Jump to content
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
rooneyboi93

Battle cruisers, will they be coming soon?

62 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Beta Tester
5 posts
3,017 battles

With all the talk recently about the HMS Invincible and how she met her fate I began wondering if or when we would get battle cruisers as a line in the tech tree for the major nations. We all know how many were developed by the UK and Germans alone and I feel they would be welcome in the game. I have the Hood myself and feel she provides a unique style that the game lacks a little. Thoughts?

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
263 posts
8,596 battles

I would love battlecruisers to be implemented, my British proposal is invincible/indefatigable at 3, 4 QM, 5 Tiger, 6 Renown, 7 Admiral, 8 J3, 9 G3 and 10 K3 with a premium Repulse at 5/6. 

Would like a premium Lutzow aswell. 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
5 posts
3,017 battles

Exactly! For the Germans you could have the t3 Von Der Tann as the entry level, followed by the t4 Moltke and the Sedylitz as a premium, then the t5 derflinger, t6 Mackensen, t7 Ersatz Yorck, t8 Oclass just unsure of T9 and T10

mE4IMJJfLJ42Q1oyxz8wcbLBi_9ZYvJdpMdvu4g1Wck.png

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[1DSF]
Beta Tester
1,366 posts
4,163 battles

WG already stated there will be NO seperation in BB and BC!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FT13]
Players
63 posts
5,774 battles
26 minutes ago, Jellicoe1916 said:

with a premium Repulse at 5. 

 

Repulse had 381mm guns and could top 30-31kts, that'd be hideously OP at tier 5 to be honest. Tier 4s should not be seeing a monster like that and even if you did cram that in at tier 5 the nerfs she'd require would make her very boring or frustrating to play to say the least.

 

I think she could work fine as a tier 6 - Maybe give her a 27-28s reload on the turrets to compensate for having only 6 guns and she'd be alright, a lot faster than the Warspite but less well defended.

 

Just for the love of god please don't give her some horrendous a-historical gimmick... I still cringe at what they did to the rocket launchers on Hood.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
5 posts
3,017 battles
3 minutes ago, Arakus said:

WG already stated there will be NO seperation in BB and BC!

AYe but similar to the heavy and light cruisers they could split the bbs into slow and fast bbs allow for a greater variety.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ADRIA]
Players
4,222 posts
6,782 battles

There already are battlecruisers in the game - either as CA or BB. Hood, Amagi, Kronstadt and so on... They will not be separated out as a new class, but I'm sure they will be implemented sooner or later

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TOXIC]
Players
1,152 posts
16,416 battles
19 minutes ago, rooneyboi93 said:

AYe but similar to the heavy and light cruisers they could split the bbs into slow and fast bbs allow for a greater variety.

 

All high tier BBs are already fast so that could only work on lower tier. T8 to T10 BBs already have all characteristics both of BBs and BCs - speed, armour and armament. Split could only work from T3 to T7 when both lines should merge in one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[IDDQD]
Alpha Tester
3,230 posts
7,037 battles
1 hour ago, Arakus said:

WG already stated there will be NO seperation in BB and BC!

I always wanted  cruiser and battle-cruiser separation anyway :-P

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,422 posts
13,041 battles
1 hour ago, Arakus said:

WG already stated there will be NO seperation in BB and BC!

Only in Russia. There the BC is called CA. 

  • Funny 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,339 posts
6,669 battles

I don't really care if these get a separate class or not. I'm pretty sure they can manage as a CA in the game itself, kinda similar to how Kronstadt is implemented now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[YARRR]
Beta Tester
7,413 posts
13,825 battles

Quite frankly the current implementation of BCs seems to be an excuse to put even more cruiser consumables on pseudo-BBs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BABBY]
Beta Tester
1,403 posts
4 hours ago, NothingButTheRain said:

I don't really care if these get a separate class or not. I'm pretty sure they can manage as a CA in the game itself, kinda similar to how Kronstadt is implemented now. 

 

Traditional BCs already appear and function as BBs ingame. Ishizuchi, Kongo, Amagi, Hood. They all share the distinction of being armed with the biggest guns of their respective times and are often even longer than contemporary BBs.

 

Kronwhatever and Alaska are exceptions in being these 'large cruiser' type deals (classification CB, not BC) when the size creep of all warships had reached a point where they were considering 12" guns on cruisers. They're smaller than BBs across all dimensions and closer to the German armourships which appear as cruisers ingame (ie. Graf Spee).

Edited by StringWitch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
[SCRUB]
Players
5,393 posts
8,735 battles
On 6/1/2018 at 1:22 PM, Arakus said:

WG already stated there will be NO seperation in BB and BC!

And no separation between RU CA and BB 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,379 posts
15,503 battles
3 hours ago, StringWitch said:

Kronwhatever and Alaska are exceptions in being these 'large cruiser' type deals (classification CB, not BC) when the size creep of all warships had reached a point where they were considering 12" guns on cruisers. They're smaller than BBs across all dimensions and closer to the German armourships which appear as cruisers ingame (ie. Graf Spee).

 

Huh, Kronshtadt is what 45,000+ tons and 250m long in game? Spee is only 15,000 tons for comparison.

 

No idea why WG gave them cruiser MM, then again tier 9-10 has gone full retard. Can't wait for RN/KM tier 3-7 BCs though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-SBF-]
[-SBF-]
Alpha Tester, Players, In AlfaTesters
349 posts
10,195 battles

I think ships like Krohnstadt and Stalingrad need a separate MM class,  atm they screw up the team balance. They get a Cruiser spot, but are perfectly able to penetrate BB with AP. They also murder CA, and are able to hunt DD with the powerful radar. So yes, a Battlecruiser class would make sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WCWVE]
Players
772 posts
12,002 battles

Not sure about whether they will be implemented as a separate class or a split from the mainline but the game needs these ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[YEEET]
Players
1,188 posts
11,264 battles

The Russian ships are a joke - pseudo BBs but classified as cruisers. All paper ships as well - goodness knows what they would have really been like if actually built. Of course they should be battlecruisers and treated as such. However they are clearly designed for the home market so that Russian ships can be seen to be superior. I wish that all the nations were limited to ships built up to 1945 and should have been built. I know this would mean that the tiers would need to be redesigned but there was no shortage of ships built during this period. But I know this won't happen and am resigned to the Russian super BBs coming and the CV, no doubt stocked with jet fighters!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
771 posts
12,253 battles

Battlecruisers, if added to the game, would be a secondary branch for BBs, probably limited to RN and KM since only those navies invested a lot of time and resources in the concept.

 

The way I would implement them is as an alternative BB route for reaching T7. By doing so you end up at Gneisenau/KGV either by following the current branch (more guns/caliber, more armour, slower) or the battlecruiser one (less guns/caliber, less armour, faster). No paper ships (or almost not a single one), no strange gimmicks, general flavour similar to the already implemented lines (with the aforementioned differences).

 

It also has the following advantages: providing a couple of extra speed-oriented lines at lower tiers, thus having 4 variants for slow BBs (USN, KM BBs, RN BBs, French to some extent) and 3 (or 4 by the time the RM BBs are introduced) for faster ships (IJN, KM BCs, RN BCs) with everything more or less merging into the "fast superdreadnought" interwar concept; no need to reconsider Graf Spee, since she'll still have guns with lower caliber than the battlecruisers at her tier; and no need to reconsider Kronshtadt or Stalingrad, which is something a lot of players and WG will love (joking about this one, but hey, I'm sure it's a sound argument for some people).

 

Salute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HAERT]
[HAERT]
Players
1,174 posts
2,399 battles

We have BC's already in the BB tree's except of course the RU tree where they are cruisers, because of 'reasons'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
885 posts
7,315 battles

I don't think it matters whether there's "separation" between BC and BB in the game. As long you give us the ships.

 

Call them fishing boats for all I care, as long as they're put in the game.

 

I think the easiest place for them is as a BB side tree. For a lot of countries there're ships for CL/CA and DD side trees, but BB side trees seem less likely, so might put the BC's there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[H_FAN]
Players
1,943 posts
22,536 battles
7 hours ago, triumphgt6 said:

The Russian ships are a joke - pseudo BBs but classified as cruisers. All paper ships as well - goodness knows what they would have really been like if actually built. Of course they should be battlecruisers and treated as such. However they are clearly designed for the home market so that Russian ships can be seen to be superior. I wish that all the nations were limited to ships built up to 1945 and should have been built. I know this would mean that the tiers would need to be redesigned but there was no shortage of ships built during this period. But I know this won't happen and am resigned to the Russian super BBs coming and the CV, no doubt stocked with jet fighters!

The Kronshtadt and Stalingrad were both laid down at least.

 

If one looks at the development of the Kronshtadt it started as a grown up treaty cruiser and then through various design stages ended up as a "smaller" batleship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,339 posts
6,669 battles
13 hours ago, StringWitch said:

 

Traditional BCs already appear and function as BBs ingame. Ishizuchi, Kongo, Amagi, Hood. They all share the distinction of being armed with the biggest guns of their respective times and are often even longer than contemporary BBs.

 

Kronwhatever and Alaska are exceptions in being these 'large cruiser' type deals (classification CB, not BC) when the size creep of all warships had reached a point where they were considering 12" guns on cruisers. They're smaller than BBs across all dimensions and closer to the German armourships which appear as cruisers ingame (ie. Graf Spee).

True and I like most of them :Smile_great:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SKRUB]
Players
151 posts
13,149 battles
6 minutes ago, Yogibjoern said:

Where is my Alaska???

All the shiny stuff belong to WG, you only get a licence to play with them and they have the right to end it, whenever they want. [:o]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×