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

Could British Battlecruisers NOT be gimmicky, please?

169 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
3,360 posts
3,915 battles

This is a very simple plea: in the real world, for almost three centuries, the Royal Navy was properly regarded as the 'standard' by which all other things were done. And while the RN could afford, at times to do quirky experimentations (looking right at you HMS Captain and HMS Victoria), on the whole, the designs of their predreadnoughts, battleships, heavy cruisers and destroyers were all rather vanilla.

Previews have revealed that HMS Cossack is underpowered, and possesses single-launch torpedoes (which, for a DD, are of highly suspect utility). If this is to be yet another tech tree built around a ridiculous gimmick, that will be the third straight for the Queen's Navy - and, thus far, I think we can all agree that the two lines in the game, while they may be fun for some, have only limited appeal because they are so closely chained to their particular schtick.

Thus, I ask: please don't do this to British battlecruisers; please don't make them HE spammers, or AP only, or have a smoke screen, or a speed boost - just make them good. Hood isn't an HE boat - Hood does just fine with 'gotcha' short-range AA and upper-belt AP. Please, WG - use that as a model... not rainbow colored shells or acid-rain spitting secondaries, or whale-launching deck catapults. Just give us one normal friggin' British tree.

Edited by Battlecruiser_NewZealand
  • Cool 12
  • Boring 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


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

I fully agree, and hope sincerely that the development staff reads this. Please, no more gimmicks in the game.

  • Cool 4
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
437
[YAN]
Members
1,637 posts
7,464 battles

Mate, we like totally lost it when we went to turreted ships.

The british could do SotLs with their hands tied behind their back and one eye closed, and pretty good with later steam designs. But afterwards? Nah m8, that aint muh cuppa tea yo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,034
[WOLF1]
Beta Testers
6,110 posts
9,224 battles

What are these British Battle Cruisers you speak of? (in Game)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,602
[SALVO]
Members
16,660 posts
17,308 battles
42 minutes ago, paradat said:

What are these British Battle Cruisers you speak of? (in Game)

HMS Hood is the only RN BC currently in game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,360 posts
3,915 battles
39 minutes ago, paradat said:

What are these British Battle Cruisers you speak of? (in Game)

Tier III - Invincible (Tier III premium - Indefatigable, Australia or New Zealand)

Tier IV - Lion

Tier V - Tiger

Tier VI - Renown (Tier VI premium - Repulse)

Tier VII - Admiral Class (Tier VII premium - Hood)

Tier VIII - J3 design

Tier IX - G3 design

Tier X - K2 design

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
74
[-THOR]
Members
167 posts
2,206 battles

The challenge in terms of implementing the RN line was that they were real ships that actually existed.  While certainly capable in combat, the Hood was not designed to battle hypothetical German ships (and certainly had some well documented problems when it went against the Bismarck).  So many of the ships we see in game were paper ships that never existed, were barely seaworthy, were short ranged coastal ships, or had other drawbacks on a strategic level that are difficult to model in game terms. 

While having a super heavy battleship is a great idea in game terms (just like super heavy tanks are fun to play in WoT I'd imagine) they were terrible IRL in terms of efficiency and utility.  As well all know, those 460mm guns on Yamato and Musashi mostly fired beehive AA shells, and the decisive BB on BB actions they were designed for (and are depicted in WOWs) never manifested.  The RN was aware of this and there wasn't a reason to build amazing battleships like we see in the higher tiers.  Accordingly, the RN on paper is rather underpowered and the devs have to find gimmicks or some other way of making them competitive, because "extra room for admiralty and royals on tour", while a real feature of Hood and an advantage IRL, doesn't translate into an advantage in game terms.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
216
[4HIM]
Beta Testers
1,012 posts
9,218 battles
2 minutes ago, Battlecruiser_NewZealand said:

Tier III - Invincible (Tier III premium - Indefatigable, Australia or New Zealand)

Tier IV - Lion

Tier V - Tiger

Tier VI - Renown (Tier VI premium - Repulse)

Tier VII - Admiral Class (Tier VII premium - Hood)

Tier VIII - J3 design

Tier IX - G3 design

Tier X - K2 design

Renown won't cut it with 6 15' guns at T6, T5 would be fine, a Premium with Tiger T6 would have to be a paper/imaginary ship, Redoubtable, up graded Tiger 8 13.5' with better armor, AA, speed, (and yes Torps!) Britain's answer to the Kongos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,360 posts
3,915 battles
2 minutes ago, Morpheous said:

Renown won't cut it with 6 15' guns at T6, T5 would be fine, a Premium with Tiger T6 would have to be a paper/imaginary ship, Redoubtable, up graded Tiger 8 13.5' with better armor, AA, speed, (and yes Torps!) Britain's answer to the Kongos

I disagree - if Renown is given excellent accuracy, 6 x 15" can work (after all, 6 x 8" works for Aoba in the same tier). In terms of size, protection, AA, speed, etc., Renown is pretty much a lock for tier 6. Just make her ordinance laser guns like Molotov or GC, and she'll be fine. 

I mean, seriously - do you really want a 31-knot battlecruiser running around in tier 5, eating tier 4s? Given the map sizes they see, she could cross the entire playing field in just a few minutes.

Edited by Battlecruiser_NewZealand
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,034
[WOLF1]
Beta Testers
6,110 posts
9,224 battles
14 minutes ago, Crucis said:

HMS Hood is the only RN BC currently in game.

Exactly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,090
[SIM]
Members
2,447 posts
4,080 battles

In before RN BCs get Smoke Generator instead of Repair Party, a 30 second burn time, and HE shells with a huge blast radius but very low fire chance. 

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,034
[WOLF1]
Beta Testers
6,110 posts
9,224 battles
14 minutes ago, Battlecruiser_NewZealand said:

Tier III - Invincible (Tier III premium - Indefatigable, Australia or New Zealand)

Tier IV - Lion

Tier V - Tiger

Tier VI - Renown (Tier VI premium - Repulse)

Tier VII - Admiral Class (Tier VII premium - Hood)

Tier VIII - J3 design

Tier IX - G3 design

Tier X - K2 design

I get this as a potential line. Has WG ever made a comment that they would add a Battlecruiser line to the game?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,360 posts
3,915 battles
Just now, paradat said:

Exactly

If the point here is that we shouldn't complain until boats are actually put in the game, that's ridiculous - Wargaming has repeatedly proven themselves to be highly reluctant to drop gimmicks once they have been added to a full tree; the time to speak up about this is now, not in 6-12 months.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,360 posts
3,915 battles
1 minute ago, paradat said:

I get this a a potential line. Has WG ever made a comment that they would add a Battlecruiser line to the game?

There is no conceivable way that the British and the Germans don't get full BC trees. The ships involved on both sides were simply too iconic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,034
[WOLF1]
Beta Testers
6,110 posts
9,224 battles
1 minute ago, Battlecruiser_NewZealand said:

There is no conceivable way that the British and the Germans don't get full BC trees. The ships involved on both sides were simply too iconic. 

I sure hope so. But yes I was making the point that your thread might be a bit early.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,034
[WOLF1]
Beta Testers
6,110 posts
9,224 battles
2 minutes ago, Battlecruiser_NewZealand said:

If the point here is that we shouldn't complain until boats are actually put in the game, that's ridiculous - Wargaming has repeatedly proven themselves to be highly reluctant to drop gimmicks once they have been added to a full tree; the time to speak up about this is now, not in 6-12 months.

No, but we should not complain until we at least have a proposal. The super test time frame / is the perfect time for this sort of thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,356
[SYN]
Members
4,532 posts
11,434 battles

Agree 100%

The application of over-the-top, gimmicky traits has gotten out of hand in recent lines, and it seems to get worse every time a new line is released.  It just feels lazy and tacky, not to mention silly.

There is a certain sophistication of subtlety that seems lost on the developers, or at least lost on those calling the shots on ship character.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
406
[R-F]
Members
677 posts
6,188 battles

So when it came to matchmaking, would battlecruisers be grouped with battleships, or cruisers?  Hood's a battleship in-game of course.  Or are you hoping for a new "class" within World of Warships?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
744
[ARS]
Beta Testers
2,158 posts
1,654 battles
6 minutes ago, paradat said:

I get this as a potential line. Has WG ever made a comment that they would add a Battlecruiser line to the game?

Battlecruisers did the lion's share of the work in WWI.  Battleships mostly sat in port or on blockade.

1 minute ago, Brhinosaurus said:

So when it came to matchmaking, would battlecruisers be grouped with battleships, or cruisers?  Hood's a battleship in-game of course.  Or are you hoping for a new "class" within World of Warships?

Battleships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
406
[R-F]
Members
677 posts
6,188 battles
1 minute ago, Helstrem said:

Battleships.

Would there be potential for a problem if one side had a lot more battlecruisers and the other side had a lot more battleships?  Kind of like now, if one side has US/German/IJN stealth ninja DDs and other other side has russian mini-cruisers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,034
[WOLF1]
Beta Testers
6,110 posts
9,224 battles
2 minutes ago, Helstrem said:

Battlecruisers did the lion's share of the work in WWI.  Battleships mostly sat in port or on blockade.

Errr... hmmm yes agreed. 

Again has WG ever said they would add a Battle Cruiser line to the game? I am not saying they will not do it and I hope they will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
744
[ARS]
Beta Testers
2,158 posts
1,654 battles
2 minutes ago, Brhinosaurus said:

Would there be potential for a problem if one side had a lot more battlecruisers and the other side had a lot more battleships?  Kind of like now, if one side has US/German/IJN stealth ninja DDs and other other side has russian mini-cruisers?

Wargaming will need to find a way to balance them.  Speed + accuracy vs armor?

1 minute ago, paradat said:

Errr... hmmm yes agreed. 

Again has WG ever said they would add a Battle Cruiser line to the game? I am not saying they will not do it and I hope they will.

Not that I am aware of, but I am also not aware of them saying they won't.

Looking at the British and German BB lines it looks like they selected ships in such a manner to leave a battlecruiser line as an option.  I can't see why they wouldn't do battlecruisers.  They are historically important and WG will need content to add for nations players care about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,360 posts
3,915 battles
8 minutes ago, Brhinosaurus said:

Would there be potential for a problem if one side had a lot more battlecruisers and the other side had a lot more battleships?  Kind of like now, if one side has US/German/IJN stealth ninja DDs and other other side has russian mini-cruisers?

It just depends. For one thing, I could imagine some of the earlier British BCs living and dying by overpens, in the same way that later tier heavy cruisers do. For another, the bow angling in this game may be silly, but it allows ships is less-than-impressive armor schemes (such as Hood) to sometimes be regarded as being spectacularly tanky (even if they weren't IRL).

The other factors, as Helstrem said, are speed and accuracy - could BCs potentially trade guns and armor for the ability to kite and snipe? While there is no precedent for performance like this IRL (in fact, the British BCF was regarded as notoriously poor shooters in WWI, though that had everything to do with lax training on the part of Beatty, rather than some mechanical flaw), Wargaming has previously shown themselves open to rendering the same guns radically differently from ship to ship in the name of 'balance.' Really, anything is possible. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,083
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
6,694 posts
10,037 battles
20 minutes ago, Brhinosaurus said:

Would there be potential for a problem if one side had a lot more battlecruisers and the other side had a lot more battleships?  Kind of like now, if one side has US/German/IJN stealth ninja DDs and other other side has russian mini-cruisers?

At the moment I don't usually see people complain if one team has more Dunkerques to the other team's Bayerns for instance. Compared to the nuances of weak/strong ships, or radar/not having more BC's in your BB slots probably won't be noticable if they're balanced right. At least that's my hope.

1 hour ago, Battlecruiser_NewZealand said:

Thus, I ask: please don't do this to British battlecruisers; please don't make them HE spammers, or AP only, or have a smoke screen, or a speed boost - just make them good. Hood isn't an HE boat - Hood does just fine with 'gotcha' short-range AA and upper-belt AP. Please, WG - use that as a model... not rainbow colored shells or acid-rain spitting secondaries, or whale-launching deck catapults. Just give us one normal friggin' British tree.

The outlook's pretty bleak if you don't like gimmicks, and to be honest they're more widespread than you might think -

BB's -

  1. USA - gimmick free, except that special accuracy module but whatever
  2. Japan - better than average dispersion for no real reason
  3. Britain - aha, erm well you all know!
  4. Germany - Hydro, 1/4 HE pen, arbitrarily long range secondaries (the 105's on FdG outrange the 127's on Iowa because...?)
  5. France - at least speed boost, also gun numbers and ship handling

CA/L -

  1. USA - Radar and better autobounce AP
  2. Japan - normal-ish, just godlike HE
  3. Britain - aha, well, just a few things!
  4. Germany - High AP/low HE switch, 1/4 HE pen, better hydro, stronger extremity armor
  5. France - speed boost (again)
  6. Russia - Radar

DD -

  1. USA - DFAA
  2. Japan - TRB
  3. Russia - Repair Party line/DFAA line
  4. Germany - Hydro, high AP/low HE
  5. Pan-Asia - DWT, mad smoke

Given a broad definition of gimmicky, everything in the game with the exception of USN BB's and Japanese cruisers gets something there's not necessarily much historic justification for. Any RN BC line is almost certain to get something, it's just hoping that that something is pretty reasonable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,360 posts
3,915 battles
5 minutes ago, mofton said:

At the moment I don't usually see people complain if one team has more Dunkerques to the other team's Bayerns for instance. Compared to the nuances of weak/strong ships, or radar/not having more BC's in your BB slots probably won't be noticable if they're balanced right. At least that's my hope.

The outlook's pretty bleak if you don't like gimmicks, and to be honest they're more widespread than you might think -

BB's -

  1. USA - gimmick free, except that special accuracy module but whatever
  2. Japan - better than average dispersion for no real reason
  3. Britain - aha, erm well you all know!
  4. Germany - Hydro, 1/4 HE pen, arbitrarily long range secondaries (the 105's on FdG outrange the 127's on Iowa because...?)
  5. France - at least speed boost, also gun numbers and ship handling

CA/L -

  1. USA - Radar and better autobounce AP
  2. Japan - normal-ish, just godlike HE
  3. Britain - aha, well, just a few things!
  4. Germany - High AP/low HE switch, 1/4 HE pen, better hydro, stronger extremity armor
  5. France - speed boost (again)
  6. Russia - Radar

DD -

  1. USA - DFAA
  2. Japan - TRB
  3. Russia - Repair Party line/DFAA line
  4. Germany - Hydro, high AP/low HE
  5. Pan-Asia - DWT, mad smoke

Given a broad definition of gimmicky, everything in the game with the exception of USN BB's and Japanese cruisers gets something there's not necessarily much historic justification for. Any RN BC line is almost certain to get something, it's just hoping that that something is pretty reasonable.

I agree, but certainly some gimmicks are more noticable than others. The Japanese dispersion, for one thing, doesn't feel game-changing (or, not that much) - it's there, and it's nice, but I still line up sweet, back-breaking salvos in my Nagato only to see dispersion crap all over them. 

Yes, every line has it's own 'thing' - but some of those things seem to be A) more intrusive and/or B) more inclined to determine total overall playstyle (AP ordinance on British CLs; HE ordinance on British BBs) than others. It's also worth noting that, as time has gone on, these gimmicks have gotten increasingly far-fetched -- speed boost for battleships? AP-only for one line of cruisers? Just... why? 

The US battleships are proof that a line can have a really light-weight gimmick like increased AA (and, really, only for Texas and NC-onwards) and still be really enjoyable. Maybe WG could try to reel this whole thing in a little moving forwards?

Edited by Battlecruiser_NewZealand

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×