Full Ahead: World Of Battleships Announced

By Jim Rossignol on August 16th, 2011 at 1:19 pm.

Always a bit of a shame when announcements are made without accompanying images.
Those cheeky chaps at Wargaming.net first announced that World Of Tanks would be followed up by World Of Warplanes, and today they’re saying it will also see a free-to-play sequel in World of Battleships. Wargaming.net’s disembodied PR voice explained: “The large assortment of available warships will give various tactical opportunities, as all the machines have a unique combination of firepower, speed, armor, and endurance. Various naval maps with changing weather conditions will enrich the gameplay, and the realistic graphics will transport players into the epic battles that changed the course of human history.” This apparently “completes” the World Of trilogy, although there’s no clear indication of when it will arrive.

, , , .

45 Comments »

Sponsored links by Taboola
  1. rebb says:

    Oh god, even more grind.

    Also – where’s World of Shopping Carts ? :(

  2. nootron says:

    Battleship as in the board game? Or the big armored ship that have been pretty much useless in the navy and decommissioned like 30 years ago?

    Call it world of warships instead in my opinion!

    • timmyvos says:

      Battleships as in the ships used in the Second World War by all major navies.

    • Spoon says:

      The other two “World of X” games made by wargaming.net feature machines from 1930 – 1950. So yes, those obsolete things you don’t seem to like much.

    • Mr Bismarck says:

      Navy Field manages to include Frigates, Destroyers, Cruisers, Aircraft Carriers and even Submarines, so I’m sure World of Battleships will have more than just Battleships in it.

    • GenBanks says:

      It’s news to me that battleships were useless during WW2… I’m no expert on the navy though.

    • MCM says:

      World War 2 was the point at which it became obvious that battleships had reached the end of their usefulness. I know the US, at least, built exactly 0 battleships between 1944 and today. By contrast, tanks and warplanes are still useful.

      That said, if someone make a “World of Armored Cavalry” or “World of Chariots” game, I’m not sure we’d all be lining up saying, “But war chariots are obsolete!”

    • Premium User Badge

      Napalm Sushi says:

      It’s arguable that battleships were a flawed concept right from their inception. They were an awkward combination of expensive, inflexible and vulnerable, and rarely did they manage to pay for themselves in terms of utility, their fearsome appearance alone apparently keeping them popular with the world’s navies for so long. Only one major engagement involving significant numbers of them took place in all of history: the Battle Of Jutland in World War 1, and the horrendous cost of the battle to both sides was matched only by its utter indecisiveness. Britain and Germany both publicly declared it a victory, while their admirals quietly agreed that they must never attempt anything like it again.

    • Brise Bonbons says:

      Very interesting Napalm Sushi. I’ll have to look into that one.

      The only engagements I know of where the poor things did much more than get sunk spectacularly involved prolonged shelling of coastal fortifications. I’m not actually sure how effective they were in the role, however. It seems that from a cost/benefit standpoint you’d be better off with another carrier to launch air sorties off of.

    • Sergius64 says:

      The battles bettween Japanese and Russian imperial navies during 1904-1905 were very decisive however. Anyway, battleships were great at controlling the waters before Air Power became dominant. If you controlled the seas by having more battleships in the area you could make landings with your troups and prevent other countries from making landings with theirs. Saying they were a flawed concept is like saying that Man-o-Wars were a flawed concept earlier, and Triremes were a flawed concept before that.

    • luckystriker says:

      Battleships were just the natural evolution of naval technological progress, not a flawed concept. At the apex of naval power we had the Napoleon-era ships of the line which evolved into steam-powered ironclads in the mid-19th century then into dreadnoughts in the late 19th/early 20th centuries. Only after air power matured between the world wars did the aircraft carrier supersede the battleship. Anyways, even during WWII battleships with their 15+” guns still had its use as a bombardment platform before amphibious landings.

    • patton89 says:

      Actually the US still has 2 battleships because they made an agreement to keep two of them until they found something even more powerful for the same size

  3. Premium User Badge

    Daiv says:

    Come on, World of Men for next announcement.

    • Hoaxfish says:

      Wouldn’t they need to pay Top Gear royalties or something

  4. Elmar Bijlsma says:

    Well, I think they will find it hard to neglect to include the British this time.
    Where are my Crusaders, Cromwells and Centurions?

    • Premium User Badge

      JB says:

      Hear, hear!

    • pagad says:

      Coming next after French tanks, I think.

    • MCM says:

      Yawn. There were 5 times as many Shermans built as Cromwells and Crusaders combined.

    • Real Horrorshow says:

      @MCM

      An irrelevant fact when there are tanks in WoT that never existed outside of a blueprint.

    • Nick says:

      yes, but they are releasing French tanks before British ones. How much sense does that make? Iconic french tanks from 30’s to 50s anyone? Anyone?

    • thebigJ_A says:

      Char B1(bis), dude! Thing was a beast. Giant gun in the hull, small gun in a little turret on top, heavy armor. That thing could take out any German tank one on one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Char_B1

      Too bad it was slow as shit and guzzled fuel, making it ineffective overall. Still, one of the coolest tanks of WWII.

      Actually, French tanks were the best in the world when the war started. It’s just that French doctrine hadn’t caught up with the times. (Few radios, spreading them out amongst infantry instead of combining them into armored spearheads like the Germans, etc.)

  5. CaspianRoach says:

    And then they will all combine to form BATTLEFIELD 3! DUN DUN DUN

  6. Coins says:

    Now this, this is interesting.

  7. Richie Shoemaker says:

    I’d like to know what manner of warships are to be included; MTBs, frigates, cruisers, subs and perhaps carriers (from which WoWplanes can take off)?

    It’s ok. I’m not expecting an answer right away

  8. Dana says:

    I enjoyed Navy Field, so Ill enjoy World of Battleships. If only it wasnt pay2enjoy.

  9. Guyver says:

    give me the mighty Bismark!

  10. battles_atlas says:

    Anyone else gets the sense of diminishing returns here? Battleships will just be tanks but without the interesting interaction with environment surely? Yeah you can put some big waves in, but that hardly compares with the potentials of tank warfare terrain.

    • GenBanks says:

      Hopefully they’ll compensate by having loads more variety of customisation/upgrades etc.

    • skurmedel says:

      You could have ports or archipelagos, but I see your point. Olden warships have some interesting design choices though.

    • Alex Bakke says:

      Integrating World of Warplanes with World of Battleships would be pretty amazing.

    • Premium User Badge

      Daiv says:

      Combine World of Warships with World of Tanks to get World of Rapidly Sinking Tanks Full Of Screaming Men.

    • thebigJ_A says:

      Or World of Tipped Over Hunks of Metal Rusting in a Field.

  11. wswswsss says:

    I’m holding out for World of Worlds. Bagsy Earth.
    spree shopping
    http://bit.ly/n6SVQy

    • Raiyan 1.0 says:

      WaitwaitwaitwaitWAIT.

      Did this bot just reiterate an earlier comment to validate its spam post?

      Are theses fuckers evolving?

      FuckfuckfuckFUCK!

  12. utharda says:

    Its time to nuke… oh hell who do you nuke from orbit, its like cockroaches.

  13. Galcius says:

    Given how hilariously biased the wargaming.net seem to be towards the Soviets, I wonder how they’re going to manage to justify the Bismark being utterly rubbish and the Soviet WW1 era dreadnoughts as being unstoppable.

  14. Premium User Badge

    Scandalon says:

    So…will they ever tie all three together?

    • Nick says:

      not sure tanks fought ships that often..

    • vecordae says:

      I’m pretty sure it’s happened at some point in history and that it didn’t go well for the tanks.

      By “history”, I of course mean “the last game of Civilization I played” which is basically the same thing.

  15. vecordae says:

    Hopefully, this game won’t restrict the usage of the Witney-Sprauer Primary Engagement Gantry to just folks who paid cash monies.

    For those of you without a grounding in World War II naval weaponry, the P.E.G was a large silo-like object that was designed to fit into the various cavities that most WWII-era warships sported. They would be dropped via helicopter and were full of ball bearing. If they managed to land enough P.E.G.s onto the ship, it would sink. It was a real game changer and spelled the utter obsolescence of the battleship.