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

Introduce Battle Cruiser lines before subs.

135 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

162
[-S-R-]
Alpha Tester
804 posts
8,325 battles

Out of content?

Why not introduce battle cruiser lines into the game.

We already have some of them in the game. (Some would say: Alaska, Stalingrad, Graf Spee ...)

  • Cool 6
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,471
[DAKI]
WoWS Wiki Editor
8,004 posts
6,976 battles
36 minutes ago, DudeWhereIsMyTank said:

Graf Spee

...

...

...

no, just no. Not a Battlecruiser. So much not a Battlecruiser...

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,228
[90TH]
[90TH]
Alpha Tester
6,292 posts
8,194 battles

+1 for the suggestion OP. Battlecruisers are such a self evident idea for WOWS. They are already in game, but because a specific category does not exist, they distort MM and and misleadingly slotted in as battleships  or cruisers. (See Stalingrad in clan battles, as a cruiser for example)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
2,195 posts

Kinda disappointed to see subs before destroyer escorts, armored cruisers, battlecruisers or even torpedo boat destroyers. Heck, we still have only one pre-dreadnought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
130
[PVE]
Members
627 posts
5,402 battles
47 minutes ago, DudeWhereIsMyTank said:

Graf Spee

IMO not this one because it only has 6 guns and I can citidel it in a CL from a decent distance so it is not too tanky either. If it had 9 guns then I would agree with you.

Now Stalingrad, Kronstadt, and Alaska I feel should be in a battlecruiser line or at least treated that way by MM. Of course that would mean that more battlecruisers would have to be released and be more accessible to have enough of them in the queue to get matched up properly.

Edited by MasterDiggs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
180 posts
2,725 battles
1 minute ago, Wolcott said:

Kinda disappointed to see subs before destroyer escorts...

    Well, considering DE were only built as a response to submarines, it does kinda makes sense doesn't it?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,477
[SALVO]
Members
18,945 posts
19,191 battles
49 minutes ago, DudeWhereIsMyTank said:

Out of content?

Why not introduce battle cruiser lines into the game.

We already have some of them in the game. (Some would say: Alaska, Stalingrad, Graf Spee ...)

The Spee is NOT a battle cruiser.  It's 100% a heavy cruiser.  An overgunned heavy cruiser.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,477
[SALVO]
Members
18,945 posts
19,191 battles
1 minute ago, Bianchi4Me said:

    Well, considering DE were only built as a response to submarines, it does kinda makes sense doesn't it?

Bingo!  Why would you have anti-sub DE's added before the threat they were created to counter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,228
[90TH]
[90TH]
Alpha Tester
6,292 posts
8,194 battles
1 minute ago, Crucis said:

The Spee is NOT a battle cruiser.  It's 100% a heavy cruiser.  An overgunned heavy cruiser.

you just defined a battlecruiser (or one common definition)

an overgunned heavy cruiser.

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,477
[SALVO]
Members
18,945 posts
19,191 battles
4 minutes ago, MasterDiggs said:

IMO not this one because it only has 6 guns and I can citidel it in a CL from a decent distance so it is not too tanky either. If it had 9 guns then I would agree with you.

Now Stalingrad, Kronstadt, and Alaska I feel should be in a battlecruiser line or at least treated that way by MM. Of course that would mean that more battlecruisers would have to be released and be more accessible to have enough of them in the queue to get matched up properly.

Actually, it's hard to call the Stalingrad, etc. proper battlecruisers because they don't really fit the WW1 description of a proper battlecruiser.  And after the 1920's, the old BC definition became technologically obsolete, and a new definition was never developed.  We only call them battlecruisers because we have a sense that they "feel" like battlecruisers.  But there's no legitimate historical naval nomenclature definitions to back this up.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,386
[WOLF1]
Beta Testers
7,395 posts
10,665 battles

We are getting so many "Battle Cruisers" now. I would not be opposed to a line. Not sure what the special trait would be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,477
[SALVO]
Members
18,945 posts
19,191 battles
2 minutes ago, LoveBote said:

you just defined a battlecruiser (or one common definition)

an overgunned heavy cruiser.

No, that's NOT the definition of a battlecruiser.  Not by a long shot.  Not even close!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
180 posts
2,725 battles
1 minute ago, Crucis said:

Bingo!  Why would you have anti-sub DE's added before the threat they were created to counter?

Plus, Tier 1 "Cruisers" like the sloop HMS Black Swan ARE basically DE category ships. Slow, under gunned compared to a DD, and primarily designed for anti-submarine work escorting transport ships..

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,477
[SALVO]
Members
18,945 posts
19,191 battles
1 minute ago, paradat said:

We are getting so many "Battle Cruisers" now. I would not be apposed opposed to a line. Not sure what the special trait would be.

The problem is that there's no single concept of what a battlecruiser should be.  Even in WW1 where there was a pretty good sense of what made a BC a BC, it was sort of vague.  RN BCs were faster and more weakly armored than SMS BCs, which gave away less armor but didn't gain as much speed.  And the result was that RN BCs were faster but squishier, whereas SMS BCs were only a bit faster than their SMS BB cousins but were still very durable.

Furthermore, WW1 BCs tended to be armed with the same size guns as their navy's BBs that were built at the same time.  That is, if the RN's latest BBs in a given year were armed with 15" guns, then the BCs being build at that time were also built with the exact same guns.  

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,386
[WOLF1]
Beta Testers
7,395 posts
10,665 battles
2 minutes ago, Crucis said:

The problem is that there's no single concept of what a battlecruiser should be.  Even in WW1 where there was a pretty good sense of what made a BC a BC, it was sort of vague.  RN BCs were faster and more weakly armored than SMS BCs, which gave away less armor but didn't gain as much speed.  And the result was that RN BCs were faster but squishier, whereas SMS BCs were only a bit faster than their SMS BB cousins but were still very durable.

Furthermore, WW1 BCs tended to be armed with the same size guns as their navy's BBs that were built at the same time.  That is, if the RN's latest BBs in a given year were armed with 15" guns, then the BCs being build at that time were also built with the exact same guns.  

Yeah agreed. Seems like any specific "battle cruiser" can be fit into the current Cruiser or BB lines. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,228
[90TH]
[90TH]
Alpha Tester
6,292 posts
8,194 battles
6 minutes ago, Crucis said:

No, that's NOT the definition of a battlecruiser.  Not by a long shot.  Not even close!!!

When did you get to decide? Battlecruiser is not a scientific defintion, but a loose approximate term used in mass culture and media to describe warships which share both qualities of both battleships and cruisers. Add salt and seasoning for your preferred flavour.

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,477
[SALVO]
Members
18,945 posts
19,191 battles
1 minute ago, paradat said:

Yeah agreed. Seems like any specific "battle cruiser" can be fit into the current Cruiser or BB lines. 

Honestly, they probably should be in the BB lines rather than the cruiser lines, in large part because BCs tended to have about the same displacement as contemporaneous BBs from the same navy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,477
[SALVO]
Members
18,945 posts
19,191 battles
1 minute ago, LoveBote said:

When did you get to decide? Battlecruiser is not a scientific defintion, but a loose approximate term used in mass culture and media to describe warships which share both qualities of both battleships and cruisers. Add salt and seasoning for your preferred flavour.

No, adding truth and facts is my preferred flavor, while yours seems to be ignorance.

  • Cool 2
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
180 posts
2,725 battles

The original design concept for a Battlecruiser was to counter long distance "Protected Cruisers" (U.S.A. nomenclature).  These armored Cruisers were designed to engage in open ocean commerce raiding and were able to out-shoot and better protected than the typical light Cruiser that was used for patrol and commerce protection duties at the time.  The Batttlecruiser was developed by the UK as a response to protect their far-flung empire's shipping lanes from these new crusiers.  The design brief was to possess artillery that comfortably out-ranged armored Cruiser armament and  speed that outran them as well.  This theoretically enabled the BC to choose it's fighting distance and fire until the enemy cruiser was destroyed, without ever allowing the cruiser to even get within range to shoot back. 

The Graf Spee is actually much more akin to the "Armoured Cruiser/Protected Cruiser" in design intent than a BC.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,386
[WOLF1]
Beta Testers
7,395 posts
10,665 battles
Just now, Crucis said:

Honestly, they probably should be in the BB lines rather than the cruiser lines, in large part because BCs tended to have about the same displacement as contemporaneous BBs from the same navy.

Several of the BC's in game are in the BB line currently.  I am all for new classes the more the merrier for me. We would need to come up with some sort of "thing" for the BC lines to make an identity worthy of a new class. I think I would prefer DE's first after subs of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,228
[90TH]
[90TH]
Alpha Tester
6,292 posts
8,194 battles
2 minutes ago, Crucis said:

No, adding truth and facts is my preferred flavor, while yours seems to be ignorance.

lets not carry on with aggressive ad hominem. Are they really necessary?

We can disagree even so, politely.

If you are sure there is a hard and fast scientific definition of battlecruiser, why not state your definition here?

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,127
[DRACS]
Members
4,265 posts

1) There's already quite a few battlecruisers in the game. Kongo, Amagi, Hood (technically), and now the two russian ones and the Alaska.

2) Subs were MUCH more relevant in both world wars compared to battlecruisers that instantly lost their popularity after Jutland demonstrated how fragile they were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
162
[-S-R-]
Alpha Tester
804 posts
8,325 battles

Definition of BC is somewhat different for British/German/USA navy.

Battle Cruiser/Pocket BB/Large Heavy cruiser - or what have you. (No reason to really argue)

But that is great - it will allow for Nation Flavor of their BC line 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
162
[-S-R-]
Alpha Tester
804 posts
8,325 battles
6 minutes ago, KaptainKaybe said:

2) Subs were MUCH more relevant in both world wars compared to battlecruisers that instantly lost their popularity after Jutland demonstrated how fragile they were.

But subs were not that relevant to surface ships engagements...

And BCs or almost BCs were still being built. Yes you can argue about these forever (Alaska, Kronshtadt, Stalingrad, Some would even say Hood, etc...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×