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

Battlecruisers part 2

So what do you think (please read post before voting)  

7 members have voted

This poll is closed for new votes
  1. 1. So what do you guys think

    • I like it and want to see this concept ingame
      4
    • I don't like it, battlecruisers shouldn't be in this game
      0
    • I like it, but the concept still needs some fine tuning
      2
    • I dont like it, the enter concept needs to be redone
      1

  • Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.
  • Poll closed on 05/02/2019 at 06:05 PM

5 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

41
[NWNB]
Members
43 posts
3,019 battles

What is this post? Its a follow up my last post (link below) mainly intended to answer some questions and to explain some of the finer things in my previous post. This was going to be tacted on at the start of my British battlecruiser line post, but it just got too long, so I'm making this its own post.

    One thing I noticed in my previous post was many questions about battlecruiser matchmaking here are some answers. Regarding what ship type battlecruisers fall into. Battlecruisers will NOT be a new ship type. They will be classified as cruisers, and the reason is not just because we already have some ships like these ingame (Alaska, Kronshtadt, Azuma, etc.) but also because if battlecruisers had the same matchmaking weight as battleships you could easily get into a situation where a tier X battlecruiser is matched against a tier X battleship. A tier X battlecruiser is only about as powerful as a tier VII to VIII battleship whereas a tier X battlecruiser is closer to a tier X cruiser in terms of power.

    In other words, a 1. v. 1. fight between a tier X battleship and a tier X battlecruiser is nowhere near as "even" as a 1. v. 1. between a tier X cruiser and a tier X battlecruiser because a well-played cruiser can still kill a battlecruiser without too much trouble if the cruiser player treats the battlecruiser kind of like a battleship. However, on average a battleship can kill a battlecruiser in a 1. v. 1. Because 1. a battlecruiser is bigger than a cruiser and thus easier to hit. 2. a battlecruiser is less maneuverable than a cruiser and thus (again) easier to hit. 3. a battlecruiser has less armor and tonnage than a battleship and therefore is less capable of shrugging off hits. 4. a battlecruiser has smaller guns then a battleship and thus can't hit back as hard. And 5. a battleship of any given tier is basically fighting another battleship that's 1 to 3 tiers (depending on the battlecruiser) lower than itself (i.e. if a tier X battleship is fighting a tier X battlecruiser the is basically fighting a tier VII to IX battleship),

    Another thing I noticed was the suggestion to add them as battleships in a line that only goes to tier VII or VIII then links into the current battleship line. The reason I don't want to do this is that most people (myself included) grind a line for the tier X at the end. For example, I'm at the KGV in the brit BB line. If these ships were added leading to the Conqueror why would I grind them? I can understand why they would be added as a split BB line from the point of view of new players or collectors. However, these ships will still be ingame, and they will be in their own line going all the way to tier X. Stuff like this happens a lot in tanks and I would like to see more of it in ships. There are more than enough ship designs for this. This kind of thing its perfectly fine if the line doesn't have a potential tier X but if it does it would be better to go to tier X.

    I hope this clarifies some of my points in my other post (battlecruiser part 1 link here)

and answers some of your questions. The British battlecruiser line will (hopefully) come out soon (I'm aiming for next week) and I'll link it in part 1. Thank you for your time.

Edited by fbifiles
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
387
[INR]
Members
1,224 posts
4,060 battles

BCs are already classified as BBs in the game with Myougi, Kongou (FBB later), Amagi, Ashitaka, Hood, Scharnhorst, Gneisenau... They're capital ships and should be classified as such, imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
4,083 posts
9,066 battles

Interesting ideas. The battlecruisers I am most interested in seeing are German: the Goeben and Von der Tann in particular are outstanding ships. Perhaps the simplest way to deal with them is to carry on with them appearing as premiums, like the Hood. I'm not convinced about having them as super heavy cruisers or whatever. The trade off for a battllecruiser like the Goeben vs regular battleships of her time (Tier IV perhaps with her 11.1 inch main guns) was her stealth and speed. Given the map scales currently in use perhaps these characteristics could be enhanced.The photo of the Goeben below shows how incredibly low-slung she is--with a smaller detection range and very good speed she would be a stealthy ship.

1497099675_FFGoeben2.jpg.cfeba678d37c23130c9fc11d38899feb.jpg

And on a purely ascetic note, the Von der Tann when she appears (and she must!) will be one of the most beautiful ships in the game:

794701204_FFVonderTann.jpg.995c4d774079f528a8816ff166cfb2a7.jpg

Again, fine posts +1 for each.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
81
[CUTIE]
Members
189 posts
8,173 battles
23 minutes ago, WuYixiang said:

BCs are already classified as BBs in the game with Myougi, Kongou (FBB later), Amagi, Ashitaka, Hood, Scharnhorst, Gneisenau... They're capital ships and should be classified as such, imo.

Not *all* of them. Stalingrad and Kronshtadt, although classified by the Allies as "battlecruisers", are among cruisers in WoW. Possibly because the Soviet Navy considered them "heavy cruisers" and not battlecruisers and the staff of WoW probably followed the Soviet opinion. However, all features of a BC are present in Stalingrad and Kronshtadt. We can add more fuel to the discussion just by mentioning Alaska, Azuma or Graf Spee and - bam! - we'll discuss this in circles for the rest of eternity.

Now, to what really matters: I would like to have in game a tech tree line of BC for the nations that actually had one (UK, Germany, Japan). Probably, the easiest way would be to have a parallel line like we have among USN cruisers. The lines are divided between CAs and CLs, however for in-game purposes (especially for MM), they are treated as cruisers plain and simple. I don't see the need of another class to be created.

Another thing is that this parallel line would probably end at t6 (instead of starting at t6 like the USN cruiser split), as BC were quite prolific prior and during WW1, but the concept seemed to have fallen out of grace once "fast battleships" entered the scene in the mid 1930's. I know there are enough projects of BCs lying around to give British, German and Japanese navies BCs up to t15. But that's not the point. The point would be to have a second line of fast capital ships that will bring you to t7 battleships, where slow speed isn't that of an issue any more (except for IJN and USN).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
387
[INR]
Members
1,224 posts
4,060 battles
46 minutes ago, Brooklin82 said:

We can add more fuel to the discussion just by mentioning Alaska, Azuma or Graf Spee and - bam! - we'll discuss this in circles for the rest of eternity.

Alaska was CB (large cruiser), not a BC and was never considered by the USN to be a BC.

Stalingrad/Kronshdadt were considered CAs, like you said, by the Soviets.

Panzerschiffs like Graf Spee were hardly BCs - they don't have the displacement.

And Azuma/Yoshino? I'm inclined to classify them as CBs and not BCs.

Edited by WuYixiang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×