Royal Navy Cruiser line

[Trainspite]

lets look at some french cruisers (sry OT)

 

 The Duquesne-class

the Duquesne's maximum armor thickness is an AMAZING 30mm and it only goes 30kts 

the maim armaments consists of 4x2 203mm/50 Modèle 1924 guns which are pretty good (which they should be as you will have that exact same gun all the way up to tier 8)

I expect this ship to be at tier 5 tier 6 at best

 

 

For Duquesne, I would say tier 6, and tier 7 at a bit of a push. She is not as slow as that, since WG use a standard or trials load displacement for the speed, regardless if the HP is based on the full load or not. However, I would expect her to a premium, since La Galissoniere is more likely to be the tier 6 regular. Suffren & Algérie are fairly easy picks for a tier 7 and 8, with De Grasse as a tier 8 premium. 

[Comrad_StaIin]

 

For Duquesne, I would say tier 6, and tier 7 at a bit of a push. She is not as slow as that, since WG use a standard or trials load displacement for the speed, regardless if the HP is based on the full load or not. However, I would expect her to a premium, since La Galissoniere is more likely to be the tier 6 regular. Suffren & Algérie are fairly easy picks for a tier 7 and 8, with De Grasse as a tier 8 premium. 

 

Duquesne would get absolutely murdered at tier 7 every DD could cit it at max range and I expect pensacola levels of detection because of the high tripod masts

 

I also think they will suffer from engine incapacitation every salvo so you dont wanna get hit bay basicly anything

but I expect the french light cruises to be pretty fun with their high velocit 155mm guns

[Waroch]

 

About the Algerie, no discussion, since it managed to achieve a very good degree of protection (also against underwater threats) with decent speed and firepower, all while keeping with the treaty limits.

About the La Galissonière, I am not sure wheter they can claim a significant edge over their nearest competitors, the Italian Duca degli Abruzzi; after all, the latter kept to the 10'000 t limit (with a modest increase compared to their French opponents, all in all), their protection concept may be controversial (based on the "decapping plate" concept) but I think that at worst it would not have entailed a disadvantage, while if effective it might have given them an edge, their top speed was a bit lower, and they had an additional 152 mm barrel.

But given that your knowledge of the French cruisers is definitely superior to mine, maybe the La Galissonière have advantages that I am not aware of.

 

Sorry for the OT. 

 

Please note that I did not say "the best" cruiser ;) I said that it is considered by some people to be the best balance for a late treaty light cruiser.

It would be a bit vain to try to elect an absolute best, it depends for who and for what role. For the US Navy it would be a ship with maximum endurance, eventually at the cost of a bit of top speed. For the Regia Marina, that's the exact opposite: speed gets top priority and the range matters very little.

 

The important difference is that the Abruzzi is 10 000 tW standard (in Italian arithmetics...) whereas the La Galissonière is limited to 7600 tW. Cheaper construction, smaller complement (not something negligible when your navy has only limited resources of manpower), easier maintenance because its smaller size will make it compatible with more docks, and generally speaking it may be more maneuvrable which can be an advantage for some roles.

At that size it still packs a good punch with guns and torps, has sufficient protection to safely engage smaller warships, good enough range and mobility, excellent behaviour at sea, decent aircraft installation (though still perfectible). In short it doesn't lack any combat capacity, it's a sort of a minimum common denominator.

 

Some navies built only large cruisers, the "light" cruisers simply traded hitting power for volume of fire. Wether it was justified or not is an old debate, but I share the opinion that they did not have enough added value to justify their cost over more reasonable and polyvalent ships such as the Leander or La Galissonière.

Going bigger-better is not always the ideal path. I reckon it's sometimes better to simply design a system to be enough for the job, and keep a good quality/price ratio.

But hang on, didn't we already have this argument on the Capitani Romani some time ago? =D

 

 

 

 

lets look at some french cruisers (sry OT)

 

 The Duquesne-class

the Duquesne's maximum armor thickness is an AMAZING 30mm and it only goes 30kts 

the maim armaments consists of 4x2 203mm/50 Modèle 1924 guns which are pretty good (which they should be as you will have that exact same gun all the way up to tier 8)

I expect this ship to be at tier 5 tier 6 at best

 

next is the Suffren-class

they doubled the armor to about 60mm and increased the speed by 1kt (31kts) also carrying the 203mm/50 Modèle 1924 gun in 4 double mounts

I expect it to be at Tier 7 if they give it good enough Range 

 

know you get to the Algérie they doubled the armor belt again to 120mm now you can actualy feel kinda tanky it still carries the 203mm/50 Modèle 1924 gun 

in 4 double mounts and also still goes 31kts

I expect this ship to be tier 8 basicly a way better armored Hipper at the cost of 1kts speed and slightly worse guns

 

 

 

 

I'm not sure you really got what I meant.

There is more to the protection scheme of a warship than just an armour thickness on paper. Compartmentation is another important factor.

In game, a ship with numerous low-hp modules won't be that easy to destroy. The low hp modules may be saturated quickly and then start soaking enemy shells. Plus their armour scheme, the "blindage caisson", may be a great overpen generator.

I'm not saying they will be great or even enjoyable, but they do have enough potential if they are modeled the right way.

 

30 knots, yeah. That's the speed they usually maintained on service. Indefinitely. And on half power.

So if WG caps your Duquesne at 30kt, that pretty much means half your boilers are shut down. Like said above, they were excellent steamers thanks to their fine hull lines.

[Trainspite]

 

Duquesne would get absolutely murdered at tier 7 every DD could cit it at max range and I expect pensacola levels of detection because of the high tripod masts

 

I also think they will suffer from engine incapacitation every salvo so you dont wanna get hit bay basicly anything

but I expect the french light cruises to be pretty fun with their high velocit 155mm guns

 

I don't think she would get murdered at tier 7, but it does depend on the stats WG decide to give her, and I think it is a bit more likely they will use Duquesne or Tourville as a tier 6 premium, since one of Suffren's sisters has a tier 7 premium covered. I'm not entirely sure if the rangefinder on the tripod mast will count, but it should at least give Duquesne an excellent range. At tier 5 she would be a bit too overpowered I feel however. 

[Historynerd]

Please note that I did not say "the best" cruiser ;) I said that it is considered by some people to be the best balance for a late treaty light cruiser.

It would be a bit vain to try to elect an absolute best, it depends for who and for what role. For the US Navy it would be a ship with maximum endurance, eventually at the cost of a bit of top speed. For the Regia Marina, that's the exact opposite: speed gets top priority and the range matters very little.

 

The important difference is that the Abruzzi is 10 000 tW standard (in Italian arithmetics...) whereas the La Galissonière is limited to 7600 tW. Cheaper construction, smaller complement (not something negligible when your navy has only limited resources of manpower), easier maintenance because its smaller size will make it compatible with more docks, and generally speaking it may be more maneuvrable which can be an advantage for some roles.

At that size it still packs a good punch with guns and torps, has sufficient protection to safely engage smaller warships, good enough range and mobility, excellent behaviour at sea, decent aircraft installation (though still perfectible). In short it doesn't lack any combat capacity, it's a sort of a minimum common denominator.

 

Some navies built only large cruisers, the "light" cruisers simply traded hitting power for volume of fire. Wether it was justified or not is an old debate, but I share the opinion that they did not have enough added value to justify their cost over more reasonable and polyvalent ships such as the Leander or La Galissonière.

Going bigger-better is not always the ideal path. I reckon it's sometimes better to simply design a system to be enough for the job, and keep a good quality/price ratio.

But hang on, didn't we already have this argument on the Capitani Romani some time ago? =D

 

Well, you did say that it was quoted, among the others, as the most balanced treaty cruiser design, without the "some", if I'm allowed to point it out. 

 

Also, by the time the design for the Duca degli Abruzzi the priority of speed had fallen somewhat, I think. They are kind of the proof of that, trading knots of speed for a more consistent and more logical main armament, and a thoroughly decent degree of protection.

 

But you're right, I realize now that I had somewhat confused the standard and normal displacement for the La Galissonière... 

Still, while you're probably right about the cheaper construction and maintenance, for the maneuverability there might be other factors besides the size. As for docks, the difference of some 8 meters doesn't seem that relevant to me.

 

One thing you wrote seems significant to me. The ability to "safely engage smaller warships".

Does this mean that they were not meant to primarily fight other cruisers? Of course, it doesn't mean that they were incapable of doing so, but it seems relevant to me. Especially considering that, wishing it or not, given that several navies built large 152-mm cruisers, and therefore somewhat increasing the likelihood of an encounter with ships of the same class. It might be a provocative question, but would their combar capacity proven adequate to this task in that case? Would in the long run their capabilities make them obsolescent earlier than their bigger counterparts, perhaps, in the face of the relative decline of the 203 mm cruiser in favour of 152 mm ones?

 

Moreover, it is somewhat implied in your reasoning that ships such as the Abruzzi were too costly for their own good.

Do we know that? After all, an Italian historian did say that, considering the needs of the Regia Marina, the Italian shipping industry was excessive, after the acquisition of what would become the CRDA complex, following World War I. The issue was not one of facilities, but on availability of resources and on priorities to new buildings. Had they chosen to, I have little reason not to believe that more units of the same class could have been built; in practice, the rebuilding of the four old dreadnoughts between 1933 and 1940, together with the building of the four new Littorio-class, plus the great increase of the submarines, prevented such a thing. But again, had resources been redirected towards more Abruzzi, do we have reason to believe they couldn't have been launched and completed?

 

Also, I want to observe that your reasoning may be somewhat off. You are very much right when you say that bigger is not necessarily better, nor that a bigger ships has automatically better survivability over a smaller one (especially in the light of the fact that shellfire turned out to be a lesser threat to cruisers, compared to airborne and underwater threats, but it's easy to state so with hindsight). However, if we talk resources, I don't think that cheaper ships would allow for an economy in the absolute, it would merely entail a readjustement of said resources, financial and industrial, to different goals. 

 

My reasoning above leads me to a consideration, which I believe points to the real discrepancy at the bottom of all of this. We may be comparing apples to orange.

After all, navies such as the British and the French ones had imperial requirements that led them to value cheapness and numbers over single ship qualities. In that case, it's clear that "polyvalent" ships (although I don't quite like this term, since it kind of implies that the Italian ships were single-mission ones, while they quite didn't, as their minelaying activity alone might prove) were the better answer.

The Regia Marina, despite its late oceanic dreams (which, had they been given more time, might have spawned a smaller, longer-ranged ship after all, as the Ciano-class might have turned out to be), didn't have these concerns. The nature of the Mediterranean theater emphasized ship fighting qualities over issues such as range and cost. If your aim is to establish superiority in a determined area of operations closer to home ports, and there is little chance that power projection with major surface forces could be achieved in the near future, is it more logical to invest in more ships, or better ones? 

However, there might be an ironic twist in this, since given that the early Condottieri proved too fragile and were expended pretty easily, and the Abruzzi were somewhat spared, the Italians too relied very much on their middle-sized cruisers (the Montecuccoli- and D'Aosta- classes) for first line roles which saw significant fighting.

 

Sorry for the lenghty reply. We might be turning into the same reasoning and questions all over again, but it's just because I find it intriguing and rewarding to discuss these things with you. Your points of view give me new perspectives to look at what I already now, and so I am pushed to try and reply in kind, hopefully with some meager success. 

 

Oh, and you other guys? You can tell us to take our exchange out of here, before we derail this topic like sirs. 

 

 

[Anthoniusii]

The British Cruisers line is a joke.

Atleast 3 heavy cruisers classes are missing, downgreading the line to the soviet one that actuallyy HAD NO CRUISERS!

The reasons in this act are mainly three!

They want to actually hummiluate the British ship tradition and promote the Russian nationalism

They inteand to add a second line of Cruisers in the future but only when every one will get sick with the unfair tier placement and matchmaking  of th ecurent one.

They inteand to pass the British heavy cruisers to those that will find the light ones as worthless as premium ships.

If that last option is true then everyone that will buy those premiums instead of demanding a fair British cruiser line , will sign the total unfairness over all players!

The British ships from tier 5 to tier 7 must downgrade a tier each one and between them atleast two classes with 8 inch guns must be added.

Its UNFAIR to have a JPN ship with 8 inch guns but no british one!

Where ARE :

Exeter?

County class

London Class

Norfolk Class

York Class

[piritskenyer]

The British Cruisers line is a joke.

Atleast 3 heavy cruisers classes are missing, downgreading the line to the soviet one that actuallyy HAD NO CRUISERS!

The reasons in this act are mainly three!

They want to actually hummiluate the British ship tradition and promote the Russian nationalism

They inteand to add a second line of Cruisers in the future but only when every one will get sick with the unfair tier placement and matchmaking  of th ecurent one.

They inteand to pass the British heavy cruisers to those that will find the light ones as worthless as premium ships.

If that last option is true then everyone that will buy those premiums instead of demanding a fair British cruiser line , will sign the total unfairness over all players!

 

 

Which part of 

 

"A heavy cruiser branch will be introduced at a later date"

 

Is so [edited] uncomprehensible?

[Anthoniusii]

 

Which part of 

 

"A heavy cruiser branch will be introduced at a later date"

 

Is so [edited] uncomprehensible?

 

Are you an oracle?

A prophet maybe?

Can you answer the simpliest of the questions?

WHY the initial branch was NOT a mix like the previus ones and later would brake in to two branches like all the rest ones in the future??

Defending WG only to show yourself as a "good and faithfull guy" does not help the game to involve!

[Idahou]

Thats not defending WG, he just presented fact. WG decided to introduce light cruisers first probably because we already heave a [edited] of heavy ships (BB). In other words, they let marketing department to decide and thats also why they struggle with stats of RN CL.

So chill a little bit and dont rage, its not in their interest to "humiliate RN" because they need "sell" that ships to players.

WG can be unqualified and thicheaded but they are not suicide squad for purpose

[VC381]

Because having a line that jumps up in gun caliber (and hence playstyle) then comes back down a few tiers later is horrible from a consistency point of view. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the tiering of the ships. The Royal Navy lost interest in 8" gun cruisers so at best that would be a partial second line similar to what the IJN DDs are now getting, which I take as evidence this will happen to more lines in future. Besides, the RN "heavy" cruisers have lackluster combat stats because their design prioritised things like sailing range and seakeeping which don't mean squat in game. I would play them for historical reasons but I doubt they would be great ships at the tiers they will end up (6 to 7).

 

And if you actually read the thread instead of posting a rage response you would have already seen the arguments I just summarised. Nothing unreasonable from WG on this count.

[Anthoniusii]

Because having a line that jumps up in gun caliber (and hence playstyle) then comes back down a few tiers later is horrible from a consistency point of view. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the tiering of the ships. The Royal Navy lost interest in 8" gun cruisers so at best that would be a partial second line similar to what the IJN DDs are now getting, which I take as evidence this will happen to more lines in future. Besides, the RN "heavy" cruisers have lackluster combat stats because their design prioritised things like sailing range and seakeeping which don't mean squat in game. I would play them for historical reasons but I doubt they would be great ships at the tiers they will end up (6 to 7).

 

And if you actually read the thread instead of posting a rage response you would have already seen the arguments I just summarised. Nothing unreasonable from WG on this count.

 

Let me guess...Because German Cruisers jumb from 150mm to 152mm to 203 mm guns you don't play with them because they confuse you with their play style.

Also you do not wish to play US cruisers because Cleveland has 152 mm guns and the next ones have 203 mm guns!

If i am right you are confused with JPN cruisers and espesialy with Mogami because it changes its 150mm guns with 203mm ones.

Judging by your "WG defence line of yours" you do not play cruisers at all because their lines confuse your play style with the variety of gun calibers!

GREAT ARGUMENT.

Congratulations.

[VC381]

IJN, USN and German all go up and stay there. My point is that changing up and down is not as smooth as having a whole line with the same concept. I'm only saying it's nice from a game design point of view, and is actually in keeping with RN doctrine that favored light cruisers. I'm not screaming and crying it makes cruisers unplayable (because I'm not you, and BTW cruisers are my main class). But I see from your extreme reaction there is no point trying to reason with you further.

[piritskenyer]

 

Let me guess...Because German Cruisers jumb from 150mm to 152mm to 203 mm guns you don't play with them because they confuse you with their play style.

Also you do not wish to play US cruisers because Cleveland has 152 mm guns and the next ones have 203 mm guns!

If i am right you are confused with JPN cruisers and espesialy with Mogami because it changes its 150mm guns with 203mm ones.

Judging by your "WG defence line of yours" you do not play cruisers at all because their lines confuse your play style with the variety of gun calibers!

GREAT ARGUMENT.

Congratulations.

 

Point it out to me, where is there a 152mm cruiser in the German tree? 

 

On a serious note: The british haven't put much emphasys on heavy cruisers in the years leading up to the war, meaning they only have some treaty cruiser classes and concepts. If you look at the line that is about to be introduced, the two topmost ships are semi-fictional already. A heavy cruiser branch will come and will be built up to TX, but it will be wayyyy more fictional than the T9 and TX that are to be currently implemented, and thus require a lot more research and development (because even though they never left the drawing board - if they even got there in the first place - they need to be realistic in arrangement).

Neptune and Minotaur were both in a pretty advanced phase of design when they were scrapped, hence the decision to use them as top tier CL's.

 

RN CA's will come, just not right now. They are not left out, but there is no reason to include them on T5/6-8 if only to switch back to CL's on T9 and TX.

 

 

EDIT: Also advise you calm the fnck down, because you are seriously annoying.

[Admiral_H_Nelson]

IJN, USN and German all go up and stay there. My point is that changing up and down is not as smooth as having a whole line with the same concept. I'm only saying it's nice from a game design point of view, and is actually in keeping with RN doctrine that favored light cruisers. I'm not screaming and crying it makes cruisers unplayable (because I'm not you, and BTW cruisers are my main class). But I see from your extreme reaction there is no point trying to reason with you further.

 

I agree with your overall argument. but PEDANT ALERT

 

Point of information:

After 203mm in T5, T6 and T7 on the IJN line, the stock T8 Mogami is delivered with 155mm guns.

 

Sorry!

[VC381]

 

I agree with your overall argument. but PEDANT ALERT

 

Point of information:

After 203mm in T5, T6 and T7 on the IJN line, the stock T8 Mogami is delivered with 155mm guns.

 

Sorry!

 

Shh, I know it's currently my main barbecue co-ordinator.

 

I also think Mogami might eventually get kicked out into a separate light and/or aviation cruiser line and replaced by Takao in the "main" line. Something like Oyodo > Mogami (upgrade guns then new C hull with flight deck) > Tone.

[byronicasian]

 

Let me guess...Because German Cruisers jumb from 150mm to 152mm to 203 mm guns you don't play with them because they confuse you with their play style.

Also you do not wish to play US cruisers because Cleveland has 152 mm guns and the next ones have 203 mm guns!

If i am right you are confused with JPN cruisers and espesialy with Mogami because it changes its 150mm guns with 203mm ones.

Judging by your "WG defence line of yours" you do not play cruisers at all because their lines confuse your play style with the variety of gun calibers!

GREAT ARGUMENT.

Congratulations.

 

Considering they're considering a CL/CA split sometime in the future, it would make far more sense to introduce non-mixed lines this point on. That, and the whole RN having far more CL designs. 

 

tl;dr - calm dawn

[Capra76]

 

Which part of 

 

"A heavy cruiser branch will be introduced at a later date"

 

Is so fncking uncomprehensible?

 

I have to question whether a RN CA line is possible, there just weren't enough of them built to justify it.

 

The York and County classes would fit in at T7/8 but the only other heavy class was the 7.5" gun Hawkins, and that's just an up-gunned 1910 Town class (i.e. the T2 Weymouth).  Apart from those the only other ships that mounted anything other than 6" guns were some of the late amoured cruisers, but those were basically 19th century ships that were closer to some of the pre-dreadnought battleships than anything else and would be incredibly difficult to implement in the game.

 

Could you really create a line out of 3 ships?  Are there even paper designs around for T9/10?  

[GhostRiderMax123]

 

I have to question whether a RN CA line is possible, there just weren't enough of them built to justify it.

 

The York and County classes would fit in at T7/8 but the only other heavy class was the 7.5" gun Hawkins, and that's just an up-gunned 1910 Town class (i.e. the T2 Weymouth).  Apart from those the only other ships that mounted anything other than 6" guns were some of the late amoured cruisers, but those were basically 19th century ships that were closer to some of the pre-dreadnought battleships than anything else and would be incredibly difficult to implement in the game.

 

Could you really create a line out of 3 ships?  Are there even paper designs around for T9/10?  

 

there are quite a few designs for heavy cruisers but it would really depend on how many paper ships WG would want in the tree.

[VC381]

 

I have to question whether a RN CA line is possible, there just weren't enough of them built to justify it.

 

The York and County classes would fit in at T7/8 but the only other heavy class was the 7.5" gun Hawkins, and that's just an up-gunned 1910 Town class (i.e. the T2 Weymouth).  Apart from those the only other ships that mounted anything other than 6" guns were some of the late amoured cruisers, but those were basically 19th century ships that were closer to some of the pre-dreadnought battleships than anything else and would be incredibly difficult to implement in the game.

 

Could you really create a line out of 3 ships?  Are there even paper designs around for T9/10?  

 

Partial line like IJN DDs

 

5 - Hawkins (it is a late WWI design, contemporary to Emerald, Omaha and Furutaka, it would be fine there)

6 - York

7 - Kent (early fit if required for balance)

8 - Norfolk (late fit, or HMS London refit)

 

And no projects necessary although Surrey could fill T8 instead.

[Historynerd]

 

I have to question whether a RN CA line is possible, there just weren't enough of them built to justify it.

 

The York and County classes would fit in at T7/8 but the only other heavy class was the 7.5" gun Hawkins, and that's just an up-gunned 1910 Town class (i.e. the T2 Weymouth).  Apart from those the only other ships that mounted anything other than 6" guns were some of the late amoured cruisers, but those were basically 19th century ships that were closer to some of the pre-dreadnought battleships than anything else and would be incredibly difficult to implement in the game.

 

Could you really create a line out of 3 ships?  Are there even paper designs around for T9/10?  

 

 

Partial line like IJN DDs

 

5 - Hawkins (it is a late WWI design, contemporary to Emerald, Omaha and Furutaka, it would be fine there)

6 - York

7 - Kent (early fit if required for balance)

8 - Norfolk (late fit, or HMS London refit)

 

And no projects necessary although Surrey could fill T8 instead.

 

I doubt that the late Counties can fit Tier 8. The Surrey in my opinion is a better option.

Trainspite knows designs for heavy cruisers that ought to be fit for Tier 9 and 10

[anonym_MfZ6T7iwWpUC]

The British Cruisers line is a joke.

Atleast 3 heavy cruisers classes are missing, downgreading the line to the soviet one that actuallyy HAD NO CRUISERS!

The reasons in this act are mainly three!

They want to actually hummiluate the British ship tradition and promote the Russian nationalism

They inteand to add a second line of Cruisers in the future but only when every one will get sick with the unfair tier placement and matchmaking  of th ecurent one.

They inteand to pass the British heavy cruisers to those that will find the light ones as worthless as premium ships.

If that last option is true then everyone that will buy those premiums instead of demanding a fair British cruiser line , will sign the total unfairness over all players!

The British ships from tier 5 to tier 7 must downgrade a tier each one and between them atleast two classes with 8 inch guns must be added.

Its UNFAIR to have a JPN ship with 8 inch guns but no british one!

Where ARE :

Exeter?

County class

London Class

Norfolk Class

York Class

 

Its common knowledge that the new RN tree is a light cruiser tree, its been known for a while. Its also pretty clear that it wont be in the new update, as they are re-working the whole line.

 

Oh, and try and keep your schoolboy whining about Russian bias and hating the British to yourself. It may come as a shock to you, but we are not the 'Be-all-and-end-all' to the whole world. A Russian company, developing some Russian ships before any British ships is not exactly a shock, is it.

[Capra76]

I doubt that the late Counties can fit Tier 8. The Surrey in my opinion is a better option.

Trainspite knows designs for heavy cruisers that ought to be fit for Tier 9 and 10

 

I doubt it really matters whether the Counties go at 7 or 8, Surrey is a county variant anyway, so whether you call the T8 ship Surrey and use those stats or Kent and sprinkle some fairy dust on its armour it amounts to much the same thing.

 

I couldn't find Trainspite's tech tree proposal thread at first but I have now, and he has the same basic problem I mentioned, for a full line you have 3 real ships, 4 paper ones and 3 more that would be equally at home in the CL line.

 

Maybe follow the IJN DD split model and start at T5 (as I've just noticed VC381 suggests). 

 

[GhostRiderMax123]

 

Its common knowledge that the new RN tree is a light cruiser tree, its been known for a while. Its also pretty clear that it wont be in the new update, as they are re-working the whole line.

 

Oh, and try and keep your schoolboy whining about Russian bias and hating the British to yourself. It may come as a shock to you, but we are not the 'Be-all-and-end-all' to the whole world. A Russian company, developing some Russian ships before any British ships is not exactly a shock, is it.

 

indeed it could always be worse you know we could have Gaijin entertainment developing the game. As it is WG always tend to do a good job, The RN will come we just have to wait a bit longer for it.

[Trainspite]

The British Cruisers line is a joke.

Atleast 3 heavy cruisers classes are missing, downgreading the line to the soviet one that actuallyy HAD NO CRUISERS!

The reasons in this act are mainly three!

They want to actually hummiluate the British ship tradition and promote the Russian nationalism

They inteand to add a second line of Cruisers in the future but only when every one will get sick with the unfair tier placement and matchmaking  of th ecurent one.

They inteand to pass the British heavy cruisers to those that will find the light ones as worthless as premium ships.

If that last option is true then everyone that will buy those premiums instead of demanding a fair British cruiser line , will sign the total unfairness over all players!

The British ships from tier 5 to tier 7 must downgrade a tier each one and between them atleast two classes with 8 inch guns must be added.

Its UNFAIR to have a JPN ship with 8 inch guns but no british one!

Where ARE :

Exeter?

County class

London Class

Norfolk Class

York Class

 

This might have been explained earlier, but I am going to take a stab at it anyway.

Alright, first off, the soviets did have cruisers.

 

The design ships in the line are;

- Orlan (Projekt 37) 

- Budyonny (Projekt 94) 

- Shchors (Projekt 28)

- Dimitri Donskoi (1 of the designs for Projekt 65)

- Moskva (Projekt 66)

The rest are real. 

 

Light Cruisers (6"), and Heavy Cruisers (8") will be split into different lines, for nations that can achieve it. That basically means the Royal Navy can push out at least 2 Light Cruiser lines, and the Americans can manage one from tier 6 to 10. Japan from tier 2 to 8, but most other nations can't really manage it, and therefore have a mixed line where light cruisers switch over to heavy cruisers. Example, a French cruiser line would probably switch from the 6" armed La Galissoniere at tier 6 to the 8" armed Suffren at tier 7. Or the Italian line doing the same from Abruzzi to Trento. 

 

However, somehow Anthoniusii is thinking that because the Royal Navy predominantly focused on 6" armed Light cruisers, WG representing this fact is a sign that they want to make the British weaker. In this, he is severely mistaken. The British will get a Heavy Cruiser line, but the Royal Navy focused on, and probably rightly so, the smaller, sometimes cheaper, and just as effective 6"/5.25" armed Light Cruisers.  If the RN had built quite a few more Heavy Cruisers then sure, the first line could be expected to be a Heavy Cruiser line, but the RN built a lot more Light cruisers, hence Light cruisers are coming first.  

 

The Light Cruisers were very effective ships. Read about their war exploits. Sheffield, Belfast, Jamaica etc. They are not particularly inferior to the County Class and 8" armed ships of other navies.

 

As for a Heavy Cruiser line, it is fairly easy to plan out. Tiers 2 to 5 is the designs that evolved from the Town class into Hawkins, so;

 

II- Weymouth - Probably a bit more heavy than other tier 2 candidates like Topaze.

III - Birmingham - Weymouth with an extra gun basically. 

IV - Atlantic Cruiser Design B3 - I gave it the name 'Belleisle' - 7'400t, a 8x 7.5", 5 to a broadside. Probably the 7.5" you would find on Minotaur. 

V - Hawkins (Developed from the Atlantic Cruiser, which in turn was developed from the Town class)

VI - York 

VII - Kent

VIII - Surrey, Design Y, (9,900t, 8x 8", 30.25kn, 5.75" Thickest)

IX -  'Benbow' January 1940 Design, (15,500t, 9x 8", 33kn, 6" Thickest armour)

X - 'Hawke' February 1940 Design, (21,500t, 12x 8", 33.5kn, 7" Belt)

 

Another Branch can lead off Kent to form a sub branch.

VII - Norfolk

VIII - June 1939 Design E (10,222t, 8x 8", 32kn, 5" Belt)

IX - 'Albemarle' March 1941 Design iii (16,200t, 9x 8", 32.25kn, 4.5" Belt)

X - 'Drake' February 1940 Design (21,500t, 9x 9.2", 33.5kn, 7" Belt)

 

Premiums would be London and another one of the counties at tier 7 and Exeter at 5 or 6.

[Capra76]

 

As for a Heavy Cruiser line, it is fairly easy to plan out. Tiers 2 to 5 is the designs that evolved from the Town class into Hawkins, so;

 

II- Weymouth - Probably a bit more heavy than other tier 2 candidates like Topaze.

III - Birmingham - Weymouth with an extra gun basically. 

IV - Atlantic Cruiser Design B3 - I gave it the name 'Belleisle' - 7'400t, a 8x 7.5", 5 to a broadside. Probably the 7.5" you would find on Minotaur. 

V - Hawkins (Developed from the Atlantic Cruiser, which in turn was developed from the Town class)

VI - York 

VII - Kent

VIII - Surrey, Design Y, (9,900t, 8x 8", 30.25kn, 5.75" Thickest)

IX -  'Benbow' January 1940 Design, (15,500t, 9x 8", 33kn, 6" Thickest armour)

X - 'Hawke' February 1940 Design, (21,500t, 12x 8", 33.5kn, 7" Belt)

 

But is a line that consists of 4 paper ships and 3 more that would be equally at home in the CL line really worth while.