Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
damo74

County class cruiser

102 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[_VI_]
Beta Tester
684 posts
2,075 battles

I have to ask.

 

Will there be a premium county class cruiser appearing in game soonish? I'd love to play this beautiful ship. An 8-inch gun cruiser for the RN would be an interesting addition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ONE2]
Players
3,087 posts
22,029 battles

I was hoping more to get at the least a partial tech tree for RN Heavy Cruisers, rather than just the occasional premium...:Smile_Default:

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[B0TS]
Beta Tester
1,798 posts
6,659 battles
Just now, RAHJAILARI said:

I was hoping more to get at the least a partial tech tree for RN Heavy Cruisers, rather than just the occasional premium...:Smile_Default:

^This.

 

But there are perhaps enough sub-classes to have at least a premium or two 8" cruisers for the RN. (Given WG'ings penchant for copy/paste premiums).

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UNICS]
Beta Tester
4,870 posts
9,434 battles
8 minutes ago, RAHJAILARI said:

I was hoping more to get at the least a partial tech tree for RN Heavy Cruisers, rather than just the occasional premium...:Smile_Default:

I remember WG stating that they don't plan on doing any more line splits after the USN CL/CA split.

That might of course change, but from the sound of it they want to focus on new lines and new nations.

We might see them adding the end of the 2nd IJN DD line at some point, but even that's pretty uncertain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BYOB]
[BYOB]
Players
4,609 posts
20,409 battles
18 minutes ago, Nechrom said:

I remember WG stating that they don't plan on doing any more line splits after the USN CL/CA split.

That might of course change, but from the sound of it they want to focus on new lines and new nations.

We might see them adding the end of the 2nd IJN DD line at some point, but even that's pretty uncertain.

Which is a pity, since a heavy cruiser line would really offer some variety to the British line.

I also think that being so vehement as to line splits is a bad way to go, as the alternative is to have several lines filled with 50%+ paper designs.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FAILS]
Players
554 posts
19,952 battles

You can't really make a full line of heavy cruisers for the RN. As far as I know, they did not have many heavy cruisers. Still, I'd very much like so see the York-class at t6 and the County-class at t7 in some form. Maybe as a sort of miniature line split and/or as premiums.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BYOB]
[BYOB]
Players
4,609 posts
20,409 battles
1 minute ago, BruceRKF said:

You can't really make a full line of heavy cruisers for the RN. As far as I know, they did not have many heavy cruisers. Still, I'd very much like so see the York-class at t6 and the County-class at t7 in some form. Maybe as a sort of miniature line split and/or as premiums.

There have been some proposals for a partial lines that could start with the Hawkins at T5, go through York, have County/Kent and County/Norfolk at T7 and T8, with a finisher made of paper designs.

Hell, there's even the HMS London, a perfect fit for a T7 premium, since it received a unique refit in 1939.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ONE2]
Players
3,087 posts
22,029 battles

Well @BruceRKF, my friend. Observe the following: York(2 ships) - Tier 5, Kent-group cruisers(7) - tier 6, London group(4) - tier 7, Norfolk group(2) - tier 8. So that would be 15 ships in total, that is a few. They could also Include the Renown-class Battlecruisers(2), as tier 9 for the CA line quite easy (after all, we are already getting Kronstad, so why the heck not?).:Smile_Default:

 

And I bet there were some paper ships too which could be added, as tier 10, if need be (after all, most existing tier 9 and 10 Ships are already just paper ships anyway). So we do not lack potential or actual ships, as such. Also plenty of armored cruisers to fill tiers 2-4 for a full line, if so desired. :cap_old:

 

And of course the Admiral-class Battlecruisers (only Hood was actually built) were supposed to be a class of 4 ships, just add one as for a tier 10 and we are done with a complete line. WOHOU! :cap_like:

 

of course, new Countries (Italy) to be included can take preference and I have nothing against it, but I hope RN CA line will happen eventually as well - After all these are not mutually exclusive in any way, just a matter of time tables and priorities, isn't it?:fish_book:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FAILS]
Players
554 posts
19,952 battles

I don't really like to have literally the same class of ship at consecutive tiers (in this case 7 and 8 or even 6, 7 and 8). I don't know about you, but I'd like to have more variety than playing the same class of ships three tiers in a row, even with subclasses. Hawkins at t5 seems reasonable though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ONE2]
Players
3,087 posts
22,029 battles

That is fine by me @BruceRKF , my point was that there ARE more than enough ships for even a complete line. What they are going to be exactly is kinda irrelevant, as long as we can agree that it is doable and indeed desirable even and that being the case, why settle for just one lousy premium? Hehehe! :Smile_Default:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FAILS]
Players
554 posts
19,952 battles

Desirable indeed, I think those ships are just too beautiful to not be in the game :Smile_Default:

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[XODUS]
Players
799 posts
4,866 battles

There is not enough Heavy Cruisers for a full line from T2-10

But there are enough Designs and ships actually built in order to create a line from T5-T10 although the T9 & T10 ships would be paper designs that were made around the same time as the Minotaur and Neptune. 

T5 = HMS Hawkins (Armed with 7x1 7.5" (191mm) Guns and 8 Torps, she was the design that servers as the baseline for all Heavy Cruisers in the Washington Treaty) 
T6= HMS York (Armed with 2x3 8" (203mm) Guns  and 6 Torps, a cut down county class and you could have HMS Exeter as a premium although that would involve some work from Wargaming rather than a copy past as Exeter was an improved York Class and looked radically different.
T7= HMS Kent (Standard County Class Design)
T8= HMS London (After her Rebuild)
T9= HMS Antrim (aka the 1940 heavy cruiser design with 9 8" guns)
T10= HMS Churchill (1944 design with 9 9.2" Guns)

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CR33D]
[CR33D]
Players
2,894 posts
27,570 battles
20 minutes ago, JaiFoh said:

There is not enough Heavy Cruisers for a full line from T2-10

But there are enough Designs and ships actually built in order to create a line from T5-T10 although the T9 & T10 ships would be paper designs that were made around the same time as the Minotaur and Neptune. 

T5 = HMS Hawkins (Armed with 7x1 7.5" (191mm) Guns and 8 Torps, she was the design that servers as the baseline for all Heavy Cruisers in the Washington Treaty) 
T6= HMS York (Armed with 2x3 8" (203mm) Guns  and 6 Torps, a cut down county class and you could have HMS Exeter as a premium although that would involve some work from Wargaming rather than a copy past as Exeter was an improved York Class and looked radically different.
T7= HMS Kent (Standard County Class Design)
T8= HMS London (After her Rebuild)
T9= HMS Antrim (aka the 1940 heavy cruiser design with 9 8" guns)
T10= HMS Churchill (1944 design with 9 9.2" Guns)

 

Well London would be a nice premium as somewhat different from all other "Counties" and as only real ship that could be used as a premium at T8. Question is can WG find some other ship to fill T8 spot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Supertester
2,842 posts
4,770 battles

By putting Algerie at T7 and moving Pensacola to T6 and New Orleans to T7 WG have quite solidly signalled there is no place for treaty cruiser designs at T8. Although beautiful and effective ships, the County class (even war modifications) are barely on par with the late treaty designs like Algerie and NO. Of course, RN CLs are balanced a bit differently so counties with smoke and other gimmicks might work at the tiers suggested above and in the past. But I won't hold my breath and I definitely don't expect County sub-groups at different tiers. York 6 County 7 is likely. York 5 County 6 is possible. Split line from 5-10? Probably not. Premium? Maybe T6 or T7.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Supertester
2,842 posts
4,770 battles
7 minutes ago, RAHJAILARI said:

Well, @VC381 there's still Hipper at tier 8 and it seems to be doing Ok there (well, it works for me anyways). :Smile_Default:

 

Hipper isn't a treaty design though, it cheated the limits by almost double and displaces more than Baltimore. In real life terms, it's shocking just how little firepower and armour Hipper has given how huge it is. Proves the Germans had no idea how to efficiently design a modern warship in the 1930s.

 

In game, I have Eugen and it works very well for me too. But from reading cruiser whine threads over the years a lot of people seem to think it either needs major buffs or a downtier. To be honest Algerie plays similar and is not a whole lot worse.

 

InB4 you say it, Atago is a treaty cheat as well :Smile-_tongue:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[B0TS]
Beta Tester
1,798 posts
6,659 battles
3 minutes ago, VC381 said:

InB4 you say it, Atago is a treaty cheat as well :Smile-_tongue:

As is Myoko... ::raspberry::... and no doubt some of the italian 'treaty' cruisers which make it into their cruiser line. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ONE2]
Players
3,087 posts
22,029 battles
1 minute ago, VC381 said:

Hipper isn't a treaty design though, it cheated the limits by almost double and displaces more than Baltimore. In real life terms, it's shocking just how little firepower and armour Hipper has given how huge it is. Proves the Germans had no idea how to efficiently design a modern warship in the 1930s.

Hheh, you are right about that lad, was just more thinking of the gun layout and progression here. But you know, I'm pretty sure the mysterious "paper Archives" can provide a satisfactory solution to this dilemma also. So no worries. :cap_like:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ONE2]
Players
3,087 posts
22,029 battles
Just now, philjd said:

As is Myoko... ::raspberry::... and no doubt some of the italian 'treaty' cruisers which make it into their cruiser line. ;)

Well, you know Japan pretty much ignored the entire treaty early on - While building Mogamis methinks. So they never built even 1 that actually confirmed to those treaty limitations in any way. I think only the Allies and perhaps Italy were actually roughly (and I mean VERY roughly) even trying to stay within those boundaries. Of course, later on they all just dumped them rules anyways. :cap_old:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Supertester
2,842 posts
4,770 battles
7 minutes ago, philjd said:

As is Myoko... ::raspberry::... and no doubt some of the italian 'treaty' cruisers which make it into their cruiser line. ;)

Yeah yeah, you win this one. She's been hit with WGs nerfbat of arbitrarily awful turret traverse "fo balans" though.

6 minutes ago, RAHJAILARI said:

Hheh, you are right about that lad, was just more thinking of the gun layout and progression here. But you know, I'm pretty sure the mysterious "paper Archives" can provide a satisfactory solution to this dilemma also. So no worries. :cap_like:

9km concealment and smoke would also solve the dilemma, otherwise Edinburgh arguably has no business being T8 either. Just depends how far WG want to push their gimmicks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Supertester
2,842 posts
4,770 battles
3 minutes ago, RAHJAILARI said:

Well, you know Japan pretty much ignored the entire treaty early on - While building Mogamis methinks. So they never built even 1 that actually confirmed to those treaty limitations in any way. I think only the Allies and perhaps Italy were actually roughly (and I mean VERY roughly) even trying to stay within those boundaries. Of course, later on they all just dumped them rules anyways. :cap_old:

 

Furutaka and Aoba technically count and are comfortably within limits. Although that's because they (like Hawkins) were designed before and the treaty was meant to include them with a bit of room for growth. Myoko as built was quite close. Mogami too until they realised it would fall apart from firing it's own guns and took it back to beef it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[B0TS]
Beta Tester
1,798 posts
6,659 battles
6 minutes ago, RAHJAILARI said:

Well, you know Japan pretty much ignored the entire treaty early on - While building Mogamis methinks. So they never built even 1 that actually confirmed to those treaty limitations in any way. I think only the Allies and perhaps Italy were actually roughly (and I mean VERY roughly) even trying to stay within those boundaries. Of course, later on they all just dumped them rules anyways. :cap_old:

I think it is just the Takoa's and Nachi's (other than the Mogami's) that are in flagrant breach. Some of the Italian designs are 'flagrants' also, not all of them though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ONE2]
Players
3,087 posts
22,029 battles
5 minutes ago, VC381 said:

9km concealment and smoke would also solve the dilemma, otherwise Edinburgh arguably has no business being T8 either. Just depends how far WG want to push their gimmicks.

Hmm, finally a ship my Mösjöö Dunkirk could captain then.:Smile_Default: Though with the combination of the new smoke rules and 203mm guns I'm not entirely convinced it would be that useful? :cap_hmm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ONE2]
Players
3,087 posts
22,029 battles
3 minutes ago, VC381 said:

Furutaka and Aoba technically count and are comfortably within limits. Although that's because they (like Hawkins) were designed before and the treaty was meant to include them with a bit of room for growth. Myoko as built was quite close. Mogami too until they realised it would fall apart from firing it's own guns and took it back to beef it up.

Oh yeah, I keep forgetting the poor saps all the time. That is correct. :Smile_Default:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,777 posts
17,292 battles
2 hours ago, Nechrom said:

I remember WG stating that they don't plan on doing any more line splits after the USN CL/CA split.

That might of course change, but from the sound of it they want to focus on new lines and new nations.

We might see them adding the end of the 2nd IJN DD line at some point, but even that's pretty uncertain.

 

There would be no split. RN can have a full CA and second CL line if needed.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


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

×