Jump to content
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
aph_73

Should all battlecruisers be in the cruiser class?

66 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[RTRUK]
Players
29 posts
5,177 battles

Hi guys,

 

I remember that before the Scharnhorst was added to the game people wondered if she would be a BB or a Cruiser, her being a BC (Battlecruiser) with only 11 inch guns.  At the time the verdict was clear; WoW does not have a BC tech tree, so the Scharnhorst as a capital ship has to be a BB.  The Hood also, historically a BC, is in the BB branch.  The Japanese branch already included  vessels such as the Kongos, originally built as BCs, in the BB branch.  However the Alaska, built as a BC, and therefore a capital ship, is somehow in the cruiser branch.  I understand the new Azuma (for which I cannot find any historical information) is to be a cruiser despite 12" guns, bigger than the Scharnhorst 's.  The new Russian top tier cruisers are many times bigger than their British cruiser equivalents and in displacement resemble battleships.

 

I was wondering if someone could explain the criteria for allocating a Battlecruiser to the Battleship or Cruiser branch? Or point me at an explanatory posting if one already exists and I have missed it.

 

Thank you,

 

Alex.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
5,108 posts
2,939 battles
16 minutes ago, aph_73 said:

However the Alaska, built as a BC

 

No. Alaska was not built as a Battlecruiser (CC), she was officially a Large Cruiser (CB).

 

As for the rest, I can't talk for how WG does it, but whether large gunships should fall in a cruiser super-type, or a capital-ship category depends on a lot of things ; it gos far beyond caliber. Look at it this way : Atlanta is a cruiser despite wielding 127mm, while some vessels like Dubrovnik were equipped with 140mm guns and still were destroyers.

Since the definition are not static, it depends not only on raw technical stats, but also on the year the ship was conceived, the years it was built, and the overall expected use. In the end, the true difference between a cruiser and a battleship is that the two are not meant to occupy the same role. As such, classifying a vessel that seems to fall between the two categories should always start by answering the following question : what role is this vessel meant to fulfill ? And then comparing it to the general roles associated with each class.

 

Wargaming does whatever it wants however. They chose such a system with such blurred criteria to classify ships so that they could at will put this or that vessel in whatever class they feel would be the best for them, rhe game, the sales or anything else they fancy.
I don't think wargaming has any finite formula that decides where a ship goes. Rather, they take it case by case and decide what answer would be the best for them.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Players
4,631 posts
6,363 battles
20 minutes ago, aph_73 said:

I was wondering if someone could explain the criteria for allocating a Battlecruiser to the Battleship or Cruiser branch? Or point me at an explanatory posting if one already exists and I have missed it.

 

Id say WG do as they see fit, but imo there are differences:

Kongo has bigger guns on T5 than the BCs on T9/10.

 

Scharnhorst is probably the one to being a Cruiser the closest - but not with its current armor scheme. Graf Spee has same caliber guns, but has a Citadel, while Scharnhorst basicly doesnt have one.

Then again, we have Gneisenau which is same as Scharnhorst just with the changed guns. That would mean we would have the same ship 2 times with different guns but also with different armor, and that doesnt make much sense, so Scharnhorst does fit as a BB afterall.

 

Hood also has big guns, so it fits more into the BB branch.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HOO]
Players
1,788 posts
1,671 battles

Alaska was never a true BC but a new class of "cruiser killer".

 

Battlecruisers are a variation of Battleship.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
16,359 posts
11,328 battles

There is no explanation from WG. They just did it. Probably because they wanted to fill high Tier slots.

BC as cruisers is problematic as BC are very good vs cruisers as this was their intended role. Together with BB this adds to the amount of ships that counter cruiser all the while circumventing the soft cap of 5 BB per team.

 

Now it is easily possible to have one team with 5 BB and 5 cruisers, while the other team has 5 BB and 5 BC. Take a guess how the cruiser player in the first team will be feeling....

  • Cool 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
4,771 posts
7,961 battles

Guns are only one part of the "ship" equation. Scharn have best in tier armor, so she is classified as battleboat, while extraordinary secondaries and torps help her mitigate guns lacking punch. Alaska/Kron/Moskvagrad are considered cruisers due to way inadequate armor compared to same tier battleships. And while you could press Alaska as tier 5, maybe tier 6 BB, it would look dumb for late ww2 warboat meet and engage ww1 dreadnoughts on daily basis. And even then Alaska would be outclassed in terms of armor.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ADRIA]
[ADRIA]
Players
4,914 posts
7,006 battles
1 hour ago, aph_73 said:

Azuma (for which I cannot find any historical information)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_B-65_cruiser

 

1 hour ago, aph_73 said:

I was wondering if someone could explain the criteria for allocating a Battlecruiser to the Battleship or Cruiser branch?

Armour. Does the ship get base plating from BBs or cruisers of the tier? That same is the role it's assigned. Or at least it looks that way

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
980 posts
7,923 battles

The definition of Battlecruiser changed a lot between 1905 and 1950; officially the Scharnhorst class is the last recognized class of BC to have been constructed (and only because of her gun calibre), and they were complete and ready for service at the start of the War and even then not everyone called them 'Battlecruisers', but this was mostly for propaganda reasons, and was mostly the RN trying to big up their kills like they did by calling Graf Spee a 'pocket battleship'. 

 

By 1950 the existing BC's had been converted to Fast Battleships (FBB's) and the term had taken on a different meaning, now referring to proposed ships like the Stalingrad, which were of Battleship weight but having guns and armour between that of a Heavy Cruiser and a Battleship. The distinction gets really blurry where Wargaming is concerned because with the single exception of Alaska, none of these ships ever actually existed in real life (beyond a quarter finished on the slips or as finalized designs), so they can do whatever they want with it. 

 

Personally I've always said that all of the classes should have been distinct from the beginning, but Wargaming unfortunately believes people too simple to understand that rather than four naval classes, they were actually dozens. 

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HOO]
Players
1,788 posts
1,671 battles
8 minutes ago, Reaper_JackGBR said:

The definition of Battlecruiser changed a lot between 1905 and 1950; officially the Scharnhorst class is the last recognized class of BC to have been constructed (and only because of her gun calibre), and they were complete and ready for service at the start of the War and even then not everyone called them 'Battlecruisers', but this was mostly for propaganda reasons, and was mostly the RN trying to big up their kills like they did by calling Graf Spee a 'pocket battleship'. 

 

By 1950 the existing BC's had been converted to Fast Battleships (FBB's) and the term had taken on a different meaning, now referring to proposed ships like the Stalingrad, which were of Battleship weight but having guns and armour between that of a Heavy Cruiser and a Battleship. The distinction gets really blurry where Wargaming is concerned because with the single exception of Alaska, none of these ships ever actually existed in real life (beyond a quarter finished on the slips or as finalized designs), so they can do whatever they want with it. 

 

Personally I've always said that all of the classes should have been distinct from the beginning, but Wargaming unfortunately believes people too simple to understand that rather than four naval classes, they were actually dozens. 

 

Not only dozens but individual variations within nations. Such as the British Destroyers with Flotilla leaders, Destroyers and Escort Destroyers not to mention Sloops, Escort Sloops, Corvettes and Frigates.

 

I think the rough catergories ingame of BB, CA, CL and DD does work for what this game tries to be.

 

One of the problems is the classes of ships which where not really designed to engage enemy warships of equal tonnage but to engage merchant ships and convoys protected by cruisers or destroyers as the German commerce raiders and, in truth, the British Battlecruisers.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
980 posts
7,923 battles
4 minutes ago, fallenkezef said:

 

Not only dozens but individual variations within nations. Such as the British Destroyers with Flotilla leaders, Destroyers and Escort Destroyers not to mention Sloops, Escort Sloops, Corvettes and Frigates.

 

I think the rough catergories ingame of BB, CA, CL and DD does work for what this game tries to be.

 

One of the problems is the classes of ships which where not really designed to engage enemy warships of equal tonnage but to engage merchant ships and convoys protected by cruisers or destroyers as the German commerce raiders and, in truth, the British Battlecruisers.

The issue with having just the  four classes is that their are ships which simply don't rightly fit into any of them, like indeed, the Deutschlands, the Stalins, Alaska, Tone, Kitakami etc. which then makes those ships impossible to correctly balance. 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HOO]
Players
1,788 posts
1,671 battles
2 minutes ago, Reaper_JackGBR said:

The issue with having just the  four classes is that their are ships which simply don't rightly fit into any of them, like indeed, the Deutschlands, the Stalins, Alaska, Tone, Kitakami etc. which then makes those ships impossible to correctly balance. 

 

The problem with expanded or unique classes is the mm. It's an impossible task whichever direction they take

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
980 posts
7,923 battles
1 minute ago, fallenkezef said:

 

The problem with expanded or unique classes is the mm. It's an impossible task whichever direction they take

Yup. Though I do think a more middling ground between the two, especially where cruisers are concerned, would be better than what we have now. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
16,359 posts
11,328 battles
23 minutes ago, Reaper_JackGBR said:

The issue with having just the  four classes is that their are ships which simply don't rightly fit into any of them, like indeed, the Deutschlands, the Stalins, Alaska, Tone, Kitakami etc. which then makes those ships impossible to correctly balance. 

I see no problem with the Deutschland Class.

Kitakami has no problem with balance, but with abuse.

Tone has no balance problem, but a problem with implementing game mechanics.

 

Stalingrad, Kronshtadt and Alaska could have been added as BB with weak armor, but thick plating, strong heal and many consumables.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,053 posts
7,982 battles

As I understand, there are two types of "battlecruisers".

The first type is basically a down-armoured and faster BB. These are mainly WW1 era or immediate post-WW1 ships (Hood, P.E.Friedrich, Amagi, etc.). Then you have the Alaskas and such, which are essentially enlarged cruisers of the WW2 period. Very different ship types in terms of design and even appearance, but kind of arrive at the same place.

 

The best I can tell, these are classified logically in WoWS currently, with the first type consistently put in as "battleships" and the second type as "cruisers".

  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,681 posts
2,941 battles
2 hours ago, DFens_666 said:

Hood also has big guns, so it fits more into the BB branch.

Hood was also better armoured than the Queen Elizabeths, except for the deck - but they added armour to that after Jutland.

So although started as a battlecruiser, ended up as a battleship, sort of. Certainly the gross tonnage adds up. 

The ships of Nonkel Dolf were called whatever he'd like for propaganda or other reasons.

Pocket-battleship, or whatever, probably it just was an excuse for bypassing the naval treaties. 

 

23 minutes ago, jss78 said:

The first type is basically a down-armoured and faster BB. These are mainly WW1 era or immediate post-WW1 ships (Hood, P.E.Friedrich, Amagi, etc.). Then you have the Alaskas and such, which are essentially enlarged cruisers of the WW2 period. Very different ship types in terms of design and even appearance, but kind of arrive at the same place.

 

The best I can tell, these are classified logically in WoWS currently, with the first type consistently put in as "battleships" and the second type as "cruisers".

 

I agree with that. Too bad though they didnt put Prinz Eitel Friedrich ín with Hood.  IMO also too bad they didn't fix up a more sensible tier-thing. 

Because they way I look at it, there are 4 periods:

- WW1 and older ships going there; 

- between WW1 and before Nonkel Dolf;

- the dark and ominous Nonkel Dolf period;

- after Nonkel Dolf until end of BBs; 

 

IMO T1-4 should be the first period, T5/6/7/8 the second and T9/10 the last. It would have been easier to balance too.

That is, if you'd take Hood there would be a T4 version, upgradable to T6 and that would be it. For the Elizabeths they'd start at T3 and then go upto T6. 

 

But I'm fine with how they did it, it's a good game but sometimes a bit confusing, historically.

Ships fighting other ships while pretty sure the later ship was made of the recycled metal of the first one. :Smile_trollface:

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
[NWP]
Players
8,241 posts
11,737 battles
1 hour ago, jss78 said:

As I understand, there are two types of "battlecruisers".

The first type is basically a down-armoured and faster BB. These are mainly WW1 era or immediate post-WW1 ships (Hood, P.E.Friedrich, Amagi, etc.). Then you have the Alaskas and such, which are essentially enlarged cruisers of the WW2 period. Very different ship types in terms of design and even appearance, but kind of arrive at the same place.

 

The best I can tell, these are classified logically in WoWS currently, with the first type consistently put in as "battleships" and the second type as "cruisers".

That's probably the most accurate division of BC vs BB of the ships we have in game :cap_like:

 

I'll add however, the Vanguard might as well be a BattleCruiser as it's probably the squishiest BB I've ever played and to survive you need to rudder shift like a Cruiser :Smile_amazed:

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[KAKE]
Players
1,256 posts
3,481 battles
11 hours ago, Reaper_JackGBR said:

The definition of Battlecruiser changed a lot between 1905 and 1950; officially the Scharnhorst class is the last recognized class of BC to have been constructed (and only because of her gun calibre), and they were complete and ready for service at the start of the War and even then not everyone called them 'Battlecruisers', but this was mostly for propaganda reasons, and was mostly the RN trying to big up their kills like they did by calling Graf Spee a 'pocket battleship'.

A bit unfair on His Majesty's Navy there. The Scharnhorsts were classed as "Schlachtschiffe" by the Kriegsmarine, the same term later used for the Bismarcks. In fact, the Royal Navy were pretty much the only ones classifying them as "Battlecruisers".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,681 posts
2,941 battles
8 hours ago, Negativvv said:

I'll add however, the Vanguard might as well be a BattleCruiser as it's probably the squishiest BB I've ever played and to survive you need to rudder shift like a Cruiser :Smile_amazed:

Same can be said for King George V, and Monarch. 

Dunno about Lion and Conqueror yet. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DAVY]
[DAVY]
Moderator
1,443 posts
5,917 battles
13 hours ago, aph_73 said:

I understand the new Azuma (for which I cannot find any historical information)

@wilkatis_LV tried to teach you how to fish..

As a proud shima captain, I would like to deliver fish by hand..

here you go..

 

image.thumb.png.5525f5c769f13ba4de93d82b4578274d.png

 

If wiki can find this much information, I bet the info at the hands of the WG are pretty detailed and accurate :)

 

image.thumb.png.2e40c6201a5aaba8ab6545b922447fe4.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
[NWP]
Players
8,241 posts
11,737 battles
53 minutes ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

Same can be said for King George V, and Monarch. 

Dunno about Lion and Conqueror yet. 

Na all those ships have lower citadels and better forward firepower.

 

Vanguard's vulnerability is on a different scale as it's citadel is so high and the firing angles are just so bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DREAD]
Players
417 posts

I guess, the only "problematic" ships are Stalingrad and Alaska.

Kronshtadt was well in the line of the ligher battleships designed prior to WW2, and was wargamed against the Kongou, Scharnhorst and Dunkerque class by designers. Her armor isn't even remarkably thin either, being even heavier armed than the Kongous or the Dunkerque. I guess, she could sit quite well in the Tier 7 range.

The Design B 65 was desgined as a replacement for the Kongou class, again, being stronger armored than this vessel. Especially with torpedos, she could quite well sit easily in the battleship branch at a similiar place like Scharnhorst, sacrificing armor for a bit stronger guns, and better torpedos.

 

Now Stalingrad and Alaska were quite overspezialized, like the german O class. Guess it is possible, to put those into the CA matchmaking, for being to soft, and overspezialized,  as well, as having way to modern equipment, to fit as a mid tier BB.

Kronshtadt and Azuma however would be perfectly fine as a BB. Incidently, from what I have heard, Tier 8 of the Russian BB line is a 320 mm  gun battlecruiser as well. So why should Kronshtadt for example be a cruiser...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,681 posts
2,941 battles
55 minutes ago, Negativvv said:

Na all those ships have lower citadels and better forward firepower.

 

Vanguard's vulnerability is on a different scale as it's citadel is so high and the firing angles are just so bad.

Probably true, I have already shot a bunch of those Vanguards to bits. 

But KGV... that thing has cruiser guns. And just about anything can pen it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
[NWP]
Players
8,241 posts
11,737 battles
44 minutes ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

Probably true, I have already shot a bunch of those Vanguards to bits. 

But KGV... that thing has cruiser guns. And just about anything can pen it. 

KGV lives at T7 and has OP 40% fire chance so all your enemies can be crispy.

 

Vanguard fights T10 where everyone packs 16" guns and hordes of Potato Musashi will overmatch you for fun... I wanted to love Vanguard but it's kinda brutal to play because of its MM and layout.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,681 posts
2,941 battles
1 minute ago, Negativvv said:

KGV lives at T7 and has OP 40% fire chance so all your enemies can be crispy.

Yeah, at T7 it's not even that bad... had my damage record in it too, before I got Monarch.

But IMO it's not a BB. From the next statement I see you already got the right idea where the problem is...

 

1 minute ago, Negativvv said:

Vanguard fights T10 where everyone packs 16" guns and hordes of Potato Musashi will overmatch you for fun... I wanted to love Vanguard but it's kinda brutal to play because of its MM and layout.

Yup. I see the problem with it... I think you also see the problem with KGV.

In T8 and 9 just about every other ship has HE galore, burning down is kinda "the going thing" there.

That 40% fire change sounds good but it's not really awesome at those tiers, eating HE however is really a thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×