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

Here's a way-out idea for US cruisers...

24 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,721
[ARGSY]
Members
5,800 posts
3,966 battles

1) Delay the split, long enough to...

2) Develop the Alaska. Then...

3) Kick the Cleveland over to the light cruiser line and launch that as planned. Meanwhile...

4) Everything in the heavy line drops a tier to fill in the gap. EVERYTHING else, even the Des Moines.

5) Alaska drops in at the top, to face the 12-inch Tier X Soviet monster and the 10 inch-gunned French fantasy.

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
456
[LUCK]
Members
1,276 posts
19,060 battles

Better idea...give the USN Helena and Cleveland historical rate of fire and ,a la German BBs, longer range secondaries where appropriate. Pairs nicely with the AA specialty IMO.

Then develop Alaska as a premium, sell it and make a boatload of money.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,029
[DAKI]
WoWS Wiki Editor
7,216 posts
6,433 battles

Oh plz no.

Why do you think are there so many rificulous T10 Cruisers? Because the only one that was completed set such a high standard.

The step from T8 to T9 is usually a moderate one. Mogami becomes Ibuki, which is a noticable, though small, improvement. New Orleans becomes Baltimore, which is a favorable trade-off. Chapyev becomes Donskoi, again a trade-off. And so on...

And then Des Moines follows the Baltimore, and it‘s a huge leap. We basically double the firepower, multiply the AA by the factor 3 and give a belt armor that can bounce shells better.

And now with those standards, you need to select other T10 Cruisers. Which leads us to the fantasy Hindenburg and Henri, the ridiculous Zao with not less ridiculous guns, the Moskva which needs no further explanation and the Minotaur, which is a floating gimmick.

And now you want to drop the Des Moines to Tier 9?

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,460
[AXANR]
Members
3,357 posts
16,533 battles

Alaska will almost definitely be a premium IMO. Wargaming won't pass up that opportunity when we all know a ton of players would open their wallets for that ship. The collectors will get their history geekdom on and the people who love playing fun botes will shell out because of how fun she'll be to play if she's well-balanced. I'll buy her opening day if she gets even a half-decent review from LittleWhiteMouse and/or a few of the more credible/knowledgable Youtubers/streamers. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,721
[ARGSY]
Members
5,800 posts
3,966 battles
54 minutes ago, SireneRacker said:

Oh plz no.

Why do you think are there so many rificulous T10 Cruisers? Because the only one that was completed set such a high standard.

The step from T8 to T9 is usually a moderate one. Mogami becomes Ibuki, which is a noticable, though small, improvement. New Orleans becomes Baltimore, which is a favorable trade-off. Chapyev becomes Donskoi, again a trade-off. And so on...

And then Des Moines follows the Baltimore, and it‘s a huge leap. We basically double the firepower, multiply the AA by the factor 3 and give a belt armor that can bounce shells better.

And now with those standards, you need to select other T10 Cruisers. Which leads us to the fantasy Hindenburg and Henri, the ridiculous Zao with not less ridiculous guns, the Moskva which needs no further explanation and the Minotaur, which is a floating gimmick.

And now you want to drop the Des Moines to Tier 9?

Point taken and acknowledged.

 

The Minotaur, to be fair to it, was at the very least a serious design study that would have been built if the British had had the money. Unfortunately her twin main armament mount - which WAS built and DID enter service, albeit on other hulls - was hideously, horrifically unreliable (including one fatal accident that happened while trying to sort the bugs out). So it's probably better that a ship with five of those never saw the light of day. I suspect the entire class would have made fine bases for conversion to missile cruisers.

Edited by Ensign_Cthulhu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
184
[WOLFB]
Beta Testers
1,446 posts
6,478 battles
56 minutes ago, poeticmotion said:

Alaska will almost definitely be a premium IMO. Wargaming won't pass up that opportunity when we all know a ton of players would open their wallets for that ship. The collectors will get their history geekdom on and the people who love playing fun botes will shell out because of how fun she'll be to play if she's well-balanced. I'll buy her opening day if she gets even a half-decent review from LittleWhiteMouse and/or a few of the more credible/knowledgable Youtubers/streamers. 

USN cruisers definitely need another premium 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,029
[DAKI]
WoWS Wiki Editor
7,216 posts
6,433 battles
1 minute ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

The Minotaur, to be fair to it, was at the very least a serious design study that would have been built if the British had had the money. Unfortunately her twin main armament mount - which WAS built and DID enter service, albeit on other hulls - was hideously, horrifically unreliable (including one fatal accident that happened while trying to sort the bugs out). So it's probably better that a ship with five of those never saw the light of day. I suspect the entire class would have made fine bases for conversion to missile cruisers.

The Moskva was also a serious study which happened under the term Project 66, and her guns were developed and a Prototype entered testing. However the Sovjets deemed her too large for carrying 'only' 220mm guns, so her design was then thrown out of the window. Kind of understandable, though I don't get why they then had to follow the idea of Project 82 with the Stalingrad...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
184
[WOLFB]
Beta Testers
1,446 posts
6,478 battles
9 minutes ago, SireneRacker said:

The Moskva was also a serious study which happened under the term Project 66, and her guns were developed and a Prototype entered testing. However the Sovjets deemed her too large for carrying 'only' 220mm guns, so her design was then thrown out of the window. Kind of understandable, though I don't get why they then had to follow the idea of Project 82 with the Stalingrad...

It was the Soviet way. No rhyme or reason. There is the, just is clause, in communist government bureaucracy. :Smile_teethhappy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,353
[SYN]
Members
4,530 posts
11,433 battles

Not the best idea ever...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
841 posts
4,880 battles

I'm still against the whole idea of even having light cruisers past tier 6. The only way they can survive is to invisifire from smoke or island-hump to fire over the islands - two things this game needs LESS of not more. The whole USN cruiser split just makes this problem worse (and the USN CAs were underpowered vs the other CA lines, so instead of addressing that, they're lowering their tier (that could help) but then nerfing their stats and removing abilities (making them even weaker) - then putting in a new line of ships that can only survive by - you guessed it, invisifiring from smoke or islandhumping.

They're trading one set of problems for another, while fixing none.

Edited by FleetAdmiral_Assassin
  • Cool 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,030
[OPG]
Members
3,901 posts
5,488 battles
1 minute ago, FleetAdmiral_Assassin said:

I'm still against the whole idea of even having light cruisers past tier 6. The only way they can survive is to invisifire from smoke or island-hump to fire over the islands - two things this game needs LESS of not more.

You do realize the only difference between a light cruiser and a heavy cruiser is the guns right?  And given light cruisers generally have better DPM, they're often stronger than heavy cruisers.  Just compare the Mogami 155 to the Mogami 203 for instance....

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,520
[OO7]
Alpha Tester
6,699 posts
3,459 battles

Right now the CL line isn't built to survive, and the CA line that was already weak is even weaker.

If you compare all the ships on paper, side by side, they're closest to the Aoba, Yorck, Hipper, and Ibuki at each Tier.

What do those all have in common? Being considered the weakest non-USN CAs at their Tier.

If the USN was better than them artillary wise I would understand the closeness in other areas. Without torpedoes though this seems like a glaring mistake.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
841 posts
4,880 battles
3 minutes ago, yashma said:

You do realize the only difference between a light cruiser and a heavy cruiser is the guns right?  And given light cruisers generally have better DPM, they're often stronger than heavy cruisers.  Just compare the Mogami 155 to the Mogami 203 for instance....

I am fully aware of what the game difference is between light and heavy cruisers (as well as what the differences are in real life). In game the higher tier light cruisers are far squishier than the in game higher tier heavy cruisers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,030
[OPG]
Members
3,901 posts
5,488 battles
36 minutes ago, FleetAdmiral_Assassin said:

I am fully aware of what the game difference is between light and heavy cruisers (as well as what the differences are in real life). In game the higher tier light cruisers are far squishier than the in game higher tier heavy cruisers.

If you exclude RN CLs and their gimmicky nature....there is no real precedent for that.  The Mogami is simultaneously both a light cruiser and a heavy cruiser....I don't really think you can say the Chapayev or Kutuzov are all that more squishy than the New Orleans, and from my experience the Donskoi is actually a bit tankier than the Ibuki.  Other than those four the only other high tier CLs are all British...and they're deliberately made to be super squishy to compensate for the fact they get smoke. 

Edited by yashma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
841 posts
4,880 battles
2 minutes ago, yashma said:

If you exclude RN CLs and their gimmicky nature....there is no real precedent for that.  The Mogami is simultaneously both a light cruiser and a heavy cruiser....I don't really think you can say the Chapayev is all that more squishy than the New Orleans, and from my experience the Donskoi is actually a bit tankier than the Ibuki.  Other than those three the only  other high tier CLs are all British...and they're deliberately made to be super squishy to compensate for the fact they get smoke. 

WHy would I exclude the entire line of RN cruisers? that's the direction that WG is going with CLs.

Edited by FleetAdmiral_Assassin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,030
[OPG]
Members
3,901 posts
5,488 battles
Just now, FleetAdmiral_Assassin said:

WHy would I exclude the entire line of RN cruisers? that's the direction that WG is going with CLs.

No it's not.  That was a one off gimmick unique to RN CLs, and has no bearing on USN CLs.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,861
[O7]
Supertester, Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
10,668 posts
7,566 battles
24 minutes ago, FleetAdmiral_Assassin said:

WHy would I exclude the entire line of RN cruisers? that's the direction that WG is going with CLs.

RN CLs are not like other CLs, they have thinner extremity armor, a super heal, and smoke. USN CLs will be armored similar to the USN CAs, you can already go a check those values on a number of websites. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,029
[DAKI]
WoWS Wiki Editor
7,216 posts
6,433 battles
38 minutes ago, FleetAdmiral_Assassin said:

WHy would I exclude the entire line of RN cruisers? that's the direction that WG is going with CLs.

RN CLs got artificially nerfed hull plating, a (stronger) heal and no HE available. They are the defintion of a gimmick line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,460
[AXANR]
Members
3,357 posts
16,533 battles
36 minutes ago, 1nv4d3rZ1m said:

RN CLs are not like other CLs, they have thinner extremity armor, a super heal, and smoke. USN CLs will be armored similar to the USN CAs, you can already go a check those values on a number of websites. 

This. USN CLs were built and armored to the same standard as their CAs; the only difference was armament. The USN preferred CAs and their doctrine was built around them, but was forced to develop 6-inch gun cruisers to maximize their cruiser tonnage under the 1930 London Treaty; they still expected their CLs to be as survivable as their CAs.

Most of their wartime cruisers, both light and heavy, shared the same basic hull as the Brooklyn-class CL. From a doctrine perspective, the USN expected cruisers to be cruisers, whether emphasizing ROF or heavier shells.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,352
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
7,195 posts
2,029 battles

Des Moines at tier IX? Heck no.

 

She's arguably one of the biggest mistakes made in the game, because she's so far removed from any other cruiser. She's the reason every nation basically has to fudge their tier X cruisers often for lack of even paper designs (Mino and Moskva are actual designs, while Zao, Hindenburg, and Henri IV are WG's designs) - which causes a world of balancing issues.

 

Dropping her to tier IX would be the most absurd level of powercreep imaginable. 

 

As for Alaska - she's not suited to tier X, too big and lacking Stalingrad's extremity armor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
266
[SEOP]
Members
1,286 posts

Not a fan of the most current WoT handling of the revised Pensacola.  Turret traverse being increased -- gun range nerfed -- etc.  What's the point.  Its below mediocre now at T7.  The new version will be below-mediocre at T6.   Please make it a competitive hvy cruiser after the split or don't bother.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
82
[SOUTH]
Members
233 posts
2,368 battles

TBH my favorite idea for US Cruisers is Gun Reload Booster.

Like a 60 second boost for RoF by a few seconds. Let them have a mad minute of shell blamming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×