled during planning and the fourth one was cancelled in 1942 while 30% complete. Yamato also only took 3 years to finish, she took 7 years in total from R&D to a final design laid down in 1937 to her launch in 1940. Musashi would come later in 1941 and join her sister in active duty in 1942.

      Japan cancelled The fourth Sister because she would have been finished too late for the war, around 1945 was her projected date. Not to mention, they questioned their ambitious capitol ship building program and realized that even Shinano was going to take too many resources, but she was too far along and couldn’t be cancelled.

  18. I think the France was not even a papership. It totally came from the developers magician hat.

  19. over pens should cause short flooding damage ..Bismarck was over pend by HMS Prince of Wales Just after Bis detonated the HOOD and cause here to leak oil and take on water

  20. aguywhodoesntexist

    lol 100k damage on first game is something i’d kill for

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *