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

New US Heavy Cruisers

18 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Players
73 posts

IDEA AND POSSIBLE LINE SETUP:

From the 1920s to the 1945 american shipyards made various classes of heavy cruisers, and only a portion of them is currently in the game. The new line I was thinking about will start from tier VII:

-Tier VII: USS Northampton (CA-26)*

-Tier VIII: USS Portland (CA-33)

-Tier IX: USS Oregon City (CA-122)*

-Tier X: USS Orlando (Project CA-C)**

Unlike the current line of US cruisers, this new line will feature long range guns, with a relatively long reload time. They can fire standard HE and AP shells with improved penetration angles, they will feature a spotter aircraft consumable, as well as an engine boost. These new cruisers will be perfect for medium/long range engagements.

SOME GENERAL STATS:

Tier VII: -Range: 16.5 Km -Reload time: 15s -Concealment: 12.5 Km -Dispersion: 142m 

Tier VIII: -Range: 17.2 Km -Reload Time: 14.5s -Concealment: 13 Km -Dispersion: 152m  

Tier IX: -Range: 17.5 Km -Reload time: 13.5 s -Concealment: 13.5 Km -Dispersion:152m

Tier X: -Range: 18.5 Km -Reload time: 11s -Concealment: 14.5 Km -Dispersion: 162m 

PROS:

-Long range guns

-Spotter aircraft 

-AP with improved penetration angles (No super heavy AP)

CONS:

-Bad concealment

-Big dispersion

-relatively long reload

GAMEPLAY:

These cruisers are not exactly made for sniping from the spawn, because of their big dispersion. Although the firing range is big, the best range of engagement is a couple Km shorter than the actual firing range, at this range (around 15-16 Km) your dispersion is not so bad, and you can target cruisers easily. These cruisers are made to hunt other cruisers at ranges that they don't expect, and to "suppress" sniping battleships. These cruisers also features the spotter aircraft consumable, which can bring their firing range to almost that of battlecruisers and even to that of some battleships.

*The name is not specific but is referred to the lead ship of the class

**This name is not Historically accurate

(Sorry My english might not be the best)

 

  • Cool 2
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NCDF]
Players
237 posts
6,723 battles

loooooool

16km radar with over 1km of stealth radar and over a minute of action time....

Yeah, i'm certain that this is what the game needs. 

 

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
73 posts
5 minuti fa, Echo_519 ha scritto:

loooooool

 

I know it's a bit OP especially for destroyers. Do you think that just decereasing it to 14 km or less might help??? Or you have some other ideas for something special about these cruisers??? Otherwise they are just american cruisers with long range guns.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,038 posts
16,915 battles

 Don't really care what they make or what ideas people migh give, the way the game been headed for quite some time now is someplace the sunlight won't reach it eventually. Noone will be surprised to see something like an H44 as T9 just because it will have 1 min reload with just 200k health...

 The game, as is, has amased many issues, and adding new ships won't solve any.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CR33D]
[CR33D]
Players
3,303 posts
30,662 battles
5 hours ago, capt_and said:

-Tier IX: USS Orlando (Project CA-C)**

-Tier X: USS Oregon City (CA-122)*

 

How did you put Project CA-C at T9 and Oregon City at T10? First Project CA-C is just one variation of the ship we already have in game, T9 Buffalo. Oregon City is .... well somewhat improved Baltimore. Did you even compare those two ships?

 

Preliminary design plan prepared for the General Board during an examination of heavy cruiser designs with more protection (and in some cases more eight-inch guns) than the Baltimore (CA-68) class. Aircraft are carried amidships. This plan, dated 18 March 1941, is for a faster (35 knot) ship, resulting in a standard displacement of 20,000-tons and waterline length of 770 feet. There are twelve 8/55 guns in four triple turrets.

 

So Project CA-C has same guns as Orgeon City, while at the same time being much bigger, 20k tons to 13.7k tons, faster, 35kn to 32.4kn, and more heavily armed with 4x3 8-inch guns to OC's 3x3 8-inch guns. So where is the logic here that Oregon City, which is basically a Baltimore should be at T10 while much stronger ship would be a tier lower.

 

5 hours ago, capt_and said:

Unlike the current line of US cruisers, this new line will feature long range guns, with a relatively long reload time. They can fire standard HE and AP shells with improved penetration angles, they will feature a spotter aircraft consumable, as well as a long range radar. These new cruisers will be perfect for medium/long range engagements.

 

Cruisers with long range radar, improved AP angles and relatively long reload time (11sec at T10! WT....), that sound somehow familiar and why am I hearing a Soviet Hymn while thinking about it.

 

5 hours ago, capt_and said:

Radar range: 11 Km cooldown: 90s action time: 60s

 

Hell no.

 

Proposed line is basically just an OP version of the current line and it doesn't bring nothing new considering ships wise. Portland class is already in the game with Indianapolis, Oregon City is very similar to Baltimore, Project CA-C is just a variation of the project we have in the game in the form of Buffalo. Even the Northampton, which would be nice T6 premium is not much different from Portland class. So no this is neither a good proposal for a line nor balanced at all.

 

With available material, to me WG could do a T8 to T10 SC based around 12-inch guns. WG could use Alaska class USS Guam as T9 and use some proposals with lower amount of guns at T8 and T9 like for example these

 

T8

s511-15.jpg

 

T9

s511-17.jpg

 

WG could think some way to make them somewhat different than the current Alaska and PR. But I doubt we will see this except maybe as some future premiums.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,972 posts
5,228 battles

So basically what we have now but better.

11km 60s radar? So with the module and the skill you're looking at one and a half minute of Russian Radar.
Yeah, uhm, it's nice and everything, good job but no thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Players
3,735 posts
18,027 battles

I'm all for new US CA. They however do not need radar. Why not make them a class of ships with better shell arcs that cannot island camp.

I'm sure WG has other gimmicks to balance them ( I mean, they could go the Anchorage way and give them smoke ).

 

But radar: nope, big nope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
73 posts
8 ore fa, fumtu ha scritto:

How did you put Project CA-C at T9 and Oregon City at T10? First Project CA-C is just one variation of the ship we already have in game, T9 Buffalo. Oregon City is .... well somewhat improved Baltimore. Did you even compare those two ships?

 

Yes in fact you're right, I compared the USS Oregon City with the USS Des moines, and the Project CA-C with the Buffalo. In fact as you say Porject CA-C is better at tier 10.

As for the radar: I knew the radar would have been the OP featureof these cruisers. I thought about smoke, but with that you will have spawn sniping cruisers, which is not what we really want (deploy smoke, deploy spotter and make BB BBQ). Maybe the engine boost would be better, tell me what you think about it.

 

8 ore fa, fumtu ha scritto:

With available material, to me WG could do a T8 to T10 SC based around 12-inch guns. WG could use Alaska class USS Guam as T9 and use some proposals with lower amount of guns at T8 and T9 like for example these

@fumtuWe had USS Alaska, and we all know where it ended up, was so OP that was removed, so adding a SC line that everyone can get is not the best choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SERBS]
Alpha Tester, Players, In AlfaTesters
2,625 posts
9,660 battles

I'm sure WG will consider this suggestion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CR33D]
[CR33D]
Players
3,303 posts
30,662 battles
52 minutes ago, capt_and said:

Yes in fact you're right, I compared the USS Oregon City with the USS Des moines, and the Project CA-C with the Buffalo. In fact as you say Porject CA-C is better at tier 10.

 

Well if you don't understand what is difference between DM and Baltimore/Oregon City class than how can anyone consider your proposal seriously.

 

52 minutes ago, capt_and said:

As for the radar: I knew the radar would have been the OP featureof these cruisers. I thought about smoke, but with that you will have spawn sniping cruisers, which is not what we really want (deploy smoke, deploy spotter and make BB BBQ). Maybe the engine boost would be better, tell me what you think about it.

 

No one who is playing competitive games in WoWS would think that 11km radar that last for 60sec and has cooldown on 90sec is a great idea, quite opposite. Also I'm not doing all this "imagining possible stats and playstyle" thing as IMO it is pointless.

 

52 minutes ago, capt_and said:

 

@fumtuWe had USS Alaska, and we all know where it ended up, was so OP that was removed, so adding a SC line that everyone can get is not the best choice.

 

Yes, but we had it at T9, what I said is putting a Guam on T10. Thing is WG could balance the stats in any way they want so putting another Alaska should not be a problem. And I don't see reason why all SCs would need to be premium ships as sooner or latter all those projects will appear in the game, one way or another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
852 posts
8,060 battles

Hey, OP. I'm going to say two things:

 

1. Big "no" from me, wouldn't play the line.

 

2. Absolutely love people thinking and coming up with ship ideas, keep at it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
73 posts
7 minuti fa, fumtu ha scritto:

Well if you don't understand what is difference between DM and Baltimore/Oregon City class than how can anyone consider your proposal seriously.

I undestand the difference between DM and Baltimore, but Project CA-C is more similar to USS Buffalo than to USS Des Moines. You make me notice it and then I changed it, so Thank you for the help.

 

10 minuti fa, fumtu ha scritto:

Also I'm not doing all this "imagining possible stats and playstyle" thing as IMO it is pointless.

You have to imagine how players are going to use these ships, otherwise how can you make them balanced, if you don't foresee what the ship gameplay would be, how can you put them into the game?

12 minuti fa, fumtu ha scritto:

Yes, but we had it at T9, what I said is putting a Guam on T10. Thing is WG could balance the stats in any way they want so putting another Alaska should not be a problem. And I don't see reason why all SCs would need to be premium ships as sooner or latter all those projects will appear in the game, one way or another.

I like the idea of SC and I really would really like to see them in the game, but WG has to make them balanced, so maybe increase the detectebility, remove the main battery modification that gives you 17s reload instead of 20s, so try to not make them OP. Maybe make a discussion about a possible US SC line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
73 posts
3 minuti fa, Bindolaf_Werebane ha scritto:

1. Big "no" from me, wouldn't play the line

You wouldn't play the line because you don't play CAs, or because you feel there's something wrong in this idea, how would you improve it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-0_0-]
Players
246 posts
10,051 battles

I would love to see a heavy cruiser line a bit similair to Alaska but not with that insane radar radius which you mention. Maybe give them the same radar as russian heavy cruisers, longer range (12 km), lower duration than the other USA lines have now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-HUN-]
[-HUN-]
Players
1,739 posts
11,844 battles

So they are heavy cruisers for main roles instead of support class. That case no radar and no hydro. They can have the Spotter and Def AA.

This way they could be a but different.

 

I would like also if Puerto Rico and Alaska lost their radar consumable to be in line with this line. (Even though I really like Alaska)

 

This could be a good start towards a healthier MM. You either play support with DD hunting utilities or you play main with cruiser and BB hunter role. No jack of all trades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
73 posts
18 minuti fa, Mrs_Ragdoll ha scritto:

Maybe give them the same radar as russian heavy cruisers, longer range (12 km), lower duration than the other USA lines have now.

After the feedbacks I removed the radar consumable from these cruisers, instead they will have something like engine boost or DFAA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
852 posts
8,060 battles
1 hour ago, capt_and said:

You wouldn't play the line because you don't play CAs, or because you feel there's something wrong in this idea, how would you improve it?

I guess I don't like bad dispersion. Especially in cruisers. Maybe I don't like "battlecruisers". If I want to sit back and snipe, there are ships for that. And if I want to get close, I need to be able to hit what I'm aiming for - especially if I have a long reload. I guess I don't see the niche your proposal fills. Or it's a niche that isn't a problem for me. But as I said, I love people thinking and coming up with ideas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×