Jump to content
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
FurthLover77

should battlecruisers be added to the UK tree

60 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Players
37 posts
904 battles

I want to know what your opinion on weather battle cruisers should become a ship type or at least an extension to the UK line because from my experience i would like to see a British ship type that inst paper thin and not slow, which is something the battle cruiser gives. They can give everything UK cruisers players want but not in paper because for example some battle cruisers had torpedoes which can help with battleships since if battle cruisers are added that will compensate for the hack of HE rounds. Since the American line has a second line for the cruiser, the light and heavy, why cant the British line have the same sort of thing except not heavy cruisers because British really had any but they have had lots of battle cruiser.

 

Im just curious on what everyone thinks on this topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DREAD]
Players
7,099 posts
5,639 battles

They should be added and will be eventually but hopefully as Battleships with regards to Matchmaking. There is no Battlecruiser type in WOWS so either the ships are BB or CAs - and these ships are better off as BBs.

 

Line proposal:

 

T3: Indefatigable 

T4: Lion

T5: Tiger 

T6: Renown

T7: Admiral

T8: G3 (Incomparable)

T9/10: Either one of the paper projects or just merge back at T8/9 to main line 

 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
37 posts
904 battles

the G3 is a good candidate for the high tiers T8-T10 but its only issue may be the AA since they were built in 1920-30s but everything else looks good for a ship of this type at high tier 

 

image.thumb.png.33e6caef739c665a737cd6d173f5bbb1.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
37 posts
904 battles
Just now, ___V_E_N_O_M___ said:

the problem is it has bb calibre guns

how so?

 if they are already bringing out cruisers with high calibre like the Alaska with 11 inch guns

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[KAKE]
Players
1,534 posts
3,844 battles
14 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

Alternative BB tree, no new class.

This.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
286 posts
6,688 battles

Funnily enough I'm just listening to Jingles talk about the CA/BC blurring in wows right now, and it occurs to me that there's going to be a problem with symmetrical matchmaking if a BC line gets added (ditto for SS line). Meaning that if you play a BC you'll only get a Random match if someone else is playing a BC of the same tier.

 

So if it's only the RN that gets Battlecruisers then there is going to be a drought of Battlecruisers in the queue.

 

Jingles is talking about having cruisers with large HP and Battleship calibre guns with Cruiser matchmaking, and that as more of these are added to the game and more players are using them then possibility increases of one team having traditional cruisers and the other team having much more powerful Battlecruisers in all but name.

 

Then you'd have to define what is a Battlecruiser, and reignite the debate about whether Hood is a Battlecruiser or a fast Battleship. And then what about Scharnhorst/Stalingrad/Kronshtadt/Alaska/Dunkerque bearing in mind that such a change would apply retrospectively to Premium ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
2,316 posts
2,517 battles
14 hours ago, ColonelPete said:

Alternative BB tree, no new class.

This.

 

At least bartly because

13 hours ago, DanSilverwing said:

 there's going to be a problem with symmetrical matchmaking if a BC line gets added (ditto for SS line). Meaning that if you play a BC you'll only get a Random match if someone else is playing a BC of the same tier.

 

I really can't see the need for an extra ship class, to be honest. Battlecruisers can be classified either as cruisers or as battleships in the game, depending on their stats and capabilities. The line blurs in some cases, but that is no problem since ships can differ quite a lot within a given class as it is. The Graf Spee is pretty tough for a cruiser, for example, while the Kongo is somewhat squishy for a battleship. Both function very well within the game.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TSCC]
Players
1,675 posts
19,108 battles
50 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

T8: G3 (Incomparable)

 

G3 turret layout is horrid, and ship is so bid that I can't see how could this be enjoyable to play. Incomparable is another huuuuge ship with only 6 guns. If RN at T8 gets 508mm then wonder what would they get at T10. Also WG, not that I trust them too much, mentioned that no bigger guns then Yamato's will ever be added to the game. And if they broke this I would expect that they would do that for Soviet T10 and nothing else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
17,762 posts
11,755 battles
20 minutes ago, DanSilverwing said:

Funnily enough I'm just listening to Jingles talk about the CA/BC blurring in wows right now, and it occurs to me that there's going to be a problem with symmetrical matchmaking if a BC line gets added (ditto for SS line). Meaning that if you play a BC you'll only get a Random match if someone else is playing a BC of the same tier.

 

So if it's only the RN that gets Battlecruisers then there is going to be a drought of Battlecruisers in the queue.

 

Jingles is talking about having cruisers with large HP and Battleship calibre guns with Cruiser matchmaking, and that as more of these are added to the game and more players are using them then possibility increases of one team having traditional cruisers and the other team having much more powerful Battlecruisers in all but name.

 

Then you'd have to define what is a Battlecruiser, and reignite the debate about whether Hood is a Battlecruiser or a fast Battleship. And then what about Scharnhorst/Stalingrad/Kronshtadt/Alaska/Dunkerque bearing in mind that such a change would apply retrospectively to Premium ships.

The problem is created by introducing new classes. Don't!

 

We have Torpboats and Gunboats, still one class.

We have CA and CL, still one class.

 

Putting BC as their own class or as CA into the game (as the unfortunately did) creates a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TSCC]
Players
1,675 posts
19,108 battles
10 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

The problem is created by introducing new classes. Don't!

 

We have Torpboats and Gunboats, still one class.

We have CA and CL, still one class.

 

Putting BC as their own class or as CA into the game (as the unfortunately did) creates a problem.

 

I agree 100%. Put BCs on alternative BB line but don't make them a new class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
286 posts
6,688 battles

Lion would be a great counterpart to Myogi.

 

I'd also like to see a second BB line rather than create another class. As Tech tree ships it would remove the temptation to offer up more Premium British BBs (so many possibilities!) when we currently lack a Premium British Cruiser design.

 

So, I like the idea, but would prefer to see fully-fleshed Italian lines developed before.

 

And HMS Exeter ASAP...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
37 posts
904 battles

I agree that they shouldn't be there own class but battle cruisers are an odd bread but the game devs base class of gun calibre then they should be BBs

 

which is USUALLY

 

DDs 5 inch and below

 

cruisers 6-8 inch

 

BB 9 inch +

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HOO]
Players
1,788 posts
1,673 battles

Considering how widespread BC's where, the Germans and Japanese followed Britain in embracing the concept, thet should be included.

 

balancing is the [edited] however.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SICK]
Weekend Tester
4,759 posts
9,369 battles

Make it be a branch of battleships balanced around having workable AP and accuracy, rather than herp derping HE shells on an RNG prayer, and I'll finally be happy with a branch of RN capital ships I can play without wanting to simultaneously :

a) shoot myself

b) take a shower

c) curse RNGesus

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DREAD]
Players
7,099 posts
5,639 battles
55 minutes ago, fumtu said:

 

G3 turret layout is horrid, and ship is so bid that I can't see how could this be enjoyable to play. Incomparable is another huuuuge ship with only 6 guns. If RN at T8 gets 508mm then wonder what would they get at T10. Also WG, not that I trust them too much, mentioned that no bigger guns then Yamato's will ever be added to the game. And if they broke this I would expect that they would do that for Soviet T10 and nothing else.

 

I didn’t mean to implement the Incomparable (whether that was a real design or just a sketchy joke is debatable).

 

I was much rather proposing to take G3 for T8 (she has Nelson’s guns) and Name her “Incomparable” - since I love these RN-over-the-top names ;-)

 

Proposed names for the actual G3s are eg. Invincible but as I would prefer that name on the very first Battlecruiser I was making up a name.

 

Other hilarious names are: “Terror”, “Magnificent”, “Inflexible”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DREAD]
Players
7,099 posts
5,639 battles
43 minutes ago, fallenkezef said:

I'd suggest Repulse/Renown, Tiger and maybe Indy as one off Prems for exp/coal

 

Or Queen Mary - due to her tragic

fate 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×