Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
Airglide2

The pro and cons of adding a Battle Crusier line-ish

54 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
702 posts
9,924 battles

The new T9 VMF CC has caused quite a commotion since its reveal.  But when I thought about turning it into a BC class, separate from the others, my mind came up with little on the pros and cons of such an idea.  

So I turn to the brilliant minds here looking for answers to my question.  Again pros and cons because if WG went through with this I think might the very first time they added a definitive 5th class to the whole game.

Ok, go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
679
[MIA-A]
Members
1,974 posts
6,570 battles

Pros:

  • Fits into MM fine
  • Allows more hybrid boats without gimping them
  • Lets WG add more content in the battlecruiser lines without breaking MM

 

Cons:

  • Would require a new class, potentially complicated for WG to implement
  • Not all nations could have a full tree of battlecruisers

Honestly I don't see any real reason for WG not to do that.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,435
[REVY]
Members
6,017 posts
5,102 battles
Just now, enderland07 said:

Pros:

  • Fits into MM fine
  • Allows more hybrid boats without gimping them
  • Lets WG add more content in the battlecruiser lines without breaking MM

 

Cons:

  • Would require a new class, potentially complicated for WG to implement
  • Not all nations could have a full tree of battlecruisers

Honestly I don't see any real reason for WG not to do that.

In WOT, the tech tree diverges constantly.  Heavy Tanks can lead into artillery, medium tanks can lead into tank-destroyers.  There's no reason why a BB line can't become a hybrid BB/BC line, with the Battlecruisers marked and MMed as Battlecruisers and the Battleships marked and MMed as Battleships.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
702 posts
9,924 battles
4 minutes ago, enderland07 said:

Pros:

  • Fits into MM fine
  • Allows more hybrid boats without gimping them
  • Lets WG add more content in the battlecruiser lines without breaking MM

 

Cons:

  • Would require a new class, potentially complicated for WG to implement
  • Not all nations could have a full tree of battlecruisers

Honestly I don't see any real reason for WG not to do that.

 

3 minutes ago, Sventex said:

In WOT, the tech tree diverges constantly.  Heavy Tanks can lead into artillery, medium tanks can lead into tank-destroyers.  There's no reason why a BB line can't become a hybrid BB/BC line, with the Battlecruisers marked and MMed as Battlecruisers and the Battleships marked and MMed as Battleships.

Exactly, it's why I put "ish" in the title, WOT and WOWP has branches that just contain, what, 3-4 vehicles for a certain line.  I am aware that not every nation has a full line worth of BCs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
679
[MIA-A]
Members
1,974 posts
6,570 battles
6 minutes ago, Sventex said:

In WOT, the tech tree diverges constantly.  Heavy Tanks can lead into artillery, medium tanks can lead into tank-destroyers.  There's no reason why a BB line can't become a hybrid BB/BC line, with the Battlecruisers marked and MMed as Battlecruisers and the Battleships marked and MMed as Battleships.

That's actually what i was thinking, too, have the BCs be branches off of various ships.

The IX can branch from the VIII CA (since no Russian BB line exists).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16
[KSC]
Supertester
53 posts
7,239 battles

They could be a split bb line for each nation who has bbs. The standard tradeoff for most battlecruisers were less armor , more speed, bb size guns. I think if they stick with that mentality it would work fine as alternate BBS in matchmaking. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,435
[REVY]
Members
6,017 posts
5,102 battles
7 minutes ago, Airglide2 said:

 

Exactly, it's why I put "ish" in the title, WOT and WOWP has branches that just contain, what, 3-4 vehicles for a certain line.  I am aware that not every nation has a full line worth of BCs.

It's a little more dynamic then that.  Medium Tanks and Heavy Tanks can share the same line, and a sub-line can be formed that is only 2 tiers long.

WlnIZNc.jpg

Edited by Sventex
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,435
[REVY]
Members
6,017 posts
5,102 battles
1 minute ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

Doesn't matter.  All ships are targets.

So are heavy tanks.  But I didn't relish the matches in WOT where one side got 8 heavy tanks and my team got none.  Chances of victory were like 3%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
601
[HYDRO]
Members
1,319 posts
3,668 battles

I think WG is kinda split on that regard. Kronstadt is judged as a cruiser, Hood however or even Amagi, both BCs, ended up being designated BBs, so that muddies the waters. We are just gonna have to wait and see on how they want to play this. As for pros and cons, I think a big con would be the possibility of making cruisers obsolete.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
84
[WOLF5]
Members
439 posts
18,289 battles

The proposed VMF CC T-IX is interesting, but what everyone isn't mentioning is that it gets the same damage control as the Oktyabrskaya Revolutsiya. That's right currently it's got 3 base repair party charges. That means even with superintendent and premium consumables, it only gets 5 repairs but with a 20s cool down.

Since fire damage is ticked as a health percentage over time of the ship, are commanders likely to allow a single to burn for the reduced cruiser time or are they going to use a damage con? Add that to the fact that as a cruiser it gets one less repair party, is that enough to balance the huge health pool that it starts with - that's the question.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,360 posts
3,915 battles

I don't think there are enough battlecruisers to warrant making them a whole new ship type; would they then face excessively long queues attempting to get into games? Or would they be somehow balanced in the MM (like 1 BC = 1 DD + 1 CL)?

Certainly, I think classifying them as cruisers is an enormous and utterly ridiculous approach. It doesn't matter what navies called something if that was what it was. If Germany referred to Bismarck as a light cruiser, does that mean that she should be classified as a light cruiser in WoWs because "that's what they said"...? No. And the argument maintains its belligerent level of stupidity with regards to BCs. These were capital-sized vessels mounting capital-sized guns and secondaries - they were not "super cruisers."

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,435
[REVY]
Members
6,017 posts
5,102 battles
3 minutes ago, Cruiser_Fiume said:

I don't think there are enough battlecruisers to warrant making them a whole new ship type; would they then face excessively long queues attempting to get into games? Or would they be somehow balanced in the MM (like 1 BC = 1 DD + 1 CL)?

Certainly, I think classifying them as cruisers is an enormous and utterly ridiculous approach. It doesn't matter what navies called something if that was what it was. If Germany referred to Bismarck as a light cruiser, does that mean that she should be classified as a light cruiser in WoWs because "that's what they said"...? No. And the argument maintains its belligerent level of stupidity with regards to BCs. These were capital-sized vessels mounting capital-sized guns and secondaries - they were not "super cruisers."

I think MM should try to match BCs against each other, and if unable, default against a Battleship.  It would just be like current MM, but BC at least have an attempt at matching type against each other first.

Edited by Sventex
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,071
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
6,683 posts
10,011 battles

I don't see battlecruisers as being different enough from battleships to warrant a whole new type.

We already have destroyers and 'destroyer leaders' in the same classification, as well as heavy and light cruisers. I'd say there's more difference between say a Moskva and a Minotaur than a prospective battlecruiser Tiger and an Iron Duke.

 

If you did roll out another 'type' it'd be best to try and get as much content out as much, perhaps with a dual Germany-UK line release.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,571
[BIAS]
Members
3,047 posts
9,021 battles
50 minutes ago, enderland07 said:

Pros:

  • Fits into MM fine
  • Allows more hybrid boats without gimping them
  • Lets WG add more content in the battlecruiser lines without breaking MM

 

Cons:

  • Would require a new class, potentially complicated for WG to implement
  • Not all nations could have a full tree of battlecruisers

Honestly I don't see any real reason for WG not to do that.

Honestly you might have partial lines but allow them to go back to cruiser or Battleship lines  at the end of them. The akizukiu line feels gimped right now because there is nothing to go to from the end of the line despite it being a t8. If you could go to the battlesruiser line from both bBBs and CA/CL's and back to them at the end if its a partial line, it would work very well.

Share this post


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

My opinion(s):

1. According to the logic stated in this thread, NO line but cruiser lines are complete as every other line starts at tier 2 or higher, so there is no reason to worry about a new line splitting off an existing line at any given tier.

2. We currently have a DD line which ends at tier 8, and no one has died of that yet.

3. I have been in games where there are no BB's, where there are no Cruisers, and where there are no DD's. Have also been in matches where one team will have more of one type of ship than the other team does. And again, no one has died of that either.

More ships is always better; don't play 'em if ya don't like 'em!

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
360
[ARP2]
Members
1,224 posts
3,566 battles

Id be willing to bet its an inevitability.  Once there are sufficient ships in the game a BC/BB split only seems logical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,408 posts
2,205 battles

If it cuts into the MM to reduce the amount of potential BBs and DD on a team, I wonder what that would do for cue times? Though I guess it would need entire lines for it to really matter. It is interesting though, an inbetween of battleships and cruisers. I wonder how that would shake up future premiums? Would we need entire lines to start off with if this is to become a thing? Could the cruiser divides lead into a battle cruiser line (starting at T-V or VI) and be given to all nations?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
175
[70]
Members
961 posts
3,691 battles
1 hour ago, Cruiser_Fiume said:

Certainly, I think classifying them as cruisers is an enormous and utterly ridiculous approach. It doesn't matter what navies called something if that was what it was. If Germany referred to Bismarck as a light cruiser, does that mean that she should be classified as a light cruiser in WoWs because "that's what they said"...? No. And the argument maintains its belligerent level of stupidity with regards to BCs. These were capital-sized vessels mounting capital-sized guns and secondaries - they were not "super cruisers."

There is one exception to your claim... a certain trio of "Large Light Cruisers" would like a word.

Courageous-class battlecruisers had 3-inch belts...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,360 posts
3,915 battles
9 minutes ago, Guardian54 said:

There is one exception to your claim... a certain trio of "Large Light Cruisers" would like a word.

Courageous-class battlecruisers had 3-inch belts...

They were still battlecruisers. Again, the "large light cruiser" thing was done for political reasons, as it was for most of these ships - the political climate at the time was extremely unfavorable to further battlecruiser construction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44
[WISCO]
[WISCO]
Members
209 posts
4,852 battles
2 hours ago, Sventex said:

In WOT, the tech tree diverges constantly.  Heavy Tanks can lead into artillery, medium tanks can lead into tank-destroyers.  There's no reason why a BB line can't become a hybrid BB/BC line, with the Battlecruisers marked and MMed as Battlecruisers and the Battleships marked and MMed as Battleships.

I totally agree with this.  I wish this is something WG will end up doing.  The day the Alaska is made a Tier 7 BB WG will have officially jumped the shark imo lol

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,360 posts
3,915 battles
6 minutes ago, Jonesyrules15 said:

I totally agree with this.  I wish this is something WG will end up doing.  The day the Alaska is made a Tier 7 BB WG will have officially jumped the shark imo lol

I could not disagree with this more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,071
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
6,683 posts
10,011 battles
55 minutes ago, Cruiser_Fiume said:

They were still battlecruisers. Again, the "large light cruiser" thing was done for political reasons, as it was for most of these ships - the political climate at the time was extremely unfavorable to further battlecruiser construction.

Well, my wild call is that they're monitors. Low gun count, intended for shore bombardment, shallow draft. They might be fast but 2x 18in isn't a serious combat warship.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,435
[REVY]
Members
6,017 posts
5,102 battles
11 minutes ago, mofton said:

Well, my wild call is that they're monitors. Low gun count, intended for shore bombardment, shallow draft. They might be fast but 2x 18in isn't a serious combat warship.

 

No, clearly Furious was an Aircraft Carrier.  Probably the worst one ever built.

HMS_Furious-1.jpg

Edited by Sventex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
175
[70]
Members
961 posts
3,691 battles
1 hour ago, Cruiser_Fiume said:

They were still battlecruisers. Again, the "large light cruiser" thing was done for political reasons, as it was for most of these ships - the political climate at the time was extremely unfavorable to further battlecruiser construction.

And I suppose you will put them after the Renowns and before the Admiral-class because it's historical?

They would be the most wildly underpowered heaps of crapever to grace a game, and no amount of gimmicks would make them good.

I'd rate them a Tier 4 premium with BB MM, or BC MM for that matter.

They were more monitors than battlecruisers.

Edited by Guardian54

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×