World of Warships- What The HELL Is This?!?! New US Battleship INSANITY

19,944 views
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (1,464 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading...

Close Ad ×

Hello guys, today we go over a couple of recent DevBlogs with quite the crazy rendition of the USS Illinois, along with several other new additions, enjoy!

DevBlogs:
https://blog.worldofwarships.com/blog/398
https://blog.worldofwarships.com/blog/399

Discord: https://discord.gg/P5aR2PzVXB
Music:
Ross Rowley:
https://music.apple.com/us/artist/ross-rowley/1524460114
https://www.rossrowley.com

Music by Karl Casey @ White Bat Audio

Outro Music: Stranger Think- C418

Have a replay?

Music: Stranger Think- C418

Chapters:
0:00 Video Intro
1:46 Pan-American Cruisers
9:13 Illinois
15:48 Daisen
19:40 Colossus

32 Comments:

  1. I was thinking about Illinois yesterday. I saw a project like these. But a new Japanese battleship tech tree or the NO-13 class battleship would have also been nice.

  2. You know it’ll be fun when SLB giggles weirdly in the first 30 seconds of his video.

  3. I find myself looking forward to the Illinois. I love my Florida and I’ve had my eyes on Annapolis for a while now, so this is like the love child of the two of them after a night of drinking and partying.

  4. HandsOn KeyboardandMouse

    Well, that’s it, even before SLMB said it — now too arcade. Clearly WG is seeing reduced numbers in this class with CVs (and useless AA), subs, and superships, and the general rise of gimmicks yielding power creep. Spreadsheet is chasing these effects, leading to arcade power creep. Once I knock off the snowflakes, it’s time to take a few months off. Either WG will pull back or keep sliding away from why this game used to be worth playing — WW2 surface ship themed gameplay. Can spend my time elsewhere while the game implodes or come back if it’s still here. No point riding along to see. Cheers. Catch you all in March.

  5. The British light cruisers also have a heal at T2

  6. Illinois – as if cruisers were not sandwiched in style that pushes them into obsolescence already…

    I mean, look at the weird situation WoWs battle-line has.
    The toughest ships also have the longest range, so they stay away. – they have tough armour, heal and good hp pools.
    Shortest ranged ships – destroyers – also have the best stealth, so they can save themselves – and they have agility, speed, concealment and more often than not, smoke.
    Now look at cruisers that sit between DDs and BBs. Destroyers outspot them, battleships usually outrange them. Spotted cruiser is almost always immediately within comfortable battleship battery range – just around the point when they become accurate enough. And close enough to be reliably threatened by torps.
    All of cruiser’s anti-DD measures are limited use consumables.

    And now we have battleships with cruiser guns. Come on…

  7. Christian Valentin

    So, when it comes to the Iowas apparently Wargaming doesn’t like even numbers. And for a company that wants its players to buy premium ships, not having the USS New Jersey (or the USS Washington) in the game seems a little odd, as I’m willing to bet that more players would buy the New Jersey over the Illinois.

  8. If they add the new Jersey i want them to give it anti-island shells

  9. The battleship Illinois Is more like the battleship Iowa and Missouri, but with Florida gun vibes.

    Plus I am getting that ship for coal!

  10. Huge shakeup in the mix. I quit this game completely in May. Was in from almost the beginning until then. I was spending too much. Great insight on the changes. I keep looking for a reason to resume. Will strengthening the lower tiers enhance game play down in tiers where more affordable? I quit the game but not your channel! I appreciate it.

  11. KGV: can I be T8? WG: sorry your 14 inch guns are too small for T8
    Illinios: I have 9 inch guns? WG: T9 no problems.

  12. They REALLY are trying their hardest not to include Wisconsin and New Jersey 🤣 And I’m calling it now, Colossus is going to be the basis for a Dutch, Commonwealth or Pan-American CV; the British loaned or sold most of the class to these countries.

  13. I just admit that I’m actually interested in the Illinois, I can’t wait to see how she plays in battle

    • The Phengophobic Gamer

      @Meneldal Lower sigma, larger max dispersion. She’s gonna be pretty useless at max range aside from peppering a large BB with HE.

    • @The Phengophobic Gamer It’s likely to be changed by testing if it can’t hit anything though

    • The Phengophobic Gamer

      @Meneldal A good chance, but tbh, I dont think it needs to be DM accurate. DM is already above average in accuracy, and with 3 more guns and alot more armor, she can’t be better than DM in every way, especially at IX. She’ll likely get a bump in accuracy, but not by much.

    • @The Phengophobic Gamer You’re also losing mobility and utility (no radar) so even if you had the exact same gunnery it wouldn’t be a straight upgrade either

    • The Phengophobic Gamer

      @Meneldal The mobility is an obvious drawback to the armor. As for utility, it seems as though she’s intended to be an AA powerhouse, as much good as that is. It does make for balance though, if it’s an effective AA ship, but thats a very big if. It’s one I’d gladly trade some of DM’s accuracy for, though.

  14. She’s a very large target (VLT).
    A VLT without the reach of BB guns.
    A VLT without the hitting power of BB guns.
    Spot with a DD. Destroy at range by conventional BB’s.
    The VLT might be dangerous at close range. However can she survive long enough to get close?
    It could be hilarious finding out.

  15. This Illinois is actually a one of a group of BBAA conversion designs proposed for Kentucky & Illinois, although done a little bit lazily. The original design had more 5″ gun mounts, which should also be 5″/54s and not the 5″/38s they’re currently using on it. the superstructure also looked completely different from the Iowa class ships. This is especially the case since the design uses 8″ guns, the ship wouldn’t need the raised FCS tower that the you see on the American fast BBs and the Alaska class large cruisers. but what makes this odd, is the ship isn’t a complete copy past as WG has given the ship some weird split aft mast that’s not seen in either the Iowas or the conversion designs.

    I would also like to note that WG could’ve use another one of the conversion deigns with 4 4-gun turrets instead of the 3 4-gun turrets on this design.

  16. WG must really, really need new plyers, as these Pan-American cruisers are obviously targeted at bringing Central and South American players into the Wargaming mix. My opinion; maybe if they’d stop screwing up their game they could quit worrying about losing old players and needing every new line of ships to be better than everything currently in the game. But, hey; we all LOVE CVs and Subs. Don’t the spreadsheets say so? I’m sure they’ll say we love these cruisers, too!

  17. With the introduction of this design proposal of Illinois, I once again have hope they’ll introduce Wyoming ’44 with dual purpose 5″/38 twin turrets for a main armament.

  18. That sounds terrifying if you get close to it, 12 auto loaded 8’s and 10 5″ 38s a side. It’s AA must be insane too.

  19. Sounds like the IL is going to be T9 Scharnhorst type play with better secondary guns and low cal main batteries, but no torps. More like a battle cruiser.

  20. the USS Illinois is actually an Iowa class BB, it was supposed to be 1 of the last 2 Iowa classes built, but were scraped a couple of years after the war ended

Leave a Reply

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