Battlecruiser Line Proposals

[StBg17]

So I made a while back a post about possible additional line splits and adding Battlecruisers however my Battlecruiser suggestions were a bit miss-matched and didn't fit so I've redone it for the line that was the more miss-matched, but instead of me just going here are my ideas what do you all think I want to try something different, where everyone can pitch in with a basic out-line for the line as below: (Note I'll be leaving ships like Alaska/Azuma P.E.F and Hood as they are as its pointless just changing a ship symbol etc from as Cruiser/Battleship to Battlecruiser they would still play the same)

(Nation)       

Tier           Ship                                     Premiums

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

 

For the nations I have not filled I'll leave them blank, if anyone has an idea for ships to fill the tiers comment them below and I'll edit the post to add said ship to the corresponding nation and tier.

The line I reworked was the UK it originally looked like this: (The reworked version will be the first one in the list)

T3 HMS Invincible

T4 HMS Indefatigable

T5 HMS Lion 1910

T6 HMS Queen Mary

T7 HMS Tiger

T8 HMS Renown

T9 G3 Design

T10 K3 Design

 

 Great Britain (Royal Navy)

Tier       Ship:                                                             Premiums: 

  3          HMS Invincible                                           HMS Inflexible, HMS Indefatigable

  4          HMS Lion 1910          

  5          HMS Tiger                                                   HMS Queen Mary, HMS Princess Royal

  6          HMS Renown                                              HMS Repulse

  7          J3 Design                  

  8          G3 Design                                                    H3b Design 

  9          L2 or L3 Design                                          H3c Design, H3a Design

10          K2 or K3 Design                                         HMS Incomparable (why not with the Yashima an A-150 now being added)

 

 United States of America (US Navy)

Tier       Ship:                                                               Premiums:         

  3         

  4         

  5         

  6         

  7         

  8         USS Constellation (Lexington Class)         USS United States (Also Lexington Class)

  9

10

 

 Russia ( U.S.S.R)

Tier       Ship:                                                               Premiums: 

  3

  4

  5

  6

  7

  8

  9

10

 

Japan (Imperial Japanese Navy)

Tier       Ship:                                                               Premiums: 

  3

  4

  5

  6

  7

  8

  9

10

 

Germany (Kriegsmarine)

Tier       Ship:                                                               Premiums: 

  3         SMS Von der Tann 

  4         SMS Moltke                                                   SMS Goeben, SMS Seydlitz 

  5         SMS Derfflinger

  6         Mackensen Class

  7         Ersatz Yorck Design

  8         

  9         

10        

 

France (Marine Nationale)

Tier       Ship:                                                               Premiums: 

  3

  4

  5

  6

  7

  8

  9

10

 

Italy (Regia Marina)

Tier       Ship:                                                               Premiums: 

  3

  4

  5

  6

  7

  8

  9

10

 

Pan-Asia - Doubt there will be any.

Tier       Ship:                                                               Premiums: 

  3

  4

  5

  6

  7

  8

  9

10

 

Pan-America - Doubt this one too

Tier       Ship:                                                               Premiums: 

  3

  4

  5

  6

  7

  8

  9

10

 

Pan-EU I wonder how many Battlecruisers Sweden had after all this is seeming to be a Pan-Sweden Line

Tier       Ship:                                                               Premiums: 

  3

  4

  5

  6

  7

  8

  9

10

 

Commonwealth

Tier       Ship:                                                               Premiums: 

  3

  4                                                                                 HMAS Australia (1911)

  5

  6

  7

  8

  9

10

 

Tell me any Battlecruisers I've missed or don't know of, that you want me to add to the list and I'll be more than happy to add it in :).

[1MajorKoenig]

Hey hey... one of my favourite topics since 2015 :-)

 

However: 

 

1. G3 is too strong for T7. It’s outright stronger and much faster than Nelsol. G3 would be T8 or T9 depending on softstats and “modernization”

 

2. I would suggest J3 at T7 and G3 at T8. T9 and T10 don’t really exist so one COULD make up a L2/3 K2/3 Frankenstein ship a là Monqueror but that is questionable at best. 

 

3. Incomparable would be an awesome T9/10 Freemium. No armour, terrible reload and 6 guns. But huge ones 

 

4. SMS Moltke and Seydlitz are roughly comparable and would be same tier. They would work on T4 and 5 equally however it is mostly community consensus that the Iron Dog SMS Derfflinger is the ideal T5, making the others likely T4.

 

5. Mackensen is already in the game as T6 Premium. She isn’t a T7 ship really unless WG gives her historical accurate guns with 20 seconds reload. Until then she is better off at T6

 

6. ...leaving Ersatz Yorck for T7 which fits well. 

 

7. O-Class has no business to be in that tree as the Imperial Battlecruisers are in fact fast Battleships whereas O-Class is a monster cruiser / very large Panzerschiff (and should be classified as cruiser in game)

 

8. L20ea is a large Battleship and has no business in such tree either. She would do well as a T7 Battleship or as a Mutsu-equivalent at T6 in her WW1 outfit (essentially a very large Stock Bayern with 42cm guns)

 

9. If you really HAVE to extend the German BC line beyond T7 it would be Frankenstein’d GK proposals (GK45xx, GK10, etc) but again the value is questionable at best 

 

10. Constitution at T7...? An extremely fast Colorado at the same tier seems unfair. Either she needs to be very bad on soft stats or she needs to be bumped up to T8

[Lakedaemonios]

only RN, KM and IJN can fit in that split. But, I like the idea! And why to go up to T10? We have enough paper ships...

[Jellicoe1916]

For the Royal Navy, I Would propose: 

3: Indefatigable

4: Queen Mary

5: Tiger

6: Renown

7: Admiral

8: J3

9:G3

10: K3

 

Premiums:

3: Invincible

5: Repulse 

[CastorTolagi]

@StBg17

my 2 cents for a IJN BB/BC rearranged Tree

 

 

[BruceRKF]

I can only really comment on the German line since I have never really busied myself much with other battlecruisers.

There, I agree pretty much with what 1MajorKoenig said,

T3 Von der Tann

T4 Moltke, Seydlitz as premium

T5 Derfflinger

T6 Mackensen

And I'd stop there. Until tier 6 you have dreadnoughts as BBs, so having battlecruisers along side them as a faster, but less armoured alternative is fine. However, at tier 7 you already have a modern fast BB that has both speed and armour, so it is unnecessary to continue the line. And all the ships actually existed (although none of the Mackensen were completed). If you really wanted you could put the Ersatz Yorck at tier 7 (if I remember correctly, some of them were laid down and construczion started as well), but going furhter than that has too much fiction involved for my liking.

I am also pretty sure that Germany and the UK are the only ones with feasable battlecruiser tree without making up 90% of the ships, so if "old-school" battlecruisers are introduced, they schould be limited to those nations. Looking at what CastorTolagi posted, the Japanese might have a shot as well. But that's about it.

Edit: On further reading, I think the Japanese Battlecruiser proposal also would include too much fiction, so a no from me.

[invicta2012]

Given that WG seems to be into fast battleships with big guns it seems an RN BC line is inevitable. Go up through Invincible/Lion/Tiger/Repulse and then to Resistance (3x2 Nelson guns on Renown Hull) and then up though the I3/J3/G3/H3 designs, which are very much in the style of Georgia et al. 

[fumtu]

Of course they will arrive in the game but not as a separate class. They should be fit into BB line and doing separation when basically only three nations can provide somewhat full line is pointless. Also having SCs and considering that some of the high tier BBs are already very close to what should be a BC concept makes them redundant. Making additional line would probably require complete rework of BB line and SCs which, considering that there are many premiums, would be nearly impossible. So split BB lines? Yes. New tech tree line? Definitely no.

[DanSilverwing]

It's a nice dream, but the flaw of creating an entirely new matchmaking class of ships for essentially only two (non-Russian) nations should be self-evident. Unfortunately WG have zero interest in the Jutland era, and are now bounded by their own internal logic of mid-tier:Treaty-era to play, and a low playerbase.

 

It's going to be bad enough when Submarines are added.

 

Best hope is that some of the more famous and historical ships are added as Premiums into either BBs or high-tier SCs, depending on their armour scheme. Personally I've advocated for 1945 refit Renown to be introduced as a T9 SC as I don't see another realistic way for such  ships to see the light of day, unfortunately. Although that is very controversial.

[ColonelPete]

31 minutes ago, DanSilverwing said:

It's a nice dream, but the flaw of creating an entirely new matchmaking class of ships for essentially only two (non-Russian) nations should be self-evident. Unfortunately WG have zero interest in the Jutland era, and are now bounded by their own internal logic of mid-tier:Treaty-era to play, and a low playerbase.

 

It's going to be bad enough when Submarines are added.

 

Best hope is that some of the more famous and historical ships are added as Premiums into either BBs or high-tier SCs, depending on their armour scheme. Personally I've advocated for 1945 refit Renown to be introduced as a T9 SC as I don't see another realistic way for such  ships to see the light of day, unfortunately. Although that is very controversial.

We do not need a new class for them.

They should be balanced as BB. That is one of the reasons I always suggest to end the lines at Tier VIII. The ships after that are fast battleships.

[lovelacebeer]

There are plenty of battlecruisers I would love to see in game but it would be easier to just make them an alternative battleship line for those nations that had them (or knowing WG had plans to build them). 

 

Still I don't think it will be any time soon, the most famous battlecruisers would mainly be lower tier ships and WG isn't that interested in lower tiers. Best we can hope for would be a R class premium, still I would love to see either Repulse or Renown in game. 

[creamgravy]

We've just had a Russian BC line and lots of Russian BC premiums. The French BB line is also balanced as BCs and the RN BB line is balanced as large cruisers. Doubt we'll see another BC line for ages.

 

Here's the premiums I'd like to see.

 

Tier 6. Any RN BC. 1945 Renown, Repulse as sunk, Tiger with a fantasy WW2 refit etc.

Tier 6. Kirishima with normal dispersion, 2.0 sigma and 6-7km secondaries as stock (Buff PEF secondaries to 6-7km too)

Tier 7. Strasbourg (balance like JB)

[1MajorKoenig]

4 hours ago, Jellicoe1916 said:

For the Royal Navy, I Would propose: 

3: Indefatigable

4: Queen Mary

5: Tiger

6: Renown

7: Admiral

8: J3

9:G3

10: K3

 

Premiums:

3: Invincible

5: Repulse 

 

Looks good. However - isn’t J3 essentially just a 3x3 Admiral? 

 

With regards to names I have some spiffing proposals as well: “Terror” & “Magnificent”

[invicta2012]

48 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

Looks good. However - isn’t J3 essentially just a 3x3 Admiral? 

Sort of. It's more of a Dreadnought armour scheme, too, rather than All or Nothing, which would be different. 

 

50 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

With regards to names I have some spiffing proposals as well: “Terror” & “Magnificent”

Powerful and Splendid.... 

[Verblonde]

1 hour ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

With regards to names I have some spiffing proposals as well: “Terror” & “Magnificent”

Why not HMS Spiffing too? Okay, not *strictly* according to historical naming convention, but it would be terribly British (I do feel that HMS Cucumber Sandwiches might be going too far though)...?

[Jellicoe1916]

3 hours ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

 

Looks good. However - isn’t J3 essentially just a 3x3 Admiral? 

 

With regards to names I have some spiffing proposals as well: “Terror” & “Magnificent”

It's essentially a 3 x 3 Admiral with a bit more armour and speed

[StBg17]

12 hours ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

Hey hey... one of my favourite topics since 2015 :-)

 

However: 

 

1. G3 is too strong for T7. It’s outright stronger and much faster than Nelsol. G3 would be T8 or T9 depending on softstats and “modernization”

 

2. I would suggest J3 at T7 and G3 at T8. T9 and T10 don’t really exist so one COULD make up a L2/3 K2/3 Frankenstein ship a là Monqueror but that is questionable at best. 

 

3. Incomparable would be an awesome T9/10 Freemium. No armour, terrible reload and 6 guns. But huge ones 

 

4. SMS Moltke and Seydlitz are roughly comparable and would be same tier. They would work on T4 and 5 equally however it is mostly community consensus that the Iron Dog SMS Derfflinger is the ideal T5, making the others likely T4.

 

5. Mackensen is already in the game as T6 Premium. She isn’t a T7 ship really unless WG gives her historical accurate guns with 20 seconds reload. Until then she is better off at T6

 

6. ...leaving Ersatz Yorck for T7 which fits well. 

 

7. O-Class has no business to be in that tree as the Imperial Battlecruisers are in fact fast Battleships whereas O-Class is a monster cruiser / very large Panzerschiff (and should be classified as cruiser in game)

 

8. L20ea is a large Battleship and has no business in such tree either. She would do well as a T7 Battleship or as a Mutsu-equivalent at T6 in her WW1 outfit (essentially a very large Stock Bayern with 42cm guns)

 

9. If you really HAVE to extend the German BC line beyond T7 it would be Frankenstein’d GK proposals (GK45xx, GK10, etc) but again the value is questionable at best 

 

10. Constitution at T7...? An extremely fast Colorado at the same tier seems unfair. Either she needs to be very bad on soft stats or she needs to be bumped up to T8

I can't believe I forgot about J3, then again it was late, I'll make those modifications. :)

Forgot that Mackensen is the P.E.F

Thought of Constellation at T7 as it would finally give a decent speed US large gun Premium. :)

[StBg17]

11 hours ago, Agis_D said:

only RN, KM and IJN can fit in that split. But, I like the idea! And why to go up to T10? We have enough paper ships...

Just a basis I wasn't sure where would be best to stop the line also of the 374 ships in game only 69 are paper. :)

[fumtu]

6 hours ago, creamgravy said:

We've just had a Russian BC line and lots of Russian BC premiums. 

 

With exception of T5 and T6, all other Soviets BBs are classic BBs. Even two that are actually BC by design, as balanced as BBs. 

 

6 hours ago, creamgravy said:

The French BB line is also balanced as BCs ...

 

What do you consider as BC balance?

 

6 hours ago, creamgravy said:

... and the RN BB line is balanced as large cruisers.

 

Why you are thinking that? Because of HE and HP pool?

 

6 hours ago, creamgravy said:

Doubt we'll see another BC line for ages.

 

By your logic, Italian BB should be actually a BCs

 

6 hours ago, creamgravy said:

Tier 6. Kirishima with normal dispersion, 2.0 sigma and 6-7km secondaries as stock (Buff PEF secondaries to 6-7km too)

 

Well Kirishima was refitted as BB. I guess you are asking for BB Kirishima here not original design, right?

 

[StBg17]

16 hours ago, Agis_D said:

only RN, KM and IJN can fit in that split. But, I like the idea! And why to go up to T10? We have enough paper ships...

Up to T10 as I was not sure where best to stop the line :) also of the 374 ships in game only 69 are paper.

14 hours ago, Jellicoe1916 said:

For the Royal Navy, I Would propose: 

3: Indefatigable

4: Queen Mary

5: Tiger

6: Renown

7: Admiral

8: J3

9:G3

10: K3

 

Premiums:

3: Invincible

5: Repulse 

We already have an Admiral in game (Hood) and when she entered service she was essentially a fast battleships probably one of the first.

14 hours ago, CastorTolagi said:

@StBg17

my 2 cents for a IJN BB/BC rearranged Tree

 

 

Oh I'm defiantly taking a look at these Cheers :)

13 hours ago, BruceRKF said:

at tier 7 you already have a modern fast BB

I agree with you as the Battleships became fasted the need for BCs reduced, even Hood entered service essentially as a BB her armour alone was on par with the QE class and her and Vanguard were similar in armour IIRC, but Van was a fast BB, you could say Hood was one of the first fast BBs :)

13 hours ago, invicta2012 said:

Given that WG seems to be into fast battleships with big guns it seems an RN BC line is inevitable. Go up through Invincible/Lion/Tiger/Repulse and then to Resistance (3x2 Nelson guns on Renown Hull) and then up though the I3/J3/G3/H3 designs, which are very much in the style of Georgia et al. 

Resistance a Renown hull with 3 x 2 Nelson guns, I've never heard of this one got any Line Drawings of it? :)

Lion would have to added as either Lion BC or Lion 1910 to avoid confusion with the Battleship Lion that was laid down around 1939 something similar to whats been done with West Virginia 1941 and the promised West Virginia 1944.

13 hours ago, fumtu said:

Of course they will arrive in the game but not as a separate class. They should be fit into BB line and doing separation when basically only three nations can provide somewhat full line is pointless. Also having SCs and considering that some of the high tier BBs are already very close to what should be a BC concept makes them redundant. Making additional line would probably require complete rework of BB line and SCs which, considering that there are many premiums, would be nearly impossible. So split BB lines? Yes. New tech tree line? Definitely no.

SC that Super Cruiser?

As long as they are added im cool with it but a new line to grind would be so much more fun than just buying them, talking of BB splits, the British tree could be split into a further 2 more lines for a total of 3, and the US into 1 more line fore a total of 2 lines. :)

12 hours ago, ColonelPete said:

We do not need a new class for them.

They should be balanced as BB. That is one of the reasons I always suggest to end the lines at Tier VIII. The ships after that are fast battleships.

As long as they get added I don't mind if its a new line or Premiums although a new line would be far more fun that to just buying them.

Only have the lines shown going to T10 as I was not sure what would be a suitable Tier to stop the line at. :) 

13 hours ago, DanSilverwing said:

It's a nice dream, but the flaw of creating an entirely new matchmaking class of ships for essentially only two (non-Russian) nations should be self-evident. Unfortunately WG have zero interest in the Jutland era, and are now bounded by their own internal logic of mid-tier:Treaty-era to play, and a low playerbase.

 

It's going to be bad enough when Submarines are added.

 

Best hope is that some of the more famous and historical ships are added as Premiums into either BBs or high-tier SCs, depending on their armour scheme. Personally I've advocated for 1945 refit Renown to be introduced as a T9 SC as I don't see another realistic way for such  ships to see the light of day, unfortunately. Although that is very controversial.

They managed to create a full RU BB line from 'plans' whats not to say they also have 'loads' of BC 'plans' too

11 hours ago, lovelacebeer said:

There are plenty of battlecruisers I would love to see in game but it would be easier to just make them an alternative battleship line for those nations that had them (or knowing WG had plans to build them). 

 

Still I don't think it will be any time soon, the most famous battlecruisers would mainly be lower tier ships and WG isn't that interested in lower tiers. Best we can hope for would be a R class premium, still I would love to see either Repulse or Renown in game. 

Ah the R - Class such an under-rated class of ship Royal Oak and Royal Sovereign/Ramillies/Resolution as premiums and Revenge a T6 in a 2nd BB line although the Brits could have a total of 3 BB lines (if you include paper designs) Renown and Repulse need to be added and IIRC the Renown Class Battlecruisers were actually redesigns of the last 2 Revenge Class Battleships.

11 hours ago, creamgravy said:

Tier 6. Any RN BC. 1945 Renown, Repulse as sunk, Tiger with a fantasy WW2 refit etc.

Tier 6. Kirishima with normal dispersion, 2.0 sigma and 6-7km secondaries as stock (Buff PEF secondaries to 6-7km too)

Tier 7. Strasbourg (balance like JB)

Renown in her rebuilt state and Repulse in her 1941 configuration most defiantly.

Completely forgot about Kirishima effects of it being late when I wrote this :)  - I'll add her in a moment.

Strasbourg was of the Dunkerque class which were Battleships. so I can see her being a T6 BB like her sister, or maybe could work as a T7 BC. :)

 

10 hours ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

Looks good. However - isn’t J3 essentially just a 3x3 Admiral? 

 

With regards to names I have some spiffing proposals as well: “Terror” & “Magnificent”

Indeed it is, it essentially an Admiral class hull fitted with I believe the same 3 triple 15 inch turrets that Monarch has. :)

9 hours ago, invicta2012 said:

10 hours ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

With regards to names I have some spiffing proposals as well: “Terror” & “Magnificent”

Powerful and Splendid...

Classic Royal Navy names I like them, could always hark back to old times with Mary Rose, Terrific, Majestic, Reindeer, Britannia.

8 hours ago, Verblonde said:

Why not HMS Spiffing too? Okay, not *strictly* according to historical naming convention, but it would be terribly British (I do feel that HMS Cucumber Sandwiches might be going too far though)...?

As a Brit I approve of Spiffing its a spiffingly good suggestion and not as crazy as some names we have given ships in the past, such as HMS Cockchafer, HMS Spanker, HMS Happy Entrance, all brought to you from the nation whos public suggested calling a ship Boaty McBoat Face - hey theres another name for of one them. :)

 

 

I'll try to find the Line Drawings and stuff of the Designs I listed. :) 

[Fodder1978]

Repulse was a beautiful ship. Less modern than her sister with that hideous brutalist superstructure, but she had great lines. Used to have the Airfix model, too.

 

 

 

As to the Royal Sovereign Class, though... they’re awkward. Too slow to be worth the same as the Queen Elizabeths, and thrown at tier VIII they’ll simply die. Even if you gave them those (supercharged?) ammo charges it still isn’t much of a fit. They’d be a closer match to the Iron Duke, but with eight 15” guns instead of ten 13.5” guns. Otherwise they’re almost the same.

[entar128]

I think swedish BCs* would be rather boring and underpowered.

The Sverige-class with 2x2 283mm guns doing a whopping 22-23,5knots or the predecessor Oscar II-class with 2 210mm guns steaming ahead at blistering 18knots.

A ship from each of the class combined (7238 tons for the former and 4273 tons for the latter) is just over the treatylimit for a cruiser and far below that of even a Hipper-class cruiser.

 

All of the ships combined in both classes would not even come close to a proper battleship or battlecruiser from any of the larger nations. And the speed is lacking, and they are classified as a coastal defense ship, so no Swedish BC line.

 

As a premium cruiser... mayhaps.

 

*definition of BC in this context = caliber over 8" (203mm) guns, but not classified as a BB

 

Edit: dont write on a mobile at work... the result might not be quite what you actually wanted to say

[fumtu]

4 minutes ago, entar128 said:

I think swedish BCs* would be rather boring and underpowered.

The Sverige-class with 2x2 283mm guns doing a whopping 22-23,5knots or the predecessor Oscar II-class with 2 210mm guns steaming ahead at blistering 18knots.

A ship from each of the class combined (7238 tons for the former and 4273 tons for the latter) is just over the treatylimit for a cruiser and far below that of even a Hipper-class cruiser.

 

Those are coastal defence ships not BC

 

4 minutes ago, entar128 said:

*definition of BC = caliber over 8" (203mm) guns, but not classified as a BB

 

I guess that is your definition of BC which, btw is not correct.

[Sargento_YO]

I REALLY would love to see Deutschland class "pocket battleship" uptiered to tier 7 just for being able to somewhat reliably use the secondary cannons with the manual fire control for secondaries skill.

[creamgravy]

32 minutes ago, fumtu said:

By your logic, Italian BB should be actually a BCs

They very well might be, we won't know until they spoil the tier 6 (25 knots + classic BB handling or 28 knots with cruiser like handling) 

 

33 minutes ago, fumtu said:

Why you are thinking that? Because of HE and HP pool?

The gimmick is HE spamming large cruisers that take up a BB slot, so they nerfed armour, citadel, AP etc. They even tried to balance DoY with no heal and cruiser dispersion for the ultimate large cruiser.

34 minutes ago, fumtu said:

What do you consider as BC balance?

Speed advantage of course.

 

A BC like PEF should have a decent speed advantage over a slow 21 knot dreadnought like Normandie, right?

 

45 minutes ago, fumtu said:

Well Kirishima was refitted as BB. I guess you are asking for BB Kirishima here not original design, right?

Fast Battleship or BC tag is irrelevant and there's no difference in MM. I wanna tier 6 WW2 Kongo to zoom around in agasint more realistic opponents, bigger maps and play in PvE. Tier 5 is poop.