Shipbucket

The Nicholas class is a name WOWs put on it to make it easier to people to remember the name.

The project name was "1919 Destroyer Leader" it is basicly a paper project and that's it.

-----------------------------------------




Most of the information and reference Wargaming have, get, etc. are done by:

- The entire team have a field day at the real vessel if it still around (museum ships, etc.) (They was at USS Iowa for weeks, documenting and take pictures of every details)
- They have a small team that travel to the various countries archive and look through those archive after information you do not get on the Interweb.
- They have copy of the original blueprints.
- they also go talk with crews of those various ships that are still alive.
- they get hands on copies of original photos (photos that you can find on the web and not find)
- talks with historians, etc.

and many more.


On "wargaming" own youtube channel they occasionally post short documentary of various ships, documentary they make, and they are in tru style of the old school documentary, a no bullshit, halling out time documentary (say as much as possible, on so little as possible)

Example:

USS Texas:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NN_ThoXR9GQ

USS The Sullivans:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMAXx4xVxXk

Cruiser Krasny Kavkaz
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IkOP_ybq0U

The only differences I remember Wargaming telling us was the armament. It was usually only secondary guns and AA guns that were add or replaced.
I'm basically just going to use the bridge, modify it a bit and then stick it onto the newer drawings. If you look at the models in game, the Farragut, Mahan and Nicholas have very similar design.

But all aside, I think it was a bad idea to post this here.

_________________

I fixed the bridge a bit btw. Just if there were still who cared about the actual drawing.

_________________

Well it looks nothing like those drawings Karle94 has linked to.

Never-were designs should be treated as the same respect and authenticity and reliability as an real life ship drawing.
Experienced artists can make good informed choices based on their deep knowledge where details are patchy or missing.
But this is a personal design, since it doesn't resemble the real project at all and has spurious origins in a game. We don't want more confusion when someone else comes along and thinks its a real representation of a real project.

_________________
Hood's Worklist
English Electric Canberra FD
Interwar RN Capital Ships
Super-Darings
Never-Were British Aircraft

"Generally speaking the WOWS models are excellent, though I've caught a few errors (but given the fact that the devs are having to make many hundreds of different models it's impressive that it's even accurate at all...)"

Nicest compliment I've heard in a while, and coming from here it really does feel rewarding. Being the originator behind WoWS "Nicholas" I can tell that indeed Karle got it right, the 1919 DD leader is the design depicted in the game, obviously with some additions and a fictional upgrade (though based on the real Farragut/Mahan designs as you guessed it right). The drawing represented in this topic is in no way representing the original design (which is basically shown on Karle94's first link and is from Norman Friedman's USN DD book (which in turn references from the Spring Style book #1 of the USN).

I know a lot less about real vs. fictional ship design than most of
the other members, but may I suggest that if this destroyer is not
drawn as a color profile from a real design proposal, then it is a game
design ship. One kind of drawing belongs here as a "might have been
built", and the other kind should be in "personal designs" regardless
of whether the posting person or someone else created the design.

Colo can move it if he wants to.

_________________

OK, a few things:
This is generally speaking NOT acceptable - the Farragut and Mahan classes were different designs and you can't just lift and paste things like the entire pilot house (!!!!) between a fictional design and something real. I mean you are of course free to do this but expect to be excoriated on the forum if you are brave enough to post it. Real ships are held to a much higher standard especially these days.
I recognized the Nicholas-class from the game as the 1,800 ton destroyer leader in Friedman's. The strange bow gives it away. It's an interesting design and a fun ship to fight with in the game.

If you're connected to the WoWS devs, can you ask them to give us the damn Alaska CBs already?! And let them know I've got a load of references for that ship and expect nothing but quality?!

edit: thread moved to Personal Designs.

_________________
USN components, camouflage colors, & reference links (World War II only)

I said I was going to modify the bridge a bit.

And also I heard some discussion about adding the Alaska. The only problem would of course be balancing issues.

_________________

well the "Alaska"

If they do in WOW's what they intend to do in WOT, then it solv it selv... sort off!

World of Tanks have 5 standard lines of tanks: light, medium, Heavy, Destroyer and artillery. For example some of the tanks are marked as an tank destroyer, but are in reality a breaching tank. or you have the Mouse that are an Heavy tank.... but it's not an Heavy tank.... it's basically an breaching tank, that are intended to strengthen a fortification line, by being a part of the fortification. etc.

And the same problem they have in WOW's: some ships are escort, other are an AA-Escort for carriers, some ship are screening ship, etc. They had the same problem as we did. when we had our cleanup inn the archive, except WOW's limit them self to 4 different ship types