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

British Heavy Cruiser Line

70 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Players
14 posts

Been thinking it would be nice to have a County Class heavy cruiser like HMS Dorsetshire in the game which would also lend itself to having the famous HMAS Canberra in the commonwealth tree.

But there weren’t that many more heavy cruisers in the RN

Hawkins as a lower tier (5?) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawkins-class_cruiser

York as the next up (despite being newer it was less powerful than the counties)https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/York-class_cruiser

Dorsetshire at 7

But nothing newer/bigger was built

Then I came across this blog post about the game Second World War at Sea which talks about some planned ships http://www.avalanchepress.com/ZRNCruiser1.php

so 15,000, 18,000 ton 8 inch cruisers at tier 8 and 9 with a whopping 22,000 tonner at T10 with 12 x 9.5in high speed guns!

 

whatcha think?

 

 

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[3STG]
Players
322 posts
9,329 battles

As a fan of cruisers, I would definitely like any new branch of cruisers. However, there is a "slight" chance of things going horribly wrong with it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
363 posts
2,747 battles

Would be great, though two things could go wrong. First, let's get some other important nations (like Italian cruisers, French DD's etc.) in the game first. If not it could upset the playerbase a bit. Secondly, if the RN BB's and CL's are anything to go by, they will be as gimmicky as hell and so not worth playing. Having said that I am interested in seeing them in game, especially with HMS Exeter as a T6 premium. (free XP ship???)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
152 posts
2,504 battles
36 minutes ago, gustywinds said:

whatcha think?

 

I think definitely yes - in full agreement.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
4,993 posts
2,939 battles

Sure, though maybe only after some other branches. Any new branch is welcome some should come earlier than others.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
105 posts
1,661 battles

London could be the tier 8, I know the real ship had problems but as an improved County class would fit the bill. After that the RN had some interesting cruiser plans with guns larger than 8in/203mm that would fit tier 9-10.

 

Monmouth at t3, Black Prince or Warrior at t4, Hawkins t5, York t6, County t7, London t8 and then paper designs t9 and t10.

 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WCWVE]
Players
670 posts
10,870 battles
5 hours ago, gustywinds said:

Been thinking it would be nice to have a County Class heavy cruiser like HMS Dorsetshire in the game which would also lend itself to having the famous HMAS Canberra in the commonwealth tree.

But there weren’t that many more heavy cruisers in the RN

Hawkins as a lower tier (5?) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawkins-class_cruiser

York as the next up (despite being newer it was less powerful than the counties)https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/York-class_cruiser

Dorsetshire at 7

But nothing newer/bigger was built

Then I came across this blog post about the game Second World War at Sea which talks about some planned ships http://www.avalanchepress.com/ZRNCruiser1.php

so 15,000, 18,000 ton 8 inch cruisers at tier 8 and 9 with a whopping 22,000 tonner at T10 with 12 x 9.5in high speed guns!

I have a counter proposal for the T9 and T10 heavy cruisers or super cruisers and these ships were actually built on light cruiser hulls 

HMS Glorious and HMS Courageous as designed at T9 - 22000 tons 32knts and 4 15" main guns in twin turrets  - 1917 - later converted to aircraft carrier 

HMS Furious at T10 - 22400 tons and 32knts with two single 18" guns mounted fore and aft - note forward gun never mounted but aft gun mounted - later converted to aircraft carrier 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WOTN]
Quality Poster
2,024 posts
13,580 battles
5 hours ago, Centurion_1711 said:

Secondly, if the RN BB's and CL's are anything to go by, they will be as gimmicky as hell and so not worth playing.

Excuse me? The likes of the Leander, Fiji, and Minotaur are not worth playing? Did I hear that correctly?

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[POI--]
Players
3,185 posts
4,331 battles
2 hours ago, dasCKD said:

Excuse me? The likes of the Leander, Fiji, and Minotaur are not worth playing? Did I hear that correctly?

Don't get me wrong, I love my Leander, but the line is pretty gimmicky. I'd appreciate if RN CAs were more conventional.

  • Cool 4
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
14 posts
16 hours ago, pzkpfwv1d said:

I have a counter proposal for the T9 and T10 heavy cruisers or super cruisers and these ships were actually built on light cruiser hulls 

HMS Glorious and HMS Courageous as designed at T9 - 22000 tons 32knts and 4 15" main guns in twin turrets  - 1917 - later converted to aircraft carrier 

HMS Furious at T10 - 22400 tons and 32knts with two single 18" guns mounted fore and aft - note forward gun never mounted but aft gun mounted - later converted to aircraft carrier 

These would be massive CV targets.

Furious would be a nightmare - imagine having only one shot and missing then having to wait while a firestarter cruiser sets you alight.

 

And, besides, I hope we will see an RN Battlecuiser line :)

Invincible

Tiger

Indefatigable (and commonwealth Australia)

Tiger

Renown

Anson  (with Hood shifting here as premium)

K2

G3

 

14 hours ago, Riselotte said:

Don't get me wrong, I love my Leander, but the line is pretty gimmicky. I'd appreciate if RN CAs were more conventional.

But what would be the point then?

Fiji is by far my favourite ship and Leander not far behind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[POI--]
Players
3,185 posts
4,331 battles
1 minute ago, gustywinds said:

But what would be the point then?

Fiji is by far my favourite ship and Leander not far behind.

The point in what? The ships being gimmicky or RN CAs hopefully not being gimmicky?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
14 posts
17 minutes ago, Riselotte said:

The point in what? The ships being gimmicky or RN CAs hopefully not being gimmicky?

If RN cruisers are just the same as others.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[POI--]
Players
3,185 posts
4,331 battles
3 minutes ago, gustywinds said:

If RN cruisers are just the same as others.

Even just giving them 1-2 gimmicks would have sufficed for that though. Like, making them fragile, but with smoke. Adding AP only and a repair party... I mean it works, it is more convenient than Perth needing IFHE, but it certainly feels gimmicky and mostly the kind of gimmicky for gimmick's sake. USN CLs are way less weird and still manage to be unique.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WCWVE]
Players
670 posts
10,870 battles
5 hours ago, gustywinds said:

And, besides, I hope we will see an RN Battlecuiser line :)

Invincible

Tiger

Indefatigable (and commonwealth Australia)

Tiger

Renown

Anson  (with Hood shifting here as premium)

K2

G3

WG have repeatedly stated that battle-cruisers will not be introduced as a separate class, despite having some of the most famous ships in the line 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,148 posts
1,358 battles
1 hour ago, pzkpfwv1d said:

WG have repeatedly stated that battle-cruisers will not be introduced as a separate class, despite having some of the most famous ships in the line 

They said that about subs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
3,267 posts
6,857 battles
7 hours ago, Riselotte said:

Don't get me wrong, I love my Leander, but the line is pretty gimmicky. I'd appreciate if RN CAs were more conventional.

French cruisers were by all means conventional sans Engine Boost, while having good range and maneuverability, all combining into very solid package in BB meta. Yet you don't see many of them. Then WG tacked another gimmick to them:Smile_smile:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
363 posts
2,747 battles
2 hours ago, pzkpfwv1d said:

WG have repeatedly stated that battle-cruisers will not be introduced as a separate class, despite having some of the most famous ships in the line 

Could be a split line for some nations, probably Britain and Germany. They would still be classed as BB's, just in an alternate line.

11 hours ago, dasCKD said:

Excuse me? The likes of the Leander, Fiji, and Minotaur are not worth playing? Did I hear that correctly?

Probably a bad choice of words. The RN BB's are pretty gimmicky, and that HE only thing got me bored at KGV. The cruisers are gimmicky, but at least some of them are enjoyable to play (i.e. no lower than Emerald). What I meant was that we could still have a normalish line of cruisers without any knee-jerk gimmicks (Quick! Give RN CA's reload booster, torp reload booster, German hydro and Soviet radar! Balanced!) and they would still be fun to play. Perhaps give them 1/4 pen HE, standard AP performance and single-fire torpedoes. Radar could be an option at higher tiers, but part of me wants to say no to that as there are already a lot of radars about at the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BYOB]
Players
2,686 posts
9,840 battles
3 hours ago, tajj7 said:

They said that about subs. 

Yeah, no matter how vehement they are, sooner or later they will do it to prolong the life of the game. Besides, introducing battlecruisers will make the fans happy, and that means sales.

 

2 hours ago, Centurion_1711 said:

Could be a split line for some nations, probably Britain and Germany. They would still be classed as BB's, just in an alternate line.

That's a reasonable argument, since not many nations have built battlecruisers. Plus, Hood and Eitel Friedrich are already in the game (Vain Fred still in testing though).

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
227 posts
2,809 battles

I think RN CA's could work with a similar 'gimmick' set up as the CL's, make them AP only (with the improved angles) give them a heal and hydro but no smoke.

 

also, gib Norfolk and Renown! :Smile_izmena:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
3,267 posts
6,857 battles
13 minutes ago, Brett50 said:

I think RN CA's could work with a similar 'gimmick' set up as the CL's, make them AP only (with the improved angles) give them a heal and hydro but no smoke.

 

also, gib Norfolk and Renown! :Smile_izmena:

inb4 star ammo gimmick:etc_red_button: as in 0dmg 90% fire chance HE shell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BS4]
Players
664 posts
4,900 battles
2 hours ago, Centurion_1711 said:

 

Probably a bad choice of words. The RN BB's are1. pretty gimmicky, and that HE only thing got me bored at KGV. The cruisers are gimmicky, but at least some of them are enjoyable to play (i.e. no lower than Emerald). What I meant was that we could still have 2. a normalish line of cruisers without any knee-jerk gimmicks (Quick! Give RN CA's reload booster, torp reload booster, German hydro and Soviet radar! Balanced!) 3. and they would still be fun to play. Perhaps give them 1/4 pen HE, standard AP performance and single-fire torpedoes. 4.Radar could be an option at higher tiers, but part of me wants to say no to that as there are already a lot of radars about at the moment.

gimmick
ˈɡɪmɪk/  
noun
noun: gimmick; plural noun: gimmicks
  1. a trick or device intended to attract attention, publicity, or trade.
    "it is not so much a programme to improve services as a gimmick to gain votes"

     

    publicity device, stunt, contrivance, eye-catching novelty, scheme, trick, dodge, ploy

     

    THERE IS NOTHING GIMICKY ABOUT THE RNL LINE

     

    1. RN BB line has Ap too, so not sure what your meaning?

    2. So another line similar to everything else then?

    3. no they wouldn't

    4.Already have radar on RNL cl line from Edinburgh up so no change there then....?

     

    11 hours ago, Riselotte said:

    Don't get me wrong, I love my Leander, but the line is pretty gimmicky. I'd appreciate if RN CAs were more conventional.

    You have completely missed the point....RNL was designed to be different, to be played a different way to add diversity and choice to this game.Why do you love the Leander? Because its different than the rest......

    10 hours ago, Riselotte said:

    Even just giving them 1-2 gimmicks would have sufficed for that though. Like, making them fragile, but with smoke. Adding AP only and a repair party... I mean it works, it is more convenient than Perth needing IFHE, but it certainly feels gimmicky and mostly the kind of gimmicky for gimmick's sake. USN CLs are way less weird and still manage to be unique.

    Rnl line was designed to be completely different than any other line because it was designed to do a different job than other cl lines....they are specialist dd hunters and cap contesters, there designed to be closer in than other cl's, closer to the action, and because they are paper thin they need smoke and RP to survive and do the job they were designed to do and they are far more entertaining/exiting to play... unless you want to sit back at distance and just farm crap with the rest of the BB 's out there in which case you are spoilt for choice at the moment.....

    IMO we realy don't need another line of CA'S just like the other line of CL'S.

    If we had a line of RNL  CA'S They need to carry some of the characteristics from that line which makes them individual

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[POI--]
Players
3,185 posts
4,331 battles
3 hours ago, Panocek said:

French cruisers were by all means conventional sans Engine Boost, while having good range and maneuverability, all combining into very solid package in BB meta. Yet you don't see many of them. Then WG tacked another gimmick to them:Smile_smile:

Soviet cruisers are by all means conventional sans radar, yet you see a lot of them. German cruisers have some special ammo mechanics and a longer range hydro, but by most means play conventional and are plenty. The issue with the French line to me always was not that they lacked some quirky consumable, but they lacked impact. To be fair, reload booster might give them some impact.

5 minutes ago, SeaWolf7 said:
You have completely missed the point....RNL was designed to be different, to be played a different way to add diversity and choice to this game.Why do you love the Leander? Because its different than the rest......

I like this game. Still there are many things I find questionable about it. And I like Leander, still I think that overall, it would've worked with fewer special mechanics. Perth pretty much shows, you don't need AP only and a repair party to do the job. A ship like Perth with normal smoke (which isn't really a disadvantage, given Leander's smoke is way easier to handle than Perth's) would work for the purpose it was designed too. Just back in the day, I guess they were still concerned about what kind of HE spam this would generate, not that it is an issue for WG now.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
363 posts
2,747 battles
11 minutes ago, SeaWolf7 said:

1. RN BB line has Ap too, so not sure what your meaning?

2. So another line similar to everything else then?

3. no they wouldn't

4.Already have radar on RNL cl line from Edinburgh up so no change there then....?

1. The AP is pretty questionable on some of the ships, with shorter fuses and apparently weaker penetration (13.5" guns at T4/5, 14" guns on KGV). As in, spamming HE is the more viable option, which pretty much goes completely against what BB's are for. Also, it teaches the playerbase to fire H with other BB's, leading to...interesting play styles

 

2. Of course, all lines need a flavour. But it feels like WG have tried too hard on some lines, when people will most likely play them regardless of any pointless. @Riselotte sums it up nicely I think.

 

3. I guess this is all just opinion, no use either of us losing it over what we enjoy.

 

4. I'm aware, and have used radar on Edinburgh in Ranked before now. You don't see much of it though because smoke can be a better option in randoms. What I meant was that WG need to be careful how many radar ships exist in game, as DD's need to be able to perform too. One or two radars is no issue, but if every cruiser above T7 has a radar then it just turns the game meta towards camping, island hugging and Shimakaze Walls Of SkillTM . If their unique thing was something different, it could actually add something to the game rather than detract from the fun at high tiers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
3,267 posts
6,857 battles
9 minutes ago, Riselotte said:

Soviet cruisers are by all means conventional sans radar, yet you see a lot of them. German cruisers have some special ammo mechanics and a longer range hydro, but by most means play conventional and are plenty. The issue with the French line to me always was not that they lacked some quirky consumable, but they lacked impact. To be fair, reload booster might give them some impact.

 

RU cruisers have superb ballistics and long range (albeit short duration) radar, making them easy-ish to shell stuff from afar and when grown some balls, can affect gameplay with radar. Germans have their sonar and from Hipper onward have actually working turtleback, giving them an edge at short/mid range, combined with decent torps. Initially they traded sub par HE for AP damage, then WG increased HE pen for lols, turning them into all day HE slingers. Frenchies are basically build for long range shelling battleboats, as their average ballistics makes DD/cruiser shelling rather difficult. Spaced armor is unpredictable at the best of times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[POI--]
Players
3,185 posts
4,331 battles
24 minutes ago, Panocek said:

RU cruisers have superb ballistics and long range (albeit short duration) radar, making them easy-ish to shell stuff from afar and when grown some balls, can affect gameplay with radar. Germans have their sonar and from Hipper onward have actually working turtleback, giving them an edge at short/mid range, combined with decent torps. Initially they traded sub par HE for AP damage, then WG increased HE pen for lols, turning them into all day HE slingers. Frenchies are basically build for long range shelling battleboats, as their average ballistics makes DD/cruiser shelling rather difficult. Spaced armor is unpredictable at the best of times.

I know, but you could get all that in without two consumables and single ammo choice.

 

Also, German cruisers rely less on turtleback and more on armour angling. That turtleback is all but foolproof and you're in a world of hurt if you count on it. Similarly, spamming HE all day still doesn't get you damage, because while, yes, you can pen 50 mm deck, the alpha and fire chance are still in the dumps. HE works better now, but you still use HE basically when you used it before: When you cannot use AP.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×