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

Finally get with the times...

13 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
5,097 posts
60 battles

Alright, pardon my ignorance, but now I finally get with the times.

It appears that the USN has finally gotten the CL line split starting from Cleveland split from Pensacola, with both Seattle & Worcester being their AA CLs. It looks like Worcester clearly being superior to the RN's Minotaur. Not to mention, even its CA line has been reworked too. Had both Pensacola, New Orleans & Baltimore moved up & added Buffalo on Tier IX.

No wonder Cleveland felt way too OP as Tier VI, while most of their CAs felt UP all those times back then. I guess the USN cruiser branch has finally balanced properly when it should have been done earlier. WG probably brought in both Neptune & Minotaur to test the water beforehand for a reason, after when they learned that CLs are actually feasible on high tier gameplay when they introduced Soviet cruiser line.

Since both Neptune & Minotaur worked well, then WG proceed to give both Seattle & Worcester a green light to go ahead for the CL line split. Post-war AA cruisers are a thing now. Now recently, they plan to add in Colbert & Smolensk to test the water again to make work with an overspecialized niches to compensate their glass cannon nature as Tier X CLs. If this particular niche experiment works, then it could possibly give a green light for both remaining Soviet post-war DDs - Pr. 30bis Smetliy, Pr. 41 Neustrashimy & Pr. 56 Kotlin. I also learned that WG even added two more IJN DDs based on two variants of the Super Akizuki-class project - Kitakaze & Harugumo. Those two look like the size of a DL or bigger, but lacks speed. Despite this, they could also be the enablers for both Colbert & MLK-16-130 Smolensk, while the latter two are being a more proper cruisers over the Super-Akizukis.

In addition, I can see that both Kronshtadt & Stalingrad are enablers for both Alaska, Design B-65 Azuma & Yoshino to be at least feasible on top tier gameplay  with their own niches as WWII-era battlecruisers (except Stalingrad is a post-war battlecruiser). Come to think of it, I think I can finally understand why these were classified under cruiser class instead of WWI-era & 1920s battlecruisers that were classified under battleship class. Perhaps I should work on a study of what changed from battleship to cruiser class.

So... O-klasse & Design 1047 BCs when?


But in the end... Whether you like it or hate it? You should be grateful that the Soviet Navy (VMF) introduced first to experimenting & test the waters with the advent of destroyer leaders (DL), light cruisers & battlecruisers to make those said ship classes to be viable for high tier gameplay, with the benefit of hindsight.

Then through that, the British Royal Navy introduced Neptune & Minotaur anti-aircraft light cruisers in its full CL line, which leads to the USN CL line split with their own superior AA CL which is Worcester. Follow by a couple of German gimmicky ships - Graf Spee & Scharnhorst which probably enabling Kronshtadt & Stalingrad to make their debuts & hopefully introduce the Pan-European faction in the future?

  • Boring 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
900 posts
3,912 battles

Alrighty, this all seems like really smart information about taking where the past and present of cruisers in the game have been going and then making predictions on how the future of the game will introduce new cruisers to different nations but I really REALLY can't make any sense out of it.  I think you are operating on a higher plane than the rest of us boss.  Bring it down a level and tell us simpletons what you want us to know because it almost sounds like you are predicting ships to be in the game that are already in the game.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
998 posts
5,461 battles

60 battles

5k posts

I'm still looking around for the troll to emerge...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
94
[ARMDG]
[ARMDG]
Members
767 posts
3,287 battles

Okay, you've basically outlined the history of the CL line split and inspirations WG drew from to make the ships in the game. One problem, however, is that you've asked an obscure question that doesn't refer to anything specific and asked us to share our opinions on the whole summary you've written. The other reason why people can't seem to understand your post is that you've introduced more context and your opinion with no obvious split from your question/conclusion.

In my opinion, I think the USN split was beneficial; it seemed to buff USN heavy cruisers and introduced a new meta.

Edited by destawaits

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,062
[FML]
Members
2,862 posts
12,773 battles
6 hours ago, Xero_Snake said:

Alright, pardon my ignorance, but now I finally get with the times.

It appears that the USN has finally gotten the CL line split starting from Cleveland split from Pensacola, with both Seattle & Worcester being their AA CLs. It looks like Worcester clearly being superior to the RN's Minotaur. Not to mention, even its CA line has been reworked too. Had both Pensacola, New Orleans & Baltimore moved up & added Buffalo on Tier IX.

No wonder Cleveland felt way too OP as Tier VI, while most of their CAs felt UP all those times back then. I guess the USN cruiser branch has finally balanced properly when it should have been done earlier. WG probably brought in both Neptune & Minotaur to test the water beforehand for a reason, after when they learned that CLs are actually feasible on high tier gameplay when they introduced Soviet cruiser line.

Since both Neptune & Minotaur worked well, then WG proceed to give both Seattle & Worcester a green light to go ahead for the CL line split. Post-war AA cruisers are a thing now. Now recently, they plan to add in Colbert & Smolensk to test the water again to make work with an overspecialized niches to compensate their glass cannon nature as Tier X CLs. If this particular niche experiment works, then it could possibly give a green light for both remaining Soviet post-war DDs - Pr. 30bis Smetliy, Pr. 41 Neustrashimy & Pr. 56 Kotlin. I also learned that WG even added two more IJN DDs based on two variants of the Super Akizuki-class project - Kitakaze & Harugumo. Those two look like the size of a DL or bigger, but lacks speed. Despite this, they could also be the enablers for both Colbert & MLK-16-130 Smolensk, while the latter two are being a more proper cruisers over the Super-Akizukis.

In addition, I can see that both Kronshtadt & Stalingrad are enablers for both Alaska, Design B-65 Azuma & Yoshino to be at least feasible on top tier gameplay  with their own niches as WWII-era battlecruisers (except Stalingrad is a post-war battlecruiser). Come to think of it, I think I can finally understand why these were classified under cruiser class instead of WWI-era & 1920s battlecruisers that were classified under battleship class. Perhaps I should work on a study of what changed from battleship to cruiser class.

So... O-klasse & Design 1047 BCs when?


But in the end... Whether you like it or hate it? You should be grateful that the Soviet Navy (VMF) introduced first to experimenting & test the waters with the advent of destroyer leaders (DL), light cruisers & battlecruisers to make those said ship classes to be viable for high tier gameplay, with the benefit of hindsight.

Then through that, the British Royal Navy introduced Neptune & Minotaur anti-aircraft light cruisers in its full CL line, which leads to the USN CL line split with their own superior AA CL which is Worcester. Follow by a couple of German gimmicky ships - Graf Spee & Scharnhorst which probably enabling Kronshtadt & Stalingrad to make their debuts & hopefully introduce the Pan-European faction in the future?

...

...

Sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,999
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
7,909 posts
12,228 battles

Ah, it was gratitude that I should have been feeling when the Soviet Navy started the game with a destroyer line, including what was historically one of the most overpowered T10's.

Then further gratitude that they get the first two large cruiser premiums, more large cruisers than some nation's have cruisers period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,447
[YORHA]
Members
4,272 posts
7,632 battles

Of all the posts I have ever read... that was one of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,877
[HINON]
Members
11,212 posts
1 hour ago, mofton said:

 

Sort makes you want to break out the Soviet anthem dah?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12
[1RD]
Members
66 posts
7,162 battles
7 hours ago, Xanshin said:

60 battles

5k posts

I'm still looking around for the troll to emerge...

Internet must be really sketchy in that part of the world.

Somebody ought to give Google Translate a shove too, seems to be skipping

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
151
[WOLFD]
[WOLFD]
Members
703 posts
5,449 battles
9 hours ago, Xero_Snake said:

Alright, pardon my ignorance, ... I guess the USN cruiser branch has finally balanced properly when it should have been done earlier...

This sums it all up folks.  He claims his own ignorance and believes the US cruiser line is balanced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
767
[WOLF3]
Members
1,568 posts
6,045 battles

TLDR : Cliff's Notes version, please.

I almost felt that there was some interesting info hiding in the weeds there.

Please asplain it to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×