Ship Names

[Flyboy]

Just out of curiosity why is it that WotC are useing spacific ship names instead of the easily flexible ship class? Take the Boise for example, it was one cearten ship but there were several others in its same class.
Just curious,
Flyboy:)

[Muenchausen]

So they can sell more.

[Predator666]

Yep so they can sell more. I wouldn't of minded the regular ship class but its so they can sell a lot more. I mean wouldn't more people want a Bismark instead of that certain class of ships. Most people know the Bismark but not its class.

[Flyboy]

That makes sence but it doesnt work in the case of if (and you will) want more than one of the same ship;)

[Cruizin2000]

$$$ There were many ships that just had one or two in it's class. How many Akagis or Taihos do you need? It's all about wringing the cash from your piggybank.

C2000

[XAos]

Quote from preview-5;
With the historical rules you’re allowed to field up to four Myōkō-class cruisers, representing the Myōkō and her sister ships the Nachi, Ashigara, and Haguro.
So I guess A/H intend to give players (or at least tournament directors) the choice of which limit they prefer;
Unique
Historical
Unlimited.
I'd choose historical, unless it turns out that the game is better balenced with one of the other choices. Note that "historical" is likly to have some dubious options. e.g. the 3 german pocket battleships where nominally "sister ships" But one of them had a radically different sihouette to the other two. And during the war some ships in a class recieved refits to weapons. Making them unique from their sister ships.

[Canadian_Pride]

Yep so they can sell more. I wouldn't of minded the regular ship class but its so they can sell a lot more. I mean wouldn't more people want a Bismark instead of that certain class of ships. Most people know the Bismark but not its class.


The Bismark class was the actual name of it.

[Muenchausen]

That makes sence but it doesnt work in the case of if (and you will) want more than one of the same ship;)

By naming every capitol ship, and I agree with naming battleships and A/C carriers, they are targeting the collecters and historical palyers. Say you buy three cases and you get 3 Myoko's. Since there were four of ships produced in this class, You still need to buy three more ships to complete your collection. But if they were released as the Myoko class you would only need to buy one more.

[MarcusAurelius]

I think there are a couple important reasons behind the decision to name ships in War at Sea after individual vessels instead of classes.

First, unlike tanks or aircraft that were often produced by the thousands, warships were much more unique. There was only one Ark Royal, one Hood, one Akagi, one Wasp. The vast majority of classes contained 10 ships or less; even the Fletcher class included just 175 ships. Compare that to the 50,000+ T-34 tanks the Soviets built from 1940-45. From this standpoint, naming units is quite fitting.

Second, naming ships in WaS adds to the immersive aspect of the game. You could use the exact same rules with generic cardboard counters. But having a three-dimensional, 6" long miniature of the Enterprise brings something else to the experience. Plus, it can still serve as a stand-in for its sister ships Yorktown or Hornet.

[Yankee_Dynasty]

I would be more excited to have a Yamamoto then some Gibberish designation.

[horacus]

I would be more excited to have a Yamamoto then some Gibberish designation.

I agree with you.

[TheCygnysGuardian]

I would be more excited to have a Yamamoto then some Gibberish designation.

But wouldn't a scale admiral be a little too small?

[Belisarius]

But wouldn't a scale admiral be a little too small?

If you look realllly closely at the bridge of the Yamato, you can see him. He's the one missing some fingers on his hand.... ;)

[J.L.Robert]

I would be more excited to have a Yamamoto then some Gibberish designation.

Most ships' classes are named after the first ship of that class. In the Yamato's case, it would have been the Yamato-class battleship.

There were only two Yamato-class ships built. But that's not the point.

[Yankee_Dynasty]

The attitude in this thread is palpable.What does it really matter i'm sure he'd make a nice new 5/5 unit anyway

[Diamondback]

I'd say, IMO, that cruisers-up shoulda been named, but non-unique destroyers shoulda been "classed" instead of named, like how they did the Japanese Type 13 subchaser.

The Jeremiah O'Brien seems a pure marketing play, transports should be "___-class" too. Is the JO'B's gift shop gonna sell A&ANM?

[Flyboy]

Yea, the Jeremiah O'Brien should have been classified as a liberty class transport instead.

[Muenchausen]

I think there are a couple important reasons behind the decision to name ships in War at Sea after individual vessels instead of classes.

First, unlike tanks or aircraft that were often produced by the thousands, warships were much more unique. There was only one Ark Royal, one Hood, one Akagi, one Wasp. The vast majority of classes contained 10 ships or less; even the Fletcher class included just 175 ships. Compare that to the 50,000+ T-34 tanks the Soviets built from 1940-45. From this standpoint, naming units is quite fitting.

Second, naming ships in WaS adds to the immersive aspect of the game. You could use the exact same rules with generic cardboard counters. But having a three-dimensional, 6" long miniature of the Enterprise brings something else to the experience. Plus, it can still serve as a stand-in for its sister ships Yorktown or Hornet.

As I said in my prior post, I agree with having named battleships and A/C carriers. I don't think it was necessary to have named cruisers and cargo ships. I think the only thing that this accomplishes is: to increase sales and give more units special abilities. Each ship then has it own "personality", so to speak. I was hoping to avoid the seemingly endless time spent refreshing my memory ptiot to a game because, like AAM, almost every unit will have a special ability, or two, or three, etc....

Lets use the Yamato and Myoko as example's. There were only two ships released, The Yamato and the Musashi. They were the largest battleships built during WWII. They should have distinct SA's based on performance. Although historically, they didn't have that much of an impact on the war, all most every one heard of the Yamato. I'm sure the psychological impact of these two ships was significant, until they were sunk, that is. Compare that to the Myoko class cruiser. There were four released. Unless you play WWII navel war games and, or your a historian, you probably either never heard of, or never paid much attention to the Myoko class cruiser. Now all four ships will have their own distinct personality, if all four are released.

[Predator666]

I know, its just the first ship that popped into my mind at the time. And that could throw people off who don't know anything about the subject. What was the name of the Bismark's sister ship?

[Diamondback]

Tirpitz. Another ship whose destruction is more of an "epic" than a "story", requiring multiple raids from Dambuster-packin' Lancasters based in Russia.

OTOH, for marketing plays, they could do for named museum-ships:

Battleships
->IJN Mutsu (1 turret only; Etajima, Japan)
->KM Tirpitz (salvaged components; Tromso, Norway
US NEW YORK:
->BB-35 USS Texas (San Jacinto, TX, USA)
US NORTH CAROLINA*:
->BB-55 USS North Carolina (, NC, USA)
US SOUTH DAKOTA (II):
->BB-59 USS Massachusetts (Fall River, MA, USA)
->BB-60 USS Alabama (Mobile, AL, USA)
US IOWA*:
->BB-62 USS New Jersey (Camden, NJ, USA)
->BB-63 USS Missouri (Pearl Harbor, HI)
->BB-64 USS Wisconsin (Norfolk, VA, USA)

Aircraft Carriers
US ESSEX class:
->CV-10 USS Yorktown (Mount Pleasant, SC)
->CV-11 USS Intrepid (New York, NY, USA)
->CV-12 USS Hornet (Alameda, CA, USA)
->CV-16 USS Lexington (TX, USA)
US MIDWAY class***:
->CVB/CV-41 USS Midway (San Diego, CA, USA)

Battlecruisers
->KM Gneisenau (1 turret only; Trondheim, Norway)

Heavy Cruisers
UK SOUTHAMPTON II/EDINBURGH: HMS Belfast (London, UK)
GR Georgios Averoff (Athens, Greece)

Light Cruisers
RU PALLADA:
->Aurora (floating AA battery during Leningrad siege) (St. Petersburg, Russia)
US CLEVELAND*:
->CL-92 USS Little Rock (Buffalo, NY, USA)

Destroyers
->ORP Blyskawica (Gdynia, Poland)
UK CAVENDISH: HMS Cavalier (Chatham, UK)
CA TRIBAL: HMCS Haida (Hamilton, ON, Canada)
US FLETCHER*:
->DD-537 USS The Sullivans (Buffalo, NY, USA)
->DD-661 USS Kidd (Baton Rouge, LA, USA)
->DD-793 USS Cassin Young (Boston, MA, USA)
US ALLEN M. SUMNER:
->DD-729 USS Laffey (Mount Pleasant, SC)
US GEARING (improved SUMNER):
->DD-850 USS Joseph P. Kennedy Jr.** (Fall River, MA, USA)
->DD-886 USS Orleck** (Orange, TX, USA)

Destroyer Escorts
US : DE-179 USS McAnn (Rio de Janeiro, Brazil)
US EDSALL: DE-238 USS Stewart (Galveston, TX, USA)
US CANNON: DE-766 USS Slater
Brazilian-owned US Cannon: Bauru (Rio de Janeiro, Brazil)

Frigates, Corvettes, Sloops and Other Small Warships
CA Flower:
->HMCS Sackville (Halifax, NS, Canada)
AU River:
->HMAS Diamantina (South Brisbane, Australia)

Submarines
->Russian K-21 (Severomorsk, Russia)
US GATO:*
->SS-224 USS Cod (Cleveland, OH, USA)
->SS-228 USS Drum (Mobile, AL, USA)
->SS-236 USS Silversides (Muskegon, MI, USA)
->SS-244 USS Cavalla, (Galveston, TX, USA)
->SS-245 USS Cobia (Manitowoc, WI, USA)
->SS-246 USS Croaker (Buffalo, NY, USA)
US BALAO/TENCH:
->SS-287 USS Bowfin (Pearl Harbor, HI, USA)
->SS-297 USS Ling (Hackensack, NJ, USA)
->SS-298 USS Lionfish (Fall River, MA, USA)
->SS-310 USS Batfish (Muskogee, OK, USA)
->SS-319 USS Becuna (Philadelphia, PA, USA)
->SS-343 USS Clamagore (Mount Pleasant, SC)
->SS-383 USS Pampanito (San Francisco, CA)
->SS-394 USS Razorback (North Little Rock, AR, USA)
->SS-418 USS Thornback (Istanbul, Turkey)
->SS-423 USS Torsk (Baltimore, MD, USA)
->SS-481 USS Requin (Pittsburgh, PA, USA)
UK A-class***:
->HMS Alliance (Gosport, Hampshire, UK)
GE Type VIIC
->KM U-96 (replica interior and model; Geiselgasteig/Munich, Germany)
->KM U-995 (Laboe, Germany)
GE Type IXC*:
->KM U-505 (Chicago, IL, USA)
->KM U-534 (Birkenhead, Wirral, UK)

Transports & Other Auxiliaries
UK LCT Mk. 2:
->HMS TLC 147 (Haifa, Israel)
US LST: USS LST-325 (Evansville, IN, USA)
US LIBERTY*:
->SS John W. Brown (Baltimore, MD, USA
US VICTORY:
->SS American Victory (Tampa, FL, USA)
->SS Lane Victory (San Pedro, CA, USA)
->SS Red Oak Victory (Richmond, CA, USA)

[b]Unclassified, flagged for future investigation[/i]
->IJN Shiga (Chiba, Japan)
->IJN Yukikaze (anchor and rudder only; Etajima, Japan)

Heck, it even strikes me that a cross-marketing campaign would be a good PR/community-outreach move for Hasbro. Publicity for both A&A, and museums? Of course, the ultimate cross-promo would be arrnanging to have an AANM championship or other tourney on board one of these ships... Maybe even have a "participation" LE piece of the museum's specific ship?

I'm investigating other WW2 museum ships, and will edit them in later.

*Existing mini of this class, tooling can be reused either as-is or with slight modification
**This ship didn't make the War, but classmates did
***Just missed WWII

[MarcusAurelius]

I'm not sure the decision to name ships in War at Sea necessarily means that we'll see multiple units from the same class.

The biggest reason: I think it will be hard to justify different statistics for essentially the same warship. Consider the example of two Japanese heavy cruisers we already have full stats for: Myoko and Tone.

Not a lot distinguishes the two units. Myoko costs one more point (24 to 23), has +1 on main gunnery attacks, + 1 on torpedo attacks at range 1 and 2 and the Night Fighter SA instead of Scout Cruiser. Everything else — speed, secondary guns, armor, vital armor, hull points, Long-Lance Torpedos — is identical. And that's between ships from different classes commissioned 10 years apart.

I just can't see War at Sea releasing a separate units for Myoko's sister ships (Ashigara, Haguro or Nachi.) All four cruisers had the same hull, engines, top speed, armor and armament. Would it really make sense to create 4 separate units, each with its own stats?

[Muenchausen]

I don't think they'll have different statistics. i think they'll give them different SA's based on how the ship performed.

[swarbs]

I'm not sure the decision to name ships in War at Sea necessarily means that we'll see multiple units from the same class.

The biggest reason: I think it will be hard to justify different statistics for essentially the same warship.

I don't think they'll have different statistics. i think they'll give them different SA's based on how the ship performed.

While I agree with Marcus that multiple ships of a class are redundant, the writing in the Opening Salvo's seems to back up Muenchausen's idea. For example Boise has Rapid Fire, according to this weeks edition, because of its performance in one battle. "During the Battle of Cape Esperance, the USS Boise displayed its ability to release a withering volley, as evinced by Rapid Fire." It seems likely that releases of ships of the same class will be justified by giving them different SA's based on actual battle performance.

[Stealth]

Well, they gave the Boise its rapid fire special ability from one great performance in a Solomons fight. Thus each ship in a class, theoretically identical, could have different SAs. Also, ships did tend to get diff upgraded as time allowed, so it was seldom were they really identical. For the game though, its just a way to sell more units so You could have th Boise with Rapid fire and a generic Brooklyn with no SA.

I'm not sure the decision to name ships in War at Sea necessarily means that we'll see multiple units from the same class.

The biggest reason: I think it will be hard to justify different statistics for essentially the same warship. Consider the example of two Japanese heavy cruisers we already have full stats for: Myoko and Tone.

Not a lot distinguishes the two units. Myoko costs one more point (24 to 23), has +1 on main gunnery attacks, + 1 on torpedo attacks at range 1 and 2 and the Night Fighter SA instead of Scout Cruiser. Everything else — speed, secondary guns, armor, vital armor, hull points, Long-Lance Torpedos — is identical. And that's between ships from different classes commissioned 10 years apart.

I just can't see War at Sea releasing a separate units for Myoko's sister ships (Ashigara, Haguro or Nachi.) All four cruisers had the same hull, engines, top speed, armor and armament. Would it really make sense to create 4 separate units, each with its own stats?

[TheFoeHammer]

While I agree with Marcus that multiple ships of a class are redundant, the writing in the Opening Salvo's seems to back up Muenchausen's idea. For example Boise has Rapid Fire, according to this weeks edition, because of its performance in one battle. "During the Battle of Cape Esperance, the USS Boise displayed its ability to release a withering volley, as evinced by Rapid Fire." It seems likely that releases of ships of the same class will be justified by giving them different SA's based on actual battle performance.

Yes, crew, training and typical mission could give certain ships of the same class better skills. A destroyer that typically had more ASW duty might have an SA related to its ASW stat, where a carrier escort might be better at AA fire.

[Muenchausen]

I just can't see War at Sea releasing a separate units for Myoko's sister ships (Ashigara, Haguro or Nachi.) All four cruisers had the same hull, engines, top speed, armor and armament. Would it really make sense to create 4 separate units, each with its own stats?

Common sense or business sense? Common sense, maybe not. Business sense, Definitely, they will be able to sell more.

I pre-ordered 2 starters and 3 cases of boosters. If by chance I get four Myoko's, I now have all four ships in the Myoko class. I will not need to buy more Myoko class ships unless I want more. If in set 2 they release one of the other ships in this class, I now need to buy that one and I have three extra ships I may never use.

My biggest concern is not buying all those ships, it's having to remember all the different SA's. I am looking forward to fleet level battles.

[MarcusAurelius]

Good points all. Guess we'll have to see how it plays out over the course of sets to come.