WoWS Q&A – 17th February 2017

Thanks to nps

„Stumbled upon an article in WG’s magazine so i’ll try to provide a poorly translated summary.

Announces for this year:

  • Russian DDs (including Smeliy, Neustrashimiy and Project 56) will get some new weapon type
  • New cruiser and battleship trees for France
  • New Pan-Asian tree with RU, US and Japanese ships


  • Bismarck hydro nerf (done)
  • No nerf for Minotaur because majority of players are only getting VII
  • BBs are above 40%, so they want to make them less universal, which might fix long high tier battles

Variants for clan development:

  1. Playing actively will provide personal and clan bonuses
  2. Continuous clan battles or tournaments, similiar to team battles
  3. Global map (not for this year)



  • Starcraft-like mouse controls
  • Removal of alt-attacks on 4-5 level CVs, because sealcubbing is too common

New premiums:

  • Graf Zeppelin
  • Roma VIII Italian BB
  • But VIII BB Alabama first
  • Removal of open-water stealth firing

Introduction of inventory (done)

Bastions nerf, no plans for removal (changed their plans apparently)”


33 thoughts on “WoWS Q&A – 17th February 2017

  1. “Graf Zeppelin”

    I’m pretty interested in this… but I can scarcely imagine the amount of rage there will be if people think RN is being pushed back further.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. They said in a Q&A back in December that RN BBs were in the 3D department, which probably means they’re next up after RU DDs


          1. Akizuki not having DFAA is a strange decision, when you give the other ship specifically designed for AA access to unlimited DFAA. Of course, it makes perfect sense taht the USN DDS and the new Russian DD line should have DFAA.


    2. there’s some sense to it, although I wold like the RN to be integrated first than russian/soviet tt
      think about it, USN and IJN were obvious firt picks but while adding new nations they need more than 1 “enemy”, just like USN/IJN fans would like to somehow “recreate” historical battles, RN fans need the Kriegsmarine for that same reason, while in the case of IRN most they could hope for is the low ier premiums already ingame, like Mikasa and the russian protected cruiser


      1. Contrary to popular belief, after WWI the royal navy was REALLY not this “super navy” everyone claims it to be. In addition to this they had only one class of heavy cruisers and the battleship line would be impossible to extend past tier VII without using any “paper ships” and considering how the RN fanboys react whenever I mention Soviet battleships (which actually began construction) I dont see paper ships working out. UNLESS its simply that they are biased against Soviet ships, in which case I would be perfectly happy to see Royal Navy Battleships in game, so long as they add Soviet ones too.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. While it’s certainly true that the RN lost it’s naval supremacy post WW1, it was still a formidable fleet, even in WW2. It was the largest fleet at the start of World War 2, and while many ships in the navy were rather old, the main combat units were modernized enough for combat, with radar on many of their capital ships.

          To answer your point that the Royal Navy had a lack of heavy cruisers, I’d like to point out that the Royal Navy didn’t invest in heavy cruisers as combat vessels in the first place. They built mainly battlecruisers for long range naval presence.

          You suggest that the British battleship line would be impossible to extend past tier 7, but isn’t it rather hypocritical for you to support Soviet battleships, which would probably non-completed ships past tier 5? Not to mention the Lion Class was laid down and partially built, just like the Sovetsky Soyuz and many other Soviet ships, so what was the point of that arguement? Which line of ships in WOWS are 100% historical ships in the first place? The problem people have is that the Soviets tend to have proportionally more blueprints and partially built ships, and get more attention due to WG being a Belorussian game company.

          To summarize, yes, the RN was not a super navy after World War 1, but it was still a formidable naval presence in World War 2, and the fact that you fail to see your own bias to imply that the people who disagree with your opinion about the Soviet warships just hate on Soviets is ignorant. If the Soviet Navy was so impressive, perhaps we ought to wonder why it needed to burrow warships from the US and UK.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. You have completely misunderstood what I am saying. I am pointing out that many of the same people who claim that soviet ships would not be allowed because they were unfinished or project ships are the ones going on and on and demanding the royal navy get battleships, when the royal navy battleship line will also contain unfinished/project ships. And roughly 1/3 of the current RN cruisers are project/unfinished ships. Proportionally the Soviet cruiser line has a similar amount. as do their destroyers.


            1. >they had only one class of heavy cruisers

              They had more than one class. You should at least learn about the ships you are arguing against.

              Also, as pointed out, this was a class that they specifically stopped building this class interwar at the expense of more of other types, so it is a very extreme example and pretty misleading to use.

              >And roughly 1/3 of the current RN cruisers are project/unfinished ships.

              2/10 ships is not a 1/3…

              >when the royal navy battleship line will also contain unfinished/project ships

              Don’t know if you’ve noticed, but there isn’t a single battleship line in the game already which does not “contain ‘unfinished/project’ ships”, even USN.

              To be fair on the people you’re trying to argue against, I’ve never once seen it said that they want RN before Soviet battleships as if a RN would have no unfinished ships. You’re building a real strawman here.

              Now what I have been seen said, however, is that the Soviet battleships have far MORE paper. And they are correct in saying that, and not only because a RN line would have most likely 2, possibly 3 max unfinished vs. far more with the Soviets.

              Understandably, people want to play ships that they read about in history. Try and play down the RN all you want, but when I pick up a history book on WW1 or WW2 I am not barely seeing a single shred mentioned about Soviet battleships, but I certainly am seeing RN ones mentioned a great deal.

              History behind the ships may not be important to you, but you have to understand that to many people that is what makes ships enticing.

              Liked by 1 person

              1. this is what happens when someone (in this case Katya Aleksandra Hogdson) misreads something and goes off ranting without properly thinking about what they are writting
                I gave a opinion based on the fans desire to recreate some of the battles, of course for Imperial Russian Navy(IRN) vs IJN I mentioned the premium protected cruiser Aurora (there were other classes of low tier ships also involved, and sunk) vs Mikasa since that battle (battle of tsushima) is simply the most famous in the russin/soviet navy history
                somehow someone took a comment about recreating famous naval battles as:

                “they shouldn’t do the russian/soviet tt first because it’s just a bunch of paper ships”

                I’m always in favor of paper designs (when not applied unrealistically and overperforming) and forthat reason I have nothing against implmnting paper projects for soviet BBs because I would also like to see more projects in the USN tt (Tillman Max BBs or Lexington battle-cruiser for example), although I do understand many hate them, I simply think there’s more reasons to complete the british tt before the rusian/soviet tt

                lets be honest, in WWII the soviets had the americans and british take the task to clear the seas simply because they had neither enough ships or ships good enough for the job

                P.S: WWI was also mentioned but just look into the current tech trees and it will be obvious there’s few WWI era ships, most are interwar and WWII ships
                just the USN alone could put 4 or 5 other classes between tier 2 and 3 using only WWI BBs, and I’m not even going into pre-dreadnouhts like the premium tier 2 Mikasa
                for that reason it’s odd that someone is using WWI as standard instead of interwar when there are so few WWI ships in the game, which in turn needed to have 15, 16 or 17 tiers to allow some interesting older ships or even minor classes such as corvettes and frigates, that played an important role in WWII, to be added


          2. Um.

            For the most part you’re correct that the tech lines in WOWS nearly always include at least one paper ship, but USN CVs (Langley, Bogue, Independence, Ranger, Lexington, Essex and Midway) and IJN DDs are all real ships. (I’m pretty sure IJN DDs are all real, anyway). On the USN side, each line only has one made up/blueprint ship: Phoenix in cruisers, Nicholas in DDs, and Montana in BBs.

            Overall I agree with your point though; it’s easier to flesh out the Royal Navy than the Russian Navy in a WW2 setting, and it’s appalling that the Russian bias is so blatant that they’re adding a second branch of DDs and a new type of weapon before they add any more USN or RN ships. (USN has enough destroyers and cruisers to do a sub branch, but we haven’t even gotten a hint that they will add one).


            1. if I had to guess the USN cruiser split (heavy-light split), talked in Q&As for about a year now, was indefinitely put on hold because the usual russian whine “we want more ships from the motherland” happened, in speciic the BB line

              I really want to know how and IF they will add CVs


        2. does that make any sense to anyone, it was no that long ago, in fact it was yesterday, that WG published a video that expressly claim most of the ships the soviet navy had were DDs
          you claim the soviets actually began construction of BBs but the fact is that some were never completed and from all I’ve read until now top tiers would also be paper projects, much like soviet cruisers and some DDs
          on the other hand the RN built several classes of BBs (and to that add battlecruisers which WoWs consider like BBs for balance purposes), like the Nelson-class or Lion-class (which 2 were laid own, thus under construction, but later cancelled) that are canditates for tier 8, 9 or even 10 with 9x16inch (406mm) guns, even if only tir 8 and 9 that would mean tht only the tier 10 would be “paper ship”, which would pobably be the N3-class with 9x18inch guns (planned)
          but even so it’s not mandatory that this would be the only option for WG, if the Bismarck can work at tier 8 with 15inch guns why can’t the King George V or HMS Vanguard fit at tier 8? that would leave the 16inch BBs for tiers 9 and 10 and with that none of the paper ships you “hate” (“I dont see paper ships working out”), when they are not russian/soviet


          1. Nelson class would most likely be tier VI, considering how terrible their 16” guns were, and there is a difference between reasonably heavy, high velocity 15” shells and lowish velocity light 14” shells. If you research the N3 you would see why it would be an incredibly unsuitable vessel and if you read my article you will see that the only actual “paper” soviet ship would be the tier X. I have no problem with paper ships, what I do have a problem with is people whining about “soviet paper ships” with one breath and then demanding RN ships in the other breath when they know perfectly well the RN line will also contain paper ships.

            Liked by 1 person

            1. yeah they might do that but it still leaves HMS Vanguard and King George V to fit behind tier 9 Lion and tier 10 N3, and ahead of Nelson at tier 6 filling tiers 7 and 8
              it’s more than doable and it would still be only 1 paper ship in high tiers
              even if the N3 isn’t suitable (and let’s be honest because, as planned/designed, it would be slow but high tier BBs don’t move that much from spawn, specially the Yamato) there’s still the G3 battlecruiser which is not that much different from a Iowa in terms of rmor, in fact being partially superior in some places
              even so I still think there’s nothing wrong with having slow BBs at high tiers because it would mantain that charecteristic from most british BBs, everyone said the Warspite was too slow for tier 6 and yet it worked out

              btw it would be teribly ironic if you had included the Revenge-class transfered to the oviet navy in your article

              P.S: I wrote it before and will once again remind you, in your first comment in reply to mine you mentioned whinning about russian paper ships but I never mentioned them, I simply mentioned the fact that more USN/IJN/RN/Kriegs… ships were involved in famous battles and that the ships involved in the most famous battle of the russian/soviet navy history are low tiers in WWII
              you were the one to start ranting about:
              “considering how the RN fanboys react whenever I mention Soviet battleships (which actually began construction) I dont see paper ships working out”
              and once again you brought it up:
              “I have no problem with paper ships, what I do have a problem with is people whining about ‘soviet paper ships'”
              no one else was talking about rusian paper ships until you mentioned them, you turned a comment about tt priorities into a fanboy deffence of the russian/soviet tt
              as you wrote:
              “I would be perfectly happy to see Royal Navy Battleships in game, so long as they add Soviet ones too” and we all aggree, it’s just odd that there’s already a split in the soviet DD line and talks about soviet BBs and yet we only have a line of RN ships to play with

              CONCLUSION: don’t rant about something no one was complaining about


            2. I certainly can’t say which ship will be where… but doesn’t the armor on Nelson make her a bit too much of a beast at tier VI? I mean from the cross-sections that I have seen she would be a daunting prospect for most if not all at tier VI.


    1. The original author didn’t translate this point properly. I believe what they meant is they will not touch Minotaur yet because they don’t have a large enough stat sample, and currently only Fiji has a sufficient number of players.

      Minotaur needs no nerfs as it’s highly situational as it’s super fragile and its damage output can be countered by simply showing your bow.


        1. It already has pretty high self sustainability, buffing it further would kinda make it broken. Even the devs say that the entire RN cruiser tree is “high-risk-high-reward”


  2. “New Pan-Asian tree with RU, US and Japanese ships”
    good to see that the WoWs devs are more open-minded in regard to mixed tech trees, although I understnd it is a marketing decision due to lack of someting doable for the chinese market
    let’s hope it extends to also having a mixed EU TT (greece, WWI era Austro-Hungary ships, Netherlands, etc…), maybe even including Brazil (BB and CAs), Chile (BBs), and other south and central-american countries and make a global TT

    if proven successefull the WoT dev team can take some pointers on how to stop being “a**holes” regarding the mixed TT


  3. >Roma as a premium Tier 8
    >Tier 4-5 carriers unable to strafe-manual drop
    >Some love for pve

    I’m not sure about the carrier one, though I welcome a simpler gameplay (yes I’m a scrub, sue me).

    Very happy about Roma and pve though, though I would also like for pve to be more profitable. :(

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s