Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
Admiral_Thrawn_1

Wargaming We Need Battlecruiser Tech Tree Lines

27 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

3,497
[RKLES]
Members
12,551 posts
14,267 battles

Aside from submarines getting added who knows when, finishing up a couple current lines I am working on there is nothing I want at the moment. The RU ships are of no interest and really neither are the EU line. The RN Heavy Cruisers did not seem appealing and the Italian CAs definitely were not. So Wargaming the following is for you...

 

“We have Battlecruiser tech tree lines under development now with releases scheduled for late 2020 and early 2021.”

16FD5940-DC3A-4D32-926C-000824C6813C.gif.0aeee16d0f2146de47e188830e72d70e.gif

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,497
[RKLES]
Members
12,551 posts
14,267 battles
2 minutes ago, jags_domain said:

The Italians are great after t8.

Yeah, but the entire line below tier 8 is unusable garbage if you care about your stats at all. And even the tier 8+ in that line are just ok.

It has simply been a while since Wargaming released a really good line to grind through. And it’s acceptable to have 1 or 2 bad ships in a line, but most of a line being bad with the remainder not being too spectacular is not exactly appealing.

  • Funny 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,671
[INTEL]
Members
13,033 posts
35,954 battles
Just now, Admiral_Thrawn_1 said:

Yeah, but the entire line below tier 8 is unusable garbage if you care about your stats at all. And even the tier 8+ in that line are just ok.

It has simply been a while since Wargaming released a really good line to grind through. And it’s acceptable to have 1 or 2 bad ships in a line, but most of a line being bad with the remainder not being too spectacular is not exactly appealing.

Same pattern with the last several lines. The EU DDs are crap to meh til T9. The Italian cruisers, crap to meh til T9. The French DDs, crap to meh til T9.....

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,103
[SOV]
Members
4,621 posts
Just now, Admiral_Thrawn_1 said:

Yeah, but the entire line below tier 8 is unusable garbage if you care about your stats at all. And even the tier 8+ in that line are just ok.

It has simply been a while since Wargaming released a really good line to grind through. And it’s acceptable to have 1 or 2 bad ships in a line, but most of a line being bad with the remainder not being too spectacular is not exactly appealing.

One or two bad ships are in every line.  

t1-7 are really bad almost unplayable.  t10 is my new fav. :crab:

nbe British has no appeal as I am never afraid of them in any game.  I am looking forward to the German CV.  With AP rockets and bombs it will be challenging set of CV, if you have played the IJN you know what AP is feast or famine.  The next full line will prob be the Italian BB with smoke and SAP.  After that they are really out of lines they can do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,953
[RLGN]
Members
14,248 posts
25,088 battles
4 hours ago, jags_domain said:

The (insert line du jour here) are great after t8.

FIFY?

WG’s perennial excuse to try to get players to fxp into tiers they’re completely unprepared for.

Not that I think they shouldn’t make money, but their annoying obsession with high tiers, and with ‘encouraging’ players to get to those tiers as quickly as possible, makes the game less enjoyable all around.

One of the biggest side-effects of that is that content players have been asking for for years is either ignored completely, or given such a low priority it takes forever to be implemented...

...kind of like ‘mount/demount all,’ only took five years to get that done. :fish_glass:

Edited by Estimated_Prophet
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,184
[SALVO]
Members
24,769 posts
25,791 battles
33 minutes ago, Taichunger said:

Same pattern with the last several lines. The EU DDs are crap to meh til T9. The Italian cruisers, crap to meh til T9. The French DDs, crap to meh til T9.....

Nonsense.  Utter nonsense.  The EU DDs aren't nearly as bad as people make them out to be in the lower levels.  The tier 5 and 6 DDs are sort of like IJN DDs with their slow reloading guns as well as having more guns in the rear than forward facing.  And the "good" Swedish DDs start at tier 7 with the Skåne.  The Italian CAs start getting good at tier 7 with the Zara.  The French DDs seemed to start getting good at tier 6 or 7.  And the British CAs started feeling good at tier 7 for me with the Surrey, though I know that some even liked the tier 6 Devonshire.

It seems to me, Tai, that you have a bias towards late WW2 ships (or even later) in what feels "good" to you when you constantly say that lines are crap until they reach tier 9.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,184
[SALVO]
Members
24,769 posts
25,791 battles
42 minutes ago, Admiral_Thrawn_1 said:

Yeah, but the entire line below tier 8 is unusable garbage if you care about your stats at all. And even the tier 8+ in that line are just ok.

It has simply been a while since Wargaming released a really good line to grind through. And it’s acceptable to have 1 or 2 bad ships in a line, but most of a line being bad with the remainder not being too spectacular is not exactly appealing.

Thrawn, it seems to me that judging ships by "if you care about your stats" is a VERY poor way to judge ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,480
[-K-]
Members
8,330 posts
14,084 battles

If we can't get battlecruiser lines, can we at least get battlecruiser designations in battle for ships like Alaska and Stalingrad?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,497
[RKLES]
Members
12,551 posts
14,267 battles
1 hour ago, Crucis said:

Thrawn, it seems to me that judging ships by "if you care about your stats" is a VERY poor way to judge ships.

Let me rephrase it then, if you do not have a good team there is no way to win with the Italians. Your AP struggles to pen and so dies your SAP which leaves you all but defenseless against BBs and heavier CAs. Sure you can do a lot of damage to a DD if there are DDs which is not 100% of the time that you face DDs. The only Italian CA I am even halfway impressive with is the tier X in battles, have seen the rest fail far too miserably too many times and have tried the mid tier ones personally as well. You have to be able to do a certain amount in battles and not rely on extremely situational abilities to do that. I mentioned stats because with most of the Italian CAs you are placing your WR even more at the mercy of your team mates than usual.

Now if the Italian CAs had HE shells they would have slightly more flexibility since fires can deal damage when pure shell power can not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
233
[-K-]
WoWS Community Contributors, Supertester
946 posts
13,234 battles

I would love to see a battlecruiser line for nations.

There were real ships that would make this designation and im sure enough paper boats as well.

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
157
[PRMUS]
Members
943 posts
2,312 battles

Have no doubt it's coming. I see the random af Prinz Eitel Freidrich as possible proof they are saving the titular Mackensan for the tech tree. But I do think there's a good chance they're waiting on it till they've exhausted all the BB tech trees and they haven't, Russians just came out and the Italians are still there. So might be waiting a long while. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,184
[SALVO]
Members
24,769 posts
25,791 battles
10 minutes ago, _greifer said:

I would love to see a battlecruiser line for nations.

There were real ships that would make this designation and im sure enough paper boats as well.

 

The problem that I see is that WG is burning through all of the high tier historically built and historical known design studies, which will only put them in a bind if it comes to developing high tier BC's for actual BC lines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,779 posts
36,491 battles

In a match I was in, I was in my Mutsu and the tier 6 Italian cruiser there was sailing next to me. We both wanted to torpedo a BB. So he fired, I fired. And....my torpedoes overtook his torps, sailed past and reached the BB.

I couldn't stop laughing. Because I thought Mutsu's torpedoes were slow, but in fact are faster than Italian torpedoes. After my torpedoes hit, the Italian torpedoes hit 4 secs later.

I am beginning to wonder if South Carolina could outrun Italian torpedoes. Because that would be hilarious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,474
[A-I-M]
Members
3,015 posts
13,269 battles
3 hours ago, Estimated_Prophet said:

WG’s perineal excuse to try to get players to fxp into tiers they’re completely unprepared for.


WG’s excuse lies between the anus and the genitals? Do they have a bad itch?

Don’ t bother to explain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,170
[HINON]
[HINON]
Members
7,887 posts
11,570 battles

ok, fair enough, but the RN and Germans would really only be the ones to have a close to full line of true battlecruisers, WW2 is pretty much where battlecruisers fell out of use, as ive said before, the term "Fast Battleship" more or less replaced "Battlecruiser" they had the speed of a battlecruiser, while still being able to keep the armor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,953
[RLGN]
Members
14,248 posts
25,088 battles
26 minutes ago, MannyD_of_The_Sea said:

WG’s excuse lies between the anus and the genitals? Do they have a bad itch?

Don’ t bother to explain.

Bleagh... Hooray for useless autocorrect...

Took ten arfing minutes for my idiot phone to finally get a damn clue about what I was trying to look up.

perennial. (fixed)

Edited by Estimated_Prophet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Banned
627 posts
5 hours ago, Admiral_Thrawn_1 said:

Aside from submarines getting added who knows when, finishing up a couple current lines I am working on there is nothing I want at the moment. The RU ships are of no interest and really neither are the EU line. The RN Heavy Cruisers did not seem appealing and the Italian CAs definitely were not. So Wargaming the following is for you...

 

“We have Battlecruiser tech tree lines under development now with releases scheduled for late 2020 and early 2021.”

16FD5940-DC3A-4D32-926C-000824C6813C.gif.0aeee16d0f2146de47e188830e72d70e.gif

We don't need any, because only 2 nations ever made them in mass, and one was WW I era only.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,497
[RKLES]
Members
12,551 posts
14,267 battles
9 hours ago, Crucis said:

The problem that I see is that WG is burning through all of the high tier historically built and historical known design studies, which will only put them in a bind if it comes to developing high tier BC's for actual BC lines.

And when has that ever stopped WG?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,607
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
15,702 posts

First, will they be RN-style battlecruisers (all guns, iffy armor), KM-style battlecruisers (more armor, but no, Scharn/Gneis are not BCs), or US-style battlecruisers (never actually built)?   

Second, will WG actually give in and have tech tree branches that don't go all the way to tier 10?  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,184
[SALVO]
Members
24,769 posts
25,791 battles
45 minutes ago, KilljoyCutter said:

First, will they be RN-style battlecruisers (all guns, iffy armor), KM-style battlecruisers (more armor, but no, Scharn/Gneis are not BCs), or US-style battlecruisers (never actually built)?   

Second, will WG actually give in and have tech tree branches that don't go all the way to tier 10?  

 

The Scharn/Gneis are not battlecruisers according to the outdated definitions of WW1, that's for sure.  German WW1 era BCs were essentially slightly toned down battleships with a little less armor in exchange for a little bit more tonnage in engines and boilers.  The Brits did the same thing, just to a much greater extreme, i.e. giving up a lot more tonnage in armor for the additional tonnage in engines and boilers.

Regarding the Sh/Gn, I think that they could be considered "light battleships" (not that there was ever such a designation), because they really didn't mount a sufficient main battery to be considered legitimate BBs.  Seriously, the 11" gunned Sh/Gn was armed similarly to the Alaskas, but with enough additional tonnage for them to have legit levels of armor and anti-torpedo protection.

As for the second point, I wish that this is what they'd do, since as I mentioned earlier, WG has used up the historically built and known historical designs for what would pass for high tier BCs for some nations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,629
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
8,652 posts
14,715 battles

I imagine WG would just make battlecruiser lines alternative battleship lines, as there are splits between destroyers/destroyer leaders and heavy/light cruisers.

As for why they've not been done... not sure, WG prioritized a low effort cruiser split for the British over battlecruisers and perplexingly carriers over battlecruisers for the Germans. I do agree with some of the comments that WG will want to keep some high-value content as long as possible to keep people interested. Right now if you look at the most glaring omissions from the game they are generally the battlecruisers, with most nations battleship classes pretty widely represented in-game.

For myself, I'm annoyed with the direction the game has gone in the last 18 months - the carrier rework, release of HE spam and now subs - and maybe WG realize that once I get a Dido and Renown and play them a chunk I might be done...

 

Some of the recent lines have been rather disappointing, I very much dislike the Pan-European line. I think the RN heavy cruiser line was bland, but alternated good/bad ships without much structure - Devonshire was good, Drake was ok, Goliath is ok but boring, Albemarle I think is poor. When you have a number of 'misses' per line with few exceptions there will always be bad ships, and T9 has a reputation as a grindwall which I think is significantly deserved - Seattle, Neptune, Lion, Ibuki, old-Izumo being key examples. On the other hand I'd say the German destroyers right now are poor pretty much across the board so...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
281
[XXX]
Members
520 posts
923 battles

We have a long thread, started by myself on the EU forums about RN Battlecruisers as you can see here

The general rule of thumb we came to for a BC focused fast battleship line worked out like this

Tier 3: Invincible.

Tier 4: Princess Royal (same as Lion but doesn't share the name with a tier 9 BB).

Tier 5: Tiger.

Tier 6: Renown.

Tier 7: J3/Admiral (improved version of the Hood).

Tier 8: G3 Battlecruiser (armed with 3x3 406mm guns, same as the Nelson).

Tier 9:  K3 Battlecruiser (armed with 3x3 457mm guns).

Tier 10: I3 Battlecruiser (Armed the same as the above but a much later design).

2 hours ago, KilljoyCutter said:

First, will they be RN-style battlecruisers (all guns, iffy armor), KM-style battlecruisers (more armor, but no, Scharn/Gneis are not BCs), or US-style battlecruisers (never actually built)?   

Second, will WG actually give in and have tech tree branches that don't go all the way to tier 10?  

 

Actually the US built exact 2 types of Battlecruiser. The Alaska is considered a Battlecruiser and the Lexington Class

Which might have its place as a premium ship since it's got 8 x 406mm guns much and would essentially be a faster but less armored version of the Colorado.

Edited by Yandere_Roon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,607
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
15,702 posts
4 minutes ago, Yandere_Roon said:

Actually the US built exact 2 types of Battlecruiser. The Alaska is considered a Battlecruiser and the Lexington Class

The two Alaska-class were never classified as capital ships, and I don't see any way to classify them as "battlecruisers" based on their armament, armor scheme, or construction -- they were literally scaled-up heavy cruisers.  

The six Lexington-class -- four were scrapped while incomplete, two were converted into aircraft carriers, so they don't count as built.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
281
[XXX]
Members
520 posts
923 battles
4 minutes ago, KilljoyCutter said:

The two Alaska-class were never classified as capital ships, and I don't see any way to classify them as "battlecruisers" based on their armament, armor scheme, or construction -- they were literally scaled-up heavy cruisers.  

The six Lexington-class -- four were scrapped while incomplete, two were converted into aircraft carriers, so they don't count as built.  

 

Yes but if you want a US Battlecruiser those are basically your option. The US basically didn't do Battlecruisers apart from the Lexington class IF you rule out the Alaska class. I mean they were partially built and the plans were there. I could picture her as a tier 7 premium. She has the same guns and gun layout as the Colorado but isn't quite as phat but she would trade that for the proposed 33 knots of speed and would, infact, make a MUCH more interesting premium than the Califailure.

Edited by Yandere_Roon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×