Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
FBO13

Battle Cruisers

12 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

5
[FRS]
Members
22 posts
6,105 battles

I'm sure it's been discussed before, and I'm sure I won't be the last to suggest it, but a Battle Cruiser line is starting to look essential to the game.  

The reasoning for this is as follows:

I'm sure many will agree that there is a discrepancy between the existing "Battle Cruisers" in the game or coming soon (ie the Stalingrad, Alaska, Azuma, Kronstadt) and the rest of the Heavy cruisers in the game.  Some of these ships seem to be more closely related to their battleship cousins than some of the cruisers in game.  The major issue that I see in game is that these ships take up cruiser slots when loading into a game so you could potentially be fighting 3 Stalingrads with 3 Minotaurs (don't laugh, I've seen pretty close to it). 

I know that WG likes to preach balance in the game, and I'm all for that.  So in the spirit of this, I would like to put forward a new class in the game of the Battle Cruiser.  It doesn't have to be a full line, you could start it a T6 or T7 in the same way that you start the CVs at T4 or the BBs from T3.  I recognize that this would mean the addition of new ships and that the Premium vessels that are already in the game would not fall directly in the tech tree, but the fact the line would exist would help with the idea that MM could have some rules implemented for these powerful ships balancing out the numbers per side and limiting them much like the BBs, DDs etc.

Perhaps this is only a dream of a hopeful player, but I truly do believe that it could help the balance of the game.

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
957
[HC]
[HC]
Beta Testers
3,282 posts
12,961 battles
23 minutes ago, FBO13 said:

I'm sure it's been discussed before, and I'm sure I won't be the last to suggest it, but a Battle Cruiser line is starting to look essential to the game.  

The reasoning for this is as follows:

I'm sure many will agree that there is a discrepancy between the existing "Battle Cruisers" in the game or coming soon (ie the Stalingrad, Alaska, Azuma, Kronstadt) and the rest of the Heavy cruisers in the game.  Some of these ships seem to be more closely related to their battleship cousins than some of the cruisers in game.  The major issue that I see in game is that these ships take up cruiser slots when loading into a game so you could potentially be fighting 3 Stalingrads with 3 Minotaurs (don't laugh, I've seen pretty close to it). 

I know that WG likes to preach balance in the game, and I'm all for that.  So in the spirit of this, I would like to put forward a new class in the game of the Battle Cruiser.  It doesn't have to be a full line, you could start it a T6 or T7 in the same way that you start the CVs at T4 or the BBs from T3.  I recognize that this would mean the addition of new ships and that the Premium vessels that are already in the game would not fall directly in the tech tree, but the fact the line would exist would help with the idea that MM could have some rules implemented for these powerful ships balancing out the numbers per side and limiting them much like the BBs, DDs etc.

Perhaps this is only a dream of a hopeful player, but I truly do believe that it could help the balance of the game.

Battlecruisers have a few problems, which will probably stop them from being a cohesive ship type in World of Warships, but will cause them to get intermixed though the other lines.

British Battlecruisers, are enlarged, up-gunned, and slightly up-armored cruisers, at least until you hit HMS Hood. After HMS Hood, development of battlecruisers really stops in England, and battlecruiser designs focus more on being fast battleships.The early ones would be unbalanced low tier cruiser killers, with little chance against a proper battleship, the high tier ones would be mid tier battleships as Hood and Vanguard are already in game.

For Japan, you've got the Kongo's, which when built, were borderline fast battleships, which the Japanese eventually turned them into with refits. Everything else the Japanese planned were really fast battleships, while they could form a second IJN BB line, they wouldn't be a ship type in and of themselves.

For the Germans, it actually works much better, to a point. Germany never built actual battlecruisers outside the Deutschland Panzerschiff. They built proper fast battleships. Problem is, they aren't their own ship type, they'd be at most a line split, with a serious shortage of ships in the higher tiers.

The United States has one middle entry into the battlescruisers, the Lexington's, which were a mess, and it was a good thing they were converted into CV's. They made great CV's

With late war and 1950's paper and mutant ships from the IJN, USSR and USN, you've got a number of oversized, treaty busting cruisers, that are not battlecruisers or battleships by any definition, they just the logical evolution of heavy cruisers, had the post world war II environment looked like post world war I.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5
[FRS]
Members
22 posts
6,105 battles
1 minute ago, SgtBeltfed said:

Battlecruisers have a few problems, which will probably stop them from being a cohesive ship type in World of Warships, but will cause them to get intermixed though the other lines.

British Battlecruisers, are enlarged, up-gunned, and slightly up-armored cruisers, at least until you hit HMS Hood. After HMS Hood, development of battlecruisers really stops in England, and battlecruiser designs focus more on being fast battleships.The early ones would be unbalanced low tier cruiser killers, with little chance against a proper battleship, the high tier ones would be mid tier battleships as Hood and Vanguard are already in game.

For Japan, you've got the Kongo's, which when built, were borderline fast battleships, which the Japanese eventually turned them into with refits. Everything else the Japanese planned were really fast battleships, while they could form a second IJN BB line, they wouldn't be a ship type in and of themselves.

For the Germans, it actually works much better, to a point. Germany never built actual battlecruisers outside the Deutschland Panzerschiff. They built proper fast battleships. Problem is, they aren't their own ship type, they'd be at most a line split, with a serious shortage of ships in the higher tiers.

The United States has one middle entry into the battlescruisers, the Lexington's, which were a mess, and it was a good thing they were converted into CV's. They made great CV's

With late war and 1950's paper and mutant ships from the IJN, USSR and USN, you've got a number of oversized, treaty busting cruisers, that are not battlecruisers or battleships by any definition, they just the logical evolution of heavy cruisers, had the post world war II environment looked like post world war I.

True if you're looking for historical accuracy this would be a difficult task to balance.  That being said, given some of the ships being released these days, I don't think realism is an issue.  With what has been released so far, if the high tier BCs are over performing when compared to equal tier cruisers, I shudder to think what would happen if they were to be released at low tiers, hence the suggestion to only permit them in the late tiers.  At the end of the day, the spirit of this change is the same that WG seem to be aiming for with all the "paper ships" that they release:  balanced and fun gameplay.  How much of this is truly balanced is difficult to say but as of right now, I don't feel MM is representative of the strength of these ships in game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
957
[HC]
[HC]
Beta Testers
3,282 posts
12,961 battles

It's a problem with the evolved cruisers being under-tiered. They should be playing with the likes of H44's and A150's, and dodging aircraft from Ark Royal (R09) and Midway after they received angled decks and jets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,700
[SALVO]
Members
25,405 posts
27,301 battles
2 hours ago, FBO13 said:

I'm sure it's been discussed before, and I'm sure I won't be the last to suggest it, but a Battle Cruiser line is starting to look essential to the game.  

The reasoning for this is as follows:

I'm sure many will agree that there is a discrepancy between the existing "Battle Cruisers" in the game or coming soon (ie the Stalingrad, Alaska, Azuma, Kronstadt) and the rest of the Heavy cruisers in the game.  Some of these ships seem to be more closely related to their battleship cousins than some of the cruisers in game.  The major issue that I see in game is that these ships take up cruiser slots when loading into a game so you could potentially be fighting 3 Stalingrads with 3 Minotaurs (don't laugh, I've seen pretty close to it). 

I know that WG likes to preach balance in the game, and I'm all for that.  So in the spirit of this, I would like to put forward a new class in the game of the Battle Cruiser.  It doesn't have to be a full line, you could start it a T6 or T7 in the same way that you start the CVs at T4 or the BBs from T3.  I recognize that this would mean the addition of new ships and that the Premium vessels that are already in the game would not fall directly in the tech tree, but the fact the line would exist would help with the idea that MM could have some rules implemented for these powerful ships balancing out the numbers per side and limiting them much like the BBs, DDs etc.

Perhaps this is only a dream of a hopeful player, but I truly do believe that it could help the balance of the game.

 

Ship TYPE!  Not ship class.  Kongo, Iowa, Fletcher are all classes of ship.  Battleship, cruiser, destroyer, and CV are TYPES of ships.  

Whether there should be a battlecruiser ship type or not is debatable.   The lines on what is or isn't a BC are blurry at best.  I wouldn't mind a BC ship type, but I'm not sure that there'd be more than two nations that could even support full BC lines, i.e. the Brits and Germans.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5
[FRS]
Members
22 posts
6,105 battles
2 minutes ago, Crucis said:

Ship TYPE!  Not ship class.  Kongo, Iowa, Fletcher are all classes of ship.  Battleship, cruiser, destroyer, and CV are TYPES of ships.  

Whether there should be a battlecruiser ship type or not is debatable.   The lines on what is or isn't a BC are blurry at best.  I wouldn't mind a BC ship type, but I'm not sure that there'd be more than two nations that could even support full BC lines, i.e. the Brits and Germans.  

That may be so, but lets be honest, the number of nations that would normally be able to support the BBs or CVs would be limited as well.  Like I said before, Realism only takes you so far in this game.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,700
[SALVO]
Members
25,405 posts
27,301 battles
30 minutes ago, FBO13 said:

That may be so, but lets be honest, the number of nations that would normally be able to support the BBs or CVs would be limited as well.  Like I said before, Realism only takes you so far in this game.  

There's realism, and then there's making up entire lines out of whole clothe.  And frankly, that's what it would be for nations other than the Brits and Germans, and even more so, since some of the best examples of "battlecruisers" are being turned into premium ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5
[FRS]
Members
22 posts
6,105 battles
8 minutes ago, Crucis said:

There's realism, and then there's making up entire lines out of whole clothe.  And frankly, that's what it would be for nations other than the Brits and Germans, and even more so, since some of the best examples of "battlecruisers" are being turned into premium ships.

Have you met the Soviet BB line?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
250
[REEF]
Beta Testers
894 posts
10,835 battles
On 12/30/2018 at 2:33 PM, Crucis said:

Does anyone know the difference between 'then' and 'than'?  It's "better THAN", not "better then".  "Than" is a comparative word!!! And it's "if this happens, THEN that happens".  "Then" is a temporal word!!!

So, "Then" and "Than" are part of a temporal war, comparatively speaking!  So........which one is winning?  :Smile-_tongue:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,700
[SALVO]
Members
25,405 posts
27,301 battles
2 hours ago, FlashTX1 said:

So, "Then" and "Than" are part of a temporal war, comparatively speaking!  So........which one is winning?  :Smile-_tongue:

Well, maybe THANos will snap his "fingers" and all the dopes that don't know or refuse to learn the difference will then instantly know the difference between THANos and THENos.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,700
[SALVO]
Members
25,405 posts
27,301 battles
On ‎12‎/‎30‎/‎2018 at 3:42 PM, FBO13 said:

Have you met the Soviet BB line?

 

Not yet.  None of us have.  Whole clothe takes quite a while to weave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
250
[REEF]
Beta Testers
894 posts
10,835 battles
On 1/13/2019 at 11:18 AM, Crucis said:

Well, maybe THANos will snap his "fingers" and all the dopes that don't know or refuse to learn the difference will then instantly know the difference between THANos and THENos.

Good Answer!   :Smile_great::Smile_honoring:

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.

×