question Should there be a battlecruiser tech tree in the game ?

[J10assassinator]

The reasoning for this topic is going to be about  battlecruisers and why they should be added.

Mainly talking about HMS Hood aswell using it as a example.

 

Since the new update of the British heavy cruisers i've been thinking why not add battlecruisers, but not yet wait until the main countries get their heavy cruisers then add battlecruisers. This would help against the main heavy cruisers and cruisers in general. The battlecruiser weakness is battleships since they have weak armor against battleships because battleships have better armor and guns.

 

If battlecruisers get added that means any battlecruiser that is a premium will be no longer a premium ship, that's if there were order's for building another ship like it but sadly they were never built if not that means it will be removed from premium onto the main tech tree for everyone to unlock this includes HMS Hood for Example, since she was the only battlecruiser in her class made and the last. Unless they add one of the 7 ship's that were sister ships of HMS Hood but they were never build so this could be a copy of HMS Hood but with a different name, this battlecruiser would of got the same refit as HMS Hood's 1941 refit. if HMS Hood gets removed from premium to be put into the normal tech tree the HMS Hood will have to have its original armor layout the same on premium so a copy of it but that armor will be type A armor layout, i'll talk about it more in the bottom. HMS Hood will get its Torpedoes then it will finally get its 1941 refit ,she should of got this upgrade but she was sunk before she could of got it.

 

 

http://www.hmshood.com/history/construct/repair42.htm 

 

(The link for the images)  This is what HMS Hood looks like after upgrade they should give her 2 optional upgrades for the public to decide B and C upgrade one with float planes and one without this includes extra AA guns for defence against planes, it also might get a better survivability. i would put her in rank 6 or 7 right beside HMS King George V Battleship or right next to Battleship  monarch. If the ship gets upgraded to B or C type armor layout it will lose it's rocket AA ability.

[1MajorKoenig]

56 minutes ago, J10assassinator said:

battlecruisers get added that means any battlecruiser that is a premium will be no longer a premium ship

 

Well that‘s unlikely.

 

However +1 for my favourite topic :-)

 

In Hood‘s case it is quite easy - use the proposed Refit and call the Ship „Anson“. Alternatively we could use the J3 Design which is basically a 3x3 Hood for the tree instead. 

 

Long story short: I would leave prems as they are and use other designs if needed. The bigger problem are the higher tiers

 

T3-5 would be Indefatigable, Lion, Tiger - T6 Renown and past Admiral there are a couple of designs that could be used (mainly G3 which is a faster Nelson for T8 likely). 

[MrWastee]

1 hour ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

 

Well that‘s unlikely.

 

[...]

^ this!

 

while i would even drag it more into direction of "as likely as hitting a dd's cita"...

[The_White_Whale]

If it gives us the Tiger and Renown then it's fine by me.

 

Also H3a as a T8 prem.

[1MajorKoenig]

18 minutes ago, The_White_Whale said:

If it gives us the Tiger and Renown then it's fine by me.

 

Also H3a as a T8 prem.

 

Do you have any info on that Design?

[Maris_Piper]

54 minutes ago, The_White_Whale said:

If it gives us the Tiger and Renown then it's fine by me.

 

Also H3a as a T8 prem.

The Renown, Just about my favourite RN battle cruisers, Super accurate gunnery well modernised, She chaced  both of the Sharnhorsts away from the convoy it was guarding and a Beautiful ship, Apart from the Graphics department doing  good job, Imagine what WG's steam powered Royal Navy Nerk Hammer would do at her. I would be in tears 

[El2aZeR]

You mean as a dedicated class or just as an alt tech tree to BBs?

 

As a dedicated class BCs don't really make much sense in terms of game mechanics.

As an alt tech tree line, sure. In fact I'm actually surprised this hasn't been done yet.

[lovelacebeer]

I don't think WG would introduce a dedicated Battlecruiser category it is easier to define them as  battleships but with a different play style. 

 

Still I would love there to be a British battlecruiser line as an alternative to the Battleship line, especially if at the tier VIII was a refitted Admiral class (as Hood was meant to get). 

[MadBadDave]

If hood was put into a battle cruiser branch, torps, as in real life should feature.

[1MajorKoenig]

38 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

You mean as a dedicated class or just as an alt tech tree to BBs?

 

As a dedicated class BCs don't really make much sense in terms of game mechanics.

As an alt tech tree line, sure. In fact I'm actually surprised this hasn't been done yet.

 

You answered your own question. A separate class is not needed as it is only about the MM. BCs work fine in a BB slot 

[jss78]

There's a fairly strong precedent that the WW1 era (or thereabouts) battlecruisers will be categorized as BB's. You have the Ishizuchi+Myogi (approximating the Kongo before fast battleship conversion), Prinz Eitel Friedrich, Hood, Amagi/Ashitaka there. Meanwhile the later, WW2 era "large cruisers" (battlecruisers to some) go in as cruisers.

 

I think it's sensible as IMO an Izhizuchi is closer to a T4 BB than T4 cruiser, while an Alaska is definitely closer to a Buffalo than to an Iowa, in terms of capabilities.

 

 

[Sunleader]

I would Disagree to be Honest.

I would Support Splitting Classes in WoWs much more to be Honest.

 

Currently we have alot of Problems thanks to WG not Splitting these Classes. Because dont get me Wrong. But if Team A gets 3 Puerto Ricos. And Team B gets 3 Des Moines. Then there is a very clear Inbalance here.

Because Puerto Rico is Classed as a Cruiser and gets pretty much Cruiser Dispersion. But with Battlecruiser/Large Cruiser Guns that can easily Delete most Enemy Cruisers.

 

WG should make

 

Frigates/Torpedo Boats. Having less HP and better Concealment than DDs.

Destroyers. Already in.

Light Cruisers. Fast Firing Guns and High DPM but Bad Armor.

Heavy Cruisers. Already in the Game.

Panzerschiffe/Large Cruisers. Smaller Caliber Battelship Guns with faster Reload and better Accuracy. But less Armor and HP than BBs.

Battlecruisers. With BB Guns and better Speed, Maneuverability. But with weaker Armor.

Battleships. Already in the Game.

 

 

The thing is. All of these are already in the Game.

But thanks to WG not Classing them Properly. They end up being Mixed. Creating alot of Unbalanced Battles where 1 Team has a Tremendous Advantage.

 

 

Classing them Differently would also allow for some Extra Changes.

Battleships and Battlecruisers could stay with 32mm Bow and Stern Armor. And would generally also maintain the Bad Dispersion.

Large Cruisers and Panzerschiffe could get 30mm Bow and Stern Armor.  And have a Dispersion between current Cruisers and current BBs.

Heavy Cruisers could get 27mm. And maintain current Dispersion of Cruisers.

Light Cruisers could get 25mm. Also maintaining current Dispersion of Cruisers.

Destroyers 19mm. And they could get the Torpedoes nerfed a Bit. To have longer Reloads. So they are less Match Dominating.

and Torpedo Boats/Frigates could have 16mm. While getting better Base Concealment and Better Torps. Thus having more Stealth Torping Capacity. But far less Gunpower than DDs.

 

 

Balancing would be much easier when Classes were not ignored in this Game.

And if one is Worried for the Matchmaker. it should be no Problem really.

 

The Matchmaker could still be set so that it falls back towards Mixing classes if he doesnt find enough Ships of one Class.

But with the Classes actually Described he could at least Divide the Classes as far as thats posible and attempt to at least find a closer match than in the Current MM where an Alaska can end up being Matched against a Neptune which it can Oneshot pretty easily....

 

BBs and BCs would still share the MM. If not enough BBs, BCs are available MM could use an 1 Tier Higher LC or PS to fill in.

LCs and PSs would be Seperate. If not enough Ships are there. MM can use an 1 Tier higher Heavy Cruiser.

Heavy Cruisers and Light Cruisers would Share the MM. But Light Cruisers cant be Matched against LCs and PSs.

Destroyers, Frigates and Torpedo Boats would Share the MM. But if possible the Matchmaker will Equally Divide Destroyers and Frigates/Torpedo Boats so both sides have Small Ships that have Stealth Torping and both side have Small Ships that have Firepower to Hunt enemy Small Ships.

[Hawker_gb]

2 hours ago, motor_g_b said:

The Renown, Just about my favourite RN battle cruisers, Super accurate gunnery well modernised, She chaced  both of the Sharnhorsts away from the convoy it was guarding and a Beautiful ship, Apart from the Graphics department doing  good job, Imagine what WG's steam powered Royal Navy Nerk Hammer would do at her. I would be in tears 

She didnt chaced Sharnhorst nor Gneisenau because Germans have orders to draw enemy force further away from invasion fleet for Norway which they acomplished well.

While tacically Renown and destroyers gain victory it was clear strategic victory for Germans which delayed Renown to intervene at Narvik.

[Karasu_Browarszky]

I am in favour of adding separate battlecruiser branches but the implication is that they would have to be created as a separate class for balance and MM reasons IMO. Even if that was not so, they should not be assigned to the BB class in the game but rather moved to the cruisers.

 

Because....

 

Quote

"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today," said Admiral Beatty as he watched his battlecruisers blow up one by one at the Battle of Jutland.

 

 

Why a Battlecruiser Is Not a Battleship (And the Ultimate Paper Tiger?)  A ship that never should have been built?

[Maris_Piper]

3 minutes ago, Hawker_gb said:

She didnt chaced Sharnhorst nor Gneisenau because Germans have orders to draw enemy force further away from invasion fleet for Norway which they acomplished well.

While tacically Renown and destroyers gain victory it was clear strategic victory for Germans which delayed Renown to intervene at Narvik.

I'll have to pull up the guy who writes the historical channel I looked it up on, Did  HMS  Renown really need to intervene in Narvik, I thought the Warspite did that quite well, I better check that one out as well, I know no amount of warships were going to stop the German invasion of Norway unless they could fly.

[Hawker_gb]

That article on national interest is so pathetically bad written.

[Maris_Piper]

I would not know, Have not read it

 

[Karasu_Browarszky]

1 minute ago, Hawker_gb said:

That article on national interest is so pathetically bad written.

 

But what about the rationale?

[BruceRKF]

I think that the changes to Borodino and Champagne armour could indicate a test for battlecruisers. However, if you don't want to go full fictional only the UK, Germany and Japan have a sufficient number of actual ships plus paper ships to fill out tech trees (I think, some naval history buff can correct me if I'm wrong).

[Karasu_Browarszky]

1 minute ago, BruceRKF said:

I think that the changes to Borodino and Champagne armour could indicate a test for battlecruisers. However, if you don't want to go full fictional only the UK, Germany and Japan have a sufficient number of actual ships plus paper ships to fill out tech trees (I think, some naval history buff can correct me if I'm wrong).

 

You left out one major Navy from your list.

 

 

 

[BruceRKF]

1 minute ago, Karasu_Hidesuke said:

 

You left out one major Navy from your list.

 

 

 

Crap, I can already see the Gulag looming...

[Hawker_gb]

Just now, Karasu_Hidesuke said:

 

But what about the rationale?

National interest is so bad source for any history info.

 

Cutting edge 1940. Bismarck ? Really?

HMS Hood initially was designed as BC but it was modernizied several times prior to WW2. Before battle in Denmark strait she was more BB then BC and english ships have advantage in salvo weight prior to battle. 

Furthermore,most likely Bismarck shell hit torpedoes stored on deck because penetration of ammo storage was unlikely.

Plus malfunction in PoW quad turrets.

 

Germans was very very lucky in that battle.

 

National interest article linked is piece of junk.

[Karasu_Browarszky]

2 minutes ago, Hawker_gb said:

National interest is so bad source for any history info.

 

Cutting edge 1940. Bismarck ? Really?

HMS Hood initially was designed as BC but it was modernizied several times prior to WW2. Before battle in Denmark strait she was more BB then BC and english ships have advantage in salvo weight prior to battle. 

Furthermore,most likely Bismarck shell hit torpedoes stored on deck because penetration of ammo storage was unlikely.

Plus malfunction in PoW quad turrets.

 

Germans was very very lucky in that battle.

 

National interest article linked is piece of junk.

 

Well.. their main focus is not history....

[Hawker_gb]

1 minute ago, Karasu_Hidesuke said:

 

Well.. their main focus is not history....

Then why they decieve public with junk history articles and get linked here?

if they want to write history articles they can hire somebody with actual knowledge about ships because guy which write that junk article probably never saw the sea.

 

[NobleRipper]

3 minutes ago, Hawker_gb said:

National interest is so bad source for any history info.

 

Cutting edge 1940. Bismarck ? Really?

HMS Hood initially was designed as BC but it was modernizied several times prior to WW2. Before battle in Denmark strait she was more BB then BC and english ships have advantage in salvo weight prior to battle. 

Furthermore,most likely Bismarck shell hit torpedoes stored on deck because penetration of ammo storage was unlikely.

Plus malfunction in PoW quad turrets.

 

Germans was very very lucky in that battle.

 

National interest article linked is piece of junk.

My particular favourite (admittedly only on a brief scan-read, I'm sure there's probably more):

"British doctrine in World War I emphasized smothering the enemy with rapid broadsides, even at the expense of safe ammunition handling procedures."

 

Actually, that would be Admiral Beatty's doctrine in the battlecruiser squadron (leaving off the anti-blast baffles in the ammunition handling spaces to speed up gunfire), which the gunnery officer aboard his own flagship Lion refused point-blank to implement and was not in force anywhere else in the Grand Fleet. The three BCs that blew up were essentially ordered to remove their own magazine-detonation protection in the name of getting out quicker broadsides Nelson-style (probably at least partially because Beatty just couldn't be bothered with gunnery practice, so the Battlecruiser Squadron's gunnery was the worst in the fleet for accuracy). There was indeed something wrong with his bloody ships that day, and he was the one that ordered it so.