USS Northampton CLC-1 premium ship proposal

[landedkiller]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Northampton_(CLC-1)
 

I found this ship while browsing Wikipedia tonight. It made me think of the forest Sherman since both have the same guns. The difference being that this ship mounts 5 of that same gun that forest sherman uses. I think this ship would be an interesting one in the game if implemented. I think giving this ship main battery reload booster or burst fire mechanics would be rather interesting. I think this ship belongs at tier 8 if it doesn’t have either one of these. As for reload somewhere around 2.5 seconds I think would right for this cruiser and a range or 15-16km would be sufficient for destroyer hunting. Health pool wise 30,000-50,000. For the heal a normal cruiser heal with 2-3 charges, regular cruiser DCP, hydrocaustic search with a range of 6kmfor surface and 5km for underwater 2 charges, 2 charges of radar range 8km or alternatively spotter plane 3 charges. I would leave times of these consumables up to the developers. I would also propose a stronger anti submarine armament such as depth charge planes two flights with a range of 8km. Basically, I am thinking of Wargaming implementing this ship as an anti Destroyer and anti submarine hunter.  What are your thoughts? 

[HazeGrayUnderway]

Small correction:  She only has 4 of those 5"/54 guns.

 

The Tier VIII idea works and it'd keep her hull where the Baltimore-class and her related cousins are at.  I'd add maybe SAP / AP shell selection just like how San Diego is.  As a Radar Cruiser she'd be doing something that Sandy cannot do.

[Wrath_Of_Deadguy]

I think "be careful what you wish for." A cruiser with only four main guns and no other armament at T8... now where have we heard that one before? Granted, Northampton would be better protected and have a much better HP pool than sad, squishy Tiger '59, but there's a lot of room for error here with WG's tendency to think gimmicks are directly equivalent to offensive power, and you can be sure they'd make the gimmicks the ship's main selling point. Not saying it shouldn't happen- she was a real ship, after all, and that's worth something- but the results might not be what you're hoping for.

[BrushWolf]

Command Light Cruiser sounds a lot like a Destroyer Leader.

[Khafni]

A CLC has just about as much business in a fleet engagement as a submarine so, of course, WG will put her in!

[landedkiller]

Yeah I stand corrected on the 5 guns part my bad on that. I really think this ship would fit right in at either tier 8 with normal gun characteristics or tier 9 with the burst fire or main battery reload booster added to it. Sap shells are a must for sure with good velocity and shell travel time. No floaty shells either. we have been getting a lot of blueprint ships for awhile so it would be nice to get this ship in game as it is a real ship. @Boggzy why no West Virginia 1944 updates? You already modeled out two branches of ships and showed us? It can’t be that hard to get us the West Virginia 1944 model ? 

[Swervenkill]

6 hours ago, BrushWolf said:

Command Light Cruiser sounds a lot like a Destroyer Leader.

Not in the US. These were for use by the admiral and general coordinating an amphibious assault, but peacetime use was usually as flagship for a numbered fleet.

[Ensign_Cthulhu]

9 hours ago, landedkiller said:

I think this ship would be an interesting one in the game if implemented.

Her job was to be a huge floating Combat Information Centre, and her guns were for self-defence. She's actually very poorly armed in proportion to her internal volume. 

8 hours ago, Wrath_Of_Deadguy said:

Granted, Northampton would be better protected and have a much better HP pool than sad, squishy Tiger '59

Tiger 59 at least can hide herself in smoke while radaring, and she has a superheal and the fastest-turning and most precise cruiser guns at Tier 8.

[ArIskandir]

Quite interesting addition. 4 Sherman turrets at T8 sound good enough. 

9 hours ago, landedkiller said:

I would also propose a stronger anti submarine armament such as depth charge planes two flights with a range of 8km. Basically, I am thinking of Wargaming implementing this ship as an anti Destroyer and anti submarine hunter.  What are your thoughts?

It isa nice idea, but to really excel at that role the ship would need Radar and Submarine Surveilance consumables. Given she will pack only 4 guns I don't see why not. The ASW airstrike can be different without needing an extra plane, I would favor a quicker time to target with more bombs per attack but smaller damage. Or maybe use the helo deck theme and change the animation of the Airstrike for a Helicopter or drone strike. 

32 minutes ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

Her job was to be a huge floating Combat Information Centre, and her guns were for self-defence. She's actually very poorly armed in proportion to her internal volume. 

Wouldn't it be a perfect setup for giving the ship access to Off Map assets like Airstrikes or Resupply drops?

[Asym_KS]

Hold on, a CLC might be a great platform for missile control......  Give it long lasting and far reaching Radars for missile control.   Missiles are coming and someone has to have ID'ing radar to guide them......

[Pugilistic]

6 hours ago, Khafni said:

A CLC has just about as much business in a fleet engagement as a submarine so, of course, WG will put her in!

Her weapons were strictly for self protection, never intended to intentionally go in harms way. 

[HazeGrayUnderway]

8 hours ago, Khafni said:

A CLC has just about as much business in a fleet engagement as a submarine so, of course, WG will put her in!

It's fine.  In WoWS, unlike IRL, Battleships greatly outnumber Destroyers.  So it's fine.

[black_hull4]

9 hours ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

Tiger 59 at least can hide herself in smoke while radaring,

It's an American ship, from the Cold War no less, I don't see why it wouldn't have smoke and it having Radar is a given for any USN ship built after 1943.

3 hours ago, Pugilistic said:

Her weapons were strictly for self protection, never intended to intentionally go in harms way. 

Just like this:  ?

[Ensign_Cthulhu]

7 hours ago, Asym_KS said:

Hold on, a CLC might be a great platform for missile control......  Give it long lasting and far reaching Radars for missile control.   Missiles are coming and someone has to have ID'ing radar to guide them......

The CGs were perfectly capable of handling their own missile control. The Forward Pass concept, handing over missile control to a modified AWACS aircraft for over the horizon targeting, was something the technology of the time wasn't ready for.

[Tzarevitch]

On 12/16/2022 at 11:09 PM, landedkiller said:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Northampton_(CLC-1)
 

I found this ship while browsing Wikipedia tonight. It made me think of the forest Sherman since both have the same guns. The difference being that this ship mounts 5 of that same gun that forest sherman uses. I think this ship would be an interesting one in the game if implemented. I think giving this ship main battery reload booster or burst fire mechanics would be rather interesting. I think this ship belongs at tier 8 if it doesn’t have either one of these. As for reload somewhere around 2.5 seconds I think would right for this cruiser and a range or 15-16km would be sufficient for destroyer hunting. Health pool wise 30,000-50,000. For the heal a normal cruiser heal with 2-3 charges, regular cruiser DCP, hydrocaustic search with a range of 6kmfor surface and 5km for underwater 2 charges, 2 charges of radar range 8km or alternatively spotter plane 3 charges. I would leave times of these consumables up to the developers. I would also propose a stronger anti submarine armament such as depth charge planes two flights with a range of 8km. Basically, I am thinking of Wargaming implementing this ship as an anti Destroyer and anti submarine hunter.  What are your thoughts? 

I really doubt we will see Northampton. It basically doesn't serve any role in the game that one of the many T8 USN cruisers doesn't already serve. It also isn't historically significant enough to get collectors (like myself) to want it. As you know, historically it was an attempt to make use of an incomplete Oregon City class hull (slightly improved Baltimore, similar to USS Rochester in game) by finishing it as a command cruiser. It also spent a lot of its life acting as a testbed ship. 

Game-wise, even at T8, I can't see how taking this ship would be better than just talking a Baltimore or Wichita, or a Cleveland if you want faster guns to fight DDs.  It's a cruiser hull with DD guns, like an up-armored Atlanta class with more armor and health, but is easier to spot, less agile, and has no torpedoes. Increasing the ASW armament is too specialized a gimmick to justify a ship. Subs aren't common enough that I would want to give up a precious gimmick "Slot" for such a specialized and rarely useful improvement and for fighting DDs you are better off with an actual DD (Kidd or Benson), or a Cleveland, or get San Diego. It also doesn't tickle the fancy of collectors as it isn't that historically significant. 

I thought about this ship too, a while back, but I can't see them bothering. It's kinda pointless. That being said, they have released equally pointless ships like Tiger '59, so anything is possible. I really, really doubt it though. It's much more likely that we'd see one of the Mitscher class DDs, although I really doubt that as well since Forest Sherman fills the same role.  

 

[Boggzy]

On 12/17/2022 at 5:59 AM, landedkiller said:

Yeah I stand corrected on the 5 guns part my bad on that. I really think this ship would fit right in at either tier 8 with normal gun characteristics or tier 9 with the burst fire or main battery reload booster added to it. Sap shells are a must for sure with good velocity and shell travel time. No floaty shells either. we have been getting a lot of blueprint ships for awhile so it would be nice to get this ship in game as it is a real ship. @Boggzy why no West Virginia 1944 updates? You already modeled out two branches of ships and showed us? It can’t be that hard to get us the West Virginia 1944 model ? 

I think we'll have some updates on that in '23 

 

[landedkiller]

2 minutes ago, Boggzy said:

I think we'll have some updates on that in '23 

 

Thanks Boggzy I can’t wait 😛 

[Grantwhy]

42 minutes ago, Boggzy said:

I think we'll have some updates on that in '23 

 

Jinkies!!!

A Clue!

@Sailor_Moon :)

 

[Lord_Slayer]

I could see USS Norfolk in the game

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Norfolk_(DL-1)

I just don't see USS Northhampton 

[ArIskandir]

41 minutes ago, Lord_Slayer said:

I could see USS Norfolk in the game

That would be an awesome platform for introducing Weapon Alpha ASW weapon types!

[_KlRlTO_]

On 12/16/2022 at 11:09 PM, landedkiller said:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Northampton_(CLC-1)
 

I found this ship while browsing Wikipedia tonight. It made me think of the forest Sherman since both have the same guns. The difference being that this ship mounts 5 of that same gun that forest sherman uses. I think this ship would be an interesting one in the game if implemented. I think giving this ship main battery reload booster or burst fire mechanics would be rather interesting. I think this ship belongs at tier 8 if it doesn’t have either one of these. As for reload somewhere around 2.5 seconds I think would right for this cruiser and a range or 15-16km would be sufficient for destroyer hunting. Health pool wise 30,000-50,000. For the heal a normal cruiser heal with 2-3 charges, regular cruiser DCP, hydrocaustic search with a range of 6kmfor surface and 5km for underwater 2 charges, 2 charges of radar range 8km or alternatively spotter plane 3 charges. I would leave times of these consumables up to the developers. I would also propose a stronger anti submarine armament such as depth charge planes two flights with a range of 8km. Basically, I am thinking of Wargaming implementing this ship as an anti Destroyer and anti submarine hunter.  What are your thoughts? 

Oh, hey look, give it burst fire and a stupid fast base reload, and you have a supership for the Worcester line...

[landedkiller]

25 minutes ago, _KlRlTO_ said:

Oh, hey look, give it burst fire and a stupid fast base reload, and you have a supership for the Worcester line...

No at most a tier 9 obviously I would want it to be balanced with it’s main role being a sub hunter/ destroyer hunter