The French Cruiser's Thing

[Affeks]

maybe WG should not add minor nations who did nothing in ww2 like france maybe add some royal navy BB or DD

 

I would normally agree, but this comment is neither relevant or well thought out considering we already have 2 russian lines and the game has just as many ww1 ships.

 

edit: also France was very much a big player in the Naval arms race during midwar times, and that makes them very relevant

[Gnirf]

 

Suffren and Algerie easily fit at tiers 8 and 9 respectively. Tier 10 would have to be a paper design (i'm not sure what French ones existed but I'm sure there's one there. Probably akin to a super Myoko or Zao in armament layout.) The tiers before that are filled mostly with light cruisers, with options for premium cruisers at tiers 4/5 and 7/8. I'll post a potential tech tree in a little bit to demonstrate this point. Personally though, I feel that French Cruisers and DD's are not only much more needed, but much more viable than BB's. With current BB's there's a gap in real ships at tiers 5, 7 and 9 and 10. (Jean Bart/Courbet at tier 4, Strasbourg at tier 6 and Richelieu at tier 8.) They really didn't build very many of them. We also can't forget the CV Bearn, which I will assume be a premium at tier 6 or 7. Can't make a line of CV's as Bearn was the only one (that wasn't bought from someone else, and even then there were no other fleet CV's, just CVL's.)

 

As the Graf Spee has made it to the cruiser line, you can always take the French 17500 T Project with 8-305 at T10. 35 kts armour against 8 -inch guns, 2x4 in front. They were designed to catch Italian Trento.

17500 T were half the BB allowance according to Washington Naval Treaty and Italy and France had a clause that they have the right to use their 5x35000=175000 t of Battleships as they saw fit provided they conformed to Treaty limits. They did not saw the 35000 T ship as US, IJN and RN were bound to as the perfect size. Therefor France toyed with using their 2x35000 T ships they (and Italy) have right to build before the other navies in 4x 17500 T "Supercruisers".

The 2x4 layout Fwd was good in a stern chase of the fleeing Italian Trento. As her range would be far greater than Italian Dreadnoughts about 40 vs 24 km they could have scouted these also without serious risk.

She would have been like a modern Invincible BC of 1907.

 

 

The Deutschland class finally made French to abandon these ideas and they went for Dunkerque instead. (See Jordan/Dumas French battleships 1922-56 for the interwar period of French designs).

 

 

 

 

[Gnirf]

So I have a preliminary tech tree for French Cruisers that I made up quickly, I also left room for DD's, BB's and their couple of CV's later.

Main issue is I'm missing designs for tiers 1 and 4, as no French ships were built that fit either of these as far as I can find out, though I'm sure a design for both exists somewhere.

 

 

Well T4 can be the scout project during WW1 of 10 light cruisers that was meant to be ordered but cancelled.

 

See John Jordan Warship 1997/98 p77-94 "The origins of the French 8000-Tonne cruiser of 1922"

See page 81 for design table on French light cruiser projects

Lamotte-Piquet 1914 4500 T 8-138.6,(8x1), 4-17.7TT 29 KTS, but I think she is more suited at T3, too weak with only 28 mm armour for T4.

Modified design July 1915 5026 T small adjustments Little longer but 29.5 kts speed also too weak

 

 

Perhaps Project 171 sept 1919.

5270 T Length/Beam 145X14 m

54000 shp =30 kts

4x2 138.6 mm

4x3 TT 550 mm

Armour 30mm Turrets /CT 20mm  Magazines. I Think she seems alright.

[Deamon93]

 

As the Graf Spee has made it to the cruiser line, you can always take the French 17500 T Project with 8-305 at T10. 35 kts armour against 8 -inch guns, 2x4 in front. They were designed to catch Italian Trento.

17500 T were half the BB allowance according to Washington Naval Treaty and Italy and France had a clause that they have the right to use their 5x35000=175000 t of Battleships as they saw fit provided they conformed to Treaty limits. They did not saw the 35000 T ship as US, IJN and RN were bound to as the perfect size. Therefor France toyed with using their 2x35000 T ships they (and Italy) have right to build before the other navies in 4x 17500 T "Supercruisers".

The 2x4 layout Fwd was good in a stern chase of the fleeing Italian Trento. As her range would be far greater than Italian Dreadnoughts about 40 vs 24 km they could have scouted these also without serious risk.

She would have been like a modern Invincible BC of 1907.

 

 

The Deutschland class finally made French to abandon these ideas and they went for Dunkerque instead. (See Jordan/Dumas French battleships 1922-56 for the interwar period of French designs).

 

 

 

 

 

Graf Spee is a cruiser though, only the Brits called them pocket BBs(like they called Glorious&co large CLs). Anyway the tonnage seem a bit on the optimistic side considering armament, speed and protection.

 

 

Well T4 can be the scout project during WW1 of 10 light cruisers that was meant to be ordered but cancelled.

 

See John Jordan Warship 1997/98 p77-94 "The origins of the French 8000-Tonne cruiser of 1922"

See page 81 for design table on French light cruiser projects

Lamotte-Piquet 1914 4500 T 8-138.6,(8x1), 4-17.7TT 29 KTS, but I think she is more suited at T3, too weak with only 28 mm armour for T4.

Modified design July 1915 5026 T small adjustments Little longer but 29.5 kts speed also too weak

 

 

Perhaps Project 171 sept 1919.

5270 T Length/Beam 145X14 m

54000 shp =30 kts

4x2 138.6 mm

4x3 TT 550 mm

Armour 30mm Turrets /CT 20mm  Magazines. I Think she seems alright.

 

Most French cruisers have no protection to speak of so 28 mm of belt is still more than a number of other designs they built during the interwar period

[Gnirf]

Optimistic tonnage, well it depends on other factors, seaworthiness, Hull dimensions/heigth, range, AA, remember that with 2x4 in front you might discard armour on lots of hull. Invincible were around the 17500 mark.

If I look at the various ships that France build as cruisers they seemed to be rather competent in weight estimations for f.e.the treaty cruisers in terms of planning machinery, armour, AA etc and the various tradeoffs - Twin vs single mounting etc on AA etc. F.e. Tourville the first French heavy cruiser were designed to go as fast as the Italian Trento (reports) and therefor they skewed armour and only Went for subdivision and reinforced bulkheds, unit machinery etc against a torp hit f.e..

 

The Treaty rules were bend a lot to give a sort of adherence and France I would say bended them least.

 

[EsaTuunanen]

The idea of AP shells with some fire chance intrigued me, so I started digging.

After a little hop on navweaps.com and some googling about different types of explosives,( which may or may not have landed me on a government watchlist for suspicious bahavior  ), I did find that as far as 203mm guns go, French AP shells had an 8kg bursting charge (picric acid) compared to the USN's 2.3kg of explosive D bursting charge on their super heavy shell.

 

Now, I know that there are some major difference between the explosive used, but I somehow doubt that explosive D is four times more powerful than picric acid, so we're looking at a much bigger boom upon impact. In fact, almost as much as an HE shell. I having no idea exacty how they managed that, but it's more than reasonable to consider that it happened at the expense of penetration.

Explosive D/Dunnite aka ammonium picrate (derivate of picrid acid sacrificing some stability for more power) has very similar density so that would be nearing 3½ liters of more volume for explosive in French shells.

That would definitely leave literal and physical dent to shell wall thickness and decrease ability of shell to resist shattering.

Maybe they used some big wine bottle as size model for hollow for explosive...

 

And when looking AP vs HE shell and explosive filler weights looks like there might not have been that much difference in construction between them.

Basically same bursting charge weight doesn't leave much room for bigger differences when total shell weights are also so similar.

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNFR_8-50_m1924.php

[mtm78]

 

I would normally agree, but this comment is neither relevant or well thought out considering we already have 2 russian lines and the game has just as many ww1 ships.

 

edit: also France was very much a big player in the Naval arms race during midwar times, and that makes them very relevant

 

If Vichy France's navy was ' insignificant ' Germany wouldn't have tired to seize them at Toulon me thinks... and the British wouldn't have tried to sink them either... 

 

I would dare to say that in a ' what if ' scenario. their ships would be interesting performers.. and gladly as this is a game, we will get to do try that out ( well kinda.. it's not like a real simulator but hey ).

[Affeks]

 

If Vichy France's navy was ' insignificant ' Germany wouldn't have tired to seize them at Toulon me thinks... and the British wouldn't have tried to sink them either... 

 

I would dare to say that in a ' what if ' scenario. their ships would be interesting performers.. and gladly as this is a game, we will get to do try that out ( well kinda.. it's not like a real simulator but hey ).

Yup, tbh I just want interesting ships in the game and french has tons of those. Personally if the ship is in the game thats more than enough for me. 

[HotshotJimmy]

As someone that only really plays Brit kit I was worried where you were going with the topic BUT I do agree with most if not all your points. The rapid reload consumable would be a nice touch to them. I know squat about French kit but you are right about needing some anti BB stuff. Another line similar to the RN is definately not needed. Maybe the possibility of the consumable lasting maybe 5-10 seconds?

[Namolis]

Personally, I believe it is very important that they do not have a "thing", or at least not overtly so. Some new or unusual consumable could be intersting, but it should not be so pwerful that it defines the whole line.

 

The RN cruisers were defined by their gimmick, and turned out to be very difficult to balance and in the end quite repetetive to play - their thing was so strong in the right circumstances that every other aspect of them were nerfed into the ground to compensate.

 

My take is this: Lesta should do what they did in the beginning! Model the ships using real life data/design parameters as far as possible, then stick to their internal "rules" based on that design on the aspects that are unique to the game:

- Armor is modelled as is.

- Penetration/guns ballistics are modelled extremely realistically (No, really. The game uses a lookup table of fall angels, speeds etc. that have been computed through implementing a full and, as far as possible, realistic physical ballistic simulation. For gameplay, the game then speeds the shells up by a fixed amount and only use the precomputed realistic trajectory for the shells in their terminal phase - hence the weird bends they do in the start and finish of their flight - but the relative flight times and ballistic numbers are probably as real as any game out there.)

- Damage based on bursting charges and weight.

- Gun ranges based on range finder equipment height above water.

- Detection is based on the height of the ship.

- AA power should be consistent with known loadout given the performance of those AA guns relative to those already in the game (some relevant guns are already in the game).

-TDS computed by the same metrics as the others (there is supposedly some set criteria).

++ (there are a bunch of others)

 

Then see where they end up. This will likely require some ships to be buffed/nerfed in some capacity to keep them in line powerwise, but as the line progresses from start to finish, its nuances and preferred playstyles will likely vary greatly. BUT: it will wary based on a gamewise approximation of what the original designers of those ships wanted to accomplish. This may be an arcade game, but we get to at least pretend that we are captains, right*?

 

Hard to play a line with so many changing styles? Probably, but then again so were the British, who got their gimmck settled upon beforehand and then had their foot cut to fit the shoe.

 

*Which is why they need to drop the stupid "adrenaline rush" skill. All WWII ships had one design characteristic that was universally true across the board: they did not get better when blown to pieces.

[mtm78]

Nah, incendiary AP is the best suggestion I've heard on this forum in ... well, ever I guess  

 

Burn the BB's back to port... will be fun if you can citadel others cruisers AND also burn them at the same time...

 

[dasCKD]

As someone that only really plays Brit kit I was worried where you were going with the topic

 

It's justification for my concepts. I needed to first outline how unconventional ships have brought new life to the game (British cruisers) and why it might be necessary for a line like the French cruisers which I originally thought would work well as a light cruiser line. Then I needed to justify why I thought that having an anti-battleship cruiser was something that should be considered in the current game climate seeing as how anti-battleship destroyers have lost much of their effectiveness as of late.

The rapid reload consumable would be a nice touch to them. I know squat about French kit but you are right about needing some anti BB stuff. Another line similar to the RN is definitely not needed.

 

I don't know much about French cruisers either, or any ship really. Most of my knowledge revolves around operating them in game. The rapid reload idea is probably not that suited for an anti-battleship role considering that the French cruisers are mostly light cruisers, but I nevertheless think that it would bring variety to the French ships.

Maybe the possibility of the consumable lasting maybe 5-10 seconds?

 

Well, the numbers I gave were entirely conceptual. The actual longevity values would probably be best determined through supertesting.

[dasCKD]

Nah, incendiary AP is the best suggestion I've heard on this forum in ... well, ever I guess  

 

Burn the BB's back to port... will be fun if you can citadel others cruisers AND also burn them at the same time...

 

A single unified ammunition type that both citadels you and sets fires would be hilarious. Not sure how you could possibly balance something like that though.

[Exocet6951]

Nah, incendiary AP is the best suggestion I've heard on this forum in ... well, ever I guess  

 

Burn the BB's back to port... will be fun if you can citadel others cruisers AND also burn them at the same time...

 

 

 

A single unified ammunition type that both citadels you and sets fires would be hilarious. Not sure how you could possibly balance something like that though.

 

Just to clarify, in my mind it would still be two distinct types of shells.

A high damage AP with some HE damage if the shell doesn't penetrate with overall reduced fire chance, and an "expode on contact" classic HE.

 

The idea being that you wouldn't set fires if you penetrate/overpenetrate since the shell would act like a regular AP(with high damage), but you would be punished in the form of lower HE damage and fire chance with that AP shell if you played like a scrub and just spammed that AP at everything and everyone without giving it a single thought.

That gives other CAs and even DDs a fighting chance, otherwise fires + high damage + broken modules + citpen chance? Ugh no, that's obscene.

 

 

[dasCKD]

The idea being that you wouldn't set fires if you penetrate/overpenetrate since the shell would act like a regular AP(with high damage), but you would be punished in the form of lower HE damage and fire chance with that AP shell if you played like a scrub and just spammed that AP at everything and everyone without giving it a single thought.

 

So the shell would act like an AP shell in its penetration roll with regards to angle and velocity, and if it fails its roll then it switches to an HE caliber for armor compare?

[Exocet6951]

 

So the shell would act like an AP shell in its penetration roll with regards to angle and velocity, and if it fails its roll then it switches to an HE caliber for armor compare?

 

Exactly.

 

I honestly can't tell you if that would work out and if it would be balanced, but I feel that it's a much better choice than to have a single shell type that deals AP damage and HE damage simultaneously, for DDs' and CA/CLs' sake.

[mtm78]

I did not mean full HE fire chance on penetrations, but some low chance of fires due to the very large blast charge would still fit with reality? The comment about citadeling a cruiser and starting a fire with the same shell was a bit tongue in cheek ( in response to a certain well known "HE + FIRES + SMOKE kills this game, nerf it nerf it now and play Kirov with 15% win rate" person ). 

 

[Exocet6951]

I did not mean full HE fire chance on penetrations, but some low chance of fires due to the very large blast charge would still fit with reality? The comment about citadeling a cruiser and starting a fire with the same shell was a bit tongue in cheek ( in response to a certain well known "HE + FIRES + SMOKE kills this game, nerf it nerf it now and play Kirov with 15% win rate" person ). 

 

 

That sort of feels like something that needs to be worked out in testing, rather than theory.

 

We'll just see what glorious thing WG comes up with.

i'm predicting so much turmoil that it'll make the RN CL branch's release look uneventful 

[dasCKD]

i'm predicting so much turmoil that it'll make the RN CL branch's release look uneventful 

 

Well, that would probably at least make things interesting and fun for us. Besides, whatever they come up with couldn't possibly be worse than RDF.

 ...right?

 

[Waroch]

 

I don't know much about French cruisers either, or any ship really. Most of my knowledge revolves around operating them in game. The rapid reload idea is probably not that suited for an anti-battleship role considering that the French cruisers are mostly light cruisers, but I nevertheless think that it would bring variety to the French ships.

 

 

I don't know where you got that idea but it's quite incorrect. Among the big 5 nations of the WNT, France is arguably the most coherent regarding cruiser construction. In other nations there were long going debates about the respective combat value of "light" cruisers versus the 8 inchers heavy cruisers, and wether they should concentrate on one type or the other. France however just kept going with the idea of 1st rate and 2nd rate cruisers (armored/protected cruisers before WW1). They felt like they needed both sorts: the large 10 000tW 8 inchers, as well as medium sized light cruisers of 6 000-7600 tW.

 

So we have: the Duguay-Trouin class, the lonewolf Emile Bertin, the La Galissonière class plus the de Grasse class (which ended up as an AA cruiser after WW2). That makes 4 modern light cruisers, five if you add the Jeanne d'Arc school ship.

On the other hand there's the Duquesne and Suffren, officially two classes but really more three sub-types with the Colbert/Foch, followed by the Algérie and the C5 project, the so-called Saint-Louis.

 

4/5 light vs 4/5 heavies.

So to say that it will be a light cruiser tree is a bit jumping the gun imo. It's entirely possible they give us a cruiser line with heavy cruisers from tier 5 or 6, à la Japanese.

 

 

 

Besides, I know it's not your deal here, but just as a side note: French warships of the time were generally not that big on rate of fire. The French navy was very much like the USN in that respect, adding excessive safety locks on their gun, slowing down the whole process to minimize the risk. So rather snipers, with long range hard hitting guns and an unimpressive RoF.

It doesn't fit your idea very well I'm afraid :p

[dasCKD]

I don't know where you got that idea but it's quite incorrect. Among the big 5 nations of the WNT, France is arguably the most coherent regarding cruiser construction. In other nations there were long going debates about the respective combat value of "light" cruisers versus the 8 inchers heavy cruisers, and wether they should concentrate on one type or the other. France however just kept going with the idea of 1st rate and 2nd rate cruisers (armored/protected cruisers before WW1). They felt like they needed both sorts: the large 10 000tW 8 inchers, as well as medium sized light cruisers of 6 000-7600 tW.

 

It appears that my wording didn't fit my intentions. What I meant is that the rapid reload consumable would mean that the French cruisers would bring variety to the game. The cruisers themselves should stay consistent to a theme, much like the British ships. I, in fact, defended the importance of following a theme in my opening post.

Besides, I know it's not your deal here, but just as a side note: French warships of the time were generally not that big on rate of fire. The French navy was very much like the USN in that respect, adding excessive safety locks on their gun, slowing down the whole process to minimize the risk. So rather snipers, with long range hard hitting guns and an unimpressive RoF.

 

It doesn't fit your idea very well I'm afraid :p

 

The main issue with that is that the kind of ship you are describing would be fine at the end of the line, but that would risk creating the line like the Germans. Whilst it could be argued that the German cruisers are coherent because of their large torpedo arcs, strong AP, and slow ships, the ships are so wildly different across the tiers that they could barely be considered the same line. Unless the French cruisers were heavy cruisers almost all the way through like the Japanese, they would simply not be consistent enough to be called the same ship line.

[piritskenyer]

Invisifire all the way please. 

 

[mtm78]

Invisifire all the way please. 

 

+ incendiary AP shells! 

[dasCKD]

With the release of the upcoming line:

 

[dasCKD casts resurrection on French cruiser thread]

[44smok]

Increased detonation chance ammo?