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

Battlecruiser - Tier and class determination?

57 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

507
[TOG]
Members
3,179 posts
16,669 battles

I've been reading up on the Lexington and G3 class battlecruisers and looking at how the Devs would classify them if they ever show up.

The big problem is definition. The Admiral Class (Hood), Kongo class and Amagi class were conceived and built (in the case of the Hood)  as battlecruisers IRL. WG classed them as battleships. I suppose a case can be made that since they carry BB caliber guns (351 mm or better), they should be classified as BB's. Not to mention WG made their maneuverability  about the same as a BB in general terms. So a BB lite then.

So, is there some sort of guideline that the devs are using to place battlecruisers in either BB or CA class (like gun caliber?)? if it's gun caliber I can see the Lexington and G3 being classed a BB's and placed in the appropriate tier (T7 maybe).

Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26,585
[WG-CC]
WoWS Community Contributors
9,763 posts
8,289 battles

No guidelines, just gut "feels" and "balans".  The classification has four primary impacts on game play:

  • Matchmaking -- the game tries to pit like against like.  So battleships vs battleships, cruisers vs cruisers on the team rosters.
  • Fire Damage -- cruisers burn for 30 seconds, battleships for 60 seconds.  Note some "Chubby Cruisers" burn for 45 seconds.
  • Damage Control Party -- cruisers have a 90s / 60s reset timer, battleships typically have a 120s / 80s reset timer.
  • Turning Mechanics -- cruisers can maintain 80% of their 4/4 engine speed in a turn.  Battleships typically maintain only 75%.

We now have five "chubby cruisers" in game:  Graf Spee, Kronshtadt, Stalingrad, Alaska, Azuma with one failed test-ship (Duke of York).  We will no doubt see more coming in the future -- I'm expecting to see the Royal Navy battlecruisers join their ranks in some fashion. The only thing that really links these ships is their gun caliber as their designs are so disparate otherwise. 

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,474
[SALVO]
Members
18,940 posts
19,182 battles
15 minutes ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

No guidelines, just gut "feels" and "balans".  The classification has four primary impacts on game play:

  • Matchmaking -- the game tries to pit like against like.  So battleships vs battleships, cruisers vs cruisers on the team rosters.
  • Fire Damage -- cruisers burn for 30 seconds, battleships for 60 seconds.  Note some "Chubby Cruisers" burn for 45 seconds.
  • Damage Control Party -- cruisers have a 90s / 60s reset timer, battleships typically have a 120s / 80s reset timer.
  • Turning Mechanics -- cruisers can maintain 80% of their 4/4 engine speed in a turn.  Battleships typically maintain only 75%.

We now have five "chubby cruisers" in game:  Graf Spee, Kronshtadt, Stalingrad, Alaska, Azuma with one failed test-ship (Duke of York).  We will no doubt see more coming in the future -- I'm expecting to see the Royal Navy battlecruisers join their ranks in some fashion. The only thing that really links these ships is their gun caliber as their designs are so disparate otherwise. 

Mouse, if you want to call the Spee a "chubby cruiser" that works for me.  But in no way is she a  battlecruiser.  Heck, the Spee really fails as a battlecruiser because even as a heavy cruiser, she's on the slow side.  And for her era as well as tier, she's too small to be a battlecruiser.  Proper battlecruisers should have around the same tonnage as same era battleships.  One can get away with calling the other ships in your chubby list "battlecruisers" because they were of roughly a similar tonnage to smaller battleships of the WW2 and immediate pre-WW2 era.

I think that the way in which the chubby cruisers (other than the Spee) differ from WW1 and immediate post-WW1 battlecruisers is that those chubby cruisers mounted guns that were smaller than proper battleship guns for BBs built in that WW2 and immediate pre-WW2 time frame, i.e. 12" guns on the "WW2 battlecruisers" vs 14" or greater guns on the BBs.  OTOH, all of the WW1 era BCs mounted guns that were of the same size or sometimes only a little smaller than their BB counterparts in the same navy.  Thus, WW1 battlecruisers were pretty much as heavily armed as their WW1 battleship cousins.

As for ship type, I fully expect them to be classified as battleships, unless WG suddenly decides to create a battlecruiser type for MM, which I don't expect to happen.

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,231
[5BS]
Members
5,930 posts
20 minutes ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

The only thing that really links these ships is their gun caliber as their designs are so disparate otherwise. 

Well... not really... and I think that's a clue into WG'ing's thinking and what they may do with a RN and SMS/KM CC line.

See way back when, when Graf Spee was announced/tested/released, I thought it should be a BB. Even though Germany called them one thing, and Britain called them another thing, functionally, they are smack dab in the original design intention of a Battlecruiser: a *cruiser* upscalled, and upgunned to BB proportions, while keeping the sailing characteristics (handling, speed, range ect) of a cruiser with the usage intent to serve as heavy scouts and commerce raiders. That's what the Invisibles were, and that's what all true Battlecruisers were and the Graf Spee was 100% in that vain. So when it was released as a CA I was kinda miffed since the Kongo and Amagi, especially Amagi, are BB's, and that the Graf Spee was getting the (at the time) unheard of heal at T6 for a Cruiser and was basically a low powered BB at T6.

But now thinking back, and future to what is on now, it seems that WGing is taking the road the delineate between two types of CC's:

Type the First: CC's that that were really embryonic Fast Battleships, and build/designed with that in mind.

Type the Second: CC's that were TRUE CC's, and designed and implemented (or intended) as such.

So for example the Hood, while yes a CC, and always referred to as such, it is important to recall that the Hood actually started it's initial design stages as an improved version of the Queen Elizabeth Battleships, and were changed VERY late in the design process (i.e. after it was already PAID for and pre-production had started) to CC's. Many of their features are much more in line with a Battleship than a Battlecruiser, especially things like sea handling (CC's are supposed to be dry, high endurance, cutting ships, BB's have no such concerns, and the Hood was a notoriously bad sea boat).

On the same end you have the Amagi, which I honestly think is what screws people's perceptions of CC's vs. BB's, as in, some people think CC's are battleships with armor shaved off to make it go faster (that is not remotely how momentum transfer works). Except with the Amagi's... cause that's EXACTLY what the Japanese naval 'engineers' did. There's a whole thing on that but suffice to say, I'd put folding money on whether the Amagi's would have preformed the way they claimed it would have. In any event, the design intention was far more based in BB than CA/CL and thus, a BB in game.

So then the Kron/Stalingrad come up. Where do they sit? Well more in the classical sense. They were CRUISERS, upgunned and enlarged to BB proportions, while maintaining those features that make cruisers able to, well, cruise.

So looking ahead, where would future CC lines work? Well assuming NOT a separate class, it's possible that different nations will get expansions in different ways. It's possible that the RN CC's will be a cruiser line, as straight to the Tiger, they were really all just large cruisers. The Repulse would be different though, as that's where the shift started. But the SMS/KM line would be BB's from the word go, as their CC's always had more influences from BB's than Cruisers.

I think the most telling event will be if/when an Invincible is released.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,710
[_-_]
Members
1,628 posts
4 minutes ago, _RC1138 said:

I think the most telling event will be if/when an Invincible is released.

Indeed. I shudder at the thought of a 25-knot Tier 3 BB with 5mm armor and a full-hull citadel. :cap_wander:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
507
[TOG]
Members
3,179 posts
16,669 battles
35 minutes ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

No guidelines, just gut "feels" and "balans" 

So...like all "art" and no "science"?

11 minutes ago, Crucis said:

Mouse, if you want to call the Spee a "chubby cruiser" that works for me.  But in no way is she a  battlecruiser.  Heck, the Spee really fails as a battlecruiser because even as a heavy cruiser, she's on the slow side.  And for her era as well as tier, she's too small to be a battlecruiser.  Proper battlecruisers should have around the same tonnage as same era battleships.  One can get away with calling the other ships in your chubby list "battlecruisers" because they were of roughly a similar tonnage to smaller battleships of the WW2 and immediate pre-WW2 era.

I think that the way in which the chubby cruisers (other than the Spee) differ from WW1 and immediate post-WW1 battlecruisers is that those chubby cruisers mounted guns that were smaller than proper battleship guns for BBs built in that WW2 and immediate pre-WW2 time frame, i.e. 12" guns on the "WW2 battlecruisers" vs 14" or greater guns on the BBs.  OTOH, all of the WW1 era BCs mounted guns that were of the same size or sometimes only a little smaller than their BB counterparts in the same navy.  Thus, WW1 battlecruisers were pretty much as heavily armed as their WW1 battleship cousins.

As for ship type, I fully expect them to be classified as battleships, unless WG suddenly decides to create a battlecruiser type for MM, which I don't expect to happen.

They seemed to have done Hood right as far as maneuverability goes. Not sure as far as Stalingrad goes, but balans? Battlecuisers have lighter tonnage since the armor coverage is less. It makes sense if the ruddger shift and turning circle would be less than BB and greater than a CA. Don't see it though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,921 posts
3,229 battles
48 minutes ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

We now have five "chubby cruisers" in game:  Graf Spee, Kronshtadt, Stalingrad, Alaska, Azuma with one failed test-ship (Duke of York).  We will no doubt see more coming in the future -- I'm expecting to see the Royal Navy battlecruisers join their ranks in some fashion. The only thing that really links these ships is their gun caliber as their designs are so disparate otherwise. 

Prinz Eugen doesn't count anymore? :Smile-_tongue:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59
[RWBY]
Members
245 posts
5,984 battles
10 minutes ago, _RC1138 said:

On the same end you have the Amagi, which I honestly think is what screws people's perceptions of CC's vs. BB's, as in, some people think CC's are battleships with armor shaved off to make it go faster (that is not remotely how momentum transfer works). Except with the Amagi's... cause that's EXACTLY what the Japanese naval 'engineers' did. There's a whole thing on that but suffice to say, I'd put folding money on whether the Amagi's would have preformed the way they claimed it would have. In any event, the design intention was far more based in BB than CA/CL and thus, a BB in game.

Overall, a well thought out post but I have a quibble with the above passage. 

The main effect of shaving off weight for a ship is not in momentum transfer but on hydrodynamic drag by way way of displacement. If you can reduce displacement for the same ship dimensions, you reduce the drag by reducing the draft depth. So yes, reducing weight will improve speed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
361 posts
137 battles

If Kron/Stalingrad/Alaska/Azuma or any of the above get 60s fire duration, they have to be reclassified in game as BBs, and get the SAME treatment as pretty much ALL BBs. Whether this be much lower citadels, or better belt armor, or more HP.. whatever.  No matter what, Staling/Kron should have BETTER concealment than even the stealthiest BB(Conq). WG gave them that atrocious concealment claiming it is a drawback (see: sacrifice) for their benefits. Just like giving them a 60s fire duration, they have not gained even a SINGLE benefit that is equal to the BBs of the same tier, therefore they should NOT get an equal drawback. Otherwise, since BBs sacrifice NOTHING for their concealment like all other ship types do, lessened concealment therefore is not a valid drawback to give to those "chubby cruisers" either.

There are Cruisers that sacrifice armor..and max HP to get a few km better concealment. There are DDs that sacrifice concealment to get better armor and HP. The Khaba doesn't have Cruiser base concealment. BBs have the highest HP and armor in the game, as well as the best citadels (mostly underwater), therefore by the same standards should have substantially nerfed concealment compared to current.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,200
[HYDRO]
Members
2,413 posts
4,288 battles
5 minutes ago, KnyxUDL said:

Snip.

Kron/Stalin/Alaska/Azuma keep the low cooldown on their damage control, I guess this is how WG saw it.

As for concealment,  it was shown that most likely CE will be a flat 10% and not scale depending on class as it does now. That should nerf a bit BB concealment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
361 posts
137 battles
37 minutes ago, warheart1992 said:

Kron/Stalin/Alaska/Azuma keep the low cooldown on their damage control, I guess this is how WG saw it.

As for concealment,  it was shown that most likely CE will be a flat 10% and not scale depending on class as it does now. That should nerf a bit BB concealment.

They have Cruiser DCP true, then the logical solution would be to give them a cooldown half way between Cruiser and BB. However, their concealment should still be better than even the stealthiest BB, again for reasons explained. Also keep in mind that there is no in game designation for Light Cruiser, Heavy Cruiser, Battlecruiser, nor Super Cruiser. Stalin/Kron/Azuma/Alaska/Moskva are still first and foremost "Cruisers" (CA) until that designation changes.

The concealment change is minimal, as Cruisers and BBs are simply getting the same concealment buff across the board. The most logical action  would be to either make it so CE scales in reverse of what it does now or even make it not effect BBs and CVs period.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,231
[5BS]
Members
5,930 posts
46 minutes ago, urk_the_red said:

The main effect of shaving off weight for a ship is not in momentum transfer but on hydrodynamic drag by way way of displacement. If you can reduce displacement for the same ship dimensions, you reduce the drag by reducing the draft depth. So yes, reducing weight will improve speed.

I am a nautical engineer and you are wrong because of a fundamental lack of knowledge: Momentum Transfer *is* Hydrodynamic Drag. They are the same study. Momentum Transfer is an Engineer's way of describing what is known Fluid Forces, Transport Phenomena, hydrodynamics, ect. All are syndromes for the same field of study. Your above statement is like saying, "it's not thermolysis, it's thermal decomposition,' They're the same thing.

Aside from that, you are operating under the idea that streamling is not done with displacement in mind, i.e., that a ship that displaces x tonnes and thus has draft y is streamlines for draft y - z. Or simply put; we streamline a ship AROUND it's intended operating displacement. So, for example, I have the Iowa. It uses an internal belt so I can 'remove' armor with a belt sander and remove 7000 tonnes of armor without effecting the ships external characteristics at all. It won't go faster. The reason is that the hydrodynamic forces do not account for the mass of an object, just the length of time it takes for a fluid to return to laminar flow once it's disturbed into turbulent. That's why a 70,000 ton Iowa can move as fast as an 10,000 ton County Class Cruiser, despite being bigger in every dimension; the proportion of the disturbance to the time of return is the same, and ergo, the speed.

Now to streamlining specifically, that's actually about these things called Stagnation points where the velocity of the fluid equals zero. When we design ships, especially cargo, bulk, and LNG Carriers, we are acutely aware that the draft is constantly changing through the life of the ship. On one trip it may be 5 m, on another 10 m. And it has to be JUST as fuel efficient on one as the other and just as fast. Now to ensure that, we streamline the ship in a way that it's streamlined at BOTH drafts. It means that certain features become prominent, like bulbous bows (these are worthless on warships and is why many modern *trained* nautical engineers look at the Yamatos and laugh), stern designs, rudder designs, coatings, and a million little things to ensure that speed is preserved regardless of draft.

Now say I had the Arizona, and shaved 10 inches of armor off of it. Would it go as fast an Iowa? Even if it lost 10 feet of draft? No. It would, at best, gain a knot. Maybe less. There is no *mass* term in the hullspeed design equation for a reason. It doesn't actually matter. In fact, if you look at ALL hydrodynamic equations, mass terms never exist. Geometry sorta plays in, but more to do with length/beam.

Edited by _RC1138
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,474
[SALVO]
Members
18,940 posts
19,182 battles
47 minutes ago, Bill_Halsey said:

So...like all "art" and no "science"?

They seemed to have done Hood right as far as maneuverability goes. Not sure as far as Stalingrad goes, but balans? Battlecuisers have lighter tonnage since the armor coverage is less. It makes sense if the rudder shift and turning circle would be less than BB and greater than a CA. Don't see it though.

Actually, WW1 era BBs had about the same tonnage as their BB counterparts, because while they had less tonnage in armor, it was a trade off to put more tonnage into engines and boilers.

In fact, this is a big reason why BCs became obsolete in the mod/late 20's.  At that time, there was some sort of engine and/or boiler technological advancement that allowed for ships to get more shaft horsepower for less tonnage.  And the result was that BBs could get BC speed without having to give up any of their armor tonnage simply by using the more advanced boilers and engines.

Another point is that another way that ships gain more speed is to use longer, thinner hulls.  Longer thinner hulls are faster than short, fat ones.  But longer, thinner hulls require more tonnage, not only for the basic hull itself, but for armor, since longer hulls mean longer citadels which mean a lot more of the hull that needs to be covered by armor.  Short, stout hulls are great for BBs that aren't looking for great speed (like the US Standards) because the shorter length means that they can concentrate much of their main belt armor tonnage over a shorter area, which then means that for the same tonnage in armor, they will get a thicker belt, whereas longer faster hulls end up having to spread that tonnage out over a larger area which ends up creating a thinner armored belt.

Also, longer, thinner hulls have larger turning circles than short, stout ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,584
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
7,329 posts
11,284 battles

There were no battlecruisers ever.

  • Alaska, Kronshtadt, Azuma and Stalingrad were in fact 'Large Cruisers'
  • The Alaska's were Large Cruisers as they were merely upscaled Baltimores, that means that the original Invincible/Indefatigable classes were in fact just 'Large Cruisers' too
  • G3 and Lexington were never built, so they're nothing - easy
  • The original German battlecruisers are fast battleships, because they have more armor and less speed and are a bit more balanced
  • The Kongo is a battleship because the Japanese say so
  • If Kongo with 203mm of armor is a battleship, then clearly Renown/Repulse with 229mm were too
  • Hood was the first fast battleship
  • Dunkerque's just a lightly armored battleship with no more armor than Beatty's Jutland flagship that goes very fast, has lighter than average firepower and is called a 'Navire de ligne' so is still a battleship, just one designed to hunt cruisers very specifically 
  • Scharnhorst and Gneisenau are just battleships, because the original German battlecruisers they resemble are fast battleships

Thank goodness, the battlecruiser conundrum is solved!

  • Funny 2
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,815
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
22,070 posts
3,895 battles

Battlecruisers have been in this game since closed beta: Kongo and Amagi are battlecruisers. Hood is a battlecruiser.

 

Battlecruisers are nothing new to World of Warships.

 

Azuma, Kronstadt, Alaska, and Stalingrad are not battlecruisers. They are large cruisers. The difference can be seen in their armor profiles, which are nowhere near the battleships from the same era.

 

The differences become harder to spot in higher tiers because the battlecruiser design concept evolved into the fast battleship, as technology advanced and fewer tradeoffs were required to meet the speed demands. You can see this just comparing Kongo to Amagi. Amagi is just as fast as Kongo, but is larger, has more and heavier guns, and more protection. Amagi is in the "missing link" zone where battlecruisers were evolving into fast battleships. Hood is the same, having near-identical protection to other tier 7 battleships but a significantly higher speed while still having 15 inch guns.

 

You can also see this by comparing Scharnhorst to Bismarck. Scharnhorst is in the middle of transitioning, having heavy armor but small guns (as was the German approach to battlecruisers) while Bismarck achieves nearly the same speed and has larger guns and superior protection. Scharnhorst is an early fast battleship/battlecruiser hybrid, a transitional phase of this evolution, while Bismarck is a fully fledged Fast Battleship. In fact, in the 3 years since its launch the Scharnhorsts were going to be upgraded with 15 inch guns, due to the tech advancements that permitted this and pre-planning by the engineers to facilitate such a change, which we have in-game as Gneisnau.

 

In later tiers, when you encounter the likes of Iowa and Montana, the battlecruiser has fully transitioned into the fast battleship, having to trade very little for the engine power required for the high speeds that battlecruisers previously sacrified for.

 

Any battlecruiser tree is going to transition from battlecruisers into fast battleships at around tiers 7-8.

 

In a theoretical Battlecruiser tree, Pre-CV Lexington is fairly good T6 Battleship material. Big guns, fairly poor armor, similar to Kongo. She would be followed by a tier 7 transitional ship, then South Dakota at tier 8 as a fully fledged Fast Battleship.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,190
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
3,955 posts
9,222 battles
2 hours ago, Bill_Halsey said:

carry BB caliber guns (351 mm or better)

Except that is not actually the low end of BB caliber guns. The lowest gun of the BB caliber, on an out right BB, is I believe 305 mm - which all but Scharnhorst, which is classified as a Battleship, have, or better. And in the case of Kongo I believe they use the fast battleship rebuild of the ship. 

 

Hate to be this way - but I think the determining factor at this point is simply money. All other battlecruisers are basically tier 7 or lower battleships, Amagi is the exception though I believe also she is actually rebuilt as a BB similar to Kongo, with her down tier version being the actual BC layout. The You look at the last/next 4, Kronstadt was made a tier 9 cruiser for free XP, which they make money on people converting xp (part of why we don't have accelerated training like the other 2 games), Alaska they are jacking the price up, meaning more from conversions, and then you have Stalingrad and likely Azuma as steel ships, which used to be ranked only but wait, they are offering campaigns for money that allow you to get steel now for those. 

Make them cruisers, people compare them to a cruiser, makes them seem stronger and worthy of a higher tier, make them a BB, as every other BC was - then they become weak seeming, and would likely have to be lower tier, like Scharn, Kongo, Hood (which I personally think was overtiered), and the rest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,215
[NGAGE]
Members
4,242 posts
6,135 battles
1 hour ago, Bill_Halsey said:

So...like all "art" and no "science"?

A large part of it comes down to historical designations.  The Kronshtadt/Stalingrad were both given the "heavy cruiser" designation by the VMF, while the USN went out of their way to avoid labeling the Alaska as a battlecruiser(CC), instead opting for the "large cruiser" (CB) designation.  I don't speak Japanese so I can't confirm it first hand, but I believe the IJN also used a similar designation to refer to the B-65s as cruisers rather than battlecruisers.

From my understanding the historical justification for it is all predicated on context and how naval warfare had evolved.  By the time the large cruisers were, or were planned, to be built, they no longer measured up to contemporary BBs in the same way that the older battlecruisers did before them.  For instance, the Lexington class which was in development over 20 years before the Alaska was launched was already going to be equipped with 16 inch guns to match the fire power of contemporary BBs.  This is a similar story across the CCs from other nations.  By the time the CBs as a concept were introduced they were no longer up to capital ship standards, and were designed to function more inline as upscaled  heavy cruisers than true CCs.  

Edited by yashma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,426 posts
1,161 battles

Given that there is only an arbitrary definition and no one agrees on a universal definition in real life...

...good luck getting consensus on this topic.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,352
[SUGAR]
[SUGAR]
Members
3,737 posts
14,186 battles
56 minutes ago, _RC1138 said:

I am a nautical engineer and you are wrong because of a fundamental lack of knowledge: 

Story of my life on so many topics. Fundamental lack of knowledge. Classic. 

See the source image

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
361 posts
137 battles
38 minutes ago, WanderingGhost said:

Except that is not actually the low end of BB caliber guns. The lowest gun of the BB caliber, on an out right BB, is I believe 305 mm - which all but Scharnhorst, which is classified as a Battleship, have, or better. And in the case of Kongo I believe they use the fast battleship rebuild of the ship. 

 

Hate to be this way - but I think the determining factor at this point is simply money. All other battlecruisers are basically tier 7 or lower battleships, Amagi is the exception though I believe also she is actually rebuilt as a BB similar to Kongo, with her down tier version being the actual BC layout. The You look at the last/next 4, Kronstadt was made a tier 9 cruiser for free XP, which they make money on people converting xp (part of why we don't have accelerated training like the other 2 games), Alaska they are jacking the price up, meaning more from conversions, and then you have Stalingrad and likely Azuma as steel ships, which used to be ranked only but wait, they are offering campaigns for money that allow you to get steel now for those. 

Make them cruisers, people compare them to a cruiser, makes them seem stronger and worthy of a higher tier, make them a BB, as every other BC was - then they become weak seeming, and would likely have to be lower tier, like Scharn, Kongo, Hood (which I personally think was overtiered), and the rest.

The only reason they would seem weak if they were changed in designation to BB without any other changes is only because BBs have been allowed to over perform for so long and WG refuses to balance them accordingly.

People need to stop with the completely incorrect line of thought that balance is decided internally within the ship type. Just because WG does it, does not make it any less factually incorrect. Balance is determined through observations of the performance trends of ALL ship types and their interaction with each other, utilizing data analytics. WG doesn't actually determine what is or isn't balanced anymore than they can decide that "20,000" is higher than "40,000". They have claimed essentially that many times before, but are obviously fact checked and found false..

if Ship type X is factually under performing, and Ship class B is the "best" performer in Ship type X, that is not even the slightest indication that Ship Class B needs a nerf. Not even the slightest.  If Ship Type X is underperforming the median range by 10-20% and Ship Class B can simply be that 10%, it is still underperforming itself.  

Stalingrad, Kron, Moskva... these are post release ships. They are live and have been live. The others are still in testing, where discourse about changes applied have barely any weight. The 3 former ships all sacrifice something for every one of their gains. They are not "Superior" to cruisers, it only appears that way because of how WG has completely disregarded adhering to a single balance model. You have the TANKIEST ship type in the game also have the highest potential (and reliably) BURST DAMAGE and LONGEST RANGE in the game(and be the lowest skill floor as well). These are a combination of attributes no other game applies to the same platform because it is automatically game -breaking.  Thus when certain Cruisers gain attributes closer to that of BBs and simply sacrifice some of their Cruiser attributes, they *appear* to be directly superior to Cruisers.  The bias and favoritism further shows its ugly head with the double-standards in regards to concealment. None of these three Cruisers get to have any attribute that is on equal ground with a BB of the same tier, they all simply get to be somewhere in the middle, and yet have concealment that is WORSE than some/most BBs.  What a joke that is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26,585
[WG-CC]
WoWS Community Contributors
9,763 posts
8,289 battles
3 hours ago, _RC1138 said:

Well... not really... <snip>

For the time being, "battlecruisers" are not a thing in World of Warships -- the devs have refused to insert a new ship type.  Yet, in a way, they have.  More and more, these "battlecruisers" (and I hate to use that term because it represents something else IRL entirely)  are differentiating themselves distinctly from cruisers and battleships.  They have their own rules for fire damage, for example.  They're borrowing elements from both ship types selectively as a hybrid where some are considered more important a distinction that not.

My concern, simply, is that we don't have a name for this artificial category of ship in this game which currently includes Graf Spee, Azuma, Alaska, Kronshtadt, Stalingrad and the old Duke of York.   I specifically don't want to borrow a historical term like battlecruiser or large cruiser or panzerschiffe or pocket battleship because it has a connotation that does not apply to the whole.  There is nothing stopping Wargaming from including a true battleship in this category like they almost did with Duke of York (and I personally hope to see for Howe or Prince of Wales) or for putting a battlecruiser like the proposed German O-class or even a large light cruiser like the Courageous-class.  I want a word to describe this artificial lump of warships in this game that historically have nothing really linking them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,215
[NGAGE]
Members
4,242 posts
6,135 battles
49 minutes ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

For the time being, "battlecruisers" are not a thing in World of Warships -- the devs have refused to insert a new ship type.  Yet, in a way, they have.  More and more, these "battlecruisers" (and I hate to use that term because it represents something else IRL entirely)  are differentiating themselves distinctly from cruisers and battleships.  They have their own rules for fire damage, for example.  They're borrowing elements from both ship types selectively as a hybrid where some are considered more important a distinction that not.

My concern, simply, is that we don't have a name for this artificial category of ship in this game which currently includes Graf Spee, Azuma, Alaska, Kronshtadt, Stalingrad and the old Duke of York.   I specifically don't want to borrow a historical term like battlecruiser or large cruiser or panzerschiffe or pocket battleship because it has a connotation that does not apply to the whole.  There is nothing stopping Wargaming from including a true battleship in this category like they almost did with Duke of York (and I personally hope to see for Howe or Prince of Wales) or for putting a battlecruiser like the proposed German O-class or even a large light cruiser like the Courageous-class.  I want a word to describe this artificial lump of warships in this game that historically have nothing really linking them.

I think Large Cruiser (CB) is a perfectly adequate term to refer to these ships.  It recognizes they're unique from CLs and CAs, while still being separate from capital ships, (CC/BB), and thus warranting a cruiser designation in game, for now at least.  

We'll have to see how WG proceeds going forward, I suppose it could all change down the road, but deep down I have my doubts.  Despite the fact I think it would be the best way to balance them going forward, I'm not sure WG is going to want to retroactively change the MM/icon of existing premiums, like the  Kronshtadt and soon™  to be Alaska due to their hesitation to mess with existing premium balance.  I also think the CBs have been made cruisers for mostly historical reasons, and I'm not sure if they'll ever amount to more than just a few oddball high tier premiums.  

The thought of WG making a cruiser like BB is interesting, but I don't see it fitting into the same class as the large cruisers we have now.  It would most likely end up being a mid tier balancing wise, and there are no "large cruisers" for it to be matched up with and it would probably just end up having a BB icon.   I suppose if we wanted to get real crazy, maybe they might try making something like the Howe or PoW a Tier 10 "cruiser", which could reopen the discussion, but....that just sounds too out there to make me think WG would try it.  Don't get me wrong, I'm very intrigued by the idea of cruiser-like BBs to compliment the BB-like cruisers....I just don't see them ever playing into the discussion and argue that they are their own unique, separate identity, and don't really think the original DoY should really be treated the same as the Stalingrad or Alaska. 

*Also it's worth noting that the Graf Spee has slipped under the nerf bat radar and it seems WG does not consider it to be in the same class of ships as the Stalingrad + other high tier CBs.  

Edited by yashma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59
[RWBY]
Members
245 posts
5,984 battles
3 hours ago, _RC1138 said:

I am a nautical engineer and you are wrong because of a fundamental lack of knowledge: Momentum Transfer *is* Hydrodynamic Drag. They are the same study. Momentum Transfer is an Engineer's way of describing what is known Fluid Forces, Transport Phenomena, hydrodynamics, ect. All are syndromes for the same field of study. Your above statement is like saying, "it's not thermolysis, it's thermal decomposition,' They're the same thing.

Aside from that, you are operating under the idea that streamling is not done with displacement in mind, i.e., that a ship that displaces x tonnes and thus has draft y is streamlines for draft y - z. Or simply put; we streamline a ship AROUND it's intended operating displacement. So, for example, I have the Iowa. It uses an internal belt so I can 'remove' armor with a belt sander and remove 7000 tonnes of armor without effecting the ships external characteristics at all. It won't go faster. The reason is that the hydrodynamic forces do not account for the mass of an object, just the length of time it takes for a fluid to return to laminar flow once it's disturbed into turbulent. That's why a 70,000 ton Iowa can move as fast as an 10,000 ton County Class Cruiser, despite being bigger in every dimension; the proportion of the disturbance to the time of return is the same, and ergo, the speed.

Now to streamlining specifically, that's actually about these things called Stagnation points where the velocity of the fluid equals zero. When we design ships, especially cargo, bulk, and LNG Carriers, we are acutely aware that the draft is constantly changing through the life of the ship. On one trip it may be 5 m, on another 10 m. And it has to be JUST as fuel efficient on one as the other and just as fast. Now to ensure that, we streamline the ship in a way that it's streamlined at BOTH drafts. It means that certain features become prominent, like bulbous bows (these are worthless on warships and is why many modern *trained* nautical engineers look at the Yamatos and laugh), stern designs, rudder designs, coatings, and a million little things to ensure that speed is preserved regardless of draft.

Now say I had the Arizona, and shaved 10 inches of armor off of it. Would it go as fast an Iowa? Even if it lost 10 feet of draft? No. It would, at best, gain a knot. Maybe less. There is no *mass* term in the hullspeed design equation for a reason. It doesn't actually matter. In fact, if you look at ALL hydrodynamic equations, mass terms never exist. Geometry sorta plays in, but more to do with length/beam.

I am not a nautical engineer, but I do have a degree in chemical engineering. Very different application but fluid dynamics is a major part of it (haven’t done equations in a while and am quite rusty both at those and terminology, mostly laboratory work now.) Point being, I really appreciate your post. 

I wasn’t trying to claim that mass was an important variable directly, just that it increases draft. Now if I understand you correctly you’re stating that the right hull design and geometry mostly negates the impact of differences in draft (so long as those differences are within design parameters). 

That is pretty intersting as at first glance it’s counterintuitive that displacing more water wouldn’t result in greater drag for the same length to beam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26,585
[WG-CC]
WoWS Community Contributors
9,763 posts
8,289 battles
2 minutes ago, yashma said:


*Also it's worth noting that the Graf Spee has slipped under the nerf bat radar and it seems WG does not consider it to be in the same class of ships as the Stalingrad + other high tier CBs.

Graf Spee already has a lot of the newly added CB elements baked in.  Fires last 45 seconds, for example.  Her Repair Party is that of a battleship, not of a high-tier cruiser. 

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.

×