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

Will we ever see a CA line for the Brits?

19 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
2,165 posts
4,892 battles

As we know the British cruisers are pretty much all light cruisers, but I would welcome the addition of a CA line, much like what the USN will be getting. The split could occur at Tier 5, with Emerald on the existing CL line and Hawkins for the CA line. The Japanese Furutaka class was built in response to the Hawkins, so they were contemporaries. For Tier 6 we could have the York which would basically be a British Aoba, I heard its historical RoF wasn't that great but considering what they did with Aoba they could just give York the same treatment. For Tier 7 I'd definitely put in a member of the Counties, overall they'd be pretty similar to Pensacola / New Orleans but since they only have 8 guns, perhaps they could get tighter dispersion and a 12-second reload. Tiers 8-10 will be paper designs. Unlike the CLs with the RN AP shells, the British CAs will get normal HE and AP. Their guns should perform similarly to USN guns if I'm not wrong.

Edited by Zionas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,463
[SYN]
Members
15,289 posts
11,987 battles

Eventually, yes.

It took WG 10 years to get to the Italian tanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
333
[CZS]
Members
842 posts
7,892 battles

Unless you go WAAAY out into fantasy land, none of the 1930s era County-class cruisers are suitable for higher than T8, and even there, that's stretching the Surrey/Northumberland design well into speculative.

They all look like a version of the current French Algiere currently in-game. 

In this case: pretty bad guns, very bad armor, OK torpedoes with the single-shot gimmick, meh speed, and mediocre/bad AA until you get to the Norfolk, where it's OK.

They're all Treaty Cruisers, severely underweight once you start comparing them to the T8+ cruisers, and with the corresponding major compromises that they entailed.  You'll notice that with the new US cruiser lineup, there are ZERO "Treaty" cruisers at T8 and above.  The Mogami and Hipper aren't Treaty cruisers, as they very significantly cheated. Charles Martel is an unrealized paper design that was post-Treaty, Baltimore is a post-Treaty design, and Chapayev is even a post-WW2 design.

 

In order to fill T9 and T10, you'd have to put a battlecruiser in there, as that's the only designs the RN made that might even fit the bill. There were no post-York class designs, as the RN decided that heavy cruisers weren't needed in WW2. 

And I'm REALLY not OK with battlecruisers sitting in the Cruiser lines, and certainly not before T10.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
373
[RKN]
Beta Testers
1,100 posts
9,864 battles
On 4/30/2018 at 1:34 AM, Battlecruiser_Yavuz said:

I would hope so since it adds more ships into the game.

The more ships, the better :cap_viking:

More REAL ships. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
373
[RKN]
Beta Testers
1,100 posts
9,864 battles
10 hours ago, EAnybody said:

Unless you go WAAAY out into fantasy land, none of the 1930s era County-class cruisers are suitable for higher than T8, and even there, that's stretching the Surrey/Northumberland design well into speculative.

They all look like a version of the current French Algiere currently in-game. 

In this case: pretty bad guns, very bad armor, OK torpedoes with the single-shot gimmick, meh speed, and mediocre/bad AA until you get to the Norfolk, where it's OK.

They're all Treaty Cruisers, severely underweight once you start comparing them to the T8+ cruisers, and with the corresponding major compromises that they entailed.  You'll notice that with the new US cruiser lineup, there are ZERO "Treaty" cruisers at T8 and above.  The Mogami and Hipper aren't Treaty cruisers, as they very significantly cheated. Charles Martel is an unrealized paper design that was post-Treaty, Baltimore is a post-Treaty design, and Chapayev is even a post-WW2 design.

 

In order to fill T9 and T10, you'd have to put a battlecruiser in there, as that's the only designs the RN made that might even fit the bill. There were no post-York class designs, as the RN decided that heavy cruisers weren't needed in WW2. 

And I'm REALLY not OK with battlecruisers sitting in the Cruiser lines, and certainly not before T10.

 

Fantasy ships at T9 or T10 aren’t outside the norm in this game. Just about every T9 or T10 ship in the game is either a fantasy ship or never progressed beyond design stage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,746
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
7,549 posts
11,564 battles
7 hours ago, Zionas said:

How would the British 8" guns perform compared to the American and Japanese 8"?

Not terribly, but not brilliantly.

Rate of fire is increasingly at WG's discretion, and the British gun has enough flexibility to justify anything from 3-6 RPM based on how WG matriculate it.

Ballistic performance is mixed. The round is probably going to perform worse than the IJN's 8in gun as the shell is about 7% lighter, though the MV is about 2% faster. It probably won't be 'bad' but in shell arcs and penetration it will be lacking. 

The other problem is that the IJN get an artificially buffed fire chance - 17% vs. the US's 14%, French 15%. The British 8in should be around 14-15% IIRC. The Japanese gun also does 3,300 HE damage while the French does 2,800. Although the British has a big bursting charge, that doesn't necessarily mean much.

Compared to the USN the RN 8in shouldn't get the improved autobounce angles, and doesn't get super-heavy shells (256lb vs. 335lb AP). However the RN 8in gun could get the short fuse and greatly improved autobounce angles of the 6in guns, but... that's a different story.

One plus side for the British gun is 6'/s train rate, but Baltimore should be at 5.3'/s and NOLA/Pensacola should be 3.5'/s, but NOLA gets 6.5'/s so... not much advantage there. It would still be a plus over say the Myoko's 4'/s in-game (and 4'/s historic) traverse. The Algerie gets 7'/s when historically it should be 6'/s.

 

TLDR - not fantastic, not terrible, traverse ok.

10 hours ago, EAnybody said:

Unless you go WAAAY out into fantasy land, none of the 1930s era County-class cruisers are suitable for higher than T8, and even there, that's stretching the Surrey/Northumberland design well into speculative.

They all look like a version of the current French Algiere currently in-game. 

In this case: pretty bad guns, very bad armor, OK torpedoes with the single-shot gimmick, meh speed, and mediocre/bad AA until you get to the Norfolk, where it's OK.

They're all Treaty Cruisers, severely underweight once you start comparing them to the T8+ cruisers, and with the corresponding major compromises that they entailed.  You'll notice that with the new US cruiser lineup, there are ZERO "Treaty" cruisers at T8 and above.  The Mogami and Hipper aren't Treaty cruisers, as they very significantly cheated. Charles Martel is an unrealized paper design that was post-Treaty, Baltimore is a post-Treaty design, and Chapayev is even a post-WW2 design.

 

In order to fill T9 and T10, you'd have to put a battlecruiser in there, as that's the only designs the RN made that might even fit the bill. There were no post-York class designs, as the RN decided that heavy cruisers weren't needed in WW2. 

And I'm REALLY not OK with battlecruisers sitting in the Cruiser lines, and certainly not before T10.

 

I generally agree, the Counties struggle to bring anything to the table that the T7 Algerie doesn't, though it's not all bad news. What chance of bodging a County/Surrey into T8 there was has been killed by downtiering a 6 RPM Baltimore to T8 and now buffing Prinz Eugen and Admiral Hipper too...

 

I don't agree that you'd need to add a battlecruiser at high tiers, I don't think they work there and designs are necessary. The Roon, Hindenburg, Henri are all very much whole-cloth fabrications. Zao is pretty obscure. There are a few designs, but only 1 completed T9+ cruiser in Des Moines.

Adding some kind of 'inspired by' 12-gun Surrey derivative at T9 is possible, and a 9.2in gun armed 'Churchill Supercruiser' was at least a mooted design if no real work was done.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,165 posts
4,892 battles

One thing I really like about the shells on the USN CAs is their good autobounce angles which allows for higher chance of scoring citadels against angled enemy cruisers. Will we see the same or very similar autobounce angles on the CA guns of any another nation's CAs, including ones not in the game? Also, the last time I heard the USN CAs don't get SHS until Baltimore and Des Moines, Pensacola and New Orleans still use the regular Mark 19 shell.

Edited by Zionas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5
[B-K-N]
Members
21 posts
5,305 battles

I don't think a full British CA line is warranted over say the British CV and DD lines so it'd be a long long time until we would see it and it would be filled with paper ships which I really don't like...  

In reality I'd just add 2, both premiums or maybe FreeXP ships and leave it at that. Specifically it'd be York (Exeter as suggested for obvious reasons) and a County-class (I'd actually do HMAS Australia or Canberra) likely at Tier V or maybe VI and VII respectively. 

Having Canberra in the game would be a nice complement to Perth and eventually hopefully the Tribal class which would come from the British DD line and would give you the major classes that Australia and New Zealand operated during the war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
113
[IND8]
[IND8]
Members
258 posts
6,678 battles
On 4/30/2018 at 9:04 PM, Zionas said:

I agree with Lindsey, except what is the Admiral class at Tier 10? Im only aware of the Admiral class being a class of battlecruisers which Hood was the only one built.

There was a design study done during the war for heavy cruisers that would be named after famous admirals, much like the Hood battlecruisers had been intended. 

 

As far as the counties, there were enough differences in the secondary and aa schemes to squeeze up to four tiers out of if needed: Kent, London, Norfolk, and the never finished Surrey. The Kent and London ships are natural for tier 7, while Norfolk, which famously used Radar to track Bismarck, fits well at 8. Since Surrey was never finished, it would be easy to shoehorn it into 9.  I admit, they do all have very similar silhouettes, but the details and abilities can be enough to make it work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,746
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
7,549 posts
11,564 battles
28 minutes ago, Shannon_Lindsey said:

There was a design study done during the war for heavy cruisers that would be named after famous admirals, much like the Hood battlecruisers had been intended. 

 

As far as the counties, there were enough differences in the secondary and aa schemes to squeeze up to four tiers out of if needed: Kent, London, Norfolk, and the never finished Surrey. The Kent and London ships are natural for tier 7, while Norfolk, which famously used Radar to track Bismarck, fits well at 8. Since Surrey was never finished, it would be easy to shoehorn it into 9.  I admit, they do all have very similar silhouettes, but the details and abilities can be enough to make it work.

With ships like the Baltimore at T8 I can't see a Norfolk making it anything like that tier.

The Counties are T6 in their initial guise, and T7 at best in a 'lay back and think of England' and add gimmicks as much as you can. An 8 gun heavy cruiser at T8? Just not competitive these days.

Surrey's basically inferior to the T8 Baltimore at the moment, her only plus over the County is 150mm of belt armor which is no longer special, and 8 of the British 8in don't work against the competition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Supertester
1,505 posts
16 battles

Eh, I'm not insane enough to try to fit Surrey at tier 9 unless it is decided that it can get the intended 12RPM for the 8" gun (the original requirement, later lowered to 6RPM a la navweaps) is used. At that point it would be a smaller 8 gun Des Moines, lacking in the speed and durability departments, as circa 36-7,000HP + the heal is a bit lacking. At least maneuverability and concealment would be better. 

 

I would still think Surrey is the best choice for tier 8. However she would have to get aspects like a 10s reload, decent concealment, and perhaps the HP repair, as Prinz Eugen/Atago do. I would think her other aspects carry her along well enough.  The ship is a better pick than a 12.5k or 15.5k ton 9x 8" ship, if Surrey works at tier 8, there is no need to have a Martel-Louis situation. 

My take on a CA line is this for reference:
Broadside firepower is included, because I know there are doubters out there.

II: Weymouth (Active replaces Weymouth as T2 CL from Black Swan)
Broadside of 5x 6" at 8.6s

III: Birmingham 
Broadside of 5x 6" at 8.0s

IV: Belleisle (Design B3 - 1913)
Broadside of 5x 7.5" at 10.0s

V: Hawkins
Broadside of 6x 7.5" at 10.0s 1x 3 TT, or 6x 8" at 15.0s, 1x 3 TT

VI: York
Broadside of 6x 8" at 10.0s, 1x 3 TT

VII: Kent
Broadside of 8x 8" at 12.0s, 1x 4 TT

VIII: Surrey (Design Y -1928)
Broadside of 8x 8" at 10.0s, 1x 4 TT

IX: Benbow (15.5k 9x 8" - 1940)
Broadside of 9x 8" at 10.0s, 1x 3 TT

X: Drake (21.5k 9x 9.2" - 1940)
Broadside of 9x 9.2" at 11.0s, 1x 3/4 TT?

 

Premiums can be:

III: Monmouth
Broadside of 9x 6" at 10.0s

V: Exeter
Broadside of 6x 8" at 14.0s, 1x 3 TT

VI: Insert unrebuilt County here. Perhaps Norfolk
Broadside of 8/6x 8" at 14.0s, 1x 4 TT

VII: London
Broadside of 8x 8" at 12.0s, 1x 4 TT
 

9 minutes ago, mofton said:

 

Surrey's basically inferior to the T8 Baltimore at the moment, her only plus over the County is 150mm of belt armor which is no longer special, and 8 of the British 8in don't work against the competition.

 

I mean, logically you would guess that. But uhh, errr. Hard to exactly say, if you know what I mean.

Edited by Trainspite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,746
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
7,549 posts
11,564 battles
2 minutes ago, Trainspite said:

Eh, I'm not insane enough to try to fit Surrey at tier 9 unless it is decided that it can get the intended 12RPM for the 8" gun (the original requirement, later lowered to 6RPM a la navweaps) is used. At that point it would be a smaller 8 gun Des Moines, lacking in the speed and durability departments, as circa 36-7,000HP + the heal is a bit lacking. At least maneuverability and concealment would be better. 

VIII: Surrey (Design Y -1928)

Broadside of 8x 8" at 10.0s, 1x 4 TT

I mean, logically you would guess that. But uhh, errr. Hard to exactly say, if you know what I mean.

Surrey's just sad, but maybe she's not a whole tier worse than T8 Baltimore, Martel, Mogami.

She just lacks firepower at 8 guns, and bow on firepower in particular. Unless it gets 'special rules' the 8in is pretty underwhelming on every metric. She's slow at 30kt if Navypedia's to be believed. Her armor's in theory thick on the belt, but otherwise poorly distributed. Her standard 10,000t displacement (even allowing for growth) is pretty poor compared to the 12,400 of a Mogami or 15,000 of a Balti, or 14,000 of a Hipper.

Going for 6 RPM helps, but doesn't save her. Torpedoes aren't enough. AA has little room, if the original design has space only for 4x2 4in she'll not do much better than that. She's still got 'High Freeboard' syndrome.

 

Barring Baltimore turning out completely unexpectedly - and I understand the constraints - I feel like T8's been 'T5'd' for cruisers. Introducing 6 RPM Martlel, shoving in huge Balti and buffing Mogami and now PE/AH to the nines? Same effect as throwing in Koni, Kirov and buffing Furutaka at T5. Good bye old balance, and TBH good riddance, being a T8 cruiser in a T10 world sucks. Hoping that some RN ships would make it because there was headroom to give 6RPM is now a false hope with buffed RPM AH, and Balti/Martel, unless we go to 7 RPM?

 

With 'just-add-smoke, just add heal' then everything's possible, but... there are consequences, especially for the smoke impact on the meta and any kind of 'engage the enemy more closely' dynamic gameplay. Instead every battle is Second Sirte, only stationary...

 

I was pretty pessimistic on how high RN CA's could be tiered before, but the last few months? Not good for the outlook.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Supertester
1,505 posts
16 battles
5 minutes ago, mofton said:

Surrey's just sad, but maybe she's not a whole tier worse than T8 Baltimore, Martel, Mogami.

She just lacks firepower at 8 guns, and bow on firepower in particular. Unless it gets 'special rules' the 8in is pretty underwhelming on every metric. She's slow at 30kt if Navypedia's to be believed. Her armor's in theory thick on the belt, but otherwise poorly distributed. Her standard 10,000t displacement (even allowing for growth) is pretty poor compared to the 12,400 of a Mogami or 15,000 of a Balti, or 14,000 of a Hipper.

Going for 6 RPM helps, but doesn't save her. Torpedoes aren't enough. AA has little room, if the original design has space only for 4x2 4in she'll not do much better than that. She's still got 'High Freeboard' syndrome.

 

Barring Baltimore turning out completely unexpectedly - and I understand the constraints - I feel like T8's been 'T5'd' for cruisers. Introducing 6 RPM Martlel, shoving in huge Balti and buffing Mogami and now PE/AH to the nines? Same effect as throwing in Koni, Kirov and buffing Furutaka at T5. Good bye old balance, and TBH good riddance, being a T8 cruiser in a T10 world sucks. Hoping that some RN ships would make it because there was headroom to give 6RPM is now a false hope with buffed RPM AH, and Balti/Martel, unless we go to 7 RPM?

 

With 'just-add-smoke, just add heal' then everything's possible, but... there are consequences, especially for the smoke impact on the meta and any kind of 'engage the enemy more closely' dynamic gameplay. Instead every battle is Second Sirte, only stationary...

 

I was pretty pessimistic on how high RN CA's could be tiered before, but the last few months? Not good for the outlook.

Heh. T8 Baltimore. I'll let you figure out what I think of that *edited* later on. :Smile_hiding:

I'm not sure what gimmicks WG will apply to the RN CAs. Although I hope nothing too excessive, there are ideas around. Ranging from the 8" getting USN bounce angles, or RN CL short fuses, or both. The IJN CA route could be taken too. Or perhaps giving the ships 32mm plating / HP repair from a lower tier as down with the RN CLs. There is a lot of wiggle room for Surrey at tier 8 to make it.

Alternatively, Surrey can be compared to Hipper and Eugen instead of the OP/Long range damage farmer Martel. You could buff the RoF further, but Surrey already has comparable firepower, comparable armour, better concealment and maneuverability. Given how much AA Edinburgh has shoved on her, it is not inconceivable Surrey gets the same or more. Smoke is not ideal for Heavy Cruisers, but I would definitely give Surrey the HP repair. In my opinion, all tier 8 cruisers need it, barring the overpowered ones like Kutuzov and Martel. I think that would be ideal instead of power creeping or T5'ing it up.

30kn for the intended 60,000shp plant on Y. X gets 80,000shp for 32kn. Applying the same to Surrey gets about 31.5 or so. There is probably more of a case of Surrey X to be T8 than Surrey Y, although Y was the approved ship. Other alternatives could be the 3x 3 8" study done for the 2 later cruisers after Surrey, which is better armoured, or one that used 120,000shp machinery at the cost of steaming range. 

If not Surrey at tier 8, you get 12,500t and 15,500t clones of the tier 9, which just don't cut it either, they bring precious little in the way of tangible advantages compared to the other tier 8s either. The firepower is still effectively the same, and the same problems are shared. It would just be better to have a more unique ship than a clone that is still lacklustre. You might as well just not have a tier 8.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,012
[ARGSY]
Members
10,318 posts
6,757 battles
10 hours ago, Trainspite said:

X: Drake (21.5k 9x 9.2" - 1940)
Broadside of 9x 9.2" at 11.0s, 1x 3/4 TT?

I thought the 9.2's in this study were quads rather than triples.

And yes, she was a paper study... but only because they decided that Vanguard was the better and more appropriate buy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Supertester
1,505 posts
16 battles
3 hours ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

I thought the 9.2's in this study were quads rather than triples.

And yes, she was a paper study... but only because they decided that Vanguard was the better and more appropriate buy.

There were versions of the 'super cruisers' armed with both triple and quadruple 9.2" turrets. If the old Mk.X is used with the interwar shell, it should be a very potent weapon. 

Paper study is a paper study, but it is better than WG making ships up like Monarch and Conqueror. I would apply some degree of a rebuild to the design. Perhaps switch out the older 4.5" mounts for later versions, adding torpedoes etc. , but those are considerations for later.

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.

×