World of Warships- Are Missiles On The Way?

22,755 views
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (870 votes, average: 4.85 out of 5)
Loading...

Hey guys, a bit of a fun and speculative video today. This all started with me being curios about some posts on Reddit and doing some digging. Then I ran across this Q&A from 2017 and thought it would be interesting to see what has or hasn’t happened according to the Q&A. Enjoy!

Outro Music: Stranger Think- C418

Have a replay?

Join the Discord here!: https://discordapp.com/invite/QA7G9pr

57 Comments:

  1. I’m honestly thinking they are testing Tier 15 ships

  2. If they mean missiles that can actually shoot planes down im happy

  3. The Halland class actually did have guided anti-ship missiles to go along with the 356mm Bofors ASW rockets. They are modeled in game on the Smaland. From what I understand they are technically radar guided rockets with a 60km range. The Smaland as shown is a later refit of the Halland class. I suspect they have thrown out the idea of AShGMs given that Smaland was released without any mention of working rockets or a plan to change a reward/premium ship in the future, something that WG has tried(and in some cases failed) not to do at least for individual ships. There is also the Iowa class retrofit which included cruise missile launchers and Phalanx CIWS.

  4. Battle of warship Anas

    If missile come they will break the game.
    They may be need to be control like the planes of CV .

  5. I can already imagine Iowa getting new D Hull upgrade that includes CWIS and Tomahawk missiles

    • @Ayy Lmao let me guess, citadel damage will be idk…25k per shell? xD

    • And then War gaming adds the Kirov class Battlecruiser for Russia.

    • @HunterKiller151 regular damage could be that, citadel damage is the remaining hp of the ship

    • SomeRandom Person

      @AgentFrosty “Even the odds” lol sure let’s add CWIS that will shoot down an entire squadron 9miles away and then WOWS will go full nuclear and Iowa will have nuclear shells that will one-shot half or even the entire enemy team with one shot lmao.

    • @SomeRandom Person LOL you do know I’m being sarcastic, right? I’m just being dramatic about the lack of effective AA in the game right now.

  6. The first guided missile cruisers in the world were the USN’s Boston-class guided missile cruisers. They were converted Baltimore-class WW2 era ships that had their aft turret removed and replaced with Terrier anti-AIRCRAFT missiles. The refit started in 1952 and they were commissioned in 1955. If they stick to a few revamped WW2 ships that have got used as test platforms for SAMs, they could provide some proper hardcore air defense ships that can provide a long-ranged anti-air umbrella for a squadron (probably providing a very slow reloading but quite long-ranged heavy hitting aircraft killing ability – say enough damage per missile to reliably kill a T8 plane if it hits… a volley at 10km that wipes out 2-3 planes every once in a while would make a CV player seriously pause… it would make aerial spotting brutal). Giving up some surface firepower for a heavy duty AA option that kills planes before they can launch (instead of between the first launch and the second) would have value… might be worth giving up a turret. It would make for a very interesting premium ship and I’m sure a few other WW2 ships were used as experimental SAM platforms post-war. WoWS does include ships that were post-war refits or builds that are connected to or started as WW2 designs (e.g. the Jean Bart in game is the post-war completed version, not the single-turreted half-built ship that operated during WW2 and most of the Pan-Asian line is post-war refits of WW2 era ships).

    Anti-shipping missiles were pretty much launched from bombers until the late 50s when the first practical ship-to-ship missiles show up. Stuff like the Fritz X is historical to WW2 but there’s nothing like land-based anti-shipping air raids in the game. The Saab Rb 08 anti-ship missiles modeled on the Smaland were refits that were added to the Halland class in 1966. They are present on the Smaland because WG models museum ships on their current appearance (so the Smaland has them but the Halland doesn’t, even though both are Halland-class).

    To include actual anti-ship missiles in game, they would need to include ships from the late 1950s onwards when the entire ship design philosophy changed away from naval rifles towards missiles.

    • check out AG-128/EAG-128. USS Mississippi with a much needed AA upgrade you can say.

    • @Jeffrey Latham Interesting. Same idea (swap out a turret for SAMs) on a New Mexico hull. There would be the Terrier and later Petrel systems as options. These would not be hard to model in game.

  7. This is getting more absurd, we already have cold war era ships, ships from 1950s fighting against WW2 ships. And now missiles? I thought this game is mainly WW2…

    • drzoidberg1 It says “featuring…vessels from the first half of the twentieth century.” That doesn’t necessarily equate to the game being limited to that time frame, it just means that there are ships from that era in the game.

    • @wino0000006
      Has anyone noticed how the superstructure of Ticonderoga class cruisers looks surprisingly similar to the Atago?

    • Emanuel Gonçalves Santos

      @ThePeperich Nassau don’t play against T10

    • Krin Watchout, people are just gonna pull false information out of their dirty arses.

    • I mean, more than half of the Soviet tech tree is Ivan’s Fantasy Island… overpowered ships that were discovered drawn on Stalin’s used tissues.

  8. Rockets : Full on “Yep”
    Surface-to-air missiles : “Yep”
    Surface-to-surface missiles : Depends on the type of guidance, speed and range.
    (FWIW Rocket (unguided) vs Missile (guided)= huge difference).

    • If I recall correctly most semiactive radar homing missiles will gladly smash whatever you point the illuminator radar at, surface or air. So a Standard Missile or Sea Sparrow could do both…the USN uses them for both in the real world. Harpoons, exocets, and those massive soviet missiles might be interesting.

  9. Wonder if it’d be better for them to release a new title: World of Warships: New Horizons. Basically it’s all based on more modern ships with different armaments. The three classes can be submarines, destroyers and modern-day carriers.
    1. Carriers can do consistent chip damage to surface ships using unguided missiles and devastating attacks submarines using depth charges if found.
    2. Surface ships will deal devastating damage to submarines at close range and carriers at long range using player guided missiles.
    3. Submarines will play a similar role to a torpboat but have very good concealment, though they need to surface every so often and leave some sort of wake that carriers can use to get some sort of an indication of their general vicinity.

  10. Whats next, being able to freaking fire nuclear weapons out of subs.

  11. Remember in the early CV rework the idea of odd-tier CVs being given support roles like smoke planes, air dropping repair and consumable charges, etc. That would be an interesting addition. If I had a voice there, I would ask for more dynamic PVE operations and missions as it gives those of us that have disabilities (mine is vision related) better access to the game we love without affecting the random or competitive matches.

    • That would be nice but imagine a T9 “support CV” with let’s say, rockets, ASW and smoke VS any T10. Absolute slaughter…

  12. 1. Italian cruisers were late 2019, not early 2020. Brit heavy cruisers were early 2020. (Goliath second impression when?)
    2. GZ DWT isn’t something only from testing, GZ had selectable HE or AP bombs and DWT or normal torps back in RTS. The DWT had higher flooding chance but could not hit DDs. typically, you’d run normal torps and AP bombers to oneshot anything with cit and crosstorp the rest or you go for full DoT farm with the alternative options, but rarely you’d see an AP + DWT GZ, which thought having no anti-DD armament was cool or whatever…
    3. RPF isn’t useless with CVs, as you cannot count on your CV to spot where you want it to spot. If they neglect your flank, tough luck. Not to mention, it still is a skill that certain lines will pick up because the only other good alternative might be SE or FP.
    4. On KTKM, a few days ago I think Sub_Octavian said that it might not come out at all. WG seems less dead set on the ship than on shit like the CV rework or subs.
    5. Missiles seem to have been scrapped, but a good bit of it has been recycled (imagine there being a ship that steers its main weapon type to target. Sound familiar?). The images on reddit also look more like old icons from before recent UI changes.

  13. One thing to remmember from that chat; a German CV line was a big “no” at the time, because they were already putting work, and a staff team into a rework. They did differentiate, that “at the time” an new CV pine (such as a German one) was a no. Where as they saw missiles as either blatantly overpowered, or of pure novelty, which they expected to wear off fast.
    Similar to when the Devs back in 2014 had Q&A videos regarding stuff like “will flooding cause listing, and would that effect fireing elevations etc” or “Will there be submersibles” to which they said (along the lines of) “we currently don’t have them in the game, or in development, and don’t have any intentions to implement them right now”.

  14. Community: how much you wanna break the game?
    WG: YES

  15. One of the Swedish DD’s has missiles modelled on it whilst in the port screen.

  16. There’s a reason why they won’t go into Tier 11 and higher. It would require them to leave behind the era of large conventional naval artillery. Which means the basic mechanics that this ENTIRE game is based off of will no longer apply. Additionally, naval missile warfare would be incredibly boring. Staring at blip on the screen. Pressing a button. Watching your missile fly out. Hearing from the game you got a hit. Never making visual contact with the enemy.. yeah you get the idea..

  17. WG: „there will be no bigger guns in the game than 460 mm“…Shikishima enters the chat

  18. stephen goldsworth

    When Jingles was asked if CVs should be removed from the game, he said yes. His reasoning was that the other three classes had traits that could counteract each other, but CVs don’t have this. I remember thinking missles could, under the right circumstances, be a way for the other three classes of ships to return the favor of a long distance strike to the CV.

  19. “Moscow in flames, Missiles on the way, film at 11” from “Kentucky Fried Movie”

    I can see the point: get max use out of the work they’re doing on subs and wire-guided torpedoes. But no. Just no. It wouldn’t surprise me to see missiles either. But it’s OK. I’m making my plans to exit the game anyway. WG can do what they want to ruin their game. They won’t get more money from me.

  20. Imagine the New Jersey with its modern hull in wows.
    And instead of a plane you can launch a helicopter.

Leave a Reply

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