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

The fix for US cruisers - based on history!

68 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,541
[WOLF2]
Beta Testers
3,870 posts
5,255 battles

U.S. cruisers ought to get a 20% buff to hit points.

The whole reason most of them don't have torps was to increase their survivability.  The appropriate way to reflect this in game would be to give them more hit points than normal.

 

Disclaimer:  I pretty much play Battleships and German cruisers these days. . . so this is a statement against interest for me.

  • Cool 7
  • Funny 1
  • Boring 1
  • Bad 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,640 posts
7,474 battles

Do US cruisers need a buff right now?

I don't feel like mine underperform?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,996
[ARGSY]
Members
6,293 posts
4,256 battles
6 minutes ago, TheDreadnought said:

U.S. cruisers ought to get a 20% buff to hit points.

The whole reason most of them don't have torps was to increase their survivability.  The appropriate way to reflect this in game would be to give them more hit points than normal.

 

Disclaimer:  I pretty much play Battleships and German cruisers these days. . . so this is a statement against interest for me.

Hold that thought until after the split. Then see how things change and reassess from there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
474
[LUCK]
Members
1,302 posts
19,565 battles
9 minutes ago, TheDreadnought said:

U.S. cruisers ought to get a 20% buff to hit points.

The whole reason most of them don't have torps was to increase their survivability.  The appropriate way to reflect this in game would be to give them more hit points than normal.

 

Disclaimer:  I pretty much play Battleships and German cruisers these days. . . so this is a statement against interest for me.

I'll buy that. RN and USN had very high percentages survive WW2. IJN, not so much.

Then there is the USS New Orleans which sailed and survived despite missing everything forward of the No.2 turret. I'm sure there are other similar examples.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
333 posts
3,410 battles

Yeah, Dallas, Helena, and Cleveland may be interested in this, but definitely wait till after we see what comes from the split and how they perform.  All the CAs will have more than the ship they replace anyway.  Now according to what I've seen posted (which is subject to change or might have already changed since I looked last):

Tier 6 Dallas <<< Cleveland

Tier 7 Helena << Cleveland

Tier 8 Columbia (Cleveland) > Cleveland

Tier 6 Salt Lake City < Pensacola

Tier 7 Astoria (New Orleans) => Pensacola

Tier 8 Pittsburgh (Baltimore ) => New Orleans

Tier 9 Buffalo >>>> Baltimore

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,788 posts
5,663 battles

It comes down to the acquisition priorities, and doctrine of the USN between the wars. But to touch on the first part being doctrine. The USN didn't want its cruisers, especially the heavy cruisers, to be getting into close quarters fights. They were relatively few in numbers, and had only begun to be procured in the late 20's, with 18 in commission before the war(including the Pensacola and New Orleans and in between classes). These were meant to serve in pairs or alone as long range scouts of the fleet. To spread out ideally with a carrier as well into the wastes of the Central Pacific to find the enemy and track him till other units could concentrate. To close into gun range, let alone torpedo range was to risk the valuable scouting role of the ship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,337
[WOLF2]
Beta Testers
5,832 posts
9,582 battles
20 minutes ago, Wye_So_Serious said:

I'll buy that. RN and USN had very high percentages survive WW2. IJN, not so much.

Then there is the USS New Orleans which sailed and survived despite missing everything forward of the No.2 turret. I'm sure there are other similar examples.

The various treaties pre-WW2 meant that the closest repair facilities would be Pearl Harbor at best. The USN knew it would be operating thousands of miles from those facilities, so extra emphasis was placed on survivability and damage control. Mobile repair facilities were developed as well. 

The IJN did not place such emphasis on damage control and suffered for it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,538
[OO7]
Alpha Tester
6,734 posts
3,490 battles
2 hours ago, Akeno017 said:

Do US cruisers need a buff right now?

I don't feel like mine underperform?

If you look at Tier 5 and up:

Omaha - Bottom feeder

Cleveland - Above average.

Pensacola - Bottom feeder.

Indianapolis - Bellow average.

Atlanta - Above average.

Flint - Elite - Ranked reward ship.

New Orleans - Bottom feeder.

Baltimore - Average

Des Moines - In line with other Tier 10 Cruisers.

Safe to say that they're far from fine at Tier 5, 7, and 8. Not sure about 1-4 atm.

The line as a whole is bellow performance of the other lines. Only the Germans can claim ships that are nearly as bad in the Cruiser lines.

Fixing the Pensacola and New Orleans to be within the power band at their Tiers should be high priority as part of the rework, and the Indy should get the gun performance given to the other 203mm guns until Baltimore in the USN line.

  • Cool 2
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
240
[TDRB]
Members
1,092 posts
4,167 battles

Each nation developed ships best suited to execute their war plans. Torpedoes did not play much of a role in the pre-WW2 doctrine. We all know the Navy was not ready to give up it battleship doctrine but we do see the USN recognized the need for better AA. The 1938 interception of the Italian liner Rex 610 miles off the east coast by 3 US Army Air Corp B-17's served to punctuate the need for improved AA. The money & weight saved from removing torpedo tubes went a long way in adding the needed AA. The INJ was a bigger threat to the USA than the Kriegsmarine and it was a safe bet that the UK & the USA would be allies. The RN would bare the brunt of fighting the smaller Kriegsmarine. The US Navy was the larger threat to the INJ. Its doctrine was developed to counter the USN's numerical superiority. Torpedoes played a major role the their war plans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,550
[OPGS]
Beta Testers
3,420 posts
5,831 battles
9 minutes ago, kgh52 said:

Each nation developed ships best suited to execute their war plans. Torpedoes did not play much of a role in the pre-WW2 doctrine. We all know the Navy was not ready to give up it battleship doctrine but we do see the USN recognized the need for better AA. The 1938 interception of the Italian liner Rex 610 miles off the east coast by 3 US Army Air Corp B-17's served to punctuate the need for improved AA. The money & weight saved from removing torpedo tubes went a long way in adding the needed AA. The INJ was a bigger threat to the USA than the Kriegsmarine and it was a safe bet that the UK & the USA would be allies. The RN would bare the brunt of fighting the smaller Kriegsmarine. The US Navy was the larger threat to the INJ. Its doctrine was developed to counter the USN's numerical superiority. Torpedoes played a major role the their war plans.

I found it interesting that all through the 20's and into the 30's the USN was regularly wargaming with with Royal Navy as the enemy. How times have changed, could anyone imagine a world today with the UK as an enemy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,715
Members
18,235 posts
5,205 battles
1 hour ago, HazardDrake said:

The various treaties pre-WW2 meant that the closest repair facilities would be Pearl Harbor at best.

Actually, Cavite would have been considered the closest. I don't think the Americans planned to lose it pre-WW2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,128 posts
4,750 battles

How exactly are the Indy's guns different than the New Orleans and Pensacola? Don't they all use the 8"/55 with 853m shell velocity (AP) and the same shell weight?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,541
[WOLF2]
Beta Testers
3,870 posts
5,255 battles
17 minutes ago, Belthorian said:

I found it interesting that all through the 20's and into the 30's the USN was regularly wargaming with with Royal Navy as the enemy. How times have changed, could anyone imagine a world today with the UK as an enemy.

Well possibly that's because a Naval war with the UK today would last about 5 minutes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,550
[OPGS]
Beta Testers
3,420 posts
5,831 battles
Just now, TheDreadnought said:

Well possibly that's because a Naval war with the UK today would last about 5 minutes.

lol it is not just that, I am talking about the strength of our alliance....it is hard to imagine them as an enemy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,541
[WOLF2]
Beta Testers
3,870 posts
5,255 battles
2 hours ago, Akeno017 said:

Do US cruisers need a buff right now?

I don't feel like mine underperform?

Playing the new and improved Prinz Eugen has convinced me that, yes, U.S. cruisers should be more fun to play than they are today, and they could use a survivability buff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,541
[WOLF2]
Beta Testers
3,870 posts
5,255 battles
Just now, Belthorian said:

lol it is not just that, I am talking about the strength of our alliance....it is hard to imagine them as an enemy.

Yeah I was just being snarky.  :)   There are two ways to look at it going forward really.  One positive, one bleak:

  • Our historical friendship is only going to grow stronger as the rising tide of global chaos and conflict threatens to engulf us.
  • They will be subverted from within (see what's going on in London) and our staunchest ally will become unrecognizable to us.

Of course, we've got our own problems here at home, so they may feel the same about us someday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
94
[SYN]
Members
334 posts
11,758 battles
28 minutes ago, Belthorian said:

I found it interesting that all through the 20's and into the 30's the USN was regularly wargaming with with Royal Navy as the enemy. How times have changed, could anyone imagine a world today with the UK as an enemy.

Because the US was a rising naval power that threatened UK supremacy.  To many at the time the only way this could be resolved was a confrontation between the US/UK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,337
[WOLF2]
Beta Testers
5,832 posts
9,582 battles
37 minutes ago, Belthorian said:

I found it interesting that all through the 20's and into the 30's the USN was regularly wargaming with with Royal Navy as the enemy. How times have changed, could anyone imagine a world today with the UK as an enemy.

Yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
147
Members
706 posts
46 minutes ago, Belthorian said:

I found it interesting that all through the 20's and into the 30's the USN was regularly wargaming with with Royal Navy as the enemy. How times have changed, could anyone imagine a world today with the UK as an enemy.

 

the Royal Air Force et al has often played the part of the enemy in exercises with the USAF, its how the deficiencies in aerial combat of the F-22 came to light.

 

i.e. a low flying fast Eurofighter using NOE and its really good IRST which can passively track a higher up flying F-22 caused lots of problems, as often when the F-22 knew there was something there, it was either to late, or they went into heavy evasive manoeuvres which just caused them to become a much hotter and slower target, as that is what happens with thrust vectoring you become hot and slow vs. something with good natural wing/control surface based manoeuvrability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,795
[WOLF3]
[WOLF3]
Members
16,090 posts
14,482 battles

Fix is simple.  Non-DDs with torpedo tubes get a higher chance to Detonate when the torpedo modules are damaged or destroyed.  The more torpedoes mounted, the higher the chance.

 

Done.

Simple.

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
266
[SEOP]
Members
1,286 posts
3 hours ago, TheDreadnought said:

U.S. cruisers ought to get a 20% buff to hit points.

The whole reason most of them don't have torps was to increase their survivability.  The appropriate way to reflect this in game would be to give them more hit points than normal.

 

Disclaimer:  I pretty much play Battleships and German cruisers these days. . . so this is a statement against interest for me.

reduced detonation and reduced citadel pen possibility at the very least.  as I've said about this before, USN reduced the amount of torpex laying around their decks by multiple thousands of pounds -- and the same again from their magazines. 

WOWs: USN CA\CLs don't get any torpedoes, yet suffer more from detonations and citadels than all those other cruisers that did chose to leave thousands of pounds of mega-high explosive (whatever the Japanese, German and UK equivalent to Torpex was) laying around on their decks and within their magazines.  

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
147
Members
706 posts
1 minute ago, Dr_Dirt said:

 (whatever the Japanese, German and UK equivalent to Torpex was) laying around on their decks and within their magazines.  

Torpex was a British developed explosive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
636
[WOLF1]
[WOLF1]
Members
2,843 posts
1,332 battles
16 minutes ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

Fix is simple.  Non-DDs with torpedo tubes get a higher chance to Detonate when the torpedo modules are damaged or destroyed.  The more torpedoes mounted, the higher the chance.

Done.

Simple.

Yep.  IJN Chokai was dead in the water after a 5" shell detonated her 24" torpedoes in the launchers.   Finished off by aircraft.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
266
[SEOP]
Members
1,286 posts
Just now, b101uk said:

Torpex was a British developed explosive.

ah-so.  

Just for giggles, the Kreigsmarine apparently used hexanite in their torps.

Japanese used what they called Type 97 explosive in their torps.

The French apparently used slightly enhanced TNT.

Torpex was by far much more powerful -- pound for pound -- than hexanite,  Type 97 and of course TNT.

Torpex was also used in various "big" bombs from WWII -- such as Tall Boys.  Tall boys were used on the Tirpitz by the Royal Air Force.  

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
240
[TDRB]
Members
1,092 posts
4,167 battles
Quote

I found it interesting that all through the 20's and into the 30's the USN was regularly wargaming with with Royal Navy as the enemy. How times have changed, could anyone imagine a world today with the UK as an enemy.

My comments are based on world politics of post WW1. There is nothing to support any fear of a Anglo-American war and a lot to support a cozy relationship. Japan was a common threat to both nations.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×