Jump to content

10 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
4 posts

Hi guys,

 

I am a big fan of battlecruisers and have been thinking about how WG can implement them into the game.

I would like to hear others opinions on this idea I have:

- give them higher than average chance of detonation with fast fire rate with an optional module of massively reducing this chance at a big cost to reload speed. This is historically accurate of British battlecruisers at Jutland especially.

- maybe give battlecrusiers the speed boost ability.

- maybe make them fill a different role to a BB, adding something new to the game (new ship type completely).

- possible don't give them the repair module of battleships - or a weaker/ different version of it.

- AP only

 

I am aware a lot of previous threada have discussed ships in line so I see no need to mention it.

 

Edited by Lyno_Lemon
Corrected typos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,303
[PVE]
[PVE]
Members
4,112 posts
8,676 battles
31 minutes ago, Lyno_Lemon said:

Hi guys,

 

I am a big fan of battlecruisers and have been thinking about how WG can implement them into the game.

I would like to hear others opinions on this idea I have:

- give them higher than average chance of detonation with fast fire rate with an optional module of massively reducing this chance at a big cost to reload speed. This is historically accurate of British battlecruisers at Jutland especially.

- maybe give battlecrusiers the speed boost ability.

- maybe make them fill a different role to a BB, adding something new to the game (new ship type completely).

- possible don't give them the repair module of battleships - or a weaker/ different version of it.

- AP only

 

I am aware a lot of previous threada have discussed ships in line so I see no need to mention it.

 

Well there are some "battlecruisers" in game but WG marks their type as BBs, BUT I would like to see them as a separate type; as far as your ideas - AP Only: No, I like having HE on my ships unless I am playing RN Light Cruiser - see it is their "thing" not having HE.

New Ship Type - Until WG gets some of the CV issues fixed I do not see any new types added.

Speed Boost - The French Cruisers Tier 6 and up have this.

Repair Module - Well to be honest I do not care for that idea at all, you have to remember in this game we get a lot closer than real naval warships did (on average) during battles.

Detonation - Higher than average!! No some players hate detonation already, if it happen more often for any type of ship these forums would explode!!  

BUT these are my opinions I sure you will have some who like them and some who do not.

And Welcome to the forums.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
4 posts
8 minutes ago, Chaos_EN2 said:

Well there are some "battlecruisers" in game but WG marks their type as BBs, BUT I would like to see them as a separate type; as far as your ideas - AP Only: No, I like having HE on my ships unless I am playing RN Light Cruiser - see it is their "thing" not having HE.

New Ship Type - Until WG gets some of the CV issues fixed I do not see any new types added.

Speed Boost - The French Cruisers Tier 6 and up have this.

Repair Module - Well to be honest I do not care for that idea at all, you have to remember in this game we get a lot closer than real naval warships did (on average) during battles.

Detonation - Higher than average!! No some players hate detonation already, if it happen more often for any type of ship these forums would explode!!  

BUT these are my opinions I sure you will have some who like them and some who do not.

And Welcome to the forums.

I suggested AP only to try to differentiate them from british BBs and I am not keen on these beong another HE focussed line.

 

Speed boost at lower tiers in my opinon will differentiate them from BBs. Especially at lower tiers, and might encourage more aggressive gameplay.

 

My detonation idea was more to allow them to speed their guns up at the cost of survivability. This would be an option on the ship to choose between. Could change citadel protection instead of detonation chance. I appreciate detonations in their current state are infuriating.

 

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
4 posts

Battlecruisers pre existing in game are mostly modernised and less traditional:

- Hood is uparmoured and less battlecruiseresque in the in gsme configuration.

- Dunkerque is a premium anyway and plays very uniquely.

- Half the IJN ships are Battlecruisers and they have their own identity anyway.

- Britain and Germany are the main 2 nations this is aimed at. I doubt you could get a whole line out of germany.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,303
[PVE]
[PVE]
Members
4,112 posts
8,676 battles
45 minutes ago, Lyno_Lemon said:

I doubt you could get a whole line out of germany

Well maybe if you count "paper-ships".

Ship Main guns Armor Displacement Propulsion Service
Laid down Commissioned Fate
SMS Von der Tann 8 × 28 cm (11 in)[44] 25 cm (9.8 in)[45] 21,300 t (21,000 long tons)[45] 4 screws, Parsons steam turbines, 27.75 knots (51 km/h)[44] 21 March 1908[46] 1 September 1910[46] Scuttled at Scapa Flow, 21 June 1919, wreck raised 1930s and scrapped at Rosyth[44]
SMS Moltke 10 × 28 cm[44] 28 cm[44] 25,400 t (25,000 long tons)[44] 4 screws, Parsons steam turbines, 28.4 kn (52.6 km/h; 32.7 mph)[44] 7 December 1908[47] 30 August 1911[47] Scuttled at Scapa Flow, 21 June 1919, wreck raised 1927 and scrapped at Rosyth[48]
SMS Goeben 4 screws, Parsons steam turbines, 28 kn (52 km/h; 32 mph)[44] 28 August 1909[47] 2 July 1912[47] Transferred to the Ottoman Empire on 16 August 1914, scrapped, 1973[48]
SMS Seydlitz 10 × 28 cm[49] 30.5 cm[44] 28,550 t (28,100 long tons)[48] 4 screws, Parsons steam turbines, 28.1 knots (51 km/h)[49] 4 February 1911[50] 22 May 1913[50] Scuttled at Scapa Flow, 21 June 1919, wreck raised 1928 and scrapped at Rosyth[49]
SMS Derfflinger 8 × 30.5 cm (12.0 in)[51] 31,200 t (30,700 long tons)[49] 4 screws, Parsons steam turbines, 25.5 kn (47.2 km/h; 29.3 mph)[49] 30 March 1912[52] 1 September 1914[52] Scuttled in Scapa Flow, 21 June 1919, wreck raised 1939, broken up after 1946[48]
SMS Lützow 4 screws, Parsons steam turbines, 26.4 kn (48.9 km/h; 30.4 mph)[49] May 1912[52] 8 August 1915[52] Scuttled after severe damage at the Battle of Jutland, 1 June 1916[48]
SMS Hindenburg 31,500 t (31,000 long tons)[49] 4 screws, Parsons steam turbines, 26.6 kn (49.3 km/h; 30.6 mph)[49] 1 October 1913[52] 10 May 1917[52] Scuttled in Scapa Flow, 21 June 1919, wreck raised 1930, scrapped 1930–1932[48]
SMS Mackensen 8 × 35 cm (13.8 in)[53] 35,300 t (34,700 long tons)[53] 4 screws, Parsons steam turbines, 28 kn (52 km/h; 32 mph)[53] 1914[53] Struck, 17 November 1919, broken up, 1922[53]
SMS Graf Spee 1915[53] Struck, 17 November 1919, broken up, 1921–22[53]
SMS Prinz Eitel Friedrich Broken up, 1921[53]
SMS Fürst Bismarck Struck, 17 November 1919, broken up, 1922[53]
Ersatz Yorck 8 × 38 cm (15 in)[54] 38,000 t (37,400 long tons)[54] 4 screws, Parsons steam turbines, 27.3 kn (50.6 km/h; 31.4 mph)[54] 1916[54] Scrapped 26 months before completion[54]
Ersatz Gneisenau Scrapped 26 months before completion[54]
Ersatz Scharnhorst Scrapped 26 months before completion[54]
O 6 × 38.1 cm (15.0 in)[55] 19 cm (7.5 in)[55] 35,400 long tons (36,000 t)[55][N 4] 3 screws, 8 × 24 cylinder diesel engines, 1 steam turbine, 35 kn (65 km/h; 40 mph)[55] Canceled after the outbreak of World War II[55]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,303
[PVE]
[PVE]
Members
4,112 posts
8,676 battles
1 hour ago, Lyno_Lemon said:

I suggested AP only to try to differentiate them from british BBs and I am not keen on these beong another HE focussed line.

 

Speed boost at lower tiers in my opinon will differentiate them from BBs. Especially at lower tiers, and might encourage more aggressive gameplay.

 

My detonation idea was more to allow them to speed their guns up at the cost of survivability. This would be an option on the ship to choose between. Could change citadel protection instead of detonation chance. I appreciate detonations in their current state are infuriating.

 

Thanks.

Well if your AP idea is only for RN Battlecruisers then I could see it, but not for a whole type.

Speed boost - as above for a national line, like just RN. Most Battlecruisers were designed to able outrun what they could not outshoot so they would have a good speed anyway. Invincible-class battlecruiser could do 25kts, and SMS Von der Tann could do 27kts for their period that was fast.

Citadel protection instead of Detonation chance: well if it is anything like normal that would be done by class not by type, and I understand you are wanting this to a high ROF for balance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,258
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
8,783 posts
14,864 battles

Decent post, well worded and to the point; good job!

3 hours ago, Lyno_Lemon said:

I am a big fan of battlecruisers and have been thining about how WG can implement them into the game.

I am pretty sure that WoW, and the player base as a whole, agree with you!

3 hours ago, Lyno_Lemon said:

I would like to hear others opiniona on this idea I have:

I am NOT so sure WoW agrees with this; they have their own (unique) way of doing things! LOL!!

3 hours ago, Lyno_Lemon said:

- give them higher than average chance of detonation with fast fire rate with an optional module of massively reducing this chance at a big cost to reload speed. This is historically accurate of British battlecruisers at Jutland especially.

I am opposed to this, for the following reason. At Jutland the RN BC's suffered from poor safety control over powder; they literally had it stacked on the decks waiting to be used during the battle, plus they were keeping the anti-blast doors open for faster reloading. The results of these decisions are historically embedded into the minds of every sailor everywhere. In game they would be hurt by this because of their already weaker armor scheme.

3 hours ago, Lyno_Lemon said:

- maybe give battlecrusiers the speed boost ability.

This is a good idea, but careful implementation as you really don't want BC's being able to run down CA's and CL's.

3 hours ago, Lyno_Lemon said:

- maybe make them fill a different role to a BB, adding something new to the game (new ship type completely).

Until you have a concrete idea of what this new "gimmick" is, I am opposed to it on generic reasons.

3 hours ago, Lyno_Lemon said:

- possible don't give them the repair module of battleships - or a weaker/ different version of it.

Or make them like RN BB's and give them a faster, better heal which takes longer to re-charge.

3 hours ago, Lyno_Lemon said:

- AP only

No, this was a horrible idea on RN CL's and it would be a horrid idea on BC's; what will you do when the red ships angle?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,605
[SALVO]
Members
16,679 posts
17,308 battles
4 hours ago, Lyno_Lemon said:

Hi guys,

 

I am a big fan of battlecruisers and have been thinking about how WG can implement them into the game.

I would like to hear others opinions on this idea I have:

- give them higher than average chance of detonation with fast fire rate with an optional module of massively reducing this chance at a big cost to reload speed. This is historically accurate of British battlecruisers at Jutland especially.

- maybe give battlecrusiers the speed boost ability.

- maybe make them fill a different role to a BB, adding something new to the game (new ship type completely).

- possible don't give them the repair module of battleships - or a weaker/ different version of it.

- AP only

 

I am aware a lot of previous threada have discussed ships in line so I see no need to mention it.

 

1. Detonations.  No.  Only RN BCs had this supposed detonation weakness.  And from all I've read, it wasn't really so much a fault of the ships as it was the fault of the ammo handling practices of the crew, in their storing of ready rounds closer to their guns, which meant that those rounds and powder bags weren't as well protected in their magazines.

2. Speed boost.  No.  BC's really were only a few knots faster than battleships, because they traded some armor for some extra boilers and engines to gain those few knots of speed.  Furthermore, RN BB's did this trade-off to a greater degree than the Germans.  Thus, RN BC's were faster but more weakly armored than their German counterparts, which were a little less faster than the German BBs, but in return were a good deal tougher than RN BCs.

3. New ship type for BCs?  I don't think so.  Why? Because real battlecruisers were only built in the 1900's and 1910's.  The supposed battlecruisers designed in the 1920's were, by then, using more advanced engine/boiler designs that were more efficient and allowed for true battleships to have the speed of battlecruisers.  Hence, the term "fast battleship".  This made the battlecruiser obsolete, and any ship after this point that people want to think of as a battlecruiser was really something else, either a fast battleship or a large cruiser.

4. Don't give them Heals?  I hope not.  Personally, I'd rather just see battlecruisers be less gimmicky, and see them treated as faster but somewhat softer battleships, which in reality is what they really were.

5. AP only?  No.  Enough with the gimmicks.   That said, I personally wouldn't mind if HE ammo went away entirely (with AP ammo tweaked accordingly).  But that's a different discussion.  So, as long as HE remains in the game, battlecruisers should be treated the same as battleships of their nation.  RN BC's should have just as strong HE as their BB cousins.  And German BC's should be almost as tough as their same tier battleship cousins.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,554 posts
6,867 battles

My thread on pre-dreadnoughts also details three battlecruisers that should be considered: Goeben, Von der Tann and Izmail:

Goeben in particular should be a shoo-in:

Spoiler

5a0efcb14bd6a_FFGoeben2.jpg.73386e33c4492542d2750f4427ad57ce.jpg

Along with a few other ships included who were not pre-dreadnoughts per se, the Goeben is an obvious collector's item and a unique battlecruiser from the WW I era, perhaps the most famous that ever existed along with HMS Hood. She obviously had to be included here.

"SMS Goeben was named for Prussian infantry General August Karl von Goeben and her keel was laid down on August 28th, 1909 and commissioned on July 2nd, 1912. The technical developments brought to the table by this shipbuilder included hardened steel (by Krupp) making it possible to build a battlecruiser with armor that could survive 6-inch (150mm) fire hits while, at the same time, being able to field battleship-caliber 11.1-inch main guns when engaging enemy cruisers, destroyers and cargo ships. The design used less armor than a traditional battleship of the period, allowing more speed to help the vessel escape from larger capital ships

Goeben was a trim ship with a low silhouette and carried 34 total guns as built, including a main armament of five twin-gun turrets holding 10x11.1-inch (28.3cm) SK L/50 (280mm) main guns capable of sending a 1,000lb shell a distance of 14 miles (513yd)(23km). She had a maximum speed of 28.4 knots.

When war broke out in 1914 The Goeben and the light cruiser Breslau made for the port of Messina, outrunning the British ships by way of their superior inherent speed. After coaling the ships broke out of the Strait of Messina heading east; British Admiral Milne attempted to close in with HMS Indefatigable and HMS Indomitable but was unsuccessful.

Goeben and Breslau arrived in Turkish waters near the Gallipoli Coast. Upon receiving word about the German ships, the Ottoman government provided a visa to Admiral Souchon and the two warships were allowed to stay in Turkish waters. The British had just been embarrassed as their numerically superior fleet failed to catch the Germans during a 1,000 mile chase. The two ships were tempting chess pieces in terms of the naval superiority over the Mediterranean, Marmara and Black Seas for the Central Powers. It only took hours for the Turkish government to accept the offer to purchase the vessels. Germany, in turn, accepted and transferred ownership of Goeben and Breslau to the Ottoman Navy on August 16th, 1914. This new naval power made Goeben the pivotal piece that convinced the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire to walk the path of war alongside Germany.

Goeben was named after the famous Sultan of the Ottoman Empire, Yavuz Sultan Selim while Breslau was christened Midilli after the capital of the island of Lesbos in the Aegean (conquered by the Turks in 1462 and ruled by the Ottoman Empire until the First Balkan War in 1912, to which Greece took the island from the Turks). Accordingly, Yavuz Sultan Selim now flew the Turkish naval flag and became the flagship of the Ottoman Empire Navy, albeit with her original German crew.

The Yavuz saw numerous actions in the Black Sea against the Russians during the war. After the defeat of the Central Powers, due to the Treaty of Sevres between the Ottoman Empire and the Allies, Yavuz was to be handed over to the Royal Navy as a war prize. Due to her not being seaworthy, the Royal Navy left her in Sevastopol. In 1923, after the Turkish War of Independence, the Treaty of Sevres was replaced by the Treaty of Lausanne which required Turkish warships, including Yavuz, to be repatriated back to the Turkish Navy. After the war, Yavuz was the only German-built battlecruiser still in service. From 1918 until 1926, she remained in the port city of Izmit, rusting at dockside.

Stationed in the Gulf of Izmit since1948, Yavuz was finally decommissioned and placed in reserve on December 20th, 1950. She remained inactive at anchor for four years and stricken from the Turkish Naval register on November 14th, 1954. Her name was painted over and she was assigned the hull number "B70". Seventeen years passed until B70 was sold for scrap to the M.K.E. Seyman company in 1971. Her last voyage was being towed by tugs to the scrapyard on June 7th, 1973 and, by February 1976, her hull had been loaded onto barges heading for steel mills to be melted down. The end of an honorable career lasting some sixty-four years, the vessel was the last of the European dreadnoughts in existence."

from: http://www.militaryfactory.com/ships/detail.asp?ship_id=SMS-Goeben

Where would this ship appear in WoWs? Tier IV perhaps with her 11.1 inch main guns; I'll leave that to those better able to assess her in game terms. The photo above shows how incredibly low-slung she is--with a smaller detection range and very good speed she would be a stealthy ship.

 

Edited by Stauffenberg44

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
309
[KRAB]
Members
615 posts
5,828 battles

They could probably form a second line of Battleships at the low to mid tiers - trading off armor for speed would be especially significant at these lower tiers (think 3 to 6), with the highest of the line likely merging into "Fast Battleships" at tier 7, with the British merging into the normal line at the  KGV and German at the GN/Sch. I don't think there are enough designs to populate tiers 7-10 with pure BCs, as I think the Washington Naval treaty resulted in most BCs either being scrapped or being converted to CVs, with the WW2 era designs being Battleships and Cruisers in the role currently seen at high tiers. 

 

Battlecruisers could be given faster rudder shift and maybe a little more AA (with their upgraded hulls representing modernization), in exchange for usually having a little less firepower and obviously thinner armor. They would still be classed as Battleships, but would play slightly differently due to their unique characteristics. 

 

I am all for more variety within the BB class, especially since there is plenty of interest and room in the tech tree for the lower tiers to be populated. The BC line does not need to go to tier 10, as the roles naturally merged by tier 8 anyways. A BC player would probably find the tier transition easier when moving into WW2-era ships - they just would gain bigger guns and thicker belt armor while keeping the mobility they were already used to. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×