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

Commonwealth DD, CL, and Aircraft Carrier Proposals

Commonwealth Tech Tree Proposal  

40 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you want to see a Commonwealth tech tree in game?

    • Yes! It's about dang time!
      35
    • No! They don't have a place in game!
      1
    • I don't really care. It doesn't interest me
      4
  2. 2. Would you worry that a Commonwealth tech tree would be clones of the RN?

    • Yeah
      11
    • Nope
      19
    • It doesn't matter
      10
  3. 3. Do you worry that a Commonwealth tech tree would consist of mostly paper ships?

    • Yes. There isn't enough variety to include them
      2
    • No. There might be enough variety to include a line
      24
    • It doesn't bother me
      14
  4. 4. Do you want to see a Commonwealth DD line?

    • Yep
      34
    • Nope
      1
    • I don't care
      5
  5. 5. Do you want to see a Commonwealth CL line?

    • Yes
      37
    • No
      2
    • It doesn't matter
      1
  6. 6. Do you want to see a Commonwealth CV line?

    • Yes. I believe that they might be interesting
      22
    • No. CV's hurt the game overall and need to be rebalanced
      10
    • I don't care about CV's or a Commonwealth CV line
      8

18 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

382
[KENT]
Members
409 posts
7,093 battles

So to start this post off, I've been thinking about a Commonwealth line for a long while. It really interests me coming from both a national perspective (being a Canuk myself and all) and a historical one. Going from small collection of aging ships, to a powerful naval force to be reckoned with, the explosive growth of the Commonwealth navies during and after ww2 was truly astounding. Coupled with all the history many ships in their respective navies had, and the already fun gameplay from the current premiums in the line (Haida is one of my favorite DDs in the game), I feel that a Commonwealth line could definitely have it's place in the game.

One of the biggest issues I see people cite when talking about a hypothetical line, is the worry that they'll just become clones of already existing British ships. This is probably one of the biggest arguments I see, and is absolutely a fair one. Ships of the Commonwealth of nations usually were modified or part of a class of British built ships, with some being on lend lease themselves from other nations. However, with that being said, we do have a complete tech tree of British ships, and historically speaking, there was a lot more variety of ship classes that served with Commonwealth nations that aren't in game yet, so I feel that there is enough variety to warrant the nation itself. Also a great Segway into the videos I wanted to share from @SappeREffecT

Like I said, I was thinking about writing up about my ideal vision for a commonwealth line a while back, and started looking into other people's ideas of what the line should look like for reference. I then came across Sapper's vids after a search through YouTube, and I really liked the concept he had for a tech tree. I won't summarize the videos here because I highly recommend that you go and watch them, as he goes into quite a bit of depth in each one, but the general idea that Sapper had was to make each line as unique from the British in terms of ship classes and gameplay, as possible. Now I don't want people to think that I'm just advertising the video for him here, because my intention throughout this post is to try and encourage discussion about a Commonwealth tech tree, but Sapper as well as I, really wanted to create a thoughtful discussion around this topic, and I felt that his videos were really well done in terms of creating a unique and balanced line. So after talking with him as well, I got permission from him to share his videos in the North American forums to do just that. 

Again, these are not my videos, and Sapper has gratefully allowed me to share them on the forums. I felt like this was probably the best Commonwealth line proposal I've seen so far on then internet (as it solves quite well the issues that some have with the idea of a Commonwealth line), and the fact that Sapper really was hoping for feedback on his proposal gave me some motivation to create this post, as well as being stuck in a house all day. I just want to have the lines play well and have a historical basis if and when they eventually come out, so why not start by suggesting to WG what the ideal tech trees should look like. Below is a quick summary of the ships proposed for each line in the video.

Destroyers:

Tier II: Champlain (RAN/RCN)

Firepower: 3x1 102mm

Torpedoes: 2x2 533mm

Speed: 31 kts

Consumables: Damage control, Creeping smoke

Tier III: Waterhen (RAN)

Firepower: 4x1 102mm

Torpedoes: 2x3 533mm

Speed: 34 kts

Consumables: Damage control, Creeping smoke

Tier IV: Stuart (RAN)

Firepower: 5x1 120mm

Torpedoes: 2x3 533mm

Speed: 34 kts

Consumables: Damage control, Creeping smoke

Tier V: Skeena (RCN)

Firepower: 4x1 120mm

Torpedoes: 2x4 533mm

Speed: 36 kts

Consumables: Damage control, Creeping smoke, Hydroacoustic search

Tier VI: Chaudiere (RCN)

Firepower: 4x1 120mm

Torpedoes: 2x4 533mm

Speed: 36 kts

Consumables: Damage control, Creeping smoke, Hydroacoustic search

Tier VII: Jan Van Riebeeck (SAN)

Firepower: 4x1 120mm

Torpedoes: 2x4 533mm

Speed: 36 kts

Consumables: Damage control, Creeping smoke, Hydroacoustic search, Defensive AA/Speed boost

Tier VIII: Napier (RAN)

Firepower: 3x2 120mm

Torpedoes: 2x5 533mm

Speed: 36 kts

Consumables: Damage control, Creeping smoke/Surveillance radar, Hydroacoustic search, Defensive AA/Speed boost

Tier IX: Battle (RAN)

Firepower: 2x2 113mm

Torpedoes: 2x5 533mm

Speed: 36 kts

Consumables: Damage control, Creeping smoke/Surveillance radar, Hydroacoustic search, Defensive AA/Speed boost

Tier X: Vendetta (RAN)

Firepower: 3x2 113mm

Torpedoes: 2x5 533mm

Speed: 36 kts

Consumables: Damage control, Creeping smoke/Surveillance Radar, Hydroacoustic search, Defensive AA/Speed boost

Cruisers:

Tier I: Indus (RIN/RAN/RNZN)

Firepower: 2x1 120mm

Range: 9.5km

Speed: 19 kts

Consumables: Damage control

Tier II: Pelorus (RAN)

Firepower: 8x1 102mm

Range: 11 km

Speed: 22 kts

Consumables: Damage control

Tier III: Challenger (RAN)

Firepower: 11x1 152mm

Range: 12 km

Speed: 24 kts

Consumables: Damage control

Tier IV: Chatham (RAN/RNZN)

Firepower: 8x1 152mm

Torpedoes: 2x1 533mm

Range: 13 km

Speed: 26 kts

Consumables: Damage control, Hydroacoustic search

Tier V: Dunedin (RNZN)

Firepower: 6x1 152mm

Torpedoes: 4x3 533mm

Range: 14 km

Speed: 29 kts

Consumables: Damage control, Creeping smoke, Hydroacoustic search

Tier VI: Hobart (RAN/RNZN/RIN)

Firepower: 4x2 152mm

Torpedoes: 2x4 533mm

Range: 15 km

Speed: 33 kts

Consumables: Damage control, Creeping smoke, Hydroacoustic search

Tier VII: Bellona (RNZN/PN)

Firepower: 4x2 152mm

Torpedoes: 2x3 533mm

Range: 16km

Speed: 33 kts

Consumables: Damage control, Creeping smoke, Hydroacoustic search

Tier VIII: Swiftsure (RCN)

Firepower: 3x3 152mm

Torpedoes: 2x3 533mm

Range: 16.5 km

Speed: 33 kts

Consumables: Damage control, Creeping smoke/Surveillance radar, Hydroacoustic search

Tier IX: Tiger (RAN/RCN/RNZN hypothetical ownership)

Firepower: 3x3 152mm

Torpedoes: 2x3 533mm

Range: 16.5 km

Speed: 34 kts

Consumables: Damage control, Creeping smoke/Surveillance radar, Hydroacoustic search, Repair party

Tier X: Bellerophon/11 24a design (Hypothetical ownership)

Firepower: 4x3 152mm

Torpedoes: 2x4 533mm

Range: 17km

Speed: 34 kts

Consumables: Damage control, Creeping smoke/Surveillance radar, Hydroacoustic search, Repair party

 

That's pretty much a technical summary of all the silver ships that Sapper had proposed in his video. I personally don't agree with all of the ships selected or left out of the line, but again, it solves a lot of the issues people might have with Commonwealth ships. One element Sapper only lightly touched on in his video though, was the idea of aircraft carriers. Honestly, I wasn't too excited since CVs really aren't that balanced right now, and we saw how well adding in a new line worked out with the German CVs. looking at it more and more though, I began to develop a vision myself of what the gameplay of the ships. So now I wanted to try and give my two cents on a Commonwealth CV line.

Now I am well aware of how controversial carriers are, and like Sapper said in his video, it probably shouldn't be added anytime soon. However, contrary to popular belief, Commonwealth navies did operate aircraft carriers, though most were in operation mid-late war and during the cold war. To me, they represent the rapid development of Commonwealth navies during the second world war, and have quite a few unique aircraft that could be proposed for some of the carriers on this list. For a ship or an aircraft to have to make it onto my list, it had to be majority crewed by a Commonwealth nation, and/or the aircraft that were both in service with their respective nation and had to feasibly have been able to be carried by said ship (there may be an exception or two with the proposed tier 4). If there are better suggestions for either a ship or aircraft that I didn't include in this proposal, definitely let me know.

For the CV gameplay itself, I wanted to settle on a "Boom and zoom" playstyle where it was a high risk, but high reward style of gameplay. I really had fun playing the pre bait-and-switch Graf zeppelin, and I wanted to try and recreate the gameplay of that ship within this line. The main idea is to have the aircraft be some of the fastest at their tier, dropping a low number of high alpha munitions. The biggest downsides of the carriers would be their nonexistent healthpool, tiny squads, small carrier plane reserves, and the CV's complete lack of self defense armament. The rockets have unusually low damage and fire chance compared to the bombs and torpedoes, the torpedoes are quite slow, and the bombers have a wide drop circle and long attack prep times, but they drop like Kaga's bombers do, with a high pitch up, and then a long, flat dive towards the target. On top of that, starting from tier 8, they'll have access to the new Air Dropped Smoke consumable, which will help the ships greatly in assisting their team while adding a new element to CV gameplay. This makes the line overall very good at striking large and lonely capital ships, but heavily punishes the CV player for misplays such as flying into a large group of ships, or remaining in a ships continuous AA bubble.

 

Aircraft Carriers:

Tier IV: Proposed C2 Transport conversion (Halifax or Alice Springs good names?)

A proposed conversion of the type C2 class of United states cargo transports into escort carriers, these ships had the potential to serve in either the RCN or RAN. Like many of her contemporaries, she lacks speed, secondary armament, and hangar size.

Speed: 16 kts

Aircraft carried: 20, 4 reserve

Attack aircraft: 4 per squad, 2 per attack: Bristol Bulldog (RAN), Armstrong Witworth Siskin (RCN)

Torpedo aircraft: 6 per squad, 2 per attack: Westland Wapiti (RAN, RCN), Hawker Demon (RAN)

Dive bomber aircraft: 6 per squad, 2 per attack: Westland Wapiti (RAN, RCN), Hawker Demon (RAN)

Quick Summary:

Out of all the carriers proposed on this list, this ship is probably the biggest stretch in the entire proposed tech tree. For the ship itself, I based it off the proposed American conversion of the C2 cargo ships. Many of the older carrier conversions were based on tankers or cargo ships, and quite a few were sold over to the British under the lend lease program (later named the ruler class by the British). These lend lease ships were sometimes transferred to British commonwealth nations (as with the next t6 choice).

Aircraft Relevance:

For the aircraft, I decided to add inter-war aircraft that were as relevant as I could find. I split her aircraft into either RAAF or RCAF proposals, depending on which nation this ship would have been leased to from Britain (either Australia or Canada). For fighters, I chose the Bristol Bulldog for the RAAF, and the Armstrong Siskin for the RCAF. In terms of dive bombers and torpedo bombers, I chose the Westland Wapiti which was operated by both the RCAF and RAF, and the Hawker Demon which was a prominent Aussie light bomber in the interwar period. I felt like each was the best option to fit said interwar time period.

Relevance of the ship:

Now I understand that this ship is a big stretch to add in, but it's one of the only few paper ship proposals and the only paper ship in this proposed line. Honestly, if anyone else has a better idea for a tier 4 commonwealth carrier, I'll gladly take it. This is just theory crafting at the end of the day.

Tier VI: Nabob (RCN)

The first ever aircraft carrier to be majority crewed by the Royal Canadian Navy, Nabob was a modified Bogue-class escort carrier supplied to the Royal navy under the lend-lease program. Apart rom the aircrew, the ship was entirely operated by the Royal Canadian Navy for the specific purpose of Anti Submarine Warfare. During Operation Goodwind, Nabob was torpedoed by the submarine U-354, but remained afloat and was able to limp back to Scapa Flow. Damaged beyond repair, she was run aground in the River Clyde and later scrapped.

Speed: 18 kts

Aircraft carried: 28, 10 reserve

Attack aircraft: 6 per squad, 2 per attack: Vought F4-U Corsair, Curtiss Kittyhawk, Bristol Beaufighter

Torpedo aircraft: 6 per squad, 3 per attack: Avro Anson, Bristol Beaufighter

Dive Bomber aircraft: 6 per squad, 2 per attack: Avro Anson, Bristol Beaufighter

Quick summary:

This is where things get interesting for commonwealth carriers and their flavor starts to stand out. While Nabob is still slow with weak amour and secondaries, it's her aircraft that really make her shine. Unlike her predecessor's aircraft, the aircraft on Nabob are much faster than the rest at her tier, but lack health and effective munitions to deal with destroyers. While her rocket planes are fast, the weapons they carry are incredibly lackluster with bad alpha damage, penetration, and a larger ellipse than her competitors. This will start to become a common trend throughout the rest of the tree. Things shift for the better for her Bombers and Torpedo Bombers. While both have relatively low health when compared to their counterparts, the dive bombers have improved speed, alpha damage (though low fire chance), and accuracy. The torpedo bombers don't have the same speed yet, but the torpedoes they carry have relatively good punch and speed, compensating for the low number that they drop.

Aircraft Relevance:

Ok, so the selection of aircraft to choose at this tier was pretty broad, unlike tier 4. For attack aircraft, I chose both historically equipped ones such as the corsairs historically carried, and aircraft operated by the RCAF such as the Beaufighter and the Kittyhawk. Torpedo and dive bombers are where it gets interesting in terms of aircraft. The Avro Anson was technically not a carrier borne aircraft, but I feel that unless its a completely irrational aircraft, such as something like a B-17 or a Lancaster, it should be fine. The Anson was used in both maritime patrol and as a light bomber, so I feel it could work fine in game from a historical and functional point of view. The Bristol Beaufighter was also a good pick, since it was historically a generalist and could carry both bombs and torpedoes. The Beaufighter was also historically relevant, being used throughout the war and with many commonwealth nations, especially Canada and Australia.

Relevance of the ship:

Nabob, and her sister ship Puncher, were the first ever carriers to be operated by and commonwealth nation. They are a stark example of the rapid militarization of the commonwealth nations during world war 2. While it may be a stretch to place a modified Bogue class at tier 6, the historical significance of the ship and the aircraft proposed make up for it in my mind.

Tier VIII: Vengeance (RAN)

One of the 1942 light fleet carriers, later known as the Colossus-Class light fleet carriers, Vengeance was designed to be a fast escort carrier, sacrificing a larger aircraft complement in exchange for speed. Vengeance was assigned to task force 111, but was too late to see service in world war 2. She was, however, used as the venue for the Japanese surrender at Hong Kong. The ship was transferred to the RAN in June of 1951 and was commissioned into the RAN as a stopgap for HMAS Melbourne, which was running late. In game, she reflects a shift in commonwealth carriers from slow converted tankers with a large detection radius, to faster, stealthy, and relatively smaller escort carriers. However, she lacks any secondary armament whatsoever, and her AA suite isn't that impressive when compared to other carriers at her tier.

Speed: 27 knots

Aircraft carried: 34, 13 reserve

Attack aircraft: 6 per squad, 2 per attack: Hawker tempest, Bristol Beaufighter, CAC Kangaroo (air dropped smoke, action time: 5 sec, duration: 40 sec, cannot conceal CV's)

Torpedo aircraft: 9 per squad, 3 per attack: Vultee A35 Vengance, De Hallivand Mosquito, Bristol Beaufighter, CAC Woomera

Dive Bomber aircraft: 6 per squad, 2 per attack: Vultee A35 Vengance, De Hallivand Mosquito, Bristol Beaufighter, CAC Woomera

Quick (not really) Summary:

Vengeance improves on where Nabob left off, both in terms of aircraft and the hull they launch from. Compared to many of her tier mates, she has improved speed, greatly improved detection (better than some battleships), and improved armor overall, though no armored flight deck like her British counterparts, so don't expect to survive constant shellfire like her contemporaries. She does have some big negatives however, as one large one is her complete lack of secondary armament. Historically, the Colossus-Class had no secondary armament whatsoever, and the ship should reflect that. And while the carrier will have access to the carrier borne fighter consumable, her AA suite is also unimpressive, with lackluster range (due to no large caliber AA such as DP guns) and lower DPS in the outer rings Finally, and one of the biggest drawbacks of the line, she has quite a low number of planes in reserve with a measly 13. This means that losing your already fragile planes can be much more punishing than losing planes in an American or Japanese carriers. This starts to give the high tier commonwealth carriers a unique playstyle of "playing with fire" where they can push closer to the front line to increase their aircraft turnaround time and attack efficiency when positioned right, but heavily punishes mispositioning and encounters with other enemies.

Moving over to her aircraft, the biggest change from previous ships is that Vengeance's aircraft have access to air dropped smoke, and this is quite a gamechanger for a carrier. instead of a selfish playstyle mostly relegated to hounding larger lonely targets, this smoke adds a huge new teamplay element. If your cruiser is caught out, if your destroyer is yolo'ing, if your battleship is being focus fired or is overextended, a well timed smoke drop could be a lifesaver. It adds a huge new element in teamplay that carriers are so lacking in right now. The only thing that separates these smoke screens from any other smoke in the game is that they cannot conceal an aircraft carrier. This is to prevent stupid situations of the aircraft carrier being able to constantly hide themselves from the enemy team and play selfishly.

With that out of the way and moving on to the planes themselves, the divide between speed and health becomes even more apparent than in the previous tier. Her torpedo bombers now sport the 3x3 squads common with tier 8 carriers but otherwise, her loadout is quite similar to Nabob. For the attack aircraft, the word "attack" really shouldn't apply, as their rockets are hands down the worst at their tier, with low penetration, bad alpha, and terrible fire chance. The only saving grace of her attack aircraft is their speed and air dropped smoke consumable. These should not be used to deal damage, but rather for dropping smoke screens for the team or scouting cruisers and battleships. Fortunately, her bombers and torpedo bombers manage to more than make up for her attack aircraft. Her torpedo bombers and dive bombers continue the trend of fast planes with high alpha damage, but weak health pools and small squadrons. Air dropped bombs deal high amounts of damage with a an ok chance of setting fires, but have a wide ellipse and low amount of bombs dropped to compensate. Her torpedoes are improved when compared to Nabob however, as while they are some of the slowest at their tier, their alpha damage is no joke.

Aircraft Relevance:

There were definitely a whole lot of options here. From aircraft that were homegrown ideas and those that were produced in Australia, to those that served in large numbers in the RAAF and those that were the most relevant to becoming carrier-borne aircraft. Since her historical aircraft were cold war jets and helicopters, most of the suggestions I put up were down to some theory crafting and Wargaming logic of changing history, but that's ok since this isn't a historically accurate game. Not being sarcastic at all.

For Attack aircraft, the Tempest and Beaufighter were both mid to late war aircraft that were in service with the RAAF. Both are relatively well known and feasible in regards to armament and max speed. The CAC Kangaroo is a little bit different from the other two, since it didn't actually see service with the RAAF, but was a wholly designed and built Australian aircraft intended to serve in the air force, but the project was cancelled due to the rise of jet fighters.

Torpedo Bombers and Bombers had a lot more options to choose from. Again the Beaufighter is always a good choice, but as another alternative option, the De Hallivand Mosquito was an incredibly effective carrier-borne fighter bomber and relatively famous as well. Two other options that were built and operated in Australia were the A35 Vengeance and the CAC Woomera. For the A35, the variant was a licensed built Australian version of the American Vultee A31 Vengeance and saw service in the RAN, though were reportedly ineffective in their roles. The CAC Woomera was developed in parallel to the CAC Kangaroo. Designed and prototyped in Australia, the fighter bomber was cancelled due to the rise of jet aircraft in the early 50s.

Relevance of the ship:

While Vengeance wasn't the first purpose built aircraft carrier to be operated by the Aussies, with that honor going to HMAS Sydney, She had some relevant history behind her during the end of ww2 and was the ship where Japan's surrender at Hong Kong was signed. After the lessons of WW2, Australia proposed a naval strategy involving a large task force consisting of multiple aircraft carriers. Melbourne was supposed to be one of said aircraft carriers placed into service, but work on her was delayed until 1955 and thus, Vengeance was rushed in as a stopgap in her place. While she only served for a few years, I chose her over her replacement and predecessor, HMAS Melbourne and HMAS Sydney respectively, mainly due to the natural progression she represents in the line, with the Colossus class aircraft carriers being the original designs behind the 1942 light fleet carriers. I felt like having a Majestic class carrier along with another at tier 10 would just be redundant. If there is a better choice for tier VIII that you think might be better, please let me know.

Tier X: Project Habbaku... er... Bonaventure (RCN)

The last aircraft carrier in service with the Royal Canadian navy, Bonaventure belonged to the powerful Majestic-Class of escort carriers, which were themselves a modified Colossus-Class (modifications included a mirror landing aid, angled flight deck, and a steam catapult). Initially laid down as HMS Powerful, Bonaventure was purchased and renamed by the Royal Canadian Navy in 1952 as a replacement for the current HMCS Magnificent. Remaining in service for 18 years until 1970, she led her own ASW Hunter-Killer group in the North Atlantic off of Canada's coast and participated in numerous NATO exercises during the early and later years of the cold war. In game, Bonaventure represents the pinnacle of the commonwealth aircraft carrier line, and lives and dies by it's style of play. While she carries over Vengeance's lack of secondary armament and AA firepower, her concealment and speed are greatly improved so as to make her one of the stealthiest and fastest carriers at T10. In regards to aircraft, their stats are quite extreme as well, being some of the fastest aircraft in the game with some of the hardest hitting ammunition, but with the lowest hitpoints and largest turning circle in the game.

Speed: 30 knots

Aircraft carried: 40, 16 reserve

Attack aircraft: 6 per squad, 2 per attack: Hawker Sea Fury, De Hallivand Vampire (air dropped smoke, action time: 5 sec, duration: 60 sec, cannot conceal CV's)

Torpedo aircraft: 9 per squad, 3 per attack: Bristol Beaufort, Fairchild Bolingbroke, Hawker Sea Fury (air dropped smoke, action time: 5 sec, duration: 50 sec, cannot conceal CV's)

Dive Bomber aircraft: 9 per squad, 3 per attack: Bristol Beaufort, Fairchild Bolingbroke, Hawker Sea Fury (air dropped smoke, action time: 5 sec, duration: 50 sec, cannot conceal CV's)

Quick Summary:

Alright so we've finally got to the cream of the crop at tier 10 with Bonaventure. The aircraft she carries are extreme stats wise, with the fastest aircraft at tier 10 and some of the largest alpha damage on her bombs and torpedoes. The major downsides of these aircraft are their abysmal heathpools, small number of squadrons, lack of aircraft reserves and refresh times, and terrible turning radius. Because of these traits, her aircraft tactics are best described as "boom and zoom", blasting through AA in order to strike single ships efficiently. This doesn't mean that her aircraft can take on large groups of ships though, as their horrible hitpoints, tiny squads, and huge turning circles means that while attacking lone ships is quite effective, attacking overlapping AA bubbles is incredibly punishing as while you blast through one bubble, it's kind of "out of the frying pan and into the fire" when you drop one ship and slingshot into another's AA.

Moving on to the aircraft first, her attack aircraft refine the playstyle of their predecessors, while amplifying their weaknesses. Being the fastest attack aircraft in the game, these aircraft are great for early game spotting on large enemy ships, but that's unfortunately where the good news stops. Despite being two tiers higher than Vengeance, the rockets Bonnie's fighters carry are arguably worse tier for tier with that same horrid alpha, same garbage pen, and the same low fire chance. Each aircraft does carry a larger amount than found on Vengeance, but these planes should not be dealing damage. Instead, their best use is their formerly mentioned scouting, and their improved air dropped smoke consumable, making the aircraft the best support squads in the game.

Fortunately for her rocket planes, Bonnie's torpedo and dive bombers really come into their own here. Like the fighters, her bombers and torp bombers are the fastest at their. But while her the fighters weaponry is lackluster, the other two squads are far from that. Starting with the bombers, the munitions they drop are nothing to scoff at, with some of the best HE alpha at tier. The downsides of these weapons however, is their mediocre fire chance, low number of dropped bombs, and large drop ellipse so missed munitions are going to hurt more than on any other carrier. The torpedoes her TB's drop also have some of the best alpha at tier and you drop quite a few, but are much harder to aim properly due to their terrible speeds. Both squads do have access to the air dropped smoke however, which gives the ship even more teamplay potential than Vengeance.

Finally for the ship itself, Bonnie can best be described as "don't be seen" where, while she has the best concealment out of all tier 10 carriers by a fair margin, when she does get spotted things don't go very well. Her complete lack of secondary armament and lackluster AA suite tied together with a mediocre HP pool means that she will die and she will die quickly. While you can definitely play closer to the action in Bonnie, always have an exit strategy, because if you're team falls apart on one flank, you only have a modest speed and good detect to fall back on.

Aircraft Relevance:

Disregarding any of the specialized aircraft and looking at the best aircraft to put in each squadron overall, I had to choose the hawker sea fury. This aircraft fits the role perfectly in regards to relevancy, historical significance, and playstyle wise. The sea fury was one of the last prop aircraft to serve with the Royal Canadian Navy, and was one of, if not the fastest single engine piston aircraft to ever be built. The RCN ordered a large batch of around 74 aircraft, which served on Bonnies historical predecessor Magnificent, and briefly on Bonnie herself if I'm correct. Personally, I had hoped to see the sea fury on Audacious at tier 10 instead of the wyverns we got, but even if this entire line is too outlandish, I still hope that either Magnificent or Bonnie could pop up as a premium some time purely because of the sea furies they operated.

Now onto the other picks I had on my list, first off, and this pick might be controversial, but I chose the early jet aircraft the De Hallivand Vampire. Aeronautical enthusiasts might know this aircraft, but it's not as well known as something like the Me 262. The Vampire was one of the first jet aircraft to serve in the Royal Navy and the first jet aircraft to serve in the RCAF. Now we don't have any jet aircraft currently in the game, but as long as its stats aren't completely ludicrous, it shouldn't really make a difference than the regular piston aircraft found at tier 10.

Onto torpedo and dive bombers. While I still believe the sea fury could work better in these roles, the two other aircraft I chose were the Bristol Beaufort and the Fairchild Bolingbroke. Both had relevant histories, with the Beaufort being a purpose built dive and torp bomber that served in limited numbers with the RCAF, but I feel like the better pick here would be the Fairchild Bolingbroke. The Bolingbroke's served as Canadian made maritime patrol and bombers, serving almost exclusively with the RCAF. Placing this plane on a carrier feels like a bit of a stretch since it was mainly a maritime patrol aircraft, but with a little bit of WG logic, it could probably work fine in game as a bomber. The main reason I chose this aircraft for its role was the history behind it, being a wholly made Canadian bomber that was crucial to maritime patrol of the Atlantic and pacific during ww2. Again though, I do feel like the sea fury would be a better pick overall.

Relevance of the ship:

For me, I decided the tier 10 had to be a majestic class and it was thus a choice between the Bonaventure and the Magnificent. I chose Bonnie over Maggie for a few reasons. The first and biggest reason, was that Bonaventure was a heavily modified Majestic class carrier, which themselves were a modified subclass of the Colossus class. I felt that it was important to make the tier 10 hull as different from the tier 8 as possible, while trying to stay with Sapper's vid which I based this line on. Another reason was that she was an obvious linear progression from the Vengeance, again being a modified Majestic class ship and thus having quite similar attributes to the tier 8. Finally, I picked her because of her historical relevance and service life. Being in service for 18 years and also the last aircraft carrier to be operated by Canada, she really represents the end of the explosive growth of the commonwealth navies during the second world war and later, the cold war. Going from small, scrappy handfuls of aging ships, to a large set of independent navies that are a force to be reckoned with, having a capital ship such as a carrier is more a testament to how large each countries respective navies got, and Bonnie really represents that the best.

 

Concluding this rambling:

And that pretty much concludes my ramblings on the forums. This took a long time to create and is probably the longest post I've ever made on the forums, so I hope I didn't make too many grammatical mistakes. Probably one of the biggest reason I wrote this entire essay, was because I hope that it'll bring interest to a Commonwealth tech tree. Again, I feel like they're long overdue, and now that we're getting Italian BB's, who knows. I really hope that WG might see some of the other proposals that have been posted throughout the years, and listen to the players ideas if and when they create a Commonwealth line.

If there is any critique or feedback for anything discussed in this post, please let me or Sapper know. The best way to make a proposed Commonwealth tech tree good is through player feedback, which I worry WG hasn't entirely listened to these past few years. Stay safe out there during this terrible pandemic. We'll get through it!

Edited by mcgibe
Edit 1: Cleaned up a big issue with stating that the Vengeance was the first purpose built carrier in the RAN when HMAS Sydney existed *brain farting sound*, Edit 2: fixed some minor spelling errors
  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
16 posts
568 battles

I enjoy the CV ideas, as a bit of a CV player, though a very bad one, it seems very interesting. I know many of the twin engine airplanes are a-historical, but it is still a really interesting.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3
[DE-48]
Members
3 posts
2,004 battles

Interesting read.  Just a point on carriers, HMAS Sydney, a Majestic class carrier, was the first carrier for the RAN.  She was commissioned in 1948 to the RAN and served Australia during the tidy up from WW2 and Korea.  HMAS Melbourne was to be her replacement but because she was running late, HMAS Vengeance was loaned to the RAN in 1952 before being returned in 1955 when HMAS Melbourne was commissioned and then sold on to Brazil in 1956 (who she served with until 2001).  HMAS Sydney and HMAS Melbourne actually served at the same time for a couple of years (1955 to 1958) before Sydney decommissioned and was then recommissioned as a troop ship for Vietnam, serving until 1973.  HMAS Melbourne served until 1982, was to be replaced by HMS Invincible but then the Falklands War broke out and Britain suddenly weren't keen to sell her after the lessons learnt from that stoush.  Australia agreed and we lost our fixed wing fleet air arm.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
382
[KENT]
Members
409 posts
7,093 battles
12 hours ago, Krakoar said:

Interesting read.  Just a point on carriers, HMAS Sydney, a Majestic class carrier, was the first carrier for the RAN.  She was commissioned in 1948 to the RAN and served Australia during the tidy up from WW2 and Korea.  HMAS Melbourne was to be her replacement but because she was running late, HMAS Vengeance was loaned to the RAN in 1952 before being returned in 1955 when HMAS Melbourne was commissioned and then sold on to Brazil in 1956 (who she served with until 2001).  HMAS Sydney and HMAS Melbourne actually served at the same time for a couple of years (1955 to 1958) before Sydney decommissioned and was then recommissioned as a troop ship for Vietnam, serving until 1973.  HMAS Melbourne served until 1982, was to be replaced by HMS Invincible but then the Falklands War broke out and Britain suddenly weren't keen to sell her after the lessons learnt from that stoush.  Australia agreed and we lost our fixed wing fleet air arm.

Thanks for pointing that out to me. My apologies on stating that, and I just fixed that issue. I knew that something was off with that statement, and I swear I must've read up on Sydney at one point. *Brain fart*. Should be fixed now.

 

I still decided to keep Vengeance at tier 8, mainly due to the progression in the line that she represents. While the Colossus class were different from the Majestic class in quite a few different ways, the two already feel pretty similar, so having another majestic in the form of either Sydney or Melbourne at tier 8 might be quite confusing to some since I put Bonnie, which was a modified Majestic, at T10. The Colossus class represents a better natural progression in the line, being a mid-late WW2 design, and I felt like Vengeance might better reflect this. Feel free to let me know if there is a better choice for T8. I also hope that we could either see the Brazilian premium version of Vengeance named Minas Gerais in game, and make a T10 premium in the form of either Melbourne or Sydney. I did want to put an Aussie carrier on this list since there were quite a few interesting Australian aircraft in development and in the RAAF like the Kangaroo, Woomera, and the modified Vultee's.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
7 posts
32 battles

You are a brave soul @mcgibe, I'm surprised the anti-CV brigade hasn't come in and gone to town on this, probably too much effort to scroll down, lol.

Put down your shotties folks, was just a tongue-in-cheek jab.

 

Glad you liked my vids!

Bonnie seems like a better pick at T10 than a more generalised Majestic, nice idea.

I find your idea interesting. A few of the ideas I had toyed with were:

  • a Saipan-style with strong but few aircraft
  • an ASW focus, and
  • a utility or support focus

I like trying to replicate the boom-and-zoom idea, I hadn't really thought about it much when I did my initial concepts being that at the time (and currently) I thought it may create spotting issues.

And regardless of which side of the fence you sit with CVs, their spotting power is too much (IMO their primary issue).

Should the spotting changes go through, boom-and-zoom might be a really good way to fit into the reworked Air Detected system, I really like the idea.

When WG mentioned 'support' CVs (or something like that in a recent stream) my first thought was to Commonwealth CVs. They would be prime contenders for this style of play, as they would also be a great opportunity for some unique ASW capabilities amongst CVs. (So I like your smoke idea).

NB: (For those wondering, I'm on Asia, this is my NA account)

Edited by SappeREffecT
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
382
[KENT]
Members
409 posts
7,093 battles
36 minutes ago, SappeREffecT said:

You are a brave soul @mcgibe, I'm surprised the anti-CV brigade hasn't come in and gone to town on this, probably too much effort to scroll down, lol.

Put down your shotties folks, was just a tongue-in-cheek jab.

 

Glad you liked my vids!

Bonnie seems like a better pick at T10 and a more generalised Majestic, nice idea.

I find your idea interesting. A few of the ideas I had toyed with were:

  • a Saipan-style with strong but few aircraft
  • an ASW focus, and
  • a utility or support focus

I like trying to replicate the boom-and-zoom idea, I hadn't really thought about it much when I did my initial concepts being that at the time (and currently) I thought it may create spotting issues.

And regardless of which side of the fence you sit with CVs, their spotting power is too much (IMO their primary issue).

Should the spotting changes go through, boom-and-zoom might be a really good way to fit into the reworked Air Detected system, I really like the idea.

When WG mentioned 'support' CVs (or something like that in a recent stream) my first thought was to Commonwealth CVs. They would be prime contenders for this style of play, as they would also be a great opportunity for some unique ASW capabilities amongst CVs. (So I like your smoke idea).

NB: (For those wondering, I'm on Asia, this is my NA account)

Hey! Glad you liked the post. Thanks for stopping by. 

In regards to my picks, I kind of wanted to adhere to the continuity of your video on the Commonwealth tree overview, but add my own two cents to it. Tier 10 was a tough choice between Melbourne and Bonaventure, but I eventually ended up going with bonnie since she best represents the pinnacle of carriers in a commonwealth branch. While not being too modern as to seem like a mid to late cold war design, she was probably the most modified out of her sisters of the Majestic and Colossus class, and was also the last carrier in service with the RCN. Conversely, Vengeance may not have had the same history, but was probably had the biggest differences from Bonnie, and that's why I decided to place her where she was (I also wanted to have a RAN carrier in the line and she was the best pick out of the three available for said reasons). 

I really liked playing pre butchered rework Graf Zeppelin with her ridiculously fast, but weak planes. That style of play was refreshing and, while I don't think the ship ever has been strong post rework, she was really fun to play before the speed nerfs because of that boom and zoom playstyle. When I was thinking of putting air dropped smoke on commonwealth planes, I knew they had to be fast to do that effectively, and that's when the playstyle idea clicked. Fast planes with high alpha and great team utility, but with ridiculously low health, small hangar size, and bad DoT. Tbh, I really miss pre nerf GZ. ASW could also be very interesting since a lot of the late war/early cold war CV's were intended to have that (Bonnie led her own ASW hunter killer pack) but subs are still WIP so we don't know what will change. 

And finally, if people don't want to see another CV line right now, I don't blame them. Like you said, the most broken thing about them is the spotting they do, especially to DD's. I can definetely see where other's frustrations would come from, but I wouldn't really listen to hate comments that don't add any value to the conversation. Rather, I want people to discuss why it would be a good or bad idea in there minds, and how to improve it, instead of trying to say something stupid like "remove CV's".

Thanks for stopping by and I look forward to you're premium video! 

Edited by mcgibe
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,911
[SYN]
Members
8,996 posts
16,106 battles

I think your cruiser and carrier suggestions are pretty over-tiered. There's a D class at T4 in the RN line, and the Commonwealth style consumables I don't think help her enough to do T5, a T7, 8-gun Bellona is a struggle and doesn't really fit line progression, the Swiftsure class is basically Mysore which is being tested at T6, not 8. I don't know what you mean by borrowing Tiger when the British cruiser had 2x2 and your suggestion has 3x3? (Tiger as-built is not a high tier ship, being a Fiji with less firepower and no torpedoes). 

A T6 Bogue is very slow and unarmored compared to her compatriots, as bad as Ranger for armor but ~10kt slower. The 'light fleet' carriers at T8 and T10 are slow, low displacement (low HP) completely unarmored and begging to die. 

 

I'd be fine with seeing more paper ships to be honest, it would increase variety and probably result in some more natural fits. I'm not particularly excited by commonwealth-ified royal navy ships, but some will like them and it's low effort for WG. 

  • Cool 2
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
7 posts
32 battles
1 hour ago, mofton said:

I think your cruiser and carrier suggestions are pretty over-tiered. There's a D class at T4 in the RN line, and the Commonwealth style consumables I don't think help her enough to do T5, a T7, 8-gun Bellona is a struggle and doesn't really fit line progression, the Swiftsure class is basically Mysore which is being tested at T6, not 8. I don't know what you mean by borrowing Tiger when the British cruiser had 2x2 and your suggestion has 3x3? (Tiger as-built is not a high tier ship, being a Fiji with less firepower and no torpedoes). 

I'm going to make this response my last one because I don't want this thread to be completely derailed, this should be about mcgibes CVs rather than my videos (although happy to go nuts in comments on YouTube); to clarify, the Tiger I suggested I have a pinned comment on the video - yes 3x3, apologies for the ambiguity.

I don't necessarily agree with 'but it's just a Fiji - can't have that at T9'.

Mysore I 100% don't think should be at T6, I think that's a poor decision from a ship, gameplay and even marketing perspective. It's a massive bit of power creep and TBH unnecessary. They've stated they're working on Delhi (a Leander-type), which would arguably mean Perth, Mysore and Delhi at T6, or Delhi drops a tier, why? As it is Mysore and Perth will be a choice, whereas if Mysore was at T7; it would be a fresh Commonwealth ship at T7 and have it's own space. But it is what it is.

A large amount of the 'stats' WG assigns to ships are completely arbitrary. From an era perspective, it will work and given the tentative shell damage and reloads I worked out on paper, 9 guns is fine at T9. A lot of the problem people have is that they imagine ships like Edin with 1 less turret... This is forgetting the fact that these ships would have HE, range and alpha advantages. From an armour/health perspective, sure I can understand concerns but at the same time these are things that are adjusted by WG.

With HE with an enhanced alpha, and ships with a longer range than RN, you end up with ships that have respectable reloads, instead of the ultra-fast firing Neptune/Mino style guns. But yes, they would be 'smaller' CLs at tier. If we all get hard-stuck on things like number of guns or certain weight requirements, we wouldn't end up with half the ships in the game as is. So I understand where you are coming from but respectfully disagree. Thanks for the feedback though.

I'll go dark from here, I don't want to derail this thread any further, just wanted to show support for @mcgibe, there's a lot of work there.

Edited by SappeREffecT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
382
[KENT]
Members
409 posts
7,093 battles
3 hours ago, mofton said:

A T6 Bogue is very slow and unarmored compared to her compatriots, as bad as Ranger for armor but ~10kt slower. The 'light fleet' carriers at T8 and T10 are slow, low displacement (low HP) completely unarmored and begging to die. 

 

I'd be fine with seeing more paper ships to be honest, it would increase variety and probably result in some more natural fits. I'm not particularly excited by commonwealth-ified royal navy ships, but some will like them and it's low effort for WG. 

Hey. Thanks for the feedback!

While I can't really speak on Sapper's proposals for DD's and CL's, I can explain my reasoning behind the choices I made for the CV tech tree.

The biggest thing about this line isn't in regards to the Carriers themselves, but the planes and munitions that they posses. While I definitely do agree that these ships are pretty much food if spotted, I specifically had that as such. I believe that carriers should die, and die quickly, when they get spotted and shot at, and this was the idea behind these carriers. While I wanted them to have some of the best, if not the best concealment out of all the carriers at their tier, and relatively good speed at high tiers, if they're out of position and get spotted, they should die to almost anything.

Historically, the light fleet carriers did have a slower speed of 25 knots, but I did bump it up a bit in order to give it more flexibility and survivability (sprinkled a little WG logic on it). For the Nabob, she hasn't experienced that speed increase that happens with Vengeance, but she does get very good concealment. Like I said though, I wanted the planes to be the main feature of this line.

I wanted to try and make each ship as unique as possible a playstyle from other nations carriers in the game. I didn't want reskins of British carriers, both in design and playstyle. While there were a few leaps of logic here and there in my proposal, this line is probably more realistic than the German CV's. 

I would absolutely be open to downtiering each ship though, getting rid of the paper C2 conversion, and placing either a paper ship, or the Centaur class Light fleet carrier that was proposed to be purchased by Canada during the cold war.

Thank you for the comment though! Definitely gives me a lot to think about

Edited by mcgibe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,911
[SYN]
Members
8,996 posts
16,106 battles
14 hours ago, SappeREffecT said:

I'm going to make this response my last one because I don't want this thread to be completely derailed, this should be about mcgibes CVs rather than my videos (although happy to go nuts in comments on YouTube); to clarify, the Tiger I suggested I have a pinned comment on the video - yes 3x3, apologies for the ambiguity.

I don't necessarily agree with 'but it's just a Fiji - can't have that at T9'.

Mysore I 100% don't think should be at T6, I think that's a poor decision from a ship, gameplay and even marketing perspective. It's a massive bit of power creep and TBH unnecessary. They've stated they're working on Delhi (a Leander-type), which would arguably mean Perth, Mysore and Delhi at T6, or Delhi drops a tier, why? As it is Mysore and Perth will be a choice, whereas if Mysore was at T7; it would be a fresh Commonwealth ship at T7 and have it's own space. But it is what it is.

A large amount of the 'stats' WG assigns to ships are completely arbitrary. From an era perspective, it will work and given the tentative shell damage and reloads I worked out on paper, 9 guns is fine at T9. A lot of the problem people have is that they imagine ships like Edin with 1 less turret... This is forgetting the fact that these ships would have HE, range and alpha advantages. From an armour/health perspective, sure I can understand concerns but at the same time these are things that are adjusted by WG.

With HE with an enhanced alpha, and ships with a longer range than RN, you end up with ships that have respectable reloads, instead of the ultra-fast firing Neptune/Mino style guns. But yes, they would be 'smaller' CLs at tier. If we all get hard-stuck on things like number of guns or certain weight requirements, we wouldn't end up with half the ships in the game as is. So I understand where you are coming from but respectfully disagree. Thanks for the feedback though.

I'll go dark from here, I don't want to derail this thread any further, just wanted to show support for @mcgibe, there's a lot of work there.

I think Mysore makes decent sense at T6 as she is. Fiji is pretty well entrenched at T7 and Mysore is her minus a turret and torpedoes. Compared to T6 Perth, Mysore is up 1 gun, armor and HP but down the torpedoes and spotter, pretty reasonable. 

Making virtually that ship sit at T8, above Fiji (12 guns, smoke, repair) just doesn't look that practical. The soft stats which WG can change might work, but they generally have a limit (although Munchen is a good recent example of wild ROF buffs for up-tiering, shut I think it generates an unhappy ship) and there's another issue of a ship just fundamentally being out of place. A Swiftsure tiered above Fiji, playing with far heavier ships like Cleveland and Edinburgh and Baltimore seems out of place.

If you suddenly have your 6in shells doing more damage than 8in or making other wild changes then your Swiftsure looks less like a Swiftsure. 

11 hours ago, mcgibe said:

Hey. Thanks for the feedback!

While I can't really speak on Sapper's proposals for DD's and CL's, I can explain my reasoning behind the choices I made for the CV tech tree.

The biggest thing about this line isn't in regards to the Carriers themselves, but the planes and munitions that they posses. While I definitely do agree that these ships are pretty much food if spotted, I specifically had that as such. I believe that carriers should die, and die quickly, when they get spotted and shot at, and this was the idea behind these carriers. While I wanted them to have some of the best, if not the best concealment out of all the carriers at their tier, and relatively good speed at high tiers, if they're out of position and get spotted, they should die to almost anything.

Historically, the light fleet carriers did have a slower speed of 25 knots, but I did bump it up a bit in order to give it more flexibility and survivability (sprinkled a little WG logic on it). For the Nabob, she hasn't experienced that speed increase that happens with Vengeance, but she does get very good concealment. Like I said though, I wanted the planes to be the main feature of this line.

I wanted to try and make each ship as unique as possible a playstyle from other nations carriers in the game. I didn't want reskins of British carriers, both in design and playstyle. While there were a few leaps of logic here and there in my proposal, this line is probably more realistic than the German CV's. 

I would absolutely be open to downtiering each ship though, getting rid of the paper C2 conversion, and placing either a paper ship, or the Centaur class Light fleet carrier that was proposed to be purchased by Canada during the cold war.

Thank you for the comment though! Definitely gives me a lot to think about

You are quite right that the planes should be the main event, all carriers are fairly good at hiding if competently driven at the moment, though higher speed to fall back from a collapsing flank usually seems a plus, and anecdotally it's much easier to kill a Langley than the other carriers. 

I also agree that spotted carriers should suffer a short and brutalized existence from that point. However these ships do need to balance with the other carrier lines which are unfortunately over-survivable above T6. Concealment will help but speed and squishiness is a concern, and may lead to more carrier sniping. 

I don't have much comment on the planes, I honestly think the well of ideas for aircraft is pretty shallow, slow or fast, tougher or weaker, various bomb trades, there's not much point in issuing something too detailed as a proposal given the balancing act needed. I don't think your idea is bad overall, with the general exception that I think small elite air squadrons are less enjoyable to fight against - I'd rather get a few ribbons for shooting down some of a big squadron and feel I'm doing something, than frequently not get any  of the tougher/faster but less numerous planes. 

I'm not sure on the smoke dropping idea. It has some potential for abuse but is very hard to coordinate and may even be unwanted by teammates at times. I'd probably rather see an attack going in on a red ship than smoke - once you're using planes for smoke they have turned into destroyers without guns or torpedoes. 

  • Cool 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
382
[KENT]
Members
409 posts
7,093 battles
6 hours ago, mofton said:

I think Mysore makes decent sense at T6 as she is. Fiji is pretty well entrenched at T7 and Mysore is her minus a turret and torpedoes. Compared to T6 Perth, Mysore is up 1 gun, armor and HP but down the torpedoes and spotter, pretty reasonable. 

Making virtually that ship sit at T8, above Fiji (12 guns, smoke, repair) just doesn't look that practical. The soft stats which WG can change might work, but they generally have a limit (although Munchen is a good recent example of wild ROF buffs for up-tiering, shut I think it generates an unhappy ship) and there's another issue of a ship just fundamentally being out of place. A Swiftsure tiered above Fiji, playing with far heavier ships like Cleveland and Edinburgh and Baltimore seems out of place.

If you suddenly have your 6in shells doing more damage than 8in or making other wild changes then your Swiftsure looks less like a Swiftsure. 

You are quite right that the planes should be the main event, all carriers are fairly good at hiding if competently driven at the moment, though higher speed to fall back from a collapsing flank usually seems a plus, and anecdotally it's much easier to kill a Langley than the other carriers. 

I also agree that spotted carriers should suffer a short and brutalized existence from that point. However these ships do need to balance with the other carrier lines which are unfortunately over-survivable above T6. Concealment will help but speed and squishiness is a concern, and may lead to more carrier sniping. 

I don't have much comment on the planes, I honestly think the well of ideas for aircraft is pretty shallow, slow or fast, tougher or weaker, various bomb trades, there's not much point in issuing something too detailed as a proposal given the balancing act needed. I don't think your idea is bad overall, with the general exception that I think small elite air squadrons are less enjoyable to fight against - I'd rather get a few ribbons for shooting down some of a big squadron and feel I'm doing something, than frequently not get any  of the tougher/faster but less numerous planes. 

I'm not sure on the smoke dropping idea. It has some potential for abuse but is very hard to coordinate and may even be unwanted by teammates at times. I'd probably rather see an attack going in on a red ship than smoke - once you're using planes for smoke they have turned into destroyers without guns or torpedoes. 

Thanks for the courteal response!

In regards to the Fiji vs Swiftsure, the main idea of the commonwealth nation was to have lower DPM, but good alpha strike and better durability then their British counterparts, being able to dictate the engagement between other enemy ships with their wide toolset. While I wouldn't be against putting a heal on any of the lower tier cruisers, i don't want them to be uptiered clones of their British counterparts.

In regards to some shells doing more damage than others, there are quite a few examples of different shells on other ships doing more damage or having higher DPM than others with similar or higher caliber (ex. Haida shells do more damage and have better DPM than leberecht maass does). This is more of an arcade-y game, so it doesn't really seem like much of a stretch. 

 

I think the fundamentals of carriers would need to be changed before a commonwealth carrier line gets added, but yeah, I am a bit worried about CV sniping especially with German carriers being what they are. I actually stated that the planes were supposed to be much weaker than their counterparts in terms of durability, unless I made an error in my writing which I may have. Other than that, thanks for the suggestions. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
101
[THF41]
Members
416 posts
6,760 battles

For a Commonwealth CV Line, I would suggest one design you might have missed.

HMAS Albatross was a Sea Plane Carrier built for the Royal Australian Navy in 1928. In 1938, she was sold to the UK in order to offset the purchase of HMAS Hobart for the RAN. About 1942-44, the UK considered refitting Albatross as an Escort Carrier but it never went forward. Had she been refitted as an Escort Carrier, its possible she could have also been transferred back to the RAN for use with them, especially to help the RAN gain experience for the Light Fleet Carriers they were to eventually acquire.

Depending how they implement her, she could be either Tier 4 or Tier 6.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_Albatross_(1928)

http://www.shipbucket.com/drawings/6013

albatrossfile.thumb.png.77a5ac3bfb25cf50dd7523ef2bbcb45a.png

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
382
[KENT]
Members
409 posts
7,093 battles
11 hours ago, LordHood2552 said:

For a Commonwealth CV Line, I would suggest one design you might have missed.

HMAS Albatross was a Sea Plane Carrier built for the Royal Australian Navy in 1928. In 1938, she was sold to the UK in order to offset the purchase of HMAS Hobart for the RAN. About 1942-44, the UK considered refitting Albatross as an Escort Carrier but it never went forward. Had she been refitted as an Escort Carrier, its possible she could have also been transferred back to the RAN for use with them, especially to help the RAN gain experience for the Light Fleet Carriers they were to eventually acquire.

Depending how they implement her, she could be either Tier 4 or Tier 6.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_Albatross_(1928)

http://www.shipbucket.com/drawings/6013

albatrossfile.thumb.png.77a5ac3bfb25cf50dd7523ef2bbcb45a.png

Hey, Thanks for the suggestion! It's a really good one. 

While I was aware of Albatross's existence I wasn't aware that there were plans to convert her. She's definetely a better option than the T4 paper ship I proposed, since she actually existed.

If I was to change the proposal around, I'd probably put her at tier 4 since her and Nabob have similar stats (being converted transports/tankers) and my T4 was probably the weakest proposal. 

Really good suggestion though and I'll definitely take it into account

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
101
[THF41]
Members
416 posts
6,760 battles

Regarding cruisers, Australia had some projects they were working on for locally built ones for their fleet both before the war and during the middle of it.

One being the pre-war Heavy Cruiser Project at Cockatoo Yards as well as some Vickers export designs:

https://forum.worldofwarships.eu/topic/4276-australian-cockatoo-heavy-cruiser-design/

https://forum.worldofwarships.eu/topic/7739-australian-cockatoo-heavy-cruiser/?tab=comments#comment-129084

https://www.deviantart.com/tzoli/art/Vickers-Export-Design-1074X-for-Australia-766862849

https://www.deviantart.com/tzoli/art/Cockatoo-Heavy-Cruiser-Proposal-765349122

vickerscockatoodesignGThurstonTA1.jpg.82826e7364a0c207f440ee9f95edfe7e.jpg

cockatoo_heavy_cruiser_proposal_by_tzoli-dcno35u.thumb.png.b3bc9ce3f2344dd7f7d521ac8ff22b49.png

vickers_export_design_1242_for_australia_by_tzoli_dctgeuo-pre.thumb.jpg.eba659f27cbd4b6c23e5bd94dca9adb0.jpg

vickers_export_design_1144_for_australia_by_tzoli_dcrhchn-pre.thumb.jpg.91dce4b427db84e40cb35fc2179feae9.jpg

even though designed as heavy cruisers, these could easily be modified to become light cruisers by swapping out the 8 inch guns for 6 inch ones. Should be decent for Tier 5 (allowing for Dunedin to be moved to Tier 4)

Regarding the higher tiers, there was also an Australian 1944 Light Cruiser Project. 

This project is interesting in that it looked over designs that included the Dido, Fiji, improved Southampton / Edinburgh, and even the planned Neptune Class Cruisers. Some of the earlier designs could easily work for Tiers 7-8 (The Fiji and Improved Southampton / Edinburgh variants).

A noted difference from RN cruisers was to arm them with the 5,25-inch (133mm) QF Mark I guns in 4 triple turrets instead of the 6-inch (152mm) BL Mark XXIII guns. Some of the earlier designs also considered dual turrets instead. These also would have been in either semi-auto or automatic firing turrets.

https://forum.worldofwarships.eu/topic/4277-australian-design-1944-light-cruiser/

https://www.deviantart.com/tzoli/art/Royal-Australian-Navy-1944-Design-Light-Cruiser-761831373

1944cruiserN2.jpg.9bbf0050b1eb5564679b70904f56e195.jpg

design_1944_austrailan_cruiser_by_tzoli-d3333fp.png.70bd850d3d1f45cb178ccb679e8c4144.png

royal_australian_navy_1944_design_light_cruiser_by_tzoli_dclkoul-pre.thumb.jpg.c40ddf89b70a128e3a70f312505074bb.jpg

Additionally a note about the possibility on the Tiger Class in RAN service. Australia had indeed been offered the ships once they would have been completed in their original design. This would have been similar to the 2 Light Cruisers had been gifted to Canada. But Australia had delayed making a decision on accepting them, and the situation changed as that Britain then required a purchase instead and Australia had to refuse.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger-class_cruiser#Development_of_the_Tiger_class

Since the Tigers were originally designed as modified / enhanced Minotaur / Swiftsure Class Cruisers, their main armament layout would have been similar. Though for Tier 9, they would easily have the triple 5,25-inch (133mm) QF Mark I guns fitted to them for this line.

Lastly, lower on the line regarding the modified Birmingham class cruiser HMAS Adelaide (famously nicknamed "HMAS Longdelayed"), there was further consideration for a different armament layout as well.

https://www.deviantart.com/tzoli/art/Modified-HMAS-Adelaide-designs-764366890

dcn319m-d9398e05-9d75-4ff3-b4f6-5565fc1d60f3.thumb.png.daf9c72a2ce7070aa572596e44b91c74.png

 

Edited by LordHood2552
  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
7 posts
32 battles
On 10/7/2020 at 3:57 AM, LordHood2552 said:

Regarding cruisers, Australia had some projects they were working on for locally built ones for their fleet both before the war and during the middle of it.

I wanted to stay dark on the Cruiser points, as this thread is more about mcgibes idea than a commentary on my YT videos (by all means go nuts in the YT comment section).

But I felt I should at least give you some reasoning about where I stand on my proposal or why I chose things.

I really did want to implement some of the Australian designs, (also love Tzolis deviantart work!!!) but I am genuinely happy with T1-T8 CL progression. I only really tentatively looked into the CA designs, wanting to stick with built ships.

130s on a tech line, nope, IMO. I don't mind the occasional premium with them but the 'odd' calibre guns WG always seem to struggle to balance, even with AA. Even on DP DDs. (WG please tell me why Jutland/Daring don't shred planes again?).

NB: I'm not a CV-hater, but EU 9/10 shred planes too much and RN 9/10 not enough...

I got to T8 and was happy. I basically crunched numbers on a 2500 HE alpha with reduced reload and they came out exactly where I wanted them. Less DPM than other CLs but better alpha strike with less shells.

Give me a sec I should have an early iteration of the maths I did on Asia somewhere... *Patter patter keyboard noises*

[Asia forums] my early Alpha/DPM CL numbers

I've since tweaked things but the numbers work pretty well as a starting point assuming good range and shell ballistics.

The more I crunched these ideas the more I was happy with a limited number of 152s and smaller displacements. It ends up giving WG a lot of room in the agility department and a high skill cap ship.

Any objections on number of guns is largely pointless from a DPM/alpha perspective as these things are managed by in-game specs. Armour and HP are the real tricky bit to balance but Smolensk and Minotaur demonstrate you can just put ships where you want with smoke and they'll do fine. (Sorry to say it but you know it's true - the balance comes from all the other stuffs).

The '44 4x3 130s design isn't bad, from memory I went against it as an idea to keep 4x3 at T10 and didn't want further RN duplication if I switched it to 152s? TBH the initial work I did on this stuff was years ago so I can't remember but I may have looked at it at the time and thought 'so it's just an Edin if I swap it to 152s?'

Maybe it would fit at T9 better but personally I'm ok with 3x3 152s at T9.

But yeah, I would love to see some of the Australian designs as maybe a way in the future CA split or as premiums (after a nice spread of built ships of course).

Great post mate, love your ideas even if I wouldn't personally run with all of them!

Edited by SappeREffecT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
382
[KENT]
Members
409 posts
7,093 battles
On 10/6/2020 at 12:57 PM, LordHood2552 said:

Regarding cruisers, Australia had some projects they were working on for locally built ones for their fleet both before the war and during the middle of it.

One being the pre-war Heavy Cruiser Project at Cockatoo Yards as well as some Vickers export designs:

https://forum.worldofwarships.eu/topic/4276-australian-cockatoo-heavy-cruiser-design/

https://forum.worldofwarships.eu/topic/7739-australian-cockatoo-heavy-cruiser/?tab=comments#comment-129084

https://www.deviantart.com/tzoli/art/Vickers-Export-Design-1074X-for-Australia-766862849

https://www.deviantart.com/tzoli/art/Cockatoo-Heavy-Cruiser-Proposal-765349122

vickerscockatoodesignGThurstonTA1.jpg.82826e7364a0c207f440ee9f95edfe7e.jpg

cockatoo_heavy_cruiser_proposal_by_tzoli-dcno35u.thumb.png.b3bc9ce3f2344dd7f7d521ac8ff22b49.png

vickers_export_design_1242_for_australia_by_tzoli_dctgeuo-pre.thumb.jpg.eba659f27cbd4b6c23e5bd94dca9adb0.jpg

vickers_export_design_1144_for_australia_by_tzoli_dcrhchn-pre.thumb.jpg.91dce4b427db84e40cb35fc2179feae9.jpg

even though designed as heavy cruisers, these could easily be modified to become light cruisers by swapping out the 8 inch guns for 6 inch ones. Should be decent for Tier 5 (allowing for Dunedin to be moved to Tier 4)

Regarding the higher tiers, there was also an Australian 1944 Light Cruiser Project. 

This project is interesting in that it looked over designs that included the Dido, Fiji, improved Southampton / Edinburgh, and even the planned Neptune Class Cruisers. Some of the earlier designs could easily work for Tiers 7-8 (The Fiji and Improved Southampton / Edinburgh variants).

A noted difference from RN cruisers was to arm them with the 5,25-inch (133mm) QF Mark I guns in 4 triple turrets instead of the 6-inch (152mm) BL Mark XXIII guns. Some of the earlier designs also considered dual turrets instead. These also would have been in either semi-auto or automatic firing turrets.

https://forum.worldofwarships.eu/topic/4277-australian-design-1944-light-cruiser/

https://www.deviantart.com/tzoli/art/Royal-Australian-Navy-1944-Design-Light-Cruiser-761831373

1944cruiserN2.jpg.9bbf0050b1eb5564679b70904f56e195.jpg

design_1944_austrailan_cruiser_by_tzoli-d3333fp.png.70bd850d3d1f45cb178ccb679e8c4144.png

royal_australian_navy_1944_design_light_cruiser_by_tzoli_dclkoul-pre.thumb.jpg.c40ddf89b70a128e3a70f312505074bb.jpg

Additionally a note about the possibility on the Tiger Class in RAN service. Australia had indeed been offered the ships once they would have been completed in their original design. This would have been similar to the 2 Light Cruisers had been gifted to Canada. But Australia had delayed making a decision on accepting them, and the situation changed as that Britain then required a purchase instead and Australia had to refuse.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger-class_cruiser#Development_of_the_Tiger_class

Since the Tigers were originally designed as modified / enhanced Minotaur / Swiftsure Class Cruisers, their main armament layout would have been similar. Though for Tier 9, they would easily have the triple 5,25-inch (133mm) QF Mark I guns fitted to them for this line.

Lastly, lower on the line regarding the modified Birmingham class cruiser HMAS Adelaide (famously nicknamed "HMAS Longdelayed"), there was further consideration for a different armament layout as well.

https://www.deviantart.com/tzoli/art/Modified-HMAS-Adelaide-designs-764366890

dcn319m-d9398e05-9d75-4ff3-b4f6-5565fc1d60f3.thumb.png.daf9c72a2ce7070aa572596e44b91c74.png

 

Hey. Really interesting proposals, though I feel like some might not fit as well in the proposed tree, and might be better as their own standalone premiums. 

First in regards to the Adelaide, while it probably wouldn't gel well with a 6 inch line, but as a standalone cruiser at either T4 or T5 it could work like a commonwealth furutaka. T5 would probably be a better placement choice since T4 doesn't have any 8 inch armed cruisers at the moment. 

8 inch armed commonwealth cruiser designs could be an interesting choice for tier 9 and 10. With one of the flavours of the line being high alpha, 8 inchers at 9 and 10 could be a better fit than 6 inchers, even if they have to be paper designs, which should be fine.

For the light cruiser designs with 133mm guns, this is probably too small for the line. It also wouldn't be a natural progression in the proposed line. It could work as a high tier premium light cruiser, but wouldn't gel with the line progression.

Very good suggestion overall though, and hopefully some of these suggestions contribute to an addition to the game one day! I'd love to see something like Adelaide as a low tier heavy cruiser with a furutaka style of play. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
261
[TFFOX]
Members
1,103 posts
3,212 battles
On 10/1/2020 at 3:19 PM, mcgibe said:

Tier X: Project Habbaku... er... Bonaventure (RCN)

The last aircraft carrier in service with the Royal Canadian navy, Bonaventure belonged to the powerful Majestic-Class of escort carriers, which were themselves a modified Colossus-Class (modifications included a mirror landing aid, angled flight deck, and a steam catapult). Initially laid down as HMS Powerful, Bonaventure was purchased and renamed by the Royal Canadian Navy in 1952 as a replacement for the current HMCS Magnificent. Remaining in service for 18 years until 1970, she led her own ASW Hunter-Killer group in the North Atlantic off of Canada's coast and participated in numerous NATO exercises during the early and later years of the cold war. In game, Bonaventure represents the pinnacle of the commonwealth aircraft carrier line, and lives and dies by it's style of play. While she carries over Vengeance's lack of secondary armament and AA firepower, her concealment and speed are greatly improved so as to make her one of the stealthiest and fastest carriers at T10. In regards to aircraft, their stats are quite extreme as well, being some of the fastest aircraft in the game with some of the hardest hitting ammunition, but with the lowest hitpoints and largest turning circle in the game.

Speed: 30 knots

Aircraft carried: 40, 16 reserve

Attack aircraft: 6 per squad, 2 per attack: Hawker Sea Fury, De Hallivand Vampire (air dropped smoke, action time: 5 sec, duration: 60 sec, cannot conceal CV's)

Torpedo aircraft: 9 per squad, 3 per attack: Bristol Beaufort, Fairchild Bolingbroke, Hawker Sea Fury (air dropped smoke, action time: 5 sec, duration: 50 sec, cannot conceal CV's)

Dive Bomber aircraft: 9 per squad, 3 per attack: Bristol Beaufort, Fairchild Bolingbroke, Hawker Sea Fury (air dropped smoke, action time: 5 sec, duration: 50 sec, cannot conceal CV's)

Quick Summary:

Alright so we've finally got to the cream of the crop at tier 10 with Bonaventure. The aircraft she carries are extreme stats wise, with the fastest aircraft at tier 10 and some of the largest alpha damage on her bombs and torpedoes. The major downsides of these aircraft are their abysmal heathpools, small number of squadrons, lack of aircraft reserves and refresh times, and terrible turning radius. Because of these traits, her aircraft tactics are best described as "boom and zoom", blasting through AA in order to strike single ships efficiently. This doesn't mean that her aircraft can take on large groups of ships though, as their horrible hitpoints, tiny squads, and huge turning circles means that while attacking lone ships is quite effective, attacking overlapping AA bubbles is incredibly punishing as while you blast through one bubble, it's kind of "out of the frying pan and into the fire" when you drop one ship and slingshot into another's AA.

Moving on to the aircraft first, her attack aircraft refine the playstyle of their predecessors, while amplifying their weaknesses. Being the fastest attack aircraft in the game, these aircraft are great for early game spotting on large enemy ships, but that's unfortunately where the good news stops. Despite being two tiers higher than Vengeance, the rockets Bonnie's fighters carry are arguably worse tier for tier with that same horrid alpha, same garbage pen, and the same low fire chance. Each aircraft does carry a larger amount than found on Vengeance, but these planes should not be dealing damage. Instead, their best use is their formerly mentioned scouting, and their improved air dropped smoke consumable, making the aircraft the best support squads in the game.

Fortunately for her rocket planes, Bonnie's torpedo and dive bombers really come into their own here. Like the fighters, her bombers and torp bombers are the fastest at their. But while her the fighters weaponry is lackluster, the other two squads are far from that. Starting with the bombers, the munitions they drop are nothing to scoff at, with some of the best HE alpha at tier. The downsides of these weapons however, is their mediocre fire chance, low number of dropped bombs, and large drop ellipse so missed munitions are going to hurt more than on any other carrier. The torpedoes her TB's drop also have some of the best alpha at tier and you drop quite a few, but are much harder to aim properly due to their terrible speeds. Both squads do have access to the air dropped smoke however, which gives the ship even more teamplay potential than Vengeance.

Finally for the ship itself, Bonnie can best be described as "don't be seen" where, while she has the best concealment out of all tier 10 carriers by a fair margin, when she does get spotted things don't go very well. Her complete lack of secondary armament and lackluster AA suite tied together with a mediocre HP pool means that she will die and she will die quickly. While you can definitely play closer to the action in Bonnie, always have an exit strategy, because if you're team falls apart on one flank, you only have a modest speed and good detect to fall back on.

Aircraft Relevance:

Disregarding any of the specialized aircraft and looking at the best aircraft to put in each squadron overall, I had to choose the hawker sea fury. This aircraft fits the role perfectly in regards to relevancy, historical significance, and playstyle wise. The sea fury was one of the last prop aircraft to serve with the Royal Canadian Navy, and was one of, if not the fastest single engine piston aircraft to ever be built. The RCN ordered a large batch of around 74 aircraft, which served on Bonnies historical predecessor Magnificent, and briefly on Bonnie herself if I'm correct. Personally, I had hoped to see the sea fury on Audacious at tier 10 instead of the wyverns we got, but even if this entire line is too outlandish, I still hope that either Magnificent or Bonnie could pop up as a premium some time purely because of the sea furies they operated.

Now onto the other picks I had on my list, first off, and this pick might be controversial, but I chose the early jet aircraft the De Hallivand Vampire. Aeronautical enthusiasts might know this aircraft, but it's not as well known as something like the Me 262. The Vampire was one of the first jet aircraft to serve in the Royal Navy and the first jet aircraft to serve in the RCAF. Now we don't have any jet aircraft currently in the game, but as long as its stats aren't completely ludicrous, it shouldn't really make a difference than the regular piston aircraft found at tier 10.

Onto torpedo and dive bombers. While I still believe the sea fury could work better in these roles, the two other aircraft I chose were the Bristol Beaufort and the Fairchild Bolingbroke. Both had relevant histories, with the Beaufort being a purpose built dive and torp bomber that served in limited numbers with the RCAF, but I feel like the better pick here would be the Fairchild Bolingbroke. The Bolingbroke's served as Canadian made maritime patrol and bombers, serving almost exclusively with the RCAF. Placing this plane on a carrier feels like a bit of a stretch since it was mainly a maritime patrol aircraft, but with a little bit of WG logic, it could probably work fine in game as a bomber. The main reason I chose this aircraft for its role was the history behind it, being a wholly made Canadian bomber that was crucial to maritime patrol of the Atlantic and pacific during ww2. Again though, I do feel like the sea fury would be a better pick overall.

Relevance of the ship:

For me, I decided the tier 10 had to be a majestic class and it was thus a choice between the Bonaventure and the Magnificent. I chose Bonnie over Maggie for a few reasons. The first and biggest reason, was that Bonaventure was a heavily modified Majestic class carrier, which themselves were a modified subclass of the Colossus class. I felt that it was important to make the tier 10 hull as different from the tier 8 as possible, while trying to stay with Sapper's vid which I based this line on. Another reason was that she was an obvious linear progression from the Vengeance, again being a modified Majestic class ship and thus having quite similar attributes to the tier 8. Finally, I picked her because of her historical relevance and service life. Being in service for 18 years and also the last aircraft carrier to be operated by Canada, she really represents the end of the explosive growth of the commonwealth navies during the second world war and later, the cold war. Going from small, scrappy handfuls of aging ships, to a large set of independent navies that are a force to be reckoned with, having a capital ship such as a carrier is more a testament to how large each countries respective navies got, and Bonnie really represents that the best.

Just wondering, could we split the (cv) line for t10 and have people be able to choose between Bonaventure or Melbourne? most of the CVs would probably be canadian if this actually happened, but i'd like to see the melbourne in the line somewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
382
[KENT]
Members
409 posts
7,093 battles
22 minutes ago, AdmiralFox08 said:

Just wondering, could we split the (cv) line for t10 and have people be able to choose between Bonaventure or Melbourne? most of the CVs would probably be canadian if this actually happened, but i'd like to see the melbourne in the line somewhere.

I don't see why not. This is a line proposal that I created partly for discussion and suggestions on how to improve the proposed line. In terms of that, I'd be more than happy to see either ship in the game (after the main issues with CV's are fixed ofc) and an alternate tier 10 is an idea that has been toyed with in the past. It also alternatively could be a premium with its own playstyle. Either way, I would love to see either in the game

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×