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

Changing the Class System of Ships.

63 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[THESO]
Weekend Tester, In AlfaTesters
4,125 posts
9,682 battles

This has been bought up in the Past. But now with Hybrids being Tested and Submarines becoming a thing as well. We should really Talk about this once more.

Currently we have 4 Classes in the Game. And these Classes make no Distinctions among themselves even tough there is massive Difference between their Subclasses.

 

So we got

CVs which are currently Containing CVL as well as CVs which ends up making CVLs low Tier Only as otherwise they would need to be Buffed up to Full CV Level.

BBs which contain Super Heavy Battleships, Battleships, Dreadnoughts, Fast Battleships and Battlecruisers. Which in itself is already a massive Range which ends up with alot of differences inside the same Class.

CAs which includese Light Cruisers, Anti Air Cruisers, Heavy Cruisers, Auxilliary Cruisers, Supercruisers, Armored Cruisers, Panzerschiffe and Battlecruisers. Which is Incredible Different in between the classes and can lead to massive Balancing Issues in alot of Games.

and DDs which have Torpedo Boats, Frigates, Gun Boats, Destroyers and Escort Destroyers inside it. Which as well can end up creating massive Inbalances between Teams.

 

With Hybrids the BB and CA Class or the CV Class will gain New Members or they will become a New Class in itself. Complicating this even further.

Especially because Hybrids will end up with a Similar Problem as CVs and CVLs because a Hybrid Cruiser will end up either being Low Tier only as he cant exactly be matched against a Hybrid Battleship or has to be a Subclass that ends up with massive Inbalance Potential.

 

Some of these Subclasses like Auxilliary Cruisers, Dreadnoughts and Armored Cruisers of course can be Ignored thanks to being Low Tier only Ships anyways and thus not being as Importand.

But alot of other Subclass like Battleships, Battlecruisers, Supercruisers and Heavy or Light Cruisers really can mess up things. Because lets face it. If you end up having 3 Siegfrieds on 1 Team and 3 Neptunes on the other Team that really can become a Problem fast especially when stuff like DDs and CVs are thrown into the mix in a Bad Proportion for one Team which is not Equipped or Perfectly Equipped to Deal with it.

 

 

 

Hence something that should be considered at this Point would be to actually Adjust the Class System and Provide far more Actual Classes that are Considered in Design, (Armor and Consumables and maybe even Skills) as well as Team Balance.

 

Greetz Sun

  • Cool 7
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
10,362 posts
12,044 battles
5 minutes ago, Sunleader said:

This has been bought up in the Past. But now with Hybrids being Tested and Submarines becoming a thing as well. We should really Talk about this once more.

Currently we have 4 Classes in the Game. And these Classes make no Distinctions among themselves even tough there is massive Difference between their Subclasses.

 

So we got

CVs which are currently Containing CVL as well as CVs which ends up making CVLs low Tier Only as otherwise they would need to be Buffed up to Full CV Level.

BBs which contain Super Heavy Battleships, Battleships, Dreadnoughts, Fast Battleships and Battlecruisers. Which in itself is already a massive Range which ends up with alot of differences inside the same Class.

CAs which includese Light Cruisers, Anti Air Cruisers, Heavy Cruisers, Auxilliary Cruisers, Supercruisers, Armored Cruisers, Panzerschiffe and Battlecruisers. Which is Incredible Different in between the classes and can lead to massive Balancing Issues in alot of Games.

and DDs which have Torpedo Boats, Frigates, Gun Boats, Destroyers and Escort Destroyers inside it. Which as well can end up creating massive Inbalances between Teams.

 

With Hybrids the BB and CA Class or the CV Class will gain New Members or they will become a New Class in itself. Complicating this even further.

Especially because Hybrids will end up with a Similar Problem as CVs and CVLs because a Hybrid Cruiser will end up either being Low Tier only as he cant exactly be matched against a Hybrid Battleship or has to be a Subclass that ends up with massive Inbalance Potential.

 

Some of these Subclasses like Auxilliary Cruisers, Dreadnoughts and Armored Cruisers of course can be Ignored thanks to being Low Tier only Ships anyways and thus not being as Importand.

But alot of other Subclass like Battleships, Battlecruisers, Supercruisers and Heavy or Light Cruisers really can mess up things. Because lets face it. If you end up having 3 Siegfrieds on 1 Team and 3 Neptunes on the other Team that really can become a Problem fast especially when stuff like DDs and CVs are thrown into the mix in a Bad Proportion for one Team which is not Equipped or Perfectly Equipped to Deal with it.

 

 

 

Hence something that should be considered at this Point would be to actually Adjust the Class System and Provide far more Actual Classes that are Considered in Design, (Armor and Consumables and maybe even Skills) as well as Team Balance.

 

Greetz Sun

Aviation BBs/cruisers were used by only one nation, in rather limited number and with even more limited success. Putting them as separate class with symmetrical MM lineup won't work, unless WG will make them overpowered as f, so everyone will start playing them.

 

My guess would be Hybrids would arrive with fighter/spotter rework, so regular ships with catapults could pick plane with some offensive armament, like one-two small bombs, more like means of middle finger than actually effective weapon, but hey, they could get CV experience as well :Smile_trollface:

 

And then there is USS Pringle

USS_Pringle_(DD-477)_underway_in_Decembe

:cap_popcorn:

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[MAS-X]
Players
452 posts
11,637 battles
9 minutes ago, Sunleader said:

This has been bought up in the Past. But now with Hybrids being Tested and Submarines becoming a thing as well. We should really Talk about this once more.

Currently we have 4 Classes in the Game. And these Classes make no Distinctions among themselves even tough there is massive Difference between their Subclasses.

 

So we got

CVs which are currently Containing CVL as well as CVs which ends up making CVLs low Tier Only as otherwise they would need to be Buffed up to Full CV Level.

BBs which contain Super Heavy Battleships, Battleships, Dreadnoughts, Fast Battleships and Battlecruisers. Which in itself is already a massive Range which ends up with alot of differences inside the same Class.

CAs which includese Light Cruisers, Anti Air Cruisers, Heavy Cruisers, Auxilliary Cruisers, Supercruisers, Armored Cruisers, Panzerschiffe and Battlecruisers. Which is Incredible Different in between the classes and can lead to massive Balancing Issues in alot of Games.

and DDs which have Torpedo Boats, Frigates, Gun Boats, Destroyers and Escort Destroyers inside it. Which as well can end up creating massive Inbalances between Teams.

 

With Hybrids the BB and CA Class or the CV Class will gain New Members or they will become a New Class in itself. Complicating this even further.

Especially because Hybrids will end up with a Similar Problem as CVs and CVLs because a Hybrid Cruiser will end up either being Low Tier only as he cant exactly be matched against a Hybrid Battleship or has to be a Subclass that ends up with massive Inbalance Potential.

 

Some of these Subclasses like Auxilliary Cruisers, Dreadnoughts and Armored Cruisers of course can be Ignored thanks to being Low Tier only Ships anyways and thus not being as Importand.

But alot of other Subclass like Battleships, Battlecruisers, Supercruisers and Heavy or Light Cruisers really can mess up things. Because lets face it. If you end up having 3 Siegfrieds on 1 Team and 3 Neptunes on the other Team that really can become a Problem fast especially when stuff like DDs and CVs are thrown into the mix in a Bad Proportion for one Team which is not Equipped or Perfectly Equipped to Deal with it.

 

 

 

Hence something that should be considered at this Point would be to actually Adjust the Class System and Provide far more Actual Classes that are Considered in Design, (Armor and Consumables and maybe even Skills) as well as Team Balance.

 

Greetz Sun

Indeed, but this requires a huge change to the matchmaking system.

And as we all have seen, wg was so good at making it, that they had to remove CV of odd tiers.

So, i can only wonder what a mess the game could become with a tier 7 or 9 battlecarrier

Honestly, the idea of introducing Hybrid ships, looks like wg is admitting they don't know what to do in this game anymore, to gain money and attention

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[JRM]
[JRM]
Players
7,676 posts
2 minutes ago, Panocek said:

Aviation BBs/cruisers were used by only one nation, in rather limited number and with even more limited success. Putting them as separate class with symmetrical MM lineup won't work, unless WG will make them overpowered as f, so everyone will start playing them.

 

My guess would be Hybrids would arrive with fighter/spotter rework, so regular ships with catapults could pick plane with some offensive armament, like one-two small bombs, more like means of middle finger than actually effective weapon, but hey, they could get CV experience as well :Smile_trollface:

 

And then there is USS Pringle

USS_Pringle_(DD-477)_underway_in_Decembe

:cap_popcorn:

Nope...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HSwMS_Gotland_(1933)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[JRM]
[JRM]
Players
7,676 posts
1 minute ago, Panocek said:

Technically, there were also seaplane tenders, used by Russians as well.

 

RU CV line confirmed?:cap_hmm:

TBH IDK who exactly played around with those designs but I am sure it wasnt only one nation... :Smile_teethhappy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
10,362 posts
12,044 battles
4 minutes ago, Yedwy said:

TBH IDK who exactly played around with those designs but I am sure it wasnt only one nation... :Smile_teethhappy:

Well, WG already showcased quite intriguing ASW plane targeting mechanic. And I'm kinda sure it could be appropriated for spotter plane control - instead automatic range extension, spotter could act as, well, spotter. "Go there and show me things", obviously being vulnerable to AA. Or fighter that could be delegated to cover other ships.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[THESO]
Weekend Tester, In AlfaTesters
4,125 posts
9,682 battles
20 minutes ago, Panocek said:

Aviation BBs/cruisers were used by only one nation, in rather limited number and with even more limited success. Putting them as separate class with symmetrical MM lineup won't work, unless WG will make them overpowered as f, so everyone will start playing them.

 

My guess would be Hybrids would arrive with fighter/spotter rework, so regular ships with catapults could pick plane with some offensive armament, like one-two small bombs, more like means of middle finger than actually effective weapon, but hey, they could get CV experience as well :Smile_trollface:

 

And then there is USS Pringle

USS_Pringle_(DD-477)_underway_in_Decembe

:cap_popcorn:

 

15 minutes ago, Panocek said:

Technically, there were also seaplane tenders, used by Russians as well.

 

RU CV line confirmed?:cap_hmm:

 

 

Actually given that Aviation BBs are basicly just Seaplance Tenders with BB Guns you would also get stuff like the US Missisipi and old Battleship Converted as a Seaplane Tender etc.

If we Include Seaplane Tenders in General we have US, Ger, UK and France in Addition to Japan.

And thats just if we Limit ourselves to the Stuff actually Build and Used in the War.

 

 

Which lets Face it. Wargaming wont be Limiting it to.

So you also get a Ton of additional Designs Equipped with Battleship and Heavy Cruiser Guns.

 

For example Germanies Aircraft Cruiser Designs which was basicly a Scharnhorst where the Middle and Rear Section of the Ship was Replaced with a Flight Deck.

a3.gif

Coming with 2x3 28cm Guns a Sizable Secondary Battery and even Torpedo Launchers lol....

 

Including the 1950s stuff even Sweden gets an Aircraft Cruiser actually xD

And Yes. Very likely the Russians ones will also Show up with that.

 

So there is more than enough Classes among different Nations to Fill this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CR33D]
[CR33D]
Players
3,253 posts
30,162 battles

Special class for couple of hybrid ships? I mean it is logical BUT there is so few of them that it is questionable should this be done. RL ship, as far as I know, that could be considered to fit in this category are

 

Japan:

Cruisers

  • Tone & Chikuma, of Tone class
  • Mogami after 1943/44 conversion
  • Oyodo of Oyodo class

BBs

  • Ise & Hyuga of Ise class

 

Sweden:

  • Gotland

And that is all. And the only one of them that actually had attacking planes are two ships of Ise class. All others only carried recce planes. Sure probably every significant nation has one or two projects on their own like German Flugdeckkreuzer ...

 

C76xYjEVYAI3WGu.jpg

 

.. or US flight deck cruiser project from 1930s

 

1280px-Flight_deck_cruiser_design_CF-2_3

 

But that is not enough for full line of them. Japan could maybe get one subbranch but for the rest is mostly just one, maybe two premiums. IMO that is too little for separate class just for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[JOLLY]
Players
520 posts
12,015 battles

I believe MM could be done according to displacement, with battles having a maximum allowed team displacement, to be shared by all players. Thus for example Supercruisers could be paired off versus Battleships of a lower tier. Assymetric battles are showing the way forward.

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[JRM]
[JRM]
Players
7,676 posts
4 minutes ago, LoveZeppelin said:

I believe MM could be done according to displacement, with battles having a maximum allowed team displacement, to be shared by all players. Thus for example Supercruisers could be paired off versus Battleships of a lower tier. Assymetric battles are showing the way forward.

Yees lets pair Stalingrad vs Sharnhorst... :Smile_trollface:

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
752 posts
2,202 battles

During the battle of the Atlantic the Royal Navy stuck catapult launched Hawker Hurricanes on almost anything to provide a fighter to deter Luftwaffe Condors.

 

The Hurricane couldn't land though, the pilot had to ditch next to a ship and hope to be rescued........

A Hurricane could also carry 2 500lb bombs, a possible anti sub role?

 

Mind you the Royal Navy also seriously considered turning icebergs into large airfields to cover the 'Atlantic Gap'..........

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-S3I-]
Players
172 posts
4,034 battles
45 minutes ago, Sunleader said:

CVs which are currently Containing CVL as well as CVs which ends up making CVLs low Tier Only as otherwise they would need to be Buffed up to Full CV Level.

BBs which contain Super Heavy Battleships, Battleships, Dreadnoughts, Fast Battleships and Battlecruisers. Which in itself is already a massive Range which ends up with alot of differences inside the same Class.

CAs which includese Light Cruisers, Anti Air Cruisers, Heavy Cruisers, Auxilliary Cruisers, Supercruisers, Armored Cruisers, Panzerschiffe and Battlecruisers. Which is Incredible Different in between the classes and can lead to massive Balancing Issues in alot of Games.

and DDs which have Torpedo Boats, Frigates, Gun Boats, Destroyers and Escort Destroyers inside it. Which as well can end up creating massive Inbalances between Teams.

 

Well, US or Japanese CVLs (Independence, Ryujo) often carried more planes than British fleet carriers.

 

Division between Supercruiser and Battlescruiser is completely artificial as the former is just a term coined by US navy to sell BCs to US Congress. Both were made for the same purpose (hunting cruisers and scouting for battlefleet).

You could draw distinction in BC class though - "Fisher style" and "German style". Former are lightly armoured but well armed like wwI british BCs but also original Lexington or Alaska. Latter have BB armour and small calibre or number of main guns like wwI German ships of this class, but also Scharnhorst. Gneisenau, Dunkerque etc

 

Super heavy BB is just natural evolution of the class - there is no realistic division line between "normal" and "superheavy". IRL Yamato was just so much bigger than the rest that it warrant such distinction. In game, majority of BBs from T9 and T10 would qualify as "superheavy".

 

Division between Light and Heavy cruisers is just as artificial (the only difference are the main guns). Instead, there should be difference based on function fe. scout/trade protection cruisers (like Danae, Leander, Arethusa (Huanghe), Aoba, Furutaka, Koenigsberg etc) and general purpose cruisers (Myoko, Crown Colony (Fiji), Edinburgh, Cleveland, New Orleans etc.). Still there are strange designs like Panzershiffe or AA cruisers made for special purposes. Though you could argue Panzershiffe were BCs made to fit in cruiser displacement :D

 

Aux Cruisers are just merchants with guns no chance to see them in game

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LAFIE]
Beta Tester
5,804 posts
6,428 battles
1 hour ago, Panocek said:

And then there is USS Pringle

 

Not as unique as you might think, as several Dutch destroyers also had sea planes.

 

Mind you they had to lower it to the sea before launch as they didn't have a catapult (which would be the unique part in this) but a sea plane non the less.

26 minutes ago, fumtu said:

And that is all. And the only one of them that actually had attacking planes are two ships of Ise class. All others only carried recce planes. Sure probably every significant nation has one or two projects on their own like German Flugdeckkreuzer ...

 

On that note there's also that infamous 72K ton monstorisity that Gibbs & Cox developed for the VMF..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CR33D]
[CR33D]
Players
3,253 posts
30,162 battles
9 minutes ago, Molly_Delaney said:

During the battle of the Atlantic the Royal Navy stuck catapult launched Hawker Hurricanes on almost anything to provide a fighter to deter Luftwaffe Condors.

 

The Hurricane couldn't land though, the pilot had to ditch next to a ship and hope to be rescued........

A Hurricane could also carry 2 500lb bombs, a possible anti sub role?

 

Mind you the Royal Navy also seriously considered turning icebergs into large airfields to cover the 'Atlantic Gap'..........

 

Hurricane could carry bombs, Sea Hurricane launched from CAM ship could not. Those ships carried a single plane only to provide defence vs planes like Condor, nothing else. They needed help of rockets just to get into air with only machine guns, there is no way they could take bombs with them. They were never intended to fight subs.

 

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CR33D]
[CR33D]
Players
3,253 posts
30,162 battles
2 minutes ago, lafeel said:

Mind you they had to lower it to the sea before launch as they didn't have a catapult (which would be the unique part in this) but a sea plane non the less.

 

Dutch ones like Admiralen class yes, but USS Pringle had catapult

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[MAS-X]
Players
452 posts
11,637 battles
1 hour ago, Yedwy said:

Honestly, this ship carried 6 seaplanes

A battlecruiser like the Yoshino carries 3, and the Yamato carried 7.

So what? We change the mechanics of every ship that carry seaplanes cause wg have no idea how to keep developing this game?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[JRM]
[JRM]
Players
7,676 posts
3 minutes ago, dunbine said:

We change the mechanics of every ship that carry seaplanes cause wg have no idea how to keep developing this game?

Where did I call out for a mechanic change?

 

Its simple really - you are steering the ship - its normal ship, you are steering the planes its normal planes, no need to re-invent the wheel here...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[THESO]
Weekend Tester, In AlfaTesters
4,125 posts
9,682 battles
25 minutes ago, Peroidas said:

 

Well, US or Japanese CVLs (Independence, Ryujo) often carried more planes than British fleet carriers.

 

Division between Supercruiser and Battlescruiser is completely artificial as the former is just a term coined by US navy to sell BCs to US Congress. Both were made for the same purpose (hunting cruisers and scouting for battlefleet).

You could draw distinction in BC class though - "Fisher style" and "German style". Former are lightly armoured but well armed like wwI british BCs but also original Lexington or Alaska. Latter have BB armour and small calibre or number of main guns like wwI German ships of this class, but also Scharnhorst. Gneisenau, Dunkerque etc

 

Super heavy BB is just natural evolution of the class - there is no realistic division line between "normal" and "superheavy". IRL Yamato was just so much bigger than the rest that it warrant such distinction. In game, majority of BBs from T9 and T10 would qualify as "superheavy".

 

Division between Light and Heavy cruisers is just as artificial (the only difference are the main guns). Instead, there should be difference based on function fe. scout/trade protection cruisers (like Danae, Leander, Arethusa (Huanghe), Aoba, Furutaka, Koenigsberg etc) and general purpose cruisers (Myoko, Crown Colony (Fiji), Edinburgh, Cleveland, New Orleans etc.). Still there are strange designs like Panzershiffe or AA cruisers made for special purposes. Though you could argue Panzershiffe were BCs made to fit in cruiser displacement :D

 

Aux Cruisers are just merchants with guns no chance to see them in game

 

1.

Yes. But Actual US and Japanese Carriers also Carried even more Planes and UK Escort Carriers Carried less Planes. The Reason for that was the General Desing Philisophy of Armor and Armament. But thats a different matter.

UK Full Carriers in the Game have less Aircraft than Full US Carriers etc.

 

2.

And No. Battlecruisers and Supercruisers are actually not really the same. Which is mostly down to the Design Philosophy of different Countries. And also the Fact that there is no real Global Classification Rules.

(And No. Like Majority of Countries at the end of WW2 I do not Accept the British Fleet Treaty to be Acceptable as by the end of the War everyone Broke it anyways and didnt care about it anymore)

 

In General.

 

Battleships are Ships with Battleship Armor and Armaments.

 

Fast Battleships are Ships with Battleship Armor and Armements but with some Armament or Armor being Reduced Slightly to Improve the Speed.

 

Battlecruisers are Ships with EITHER Battleship Armor OR Battleship Armements (Depending on which Nation you ask.) but the other being Severely Reduced. For example getting Battleship Guns but much less Armor. Or getting Battleship Armor but lower Gun Caliber.

 

Large Cruisers which are actually not Equipped with Battleship Armaments OR Armor. Instead having both of them Severely Reduced compared to a Battleship. Thus not Qualifying as a Battlecruiser.

Alaska for example Simply does not Qualify as a Battlecruiser because it has neither the Armaments nor the Armor of a Battleship Class Ship.

 

What you could mix together is Fast Battleships and Battleships. Or Fast Battleships and Battlecruisers. Because between each there is little difference.

But Large Cruisers would be more Inclined to be Mixed with Panzerschiffe than with Battlecruisers. Because Large Cruisers are more like Oversized Cruisers than Battleships.

 

3.

Yes. Thats why I didnt make an Extra Class here. But that doesnt change that they Exist and are Heavily Different from other BBs.

The Game doesnt need to care cause it can pack them into High Tiers. But the Difference Exists so I mentioned it.

Same as I mentioned Dreadnoughts even tough its just the Predecessor of Battleships.

 

4.

No. Light Cruisers and Heavy Cruisers can actually be really Different depending on who you let it Classify. You go by the British Fleet Treaty of Gun Caliber. But the Truth is. By the end of WW2 nobody gave a Crab about that.

And in General. Light Cruisers lacked alot of Armor. Often having no Additional Armor beyond the Base Hull at all in most of the Places. And the Main Armor Belt only Covering Midsection and being much Thinner than a Heavy Cruiser which was usually Fully Armored and also Armored thicker than Light Cruisers.

So Heavy and Light Cruisers from the same Era were often several Thousand Tons apart from each other.

Due to the Ships Evolution this becomes Blurry. Because Later Light Cruisers basicly got Size and Weight of Older Heavy Cruisers. Just like Later Destroyers often got the Size and Weight of Earlier Light Cruisers.

But when compared to Counterparts of their actual Era there is pretty big Differences.

 

5.

No. Panzerschiffe would actually be Large Cruisers. Because they do not have the Armor or Armement of a Battleship Class Ship.

 

 

 

 

I know its Complicated and Super Diversive. Because depending on what Country you ask you get alot of Different Results.

But there is in Fact alot of Differences.

 

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[THESO]
Weekend Tester, In AlfaTesters
4,125 posts
9,682 battles
43 minutes ago, dunbine said:

Honestly, this ship carried 6 seaplanes

A battlecruiser like the Yoshino carries 3, and the Yamato carried 7.

So what? We change the mechanics of every ship that carry seaplanes cause wg have no idea how to keep developing this game?

 

Thats Cheap Bait really....

 

The Difference is that a Seaplane Carrier Carried Heavy Aircraft with Armaments for Bombing.

While the other Ships you mentioned carried mostly Dissassembled Light Scout Aircraft with Potentially some Light Armaments.

Also. You are Comparing a Swedish CRUISER of 9000 Tons with a Japanese Super Heavy Battleship which had over 60.000 Tons......

 

A Flotplane Carrying Battleship had over 20 Planes. (Ise for example had 20-30 Planes)

 

So No. Not every Floatplane Carrying Ship will be Converted. Because the vast Majority of Floatplane Carrying Ships are only Carrying Light Scout Aircraft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
7,526 posts
245 battles
7 minutes ago, Sunleader said:

 

Thats Cheap Bait really....

 

The Difference is that a Seaplane Carrier Carried Heavy Aircraft with Armaments for Bombing.

While the other Ships you mentioned carried mostly Dissassembled Light Scout Aircraft with Potentially some Light Armaments.

Also. You are Comparing a Swedish CRUISER of 9000 Tons with a Japanese Super Heavy Battleship which had over 60.000 Tons......

 

A Flotplane Carrying Battleship had over 20 Planes. (Ise for example had 20-30 Planes)

 

So No. Not every Floatplane Carrying Ship will be Converted. Because the vast Majority of Floatplane Carrying Ships are only Carrying Light Scout Aircraft.

There called battlecarriers if your wondering what the correct term for their class is. Well the ones with flight decks anyways.

And theres quite a lot of battlecarriers as well soo peegee won't run out of them any time soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
3,675 posts
14,325 battles

I get your point somewhat, and while it has some merits. When you start separating within a class. It's not nearly as black and white to sort them.

 

 

Take for example. 

2 hours ago, Sunleader said:

DDs which have Torpedo Boats, Frigates, Gun Boats, Destroyers and Escort Destroyers inside it

Any DD across all the classes can assume any of those roles. With Friesland being the only exception as it cannot be a torpedo boat. How you even begin to break them down into groups troubles me. As you are imposing a limiting factor on how it "should" be played.

 

How would you class Farragut for example. A gun boat because it has short range torps that can't "stealth" fire? A gun boat then? When the reality is, it's all how to player chooses to use it to their own INDIVIDUAL style. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[THESO]
Weekend Tester, In AlfaTesters
4,125 posts
9,682 battles
7 minutes ago, Bear__Necessities said:

I get your point somewhat, and while it has some merits. When you start separating within a class. It's not nearly as black and white to sort them.

 

 

Take for example. 

Any DD across all the classes can assume any of those roles. With Friesland being the only exception as it cannot be a torpedo boat. How you even begin to break them down into groups troubles me. As you are imposing a limiting factor on how it "should" be played.

 

How would you class Farragut for example. A gun boat because it has short range torps that can't "stealth" fire? A gun boat then? When the reality is, it's all how to player chooses to use it to their own INDIVIDUAL style. 

 

Thats why I said that alot of these Subclasses are not Needed to be Differeniated. I merely Mentioned them because they Exist.

For example. The T61 is a Torpedo Boat with 105mm Guns not a DD. But I dont see any Reason to not keep it in the DD Class.

Or what you could also do would be to Classify them as FF instead. But have MM Consider them Equal.

 

The Real Problems I see and which made me open the Topic is:

 

Hybrid Carriers of BB or CA Class Hulls. Because this could lead to real Problems in Balancing similar to the Alaska vs Neptune example.

Battleships containing Battleships as well as Battlecruisers. Because this currently leads to Battlecruisers being either Buffed and Uparmored to basicly be Battleships or be Nerfed and Downarmored to be Super Cruisers.

Cruisers including Battlecruisers, Large Cruisers, Heavy Cruisers and even Light Cruisers. Which is a Mess to be Honest.....

 

Beyond that most of the things is just potential Classes for Historical Reasons which would not make any Difference in MM or Gameplay etc.

For example. You could class T61 as Torpedoboat but still maintain it as the same DD MM as before.

Same for Swedish Frigates which could basicly get an FF Designation but FF could still just be considered Equal to DD and thus be a purely Cosmetical Change.

 

Importand is the stuff mentioned above which has actual big Differences and which would be meaningful to get more Changes than just Cosmetical ones.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[MAS-X]
Players
452 posts
11,637 battles
1 hour ago, Yedwy said:

Where did I call out for a mechanic change?

 

Its simple really - you are steering the ship - its normal ship, you are steering the planes its normal planes, no need to re-invent the wheel here...

The change is obvious

Right now the planes on battleships and cruisers go on full auto, flying around the ship to spot, or protects it from enemy aircrafts.

With this change, wg wants a ship were you will manually pilot the planes you launch from your battlecarrier. 

I wwonder what will happen to your main artillery when you do that...

But my point is:

Why in this new ships, i can control a plane, and in the old ships i can't, even if they both carry seaplanes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
7,526 posts
245 battles
1 minute ago, dunbine said:

The change is obvious

Right now the planes on battleships and cruisers go on full auto, flying around the ship to spot, or protects it from enemy aircrafts.

With this change, wg wants a ship were you will manually pilot the planes you Launche from your battlecarrier. I wonder what will happen to your main artillery when you do that...

But my point is:

Why in this new ships, i can control a plane, and in the old ships i can't, even if they both carry seaplanes?

Cus their battlecarriers, so they have actual ramps and flyways dedicated to planes, plus they also have internal hangers rather than the planes being shoved into tiny compartments and also not being catapult launched as well.

And battlecarriers were designed to have planus carry bombs and other thingies compared to the usual recon planus etc.

 

I know some would of carried bombs on non battlecarriers, but BCV's are designed to act as a bit of a mobile fortified airbase hense why they get special treatment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×