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

BC/CL Icon class introduction in game. Will there be PT boat class?

38 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

181
[ECOM]
Members
273 posts
14,705 battles

I was thinking to have these icons and roles displayed in the game to give players a more definitive idea just like other roles how these ships are played. I was thinking as well to implement the PT boat class as a possible introduction into the game. I believe this could be a interesting thing to come into the game provided the community can see the benefit of it.

  • Boring 1
  • Meh 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,304 posts
10,989 battles

Doubtful:

#1. Unlike Alaska (and a lil bit Azuma), there’s no real historical value to adding PT boats. PT boats didn’t even get the honor of a name, just and alphanumeric designation.

#2. We already have destroyers, were would Pt boats fit in? The battle/large cruisers fit into cruiser gameplay and play many of the same roles as cruiser. (E.g. Moskva/Stalingrad is usually the same position/role in clan battles. Azuma provides the utility of Henri IV according to flamu)

#3. Nobody wants something that would upset the balance of the game, not to mention we don’t want WG sinking resources into something when they could be adding an Italian cruiser line or a French DD line or something.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
349 posts
31 battles

The problem with that is PT boats were almost exclusively night ambush predators. They do not really fit into the meta. Also if Subs are going to be introduced than a problem with so many classes of ships is you will have battles with one or two of each ship type max. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,903
[SYN]
Members
15,875 posts
12,803 battles

Pt boats are a bad idea, because no HP and fixed torpedo launch angles.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
7,026 posts
27,489 battles

Did we need this "I wanna have PT boats" posts really once per week?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
181
[ECOM]
Members
273 posts
14,705 battles

The last part of my post was just a question to get a general idea. i have thought of the pros and cons to the idea. I was just relating it to the public. Now, my main problem is that Battlecruisers are misrepresented by icon and class ingame. That is my real problem. The PT boat idea was the secondary issue. 

 

I can see it not really being beneficial. PT boats I believe would/could be more effective against submarines as a counter. I was thinking this as well.

Edited by BloodApostle
Needed to edit for clarification.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
203
[DANKY]
Members
734 posts
2,066 battles

We have schnellboats in that Dunkirk scenario. They’re annoying and (individually) about as threatening as a horse fly. Considering their historical range, they would only MAYBE fit in as NPCs that patrol each team’s base in standard mode. They’d be a speedbump to the ninja stealth cap that DDs sometimes pull off. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,741
[SALVO]
Members
25,462 posts
27,431 battles
39 minutes ago, MrDeaf said:

Pt boats are a bad idea, because no HP and fixed torpedo launch angles.

While obviously PT boats would have very, very low HP and technically their torp launch angles were fixed, I think that PT boats were so maneuverable that they could be treated as having a little bit of a torp firing arc.  Yes, it'd still be relatively narrow and forward facing.  But I don't think that those arcs themselves would prevent the inclusion of PT boats in the game.  Mind you, I don't want to see PT boats included in the game, because I think that WG made the right call at the start in having destroyers be the smallest ship type.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,741
[SALVO]
Members
25,462 posts
27,431 battles
55 minutes ago, BloodApostle said:

I was thinking to have these icons and roles displayed in the game to give players a more definitive idea just like other roles how these ships are played.

I don't think that it would be a good idea at all.  The icons used represent the ship type of each ship as defined for MM's purposes.  That is, the Hood, historically considered a battlecruiser, is considered a BB for MM's purposes in WOWS and gets the BB icon.  OTOH, the Kronstadt would have probably been considered a battlecruiser, and is considered a "cruiser" for MM's purposes and gets the cruiser icon.

I think that removing the link between MM's ship type and a ship's icon is a very bad idea.  The only reason that battlecruisers should get their own icon would be if the devs decided to create a new MM ship type for battlecruisers.  THEN, a battlecruiser specific icon would be justifiable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
181
[ECOM]
Members
273 posts
14,705 battles
31 minutes ago, Crucis said:

I don't think that it would be a good idea at all.  The icons used represent the ship type of each ship as defined for MM's purposes.  That is, the Hood, historically considered a battlecruiser, is considered a BB for MM's purposes in WOWS and gets the BB icon.  OTOH, the Kronstadt would have probably been considered a battlecruiser, and is considered a "cruiser" for MM's purposes and gets the cruiser icon.

I think that removing the link between MM's ship type and a ship's icon is a very bad idea.  The only reason that battlecruisers should get their own icon would be if the devs decided to create a new MM ship type for battlecruisers.  THEN, a battlecruiser specific icon would be justifiable.

If you look at the class designations of Battlecruiser vs Light Cruiser/Heavy Cruiser these distinctions are very important in how a ship is played ingame. I can deal with the light cruisier and heavy cruiser having the same icon. However, the battlecruiser is way different than those two classes by definition and function, and honestly I believe this is the lazy approach to the situation I am presenting. Yes, practicality is important but no substitute for a lazy implementation of the class.

  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,903
[SYN]
Members
15,875 posts
12,803 battles
1 hour ago, CaptainKaitoGhost said:

Also relatively slow.

Some of them go really fast because they have a literal rocket engine strapped onto them.

I think it was the Italian MAS that could do something like 50 knots on water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
894
[SHOOT]
[SHOOT]
Beta Testers
3,910 posts
12,318 battles
55 minutes ago, Crucis said:

I don't think that it would be a good idea at all.  The icons used represent the ship type of each ship as defined for MM's purposes.  That is, the Hood, historically considered a battlecruiser, is considered a BB for MM's purposes in WOWS and gets the BB icon.  OTOH, the Kronstadt would have probably been considered a battlecruiser, and is considered a "cruiser" for MM's purposes and gets the cruiser icon.

I think that removing the link between MM's ship type and a ship's icon is a very bad idea.  The only reason that battlecruisers should get their own icon would be if the devs decided to create a new MM ship type for battlecruisers.  THEN, a battlecruiser specific icon would be justifiable.

Have you even bother reading any of the Alaska/Kronshtadt arguments?

Hood was the first he fast BBs. Alaska and Kronshtadt are cruisers by every stretch of the word thanks to naval architecture.

Even in game, the Kronshtadt at 71k health is only a torpedo away from the graveyard than her tech tree counterparts; even with torpedo protection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,733
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
8,752 posts
15,284 battles

PT boats I don't think could be added to PVP especially with rocket-toting carrier aircraft.

I'm not sure on battlecruisers, I think there is merit to the idea of splitting them out as another type with different characteristics - they already do in some cases with for instance fire duration. How exactly you go about that, and which ships you include are fairly tricky questions.

I'm pretty sure according to the WOWS forums that no battlecruisers were actually ever built, ever after all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
81
[WOLF7]
Members
236 posts
6,741 battles

Are u missing the submarine thread every day?

1 hour ago, Erebthoron said:

Did we need this "I wanna have PT boats" posts really once per week?

 

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11
[TF-62]
Members
44 posts
9,586 battles

While we’re on the subject of needless expansions, why doesn’t Wargaming consider adding amphibious transport divisions, regimental landing teams to occupy islands, Seabees to build airfields, and land-based air? 

Wait, is that such a terrible idea?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
959
[HC]
[HC]
Beta Testers
3,293 posts
12,976 battles
28 minutes ago, BloodApostle said:

If you look at the class designations of Battlecruiser vs Light Cruiser/Heavy Cruiser these distinctions are very important in how a ship is played ingame. I can deal with the light cruisier and heavy cruiser having the same icon. However, the battlecruiser is way different than those two classes by definition and function, and honestly I believe this is the lazy approach to the situation I am presenting. Yes, practicality is important but no substitute for a lazy implementation of the class.

The problem is, Battlecruisers are not a cohesive ship type.

British Battlecruisers, which until HMS Hood, are screaming eggshells armed with sledgehammers. They would definitely be cruisers, and probably insanely overpowered. The German Panzerschiff fall into this category as well.

German Battlecruisers, IJN Kongo, and HMS Hood, are all actually fast battleships, having armor worthy of the name, if not as extensive as a battleship, speed, and firepower, in short, everything to love about battlecruisers. They are definitely battleships.

Alaska, Kronshtadt and the other evolved cruisers, are simply cruisers that have grown past all the limitations of the Washington and London naval treaties. They are what tier 10 or 11 cruisers should be, and be playing with the likes of the H44 and A150. They are British battlecruisers in concept, fleet scouts, killers of lesser cruisers, and other cruiser duties, without the temptation to bring them into the battleline because they would just wrecked. They are definitely cruisers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,903
[SYN]
Members
15,875 posts
12,803 battles
6 minutes ago, NeptunesInferno said:

While we’re on the subject of needless expansions, why doesn’t Wargaming consider adding amphibious transport divisions, regimental landing teams to occupy islands, Seabees to build airfields, and land-based air? 

Wait, is that such a terrible idea?

yeah, because if you thought 19 knots was slow for a ship, those landing craft barely hit 8 knots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11
[TF-62]
Members
44 posts
9,586 battles
15 minutes ago, MrDeaf said:

yeah, because if you thought 19 knots was slow for a ship, those landing craft barely hit 8 knots.

Yes, but imagine the delicious mayhem that ensues en route as you scramble to defend the vulnerable force—and once you have an island airfield set up, what BB skipper wouldn’t relish the target-rich environment for HE bombardment?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
526
[XG]
Members
323 posts
3,204 battles
2 hours ago, Erebthoron said:

Did we need this "I wanna have PT boats" posts really once per week?

Hey, it worked for the submarine fanbois, didn't it?

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,741
[SALVO]
Members
25,462 posts
27,431 battles
2 hours ago, BloodApostle said:

If you look at the class designations of Battlecruiser vs Light Cruiser/Heavy Cruiser these distinctions are very important in how a ship is played ingame. I can deal with the light cruisier and heavy cruiser having the same icon. However, the battlecruiser is way different than those two classes by definition and function, and honestly I believe this is the lazy approach to the situation I am presenting. Yes, practicality is important but no substitute for a lazy implementation of the class.

A.  Not a class.  A ship TYPE.

B.  It's not lazy.  The icons are and should remain linked to the MM ship types.  If WG choose to make changes to MM's ship types, then it should also make changes to the icons.  

C. How a ship is played is irrelevant.  There are play differences even among heavy cruisers, for example.  Not all CLs play the same.  Not all CAs play the same.  If you use play differences as a differentiating factor, you'd end up with far more ship types/icons than I think you intend.  No, linking the ship icon to the MM ship type is the only want to keep things simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,741
[SALVO]
Members
25,462 posts
27,431 battles
1 hour ago, SgtBeltfed said:

The problem is, Battlecruisers are not a cohesive ship type.

British Battlecruisers, which until HMS Hood, are screaming eggshells armed with sledgehammers. They would definitely be cruisers, and probably insanely overpowered. The German Panzerschiff fall into this category as well.

German Battlecruisers, IJN Kongo, and HMS Hood, are all actually fast battleships, having armor worthy of the name, if not as extensive as a battleship, speed, and firepower, in short, everything to love about battlecruisers. They are definitely battleships.

Alaska, Kronshtadt and the other evolved cruisers, are simply cruisers that have grown past all the limitations of the Washington and London naval treaties. They are what tier 10 or 11 cruisers should be, and be playing with the likes of the H44 and A150. They are British battlecruisers in concept, fleet scouts, killers of lesser cruisers, and other cruiser duties, without the temptation to bring them into the battleline because they would just wrecked. They are definitely cruisers. 

I disagree.  The problem with your post is that you're assuming a single definition for what is a battlecruiser, and that's essentially the Adm. Jackie Fisher model, of eggshells armed with sledgehammers.  But that is NOT the only legitimate definition.

All of the WW1 era ships you mention were all considered to be battlecruisers by their navies when built.  That's not even debatable.  The fact that German battlecruisers didn't trade away as much armor for speed as RN battlecruisers doesn't make the German ones any less a "battlecruiser".

Furthermore, at least from my perspective, the Hood's greater armor over earlier RN BC designs was only a simple case of design evolution.  The  Admiralty class battlecruisers were ordered by the RN instead of an improved Queen Elizabeth class BB because the RN didn't feel the need for additional battleships at that time, but did feel the need to counter some new German battlecruisers that had just been laid down.

As for the "large cruisers", again, I disagree.  if they were what tier 10+ cruisers should be, then why weren't the Alaskas kept in service after the war?  And why weren't future heavy cruisers actually built to the size of the Alaskas?  This didn't happen because these large cruisers were nearly as expensive to built, maintain, and run as a modern battleship.  And when it comes to cruisers, modern ocean going navies tend to want more hulls than they want fewer but more powerful hulls.  And such navies probably wouldn't have been able to afford very many of these "large cruisers", even if they'd wanted them.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
699
[NGA]
Members
2,008 posts
12,338 battles
1 hour ago, Xidax_Gamer said:

Hey, it worked for the submarine fanbois, didn't it?

It's only gotten them a scenario so far. Given that they have to sort out "The CV Clusterfuck"tm I'd say we have a while to go before we see subs in random, if ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
514
[BUN]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,534 posts
4,616 battles

The Battlecruiser died with the launching of HMS Hood. After her you were relegated to building slow standard line battleships, or fast battleships. Hood was the first warship to carry Battleship armor at cruiser speeds. The Admiralty didn't want her fast butt speeding away from the battle line so she was appropriately classed as a battlecruiser. 
Alaska and Kronshtadt by comparison, in the era that they were built, do not wield battleship size guns. 12" rifles stopped being battleship caliber as early as 1912 in the UK and as early as 1914 in the US. Germany started mounting >12" guns in 1916. The Soviet Union, having a rather stunted Naval development process, never quite gave up the 12" guns, though many more were prepared and designed and tested, never made it onto any commissioned warships. 

So although 12" is bigger than the 8" generally used on heavy cruisers, the Russian 9" and the french 9.45" guns, they aren't battleship guns. Even if you moved both to tier 7 they would still be far and away lacking in caliber compared to battleships of the interwar era. 

And the Armor. Renown and Repulse both had 9" belts after their upgrades. Lion, Tiger, all had 9" belts. 
The Germans ran heavier belts but gave up gun caliber to do it, and the quality of that steel was lacking. 

Hood had a 12" belt, not far off from the 13" belt on the Queen Elizabeths and the 12" belts on the Iowas, or 15" on the Bismarck. 

But Alaska and Kronshtadt had or were to have 9" belts. Thats not battleship protection. That's slightly-better-than-cruiser protection. 

Because Alaska and Kronshtadt (as Kronshtadt exists in this game) are designed to fight cruisers, and run far away from battleships. While thats a battlecruiser's role, they don't have battleship guns. 
Hence why they were known as "large cruisers" or, I like to say "super-heavy cruisers" or "extra thicc cruisers" 

They can't be battleships without the right gun caliber, they can't be cruisers if they have thicker belts. They can't be battlecruisers because they don't have the right gun caliber that defines the class. Their armor is similar to Jacky Fisher's idea, but in the day and era they were designed to operate in, the concept was dead for going on 20 years. 

"Super-Heavy Cruisers" fits just fine. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
959
[HC]
[HC]
Beta Testers
3,293 posts
12,976 battles
1 hour ago, Crucis said:

I disagree.  The problem with your post is that you're assuming a single definition for what is a battlecruiser, and that's essentially the Adm. Jackie Fisher model, of eggshells armed with sledgehammers.  But that is NOT the only legitimate definition.

All of the WW1 era ships you mention were all considered to be battlecruisers by their navies when built.  That's not even debatable.  The fact that German battlecruisers didn't trade away as much armor for speed as RN battlecruisers doesn't make the German ones any less a "battlecruiser".

Furthermore, at least from my perspective, the Hood's greater armor over earlier RN BC designs was only a simple case of design evolution.  The  Admiralty class battlecruisers were ordered by the RN instead of an improved Queen Elizabeth class BB because the RN didn't feel the need for additional battleships at that time, but did feel the need to counter some new German battlecruisers that had just been laid down.

As for the "large cruisers", again, I disagree.  if they were what tier 10+ cruisers should be, then why weren't the Alaskas kept in service after the war?  And why weren't future heavy cruisers actually built to the size of the Alaskas?  This didn't happen because these large cruisers were nearly as expensive to built, maintain, and run as a modern battleship.  And when it comes to cruisers, modern ocean going navies tend to want more hulls than they want fewer but more powerful hulls.  And such navies probably wouldn't have been able to afford very many of these "large cruisers", even if they'd wanted them.

Actually, I pointed out all three definitions for ships that people commonly called battlecruisers. Doesn't really matter what the various nations called them.

As to why the Large Cruisers didn't get built except for the Alaskas, and the Alaska's didn't stick around after the war, it's pretty simple.

In WWII, the Japanese had plans for a Super-Cruiser, or in other words a big gun cruiser similar to what the Alaska ended up as. The Japanese gave up on these ships as they simply didn't have the resources. The Alaska's got built just before the end of the war, and had a few huge problems, namely lack of underwater protection and one of the worst turning circles in the US Navy, thanks to having a single rudder. At the end of WWII, Japan, Italy and Germany had no navies, the Soviet Union had nothing that an 8 inch gun couldn't sink, so the Alaska's had no opponents, and anything the Alaska could do, a Baltimore could do just as well. Joseph Stalin had a plan for building up a world class navy, involving ships like Kronshtadt,  however his death in 1953 brought that to a end, and the Soviet Navy ended taking a back seat to developments in the Army. Not that the Russians didn't have problems building ships even under the Czars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×