Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
irvingmorrel1

Battlecruiser question

25 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
70 posts
612 battles

I play both versions of the game and I noticed that Legends is currently running a campaign for the Battlecruiser Siegfried. Then I noticed that it's been classified as a cruiser. My question is what determines whether a battlecruiser will be classified as a battleship like Hood and the Kongou or a cruiser like Siegfried and Alaska? (I don't care what her official designation was, I'm calling a duck a duck on this one)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,496
[TSG4]
[TSG4]
Volunteer Moderator
3,366 posts
17,004 battles
4 minutes ago, irvingmorrel1 said:

what determines

WG game developers/their coding team/how easy the codes will work for smooth game

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,141
[PISD]
Members
1,839 posts
6,092 battles
16 minutes ago, irvingmorrel1 said:

I play both versions of the game and I noticed that Legends is currently running a campaign for the Battlecruiser Siegfried. Then I noticed that it's been classified as a cruiser. My question is what determines whether a battlecruiser will be classified as a battleship like Hood and the Kongou or a cruiser like Siegfried and Alaska? (I don't care what her official designation was, I'm calling a duck a duck on this one)

As said, the team. But also how their are designed: Alaska is a fat Baltimore, not a slim North Carolina for instance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
348 posts
5,730 battles

A lot of it is balance reasons. Take Odin for example. I think anyone who looked at her would call her a battlecruiser and would classify her as a cruiser on account of her armament and lack of HP. From a balance perspective, this would be a problem considering she would have a lower fire duration, better HP, and significantly more armor than than any other cruiser at the tier (essentially god-tier survivability for a cruiser). Had she been classified a cruiser, she probably would have been one of the stronger/st picks and would absolutely wreck at top tier.

Alas, she was classified as a BB, which means higher fire duration, lowest HP at the tier, and a miserable time bottom-tier. This is probably the only way she can be considered balanced at the tier, despite her flaws.

Sometimes it's the gun caliber or armor that determines how the ship is classified initially, but a lot of the classification comes up to balance in game. WG wants a ship at a certain tier, and will pick one classification or the other depending on how it performs and stacks up to its peers.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
399 posts
26 battles
26 minutes ago, irvingmorrel1 said:

I play both versions of the game and I noticed that Legends is currently running a campaign for the Battlecruiser Siegfried. Then I noticed that it's been classified as a cruiser. My question is what determines whether a battlecruiser will be classified as a battleship like Hood and the Kongou or a cruiser like Siegfried and Alaska? (I don't care what her official designation was, I'm calling a duck a duck on this one)

Whatever the game designers want really.

I could try and argue "displacement" but even that doesn't hold up.

Likewise what exactly makes a battlecruiser a battlecruiser in history is somewhat hotly debated and the concept change in meaning from the first iteration to afterwards. Often politics/international [edited] waving was involved.

The strongest argument I've seen is "it's a battlecruiser if the navy that built it designed it to be exactly that" - even this gets down to exactly what this was for each navy but very broadly hunting down (smaller) cruisers and engaging in cruiser like activity (commerce raiding etc) but not being expected to stand up to battleship calibre weapons in the line of battle. - But arguably there was a difference here with Royal Navy vs the Imperial German Navy in how they went about this.


My vague understanding is that Alaska was termed a "Large Cruiser" rather than "Battlecruiser" because BC was a bit of an antiquated term with connotations and it was thought it was easier to get funding by "underselling" it as a cruiser rather than something closer to a battleship.


Likewise "fast battleships" like the Iowa class tended to squeeze out the battlecruiser niche.

Within the game

*Very roughly* I have noticed the theme that ships actually put to sea (or... close enough) pre WW2 end up as relatively fast battleships and generally tier 8 or below
These are the battleships I'd vaguely call Battlecruisers (rather than the later concept of "Fast Battleships")

image.png

 

Whilst those which were designed/built after the outbreak of war tend to be tier 9-10 cruisers with 305mm+ guns. Graf Spee at tier 6 being the exception.

US: Alaska, Alaska B . Puerto Rico

Japan: Azuma . Yoshino

USSR: Kronshtadt, Stalingrad (t10 Steel), maaaybeee also Moskva but it's more regular cruiser guns on a large cruiser hull
Germany: Graf Spee , HSF Admiral Graft Spee ,  Ägir , Siegfried 


All (except Moskva) have the honour of longer fire chance. 

Also they tend to use their own dispersion values that are normally better than battleships but worse than default cruisers, but again this varies a bit with Siegfried using cruiser dispertion (despite having 380mm guns) and I think Kronshtadt and Puerto Rico use "US/UK BB" dispersion.

Edited by SoothingWhaleSongEU

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
70 posts
612 battles
36 minutes ago, ObiphanKenobi said:

WG game developers/their coding team/how easy the codes will work for smooth game

Iii meant things like gun size, armor thickness things like that 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,839
[WOLF5]
Supertester
4,819 posts
4,285 battles

I was about to say it seems to be gun caliber for WG, but then remembered Scharnhorst. Aside from that though I think WG mostly seems to make the decision based on gun, 12" ships like AK, Kron, Stalingrad, etc are cruisers while the likes of Hood are BBs.

It's not easy, IRL navies were all over the place in what they called them (naming mostly seemed to be determined by which designation would get them around funding or treaty issues). Hood is pretty much a fast BB, better than the Kongos which Japan called BBs. Then there's the whatever the Graf Spee and sisters are. The French had the Dunkerques which they called BBs but probably fit as CBs. Then there's the USN, which didn't believe in battlecruisers, they only had large cruisers (naming tricks with Congress). 

Personally I think we need a battlecruiser class in game. One or two superheavy cruisers fine, but we have enough now for a couple complete lines and it's not fun to load in a Seattle and find MM has decided you're equivalent to an Alaska.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,512
[REVY]
Members
8,282 posts
6,118 battles
59 minutes ago, irvingmorrel1 said:

I play both versions of the game and I noticed that Legends is currently running a campaign for the Battlecruiser Siegfried. Then I noticed that it's been classified as a cruiser. My question is what determines whether a battlecruiser will be classified as a battleship like Hood and the Kongou or a cruiser like Siegfried and Alaska? (I don't care what her official designation was, I'm calling a duck a duck on this one)

There's no logic to it at all.  It is whatever WGing feels like:

On 12/16/2020 at 3:42 PM, Sventex said:

Just pointing out an Asashio's deep water torps will pass under an Alaska class ship with

Displacement:
  • Standard: 29,779 long tons (30,257 t)
Length: 808 ft 6 in (246.4 m)
Beam: 91 ft 1 in (27.8 m)
Draft: 31 ft 10 in (9.7 m)



But it will hit a Dunkerque class despite being smaller, weighing less and having less draft.

Displacement:
  • 26,500 t (26,100 long tons) (standard)
Length: 214.5 m (704 ft)
Beam: 31.08 m (102.0 ft)
Draft: 8.7 m (29 ft)



Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
395
[SALTY]
Beta Testers
684 posts
8,021 battles
1 hour ago, irvingmorrel1 said:

I play both versions of the game and I noticed that Legends is currently running a campaign for the Battlecruiser Siegfried. Then I noticed that it's been classified as a cruiser. My question is what determines whether a battlecruiser will be classified as a battleship like Hood and the Kongou or a cruiser like Siegfried and Alaska? (I don't care what her official designation was, I'm calling a duck a duck on this one)

These are the people making the decisions of what is what.

62EEC.gif

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
166
[WOLF3]
Members
508 posts
11,733 battles

Simple answer is anything that crosses traits. The politics are deep otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,108
[KSC]
Clan Supertest Coordinator
5,295 posts
8,554 battles
7 hours ago, irvingmorrel1 said:

 (I don't care what her official designation was, I'm calling a duck a duck on this one)

Like it or not this is the answer.  The large cruisers were distinct from traditional battlecruisers with numerous navies having their own twist on the concept.  It's not a question of gun caliber, armor or tonnage, but rather historical design philosophy and how WG decided to interpret the concept in game.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,108
[KSC]
Clan Supertest Coordinator
5,295 posts
8,554 battles

Imagine for instance if WG were to implement a separate "battlecruiser" tree for the USN including the Alaska and Lexington class.  Naturally the Lexington's would have to be a higher tier than the Alaska given they had considerably larger guns and nearly 50% greater displacement (which translates to HP).  Simply put you can tell something is off if a "battlecruiser" designed in the mid 1940s is a lower tier than a "battlecruiser" designed by the same navy in the early 1920s.

Edited by yashma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,870
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
8,940 posts
15,761 battles
8 hours ago, FullMetal_Inferno said:

Alas, she was classified as a BB, which means higher fire duration, lowest HP at the tier, and a miserable time bottom-tier. This is probably the only way she can be considered balanced at the tier, despite her flaws

If Odin were classed as a cruiser at T8 you'd also expect her to lose the repair party which is a battleship feature, and downgrade to 27mm from 32mm plating. 

HP was very much set by WG during balancing so could go either way.

 

As for the philosophical question. It's partially by navy, an partially the whim of WG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,512
[REVY]
Members
8,282 posts
6,118 battles
1 hour ago, yashma said:

Imagine for instance if WG were to implement a separate "battlecruiser" tree for the USN including the Alaska and Lexington class.  Naturally the Lexington's would have to be a higher tier than the Alaska given they had considerably larger guns and nearly 50% greater displacement (which translates to HP).  Simply put you can tell something is off if a "battlecruiser" designed in the mid 1940s is a lower tier than a "battlecruiser" designed by the same navy in the early 1920s.

Would it have to be a higher tier than Alaska?  The Lexington Battlecruisers had armor thinner than HMS Repulse or USS Alaska.  You've got heavy Battleships with big guns at tier 6 like Mutsu, why would the Battlecruisers need different rules applied to them?

The differences in displacement is not so large between the Lexingtons and Alaskas, 

43,500 long tons (44,200 t) vs Full load: 34,253 long tons (34,803t)

And compare Tier 6 Mutsu's HP 58,400, vs Tier 6 Andrea Doria's HP 45,000, which is about only a 77% of the larger ship in HP vs a 78% of the larger ship in displacement in Alaska vs Lexington.  

Edited by Sventex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,108
[KSC]
Clan Supertest Coordinator
5,295 posts
8,554 battles
5 hours ago, Sventex said:

Would it have to be a higher tier than Alaska?  The Lexington Battlecruisers had armor thinner than HMS Repulse or USS Alaska.  You've got heavy Battleships with big guns at tier 6 like Mutsu, why would the Battlecruisers need different rules applied to them?

The differences in displacement is not so large between the Lexingtons and Alaskas, 

43,500 long tons (44,200 t) vs Full load: 34,253 long tons (34,803t)

And compare Tier 6 Mutsu's HP 58,400, vs Tier 6 Andrea Doria's HP 45,000, which is about only a 77% of the larger ship in HP vs a 78% of the larger ship in displacement in Alaska vs Lexington.  

It doesn't *have* too, but it's still going to be very odd losing a significant amount of HP and gun caliber after going up a tier.  It's the kind of thing that WG has implemented entire tech tree splits to fix in other lines.  *And my point was more to highlight the fact there isn't a logical progression between the two, betraying the fact that the two ships had separate design philosophy (hence the sperate designations).

Edited by yashma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,565
[NONE]
Members
3,776 posts
13 hours ago, Kartaugh said:

These are the people making the decisions of what is what.

62EEC.gif

Who knew Sub Octavian can dance? :Smile_teethhappy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,512
[REVY]
Members
8,282 posts
6,118 battles
3 hours ago, yashma said:

It doesn't *have* too, but it's still going to be very odd losing a significant amount of HP and gun caliber after going up a tier.  It's the kind of thing that WG has implemented entire tech tree splits to fix in other lines.  *And my point was more to highlight the fact there isn't a logical progression between the two, betraying the fact that the two ships had separate design philosophy (hence the sperate designations).

Why does Alaska have to be the tier up?  I compared Mutsu and Andrea Doria for a reason.  Both are tier 6 ships, Mutsu has 16" guns like Lexington, Andrea Doria has 12" guns like Alaska.  They could potentially be in the same tier given WGing's own standards.  Alaska could lead into Lexington or vice versa.  Also Alaska does not even need to stay at tier 9, WGing has downtiered American cruisers in the past.

Edited by Sventex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,108
[KSC]
Clan Supertest Coordinator
5,295 posts
8,554 battles
3 hours ago, Sventex said:

Why does Alaska have to be the tier up?  I compared Mutsu and Andrea Doria for a reason.  Both are tier 6 ships, Mutsu has 16" guns like Lexington, Andrea Doria has 12" guns like Alaska.  They could potentially be in the same tier given WGing's own standards.  Alaska could lead into Lexington or vice versa.  Also Alaska does not even need to stay at tier 9, WGing has downtiered American cruisers in the past.

I was talking about the idea of classifying the Alaska as a battlecruiser (aka a capital ship, meaning BB MM in game like the rest of the battlecruisers) and trying to fit it in line with a hypothetical USN battlecruiser tree.  The whole point was to draw attention to the fact the Alaska is not a logical progression from the Lexington class CCs, becuase it was not actually designed to be a battlecruiser. 

WG could fudge the numbers and make the Alaska fit almost anywhere they wanted it to, but the reason the Alaska is a cruiser in game, and the answer to the OP's question....is because the Alaska was not a battlecruiser in real life.  

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,512
[REVY]
Members
8,282 posts
6,118 battles
16 minutes ago, yashma said:

I was talking about the idea of classifying the Alaska as a battlecruiser (aka a capital ship, meaning BB MM in game like the rest of the battlecruisers) and trying to fit it in line with a hypothetical USN battlecruiser tree.  The whole point was to draw attention to the fact the Alaska is not a logical progression from the Lexington class CCs, becuase it was not actually designed to be a battlecruiser. 

WG could fudge the numbers and make the Alaska fit almost anywhere they wanted it to, but the reason the Alaska is a cruiser in game, and the answer to the OP's question....is because the Alaska was not a battlecruiser in real life.  

Alaska fits the definition of a Battlecruiser, that she was not part of Lexington's lineage is irrelevant.  You wouldn't find much in common between a New Mexico class and a Iowa class either even though they share the same tech line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,108
[KSC]
Clan Supertest Coordinator
5,295 posts
8,554 battles
2 hours ago, Sventex said:

Alaska fits the definition of a Battlecruiser

But the Alaska doesn't, she was neither armed with battleship caliber weaponry, nor was she faster than her closest design contemporary BBs, or envisioned to fight in the main battle line with the other capital ships, or even considered to be a battlecruiser by the navy that commissioned her.  The Alaska was simply an evolution of heavy cruisers (the Baltimore class to be precise) in a post treaty world.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,512
[REVY]
Members
8,282 posts
6,118 battles
29 minutes ago, yashma said:

But the Alaska doesn't, she was neither armed with battleship caliber weaponry, nor was she faster than her closest design contemporary BBs, or envisioned to fight in the main battle line with the other capital ships, or even considered to be a battlecruiser by the navy that commissioned her.  The Alaska was simply an evolution of heavy cruisers (the Baltimore class to be precise) in a post treaty world.

Alaska's guns are already exceeding or matching Battleship caliber weaponry of Axis Battleship counterparts and per Naval Treaty, 6" and 8" guns is what defined the cruiser categories.  A rival Battleship like the Andrea Doria was decommissioned a decade after the Alaska was decommissioned.

According to the Washington Naval Treaty, any ship with a gun caliber at or over 203mm is to be considered and dealt with as a capital ship.  This is the sniff the test the Alaskas would fail as they outsize other capital ships and Battleships and have armaments exceeding or matching Axis Battleship weaponry.

Edited by Sventex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,108
[KSC]
Clan Supertest Coordinator
5,295 posts
8,554 battles
2 hours ago, Sventex said:

Alaska's guns are already exceeding or matching Battleship caliber weaponry of Axis Battleship counterparts and per Naval Treaty, 6" and 8" guns is what defined the cruiser categories.  A rival Battleship like the Andrea Doria was decommissioned a decade after the Alaska was decommissioned.

According to the Washington Naval Treaty, any ship with a gun caliber at or over 203mm is to be considered and dealt with as a capital ship.  This is the sniff the test the Alaskas would fail as they outsize other capital ships and Battleships and have armaments exceeding or matching Axis Battleship weaponry.

Hence why I emphasized the Alaska was a post-treaty cruiser.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,512
[REVY]
Members
8,282 posts
6,118 battles
2 minutes ago, yashma said:

Hence why I emphasized the Alaska was a post-treaty cruiser.   

You also have this general definition of "Capital Ship"

"In the 20th century, especially in World Wars I and II, typical capital ships would be battleships and battlecruisers. All of the above ships were close to 20,000 tons displacement or heavier, with large caliber guns and heavy armor protection."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
210
[_BDA_]
Members
490 posts
7,862 battles
18 hours ago, mofton said:

If Odin were classed as a cruiser at T8 you'd also expect her to lose the repair party which is a battleship feature

Aren't there cruisers already in the game with repair party?  Leander comes to mind at Tier VI.

Edited by michael_zahnle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,870
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
8,940 posts
15,761 battles
1 minute ago, yashma said:

Hence why I emphasized the Alaska was a post-treaty cruiser.   

It's a bit of an oversimplification to just call Alaska 'just' a post-treaty cruiser.

She's definitely post-treaty, but going from the 10,000t 'Treaty' to the 14,500t and also post-treaty Baltimore, up to the nearly 30,000t Alaska, and then back down (chronologically/contemporary wise) to the 17,500t Des Moines and 14,700t Worcester classes suggests she's more than just any old '10,000t and 8in/6in guns are dead so we can build bigger' ship.

She's not a very natural progression.

 

9 minutes ago, michael_zahnle said:

Aren't there cruisers already in the game with repair party?  Leander comes to mind at Tier VI.

There certainly are, but the suggestion was that she was simply hamstrung by her battleship classification, whereas it really comes with a lot of plus points as well as the downsides. If you don't like the fire duration at T8 as a battleship, you probably won't like seeing a Montana or Vermont that overmatch you as a cruiser either.

For balance, there are near automatic things that ships get for being classified as BB-CA-DD. Sometimes there are exceptions - Prinz Eugen does have a repair for instance (though only 3 vs. 4 for BB). When WG tested a concept for Duke of York as a cruiser (no repair, cruiser fire duration, better accuracy, DFAA and hydro) they didn't give her a repair for instance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×