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

Time to rework the lineup

18 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
377 posts

The British cruiser lineup has to be the most poorly considered selection in the entire game. Once you get to Emerald, the series after that is simply a series of derivatives with small armor upgrades and the same line of 6" guns dancing around 12 to 9 gun configurations. These series of light cruisers were all similar and based of the same basic blueprint. Of this series the Leander, Arethusa, Southampton, Edinburgh, Dido, Dido II, Fiji, Uganda and Minotaur/Tiger were nearly indistinguishable from each other, and were deployed with that in mind. All of them light cruisers. Where are the heavy cruisers? The 10,000 ton/8inch-gun configurations? It would be nice to see at least a single Kent, or a Norfolk, a London, or even a York class. The notion that the heavy cruisers would disrupt the chronological succession of this game format is less egregious than offering a series of versions of the same ship for the sake of time-stamps. I think the progression in this instance should be by order of gun and armor. Not by offering the same group of ships and applying faux game play characteristics like increases of low detection over the line and protections from strong opponent shell dispersion, all magical powers applied to make the lineup better with each upgrade, when in reality the are nearly equal in hiding from the enemy and receiving gun fire, they possess no distinct distinguishing attributes other than number of guns and a few eighth of inch armor upgrades, especially when one looks at the other nations and their more distinct lineups. 

Sorry for the vent, but the obvious weakness of this lineup is undeniable, though I fear not likely to change. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,616
[SALVO]
Members
16,721 posts
17,314 battles

It's not the RN cruiser line.  It's the RN LIGHT cruiser line, for starters.

Secondly, there are very few RN heavy cruisers.  The RN apparently didn't go in for CA's much for economics reasons.  Economic reasons, you ask?  Yes, economic reasons.  The British still had a far flung empire and lots of sea lanes to patrol.  And heavy cruisers cost a good deal more than light cruisers.  So the Brits opted to have a larger number of CL's rather than a smaller number of CA's, so that they could patrol more of those sea lanes with their cruisers.

Of course, this is largely irrelevant in WoWS.  But it does explain why there are so few RN CA classes and designs.  However, I do expect to see some RN CA's in game at some point.  Do they have enough to produce a full line (well, from somewhere around tier 5-7 to tier 10)?  Probably not.  They'll have to come up with at least some blueprint/design study CAs, if not some outright, purely fictional designs if they want to have this sort of heavy cruiser line.  Alternatively, they could opt for a couple of premium CA's.  After all, the RN is sadly lacking any (available) premium cruisers.  That said, the potential down side to premium heavy cruiser premiums might be if they played a lot differently than the cruisers on the CL line, you could end up with premium CA's that didn't do all that well with CL captains from the regular RN cruiser line ships.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,376
[-K-]
Members
5,111 posts
8,979 battles
40 minutes ago, Dreddnort said:

Once you get to Emerald, the series after that is simply a series of derivatives with small armor upgrades and the same line of 6" guns dancing around 12 to 9 gun configurations.

The IJN line after Kuma is basically the same progression as well.  In my eyes, it makes for more consistent progression and evolution, in so that you don't have to retrain a captain with different skills as you bring him up the line.

The Pan-Asian DD line is a good example of a lack of linearity through a line.  You basically need two separate captains with different skills to make all the ships in the line shine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
377 posts
33 minutes ago, Crucis said:

It's not the RN cruiser line.  It's the RN LIGHT cruiser line, for starters.

Secondly, there are very few RN heavy cruisers.  The RN apparently didn't go in for CA's much for economics reasons.  Economic reasons, you ask?  Yes, economic reasons.  The British still had a far flung empire and lots of sea lanes to patrol.  And heavy cruisers cost a good deal more than light cruisers.  So the Brits opted to have a larger number of CL's rather than a smaller number of CA's, so that they could patrol more of those sea lanes with their cruisers.

Of course, this is largely irrelevant in WoWS.  But it does explain why there are so few RN CA classes and designs.  However, I do expect to see some RN CA's in game at some point.  Do they have enough to produce a full line (well, from somewhere around tier 5-7 to tier 10)?  Probably not.  They'll have to come up with at least some blueprint/design study CAs, if not some outright, purely fictional designs if they want to have this sort of heavy cruiser line.  Alternatively, they could opt for a couple of premium CA's.  After all, the RN is sadly lacking any (available) premium cruisers.  That said, the potential down side to premium heavy cruiser premiums might be if they played a lot differently than the cruisers on the CL line, you could end up with premium CA's that didn't do all that well with CL captains from the regular RN cruiser line ships.

 

Yes, it would be nice for the formation of a heavy cruiser lineup, though I would imagine they would have to rework all the other nations too, maybe we would see the USS Alaska :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
135
[ODIN]
[ODIN]
Members
456 posts
13,203 battles

Perhaps the future will hold a RN Cruiser Tree Split, much like the Americans will be receiving in a few months.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
103
[-K-]
[-K-]
Members
583 posts
4,592 battles

I think the RN-CL is fine now, and have gone through the tiers to 10. They all do differ slightly in play style and ranges which makes them interesting to play. They are definitely a glass canon and a high skill line.

But the CA line, is something id love to see. The County Class, with the 3 sub-classes has lots of potential and then the York Class, but these would probably be T5-7 as stated by @Crucis.

I am not sure if these would follow the same as the light cruiser line with smoke, but they may with slower reloads, etc.

Over-all the RN line still has the most interest from me, a CA line plus the DD and CVL and CV line would make it very interesting, though with the current state of CVs I wonder if they will ever come out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
377 posts

Indeed, good points you make. I have ever so much enjoyed this game for its attention to detail and the game play. To a degree my complaint about the British cruiser line is minor, I’m happy there is one. However, since you mention it, I do have to harp on the carrier portion of this game. Having been a longtime Battlestations Midway/Pacific player I am appalled at the contrast of gameplay quality between aircraft carriers and the rest of the surface fleet. The gameplay mechanics for carriers is pedantic, clunky, out of sync, and just plain bush-league. It is no wonder few play that portion of the game. If the gameplay mechanics from Battlestations were adopted there would huge participation, because it would be manageable, emersive and fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,616
[SALVO]
Members
16,721 posts
17,314 battles
19 minutes ago, Dreddnort said:

Indeed, good points you make. I have ever so much enjoyed this game for its attention to detail and the game play. To a degree my complaint about the British cruiser line is minor, I’m happy there is one. However, since you mention it, I do have to harp on the carrier portion of this game. Having been a longtime Battlestations Midway/Pacific player I am appalled at the contrast of gameplay quality between aircraft carriers and the rest of the surface fleet. The gameplay mechanics for carriers is pedantic, clunky, out of sync, and just plain bush-league. It is no wonder few play that portion of the game. If the gameplay mechanics from Battlestations were adopted there would huge participation, because it would be manageable, emersive and fun.

I'm not sure how the CV gameplay mechanics are actually "pedantic", etc.  though there's little doubt that they're difficult to use at times.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
377 posts
2 hours ago, Crucis said:

I'm not sure how the CV gameplay mechanics are actually "pedantic", etc.  though there's little doubt that they're difficult to use at times.

 

By pedantic I mean fussy. It's certainly playable, but there's a better way to do this. :-)

Check this out, this will show you BSP gameplay with a carrier and the fleet (note this game has multi-player mode too): 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,616
[SALVO]
Members
16,721 posts
17,314 battles
On ‎1‎/‎31‎/‎2018 at 11:47 AM, Dreddnort said:

Yes, it would be nice for the formation of a heavy cruiser lineup, though I would imagine they would have to rework all the other nations too, maybe we would see the USS Alaska :-)

It would be challenging to develop an RN heavy cruiser line, because the RN really didn't build all that many different CAs or all that many CAs at all.  From what I've read, this was an economic decision based on their need to have a lot of cruisers to cover a lot of territory.  And CLs are rather less expensive than CAs, so they could build more of them for the same amount of money.  

On top of that, some of the CA designs I've seen seem rather lightly armed, having only six 8" guns, compared to other nations' CA's which would have upwards of 8, 9, or 10 guns.

 

I suppose only time will tell.  The devs might consider doing a RN premium CA as a way to get them into the game.  Also, it sorta begs the question whether the RN CAs would follow the same pattern as the CLs or the BBs in terms of ammo, and whether they'll be smoke shooters like the CLs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
4 posts
2,154 battles

I'd love a RN CA line! I've loved the Hawkins class for a while and I feel like it'd be excellent to have the class that really defined heavy cruisers in the game.

The problem is, after the Hawkins you get the Counties and the York/Exeter and that's it. I do think there's a lot of variety in the two classes, but I don't see them being viable higher than tier 7. I'm not sure the paper designs exist to make a full tree.

Historically the RN really did run with the light cruiser idea, and develop it all the way out. I love that there's a unity of design from T2-5 and a second one from T6 on it. I'm sure WG will eventually putting out some heavies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
175
[70]
Members
961 posts
3,695 battles

RN has plenty of paper heavy cruisers that are vastly less napkin than say the Zao or Moskva.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,616
[SALVO]
Members
16,721 posts
17,314 battles
On ‎1‎/‎31‎/‎2018 at 10:45 PM, Spieges said:

Perhaps the future will hold a RN Cruiser Tree Split, much like the Americans will be receiving in a few months.

Why would there need to be an RN cruiser tree split?  After all, the RN cruiser line is a line of strictly LIGHT cruisers.  if they add in heavies at some point, it'll just be a second cruiser line, not really as "split" at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
135
[ODIN]
[ODIN]
Members
456 posts
13,203 battles
2 hours ago, Crucis said:

Why would there need to be an RN cruiser tree split?  After all, the RN cruiser line is a line of strictly LIGHT cruisers.  if they add in heavies at some point, it'll just be a second cruiser line, not really as "split" at all.

Split is the term used around here. The Russians, Japanese, and now American are getting a split in the line. Referring to the fact that at some point two lines depart from the single line. That's literally the language everyone here uses to describe it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,616
[SALVO]
Members
16,721 posts
17,314 battles
17 minutes ago, Spieges said:

Split is the term used around here. The Russians, Japanese, and now American are getting a split in the line. Referring to the fact that at some point two lines depart from the single line. That's literally the language everyone here uses to describe it.

But the difference is that in all 3 of those examples, there was an actual literal split.  There would be no actual literal split with the RN CL line.  It'd be a second line.

With the Russian DD line, you ended up with  DDs from the original line in both of the new lines.  Ditto for the IJN DD line.  And ditto for the USN CL/CA line split.  This won't be true if they add a CA line as a second RN cruiser line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
135
[ODIN]
[ODIN]
Members
456 posts
13,203 battles
53 minutes ago, Crucis said:

But the difference is that in all 3 of those examples, there was an actual literal split.  There would be no actual literal split with the RN CL line.  It'd be a second line.

With the Russian DD line, you ended up with  DDs from the original line in both of the new lines.  Ditto for the IJN DD line.  And ditto for the USN CL/CA line split.  This won't be true if they add a CA line as a second RN cruiser line.

Well much like all the lines, it would start off with light cruisers and split to accommodate heavy cruisers. Heavy and Light cruisers are differentiated by their gun caliber. For instance all the cruisers up until Omaha are Light cruisers. Then the line splits into a heavy and Light line based gun size. Cleveland is being moved because 152mm main gins make her a light cruiser where as Pensacola, New Orleans, Baltimore, Buffalo, and Des Moines all have 203mm guns. The German cruisers are much the same in that everything from Nurnberg and below are less than 203mm guns. York and above all have 203mm guns and are heavy cruisers. Aoba, Algerie, and Donskoi are all the same.

 

HMS Emerald, commisioned 1926, and the HMS Cumberland, commissioned in 1928, shows a real separation in these ships armaments. So my guess would be that at tier 5 or 6 you would see the line branch off and become a heavy line and the original line would remain. The light line. 

Being that before tier 6 we don't really see any 203mm, except maybe Furutaka, I would guess they wouldn't implement those guns sooner as it could be considered power creeping and/or over powered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,616
[SALVO]
Members
16,721 posts
17,314 battles
3 minutes ago, Spieges said:

Well much like all the lines, it would start off with light cruisers and split to accommodate heavy cruisers. Heavy and Light cruisers are differentiated by their gun caliber. For instance all the cruisers up until Omaha are Light cruisers. Then the line splits into a heavy and Light line based gun size. Cleveland is being moved because 152mm main gins make her a light cruiser where as Pensacola, New Orleans, Baltimore, Buffalo, and Des Moines all have 203mm guns. The German cruisers are much the same in that everything from Nurnberg and below are less than 203mm guns. York and above all have 203mm guns and are heavy cruisers. Aoba, Algerie, and Donskoi are all the same.

 

HMS Emerald, commisioned 1926, and the HMS Cumberland, commissioned in 1928, shows a real separation in these ships armaments. So my guess would be that at tier 5 or 6 you would see the line branch off and become a heavy line and the original line would remain. The light line. 

Being that before tier 6 we don't really see any 203mm, except maybe Furutaka, I would guess they wouldn't implement those guns sooner as it could be considered power creeping and/or over powered.

Meh, it's more of a forking than a splitting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
135
[ODIN]
[ODIN]
Members
456 posts
13,203 battles
2 minutes ago, Crucis said:

Meh, it's more of a forking than a splitting.

Fair enough. I'm just using the general lingo. A split, fork, separation, or divergence; doesn't matter. I get what you're saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×