Battlecruisers

[Sille]

I was woundering, are there gonna be battlecruiser like the guam in the game?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Guam_(CB-2) she looks awsome=)

 

[Wischmob_von_Eimer]

You mean like the Kongo or Amagi?

 

EDIT: Also, what would be the point of these ships? 

[Bl4ckh0g]

You mean like the Kongo or Amagi?

 

EDIT: Also, what would be the point of these ships? 

 

What's the point of Kongo and Amagi?

Or Hood?

 

[_DeathWing_]

Looks like Des Moines.

[Wischmob_von_Eimer]

 

What's the point of Kongo and Amagi?

Or Hood?

 

 

Kongo and Amagi are BB, Hood propably will be a normal CA or low tier BB.

 

I was asking what the point of another class of ships would be since we already have BB and CA and dont need another Line to fill a gap that does not exist.

 

Or do you want realy fast and agile BB? If so, please, go on on how this would even remotely be balanced.

 

 

Also, regarding the Hood, who gives a damn about a ship whose only notable achievement was the way it got sunk?

[Bl4ckh0g]

There was actually like 2 topics about the Alaska-class actually

 

Brits will have their BC line, Germans too probably

 

They are faster battleships

 

Well, Alaska maybe is more of a cruiser really than a battleship so who knows...

 

If Wg implement her in a way that She's more cruiser like instead of battleship like, then I'll probably enjoy here

 

 

Kongo and Amagi are BB, Hood propably will be a normal CA.

 

I was asking what the point of another class of ships would be since we already have BB and CA and dont need another Line to fill a gap that does not exist.

 

Or do you want realy fast and agile BB? If so, please, go on on how this would even remotely be balanced.

 

 

Kongo has freaking 120 mm belt armor, you call that a BB?

Also Izumo with 150 mm?

 

Battlecruisers are a failed concept, you'd have battleships that cannot engage battleships and are only marginally able to keep up with cruisers

How would that be any good?

 

You'd have a big [edited]cruiser that still cannot kill a battleship yet She's as big as a freaking battleship but with half the armor and smaller guns.

 

You'd essentially have a battleship that's only able to kill cruisers and fails in everything else. 

Is that sounds so OP to you?

[Wischmob_von_Eimer]

Izumo is just another WG fake, created out of some Drawings with no real Data or ship >.>

[Bl4ckh0g]

Izumo is just another WG fake, created out of some Drawings with no real Data or ship >.>

 

Yes, but She's essentially a battlecruiser..

Who cares whether She was real or not?

 

Edit: Well, actually the hell knows how thick is her armor, until WG doesn't provide some info about in game armor I'm going to assume she has 150 something belt armor

[Exocet6951]

 

Kongo and Amagi are BB, Hood propably will be a normal CA or low tier BB.

 

I was asking what the point of another class of ships would be since we already have BB and CA and dont need another Line to fill a gap that does not exist.

 

Or do you want realy fast and agile BB? If so, please, go on on how this would even remotely be balanced.

 

 

Also, regarding the Hood, who gives a damn about a ship whose only notable achievement was the way it got sunk?

 

Kongo and Amagi are BCs that got shoehorned into the BB line.

 

The more you know.

[Wischmob_von_Eimer]

 

Kongo and Amagi are BCs that got shoehorned into the BB line.

 

The more you know.

 

[edited]

 

Why do you think I talked about them in a thread about the implementation of CB? Because I think they are Carriers, right?

[Bl4ckh0g]

 

[edited]

 

Why do you think I talked about them in a thread about the implementation of CB? Because I think they are Carriers, right?

 

You refered to them as battlecruisers in this post

You mean like the Kongo or Amagi?

 

EDIT: Also, what would be the point of these ships? 

 

Then as battleships in this one

 

Kongo and Amagi are BB, Hood propably will be a normal CA or low tier BB.

 

I was asking what the point of another class of ships would be since we already have BB and CA and dont need another Line to fill a gap that does not exist.

 

Or do you want realy fast and agile BB? If so, please, go on on how this would even remotely be balanced.

 

 

Also, regarding the Hood, who gives a damn about a ship whose only notable achievement was the way it got sunk?

 

And now they are yet again battlecruisers 

 

[edited]

 

Why do you think I talked about them in a thread about the implementation of CB? Because I think they are Carriers, right?

 

 

The hell are you talking about

[Wischmob_von_Eimer]

Because they are Battlecruisers that got implemented as Battleships in the game. Is that so hard to understand?

[Sille]

 

Kongo and Amagi are BCs that got shoehorned into the BB line.

 

The more you know.

 

The real kongo got converted into a bb at 1929-1935 when the japanese uppgraded her. i guess maybe they need the amagi as a filler.

I would like to have a cruiser line that goes into battlecruisers or maybe pocket battleships.

 

[Exocet6951]

Yes, it is.

It was confusing as hell, especially since you asked, and I quote ​:"Or do you want realy fast and agile BB? If so, please, go on on how this would even remotely be balanced." When talking about the Kongo an Amagi"

Well, they're in game, they're fast and agile BBs.

 

They could be be just be a class called BCs, to avoid the confusion of which ship is a fast agile low armored battleship, and which is a more classical slow armored battleship.

[Bl4ckh0g]

Because they are Battlecruisers that got implemented as Battleships in the game. Is that so hard to understand?

 

Yeah It's that hard to understand....OF course it's bloody easy to understand what the hell you mean, jesus

 

 

But the hell is it hard to understand that when you refer to them as BBs in this post and BC in another one, someone will try to correct you, eh?

 

 

[Wischmob_von_Eimer]

It is all writen in the first post.

 

Question: Will there be Battlecruiser in the game?

"Answer": Like Kongo or Amagi?

 

or in other words, just so everyone gets it:

 

Oh, fair maiden, you want to ask if there will be Battlecruisers implemented in this game called World of Warships where we have so beautiful ships like the sexy Kongo Battlecruiser or the borderline "OP" Battlecruiser called Amagi? Well, dear fair maiden, maybe there will be Battlecruisers implemented in the game like the sexy Kongo Battlecruiser or the borderline "OP" Battlecruiser called Amagi, but only if you wish upon a star and keep believing in wargaming believing in your money.

 

 

Ok?

 

 

EDIT: Ok, that answer was not 100% serious, but I think you got my point.

[Islacrusez]

 

EDIT: Ok, that answer was not 100% serious, but I think you got my point.

 

Close enough.

 

I guess yes, we'll get battlecruisers, but not as a separate class, more likely as the class they're closest to - be they battleships or cruisers.

 

Whether they'll be a separate line - anyone's guess. "Where appropriate" I'd say.

[GrumpyWorm]

Off topic posts are removed, get back on track please

[Bl4ckh0g]

Fair enough

 

 

The basic problem with the Battlecruisers is that there isn't a place for them.

 

A ship that's as big as a battleship, but It's not as well armored nor armed and it's only purpose is to hunt down CAs while avoiding direct confrontations with Battleships is to say the least, not needed.

 

A battleship that can only fight one class.

 

It would be weak against CVs, DDs, and BBs and it's only strong point would be killing CAs slightly more efficiently than a CA.

[1000guns]

it would be interesting to add a separate battlecruiser line (and the same would go with a CL line, why not put the cleveland at the top of such a tier?), there are so many ships that cannot be really classified as either BBs or CAs even at tier 10s.. examples that come to mind are the alaskas, the scharnhorsts, the hood/renowns and then of course the already existing kongos. I suppose it is better to make them a separate class (even with gaps as I assume there will be problems finding 10 different ships for each tier) rather that misplace them in some CA or BB line (perfect example is the hood, I think it would make a super t10 battlecruiser and it would be funny to match it against a t10 scharnhorst with the extra 15" guns as an upgrade module). But to also counter my argument, there need to be some changes in MM as in limit the number of ships in each tier to more "realistic" number of ships, i.e. 1-2 CVs, 1-2 BBs, 1-2 BCs, 2-3 CAs, 2-3 CLs and 3-4 DDs as to create balanced battlegroups once the game hits open and we will have a bigger pool of players

[_ramrus_]

To answer OP, they are going to cram in every ship they can eventually.

[Majorianus]

 

The real kongo got converted into a bb at 1929-1935 when the japanese uppgraded her. i guess maybe they need the amagi as a filler.

I would like to have a cruiser line that goes into battlecruisers or maybe pocket battleships.

 

 

There were no "pocket battleships". Repeat a few times. The "Deutschland" class were non-treaty heavy cruisers intended for commerce raiding. The term "pocket battleship" was invented by Anglo press (can't remember if it was British or American first) and was never a proper ship class and neither did it accurately describe the intended role of the "Deutschland" class. Their original German designation "Panzerschiff" (i.e. armored ship) was part of a ruse which aimed to mislead the Versailles victors to believe that the Germans were building coastal defense vessels similar to the Swedish "Sverige" class. (They even copied the naming scheme; "Sverige" means "Sweden" in Swedish as "Deutschland" means "Germany" in German).

 

After the bluff was revealed, the Germans even reclassified the class as heavy cruisers. I suppose WG may still put them on the BB class thanks to the die-hard tradition to associate them with battleships, but their proper place should be as high tier cruisers. They had less armor than e.g. the US Baltimore class CAs and only 6 main guns, so in no way would they be OP as cruisers.

[Kruzenstern]

 

It would be weak against CVs, DDs, and BBs and it's only strong point would be killing CAs slightly more efficiently than a CA.

 

BCs have a perfectly fine place in the game. They might not have the standing power of BBs and would in fact be quite weak in a 1v1 against them. But against CVs and DDs they have an easier time evading Torpedos, enough armor to not be all that vulnerable to DD guns and enough speed to pursue all other ship types. I see nothing wrong with that...

[Sille]

 

BCs have a perfectly fine place in the game. They might not have the standing power of BBs and would in fact be quite weak in a 1v1 against them. But against CVs and DDs they have an easier time evading Torpedos, enough armor to not be all that vulnerable to DD guns and enough speed to pursue all other ship types. I see nothing wrong with that...

 

if they get into the right range they have deacent armor 2 though they had good belt armor, kinda would like the "sniping cruiser went into these kinds of ships.

They are alot smaller than a bb so i hope its gonna be as a cruiser.

[Historynerd]

 

They are alot smaller than a bb so i hope its gonna be as a cruiser.

 

That picture doesn't give exactly the idea of them being "a lot smaller than a BB"... because they weren't. Besides, the classification of the Alaska-class as "battlecruiser" isn't universally accepted.

Old school battlecruisers (those up to WWI, more or less) were as big as them, in fact, the difference being only the variation of the rough percentages allocated to the fundamental triad:

 

Armament : Protection : Machinery

 

Battleship tended to have these three aspects more or less balanced; battlecruisers usually had battleship-like armament, but sacrificed protection for increased machinery space, and therefore speed. But displacement remained on the same scale.