Jump to content
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
capncrunch21

Tier 6 Ise-class BBCV

21 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

572
[SIMP]
Members
1,171 posts

With the CV rework, it looks like implementing hybrid 'aviation' ships should be easier than ever. I'd like to propose making the IJN Ise-class BBCV the first of these ships in the game. It would make a good testbed for other more complicated aviation vessels (Tone, etc.).

The Ise and her sister ship Hyuga were converted from (essentially) Fuso-class battleships into a hybrid battleship/carrier combination (see picture below). On the surface this looks like a really good idea, combining the firepower of a battleship with the scouting/strike capability of an aircraft carrier - the best of both worlds. But, in fact, it was just the opposite. At least a 1/3 reduction in battleship firepower and completely gimped air group operations ensured that the ships excelled at nothing. That said, this class would be a very fun class to play in-game due to its unique design.

47499354312_24f0658158_o.png

I believe the Ise-class should be Tier 6 ships because they are at their core still (for game purposes) a Fuso-class battleship (a Tier 6 staple of the IJN). Also, the aircraft they carried historically were E16A Zuiun (Paul) floatplanes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aichi_E16A) and D4Y Suisei (Judy) dive bombers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yokosuka_D4Y). The D4Ys are exactly the same as those on the IJN Tier 6 Ryujo CV. The E16As would be used in their dive bombing roles for the game (see the above linked E16A article). Being floatplanes, the E16As would definitely be worse performance-wise than the DY4s. Carrying an air group is certainly an advantage in the game, however these aircraft have some severe operational limitations (see below). The carrier advantage is also offset by the removal of more than 1/3 of the ship's firepower. Two of the six main gun turrets and all 16 of the 140mm casement secondary guns were removed for the carrier conversion, leaving only four turrets and the dual purpose 127mm guns as ship-to-ship armament. On top of this, the two rear most main gun turrets were EXTREMELY limited in their targeting arcs due to the huge aircraft hanger/flight deck blocking all fire to the rear of the ship. This effectively makes them slower, larger Kongo’s (IJN Tier 5 BB) with very limited main gun tracking.

But wait! There's more! As I said in the intro, the advantage of having aircraft isn't what it seems on the surface. Because of the very short flight deck, aircraft could not be landed back on the ship itself. Only the E16A floatplanes could be recovered - and then only by landing next to the ship and getting hoisted back onboard using a single crane. This is a far cry from a full-fledged carrier. The D4Y dive bombers had conventional landing gear (not floats) and were a 'one shot' attack from these hybrid BBCVs. Once they were launched, they had to land on a true carrier or at a land base. To simulate this in-game, I would make the D4Ys a consumable with two charges. Each use launches one squadron of six planes (using normal aircraft mechanics – i.e. only one aircraft squadron can be operating at any given time from the ship). This coincides perfectly with the 12 D4Ys these ships were supposed to carry historically. Once used, they are gone for good (whether shot down or complete all their attacks). The E16A floatplanes would work normally as any other single aircraft squadron does, being the only 'normal' (not consumable) aircraft type on these ships - compared to true carriers in the game which have rocket planes AND dive bombers AND torpedo planes. The single six aircraft E16A dive bomber squadron would of course, be shot down often, and being the ships’ only regular aircraft, would simulate perfectly the additional time it takes to recover these aircraft by crane through the normal deplane/regeneration mechanics already in effect in the game.

I think all the above factors place the Ise-class BBCVs solidly at Tier 6. The advantages of their aircraft are offset by the poor performance as a battleship and the sub-par aspects of the airplanes/operations themselves. Even so, I think these ships would be a blast to play – and I would happily throw money at WG for the opportunity.  

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,578
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
9,505 posts
15,773 battles

The game can't properly balance regular CVs, and you want to add hybrids? Thanks, but no thanks. 

  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,879
[DAKI]
[DAKI]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
13,116 posts
5,035 battles

If anything the CV rework made it harder to implement. We have to control our air groups directly now, which would mean leaving our Ise BBV/Tone/Mogami CAV vessel in a unattended and uncontributive state for long periods of time.

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
479
[ODIN]
Members
993 posts
15,498 battles

I feel the only way to implement hybrids or Aircraft Cruisers is to do so simply through the use of consumable manipulation. For example Ise, Tone, and Modified Mogami as well as a potential light cruiser IJN branch would be able to keep catapult fighters up in flights of two squadrons and with a high or unlimited amount of consumables.

Wargaming wont allow us to control the carrier and a sqaudron with CVs, so I highly doubt they would with a BB/CL/CA. Unless it was incorporated as a last stand launch of planes when near death or a one time launch at the start of game. While they could allow AI to take control of the ship, that's really going to hamper your team while it auto pilots backward and into islands. Also the guns would probably become worthless under AI control.

I want these ships added into game but the playerbase really prefers simply mechanics and slower game play.

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,201
[HYDRO]
Members
2,424 posts
4,298 battles

There is already some footage of Ise in WoWs Blitz, it was more or less the old RTS mode in use. The best bet of something like this would be to have the planes as a consumable as you mentioned, then launch them to a designated target to do an automatic attack.

The issue is not having the ship maneuvering on autopilot at any time, since you are also fighting surface targets; The time to launch a plane attack should be similar to the time it takes to aim and fire a torpedo salvo to make any of this viable.

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,511
[SALVO]
Members
19,029 posts
19,225 battles
1 hour ago, Skuggsja said:

I feel the only way to implement hybrids or Aircraft Cruisers is to do so simply through the use of consumable manipulation. For example Ise, Tone, and Modified Mogami as well as a potential light cruiser IJN branch would be able to keep catapult fighters up in flights of two squadrons and with a high or unlimited amount of consumables.

Wargaming wont allow us to control the carrier and a sqaudron with CVs, so I highly doubt they would with a BB/CL/CA. Unless it was incorporated as a last stand launch of planes when near death or a one time launch at the start of game. While they could allow AI to take control of the ship, that's really going to hamper your team while it auto pilots backward and into islands. Also the guns would probably become worthless under AI control.

I want these ships added into game but the playerbase really prefers simply mechanics and slower game play.

Exactly.

I don't think that a hybrid BB/carrier is possible under the current FPS CV model, simply because you have to control your planes 100% of the time they're in the air.

Also, I strongly believe that the best way to implement the Tone is using the Spotter and Cat Fighter consumables.    Even if there was a desire to implement a freely controlled scout plane (like CV planes just without weapons), such a scout plane would get in the way of fighting the ship.   I suppose it might work better if the scout plane could just plot a course, like was done in the RTS model, but that might be seen as an unwelcome fall back to a system WG may just want to bury.  BTW, such a scout plane should probably have a timer and when the timer expires, the plane returns to its ship.

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,511
[SALVO]
Members
19,029 posts
19,225 battles
1 hour ago, Schnitchelkid01_ said:

How about pre-conversion Ise too???

Image result for ise battleship

Gameplay would sure be unique and possibly fun!!

Image result for ise battleship

I'm not so sure that it'd be any different than the Fuso.  After all, the Ise class was just a modified Fuso.  The only visible difference is the placement of the middle two turrets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,657
[WOLF3]
[WOLF3]
Members
18,130 posts
16,481 battles

I can see non-conversion Ise-class as Tier VI Premiums.

But I don't see the hybrid conversion Ise-class anymore in WoWS, not with the current aircraft control system.  Aircraft require full dedication in playtime in the current system.  IMO, WG could have done hybrid version of Ise-class in the Pre-CV Rework days, making them rely on auto attacks for their aircraft while the player spends the majority of the time playing like a BB still.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
572
[SIMP]
Members
1,171 posts
On ‎4‎/‎7‎/‎2019 at 12:36 AM, HazeGrayUnderway said:

I can see non-conversion Ise-class as Tier VI Premiums.

But I don't see the hybrid conversion Ise-class anymore in WoWS, not with the current aircraft control system.  Aircraft require full dedication in playtime in the current system.  IMO, WG could have done hybrid version of Ise-class in the Pre-CV Rework days, making them rely on auto attacks for their aircraft while the player spends the majority of the time playing like a BB still.

But that's the beauty of this class with the new system.

Because it isn't a full carrier, full time isn't required for its aircraft. It has the two 'throw away' squadrons of D4Ys that would be quickly used as the BB is set on a course towards the enemy at the beginning of a match. That would leave only the E16A float planes. Because these are relatively slow (forced to stay in AA bubbles) and the fact that the ship can only launch one of them, means that they would almost constantly be depleted after attacking, requiring long periods of regeneration, only to be blasted to bits again, requiring another long period of regeneration.

It is during these long periods that the player is actively using the ship as a true BB. The aircraft come secondary to normal operations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
95
[OKM]
Members
216 posts
2,382 battles

Well, here's how I would do it.

Ise Tier 6 Battleship. It is an improved Fuso after all, going 2 knots faster with better protection, a smaller citadel and a better turret placement. It would play fairly like the Fuso, but with better secondaries and speed basically. It could maybe even fill a role of ''brawler'' with its 20 140 mm.

 

Hyuuga Tier 6 Battleship: here come the hybrid. Well, not really in fact. It lose 2 turrets but get better AA and, especially, Fighter aircraft and spotting aircraft in 2 different slots. Thus, it would becomes quite the great AA battleship at tier 6, while playing a more ''long range shooter'' thanks to the spotting aircraft.

On 4/6/2019 at 10:07 PM, Crucis said:

I'm not so sure that it'd be any different than the Fuso.  After all, the Ise class was just a modified Fuso.  The only visible difference is the placement of the middle two turrets.

There is more than that. The citadel was smaller, the armor was more efficient and the secondaries were better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,511
[SALVO]
Members
19,029 posts
19,225 battles
8 minutes ago, Y_Nagato said:

Well, here's how I would do it.

Ise Tier 6 Battleship. It is an improved Fuso after all, going 2 knots faster with better protection, a smaller citadel and a better turret placement. It would play fairly like the Fuso, but with better secondaries and speed basically. It could maybe even fill a role of ''brawler'' with its 20 140 mm.

 

Hyuuga Tier 6 Battleship: here come the hybrid. Well, not really in fact. It lose 2 turrets but get better AA and, especially, Fighter aircraft and spotting aircraft in 2 different slots. Thus, it would becomes quite the great AA battleship at tier 6, while playing a more ''long range shooter'' thanks to the spotting aircraft.

There is more than that. The citadel was smaller, the armor was more efficient and the secondaries were better.

Y_Nagato, I'm not saying that the Ise wouldn't be a more efficient Fuso.  I'm sure that it would be.  But the reality is that it would still be very similar to the Fuso, when all's said and done.  Does that mean that I wouldn't want it in the game?  Heck no.  I'd be happy to see the Ise in the game, though not in the hybrid BB/CV form.  I just don't think that the hybrid BB/CV Ise would work in this game.  I'd rather see a fake WW2 refit of the Ise class rather than the hybrid.  (The only kind of hybrid that I think would work in this game would be something like the Tone using spotter and fighter plane consumables.)  

I'm not sure how they'd add the Ise class to the game either.  I question whether there are enough actually constructed or well known but unbuilt designs to create a second BB line without an over-reliance on purely fake or designs that are unfamiliar to all but the most dedicated naval history buffs.   Also, I think that making the Kii into a tier 8 premium BB also hurt a possible second BB line, because a second BB line could have had the Tosa class at tier 8 and Kii class at tier 9 (since the Kii class was the intended follow on class after the Tosa and Amagi-classes).  They could add the "Number 13" design at tier 10, but what would go at tier 7?  That's the big hole I see at the moment.

The only other option would be the fairly obvious creation of the Ise as a premium tier 6 BB, which quite frankly, I'm a little surprised they didn't do.  But I suppose they really like making clones because it's less work to leverage the existing work on the same basic ship class than it would be to create a new one from the keel up as would be the case with the Ise.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
442
[CVA16]
Members
2,940 posts
10,698 battles

Considering the way WG has implemented CV ship controls, do you really think you could play a BB with strike aircraft? Your ship would be on autopilot for long periods of time while you were using your strike aircraft. A horrible idea for a BB (CV players say its a horrible idea for CVs too). You would be an incredibly weak T6 CV so hanging  out in the back sending out small dive bomber squadrons would be a huge waste of a ship. And you would be a severely gimped BB (8 guns with a lousy layout, no shooting  anything to the rear). Not Good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
95
[OKM]
Members
216 posts
2,382 battles
4 minutes ago, Crucis said:

Y_Nagato, I'm not saying that the Ise wouldn't be a more efficient Fuso.  I'm sure that it would be.  But the reality is that it would still be very similar to the Fuso, when all's said and done.  Does that mean that I wouldn't want it in the game?  Heck no.  I'd be happy to see the Ise in the game, though not in the hybrid BB/CV form.  I just don't think that the hybrid BB/CV Ise would work in this game.  I'd rather see a fake WW2 refit of the Ise class rather than the hybrid.  (The only kind of hybrid that I think would work in this game would be something like the Tone using spotter and fighter plane consumables.)

And that was my proposition for Hyuuga: an 8 gun battleship with spotter aircraft and fighter aircraft on 2 different spot. Not it the sense of making it some kind of ''drop the gun, I control the plane'', but a battleship with more consumable. Quite easy to implement and, in the current meta, could well be quite useful for its enormous AA potential.

 

7 minutes ago, Crucis said:

I'm not sure how they'd add the Ise class to the game either.  I question whether there are enough actually constructed or well known but unbuilt designs to create a second BB line without an over-reliance on purely fake or designs that are unfamiliar to all but the most dedicated naval history buffs.   Also, I think that making the Kii into a tier 8 premium BB also hurt a possible second BB line, because a second BB line could have had the Tosa class at tier 8 and Kii class at tier 9 (since the Kii class was the intended follow on class after the Tosa and Amagi-classes).  They could add the "Number 13" design at tier 10, but what would go at tier 7?  That's the big hole I see at the moment.

It is true, but you need some thematic for splitting line. Let's say you made a ''battleship'' line and a ''battlecruiser'' line, you would get from built ships (paper ships):

Battleship: Kawachi, Fuso, Ise, Nagato, Yamato, (Tosa), (Kii), (Number 13)

Battlecruiser: Kongou. (Amagi)

You would need more paper ships to fill a second line with some ''Battlecruiser'' thematic. The only other option is with premium ships to fill in the missing ''real'' ships (god, why Kii before Ise!). And the Ise class have the potential to be some brawler BB for the Japanese, even if tier 6 is kinda low for that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52
[HINON]
Members
416 posts
3,343 battles

Well, Dunkerque can't shoot targets behind her...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,511
[SALVO]
Members
19,029 posts
19,225 battles
1 hour ago, Y_Nagato said:

And that was my proposition for Hyuuga: an 8 gun battleship with spotter aircraft and fighter aircraft on 2 different spot. Not it the sense of making it some kind of ''drop the gun, I control the plane'', but a battleship with more consumable. Quite easy to implement and, in the current meta, could well be quite useful for its enormous AA potential.

 

It is true, but you need some thematic for splitting line. Let's say you made a ''battleship'' line and a ''battlecruiser'' line, you would get from built ships (paper ships):

Battleship: Kawachi, Fuso, Ise, Nagato, Yamato, (Tosa), (Kii), (Number 13)

Battlecruiser: Kongou. (Amagi)

You would need more paper ships to fill a second line with some ''Battlecruiser'' thematic. The only other option is with premium ships to fill in the missing ''real'' ships (god, why Kii before Ise!). And the Ise class have the potential to be some brawler BB for the Japanese, even if tier 6 is kinda low for that.

 

1. I don't think that that proposal would really be particularly good, because it'd be a very weak BB with only 8 14" guns, the rear 4 of which would be waist turrets rather than rear turrets, thus having rather ugly arcs.  Those waist turrets aren't so bad when the BB has its full complement of 12 main guns in 6 turrets, since there are obviously 4 main guns in the rear.  But that 8 gun layout would be both clumsy as well as leave the ship rather undergunned for a 14" gunned battleship at tier 6.

 

2. As for a battlecruiser line, while that will definitely work for the Brits and the Germans, as you show yourself, the IJN only had two battlecruiser classes (the Kongo and Amagi) at tiers 5 and 8.  I think that the reality would be that two IJN BB lines would be pretty similar, which I don't mind myself, though I will say that after tier 8, it could get more "interesting" when they'd need to use designs that were never ordered, let alone built, and perhaps one or two outright fictional designs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,511
[SALVO]
Members
19,029 posts
19,225 battles
2 hours ago, Sabot_100 said:

Considering the way WG has implemented CV ship controls, do you really think you could play a BB with strike aircraft? Your ship would be on autopilot for long periods of time while you were using your strike aircraft. A horrible idea for a BB (CV players say its a horrible idea for CVs too). You would be an incredibly weak T6 CV so hanging  out in the back sending out small dive bomber squadrons would be a huge waste of a ship. And you would be a severely gimped BB (8 guns with a lousy layout, no shooting  anything to the rear). Not Good.

Only some.  I prefer the way the rework does carrier planes far more than the way the RTS CVs handled them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
442
[CVA16]
Members
2,940 posts
10,698 battles
39 minutes ago, Crucis said:

I prefer the way the rework does carrier planes far more than the way the RTS CVs handled them.

The planes yes, but I was specifically referring to the part where while the planes are in the air, your ship is on autopilot. Lots of complaints about that. Not good for a BB that is (hopefully) much closer to the red ships than is you typical CV. Especially since your T6 DBs probably do less damage than your guns do. Like with the Tone, IF WG ever adds hybrid ships, they will probably just have extra fighters/spotters consumables over a typical ship. Much less sexy but  much easier to make work.

Technically, with WGs open ended ability to massage the numbers, the 8 guns of ISE could be made to be almost as effective as 10 (12?) guns on a like tiered ship (ROF, sigma, range, damage, turret traverse) with the additional ability to do spotting AND provide fighter cover.

edit. Just looked closer at the BBCV model and the aft turrets would have almost NO ability to fire to the rear quadrant because of those catapults (just considered the flightdeck before). Not even any secondaries can shoot aft. A Mutsuki could hover 3K off your stern and gun you down. I guess you could keep launching DB (if you have them) but he would be damaging them as soon as they take off.

Edited by Sabot_100

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,511
[SALVO]
Members
19,029 posts
19,225 battles
6 minutes ago, Sabot_100 said:

The planes yes, but I was specifically referring to the part where while the planes are in the air, your ship is on autopilot. Lots of complaints about that. Not good for a BB that is (hopefully) much closer to the red ships than is you typical CV. Especially since your T6 DBs probably do less damage than your guns do. Like with the Tone, IF WG ever adds hybrid ships, they will probably just have extra fighters/spotters consumables over a typical ship. Much less sexy but  much easier to make work.

Technically, with WGs open ended ability to massage the numbers, the 8 guns of ISE could be made to be almost as effective as 10 (12?) guns on a like tiered ship (ROF, sigma, range, damage, turret traverse) with the additional ability to do spotting AND provide fighter cover.

1. OK, I agree that it can be annoying to have the CV on autopilot, though a lot of that annoyance is the rather horrid autopilot AI. 

2. Meh.  I'd MUCH rather just have a fake WW2 upgrade on the Ise class than the seriously meh hybrid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
572
[SIMP]
Members
1,171 posts
3 hours ago, Sabot_100 said:

Considering the way WG has implemented CV ship controls, do you really think you could play a BB with strike aircraft? Your ship would be on autopilot for long periods of time while you were using your strike aircraft. A horrible idea for a BB (CV players say its a horrible idea for CVs too). You would be an incredibly weak T6 CV so hanging  out in the back sending out small dive bomber squadrons would be a huge waste of a ship. And you would be a severely gimped BB (8 guns with a lousy layout, no shooting  anything to the rear). Not Good.

But that's the beauty of this class with the new system.

Because it isn't a full carrier, full time isn't required for its aircraft. It has the two 'throw away' squadrons of D4Ys that would be quickly used as the BB is set on a course towards the enemy at the beginning of a match. That would leave only the E16A float planes. Because these are relatively slow (forced to stay in AA bubbles) and the fact that the ship can only launch one of them, means that they would almost constantly be depleted after attacking, requiring long periods of regeneration, only to be blasted to bits again, requiring another long period of regeneration.

It is during these long periods that the player is actively using the ship as a true BB. The aircraft come secondary to normal operations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
442
[CVA16]
Members
2,940 posts
10,698 battles
1 hour ago, capncrunch21 said:

But that's the beauty of this class with the new system.

Because it isn't a full carrier, full time isn't required for its aircraft. It has the two 'throw away' squadrons of D4Ys that would be quickly used as the BB is set on a course towards the enemy at the beginning of a match. That would leave only the E16A float planes. Because these are relatively slow (forced to stay in AA bubbles) and the fact that the ship can only launch one of them, means that they would almost constantly be depleted after attacking, requiring long periods of regeneration, only to be blasted to bits again, requiring another long period of regeneration.

It is during these long periods that the player is actively using the ship as a true BB. The aircraft come secondary to normal operations.

Which means most of the time you are playing a very sub-par, often effectively 4-gun BB with very meh secondaries. A BB with NO ability to shoot  at anything behind you. Count me out.

The ship would also be the primary target for real CVs early on when they realize the ship is on autopilot. At least as long as your squadron is in the air. I will assume, however, that that ship does get extra float fighters so maybe you could count on it defending itself. Surface ships in range will also see it as an easy target. In the old system where you could point and click to attack, this might almost have been viable. Now, since you could not simultaneously conduct surface and air attacks, no way.

Giving up 33% (actually more like 50% considering you limited firing arcs) of your guns for the whole game so you can launch a couple of anemic dive bomber attacks (which make your ship virtually helpless while the attack is in progress) is a really poor tradeoff. A T5 Kongo beats this boat every time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×