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

Stalingrad is going to be a Tier X cruiser? **** me! What's your stance on the concept of battlecruiser, WG?

21 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
5,001 posts
60 battles

Soviet battlecruiser line

I can't believe a part of my endeavors were backfired. I did some homework last year, posted my viewpoint on the possibility of the Soviet battlecruiser/"heavy cruiser" line, a certain dev once did looked into it. And then, this is what they come out with?!

I don't know what's WG's standpoint on battlecruisers, they better give their concise perspective on this matter.

Battlecruisers, heavy cruisers, large cruisers etc. It's somewhat broad & tend to overlap each other in concept. It's getting confusing.

Edited by Xero_Snake
  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,936 posts

As with Akaska, Graf Spee and Scharnhorst - I don't understand the absolute obsession with how these ships are classified. 

 

They have a hull,  armor,  some guns that will makes holes in your ship,  right?

 

Who cares what comes before  the word "Cruiser', if anything at all. 

 

WG is going to balance them however they want and makes sense. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
411
[2CUTE]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,259 posts
3,852 battles
6 minutes ago, Xero_Snake said:

Soviet battlecruiser line

I can't believe a part of my endeavors were backfired. I did some homework last year, posted my viewpoint on the possibility of the Soviet battlecruiser/"heavy cruiser" line, devs did looked into it. And then, this is what they come out with?!

I don't know what's WG's standpoint on battlecruisers, they better give their concise perspective on this matter.

Battlecruisers, heavy cruisers, large cruisers etc. It's somewhat broad & tend to overlap each other in concept. It's getting confusing.


I agree. Are BC's going to be lumped into a cruiser branch? Are they going to be battleship lines?
I will admit I'm party to giving them either/or BB or CA MM, but they really need to figure out what goes where, and not try to straddle both sides of the fence. 
Ishizuchi is a BB, though clearly a BC, Hood is technically a fast BB, but Dunkerque is a BC, listed as a BB. 
Why, all of a sudden, is a clearly designed BC being shoehorned into a CA slot?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,757
[PRNA]
Beta Testers
18,801 posts
2,987 battles

It's modern, so it likely has a very high ROF.

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNRussian_12-62_m1948.php

 

Could be probably even higher than what NavWeaps specifies, WG excuse "for balance".

 

Overall we have to think of the speed of the Stalingrad-class: 35+ knots and only a limited amount of armor...sounds cruiser material to me. 6 guns is a problem though, and the 12 inch guns have only half the shell weight of a USN 16in/45-cal Mk.6, which is disturbing to me. Realistically, it'd do MUCH better at tier 8 or 9. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,799
[SYN]
Alpha Tester, Beta Testers
30,523 posts
4,493 battles

I guess this means B-65-2, Project O and Alaska are likely to be shoved into tier 10.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
100 posts
2,219 battles

C'mon people, its a Soviet T10 cruiser. Since it is Russian and seems to be limited to the best players in wows, we can all assume it will be very balanced with a top speed of 70kts, 500mm of belt armor, laser rail guns, not to mention it coming with all possible consumables such as hydro, smoke, radar, and heal.

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,502
[AHOY_]
Beta Testers
6,486 posts
3,435 battles
37 minutes ago, IronWolfV said:

I guess this means B-65-2, Project O and Alaska are likely to be shoved into tier 10.

 

Would that mean 14" (B-65 alternate) and 15" (O Project) guns at T10 while Alaska is stuck with 12"? Or an Alaska design variant with larger caliber guns?

 

And at T9, 12" (B-65 original design) and maybe Alaska herself?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,799
[SYN]
Alpha Tester, Beta Testers
30,523 posts
4,493 battles
3 minutes ago, YamatoA150 said:

 

Would that mean 14" (B-65 alternate) and 15" (O Project) guns at T10 while Alaska is stuck with 12"? Or an Alaska design variant with larger caliber guns?

 

And at T9, 12" (B-65 original design) and maybe Alaska herself?

Maybe or at tier 10 they go with the 38,000 ton 12 305 mm variant for Alaska.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
829
[FOXEH]
Members
3,351 posts
12,093 battles

Imagine a future season of clan battles where the clan fields a fleet entirely of Stalingrads. We know she will be a better than average ship like Black and Flint. That'll wreck the experience for sure.

And..."The sky is falling, oh lordy the sky is falling!" Rants will follow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
785
[MIA-I]
Supertester
2,725 posts
4,737 battles
27 minutes ago, Khafni said:

Imagine a future season of clan battles where the clan fields a fleet entirely of Stalingrads. We know she will be a better than average ship like Black and Flint. That'll wreck the experience for sure.

And..."The sky is falling, oh lordy the sky is falling!" Rants will follow.

Limited to 2 Stalingrads per side.  Matchmaker can't handle that much Stalinium in one confined area of the ocean and would implode on itself :cap_haloween: (I kid, I kid)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
5,001 posts
60 battles
1 hour ago, Battlecruiser_RenownMkI said:


I agree. Are BC's going to be lumped into a cruiser branch? Are they going to be battleship lines?
I will admit I'm party to giving them either/or BB or CA MM, but they really need to figure out what goes where, and not try to straddle both sides of the fence. 
Ishizuchi is a BB, though clearly a BC, Hood is technically a fast BB, but Dunkerque is a BC, listed as a BB. 
Why, all of a sudden, is a clearly designed BC being shoehorned into a CA slot?

 

Ishizuchi was a preliminary design before Kongou.

It got the feeling that WG has a habit of sticking with the terminology of the Soviet's "heavy cruiser" over functionality that lead to this decision. If that's the case for Stalingrad, then that would mean Kronshtadt would be Tier IX. And guess what? Kronshtadt is more armored than her successor - Stalingrad when was built, as well as more armored than Kongou, Dunkerque & Alaska combined in the same generation. So why not treat Kronshtadt as a BB type like HMS Hood?

Oh, let's not forget the German O-Klasse that was just as capable as Stalingrad.

Seriously, though. I don't know where WG stands for this anymore. Unless they decided to go off-course when Henri IV came.

 

1 hour ago, StrixKitty said:

It's modern, so it likely has a very high ROF.

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNRussian_12-62_m1948.php

 

Could be probably even higher than what NavWeaps specifies, WG excuse "for balance".

 

Overall we have to think of the speed of the Stalingrad-class: 35+ knots and only a limited amount of armor...sounds cruiser material to me. 6 guns is a problem though, and the 12 inch guns have only half the shell weight of a USN 16in/45-cal Mk.6, which is disturbing to me. Realistically, it'd do MUCH better at tier 8 or 9. 

Tell that to Scharnhorst for the RoF part...

Seriously, though. It should have worked out well as I favored if Stalingrad is treated differently from both CAs & BBs alike. Don't forget the German O-Klasse too.

Edited by Xero_Snake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
411
[2CUTE]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,259 posts
3,852 battles
Just now, Xero_Snake said:

 

Ishizuchi was a preliminary design before Kongou.

 


Which, don't forget was launched as a BC. Ishi has a high speed and very thin belt armor. Lion had only an inch more belt than Ishi does, so that pretty much does it for me in terms of defining Ishi. 

 

4 minutes ago, Xero_Snake said:

It got the feeling that WG has a habit of sticking with the terminology of the Soviet's "heavy cruiser" over functionality that lead to this decision.

I get that feeling too. I dun like it. 

 

4 minutes ago, Xero_Snake said:

Seriously, though. I don't know where WG stands for this anymore.

Me either, and I dun like that at all...either. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,502
[AHOY_]
Beta Testers
6,486 posts
3,435 battles
46 minutes ago, IronWolfV said:

Maybe or at tier 10 they go with the 38,000 ton 12 305 mm variant for Alaska.

 

B-65 is a mini-Yamato with torpedoes (assuming 9x12" and upgraded armor to fit T10).

12x 305 Alaska variant is a mini-Montana (assuming fictional armor upgrades to fit T10).

 

They're just tiering themselves!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28
[-AIM-]
Members
342 posts
1,029 battles
1 hour ago, IronWolfV said:

Maybe or at tier 10 they go with the 38,000 ton 12 305 mm variant for Alaska.

I can see the Batch 2 Alaskas being at that tier as the 12 Inch guns whernt that bad pen wise they where pening well into the same amount of armor as some 14 inch guns

12 inch gun

Elevation AP Mark 18
(full charge)AP Mark 18
(reduced charge)HC Mark 17/22

10 degrees16,700 yards (15,270 m)9,500 yards (8,687 m)17,000 yards (15,545 m)

15 degrees22,200 yards (20,300 m)12,950 yards (11,841 m)22,200 yards (20,300 m)

20 degrees26,600 yards (24,323 m)15,850 yards (14,493 m)26,500 yards (24,232 m)

25 degrees30,450 yards (27,843 m)18,000 yards (16,459 m)30,100 yards (27,523 m)

30 degrees33,600 yards (30,724 m)19,850 yards (18,151 m)33,200 yards (30,358 m)

35 degrees36,000 yards (32,918 m)21,200 yards (18,151 m)35,550 yards (32,507 m)

40 degrees37,800 yards (34,564 m)22,100 yards (20,208 m)37,250 yards (34,061 m)

45 degrees38,573 yards (35,271 m)22,604 yards (20,669 m)38,021 yards (34,766 m)

12 Inch Pen

RangeSide ArmorDeck ArmorStriking VelocityAngle of Fall

0 yards (0 m)24.48" (622 mm)---2,500 fps (762 mps)0.0

5,000 yards (4,572 m)21.34" (542 mm)0.51" (13 mm)2,215 fps (675 mps)2.6

10,000 yards (9,144 m)18.23" (463 mm)1.26" (32 mm)1,948 fps (594 mps)6.0

15,000 yards (13,716 m)15.56" (395 mm)2.14" (54 mm)1,745 fps (532 mps)11.0

20,000 yards (18,288 m)12.73" (323 mm)3.02" (77 mm)1,550 fps (472 mps)17.5

25,000 yards (22,860 m)10.52" (267 mm)4.02" (102 mm)1,435 fps (437 mps)25.3

30,000 yards (27,432 m)9.08" (231 mm)5.11" (130 mm)1,400 fps (427 mps)32.8

35,000 yards (32,004 m)7.35" (187 mm)7.18" (182 mm)1,427 fps (437 mps)44.5

14 inch gun Mark 7 and 11 latest versions before discontinued 

Elevation AP Mark 16 HC Mark 22
2.8 degrees 6,000 yards (5,490 m) ---
5.0 degrees 10,000 yards (9,140 m) ---
8.75 degrees 16,000 yards (14,630 m) ---
10.0 degrees --- 19,000 yards (17,374 m)
12.0 degrees 20,000 yards (18,290 m) ---
15.0 degrees --- 25,000 yards (22,860 m)
17.6 degrees 26,000 yards (23,770 m) ---
20.0 degrees --- 29,500 yards (26,975 m)
22.4 degrees 30,000 yards (27,430 m) ---
25.0 degrees --- 33,500 yards (30,632 m)
30.0 degrees
(max elevation of turret)
36,800 yards (33,650 m) 36,600 yards (33,467 m)
35.0 degrees 39,800 yards (36,393 m) 39,500 yards (36,119 m)
40.0 degrees 42,100 yards (38,496 m) 41,500 yards (37,948 m)
45.0 degrees 43,000 yards (39,502 m) 42,585 yards (38,940 m)

14 inch Mark 7 and 11 before discontinued 

Range Side Armor Deck Armor Striking Velocity Angle of Fall
0 yards (0 m) (new gun) 28.03" (712 mm) --- 2,700 fps (823 mps) 0
0 yards (0 m) (avg. gun) 27.17" (690 mm) --- 2,625 fps (800 mps) 0
5,000 yards (4,572 m) 23.66" (601 mm) 0.48" (12 mm) 2,326 fps (709 mps) 2.36
10,000 yards (9,144 m) 20.12" (511 mm) 1.27" (32 mm) 2,040 fps (622 mps) 5.61
15,000 yards (13,716 m) 16.76" (426 mm) 2.13" (54 mm) 1,789 fps (545 mps) 10.23
20,000 yards (18,288 m) 13.75" (349 mm) 3.02" (77 mm) 1,588 fps (484 mps) 16.33
25,000 yards (22,860 m) 11.27" (286 mm) 4.05" (103 mm) 1,455 fps (443 mps) 24.08
30,000 yards (27,432 m) 9.29" (236 mm) 5.31" (135 mm) 1,390 fps (424 mps) 33.0
35,000 yards (32,004 m) 7.82" (199 mm) 6.97" (177 mm) 1,402 fps (427 mps) 42.5

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
5,001 posts
60 battles

Mind you, people. This is NOT OK for me! It's contradicting what the designs stand for. It's not just Stalingrad, but also Kronshtadt that would get 38 cm German guns as an upgrade. It make absolute no sense for a cruiser to get a 15-in BB guns!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,502
[AHOY_]
Beta Testers
6,486 posts
3,435 battles
1 minute ago, MikeDSp said:

I can see the Batch 2 Alaskas being at that tier as the 12 Inch guns whernt that bad pen wise they where pening well into the same amount of armor as some 14 inch guns

-Snipped for Space-

 

About the only thing a T10 Alaska may get is better normalization on the AP shells, while still otherwise being subject to standard autobounce/12" shell immunity zones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28
[-AIM-]
Members
342 posts
1,029 battles
10 minutes ago, YamatoA150 said:

 

About the only thing a T10 Alaska may get is better normalization on the AP shells, while still otherwise being subject to standard autobounce/12" shell immunity zones.

The way they represent penetration is whole other subject that needs a lot of addressing and work to be done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,847
Supertester, Members, Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
11,236 posts
1,928 battles

I can't say I'm surprised. 

Namely because they had the British cruiser line suggested to them as is, and they power-creeped the German and Russian cruiser lines anyway. 

 

45 minutes ago, Battlecruiser_RenownMkI said:

Me either, and I dun like that at all...either. 

WG stands wherever they think they will make the most money, and wherever long term planning isn't. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,757
[PRNA]
Beta Testers
18,801 posts
2,987 battles
2 hours ago, Xero_Snake said:

 

Ishizuchi was a preliminary design before Kongou.

It got the feeling that WG has a habit of sticking with the terminology of the Soviet's "heavy cruiser" over functionality that lead to this decision. If that's the case for Stalingrad, then that would mean Kronshtadt would be Tier IX. And guess what? Kronshtadt is more armored than her successor - Stalingrad when was built, as well as more armored than Kongou, Dunkerque & Alaska combined in the same generation. So why not treat Kronshtadt as a BB type like HMS Hood?

Oh, let's not forget the German O-Klasse that was just as capable as Stalingrad.

Seriously, though. I don't know where WG stands for this anymore. Unless they decided to go off-course when Henri IV came.

 

Tell that to Scharnhorst for the RoF part...

Seriously, though. It should have worked out well as I favored if Stalingrad is treated differently from both CAs & BBs alike. Don't forget the German O-Klasse too.

Scharnie had even less sizable caliber guns. Still, she had strong, thick Battleship armor. 

¯\_(:/)_/¯

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
5,001 posts
60 battles
9 hours ago, mr3awsome said:

I can't say I'm surprised. 

Namely because they had the British cruiser line suggested to them as is, and they power-creeped the German and Russian cruiser lines anyway. 

 

WG stands wherever they think they will make the most money, and wherever long term planning isn't. 

I would need to talk to Octavian & Pigeon about that. Not looking for trouble, just wanna know what their knowledge justified their decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×