Somebody at Wargaming HQ doesn't know what a cruiser is.

[black_hull4]

Here we go again. With the 3 Italian & 2 German light cruisers taking up DD slots you'd think that Wargaming would be done with mis-classifying ships but NOOOOOOO. Now Wargaming is not only trying to shoehorn the CL Tromp into Tier 10 for...some...reason, but is giving it a "camouflage" that basically says "shoot right here." Sigh. Would it REALLY have been so hard to put her at Tier 5?

[Crucis]

2 hours ago, black_hull4 said:

Here we go again. With the 3 Italian & 2 German light cruisers taking up DD slots you'd think that Wargaming would be done with mis-classifying ships but NOOOOOOO. Now Wargaming is not only trying to shoehorn the CL Tromp into Tier 10 for...some...reason, but is giving it a "camouflage" that basically says "shoot right here." Sigh. Would it REALLY have been so hard to put her at Tier 5?

black_hull, I don't think that you're being fair here.  The root of the problem is that the matchmaker requires a fixed number of ship types to work properly.  For example, the Elbing is far too small to be a proper Light Cruiser, even if it is seemingly too large to be a regular DD.  And this is true for other oversized DDs/undersized CLs.  IIRC, the Elbing is an example of what the Germans would have called a Spähkreuzer.  And even in the wikipedia article on spahkreuzers, they're referred to as either large DDs or recon cruisers.  So, it's hard to come down too hard on WG for calling them DDs, in my book.   And even the Tromp was smaller than the Elbing, so calling her a DD doesn't seem like a stretch to me.

[Lert]

So OP, you want a ship that's smaller and lighter than the T3 RNCL Caledon in this game, with armor that would make aforementioned Caledon look upon her with pity, and an above water citadel, at tier 5?! As cruiser?! She'd be completely, hopelessly and woefully outclassed, outgunned and outarmored in every way. You honestly believe that Tromp would fit at T5 as cruiser?

Let's make a small comparison. Let's compare Tromp to, say, Omaha.

Tromp:

• 3455 ton standard load
• 123 m long
• 6x 150mm main guns (6 to a broadside)
• 2x 3 533mm torps
• 32.5 knots
• 38mm armor belt

Omaha:

• 7620 ton standard load
• 170 m long
• 12x 150mm main guns (8 to a broadside) (in game)
• 2x 3 533mm torps
• 34 knots
• 76mm armor belt

And you believe these two to be on equal footing?! Wow ...

Or, let's compare Tromp to Emerald:

Emerald:

• 7700 ton standard load
• 173 m long
• 7x 150mm main guns (7 to a broadside)
• 4x 4 533mm torps
• 33 knots
• 76mm armor belt

So, even the posterchild for 'omg this ship sucks, why is it at this tier' outclasses Tromp in every conceivable way. Twice the tonnage, twice the armor protection, more guns, 2.5 times the torpedoes ...

Let's throw in aforementioned Caledon to the comparison:

Caledon:

• 4360 ton standard load
• 137m long
• 5x 152mm main guns (5 to a broadside)
• 4x 2 533mm torps
• 29 knots
• 76mm armor belt

That's almost a fair fight. Almost. Except that Tromp has less torpedoes, less health and half the armor protection. Over, let me say again, an above water citadel.

The only thing she has over Caledon is a few knots speed and 1 more barrel. And you want to put her at T5. She's a T2.5 at best, as cruiser. And then she'd be the most vulnerable and easy-to-kill one in the game. She'd be the ultimate expression of 'shoot here for confetti'.

Just - .... wow.

... Tell me you understand jack ship about balancing without teling me you understand jack ship about balancing.

"But the navy that built her called her a cruiser!"

Yeah? So? They could've called it a refrigeratorlight for all that matters. Doesn't matter. She would not fit in this game as cruiser. Better she fight among her contemporaries as destroyer, eliminating the weak-armor-over-above-water-citadel issue, than being woefully outclassed by ships 25 years older than her as low tier cruiser.

</rant>

[imaginary_b]

4 hours ago, black_hull4 said:

Here we go again....you'd think that Wargaming...but NOOOOOOO. Now Wargaming is not only trying to shoehorn the CL Tromp....Sigh. Would it REALLY have been so hard to put her at Tier 5?

Thanks for posting in regular text, not dark grey. Much easier to read.

[black_hull4]

10 hours ago, Lert said:

You honestly believe that Tromp would fit at T5 as cruiser?

No. But in light of everything you just said, you honestly believe she'll fit at Tier 10? I would've put her at Tier 3 with access to Aiming Systems Mod 0, but Wargaming doesn't put anything at Tier 3 anymore. (Sad Chinese cruiser noises) 

10 hours ago, Lert said:

Tell me you understand jack ship about balancing without teling me you understand jack ship about balancing.

I'm a CV main, that should tell you how much I care about balance.

[Lert]

4 minutes ago, black_hull4 said:

No. But in light of everything you just said, you honestly believe she'll fit at Tier 10? I would've put her at Tier 3, but Wargaming doesn't put anything at Tier 3 anymore. (Sad Chinese cruiser noises) 

I'd imagined her at T7 myself, as DD. As DD she lacks the citadel that would be her achilles heel if implemented as cruiser. If she had a citadel an angry seagull defecating enthusiastically would turn her into confetti. That's the main reason I agree with WG to implement her as DD instead of cruiser.

I'm - .... suspect of her ability to function at T10 and be competitive with her stats the way they are. Personally I'd think she'd need a buff to be competitive at T10, either a 15%+ DPM buff or some smokes, something at least. It's early days yet though, time will tell and I'm sure she'll be tweaked some more before release. The rapid-reload airstrike she can launch from stealth is a wildcard and offers a lot of very tactical potential.

[Lighthawk1]

On 8/5/2022 at 8:49 PM, black_hull4 said:

 

 Would it REALLY have been so hard to put her at Tier 5?

Yes, because at tier 5, they couldn't make her as expensive as a tier 10, and no one would be buying hordes of gamble crates over a tier 5.

No profit margin selling tier 5s. Even if every player could then afford her. (What's a tier 5 cruiser cost? $13-17 ? Destroyers slightly less.)

This game has, sadly, gotten lost in the mentality of gamble crates as a primary revenue generator. While it might be lucrative because enough players are dumb enough to enable the process to continue, many more of us just want a direct, justifiably-priced, sale of a specific item. If I wanted casino games, there are plenty of those elsewhere.

[black_hull4]

Ok, Flamu's video came out, and I've noticed an interesting pattern in Tromp's stats: 

• speed regular among cruisers at Tier 10, but not destroyers
• airstrike, which cruisers have but destroyers don't
• gun size of a light cruiser
• turret traverse comparable to cruisers
• torpedo armament extremely weak for destroyers

It's as if Wargaming gave it all the stats of a cruisers, then removed a citadel & gave her better concealment. Flamu has a point: why play light cruisers when Wargaming just puts all the new cruisers as mega-destroyers?

[eMercody_Viveleny]

Fun fact: There is an argument floating around that Shimakaze is a cruiser.

 

In all seriousness, this is not a hill worth dying on. Nobody agrees on what’s a cruiser and what’s not.

[Royeaux]

On 8/13/2022 at 12:11 PM, eMercody_Viveleny said:

Fun fact: There is an argument floating around that Shimakaze is a cruiser.

With six 5" guns and 2,570 tons standard, she'd be one of the smallest, weakest armed cruisers in existence.  

On 8/13/2022 at 12:11 PM, eMercody_Viveleny said:

In all seriousness, this is not a hill worth dying on. Nobody agrees on what’s a cruiser and what’s not.

Naval Treaties gave cruisers a 6" general minimum.  If they aren't even armed with 6 inch guns, they aren't worthy to be cruisers generally.  Tromp being 3,400 long tons standard and armed with 5.9 in guns, at least has effective cruiser armament.  Shimakaze is firing a 51lb shell, Tromp is firing a 103lb shell, over twice the weight of shot.

USS Atlanta being armed with 16 main battery guns and over twice the tonnage of a destroyer being something of an exception.

[HazeGrayUnderway]

I'm curious to know who is calling Shimakaze a Cruiser, because I want to laugh at them.

 

Links would be greatly appreciated.

 

@Sventex  Next thing you know people are trying to pass off Fletcher, Kagero, Z-23 as Cruisers.

[Guardian54]

1 hour ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

Next thing you know people are trying to pass off Fletcher, Kagero, Z-23 as Cruisers.

WELL as Drachinifel educated me... the original definition of a cruiser was by role.

As said on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruiser

"The term "cruiser" or "cruizer"^[5] was first commonly used in the 17th century to refer to an independent warship. "Cruiser" meant the purpose or mission of a ship, rather than a category of vessel. However, the term was nonetheless used to mean a smaller, faster warship suitable for such a role."

Could any of the above classes operate independently for extended periods of time? If so they were "Role Cruisers" haha...

For less trolling purposes though... NO.