Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
Hanger_18

Should Large cruisers get their own tech tree line?

31 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

791
[MIA-P]
Beta Testers
3,338 posts
5,257 battles

This is something that has bothered me for a while. All of the large cruisers are locked behind massive, grind or pay walls. We got kron,Stalingrad, Alaska, Azuma,and Yoshino, with Puerto Rico, and Siegfried in the works. Now personally I can get basically any, and probably all of these if i want, i've just accumulated the resources, but for many this isn't a achievable grind. An entire play style shouldn't be locked away for most of the population to never even play.  So before i bring this to feedback, I would like the input of the community if this is something that should be considered.

 

Lines that I'm confident could be filled out are the UK and US, im not in the know enough of other navies to say if they have the plans.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
136
[LOIN]
Supertester
708 posts

I feel like there isn't enough of them to get there own line

Edited by Starfleet1701
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
791
[MIA-P]
Beta Testers
3,338 posts
5,257 battles
1 minute ago, Starfleet1701 said:

I feel like there isn't enough of them to get there own line

I've already run through the plans, you could certainly do a US line. Ending with the CA-2D design they have slated as a premium.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,417
[GWG]
[GWG]
Supertester
23,490 posts
12,942 battles

They are actually battlecruisers so only if they are otherwise treated like BB's which would put their top tier in tier 7 or maybe tier 8.

3 minutes ago, Starfleet1701 said:

I feel like there isn't enough of them to get there own line

There might be enough for a truncated tree ending around tier 7/8.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,961
[PVE]
Members
10,234 posts
18,829 battles

Why not. The more ships and lines the better IMO.

In any nation that has enough of them to do; do it. Could be a Battlecruiser/Large Cruiser line. Germany, Britain, and US should be able to do tech tree lines and in cases like Azuma and Yoshino they can just be Premiums similar to the current Italian ships with no tech line. Can be it's own separate/stand alone (ie; CV, BB, BC, CA/CL, DD) line top to bottom or a split off of the Cruiser line at some point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,147
[WG-CC]
Privateers, Members
8,943 posts
7,885 battles
8 minutes ago, Starfleet1701 said:

I feel like there isn't enough of them to get there own line

I can say for the Germans that a Large Cruiser tree is possible up to T9 without using fantasy. For T10 an option would be to take the O-class, make it a bit longer and rearrange a bit for a fourth turret and you‘d be set.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,232
[SALVO]
Members
23,384 posts
23,974 battles

I think that there could be enough ships for the Large Cruisers to have "sub lines", or line forks.  

Using the USN large cruisers as one example, they could just be a fork off of the CA line where you go from the T8 Baltimore to the T9 Alaska to the T10 Puerto Rico.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
704
[KAPPA]
Members
2,338 posts
7,178 battles
1 hour ago, AdmiralThunder said:

Why not. The more ships and lines the better IMO.

In any nation that has enough of them to do; do it. Could be a Battlecruiser/Large Cruiser line. Germany, Britain, and US should be able to do tech tree lines and in cases like Azuma and Yoshino they can just be Premiums similar to the current Italian ships with no tech line. Can be it's own separate/stand alone (ie; CV, BB, BC, CA/CL, DD) line top to bottom or a split off of the Cruiser line at some point.

I feel putting the battle cruisers and larger cruisers together might do terrible things if they are both classified as cruisers. You'd probably need to have the line start by branching from BBs and be slotted in the BB slot till you hit the large cruisers proper.

Seriously, imagine something like Hood or Kongou slotted as a cruiser. And worse, if it were a tech tree, you'd randomly get them instead of the typical mirror match in co-op.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
791
[MIA-P]
Beta Testers
3,338 posts
5,257 battles
3 minutes ago, Shoggoth_pinup said:

I feel putting the battle cruisers and larger cruisers together might do terrible things if they are both classified as cruisers. You'd probably need to have the line start by branching from BBs and be slotted in the BB slot till you hit the large cruisers proper.

Seriously, imagine something like Hood or Kongou slotted as a cruiser. And worse, if it were a tech tree, you'd randomly get them instead of the typical mirror match in co-op.

i would rather we not cross them. i know the US line can go without.

A line of ships with a 30mm bow would be interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,141
[PEED2]
Beta Testers
4,865 posts
13,960 battles

Its not about locked for players, its about get players money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,961
[PVE]
Members
10,234 posts
18,829 battles
28 minutes ago, Shoggoth_pinup said:

I feel putting the battle cruisers and larger cruisers together might do terrible things if they are both classified as cruisers. You'd probably need to have the line start by branching from BBs and be slotted in the BB slot till you hit the large cruisers proper.

Seriously, imagine something like Hood or Kongou slotted as a cruiser. And worse, if it were a tech tree, you'd randomly get them instead of the typical mirror match in co-op.

That is why I said make them their own line = CV, BB, BC, CA/CL, DD. They would count as what they are = BC not a BB or Cruiser.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,417
[GWG]
[GWG]
Supertester
23,490 posts
12,942 battles
30 minutes ago, Shoggoth_pinup said:

I feel putting the battle cruisers and larger cruisers together might do terrible things if they are both classified as cruisers. You'd probably need to have the line start by branching from BBs and be slotted in the BB slot till you hit the large cruisers proper.

Seriously, imagine something like Hood or Kongou slotted as a cruiser. And worse, if it were a tech tree, you'd randomly get them instead of the typical mirror match in co-op.

 

1 minute ago, AdmiralThunder said:

That is why I said make them their own line = CV, BB, BC, CA/CL, DD. They would count as what they are = BC not a BB or Cruiser.

They need to be treated tiering wise as BB's. Treating them as cruisers pushes all of them up several tiers. The Alaska if treated like a BB would be in tier 6 or maybe 7 down with the Hood, Scharnhorst (a BB but the small guns push it into BC territory), and Prince Eitel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,961
[PVE]
Members
10,234 posts
18,829 battles
12 minutes ago, BrushWolf said:

 

They need to be treated tiering wise as BB's. Treating them as cruisers pushes all of them up several tiers. The Alaska if treated like a BB would be in tier 6 or maybe 7 down with the Hood, Scharnhorst (a BB but the small guns push it into BC territory), and Prince Eitel.

Treat them as what they are = BC's. They can have their own line and be treated as what they are. They don't have to be treated as a Cruiser or a BB because they aren't either.

Adjust MM to have a separate class = BC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
791
[MIA-P]
Beta Testers
3,338 posts
5,257 battles
18 minutes ago, AdmiralThunder said:

Treat them as what they are = BC's. They can have their own line and be treated as what they are. They don't have to be treated as a Cruiser or a BB because they aren't either.

Adjust MM to have a separate class = BC.

being unable to overmatch makes them unsuitable to be slotted as BBS

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,508
[KSC]
Clan Supertest Coordinator
4,709 posts
7,186 battles
14 minutes ago, AdmiralThunder said:

Treat them as what they are = BC's. They can have their own line and be treated as what they are. They don't have to be treated as a Cruiser or a BB because they aren't either.

Adjust MM to have a separate class = BC.

There are not enough CBs to realistically give the large cruisers their own MM status, and the CCs are already so intertwined with the BB lines it doesn't make much sense to give battlecruisers their own MM status either.  

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
85
[KAPPA]
Members
161 posts
6,107 battles
20 minutes ago, AdmiralThunder said:

Treat them as what they are = BC's. They can have their own line and be treated as what they are. They don't have to be treated as a Cruiser or a BB because they aren't either.

Adjust MM to have a separate class = BC.

Well, now we're mixing up the large cruisers and battlecruisers, as there are different design philosophies and details that separate the two types of ship (not to mention the difference in definitions between various navies at hand)

It'd also be like saying that Graf Spee and Scharnhorst, not to mention Friedrich would need to be in the same MM if that occurred.  Heck, if we're lumping large cruisers and battlecruisers in the same category, how would putting Spee and Friedricheven work?  Are these two ships to be counted as effectively equal and equivalent in role with no effective difference between.  

And, if Spee does not count as a large cruiser, for the purposes of matchmaking and the narrow definitions of the game's code (it certainly was not a large cruiser in real life), then you need to actually define what makes a large cruiser - is it just gun caliber larger than an arbitrarily defined number?  Etc  

It'd be the comparison to the T6 Lexington and T7 Lexington ideas, where the 1916 battlecruiser would fit in at T6 and the 1919 at T7 opposite of Hood.  If Spee (or my proposals listed below) is considered equivalent to these two in terms of matchmaking, how 

For that matter, why don't you separate light cruisers and heavy cruisers into separate matchmaking categories?  The playstyle is different enough between the two, and the roles are so, that there could be a case there.  Not that I think that such a thing should occur, myself, just pointing out that there are better defined categories that could receive their own MM.

 

4 hours ago, Hanger_18 said:

This is something that has bothered me for a while. All of the large cruisers are locked behind massive, grind or pay walls. We got kron,Stalingrad, Alaska, Azuma,and Yoshino, with Puerto Rico, and Siegfried in the works. Now personally I can get basically any, and probably all of these if i want, i've just accumulated the resources, but for many this isn't a achievable grind. An entire play style shouldn't be locked away for most of the population to never even play.  So before i bring this to feedback, I would like the input of the community if this is something that should be considered.

 

Lines that I'm confident could be filled out are the UK and US, im not in the know enough of other navies to say if they have the plans.

Easily plenty.

You have an easy progression for a large cruiser line - the first ship could diverge from New Orleans, as T7, say as a Northampton or similar class with an alternate 10" gun that would replace the 3x3 8" with 3x2 10" as was originally proposed when the Deutschland class was discovered.  This could also exist at T6 as well, depending on performance (as, well, Spee already exists at T6, and 6 10" guns could function there).  Then you'd graduate to the next ship at T7 or T8 being one of the smaller Alaska proposals with 3x2 12" guns on a 19k ton hull.  Then, if you need the T8, you could have one of the intermediate proposals in place (one with 4 twin, or perhaps 1 triple 2 twin or 2 triple 1 twin) to fit.  Then have Guam be the tech tree T9, and then have Samoa be a tech tree TX (it doesn't even have to be the CA2D, but it can be).

So, you'd have:

T6 - Northampton class with a second gun you could purchase to upgrade to 3x2 10" guns.  This works as this proposal was in response to the Deutschland class, allowing for the ahistorical matchup that never occurred.

T7 - Small hull Alaska design study with 3x2 twin 12" guns.  Glass cannony.  This might resemble the "convertible" cruiser design proposed.

T8 - Larger hull Alaska design study with anywhere between 6 and 8 guns in any particular arrangement.  Still not quite Alaska size, but could get most of its AA and striking power.

T9 - Guam.  OTL

TX - Samoa - This could be anywhere from CA2B to CA2D, as you've already said.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,417
[GWG]
[GWG]
Supertester
23,490 posts
12,942 battles
3 hours ago, AdmiralThunder said:

Treat them as what they are = BC's. They can have their own line and be treated as what they are. They don't have to be treated as a Cruiser or a BB because they aren't either.

Adjust MM to have a separate class = BC.


I disagree, the best implementation of BC's in the game has been with them in the BB tree but down tiered. The "Large Cruisers" are meh in the tiers they are forced into. Also as @yashma pointed out they are already intertwined with the BB tree.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,417
[GWG]
[GWG]
Supertester
23,490 posts
12,942 battles
2 hours ago, red_crested_ibis said:

Well, now we're mixing up the large cruisers and battlecruisers, as there are different design philosophies and details that separate the two types of ship (not to mention the difference in definitions between various navies at hand)

It'd also be like saying that Graf Spee and Scharnhorst, not to mention Friedrich would need to be in the same MM if that occurred.  Heck, if we're lumping large cruisers and battlecruisers in the same category, how would putting Spee and Friedricheven work?  Are these two ships to be counted as effectively equal and equivalent in role with no effective difference between.  

And, if Spee does not count as a large cruiser, for the purposes of matchmaking and the narrow definitions of the game's code (it certainly was not a large cruiser in real life), then you need to actually define what makes a large cruiser - is it just gun caliber larger than an arbitrarily defined number?  Etc  

It'd be the comparison to the T6 Lexington and T7 Lexington ideas, where the 1916 battlecruiser would fit in at T6 and the 1919 at T7 opposite of Hood.  If Spee (or my proposals listed below) is considered equivalent to these two in terms of matchmaking, how 

For that matter, why don't you separate light cruisers and heavy cruisers into separate matchmaking categories?  The playstyle is different enough between the two, and the roles are so, that there could be a case there.  Not that I think that such a thing should occur, myself, just pointing out that there are better defined categories that could receive their own MM.

 

The large cruisers are BC's/CC's in all but name as the BC/CC as executed initially had fallen out of favor with navies but many still saw a need for a larger cruiser to fill the very same roll that the original BC/CC's were meant to fill, hunting enemy cruisers. The US calling the large cruisers/CB was to hide that she was functionally a BC/CC, the belt armor was as good or better than any of the RN BC's that were at Jutland, and to ensure that they would not be placed in the battle line and instead held back to hunt enemy cruisers or put into the cruiser line.

I find placing them in the BB tree and down tiers them is the best method to include them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
791
[MIA-P]
Beta Testers
3,338 posts
5,257 battles
10 minutes ago, BrushWolf said:

The large cruisers are BC's/CC's in all but name

not really. not that i want to start this discussion, but the philosophy behind CCs at the time for the RN and the USN was that CCs would be equally armored to battleships, just faster. The doctrine you are thinking of died with Jutland.

This is from the RN admiralty. The USN would use the plans for HMS hood to design CCs of their own, which never really took off (because their design derivatives were a disaster, like really bad...) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,417
[GWG]
[GWG]
Supertester
23,490 posts
12,942 battles
35 minutes ago, Hanger_18 said:

not really. not that i want to start this discussion, but the philosophy behind CCs at the time for the RN and the USN was that CCs would be equally armored to battleships, just faster. The doctrine you are thinking of died with Jutland.

This is from the RN admiralty. The USN would use the plans for HMS hood to design CCs of their own, which never really took off (because their design derivatives were a disaster, like really bad...) 

There was no way to have equal to BB armor and faster in the 1905 through the 1920's, it was only in the 1930's with improved engines that it became possible and instead of making BC/CC's most countries made fast battleships which gave up little in protection and were faster than a standard BB. In fact by WWII pretty much every BB was fast enough to be a fast BB, the Yamato was one of the slower BB's made in the 1930's and she could do 28 knots.  The problem game wise with putting them in the cruiser tree is they end up several tiers higher than they really should be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
85
[KAPPA]
Members
161 posts
6,107 battles
54 minutes ago, BrushWolf said:

The large cruisers are BC's/CC's in all but name as the BC/CC as executed initially had fallen out of favor with navies but many still saw a need for a larger cruiser to fill the very same roll that the original BC/CC's were meant to fill, hunting enemy cruisers. The US calling the large cruisers/CB was to hide that she was functionally a BC/CC, the belt armor was as good or better than any of the RN BC's that were at Jutland, and to ensure that they would not be placed in the battle line and instead held back to hunt enemy cruisers or put into the cruiser line.

I find placing them in the BB tree and down tiers them is the best method to include them.

Is Alaska to be defined by ships built 25 years prior to her, or in comparison to ships built in the same time period?  I would define Alaska against her contemporaries - the Iowa is her contemporaneous battleship counterpart, the Baltimore and Cleveland being cruiser counterparts.  

And different ships over time can fill the same roles - the battlecruisers themselves replaced previous armored cruisers as well.

 Or, well, let's look at the General Board's definition of battlecruiser derived from the 1906 conference, defined them as ships which would be the same size as battleships, with the same battery and torpedo outfit and the best possible protection.  (US Cruisers, Friedman, pg 62).  She did not use the same armament as her contemporaries (or, for that matter, any WW1 battlecruiser still in service).  She did have the same torpedo outfit (none), but did not have the best possible protection - her torpedo protection was much worse than against contemporary capital ships, being nearly identical to cruiser protection schemes save for a third skin.  Her armored protection angles show their cruiser origins, only being rated for 30 Degrees off center, rather than 45 degrees of capital ships.  

Lastly, she is very noticeably smaller than treaty battleships; the only contemporary might be the Scharnhorst class, whose own weapons were treaty limited as well.

My biggest question is what is the defining line?  Is the Deutschland class a battlecruiser?  What of the P Class never-builts, which would have been twice the size, faster, but not nearly as capable?  Are those battlecruisers?  What of that proposed conversion for the OTL US light cruisers (as they were known before the treaty mandated their renaming).  Would equipping them with 10" guns for a cruiser hunter killer role qualify them as such, or is still a function of size?  Would Buffalo be a battlecruiser she is based on a large displacement design scheme with 12 8" guns, which was one of the options in the Alaska class design scheme for cruiser killer? Etc, etc. 

Heck, Baltimore and Des Moines have armor of the same maximum thickness of the Renown class.  Doesn't make them a battlecruiser, even though the latter, especially, was designed to fight and kill Japanese cruisers in nightime battles, but entered into a world without a role, just like Alaska.  

1 minute ago, BrushWolf said:

The problem game wise with putting them in the cruiser tree is they end up several tiers higher than they really should be.

What battleships or battlecruisers are in the cruiser tree/considered cruisers?  The only one I know of is Mikasa which is treated as a cruiser when flexed in a T3 battle  Or are you again referring to the large cruisers?

It seems a bit out of place to be putting warships, instead of with their contemporaries and warships they were built to fight alongside, with other warships designed decades prior.  It's the same issue that Cleveland had - because of WOWS progression, they were stuck at T6 and the ship, even though it was nerfed far beyond what it should have been considering the age and abilities of the system, was still the best T6 cruiser at the time.  Sticking the Alaska down at T6/T7 would create the same issue - a warship with the abilities of a midwar cruiser being forced to be nerfed heavily to give warships designed decades prior a chance of competing.  

Should cruisers only be limited to ships of 8" gun caliber size and below a some arbitrary tonnage limit?

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,417
[GWG]
[GWG]
Supertester
23,490 posts
12,942 battles
18 minutes ago, red_crested_ibis said:

Is Alaska to be defined by ships built 25 years prior to her, or in comparison to ships built in the same time period?  I would define Alaska against her contemporaries - the Iowa is her contemporaneous battleship counterpart, the Baltimore and Cleveland being cruiser counterparts.  

And different ships over time can fill the same roles - the battlecruisers themselves replaced previous armored cruisers as well.

 Or, well, let's look at the General Board's definition of battlecruiser derived from the 1906 conference, defined them as ships which would be the same size as battleships, with the same battery and torpedo outfit and the best possible protection.  (US Cruisers, Friedman, pg 62).  She did not use the same armament as her contemporaries (or, for that matter, any WW1 battlecruiser still in service).  She did have the same torpedo outfit (none), but did not have the best possible protection - her torpedo protection was much worse than against contemporary capital ships, being nearly identical to cruiser protection schemes save for a third skin.  Her armored protection angles show their cruiser origins, only being rated for 30 Degrees off center, rather than 45 degrees of capital ships.  

Lastly, she is very noticeably smaller than treaty battleships; the only contemporary might be the Scharnhorst class, whose own weapons were treaty limited as well.

My biggest question is what is the defining line?  Is the Deutschland class a battlecruiser?  What of the P Class never-builts, which would have been twice the size, faster, but not nearly as capable?  Are those battlecruisers?  What of that proposed conversion for the OTL US light cruisers (as they were known before the treaty mandated their renaming).  Would equipping them with 10" guns for a cruiser hunter killer role qualify them as such, or is still a function of size?  Would Buffalo be a battlecruiser she is based on a large displacement design scheme with 12 8" guns, which was one of the options in the Alaska class design scheme for cruiser killer? Etc, etc. 

Heck, Baltimore and Des Moines have armor of the same maximum thickness of the Renown class.  Doesn't make them a battlecruiser, even though the latter, especially, was designed to fight and kill Japanese cruisers in nightime battles, but entered into a world without a role, just like Alaska.  

What battleships or battlecruisers are in the cruiser tree/considered cruisers?  The only one I know of is Mikasa which is treated as a cruiser when flexed in a T3 battle  Or are you again referring to the large cruisers?

It seems a bit out of place to be putting warships, instead of with their contemporaries and warships they were built to fight alongside, with other warships designed decades prior.  It's the same issue that Cleveland had - because of WOWS progression, they were stuck at T6 and the ship, even though it was nerfed far beyond what it should have been considering the age and abilities of the system, was still the best T6 cruiser at the time.  Sticking the Alaska down at T6/T7 would create the same issue - a warship with the abilities of a midwar cruiser being forced to be nerfed heavily to give warships designed decades prior a chance of competing.  

Should cruisers only be limited to ships of 8" gun caliber size and below a some arbitrary tonnage limit?

It is a ship with larger guns designed to counter cruisers, that is exactly what the original BC's were supposed to do. With that alone it passes the duck test. Tiering is based mostly on capabilities which more equal mid tier BB's than high tier cruisers so yes the Alaska and all of the current "large cruisers" should be down tiered to be with the other BC/CC's and BC/CC ships like the Scharnhorst & Gneisenau.

The Deutschland class is very much a cruiser even with the large guns.

If the devs want to put the Alaska's 8" design option in the game it would be more cruiser like that BC like and as the Alaska's were laid down after the war started the Washington and London treaties were already in the dumpster so they really had no impact on the design of the Alaska's.

The Baltimore and Des Moines were both ordered after the war started so the treaties were out although the were both built to the treaties with their displacement but design advancements allowed far more protection as a percentage of the displacement than the early designs.

The BC's and BC like ships work better in the mid tiers as BB's than as cruisers in the upper tiers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
791
[MIA-P]
Beta Testers
3,338 posts
5,257 battles
2 hours ago, BrushWolf said:

There was no way to have equal to BB armor and faster in the 1905 through the 1920's, it was only in the 1930's with improved engines that it became possible and instead of making BC/CC's most countries made fast battleships which gave up little in protection and were faster than a standard BB. In fact by WWII pretty much every BB was fast enough to be a fast BB, the Yamato was one of the slower BB's made in the 1930's and she could do 28 knots.  The problem game wise with putting them in the cruiser tree is they end up several tiers higher than they really should be.

not my fault the brits called anything quick a CC.

 

in game things can easily be moved up and down tiers, all it takes is some plating adjustments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,417
[GWG]
[GWG]
Supertester
23,490 posts
12,942 battles
2 minutes ago, Hanger_18 said:

not my fault the brits called anything quick a CC.

 

in game things can easily be moved up and down tiers, all it takes is some plating adjustments.

I just find that BC's/large cruisers work better down tiered in the BB tree. I will admit that at least some of that is from my dislike of top tier meta where the large cruisers are unable to make use of their speed or maneuverability because bow in is the only option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×