Battlecruiser Skill Tree When? (Seriously)

[Yesman1337]

I made a similar post a little while back where I predicted we would get the British ones soon being topped off by the G3 design but alas I was wrong and we got the Germans first surprisingly. Seriously though now with the introduction of not 1 but 2 Battlecruiser tech lines (The Dutch [Top 3 are BC's] and Germans) and with many more premiums in game already (HMS Hood, USS Constellation, IJN Kongo/Amagi, etc) as well as on the way in the form of the HMS Incomparable and probably much much more in the works I believe its time they finally give them a class/skill tree all their own. Instead of arbitrarily shoving them into either  the BB or CA/CL classes. The tree would be a mix of skills from both trees and maybe one or two more unique ones better designed for the playstyles they entail less armor but gaining speed whilst maintaining firepower. 

Side not here but with the introduction of the HMS Incomparable it gives me hope we could see the HMS Furious with its huge guns (2 single 18in) in game. I would be rather weird only having 2 guns in a game but I feel it could fit in at tier 6 with some modifications. It also had a planned enhanced secondary battery of 140mm (5.5in) guns in triple mounts (6 of them with an effective broadside of 4 turrets in total so 12 barrels total) so maybe some cool gimmicky secondary ship with two huge single guns. I would love to see it in game personally. 

I just quickly doodled what their little icon could look like. Figured as it a mix of BB and CA the icon could be a mix. Well sort of at least. I think it just looks cool to have an X there.

[AlcatrazNC]

I am just waiting to see the stats.

 

I constantly see people calling X or Y a Battlecruiser and not a BB which is fine as far as RL stuff are concerned I suppose. But in WOWS, if the stats are about the same as BB then why just not put them in the BB category ?

[AVR_Project]

Our first in-game Battle-Cruiser would be either the Ishizuchi, Myogi, or A-Hull Kongo.

We're talking 2015.
That's the difference between Battlecruisers and 'Large Cruisers' now being the Captain Skill set in the recent 2020 change.

New skill set would require another ship symbol, rebalancing MM, and more salt.

[Yesman1337]

1 hour ago, AVR_Project said:

Our first in-game Battle-Cruiser would be either the Ishizuchi, Myogi, or A-Hull Kongo.

We're talking 2015.
That's the difference between Battlecruisers and 'Large Cruisers' now being the Captain Skill set in the recent 2020 change.

New skill set would require another ship symbol, rebalancing MM, and more salt.

I already created a new ship symbol if you noticed and it fits the class well in my opinion. As for MM rebalancing I'm not so sure it would be that hard and in regards to the salt well I don't think there's anything to do about it at this point really. 

[Yesman1337]

1 hour ago, AlcatrazNC said:

I am just waiting to see the stats.

 

I constantly see people calling X or Y a Battlecruiser and not a BB which is fine as far as RL stuff are concerned I suppose. But in WOWS, if the stats are about the same as BB then why just not put them in the BB category ?

Because not all the time do these ships want BB related skills. Maybe they want something more mobility focused. Such as Last Stand or RPF (Which I miss on some ships) the list goes one. That is just for the ones that are stuck in with the BB's what about the ones lumped in with CA/CL's. The new Dutch Battlecruiser's could really gain some benefit from some survivability skills as they are quite large and could benefit from les fire or faster repair times. Not to mention the O Class German Battlecruisers who have now been screwed out of any semblance of a secondary build due to secondary skills only being in the BB tree. Siegfried and Agir would like them bac I'm sure. 

[frankfletcher_1]

Personally, I think anything at least Blücher level deserves CB status

[Yesman1337]

The way I personally always designated something a Battlecruiser (And it works pretty good at least for me) ask this question of it. 

Is it a scaled down BB or a scaled up CA?

If it's a scaled down BB then it a Battlecruiser if it just an up armored and gunned cruiser then no

(Alaska a weird one so I stand by its designation of it being a Large Cruiser as it does appear to have more in common with CA's than BB's in combat purpose/uses, Yoshino as well but the others I feel are a bit more cut and dry)

[BrushWolf]

2 hours ago, AVR_Project said:

Our first in-game Battle-Cruiser would be either the Ishizuchi, Myogi, or A-Hull Kongo.

We're talking 2015.
That's the difference between Battlecruisers and 'Large Cruisers' now being the Captain Skill set in the recent 2020 change.

New skill set would require another ship symbol, rebalancing MM, and more salt.

The new German Battlecruisers are where I think they should be in the Battleship tree but only their 3 - 6 are real ships with the rest up through 10 being paper/fantasy designs. I never understood having to have full trees instead of alternative options for several tiers and then hook back up with the main tree.

[Lord_Magus]

It literally makes my brain hurt that people actually think that (for example) Amagi and Stalingrad should be considered the same type of ship.

Most "battlecruisers" (and that includes the new line that was announced yesterday) will play mostly like battleships. They have guns that are pretty typical compared to same-tier BBs and armor that's usually (though not always) below average for the tier but still vastly better than same-tier cruisers. They're also usually above average in size (in both length and weight, the latter translating to more HP) for a BB of their tier. For gameplay purposes it'd be silly to class them as something other than BBs. Treating them as BBs in the matchmaker has worked well literally all the way back to the alpha test, and the BB commander skills are the ones that serve them best.

On the other hand you've got the "supercruisers" that have vastly bigger guns and better armor than regular cruisers, but much smaller guns and weaker armor than same-tier BBs. These are an actual in-between type of ships that really do need to be made a separate class for both MM and skill tree purposes. The way they play is distinct from both battleships and cruisers, and they're not especially well-served by the cruiser skill tree.

The main problem is what to call this class. "Battlecruiser" would be the obvious choice, but that would also cause rampant confusion because the majority of real-life battlecruisers wouldn't be placed in the in-game battlecruiser class. "Large cruiser" (the official real-life designation Alaska and Puerto Rico) could also be referring to just any cruiser with above-average size. And "supercruiser" just sounds kinda silly. Perhaps call them "armoured cruiser" since they were really kind of a revival of that concept.

 

And BTW, regarding the Dutch cruiser line? I'd say that only the T10 Gouden Leeuw can be called a battlecruiser or "supercruiser" or whatever. T8 Haarlem is just a regular CA with 203mm guns. And T9 Johan de Witt has 240mm guns which are on the big side for a CA, but Henri IV has been rocking the same caliber for 4 years now and definitely isn't a BC.

[AVR_Project]

8 hours ago, BrushWolf said:

The new German Battlecruisers are where I think they should be in the Battleship tree but only their 3 - 6 are real ships with the rest up through 10 being paper/fantasy designs. I never understood having to have full trees instead of alternative options for several tiers and then hook back up with the main tree.

The Alternate IJN DD line once ended with the Akizuki, after starting at tier 5.  That worked for a long time.

[Yesman1337]

9 hours ago, Lord_Magus said:

It literally makes my brain hurt that people actually think that (for example) Amagi and Stalingrad should be considered the same type of ship.

Most "battlecruisers" (and that includes the new line that was announced yesterday) will play mostly like battleships. They have guns that are pretty typical compared to same-tier BBs and armor that's usually (though not always) below average for the tier but still vastly better than same-tier cruisers. They're also usually above average in size (in both length and weight, the latter translating to more HP) for a BB of their tier. For gameplay purposes it'd be silly to class them as something other than BBs. Treating them as BBs in the matchmaker has worked well literally all the way back to the alpha test, and the BB commander skills are the ones that serve them best.

On the other hand you've got the "supercruisers" that have vastly bigger guns and better armor than regular cruisers, but much smaller guns and weaker armor than same-tier BBs. These are an actual in-between type of ships that really do need to be made a separate class for both MM and skill tree purposes. The way they play is distinct from both battleships and cruisers, and they're not especially well-served by the cruiser skill tree.

The main problem is what to call this class. "Battlecruiser" would be the obvious choice, but that would also cause rampant confusion because the majority of real-life battlecruisers wouldn't be placed in the in-game battlecruiser class. "Large cruiser" (the official real-life designation Alaska and Puerto Rico) could also be referring to just any cruiser with above-average size. And "supercruiser" just sounds kinda silly. Perhaps call them "armoured cruiser" since they were really kind of a revival of that concept.

 

And BTW, regarding the Dutch cruiser line? I'd say that only the T10 Gouden Leeuw can be called a battlecruiser or "supercruiser" or whatever. T8 Haarlem is just a regular CA with 203mm guns. And T9 Johan de Witt has 240mm guns which are on the big side for a CA, but Henri IV has been rocking the same caliber for 4 years now and definitely isn't a BC.

Trying playing Kongo like a BB and see how long the armor holds up against enemy fire head on. Most of them do not play like BB's (Constellation as well now with it's weak armor can not be a frontline tank) or CA/CL's exactly due to their size. 

As for the Dutch line the tier 10 was actively called a Battlecruiser it was project 1047 and came very close to actually being built. With 283mm guns I would certainly classify it as one.  

[ArIskandir]

So please explain why, in terms of captain skills and ship gameplay, Battlecruisers don't fit into the Battleship type? 

What is so urgently needed or missing that requires all that extra work?

[Yesman1337]

6 hours ago, ArIskandir said:

So please explain why, in terms of captain skills and ship gameplay, Battlecruisers don't fit into the Battleship type? 

What is so urgently needed or missing that requires all that extra work?

They prefer more mobility and vs straight tanking up. Like last stand as an option as they rely more on mobility than armor for straight protection. 

Now as to the rest of your question. No one said it was urgent I just felt it would be appropriate with all the new ones coming to the game now. Secondly it would probably not be that much work as we see with the skill trees already most skills transfer over with the high tier ones being the difference mainly and in this case you could even just combine the two allowing for it to be done even quicker. 

(I also miss Radio Location on some of the BB's as it helped a lot when an annoying DD hunting you throwing out torps while staying perma invis)

[Helstrem]

16 hours ago, BrushWolf said:

The new German Battlecruisers are where I think they should be in the Battleship tree but only their 3 - 6 are real ships with the rest up through 10 being paper/fantasy designs. I never understood having to have full trees instead of alternative options for several tiers and then hook back up with the main tree.

 

8 hours ago, AVR_Project said:

The Alternate IJN DD line once ended with the Akizuki, after starting at tier 5.  That worked for a long time.

Players really don't like that and it made the line very unpopular even with Akizuki being as good and playable as it was.

[BrushWolf]

6 minutes ago, Helstrem said:

 

Players really don't like that and it made the line very unpopular even with Akizuki being as good and playable as it was.

Which I don't understand. What is is about complete trees that is so important?

[Helstrem]

Just now, BrushWolf said:

Which I don't understand. What is is about complete trees that is so important?

Many players probably see Tier X as the goal and where the real game is, just like max level is where the real World of Warcraft game is played.

[Wolfswetpaws]

Separating the Captain's Skills according to the ship types was a "dumb idea" in the first place, in my opinion.

Every Captain should have all Captain's Skills available to them.  Some might not make sense for the ship the Captain is assigned to, but others would allow for builds that are impossible now.
(Cruiser Mikoyan with a secondary/brawler build was fun, even if it was silly.  Can't do it since the re-bork.)

It should be up to the player to decide what Captain's Skills they wish to utilize.

[BrushWolf]

3 minutes ago, Helstrem said:

Many players probably see Tier X as the goal and where the real game is, just like max level is where the real World of Warcraft game is played.

Yeah, too many look at top tier/level as the best tier/level when the reality in most tier/level games the best play is in the middle. That is true but an alternate path for part of the trip should be welcome.

[Skpstr]

21 hours ago, Yesman1337 said:

Because not all the time do these ships want BB related skills. Maybe they want something more mobility focused. Such as Last Stand or RPF (Which I miss on some ships) the list goes one. That is just for the ones that are stuck in with the BB's what about the ones lumped in with CA/CL's. The new Dutch Battlecruiser's could really gain some benefit from some survivability skills as they are quite large and could benefit from les fire or faster repair times. .

The problem is, unless the whole tree is one type of ship, your skills won't necessarily translate.

You say the Dutch cruisers at T8-10 are battlecruisers, and should have their own skills. Fair enough, but what about the captain you're using to grind the line having all cruiser skills at T7? How would that work?

WG has actually gone to lengths to make lines consistent, for example removing Kirov and Moskva from the tech trees, to make them flow more logically.

As far as the Dutch "battlecruisers", we've already belabored this point with the captain skills rework, when the "super cruisers" lost the survivability skills many depended on. Having just taken those skills away, I can't imagine WG being in a hurry to give them back.

TBH, I think that large cruisers lost their survivability skills on purpose, in an attempt to stop them from making regular heavy cruisers obsolete. The idea being that, in exchange for heavier armor and firepower, you become a bigger target and more vulnerable to fire.

[Helstrem]

3 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Separating the Captain's Skills according to the ship types was a "dumb idea" in the first place, in my opinion.

Absolutely wrong, in my opinion.

Separating them by ship type allows them to be balanced for each ship type.

IFHE is a huge gain for some cruisers and DDs, but while useful for some BB build it was absolutely not worth 4 points.  Separating the trees allows it to be set where it is a choice on each tree.

Having all skills available for all ships makes balancing the skills much, much harder and limits what can be done with the skills.

[HazeGrayUnderway]

The Battleship Skill Tree has the Survival aspects which these upcoming ships will need. 

That's the Skill Tree you want.

 

It would not surprise me if these German Battlecruisers have improved secondaries performance, i.e. Siegfried and Agir.  If so, then you really want the Battleship Skill Tree as it has the Secondaries Skills, whereas Cruisers do not.

[FinalAP_Ride]

Hopefully never, the game is already broken enough.

[Yesman1337]

14 hours ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

The Battleship Skill Tree has the Survival aspects which these upcoming ships will need. 

That's the Skill Tree you want.

 

It would not surprise me if these German Battlecruisers have improved secondaries performance, i.e. Siegfried and Agir.  If so, then you really want the Battleship Skill Tree as it has the Secondaries Skills, whereas Cruisers do not.

I know that but what about the O Class Battlecruisers that are stuck with the cruiser designation and can't make use of their secondary armament. 

[Tzarevitch]

17 hours ago, Skpstr said:

 

TBH, I think that large cruisers lost their survivability skills on purpose, in an attempt to stop them from making regular heavy cruisers obsolete. The idea being that, in exchange for heavier armor and firepower, you become a bigger target and more vulnerable to fire.

You are precisely correct. They've basically said the same thing during the twitch streams around the skill rework. 

[Crucis]

On 7/7/2021 at 10:44 PM, Yesman1337 said:

I already created a new ship symbol if you noticed and it fits the class well in my opinion. As for MM rebalancing I'm not so sure it would be that hard and in regards to the salt well I don't think there's anything to do about it at this point really. 

For what it's worth, your new symbol for BCs looks good, at least when posted here.  The more important question though is how would it look in game on a much smaller scale.  Obviously this should be something that's entirely testable.