Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
Panzer_Mac_W126

Add Actual Battlecruiser/Supercruiser Class

14 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
48 posts

I just saw the news that Battlecruiser HMS Repulse is going into ST for 10.5. With this, and the higher tiers of the new Dutch cruiser tree, I believe it is time to finally separate the Battle/Supercruisers into their own designation. Battlecruisers have been in the game since the early days of WoWs, starting with Myogi, and Kongo, with Ishizuchi added later. Currently there are around 20 ships in the game that are Battlecruisers/Supercruisers.
Others we know are:

Alaska, Puerto Rico, Stalingrad, Kronshtadt, Hood, Agir, Siegfried, Izmail, Pyotr Velikiy, Dunkerque, Strasbourg, Azuma, Yoshino, Prinz Eitel Friedrich, Amagi, and Ashitaka. If you want to follow the original German idea of a battlecruiser (heavy armor and sub-battleship guns) then Scharnhorst fits into this category as well as it has heavy armor but guns with a caliber lower than 12in.

On the way are Constellation, Congress, Agincourt, and of course the new Dutch tier 10 and HMS Repulse. While adding a new class will cause some complications, it's not stopping them from seriously considering subs, and I believe it will also give us more opportunities to see ships that did exist, in addition to maybe giving some players a new class they could come to like.

Perhaps one notable feature of this class will be hull mounted torpedo launchers, as even I wish ships that had them in real life could use them in game.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59
[ZZZZ]
Members
224 posts
10,402 battles

Battlecruisers and super cruisers are different things that don't belong together any more than they do with the battleships and cruisers they are currently classed with.

Edited by Iceland_260

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,476
[WOLFC]
Members
5,675 posts
15,855 battles
1 hour ago, Panzer_Mac_W126 said:

On the way are Constellation, Congress, Agincourt, and of course the new Dutch tier 10 and HMS Repulse.

:Smile_amazed:

I have never seen HMS Agincourt described as a battlecruiser in any source: she was a dreadnought battleship capable of 22 knots.

The problem with giving battlecruisers/supercruisers their own class is that there really isn’t any consensus of what qualifies as a battlecruiser, large cruiser/supercruiser, or even if it is appropriate to lump them in together as the same class. I prescribe to the school of thought that they are different ships types, but others do not. Then there are situations like the Scharnhorst-class ships, which the KM insisted were BBs but the Royal Navy considered battlecruisers because of the traits they shared with the Imperial German battlecruisers of the previous generation of German capital ships. Of course, there’s also the “fast battleships” of the 1930s that also complicate things.

And that’s completely ignoring the effect on MM of making these ships a unique ship type, especially since there is not a single dedicated tech tree for these ships. I think the way WG is currently handling these ships is appropriate, with the proper CCs (battlecruisers) that can trace their design lineage back to dreadnought battleships being BBs for the most part, and the CBs (large cruisers/“supercruisers”) that are enlarged cruiser designs being likewise designated as such.

Edited by Nevermore135
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12,117
[SALVO]
Members
27,765 posts
39,208 battles
50 minutes ago, Nevermore135 said:

:Smile_amazed:

I have never seen HMS Agincourt described as a battlecruiser in any source: she was a dreadnought battleship capable of 22 knots.

The problem with giving battlecruisers/supercruisers their own class is that there really isn’t any consensus of what qualifies as a battlecruiser, large cruiser/supercruiser, or even if it is appropriate to lump them in together as the same class. I prescribe to the school of thought that they are different ships types, but others do not. Then there are situations like the Scharnhorst-class ships, which the KM insisted were BBs but the Royal Navy considered battlecruisers because of the traits they shared with the Imperial German battlecruisers of the previous generation of German capital ships. Of course, there’s also the “fast battleships” of the 1930s that also complicate things.

And that’s completely ignoring the effect on MM of making these ships a unique ship type, especially since there is not a single dedicated tech tree for these ships. I think the way WG is currently handling these ships is appropriate, with the proper CCs (battlecruisers) that can trace their design lineage back to dreadnought battleships being BBs for the most part, and the CBs (large cruisers/“supercruisers”) that are enlarged cruiser designs being likewise designated as such.

Good catch! 

The Agincourt is not a battlecruiser.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,038 posts
2,869 battles
5 hours ago, Panzer_Mac_W126 said:

On the way are Constellation, Congress, Agincourt, and of course the new Dutch tier 10 and HMS Repulse.

Uh... :fish_book:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
572
[NIN-]
[NIN-]
Members
862 posts
32,406 battles

Supercruisers are still battlecruisers......high speed, battleship grade weapons and enough armor against heavy cruisers... no diffrence.

  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
572
[NIN-]
[NIN-]
Members
862 posts
32,406 battles
6 hours ago, Nevermore135 said:

:Smile_amazed:

I have never seen HMS Agincourt described as a battlecruiser in any source: she was a dreadnought battleship capable of 22 knots.

The problem with giving battlecruisers/supercruisers their own class is that there really isn’t any consensus of what qualifies as a battlecruiser, large cruiser/supercruiser, or even if it is appropriate to lump them in together as the same class. I prescribe to the school of thought that they are different ships types, but others do not. Then there are situations like the Scharnhorst-class ships, which the KM insisted were BBs but the Royal Navy considered battlecruisers because of the traits they shared with the Imperial German battlecruisers of the previous generation of German capital ships. Of course, there’s also the “fast battleships” of the 1930s that also complicate things.

And that’s completely ignoring the effect on MM of making these ships a unique ship type, especially since there is not a single dedicated tech tree for these ships. I think the way WG is currently handling these ships is appropriate, with the proper CCs (battlecruisers) that can trace their design lineage back to dreadnought battleships being BBs for the most part, and the CBs (large cruisers/“supercruisers”) that are enlarged cruiser designs being likewise designated as such.

Royal navy changed their classification of the scharnhorst class too battleship after the war..

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
272
[FEB-M]
Members
298 posts
8,421 battles

Adding a new class between BBs and CAs may be a good idea, as many ships would benefit from specific Commander Skills. This would be a good improvement.

BUT for me seems better just to split the regular CA (Heavy Cruisers) from CL (Light Cruisers), then Supercruisers and Battlecruisers becoming CA's. As result, CLs can have Commander Skills for "small fast guns, good torps, fast and agile light cruisers", and CA's specialize captains for "big slow guns, some torp, well armored heavy cruisers".

So we would have 5 classes: CV / BB / CA / CL / DD (and 5 skill sets for captains).

Then we reach ships like ODIN and ÄGIR - they have the same guns, but Odin is lighter (HP and mass) than Aegir. They are a clear case for a "CA" or "SC" or "BC" to separate them from Light Cruisers. The commander skillset is the major difference in Odin vs Aegir. And both can join the same class.

 

For an even simpler change, just create a way that the player can select either BB or CA/CL tab for captain skill, for selected ships as the ones listed in this topic. Sig and Aegir would benefir a lot from being able to use a BB captain with BB skills ...   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,828
[ARS]
Beta Testers
8,225 posts
9,184 battles
10 hours ago, Grapefruitcannon said:

Supercruisers are still battlecruisers......high speed, battleship grade weapons and enough armor against heavy cruisers... no diffrence.

Hood has thicker armor than Nagato and a higher percentage of its tonnage in armor than the Queen Elizabeth.  So, is it a battlecruiser or a fast battleship?  Looking at its actual numbers it looks very much like the world's first fast battleship.  But the Brits called it a battlecruiser so it gets put in with things like HMS Inflexible which had BB guns and armored cruiser levels of protection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
572
[NIN-]
[NIN-]
Members
862 posts
32,406 battles
12 hours ago, Helstrem said:

Hood has thicker armor than Nagato and a higher percentage of its tonnage in armor than the Queen Elizabeth.  So, is it a battlecruiser or a fast battleship?  Looking at its actual numbers it looks very much like the world's first fast battleship.  But the Brits called it a battlecruiser so it gets put in with things like HMS Inflexible which had BB guns and armored cruiser levels of protection.

Hood is right on the line of battlecruiser/ fast battleship.. Her main belt was thick but was also very shallow. Her overall armor scheme was very poor.  Both nagato and hood maxed out at 12in on the belt. hoods larger percentage was mostly of the useless 7-5in of armor she had every where else.

Edited by Grapefruitcannon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,359
[FOXY]
Members
4,717 posts
8,947 battles
On 5/17/2021 at 3:00 AM, Grapefruitcannon said:

Supercruisers are still battlecruisers......high speed, battleship grade weapons and enough armor against heavy cruisers... no diffrence.

In real life id disagree,

In game however they function like battlecruisers, and would benefit from being their own class with both cruiser and battleship skills on it.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
206
[A-D-F]
Members
672 posts
19,626 battles

Honestly... anything that is a "cruiser" and has guns 250 mm or larger needs it's own separate class in match maker...

find a  single "treaty" cruiser in this picture...
image.thumb.png.bb71e747ed56db3ac05c74c7dc7e60f1.png

... there isn't any.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×