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

CA-CL Differentiation

26 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

456
[LUCK]
Members
1,275 posts
18,969 battles

There is an iChase video about the T8 Cleveland/Columbia and he floated an interesting idea very late after describing how utterly, completely, totally horrific and unplayable the ship is in its current state, but I digress.

The idea he suggested is perhaps a a clearer distinction can be made between CAs and CLs by allowing CLs to be immune to some DWTs or something along that lines- as differentiation.

That got me to thinking about cruisers in general.

What if :

CAs (8" guns and up) get heals  (yes even Furutaka) and CLs (6" and down) NO CITADEL (and no heal- just RN as they already have it)

I guess the outliers are Molotov and Donskoi so, as they are Russian, they get both a heal and no citadel (just kidding, both get heals and keep their citadel).

It's an interesting idea, and yes I know Baltimore and Cleveland have somewhat the same hull, but remember this is not a simulation any longer and history is merely a suggestion at this point in the game so...stow it with all the technicalities (some do apply).

Perhaps this can find its way into MM as well, CA and CL, could help- maybe hurt.

It is an interesting idea to further differentiate the two and maybe it encourages WG to look at RN heavy cruisers, IJN light cruisers, etc.

Thoughts anyone? Problems? Dilemmas?

SO IT IS CLEAR TO ALL THE MYOPIC, READING COMPREHENSION CHALLENGED, THIS IS A THOUGHT EXERCISE I AM INVITING PEOPLE TO PARTICIPATE IN NOT A "THEY SHOULD PUT THIS IN THE GAME" THING

Edited by Wye_So_Serious

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,582
[SALVO]
Members
16,618 posts
17,276 battles

The fact of the matter is that there's often no real difference between the hulls of CAs and CLs.  The only difference is in the size of the main guns they mount.  It's entirely possible to take a Cleveland hull and replace the 6" guns with 8" guns and turn it into a heavy cruiser.  

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,844
[O7]
Supertester, Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
10,654 posts
7,555 battles

CA vs CL only exists because of a treaty that expired before ww2 that differentiated cruisers based on gun caliber. Especially for the USN CL vs CA means very little because its only gun size and they use the same hulls. IJN even has a ship that can pick CA or CL on the same hull.  Because of that people have fits over CA vs CL and omg that "cruiser" has guns larger than 203 mm which is obnoxious. 

 

However I do agree with the heals on CAs and DWT immunity on CLs. It is interesting to make that distinction and sets up CLs to be better DD hunters. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
608
[NMKJT]
Members
2,676 posts

What about  CBs or CCs if we get the Alaska and British Battle Cruisers added? Or pre-1930 cruisers which had completely different hulls classifications?

I think it's too complicated, the hull classifications get a bit arcane. And  I don't agree with immunity to DWT for any cruiser. A DD should have defense against it's natural predator. And the predator should have pause to think before rushing that smoke cloud. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
387
[C-CA]
[C-CA]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
1,423 posts
3,367 battles
1 hour ago, 1nv4d3rZ1m said:

CA vs CL only exists because of a treaty that expired before ww2 that differentiated cruisers based on gun caliber. Especially for the USN CL vs CA means very little because its only gun size and they use the same hulls. IJN even has a ship that can pick CA or CL on the same hull.  Because of that people have fits over CA vs CL and omg that "cruiser" has guns larger than 203 mm which is obnoxious. 

 

However I do agree with the heals on CAs and DWT immunity on CLs. It is interesting to make that distinction and sets up CLs to be better DD hunters. 

So what about the entire line of CLs currently in game whose gimmick is super heals?  I'm with Wombatmetal on this one, this would just be another layer of added confusion for newer players since CAs and CLs use the same icons and in most cases even the same tech tree lines. Heck, how many people who download WoWs just because they want a fun boat game where they can shoot stuff even know about stuff like the Washington Naval Treaty or what a treaty cruiser is?

Let's keep the DWT shenanigans limited to what the devs already have inbound.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
444
[BOTES]
Members
1,895 posts
6,607 battles

I only want a class distinction for balancing purposes. As more CLs are added, their concealment, radar, and other features will become important to teamplay. Not having one will cause imbalance just like not having radar, a non VMF DD, same number of DDs, etc.

If you have Perth or Huang He, you know exactly what I'm talking about. MM considers you equivalent to a Molotov even though a Molotov can't outspot other cruisers or contest DDs easily. This problem is the same reason I want nation balancing for DD or an equivalent, like classifying high tier VMF DD as DD leaders or large DDs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
184
[WOLFB]
Beta Testers
1,446 posts
6,408 battles
3 hours ago, Wye_So_Serious said:

There is an iChase video about the T8 Cleveland/Columbia and he floated an interesting idea very late after describing how utterly, completely, totally horrific and unplayable the ship is in its current state, but I digress.

The idea he suggested is perhaps a a clearer distinction can be made between CAs and CLs by allowing CLs to be immune to some DWTs or something along that lines- as differentiation.

That got me to thinking about cruisers in general.

What if :

CAs (8" guns and up) get heals  (yes even Furutaka) and CLs (6" and down) NO CITADEL (and no heal- just RN as they already have it)

I guess the outliers are Molotov and Donskoi so, as they are Russian, they get both a heal and no citadel (just kidding, both get heals and keep their citadel).

It's an interesting idea, and yes I know Baltimore and Cleveland have somewhat the same hull, but remember this is not a simulation any longer and history is merely a suggestion at this point in the game so...stow it with all the technicalities (some do apply).

Perhaps this can find its way into MM as well, CA and CL, could help- maybe hurt.

It is an interesting idea to further differentiate the two and maybe it encourages WG to look at RN heavy cruisers, IJN light cruisers, etc.

Thoughts anyone? Problems? Dilemmas?

SO IT IS CLEAR TO ALL THE MYOPIC, READING COMPREHENSION CHALLENGED, THIS IS A THOUGHT EXERCISE I AM INVITING PEOPLE TO PARTICIPATE IN NOT A "THEY SHOULD PUT THIS IN THE GAME" THING

We don't need non citadel cruisers. Hulls are basically same for both class of ship. The DWT issue is pretty much an un needed complication.
I have no problem with cruisers in general. They certainly do not need to be dumbed down in how they play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,417
[5BS]
Members
4,471 posts
7 hours ago, Wye_So_Serious said:

CLs to be immune to some DWTs

It's not DWT's, or even torps for the most part, that are the bane of a CL's existence (or CA's): it's taking massive hits that leave you crippled the whole match.

7 hours ago, Wye_So_Serious said:

I guess the outliers are Molotov and Donskoi so, as they are Russian, they get both a heal and no citadel (just kidding, both get heals and keep their citadel).

Russia (USSR) was not a signatory of the Washington or London Naval treaty and thus never had to adhere to the 'Light Cruiser' and 'Heavy Cruiser' dynamic; they just had cruisers. We can call their 6" gunned ships Light Cruisers, but they would not be considered, under international law, as such, as the operator did not sign the treaty dictating those terms.

7 hours ago, Wye_So_Serious said:

 

CAs (8" guns and up) get heals  (yes even Furutaka) and CLs (6" and down) NO CITADEL (and no heal- just RN as they already have it)

I'd like it but then I would. I think a better solution though is fix how spike damage is handled, on all ships, in the whole game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,686
[ARGSY]
Members
5,731 posts
3,912 battles
12 hours ago, Wye_So_Serious said:

The idea he suggested is perhaps a a clearer distinction can be made between CAs and CLs by allowing CLs to be immune to some DWTs or something along that lines- as differentiation.

Maybe I'm seeing things wrong here, but the visuals I get are those of a unicum YouTuber/community contributor wanting contractual immunity from something that ruins his playstyle, and they are not pretty. In any case, he should be more aware than anyone else that WG played around with the idea of draught-based DWT and some cruisers being immune, and they ended that for very good reasons.

The differentiation between CA and CL is clear; it is GUN CALIBRE.

8 hours ago, Landsraad said:

Let's keep the DWT shenanigans limited to what the devs already have inbound.

Most definitely. "Well you see, THESE deep-water torpedoes sink everything except destroyers and THOSE deep-water torpedoes sink only battleships and carriers and THESE OTHER deep-water torpedoes sink whatever ship type had the highest win rate in the last month, and..."

8 hours ago, Crusin_Custard said:

We don't need non citadel cruisers. 

We already have non-citadel cruisers, they are called Khabarovsk :Smile_hiding: (ETA: and at lower tiers, arguably the Aigle). Just as we already have citadel destroyers; they are called Tenryu.

Edited by Ensign_Cthulhu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,940
[SYN]
Members
14,366 posts
10,224 battles

On the whole, CL does the job better than CA anyways.
More guns that fire faster = more HE DPM and more fire chance
More HE DPM is invaluable in sinking ships, especially DDs.

 

Besides, the 'lightest' CL in higher tiers is Mogami, with a draft of 5.5m - 6.15m
Cleveland doesn't even come close, with 7.5m - 7.77m draft

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,011
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
16,019 posts
11,538 battles
36 minutes ago, MrDeaf said:

On the whole, CL does the job better than CA anyways.

pretty much this.  While people like CAs because they put up big alphas on other cruisers, CLs are better, just like the were IRL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
456
[LUCK]
Members
1,275 posts
18,969 battles

I'm dispensing with the dictionary definition of CA/CL for this relative to gun caliber and hull similarities, the game is not bound by treaties.

So, a non-citadel CL (Khaba reference) will still go down: It might take a little longer than now (perhaps not a bad thing for gameplay) and it won't be traveling at 45-48 knots.

CL immunity to DWTs isn't a big deal in my mind and could go either way.

Having a differentiation of CA/CL could create confusion within the player base.

There may be some merit to it in matchmaking and queue times could get longer if there's not enough of both.

Relative to battlecruisers and potential differentiation indeed, it is a slippery slope.

Edited by Wye_So_Serious

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,561
Members
17,734 posts
5,084 battles
7 hours ago, Crucis said:

 It's entirely possible to take a Cleveland hull and replace the 6" guns with 8" guns and turn it into a heavy cruiser.  

That does increase the length of the citadel though.

As an aside, that was actually my favorite ship for Blitz (DD/CA)  battles in NavyField. Strip off all the secondaries to save weight, mount what would be Pensacola dual turrets, and it was a very fun ship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,561
Members
17,734 posts
5,084 battles
7 hours ago, 1nv4d3rZ1m said:

 

However I do agree with the heals on CAs and DWT immunity on CLs. It is interesting to make that distinction and sets up CLs to be better DD hunters. 

Only issue would be that it also makes Russian CLs more survivable fire spammers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
456
[LUCK]
Members
1,275 posts
18,969 battles
2 minutes ago, Skpstr said:

Only issue would be that it also makes Russian CLs more survivable fire spammers.

yes, non-citadel Russian CLs could be a big problem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
243
[WOLF5]
Members
1,140 posts
8,303 battles

There is nothing preventing it from happening - after all, we are about to see Hipper without a heal and Prinz Eugen with, so to me any logic based on the similarity of CA and CL platforms has already been superseded.  There is also nothing to prevent it from happening on some partial basis - one could balance the higher tier USN CLs, which appear to need help (or at least Cleveland does) by removing or minimizing their citadels.

But to do it on the broad basis you suggest would be a massive overall buff to cruisers, no?  Not that cruisers at some tiers don't need it (Omaha), but as a cruiser player, I'm not sure I would like the nerfs that would have to come to balance this across the board.  Better a glass cannon than, I don't know, a rubber whiffle bat.

And now think of the ship ecology.  With the ships we currently have in game, the only CA in the tier 3-5 range is going to be the Furutaka.  Everything else will be CLs without citadels.  Now think of the beginning battleship player shooting at a broadside Phoenix.  If the best he or she can hope for with AP is a regular pen or two mixed in with all the overpens, the logical move, I think, is going to be to shoot HE.  Do we want more of that than we already have, courtesy of the RN BB line?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
456
[LUCK]
Members
1,275 posts
18,969 battles
28 minutes ago, Lillehuntrix said:

There is nothing preventing it from happening - after all, we are about to see Hipper without a heal and Prinz Eugen with, so to me any logic based on the similarity of CA and CL platforms has already been superseded.  There is also nothing to prevent it from happening on some partial basis - one could balance the higher tier USN CLs, which appear to need help (or at least Cleveland does) by removing or minimizing their citadels.

But to do it on the broad basis you suggest would be a massive overall buff to cruisers, no?  Not that cruisers at some tiers don't need it (Omaha), but as a cruiser player, I'm not sure I would like the nerfs that would have to come to balance this across the board.  Better a glass cannon than, I don't know, a rubber whiffle bat.

And now think of the ship ecology.  With the ships we currently have in game, the only CA in the tier 3-5 range is going to be the Furutaka.  Everything else will be CLs without citadels.  Now think of the beginning battleship player shooting at a broadside Phoenix.  If the best he or she can hope for with AP is a regular pen or two mixed in with all the overpens, the logical move, I think, is going to be to shoot HE.  Do we want more of that than we already have, courtesy of the RN BB line?

Yup, those are all good points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,042
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
6,658 posts
9,977 battles

I don't really think cruisers are in quite as terrible a place as it's made out.

This is a blanket buff to almost all T8 and down cruisers, I'm not quite sure how it would work out on RN CL at high tiers, the high tier CA would be unchanged.

 

Within the cruiser type balance would be significantly altered, with those cruisers already having repairs being relatively neutered - Graf Spee, Abruzzi, Atago. While overall cruiser power would increase considerably - with some ships already far power outliers: no citadel buff on Kutuzov, Belfast?!

On some of my CL's with repair I'd far rather keep that than the loss of a citadel, to an extent I can mitigate citadel hits already but repair lets you mitigate all the other accumulated damage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
456
[LUCK]
Members
1,275 posts
18,969 battles
23 minutes ago, mofton said:

I don't really think cruisers are in quite as terrible a place as it's made out.

Nobody said this was about how good or bad cruisers are, it is about the idea of differentiating CA and CLs beyond simply gun caliber.

I was hoping to see some ideas better than mine- maybe there aren't any without making an entirely different game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
110
[NEIN]
Beta Testers
582 posts
5,991 battles
20 minutes ago, Wye_So_Serious said:

Nobody said this was about how good or bad cruisers are, it is about the idea of differentiating CA and CLs beyond simply gun caliber.

I was hoping to see some ideas better than mine- maybe there aren't any without making an entirely different game.

The problem is that the difference between CA and CL is only the gun caliber.  They both hail from light/protected cruiser stock, the only other type that could have continued being armored cruisers, but they morphed into the idea of the battle cruiser, or if you like... simply stopped existing due to treaty restrictions.  The Washington Naval Treaty didn't really make CA/CLs different beyond the guns, and since they both adhere to a 10k ton limit (or at least they were supposed to); protection schemes are limited due to the old 'speed/firepower/armor' formula.

 

In game?  Meh, WG will do whatever they please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
456
[LUCK]
Members
1,275 posts
18,969 battles
2 minutes ago, Iridium81 said:

The problem is that the difference between CA and CL is only the gun caliber.

Again, forget the dogmas/historical/as-is situation (it doesn't matter anyway) and consider is there a way that doesn't break the game where a meaningful difference between the two could be implemented.

Again, maybe there is not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
842 posts

One of the things that WOULD have made this easy to do (differentiation) which also would have really improved game balance, is to limit consumables to specific ship types.

That is, outside the basic DCP which everything has, specific consumable should only be available on specific ship types. 

Unfortunately, that ship has sailed, as WG now uses consumables as gimmicks, and has completely blow out of the water any attempt to balance consumables in the game.  Radar is a great example:  Radar should have been cruiser only.  But no, we now have a BB with radar, and 4 DDs that can have radar. Same for DAA. Any Hydro, and Speed Boost. And... And...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,579
[E-E]
[E-E]
Members
15,574 posts
14,010 battles
14 hours ago, Crucis said:

The fact of the matter is that there's often no real difference between the hulls of CAs and CLs.  The only difference is in the size of the main guns they mount.  It's entirely possible to take a Cleveland hull and replace the 6" guns with 8" guns and turn it into a heavy cruiser.  

That's what the Baltimore basically is :cap_cool:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,468
[-K-]
[-K-]
Members
3,034 posts
12,515 battles

It's not that WG is technically incapable of putting a little "L" on the cruiser icon and making DWTs go underneath them, and so on.

But why? I get that early in a game's life, you want all the cool ideas and fun distinctions you can think of. But at some point, those major mechanics are set, and cause more harm than good when you fiddle with them. Sometimes, it's still warranted, as in the case of CVs. But the CL/CA distinction hasn't really been problematic. What issue are you trying to solve with these changes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
309
[KRAB]
Members
615 posts
5,772 battles

The only difference between a CL and CA is that the CL needs IFHE. They have almost the same amount of protection (unless WG decides to mess with plating thicknesses) which is "none unless you ricochet", the same AP performance (you pen everything except BB belts unless you ricochet or are a Moskva/HIV) and a reasonable trade between alpha and DPS. 

They are not that far apart - CAs are just a bit better(in general) vs Battleships while CLs trade that for strength vs DDs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×