Historynerd

So, not only you insist, but you generalize in a rather stereotypizing fashion? I'm beginning to think you deserve a chat ban.

I don't agree that the link uniting armoured and heavy cruiser is so direct; some of the late armoured cruiser tended to be very big, relatively to the battleships of the era (the pre-dreadnoughts), and not that much faster than them. Heavy cruiser were notably smaller than battleships, and were faster to a sizeable degree, except perhaps against fast battleships. Moreover, early British battlecruisers tended to be incremental improvements over armoured cruisers, also because it was hoped that these ships could altogether replace all cruiser types; this proved to be wishful thinking because of their huge cost, so cruisers were still needed. The protected cruiser evolved into the light cruiser, and the heavy cruiser prototypes (the Hawkins), other than many others (the Pensacolas and the Duquesne), were nothing more than enlarged light cruisers in their design. So, I fail to see the direct link between

If you call German players how you did, then it seems to me that you were using a derogatory term... this is a wargame, sure, but does it mean that we are free to throw insults as much as we want? No, we must still respect the other persons, and if you fail to do so, too bad, you're breaking the rules.

Umm... forgive me, but I had the impression that the only instance in the Mediterranean were battleships from both sides engaged each other (so fired at each other, not just being at sea at the same time) was at Punta Stilo. All the other battles concerning battleship it was battleships shooting at something else (and in the Italians' case, nothing bigger than a light cruiser). However, how can this reenactements take place without altering the numbers and types of ships involved? IRL for a given number of capital ships there were loads of light ships (light cruisers and destroyers)... is it possible to replicate such conditions?

Armoured cruisers are not heavy cruisers, and won't be in the game, I think (and I hope).

More capable cruisers were better than few very powerful ones, true...

I agree; those cruisers had quite a significant role, so they should be there. I wouldn't say no to a C class converted for AA duties as a premium. I also agree with the issue with the heavy cruisers; despite providing the blueprint for the heavy cruiser type (the Hawkins class) the RN was never really fond of them.

Did someone call for me? Anyway, I believe that above all the codebreaking effort, the greatest influence on the naval war's outcome was the IJN's insistence at waiting for the decisive battle, which drew away attention from the defense of the sea lanes; by the time they realized they had to fight that war too, and give it a high priority, it was already pretty much lost for them. This was a major factor, also in shaping the late war's strategy: why else would the IJN accept the risk of losing all or at least a major part of the Combined Fleet for Operation Sho-Go? Because they couldn't guarantee their fuel supply if they stayed in Japan, and they couldn't be repaired or restocked with ammo if they stayed in the Dutch East Indies, so all because the supply lines were pretty much lost.

The Mogamis took advantage of the clause in the treaty that limited the number of heavy cruisers, but didn't have any such limitation for light cruisers, and whose discrimination was based primarily on the main guns caliber. So, they merely put 155 mm gun turrets, with the provision that those could be replaced by 203 mm ones, as it was done when the treaty was denounced by Japan. It is true of course that by the time the later light cruisers went to sea the tonnage distinction became really blurred, because several ones had a higher displacement than 10'000 tons. However, it wasn't just a naming convention that made them light cruisers, it was an explicit choice in armament; the choice between larger but slower 203 mm guns and smaller but faster firing 152 mm ones. The question remains, though; for these three nations that could have a split heavy/light cruiser line, should it be done? Or should they be mixed up?

Why not simply go with the higher value? 17.5 seconds of reload is still fast, but not as fast as cruisers.

Well, there might be exceptions to the rule... besides, even though the Deutschland-class was later reclassified as a heavy cruiser one, it seems rather powerful for a cruiser, so I don't know...

Hmmm.... To me, the discriminating factor seems to be, and I have no problem with, firepower. Something like, everything with a main armament whose calibre is higher than 280 mm is a BB.

"Historically amazing ship"... It makes me think of when someone said "the Fuso in real life was terrible, but here is great".... just because the Fuso and the Yamashiro ended up fighting a battle with the odds (all kinds of odd, naval and aerial) heavily against them, so maybe it's understandable why they ended up sunk. But that's not the point. Even though this game is based on historical ships, there is a need for balance, so we cannot ask for the ships to have 100% historical accuracy as regarding to stats. Besides, I'm starting to get weary of all this Warspite hype; sure, she had a very active career, and always performed well, but in the end what can be said about her? - Served as target practice for pretty much the entire Hochseeflotte when her rudder got damaged; - Got a lucky shot on the Giulio Cesare at Punta Stilo; - Had some target practice with defenseless Italian cruisers at Matapan; - Bombarded some German positions during the Normandy landings. Ok, this already is of course more action that an average battleship saw, but this doesn't make her incredibly exceptional, like she could take on the Yamato, the Iowa and the Bismarck all by herself.

I once was stuck with "Sky on Fire"; all I had to do was take down eight planes, but since I don't play carriers (I know, I should get to them, but I'm scared that I'll fail miserably), and that it seemed that every carrier player was avoiding me like the plague in any game.... well, it took quite a while.

It supports what I said: So, initially only impact ones were available.

Um... as far as I know, the torpedo detonators used by the Italians in the first half of the war were all contact ones... the magnetic detonators arrived later, furnished by the Germans. It is true that, apart from some early cases in which the warhead detonated partially or not at all (but not that widespread as the incidents with the US Mark 14), all the Italian torpedoes were reliable and effective.

It could work... ...weren't this a game based upon historical fleet engagements, which featured no ship of this kind. I know that WG isn't exactly 100% adhering to the historical accuracy here, but I think that creating a new class of ships out of the blue would be too much.

That I can agree with.

Hmmm, I have my doubts that the Kormoran was that much capable as a warship (intending one meant to fight other ship, not just to harass commerce lanes)... the Kormoran was able to cripple the Sydney because of several factors which ultimately negated the light cruiser's advantage over the raider... the Australian captain closed the range so much that fire from both sides was to be mutually devastating and potentially lethal, not to mention that it made the Sydney an inviting and really easy target for the raider's torpedoes, the Sydney's secondary armament was possibly not manned, some of its turrets were immediately knocked out... Besides, even suffering so much damage early on, the Sydney was still able to land a few shots, enough to take care of the Kormoran. But had the Sydney stayed away, I think it's way less likely that the Kormoran would have been able to inflict such tremendous damage on it. As for the original query... well, the most I can think of is premium 2 cruiser.

Hmmm... is that so? And even so, does it make an actual difference, between the guns completely horizontal and at a minimal angle?

I don't see why the RPM is a problem... it is actually within the specs posted on NavWeaps, and confirm the Krupp official documents (which were referring to an elevation of 4°, therefore rather optimal circumstances).

Submarines were never a success as fleet ships, therefore we won't see it. But with this "horse beating" thing something came to mind...

The Sverige-class might pop up somewhere in the lower tiers, possibly. However, this forum area is reserved for the "never were" ships, not ships that were built and completed.

Well, hardly a surprise here: since I was little, I was really into history, and when I was old enough I realized I really am a history nerd. So... might as well be honest. Anyway, wouldn't this discussion better be in the off topic section or something?

It's a little bit too early to attempt to make comparisons with WoT... we're still in the CBT after all, and things are liable to change.