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

A dedicated Battle Cruiser line

16 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

3,634
[ARS]
Beta Testers
6,703 posts
6,746 battles
1 minute ago, TheMadCadd said:

What nations could accommodate it? And what ships should be included?

How much paper and fantasy are you ok with?  The German and Russian CV lines show that anything is possible.

With some built in steel ships:

UK
Germany
Japan
 

Arguably the US and France too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
472
[KRAB]
Members
928 posts
7,402 battles

The biggest issue is that most of them would be lower tier, as by the late 1930s the battlecruiser tended to evolve into fast battleships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
961
[SVER]
Beta Testers
3,681 posts
8,441 battles

In general, you'd probably see the UK, Germany, France, and Japan. If we are talking about designs on top of real life ships. I'm sure that a Russian line would pop up at some point too with designs from the 1950s or something.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,083
[HC]
[HC]
Beta Testers
3,682 posts
13,377 battles
47 minutes ago, TheMadCadd said:

What nations could accommodate it? And what ships should be included?

Can't see a dedicated ship type for them, they'd be either cruisers or battleships.

Having full lines, also probably not, as battlecruisers as a concept died in the 1930's with the creation of the fast battleship. They were really killed by the treaty system  that made it foolish to not combine the battlecruiser and battleship roles into a singe ship, and technology had advanced to the point that was possible as well.

The later supercruisers aren't really battlecruisers either, they're just the logical evolution of existing cruisers (following exactly the same line of thinking as the development of battleships). 

Now, short alternate lines (up to tier 6 or 7) of battleships that merge into the main battleship lines at tier 8 would be possible, and somewhat realistic as that's what really happened.

As far as who would have them, Just the Germans and British. Japans battlecruisers are already in game, the United States had one that's showing up as a premium "SOON" and the French actually never did them, instead going for undersized fast battleships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,636
[FORM]
Members
2,417 posts
13,579 battles
1 hour ago, TheMadCadd said:

What nations could accommodate it? And what ships should be included?

One option for something along these lines would be to create a new set of captain skills as an option for certain ships to select. Anything that's a super or battle cruiser, and perhaps even the pocket battleships, etc. It'd definitely allow for some more variety on ship play, and by creating a new set of captain skills for it they could prevent any concern about abuses, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,040
[NYAAR]
Members
2,922 posts
15,680 battles
1 hour ago, TheMadCadd said:

What nations could accommodate it? And what ships should be included?

for actual ships: UK, Germany, Japan.

paper: US had an actual design and hull.....that later became 2 CVs. Everyone else....more or less paper.

 

Technically, the Commonwealth could add in a battlecruiser premium. Hell, let's face it, there would be several premiums in this.

HMS Australia

HMS Tiger

HMS Courageous

SMS Goeben

SMS Lutzow

 

 

All Battlecruisers would be low tier, highest 6 or 7. Lexington maybe hit T7.

the battlecruiser line would end early as anything higher is essentially a fast battleship.

  • Cool 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,011
[SYN]
Members
9,068 posts
16,702 battles

I don't really understand the argument about real ships being low tiers. We've already had entirely fantastical lines with the German and Russian carriers achieving 0% commissioned ships, the Dutch running out at T4 and the British heavy cruisers having only 33% commissioned ships, at T5 and T6.

Whether or not ships were built is largely irrelevant.

Similarly I think its pretty irrelevant that the battlecruiser concept morphed into the fast battleship concept - I would implement British/German battlecruisers as battleships for matchmaking and general mechanic purposes - we've already done that with Prinz Eitel, Repulse and to a lesser extent Hood. Having a line with some consistent high speed flavor and trade-offs in armor is pretty much fine, whether you call the high tiers battleships or battlecruisers - there are already lines that change considerably up tiers e.g. light-heavy cruisers, torpedo boats-destroyers and for the USN Standard to Fast battleships for instance. Des Moines is vastly better protected than Pensacola, a battlecruiser line G3 being better protected than a Renown is fairly reasonable. 

 

The problem to an extent is that for reasons unknown WG decided that France was 'the nation of Engine Boost' so with that their high tier battleships are fast, well armed and still well armored, however there is still design space for high tier fast battleships to follow on from battlecruisers.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,083
[HC]
[HC]
Beta Testers
3,682 posts
13,377 battles
12 minutes ago, mofton said:

I don't really understand the argument about real ships being low tiers. We've already had entirely fantastical lines with the German and Russian carriers achieving 0% commissioned ships, the Dutch running out at T4 and the British heavy cruisers having only 33% commissioned ships, at T5 and T6.

Whether or not ships were built is largely irrelevant.

Similarly I think its pretty irrelevant that the battlecruiser concept morphed into the fast battleship concept - I would implement British/German battlecruisers as battleships for matchmaking and general mechanic purposes - we've already done that with Prinz Eitel, Repulse and to a lesser extent Hood. Having a line with some consistent high speed flavor and trade-offs in armor is pretty much fine, whether you call the high tiers battleships or battlecruisers - there are already lines that change considerably up tiers e.g. light-heavy cruisers, torpedo boats-destroyers and for the USN Standard to Fast battleships for instance. Des Moines is vastly better protected than Pensacola, a battlecruiser line G3 being better protected than a Renown is fairly reasonable. 

 

The problem to an extent is that for reasons unknown WG decided that France was 'the nation of Engine Boost' so with that their high tier battleships are fast, well armed and still well armored, however there is still design space for high tier fast battleships to follow on from battlecruisers.

Unfortunately, battlecruisers run out of a place in the game at higher tiers.

Many of the battleships will be just as fast, and traded nothing to do it.

What's a battlecruiser at high tier? A massive ship with big guns running faster than the destroyers with no armor worthy of the name? Probably not, you'll just get out in front of you team, spotted, and lit up. Or you just end up a bad battleship.

At low tiers, they make sense, there's a gap between average battleship speeds and average cruiser speeds that can be exploited. That's where the classic, trading armor for speed that typically describes a battlecruiser works.

At higher tiers, the battleships are almost as fast as the cruisers once they get going. Trading significant armor protection for a couple of knots of speed isn't productive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
198
[DRAH]
Members
456 posts
11,133 battles

For built in Steel the UK is the clear winner.

T3 Invincible/New Zealand/Australia depending on which famous ship they choose 4x twin 305 with offset wing turrents with only flat broadside giving full 8 guns similar to German T4 BB. 25k
T4 Queen Mary 4 x Twin 340 in a terrible A, B, Q, Z configuration. (Imagine Texas layout with the aft superfiring turret missing. 27k
T5 Tiger 4 x Twin 340 in a Kongo layout 30k
T6 Renown/Repulse 3 x twin 380 in A, B, X 32k
T7 Anson/Howe 4 x Twin  380. Sister of Hood that was laid down but scrapped under the Washington treaty. Would have refits planned but not implemented for Hood to improve AA
T8 G3 battlecruiser 3x3 406 in A, B, Q layout, 30 knots, Designed but killed by Washington treaty
T9/T10 some of the various paper studies for a true fast BB/BC

Edited by Ellyh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,011
[SYN]
Members
9,068 posts
16,702 battles
15 minutes ago, SgtBeltfed said:

Unfortunately, battlecruisers run out of a place in the game at higher tiers.

Many of the battleships will be just as fast, and traded nothing to do it.

What's a battlecruiser at high tier? A massive ship with big guns running faster than the destroyers with no armor worthy of the name? Probably not, you'll just get out in front of you team, spotted, and lit up. Or you just end up a bad battleship.

At low tiers, they make sense, there's a gap between average battleship speeds and average cruiser speeds that can be exploited. That's where the classic, trading armor for speed that typically describes a battlecruiser works.

At higher tiers, the battleships are almost as fast as the cruisers once they get going. Trading significant armor protection for a couple of knots of speed isn't productive.

Yes, so they just morph into 'flavored' fast battleships. The flavor may be slightly less armor and survivability tweaks in exchange for speed - which can still be done - and maybe firepower.

The British J3, G3 and K2/K3 designs for instance don't trade a huge amount of potential compared to high tier fast battleships - you can call them fast battleships if you like. You can still tweak them into working. There's already a range of armor values for high tier battleships, with some being softer than others. There's still a spectrum with space.

Repulse has just been added with a 15% engine boost, which is silly but I think unfortunately sparked by an arms race with the French - she'll do 36kt without flag. Other ways to put a speed flavor in might include better speed retention in turns - rather than dropping to 75% speed, drop to only 90% and your 32kt high tier 'battlecruiser' turns at 28.8kt vs. 21kt on a Yamato.

You can say the high tiers aren't battlecruisers, which is fine, maybe they're not - but they can be part of a "battlecruiser" line, tying into their potentially more extreme lower tiered fellows with similar traits and providing a worthwhile bit of variety, just as many 'cruiser' lines morph from light to heavy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,083
[HC]
[HC]
Beta Testers
3,682 posts
13,377 battles
2 minutes ago, mofton said:

Yes, so they just morph into 'flavored' fast battleships. The flavor may be slightly less armor and survivability tweaks in exchange for speed - which can still be done - and maybe firepower.

The British J3, G3 and K2/K3 designs for instance don't trade a huge amount of potential compared to high tier fast battleships - you can call them fast battleships if you like. You can still tweak them into working. There's already a range of armor values for high tier battleships, with some being softer than others. There's still a spectrum with space.

Repulse has just been added with a 15% engine boost, which is silly but I think unfortunately sparked by an arms race with the French - she'll do 36kt without flag. Other ways to put a speed flavor in might include better speed retention in turns - rather than dropping to 75% speed, drop to only 90% and your 32kt high tier 'battlecruiser' turns at 28.8kt vs. 21kt on a Yamato.

You can say the high tiers aren't battlecruisers, which is fine, maybe they're not - but they can be part of a "battlecruiser" line, tying into their potentially more extreme lower tiered fellows with similar traits and providing a worthwhile bit of variety, just as many 'cruiser' lines morph from light to heavy.

I don't see them getting more firepower than the regular fast battleships, a battleship with a good volley can smash hulk smash just about everything in the game.

Repulse is still down where there's a speed gap, and she coughs up 2 guns to do it.

Now, the line not being battlecruisers at higher tiers would fit, and all they'd end up as is a second line of battleships, which is fine. You'd probably rearrange the affected lines so you'd end up with a line of slow BB"s, and a line of fast BB''s, if there's enough designs and concepts for the slow BB's.

Also, the post WWI Royal Navy battlecruiser designs were already morphing into fast battleships, Jutland was a big wakeup call.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,011
[SYN]
Members
9,068 posts
16,702 battles
2 minutes ago, SgtBeltfed said:

Now, the line not being battlecruisers at higher tiers would fit, and all they'd end up as is a second line of battleships, which is fine.

Well, we finally agree!

2 minutes ago, SgtBeltfed said:

Also, the post WWI Royal Navy battlecruiser designs were already morphing into fast battleships,

I know, hence I cited J3, G3 and K3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,083
[HC]
[HC]
Beta Testers
3,682 posts
13,377 battles
23 minutes ago, mofton said:

Well, we finally agree!

I know, hence I cited J3, G3 and K3.

I just don't really see it as a battlecruiser line then, as once you hit tier 8, they're gonna lose a lot of that flavor.

Now, when I could run Kongo in operations she was a blast, and I could see any of the last generations of battlecruiser being equally fun in them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,200
[HINON]
Members
9,153 posts
13,701 battles

Germany and the UK would be in the #1 spot for the first ones to come in, as they were, afaik, the biggest users of battlecruisers, namely in WW1, the US had, again, afaik, 2 designs that could be put under the battlecruiser tab, and those were the original design of what became the Lexington class CVs and the Alaska class, other than those 2 i got nothing, France, im not sure, i think the only battlecruiser-ish ship i know of for them was the Dunkerques and i was told recently that those ship were, in fact, battleships, and not battlecruisers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13,228
[WOLF3]
[WOLF3]
Members
31,710 posts
26,602 battles

Historically the Battlecruisers would be low and mid tiers, WWI-era stuff, complete with some of those old veterans soldiering on into WWII.  Then you come across the problem that Battlecruisers start dying off in the interwar years, partly because of treaties and countries started tightening the belts of their navies. 

 

Another problem with the idea of the Battlecruiser was that eventually technology advanced enough where new Battleships could be produced that go fast.  Starting around the mid-1930s was when a bunch of the Fast BBs of WWII start begin construction.

Dunkerque - Laid down in 1932, 29.5kts.

Littorio - Laid down in 1934, 30kts.

Richelieu - Laid down in 1935, 32.kts.

Bismarck - Laid down in 1936, 30kts.

King George V - Laid down in 1937, 28kts.

North Carolina - Laid down in 1937, 27kts.

Yamato - Laid down in 1937.  If the KGV, NC, SD-class BBs are considered Fast BBs at 27 and 28kts, then 27kt Yamato counts, but that wasn't how the IJN used her.

South Dakota - Laid down in 1939, 27kts.

Iowa - Laid down in 1940, 33kts.

 

Scharnhorst-class are already in the game at Tier VII.  Germany started building her in 1935.

Special mention of the Italian Conte di Cavour-class BBs, WWI era BBs that in 1933 got very heavy modifications, taking them from 21.5kts to 27kts.  Both ships of the class, to include the original WWI-era and post-major refit, are hilariously in the same tier.  GG, WG, GG.

 

Also, Tier VIII IJN Battleship Amagi in the tech tree was supposed to be a Battlecruiser counterpart to the regular Battleship class that came around the same time:  Tosa-class.  Both classes were early 1920s, part of a naval arms race with the United States Navy, but naval treaties put a stop to that.  Both Amagi-class BBs, Amagi & Akagi were to undergo conversion to Carriers.  The Tosas were going to be scrapped.  However, a huge earthquake hit Japan and Amagi was damaged so extensively from it that the conversion was no longer possible.  The naval treaty allowed Japan to replace Amagi with incomplete Tosa-class BB Kaga, to be the second Carrier conversion.

 

Lexington-class Battlecruisers were starting to be laid down in 1921 but naval treaties scrapped that idea and both became Carriers instead.  As Battlecruisers they were part of the naval arms race against Japan.  The South Dakota-class BB (1920) were intended to be the accompanying BB-class, just like the IJN, but again, this was all cancelled by treaties.

===========

I disagree on Full Battlecruiser Lines as the idea of the Battlecruiser died when Battleships started going fast, but there's plenty of room for Premium Ships.

WG is already working on a Premium Lexington-class Battlecruiser.  It looks like they gave the early 1920s Lexington-class Battlecruiser the refit a number of Old Standard BBs of the USN got post-Pearl Harbor.

Constellation_wows_main.jpg

If I want to be exceedingly generous, I'd say put in the paper Royal Navy Battlecruiser design of the early 1920s, the G3 Battlecruiser.  The G3 Battlecruiser and N3 Battleship were supposed to be the Royal Navy's answer to the USN and IJN construction programs.  But the British government, with WWI wrecking the economy, was saying "HELL NO" to the Royal Navy.  However, I do appreciate the sly British diplomats on using the G3 & N3 PLANS as leverage for the naval treaties, with the British getting what they wanted despite never having the will nor money to build the things in the first place.

Well played, UK, well played.

 

G3 Battlecruiser stuff from the 'net:

G3battlecruiserModel.JPG

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×