Redwing6

No, I suspect it's not so much that he hated the Navy, but rather that he hated the "incremental" approach in upgrading BB design that the Navy was using. That is why, I believe, he ask for his huge BB designs. He wanted what the Japanese decided...build the best damn BB we can and the rest of the world bedamned!

You're correct about that stats/guns. However, this is ship is about a WW2 refit...hence to twin 5"/38 guns/turrets. Also the AA armament in such a refit is...a bit thin as the US doctrine seems to be if there is a flat open space, put at least a 20mm Oerlikon there...this thing should be festooned with AA in a 1942/3 refit.

I remember! And I was there arguing the same position. WG needs to implement a new class for BC/CC's...and alot a certain amount of slots per game for them. They won't because they don't listen to us.

Jutland, where the Brits lost several BC's because they didn't have the armour to stand up to hits from similar caliber guns, begs to differ...

Then WG needs to remove Ise and Tone from the game immediately!!!!! BC/CC are literally "large cruisers" they have BB caliber guns with CA level armor (excepting the German examples).

Because BB's are the tanks here. THey can take damage and shrug it off. BC/CC's can't do that, they can give damage (Tank Destroyer like) but they can't take hits. That was their historic duty. Idiotic admirals thought that because they had line of battle guns, they belonged in the line of battle. The Brits learned the folly of that at Jutland.

Sorry, I'm Jewish, I don't do swine...hence no bacon in the choices. I decided real choices were important.

I contend, that the current "supercruisers" and real life BC/CC's should be included in a CC class of ships. These ships are simply not robust enough (except the WW1 German ships---who are marginally able to) stand in the line of battle. That was never their intended goal. If you look historically, whenever a BC/CC stood against a true BB, they never faired well. (Kongo I'm looking at you). So...if WG were to change the designation of BC/CC ships away from BB and give them their status, fast anti-cruisers that hit hard, it would change the game play of those "bb"s that are mischaracterized as battleships, when they should be in a lighter class.

With the advent of the USS Constellation, a true BC/CC should WG add a Battlecruiser class and reclassify ingame BC/CC's?

I bought it solely because we discussed it on the alpha forums (no longer available). It's game play isn't as a bb, it's strictly a CC. Play it as a super cruiser and you'll do well.

The mistake you, and WG are making is classing this as a BB. It's not. it's a CC (US nomenclature) it's a super cruiser before there were super cuisers. It's not intended to fight BB's, never was. It's intended role was to eliminate the enemy fleet's Cruiser/DD screen. Play it accordingly.

Ann, use it as a BC...glass cannon. Stay back and snipe. use your speed to relocate and defend/support your team. DO NOT OVER COMMIT. It's not a bad ship, but you have to be very conservative in your game play. If you're facing CA/CL's you can be bold. If you're facing BB's...hold back. That is literally what this ship was designed to do. It's intended purpose under USN doctrine was to suppport CL's & DD's against the enemy CL/DD screens, it was never intended to fight in the line of battle. It's purpose was to destroy CL's/CA's in support of the fleet screening force and to run away from BB's. Just played a game where I did just that and I did very well. Once I was facing enemy fleet BB's I was toast. But it is a fun ship to play...once you understand it's purpose. It's NOT a BB, it's a BC/CC (i.e. a battle cruiser). EDIT: What most people here don't understand is BC doctrine. As originally envisioned by Jackie Fisher BC's were intended to hunt down and destroy enemy commerce raiders. They could destroy any armored cruiser/protected cruisers built. They were fast, and had line of battle guns. What they didn't have was armor. That was sacrificed for speed. Review the British victory of the Battle of the Falkland Islands. That was the only proper use of Battlecruisers in WWI. The Brits made the horrendous mistake of using their BC's as line of battle ships (i.e. battleships--review Brit losses of BC's @ Jutland). They didn't have the armor for that. The German concept (which was historically correct) evolved into the fast battleship...and they always intended their BC's to have enough armor to be able to be used in the line of battle. The US concept of the BC wasn't anti-commerce raider, it was solely intended to support the CL/DD fleet screen. Hence the flimsy armor of the projected Lexington Class BC(CC in US parlance--in other words, that CC designation was to preclude planners from using US battlecruisers in the line of battle, a purpose they were never intended). Hence the CC designation in US Doctrine. If you play this ship as a "super cruiser" then you're playing it correctly. If you're trying to slug it out with BB's of equal or greater tier, you're going to be disappointed.

She was designed for use in the Baltic/Black Seas which don't, frankly, have much wave action. They were never intended for "high seas" action. EDIT: You and Ann are correct, take it out of a protected sea...and the first real waves it met...blub, blub, blub...a la Vasa/Mary Rose!

My thoughts exactly. We Alphas were told when we proposed it as a T8 prem, that it WOULD be implemented under the name Saratoga (Lexington was planned as a CV). I told them then (there is a thread that I started about the Lexington Class BC/CC in the earliest threads here) I'd buy it. The produced it, I bought it. Money, mouth...

Anyone else have comments on this?