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

How I would approch the Large Cruiser (battlecruiser) concept

22 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Players
2,651 posts
14,708 battles

Hi,

 

it seems  WG struggles to find a nieche for BC's so i made a sketch of what i think the calss should look like in WOWS:

 

Shared traits with BB's

  • Thick plating (32mm on high tiers)
  • Heal on all tiers
  • Turning circle
  • lack of hydro -> sharing torpedos as counter (& less ammount and variety of consumeables)
  • sigma (beeing less accurate on the distribution ~1.8 seems fine in cotext with **)
  • medicore acceleration
  • stealth (prob on the "stealthy side of some BB's" due to those overly seealthy BB's seems right)
  • range

 

Shared traits with CA's

  • Good rudder shift 
  • DFAA acces
  • MAX-H dispersion ** (but  on the worse side of cruiser values out there)
  • max speed

 

Traits on the middle ground

  • Belt and torp protection
  • additional utility, if they get it should be shared on the DFAA slot (e.g. Radar or DFAA)
  • ROF (~18-20s base seems reasonable depending on guns)
  • Alpha potential
  • DPM
  • effective dispersion ** (combination of BB sigma with somewhat crusier Hdisp)
  • HP pool

 

 

the aim would be to create a class that really fills the midel ground on various lvls

and creates the feeling ouf a heavy cruiser while traiding of  acrusier/BB advanteges 

 

e.g.

- you trade of evasion potential for beeing able to bounce more stuff while not sharing the BB lvl of armor

- trade of turning circle vs cruiser while gaining ruder shift compared to BB's

- trading utility and dpm for pen and alpha

 

what are your opinions on the matter?

 

[EDIT]

Edited title to make the matter more clear since BC's are a inhomogenious class by nature of the approach

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
960 posts
4,863 battles

Maybe you combined too many good traits. Turning circle doesn't matter if you can go stealth at 11km. Higher speed also means more versatility and a target that is more difficult to hit if played correctly. 

 

Wait for the Stalingrad, then decide if you would really want this at all tiers. Afaik bcs aren't planned as a sub class at all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
13,560 posts
10,366 battles

The shared traits with CA should only be used if the BB traits are not sufficient.

 

Ishizuchi and Amagi work quite well without CA traits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,651 posts
14,708 battles
2 minutes ago, dCK_Ad_Hominem said:

Maybe you combined too many good traits.

Turning circle doesn't matter if you can go stealth at 11km.

Higher speed also means more versatility and a target that is more difficult to hit if played correctly. 

 

well its the ammount of good traits they IMHO need to be a viable choice against CA's or BB's

if they do not have enough upsides no one would pic it over a classical CA or BB

 

2 minutes ago, dCK_Ad_Hominem said:

Wait for the Stalingrad, then decide if you would really want this at all tiers.

 

well stalingrad looks not really appealing atm

and the kronstadt outright horrible

 

just sticking low tier BB guns on an uparmored cruiser hull wont give the ships a BC feeling

im looking for an idetity that is distinct and on the middle ground

therefore its not enough to just stick parts together 

like giving the guns "all BB stats but Cal" or just copy pasting "BB ruder and turning circle"

 

2 minutes ago, dCK_Ad_Hominem said:

Afaik bcs aren't planned as a sub class at all. 

 

i know but they seem to want to include them as  a "cruiser slot chice" i guess they might in a verry distand future split them of into a own class but that would need a shitton of ships in game to not f*** with the MM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ONE2]
Players
2,309 posts
13,568 battles

Maybe thinner armor than actual BB's BUT equipped with both def AA and a speedboost? :cap_win:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,651 posts
14,708 battles
11 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

The shared traits with CA should only be used if the BB traits are not sufficient.

 

Ishizuchi and Amagi work quite well without CA traits.

 

i tend to agree 

 

thing is  ishi already has some of them and its low tier 

on low tier concepts work that do not on high tiers

 

Amagi on the other hand while constructed as a BC (one could argue over the topic fast BB vs BC)

ingames is a BB and plays like a BB

and i wanted to suggest a  working ship that does not feel like a BB

 

so im talking about BC's like alsaska and stalingrad that ingame are supposed to feel diffrent from a BB

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
205 posts
961 battles

I'd reduce armour plating and give them improved turning, rudder shift and stealth. Plus whatever gimmicks WG comes up with.

 

BCs in essence are supposed to be big CA's with battleship armament.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
13,560 posts
10,366 battles

The problem is they take too much damage without stealth, manoeuvrability and the ability to shoot easily over islands.

They need the armor.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
3,449 posts
7,226 battles
25 minutes ago, Turin7 said:

BC in essence are supposed to be big CA's with battleship armament.

 

Er, no.

 

Most BC were far closer to BB than CA in terms of pretty much everything, the difference being usually sacrificing some armour for speed, in fact quite a few of the WWI era BC ended up with greater displacement than comparable BB (Lion > Orion, QM > KGV (1910), Tiger > Iron Duke, Hood > everything).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
205 posts
961 battles
7 minutes ago, Capra76 said:

 

Er, no.

 

Most BC were far closer to BB than CA in terms of pretty much everything, the difference being usually sacrificing some armour for speed, in fact quite a few of the WWI era BC ended up with greater displacement than comparable BB (Lion > Orion, QM > KGV (1910), Tiger > Iron Duke, Hood > everything).

Well, in general pre WW1 BCs were BCs in name only, at least size wise (definitely BCs in the armour department). Obviously I didn't mean "take the hull of a Myoko and slap a few 14 inch turrets on it".

 

As I see it, BC's should have about similar displacement and armament to BBs but with cruiser plating, so to justify the greater mobility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sailing Hamster
2,335 posts
9,224 battles
1 hour ago, Gojuadorai said:

Hi,

 

it seems  WG struggles to find a nieche for BC's so i made a sketch of what i think the calss should look like in WOWS:

 

Shared traits with BB's

  • Thick plating (32mm on high tiers)
  • Heal on all tiers
  • Turning circle
  • lack of hydro -> sharing torpedos as counter (& less ammount and variety of consumeables)
  • sigma (beeing less accurate on the distribution ~1.8 seems fine in cotext with **)
  • medicore acceleration
  • stealth (prob on the "stealthy side of some BB's" due to those overly seealthy BB's seems right)
  • range

 

Shared traits with CA's

  • Good rudder shift 
  • DFAA acces
  • MAX-H dispersion ** (but  on the worse side of cruiser values out there)
  • max speed

 

Traits on the middle ground

  • Belt and torp protection
  • additional utility, if they get it should be shared on the DFAA slot (e.g. Radar or DFAA)
  • ROF (~18-20s base seems reasonable depending on guns)
  • Alpha potential
  • DPM
  • effective dispersion ** (combination of BB sigma with somewhat crusier Hdisp)
  • HP pool

 

 

the aim would be to create a class that really fills the midel ground on various lvls

and creates the feeling ouf a heavy cruiser while traiding of  acrusier/BB advanteges 

 

e.g.

- you trade of evasion potential for beeing able to bounce more stuff while not sharing the BB lvl of armor

- trade of turning circle vs cruiser while gaining ruder shift compared to BB's

- trading utility and dpm for pen and alpha

 

what are your opinions on the matter?

 

BC's work in the game, and they work fine. Why would we need to find a "nice" with special traits? We have five purpose built BC's in the game and one which is probably the last to fight the concept ever built (no, Scharnhorst isn't a BC): Ishizuchi, Myogi, Kongo, Hood and Amagi + Dunkerque. They all work fine. Except Myogi, they are heralded as being amongst the strongest ships at their respective tiers. 

 

14 minutes ago, Capra76 said:

 

Er, no.

 

Most BC were far closer to BB than CA in terms of pretty much everything, the difference being usually sacrificing some armour for speed, in fact quite a few of the WWI era BC ended up with greater displacement than comparable BB (Lion > Orion, QM > KGV (1910), Tiger > Iron Duke, Hood > everything).

Machinery took a lot of space, thus enlarging the ships significantly. Higher speeds also required different hull forms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,651 posts
14,708 battles
12 minutes ago, Earl_of_Northesk said:

 

BC's work in the game, and they work fine. Why would we need to find a "nice" with special traits? We have five purpose built BC's in the game and one which is probably the last to fight the concept ever built (no, Scharnhorst isn't a BC): Ishizuchi, Myogi, Kongo, Hood and Amagi + Dunkerque. They all work fine. Except Myogi, they are heralded as being amongst the strongest ships at their respective tiers. 

 

well the problem is theres a problem with the term BC   

 

there are BC's that are so close to fast BB's that they work in game as a BB

then there are BC's that are not close enough to BB's that they cant be possibly included in the game without severe undertiering

do you want late war/1950's ships, way bigger than everything else, on T6 just to make them a BB?

 

so my point is about those ships  that are too cruiser like to make them work as BB's like the coming kronstadt and stalingrad (and the fan favorite alaska clas we undoubtedly see some point in the future)

 

 

*side note i dont think you can count the hood and the dunq as "strongest among their tier",

 and before you weave some dunq stats arround i strongly belive mostlly only verry good player still touch that ship once in a while...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
165 posts
771 battles

BCs are glass cannons, all it takes is one plunging shot and instant detonation.

The photos attached were taken at Jutland

 

HMS-Invincibles-centre-magazines-explode-.jpg

HMS Inivincibles sinking after being ripped in two by a magazine explosion.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
13,560 posts
10,366 battles
18 minutes ago, Gojuadorai said:

 

well the problem is theres a problem with the term BC   

 

there are BC's that are so close to fast BB's that they work in game as a BB

then there are BC's that are not close enough to BB's that they cant be possibly included in the game without severe undertiering

do you want late war/1950's ships, way bigger than everything else, on T6 just to make them a BB?

 

so my point is about those ships  that are too cruiser like to make them work as BB's like the coming kronstadt and stalingrad (and the fan favorite alaska clas we undoubtedly see some point in the future)

 

 

*side note i dont think you can count the hood and the dunq as "strongest among their tier",

 and before you weave some dunq stats arround i strongly belive mostlly only verry good player still touch that ship once in a while...

I would have no problem with Kronshtadt as a BB on Tier VI or VII. Stalingrad is a different matter as it is the more modern ship with less armor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
[SCRUB]
Players
3,159 posts
9,927 battles
1 hour ago, Earl_of_Northesk said:

We have five purpose built BC's in the game and one which is probably the last to fight the concept ever built (no, Scharnhorst isn't a BC): Ishizuchi, Myogi, Kongo, Hood and Amagi + Dunkerque. They all work fine. Except Myogi, they are heralded as being amongst the strongest ships at their respective tiers. 

 

I'm probably wrong, but I thought the Graf Spee was a BC as well?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[H_FAN]
Players
1,851 posts
20,718 battles
6 minutes ago, lup3s said:

 

I'm probably wrong, but I thought the Graf Spee was a BC as well?

No it is an armoured ship, "Panzerschiffe".

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[H_FAN]
Players
1,851 posts
20,718 battles

Personally I think you could place the British and German ships a tier down and perhaps remove a heal evt. all helas but at least one so you start with one or two (2/3 if prem/SI). Why? because they were heavier also so that they have more hp to start with.

 

It is a balancing thing to do to avoid them being uptiered too far, their higher speed is of more value in lower tiers, especially as I do not want to many fictional modernizations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
289 posts
812 battles

BC's should have a mixture of battleship firepower and maybe manuvourability with cruiser speed and armour.

 

and i guess you could mix and match with some BC's leaning towards cruisers and some battleships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,915 posts
5,887 battles

If it's a large cruiser and the ingame class remains a cruiser, while being more powerful then a similarly tiered normal cruiser, perhaps this could be balanced by increasing its matchmaking weight? Or at least balance its matchmaking weight partially. For instance, do give a tier 7 BC tier 7 to tier 9 matchmaking, but make its weight count like it's a tier 8 normal cruiser or something.

 

That way they can still be more powerful then a normal cruiser while not needing many players using these ships to keep matchmaking balanced (they can fill in a cruiser slot) or keep BC players waiting indefinitely till someone else also picks a BC and join the waiting area.

 

Otherwise it might be too tricky to try and balance them by nerfing them to fit a similarly tiered normal cruiser.

 

If these end up being put into the BB class instead, things could be a bit more reversed (give them some advantages so they can stand up somewhat vs similarly tiered BBs, they do have a speed advantage in at least the lower tiers).

 

Things will still be different if WG opts to change their minds and give them a class of their own. We'll just have to see how things go, I want Derfflinger, Mackensen, Ersatz Yorck and Tiger! And of course Alaska! :Smile_great:

 

And HMS Incomparable and the ARP Kongos:Smile_hiding:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[YARRR]
Beta Tester
6,674 posts
13,098 battles
2 hours ago, Blood_Rave_1984 said:

BCs are glass cannons, all it takes is one plunging shot and instant detonation.

 

Well, good thing plunging fire doesn't exist in this game then.

 

To achieve plunging fire in this game you need ranges in excess of 25km as any shell falling onto the deck at an angle below 30° will auto bounce unless it overmatches said deck plating. A Bismarck e.g. would need close to 30km range to overcome auto bounce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,651 posts
14,708 battles
20 minutes ago, NothingButTheRain said:

If it's a large cruiser and the ingame class remains a cruiser, while being more powerful then a similarly tiered normal cruiser, perhaps this could be balanced by increasing its matchmaking weight? Or at least balance its matchmaking weight partially. For instance, do give a tier 7 BC tier 7 to tier 9 matchmaking, but make its weight count like it's a tier 8 normal cruiser or something.

 

well i didnt wanted to touch the whole strengh vs class here since  i intended this to be a discussion about what would be a ship that feels good/worth playing which does not just feel like  a CA or BB.

 

but now that you mentioned it there might be a problem and there might not be.

if the trade offs are adjusted right you probably can stick it in a cruiser slot without to much impact on the WR.

 

IF there is a significant effect rather than making an complicated  inter tier ship wierdo mess for the MM

i would suggest that MM could handel it like X*CA (1-X)*BB  meaning  like in some cases MM matches you againsta CA

e.g. 7 out of 10 games => putting you  in 3 out of 10 matches against a BB this ccould get rid of the bias if there is one

but is doubt WG would do any of this since its just not a nice solution

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WCWVE]
Players
668 posts
10,853 battles
5 hours ago, Blood_Rave_1984 said:

BCs are glass cannons, all it takes is one plunging shot and instant detonation.

The photos attached were taken at Jutland

 

HMS-Invincibles-centre-magazines-explode-.jpg

HMS Inivincibles sinking after being ripped in two by a magazine explosion.jpg

Actually you have it wrong, the reason why the battlecruisers blew up at Jutland was not due to armour but due to the poor ammo handling disciplines used by the Royal Navy - i.e. cordite passed through open hatches and stacked in corridors ready for firing rather than being passed through the armoured ammo chutes

 

On the Hood, it is believed that a fire started in the Additional anti aircraft mountings and then spread to stored ammunition 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×