Jump to content
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
CD__gunner

Premium Armored Cruisers ?

23 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

9
[SIERR]
Members
15 posts
2,114 battles

With all of the attention being placed on the US cruiser line. I was thinking adding either the Pennsylvania or Tennessee class as a tier 4 premium should be something wargaming should do. I normally play low tier battleships but I think they would add to the gameplay and add much needed variety to the cruiser line. What are some of the communities thoughts on this ?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania-class_cruiser

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee-class_cruiser

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
423
[ARP2]
Members
1,368 posts
3,637 battles

As someone from PA, I fully endorse adding all the Pennsylvania s to the game.  From the old ship of the line to the SSBN.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,302
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
20,842 posts
11,605 battles

The problem with the armored cruisers and the pre-Dreadnought BB's is they rely on their secondary battery for a large portion of their firepower and the way the game treats secondary guns hamstrings them into co-op/port queens. That said, bring them on the Mikasa needs company.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9
[SIERR]
Members
15 posts
2,114 battles

Thats why i honestly think the Tennessee class would be the best pick between the two with her 10 inch main battery. But the Pennsylvania could be made to work if her reload time was reasonable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
83
[NGAGE]
Beta Testers
455 posts
9,719 battles

Well if the secondaries were more accurate i think they would be fine. Didn't the Pittsburgh have a future upgrade of the 2 triple turrets that are like the Pensacola's or the North Hampton's? 

 

alternatively if the secondary buff isn't a way then the accuracy of the primary battery would be fine.  I mean look at the Graf Spee, it only has 2 turrets with triples.  

I really think armored and protected cruisers should be included from T2-T4 or 5. IMO best idea would give them increased range and accuracy to the secondaries.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
534
[MIA-P]
Members
2,199 posts
11,422 battles
9 minutes ago, CD__gunner said:

Thats why i honestly think the Tennessee class would be the best pick between the two with her 10 inch main battery. But the Pennsylvania could be made to work if her reload time was reasonable.

Especially if they were to give one of the refits that was mulled over:
New boilers boosting the ship past 24 kts
Pair of triple 203/55 turrets (New Orleans guns) instead of the 10"
Lexington battlecruiser style clipper bow

Plus I just want me my USS Seattle, dangit.
c115E5U.jpg

Edited by thegamefilmguruman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,313
Members
4,123 posts
8,680 battles
7 minutes ago, thegamefilmguruman said:

Plus I just want me my USS Seattle, dangit.

Give me my USS Olympia (C-6)

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,302
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
20,842 posts
11,605 battles
1 hour ago, thegamefilmguruman said:

Especially if they were to give one of the refits that was mulled over:
New boilers boosting the ship past 24 kts
Pair of triple 203/55 turrets (New Orleans guns) instead of the 10"
Lexington battlecruiser style clipper bow

Plus I just want me my USS Seattle, dangit.
c115E5U.jpg

You just created a most modern 1930's ship while removing most of the character that draws people to these ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
534
[MIA-P]
Members
2,199 posts
11,422 battles
25 minutes ago, BrushWolf said:

You just created a most modern 1930's ship while removing most of the character that draws people to these ships.

I'm not the one that came up with it.  That would be the US navy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,302
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
20,842 posts
11,605 battles
Just now, thegamefilmguruman said:

I'm not the one that came up with it.  That would be the US navy.

Point taken but that is not the version that the people like myself that like those old ships want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
534
[MIA-P]
Members
2,199 posts
11,422 battles
3 minutes ago, BrushWolf said:

Point taken but that is not the version that the people like myself that like those old ships want.

Of course not.  It misses the awesome paint job and overall visual style they give off, but if it was the only way to get them in game, I'd settle.

Edited by thegamefilmguruman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,205 posts
6,027 battles
2 hours ago, Neighbor_Kid said:

Well if the secondaries were more accurate i think they would be fine. Didn't the Pittsburgh have a future upgrade of the 2 triple turrets that are like the Pensacola's or the North Hampton's? 

 

alternatively if the secondary buff isn't a way then the accuracy of the primary battery would be fine.  I mean look at the Graf Spee, it only has 2 turrets with triples.  

I really think armored and protected cruisers should be included from T2-T4 or 5. IMO best idea would give them increased range and accuracy to the secondaries.  

Yes, 

One of the plans was to rip out her machinery, replace it with a couple of sets of the machinery used in the Omaha's and then replace the old dual 10 inch  gun turrets with two triple turrets with modern 8 inch guns.  The form of the hull would have limited their top speed to about 26 knots.  A similar upgrade was also considered for the Tennessee's.  

In the end the London Naval Treaty's limitations on cruisers forced the abandonment of these plans. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,907
[SALVO]
Members
21,351 posts
21,595 battles
2 hours ago, CD__gunner said:

With all of the attention being placed on the US cruiser line. I was thinking adding either the Pennsylvania or Tennessee class as a tier 4 premium should be something wargaming should do. I normally play low tier battleships but I think they would add to the gameplay and add much needed variety to the cruiser line. What are some of the communities thoughts on this ?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania-class_cruiser

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee-class_cruiser

Tier 4 is too high for these things.  ACRs should be no higher than tier 3.  

And as BrushWolf points out, these things would suffer from the same problem that the Mikasa suffers.  That is, having a very small main battery of 4 guns in 2 turrets, while the larger portion of their firepower is actually in their great number of relatively large caliber guns.  

Frankly, I think that WG should hold off on introducing these things until after (if ever) they come up with a better model for dealing with these old school pre-dreadnoughts and armored cruisers.

The problem that I see with these ships from a larger perspective is that they should be tiers 2 and 3, and those just aren't the true core of the game.  They're not likely to  ever be popular tiers for premium ships.  So, I don't know if WG would even want to bother expending the resources necessary to add these old ships into the game in a serious way.  I suppose that they could just add them in the same way that they did with the Mikasa, and just let the existing secondary gun mechanics handle their large secondaries.  But arguably that leaves these ships at a game play disadvantage against contemporary ships that had a single caliber of main gun, like the St Louis or the premium Aurora., because players would be able to use their great number of guns normally, i.e. manually, whereas ships like these ACRs would only have their 4 main guns under manual control while their secondaries would have seriously limited range, terrible accuracy, and be automatically aimed and fired.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9
[SIERR]
Members
15 posts
2,114 battles

I seriously think that this wont be an issue with the Tennessee class they would be essentially mini battleships in play style. And people keep bringing up the secondary gun control issue its actually very easy for wargaming to fix that issue. All they need to do is make a hot key that allows the player to switch from primary to secondary guns like switching from HE to AP shells its not very complicated at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9
[SIERR]
Members
15 posts
2,114 battles

I think tier 4 is more appropriate for these ships seeing how st luis is actually very good at tier 3 and these two ships are much stronger than she is.

Edited by CD__gunner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
534
[MIA-P]
Members
2,199 posts
11,422 battles
36 minutes ago, CD__gunner said:

I seriously think that this wont be an issue with the Tennessee class they would be essentially mini battleships in play style. And people keep bringing up the secondary gun control issue its actually very easy for wargaming to fix that issue. All they need to do is make a hot key that allows the player to switch from primary to secondary guns like switching from HE to AP shells its not very complicated at all.

It's actually incredibly complicated from a coding point of view. A much better solution is to buff the secondary range and accuracy on these ships similar to Massachusetts or Ark Beta. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,302
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
20,842 posts
11,605 battles
41 minutes ago, CD__gunner said:

I think tier 4 is more appropriate for these ships seeing how st luis is actually very good at tier 3 and these two ships are much stronger than she is.

Not when the secondary range is about 3Km.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9
[SIERR]
Members
15 posts
2,114 battles

The shell weight of the Tennessee's main guns is more than all of the st luis's guns combined and they dont have to set the secondaries to such a short range they could make then 4.5 km or even 5km if they wanted. And im aware that there is a lot of coding required to make the secondaries selectable. But i have a feeling that code already basically exists and is available to wargaming. And even if its not thats what the dev teams get paid for.?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,205 posts
6,027 battles
On ‎6‎/‎12‎/‎2018 at 10:08 AM, Crucis said:

Tier 4 is too high for these things.  ACRs should be no higher than tier 3.  

And as BrushWolf points out, these things would suffer from the same problem that the Mikasa suffers.  That is, having a very small main battery of 4 guns in 2 turrets, while the larger portion of their firepower is actually in their great number of relatively large caliber guns.  

Frankly, I think that WG should hold off on introducing these things until after (if ever) they come up with a better model for dealing with these old school pre-dreadnoughts and armored cruisers.

The problem that I see with these ships from a larger perspective is that they should be tiers 2 and 3, and those just aren't the true core of the game.  They're not likely to  ever be popular tiers for premium ships.  So, I don't know if WG would even want to bother expending the resources necessary to add these old ships into the game in a serious way.  I suppose that they could just add them in the same way that they did with the Mikasa, and just let the existing secondary gun mechanics handle their large secondaries.  But arguably that leaves these ships at a game play disadvantage against contemporary ships that had a single caliber of main gun, like the St Louis or the premium Aurora., because players would be able to use their great number of guns normally, i.e. manually, whereas ships like these ACRs would only have their 4 main guns under manual control while their secondaries would have seriously limited range, terrible accuracy, and be automatically aimed and fired.

 Well, there are some exceptions. 

U5piJj.png

SMS Blucher:  Main Battery twelve 8.2 inch/45 caliber guns in six twin turrets arranged as in Kawachi and Nassau (eight gun broadside).  Top speed 25.4 knots.  7.1 inch armored belt.  Essentially an early dreadnought like design with 8.2 inch guns. 

fumJhj.jpg

SMS Scharnhorst:  Main Battery eight 8.2 inch/40 caliber guns, in two twin turrets (one forward one aft) and with four in casemate mountings (two to port, two to starboard).  Top Speed: 23.5 knots.  5.9 inch armored belt.  The arrangement of her guns gives her a six gun broadside. 

9sDWg6.jpg

Edgar Quinet:  Main Battery of fourteen 7.6 inch/50 caliber guns in two twin turetts (one forward one aft) four in casemate mountings (two port, two starboard) and six in single turrets (three to port, three to starboard) for a nine gun broadside.  Top Speed: 23 knots.  5.9 inch armored belt.  

0BLrid.jpg

HMS Monmouth: Main Battery fourteen 6 inch/50 caliber guns in two twin turrets (one forward, one aft) and ten in casemate mountings (five port, five starboard) for a nine gun broadside.  Top Speed 23 knots.  4 inch armored belt.  Essentially a more powerful better protected and faster version of St. Louis. 

There are also a number of draft proposals out there that were considered but not built during WWI

One was made by Sir Eustace Tennysone d'Eyncourt, the Director of Naval Construction at the behest of Second Sea Lord Sir John Jellicoe for the Royal Navy.  This ship was intended to fill the gap between small light cruisers and the larger Battlecruisers of the fleet so that Battlecruisers would not have to be detached for other duties (as the frequently were to track down commerce raiders and enemy armored cruisers).  This ship would have carried eight 9.2 inch guns in four twin turrets in an arrangement similar to the Kongo with a top speed of 29 knots and an armored belt of around 7 inches

The Germans had their own versions presented by Vice Admiral Georg Hebbinghuas one of which incorporated a design with ten 8.2 inch guns in five twin turrets arranged much as with the Koing design.  Another similar design used the same basic hull but incorporated fifteen 5.9 inch guns in five triple turrets.  These ships would have had battlecruiser speed or better (around 28+ knots) and be armored to repell 9.2 inch gun fire (a belt of around 7 inches). 

I think any of these designs would easily fit at Tier IV or better with the best of them probably being competitive up to tier VI. 

Beyond these isolated examples however, I agree that, given how WOWS handles secondary guns in game, it would be hard for any other Armored cruiser to be competitive beyond tier II or III. 

Edited by BB3_Oregon_Steel
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
0
[SNS-A]
Members
1 post
1,972 battles

I wonder why that with the same 203 mm guns the heavy cruisers do not do as much damage as their BB counterparts? Cmon they have the same shells granted the range may be different due to Charge limit on cruisers lighter weight and possibility of roll due to recoil, but at the business end a 203 does what a 203 does it explodes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,302
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
20,842 posts
11,605 battles
7 minutes ago, HowardBrown said:

I wonder why that with the same 203 mm guns the heavy cruisers do not do as much damage as their BB counterparts? Cmon they have the same shells granted the range may be different due to Charge limit on cruisers lighter weight and possibility of roll due to recoil, but at the business end a 203 does what a 203 does it explodes.

There are many factors with lower velocity, smaller bursting charge , and older generation guns having the biggest impact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×