Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
Xlap

WW1 era Battlecruisers

82 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

371
Members
2,274 posts
7,307 battles

So, do we have any hope of WG adding WW1 era Battlecruisers? The closest ship we have in game is the IJN Ishizuchi, and its a paper ship. I mean, i like Ishi its a very fun ship, and have nothing against paper ships in game. But we have many British and German ships that were build and saw active service and combat during WW1. 

 

Those Battlecruisers that fought at Jutland would be some nice ships at tiers 3/4/5. Either as permiums or in a BB tech tree split. It would be nice to play with and against them in game. 

 

Do we have any hope of seeing any of these ships in game? At least in a near future? 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
73
[DRI-S]
[DRI-S]
Members
570 posts
16,398 battles

I would be a nice add on , just for historical reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
0
[CMFRT]
Beta Testers
6 posts
730 battles

The German and British Battlecruisers will almost certainly make it into the game as premiums and standard ships at some point. That being said, except in the case of premiums, they'll certainly be getting what-if 30s era refits to give them usable AA, just like Kaiser, König, and Bayern.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
1,940 posts

Still waiting for WG to reintroduce the stock Kongo hull they removed a while ago, preferably as a replacement for Myogi perhaps?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,087
[SPTR]
Members
3,457 posts
5,653 battles

We seriously need these battlecruisers, they are the true naval legends and the work horses of that era.

SMS Goeben, HMS Queen Mary, the notorious Derfflingers, this list can go far and long, and I'm darn sure that each would be a proud positive addition to the game.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
399
[NGA-R]
Supertester
1,038 posts
5,888 battles
34 minutes ago, Krupp_Sabot said:

They will add them if they can get a branch that can go to ten.

They wouldn't even need to do that.  They can do a sub branch and split the BBs into two separate trees like they've done with DDs and like whats been talked about with the US Cruiser lines.  It's not an imposability thats for sure, as the US, Brittan, Russia, and Japan have had WWI Battle Cruisers.  Germany as well so you've be able to to do a small branch of BBs for all nations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
471 posts
1,992 battles
10 minutes ago, Ghost_Raven75 said:

They wouldn't even need to do that.  They can do a sub branch and split the BBs into two separate trees like they've done with DDs and like whats been talked about with the US Cruiser lines.  It's not an imposability thats for sure, as the US, Brittan, Russia, and Japan have had WWI Battle Cruisers.  Germany as well so you've be able to to do a small branch of BBs for all nations.

They seem to hate sub branches instead preferring lines that run to tier ten.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,157 posts
7,835 battles

Brings to mind British Admiral David Beatty's famous quote at Jutland as he noticed the battlecruisers Queen Mary and Indefatigable had exploded and sank after coming under fire from the Germans.  "There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today."

 

Can't wait to see them all in game

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
371
Members
2,274 posts
7,307 battles
1 hour ago, pufek said:

I would be a nice add on , just for historical reason.

Historical and fun reason. Also if they were premiuns im sure WG would make some good money with them. 

 

54 minutes ago, Wolcott said:

Still waiting for WG to reintroduce the stock Kongo hull they removed a while ago, preferably as a replacement for Myogi perhaps?

It would be nice if WG added one of the stock Kongo sisters as a premium.

 

26 minutes ago, The_first_harbinger said:

We seriously need these battlecruisers, they are the true naval legends and the work horses of that era.

SMS Goeben, HMS Queen Mary, the notorious Derfflingers, this list can go far and long, and I'm darn sure that each would be a proud positive addition to the game.

Pretty much this. They were the work horses of WW1 naval battles. Did most of the job at Jutland.

 

21 minutes ago, Ghost_Raven75 said:

They wouldn't even need to do that.  They can do a sub branch and split the BBs into two separate trees like they've done with DDs and like whats been talked about with the US Cruiser lines.  It's not an imposability thats for sure, as the US, Brittan, Russia, and Japan have had WWI Battle Cruisers.  Germany as well so you've be able to to do a small branch of BBs for all nations.

They dont need to make a full line. WG could do a line that goes from t3 to t6, like the IJN DD line that goes up to t8.  But im sure they could make a line up to t10 if they use paper ships. Some nations had designs of Battlecruisers up to the end of WW2. 

 

5 minutes ago, Spooooooooooooooooooooon said:

Brings to mind British Admiral David Beatty's famous quote at Jutland as he noticed the battlecruisers Queen Mary and Indefatigable had exploded and sank after coming under fire from the Germans.  "There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today."

 

Can't wait to see them all in game

Yesterday i was playing with my Ishizuchi, and in one battle i got detonated (not complaining). The first thing i tought was "There seems to be something wrong with my bloody ship today". 

 

Maybe a gimmick for RN Battlecruisers could be a increassed chance of detonation. :Smile_teethhappy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,038
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
6,651 posts
9,964 battles

I'd be all for it, the easiest line is probably the RN, followed closely by the KM, then IJN (though the IJN would possibly need a rework of their battleship line concurrently). I think the USN would struggle mightily, Russia would struggle too.

The KM and RN BB lines carefully omitted any battlecruisers leaving me to hope that's a purposeful step to keeping them as separate branches.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
166
[-AGW-]
Members
685 posts
3,886 battles

really want this to happen. There is no reason why the RN And German tech trees cannot have BC sub-branches for tiers III, IV, and V.

 

Indefatigable and Von der Tann could easily fit at Tier III without modernization. The same is true for Derfflinger/Seydlitz at Tier IV.

 

I love the look of the Konig Albert in game with the light gray paint job, and the aircraft recognition marking on the turret. I would hope they could keep that WWI look for the BCs.

Edited by Skarp_AGW
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
193
[90THD]
[90THD]
Members
2,734 posts
2,010 battles
1 minute ago, Skarp_AGW said:

really want this to happen. There is no reason why the RN And German tech trees cannot have BC sub-branches for tiers III, IV, and V.

 

Indefatigable and Von der Tann could easily fit at Tier II without modernization. The same is true for Derfflinger/Seydlitz at Tier IV.

 

I love the look of the Konig Albert in game with the light gray paint job, and the aircraft recognition marking on the turret. I would hope they could keep that WWI look for the BCs.

2

Do you mean Tier 3?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,018
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
15,128 posts
8,741 battles
1 hour ago, Krupp_Sabot said:

They will add them if they can get a branch that can go to ten.

 

There is really no reason that a tree has to be perfectly full. In alpha we went directly from the Amagi to the Yamato. Also we already have trees that start split off such as the Japanese & Russian DD side trees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,038
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
6,651 posts
9,964 battles

'WG hates partial lines'

Well, 50% of the branches in game don't go to T10 (IJN DD) and it's been that way for about 9 months.

If WG hate it, they have an odd way of showing it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,476
[AHOY_]
Beta Testers
6,410 posts
3,407 battles
1 hour ago, Ghost_Raven75 said:

They wouldn't even need to do that.  They can do a sub branch and split the BBs into two separate trees like they've done with DDs and like whats been talked about with the US Cruiser lines.  It's not an imposability thats for sure, as the US, Brittan, Russia, and Japan have had WWI Battle Cruisers.  Germany as well so you've be able to to do a small branch of BBs for all nations.

 

WG already stated the release of the IJN DD line up to T8 was a mistake and premature; that they should have waited until they finished the T9 and T10 first, and that moving forward, every split WILL have a T10, even if it has to be fictional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
650 posts
1,632 battles

Yeah if they are OK with only having partial lines I'm for it as far as KM and RN go. If they insist on taking every line up to T10 I'm against it, the paper monstrosities would be ridiculous and there's not enough separation between what a "battlecruiser" is and what the "fast battleships" that mostly make up the high-tier BB lines are. And don't even bother trying to make partial lines for the USN or IJN. 

 

RN

 

T3: Invincible

T4: Princess Royal (to avoid duplicating the name Lion)

T5: Tiger (with fictional interwar rebuild)

T6: Renown

T7: "Admiral" (Hood with mid-war upgrades)

 

Possible premium: T4 Australia (maybe as a "Commonwealth" ship)

 

KM

 

T3: Von Der Tann

T4: Seydlitz

T5: Derfflinger (with fictional interwar rebuild)

T6: Mackensen (ditto)

T7: "Ersatz Yorck" design (with speculative mid-life upgrades, will need a made-up name)

 

Possible premium: T4 Goeben

Edited by Middcore
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
166
[-AGW-]
Members
685 posts
3,886 battles
18 minutes ago, Hurlbut said:

Do you mean Tier 3?

Yes I meant Tier III

 

I doubt we will ever see any other Tier II BBs. The Mikasa has that gig to herself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
371
Members
2,274 posts
7,307 battles
33 minutes ago, mofton said:

The KM and RN BB lines carefully omitted any battlecruisers leaving me to hope that's a purposeful step to keeping them as separate branches.

Yep, this. 

 

The most famous RN and KMS WW1 ships were battlecruisers. And we got none in their tree lines. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
371
Members
2,274 posts
7,307 battles
Just now, Skarp_AGW said:

Yes I meant Tier III

 

I doubt we will ever see any other Tier II BBs. The Mikasa has that gig to herself.

We might see some more pre-dreadnoughts. Mikasa is one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,038
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
6,651 posts
9,964 battles
1 minute ago, Middcore said:

Yeah if they are OK with only having partial lines I'm for it as far as KM and RN go. If they insist on taking every line up to T10 I'm against it, the paper monstrosities would be ridiculous and there's not enough separation between what a "battlecruiser" is and what the "fast battleships" that mostly make up the high-tier BB lines are.

Taking the RN BC line up to T10 would be 3 paper ships, which is the same as the RN BB line so all things considered, not too paper.

I do agree that there'd be an issue keeping battlecruisers relevant in tiers with fast battleships (which are have cake/eat cake equivalents). Trading some armor for speed is pointless when everyone's doing about 30kt. The only way to do it would be to keep BC's in the 33+ kt range up there, and kinda think of Iowa as a battlecruiser too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
166
[-AGW-]
Members
685 posts
3,886 battles
2 minutes ago, Xlap said:

We might see some more pre-dreadnoughts. Mikasa is one.

I would be perfectly OK with some pre-dreadnoughts as well.

 

SMS Scharnhorst (yeah its an AC) would be sweet. The USS Maine (BB-10) is stunningly gorgeous IMHO. The French had some steampunk monstrosities that would make the 3D modelers rage quit in tears. :cap_fainting:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
454
[1776_]
Alpha Tester
2,620 posts
4,824 battles
11 minutes ago, Middcore said:

Yeah if they are OK with only having partial lines I'm for it as far as KM and RN go. If they insist on taking every line up to T10 I'm against it, the paper monstrosities would be ridiculous and there's not enough separation between what a "battlecruiser" is and what the "fast battleships" that mostly make up the high-tier BB lines are. And don't even bother trying to make partial lines for the USN or IJN. 

 

RN

 

T3: Invincible

T4: Princess Royal (to avoid duplicating the name Lion)

T5: Tiger (with fictional interwar rebuild)

T6: Renown

T7: "Admiral"

 

Possible premium: T4 Australia (maybe as a "Commonwealth" ship)

 

KM

 

T3: Von Der Tann

T4: Seydlitz

T5: Derflinger

T6: Mackensen

T7: "Ersatz Yorck" design (will need a made-up name)

 

Possible premium: T4 Goeben

For T6 Repulse BB can be a premium as well

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×