World of Warships - The Battlecruiser Question: Questionable Fit?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 13 июл 2021
- Not battleships, not cruisers, yet WG wants them to fit in one of those 2 classes. It doesn't really work.
♥ Connect with me ♥
Discord: / discord
Twitch: / ichasegaming
Facebook: / ichasegaming
Twitter: / ichasegaming
♦ Become my Patron at / ichasegaming ♦
To contact me via e-mail send it to chasegamingtv@gmail.com 
Игры
Hopefully, the technical problems from the last video got fixed. Had a bizarre frame stutter thing going on last video. Let me know your suggestions for video ideas (I'll do what I can to fulfill them during this break that I have). Hope you're all doing well :D
You too :)
Btw how you doin’?
Mostly tired from the long academic year, last 10 week summer term was murder. Just trying to rest up and get ready for another school year. Try and get as much content as I can out during this period of time
@@ichasegaming yeah I have to go back to college in a couple months. Not great.
But yeah I definitely agree that Wargaming should make the German battlecruisers and possible future British battlecruisers have their own classification. Battlecruisers aren’t meant to even be battleships or brawling with like 25, 26, or 27mm armor, brawling doesn’t exactly make a lot of sense when ships have that kind of armor.
I would say maybe the German and future British battlecruisers would be good at flanking like the American battleships do. This new class is built for smacking cruisers and other battlecruisers around. Sometimes I think Wargaming doesn’t understand the difference between battlecruiser and battleship classification.
Talks about the speed/armour problem about battlecruisers
Annnnd then we have Georgia--(Laughs hysterically)
And I knew I forgot to talk about something...dammit, getting old and forgetful now
Yes. Georgia is technically a Battlecruiser.
@@ichasegaming you are becoming jingles at least you havent reached the point where you mislabel ships as different class
Sooon(tm)
Does Vanguard define as Battleship or Battlecruiser ??
Battle cruisers deserve their own class. Lots of historical ships to pull from, and it would make the CLs and CAs relevant again.
As much as I’d like a battle cruiser class, the same argument could be said about the large dds not really being dds. I often get reported as elbing for not doing dd things
This is a fair point. However: Unless you're playing a full gunboat build without CE your concealment is still way better than that of every other cruiser (I assume as my Kleber has 7.8km conc with CE). So for that reason alone I think that the new German line is still better positioned as a DD than a CL. Same is true for Kleber and Khaba who do have DD caliber guns and that higher speed and for that reason should be classified as DDs.
I would however *love* if WG built in internal/invisible subclassification that it matches ships between the teams. A team with 2 Hallands and a Shima will have a very different experience and needs different tactics than one with with an Elbing, a Kleber and a Khaba. Same is true for CA and CL. So they should make sure the teams are more balanced that way.
It's an old idea of mine: battlecruisers should be a separate class.
WG juat can't balance them the way they are right now.
I agree, they don't belong in either BB or CA and it shows
I agree. They need their own tree and icons. You cant research a BB line going from BB, BB, ''BC'', BB. They should be a conscious choice of the players
@@ichasegaming I will note that the icon set that WG uses in game to represent each class HAS a BC icon already... the thing is a universal set also used on IRL warship tactical plot boards: CL= 150mm or so guns making them a threat at X yards, CA= 203mm or so guns which are a threat to your ship at Y yards.. BC are the same threat level as a BB. They should replace a BB in the line up the same way at present a "large cruiser" replaces a cruiser in the line up.. and ALL present large cruisers like Stalingrad need to be moved into the new BC branch.
WG has done an absolutely SHIT job of design here, and I suspect it was because as fanboys they wanted to have a wank making Kronstadt and Stalingrad heavy cruisers and just dominating with them.
The doctrine behind the BC was to add a fast heavy to act as a screen/scout that would sit in the line of battle during a major fleet engagement and could act as a cruiser squadron flagship on detached service if need be... see Jutland. Given construction technology and infrastructure of the time each nation could build a ship of X length by Y beam drawing Z water under their keel and could only build up to a certain tonnage so trade offs had to be made to get speed. The British chose to keep the same size of gun as the BB's so they had to sacrifice armor to accommodate more weight for engines. The Germans chose to go with slightly smaller gun size to pay for that weight: The difference between the 12 inch and 11 inch turrets were about 100 tons per unit.
This whole thing highlights what an absolutely HORRIBLE job they did with Scharnhorst.. which is a classic German style battlecruiser.. though you can call her a BB for political reasons her gun fit makes her absolutely a classic BC. In game they have her with a 25mm bow... nope her bow was 35mm all plans agree on that as does the post war salvage records from Gneisenau' leftovers.
ha its grate starting a game facing a Alaska krhonstat Stalingrad and a azuma, when your team has 2 neptunes a ibuki and a mino. "nothing wrong with that" WG probably
WGs argument for saying "no" will be, "drum roll", too long queue times and to a certain degree i agree with them. ATM though we still have too few BCs in the game to create a seperate slot/class for them. They can start to think about seperating them when there are at least 2-3 full lines out.
Your e right. There would be an impact on Que time if you load up a BC in their own class to start. But it would be comparable to the time CV players have added to their Que time v surface ships(CVs only have 4 ships, every other tier) And would only get better as more were added.
Of course, I could be totally wrong. I havnt looked at the #s close enough to back my statement. Just seems like I see enough BCs in battle, that the added time in Que for those players wouldn't be effected enough to really discourage play.
@@capthappy8884 Could be possible, i still think that with even and uneven tiers, the queue times for BCs would be, atm still a bit too long to qualify for a seperate class/MM slot.
As i said before, i think it would make sense when there are at least 20+ different BCs "derping" around the game.
CVs don´t have that problem so much as they are locked to even tiers and (mostly) two ships per match.
If the BCs get so much as two possible slots per side, finding 4 ships, say at T9, would take some time with the (right now) small pool of ships around in that class. (4 with the new german if i remember right)
I´m not opposed to a splitt, i just don´t think there is "enough ship" around yet for it.
Give it a british line as well and i´m probably all for it.
god forbid having to weight more than 30 seconds for a game!! there would be nothing wrong with it id bet it wouldn't ad 5 seconds to q time. only thing slow is WG servers
@@tbalmer1207 At the moment, it would because, repeat it with me, not enough ships for the class exist as of yet. Give it another full line after the germans and we can start the discussion again. (and yes i know what i´m talking about here, try playing CVs over the day and you will notice waiting times as well, and they only have to deal with 4 tiers instead of 8)
Jutland flashbacks intensify.
If you go that route, you should also distinguish light and heavy cruisers, which would be cool. However WG wont implement this as they assume it is too difficult to understand for or frighten for their intended player base (talking about the dumb players spending lots of money)
Historically speaking, battlecruisers are capital ships. Large cruisers are cruisers. Alaska, Kronshtadt, Stalingrad etc. aren't battlecruisers. Amagi, Hood, Constellation, Kongo are battlecruisers. The concept was flawed and they quickly became outdated.
You could give thanks to the Battle of Jutland and the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 for that.
This guy knows whats up!
When I got the Constellation, I had a lot of difficulty being effective in it for the main reason you don't have the hp or armour scheme to tank. You can't play the ship like a traditional BB, it's a hybrid strategy: 1) play angled at mid to long range like a BB or 2) play like a kiting cruiser, rear torps angles are excellent or 3) at close range, hug the bloody islands and play like a supercruiser; you have the speed to get into cover but when exposed you cannot take sustained fire like a BB when attacking / defending, you have to pick your spots.
you have to play it sort of like a Scharnhorst or Gneisenau
Except Scharn and Gnei do have a degree of durability that Constellation does not, so not really feasible either
@@ichasegaming Very true, it's been designated a BC for this reason, durability has been traded for utility (radar).
As for the topic whether they "fit" the BB role: Historically I think they do, since in WW1, battlecruisers were used in the battle line (e.g. Jutland). And all battlecruisers that are BBs in the game are from the pre-naval treaty era (I think, correct me if I'm wrong). WW2 battlecruisers on the other hand were not really classified as such, but as large cruisers and never meant to be in a battle line (shifting role). I agree that WoWs ship classification is far from ideal, however, if you start with making a difference between BBs and BCs, then you would also have to make a difference between CLs and CAs, as well as small and large destroyers or destroyer leaders. How far should it go?
Nevermind that however. I find it far more concerning how awful the tiers 8 to 10 of the new German battlecruisers look, to be honest. I don't mind weak-ish ships, but I do mind ships that look terrible, especially when they are paper ships...
Yea... it would get really hairy very quickly.
Can you imagine all battle cruisers becoming by, getting cruise like dispersion?
It wouldn't be fun for dds or cruisers, that's for sure..
The use of battlecruisers in the British battle line at Jutland, and not using them to "hold the enemy at range" as their designers intended, was one reason they suffered such heavy losses. They were never intended to close with battleships.
@@robdgaming I didn't say it was smart, I just said it happened. You could argue the same for WoWs, actually: It's not smart to have them next to BBs, but it happens aynway...
Wargaming seams to be echoing Admiral Beaty's battlecruiser doctrine.
*exploding battlecruiser sounds*
I am totally with you on this one. Especially the idea that we could get dedicated captain skills is very intriguing.
At first I thought that it would be enough to just callsify them internally/invisibly as BC and put that into the MM. It would at least make sure you wouldn't be matched against a Massa or something in your Constellation. But you're right that it would not only help the BC player fulfill his/her role better but it would also take away pressure from cruiser players.
So yeah, 100% agree.
Now, a CC tree could be interesting, but it'd still deal with a serious problem. The CBs we have in game right now are 12" armed. So they just overmatch 21mm. Which basically means they overmatch DD armor, but given that they can't full-pen DDs that's pointless. The other overmatch is ultra-light cruisers with their 16mm plating.
German CCs would get 27mm overmatch from T8. Which isn't bad given that this makes a lot of cruisers vulnerable to them, but this also means they'll have a serious advantage over other CCs in that hypothetical queue who don't get that overmatch.
The other problem for the CC trees would be queue times. Now, this could be partially alleviated by taking cruisers and some BBs out of the BB tree and instead slotting them into the CC queue. Hood, Scharnhorst, Odin, Brandenburg, Graf Spee to name the obvious lower-tier examples.
And this really is the problem with a CC tree. The later the CC design, the more muddied the waters between BB and CC really become. Hell, take the Dutch cruisers, the T10 is basically a Dutch version of the Scharnhorst, only she gets cruiser MM. Napoli with her 10" guns is another example. Still a cruiser or better off in a CC tree?
Another problem for the German CC tree is basically WG going and taking WWI era designs and trying to make them compete with late WWII designs/builds. The early designs until say T7 are also not something you could conceivably pack into the cruiser tree, they'd just shit on everything. My take would be that they basically shouldn't have gone for the low-health, poorly armored design they went with. It basically ensures that these boats will suck as BBs and they are too strong to match them with cruisers. Also, secondaries are just a distraction, they are incredibly situational, hard to make properly work and ultimately way too much of an investment for way too little of a return.
The major advantage of make Battlecruisers a separate class (and I would include the supercruisers in there as well), would be balance purposes for competative. That way coming into a CB season, WG could place restrictions on the number of BC/SC in a team lineup, thereby preventing the mess we had this season of a team consisting of Stalingrad, Moskva, Petro, Puerto, etc... Too many Battlesruisers/Supercruisers on a team, makes for stagnant boring gameplay. The reason for a separate class, is that they can't go toe to toe with other battleships, but they shit all over regular cruisers. And for freaks like Bow tanking Russian supercruisers, if yiou don't make them a separate class, then they should be classified as Battleships. You can't have similar ships being classified differently (BB or CA) to fit what ever Russian narative WG wants...
With the WWI-era battlecruiser concept one is stuck with employing them in their designed role, to "hold the enemy at range" (play keep-away), and not attempt to brawl. German battlecruisers historically had more armor and less speed than the British; their new line might enable medium-range engagements.
I have the Johan de Witt, as a battlecruiser. The battlecruisers are outright antimeta. All battlecruisers burn like hell. But the ships from the Netherlands have bad guns and bad armor too. And are designed for close combat, which is completely anti meta. And they can not even do that, because they have such a weak armor.
You make some good points, Chase. As we have come to expect. . . You may have mentioned commander skills in general, but I will take Scharnhorst and Alaska as my examples for comparison.
Scharnhorst, battlecruiser what is a battleship: The commander will get the battleship skills for controlling fires right off the bat - "Basics of Survivability" at 4 points and "Fire Prevention Expert" - to control the DakkaBoat cancer. (Half my games will be Tier IX)
Alaska, battlecruiser what is a cruiser: You can't control fires with commander skills, so the Damage Control Systems Modifications 1 and 2 upgrades are virtually mandatory with no option to limit number of fires. (Although the shorter cool-down for the Damage Control Party consumable does help.)
Having a separate category for battlecruisers makes sense. There is enough of a player base to support it.
Completely agree. Bigger teams would be inevitable though, and with that some maps wouldn't be tenable and would have to be re-worked. Would really require the game to go to version 1.0 with a huge update.
I agree that battle cruisers should have their own class and I'd like to see how this develops. Hopefully with a few more battle cruisers to choose from that offer unique game-play for that class of ship.
I’m very Interested to see where this goes. In reality this very question has been around (at least that I can remember) since the introduction of the German BB line, as we asked questions about Gneisenau and Sharnhorst, and even when Graf Spee was introduced. Should battle cruisers have their own class? Then what about Existing battleships in the game which were actually battler cruisers such as the Kongo. Such a change could really shake up a lot of lines of the game.
Lol at the comment of early 1910-late WW2 era ships. Nice of you to leave out nearly high tier Russian ship from the 1950’s. 🤣🤣
Wouldn't mind a larger game mode with 24 v 24 or 36 v 36. Navyfield 1 ship classes was FF, DD, CL, CA, BC, BB, SS, CV(tho I wish their was a CVL slot too). Of coarse on larger maps.
What's FF?
Fast frigate ships smaller than destroyers but bigger than corvettes. destroyer escorts filled a similar role. honestly we don't need them in wows, but better organization In the other classes would be better to balance their roles out, pike split ca and cl so cl and dds can fill in the asw, same with carriers for more flexibility
i feel the german line that is coming out, the teir what 7 - 10 were not even made and just paper, they should have progressed it from what would they make in 1910, to what would they have done in 1945 , which would have changed the ships from barely worth their slot to something to be feared maybe, giving them faster speed then bbs (at high teir they really arnt at all faster) maybe not as big of guns but better armor so they dont just die when bb guns aim at them, would be nice
Incomparable is the new thunderer with overmatch and a speed boost for extra balanS because a 41kts 508mm ships is balanS
I in incomparable is for imbalance
and 12km 2 minute radar and 10km 5 min hydro because balanS is the name of the game, and it would be captained by Family
@@ainzooalgown7589 It actually does have hydro... and also torps...
I totally agree. Battlecruisers are no cruisers; neither they are battleships. I think they need to have their own class and can be limited to 1-2 ships per team of this class. Would help to balance a few ships.
I mean WG already said that subs will take up DD slots right? What's wrong with having the BC class officially and it being able to take the Cruiser or BB role? Probably the same reason WG doesn't want to have 15 vs. 15? Cuz apparently that would create a balance issue...
ha ye but they can balance subs in ranked 7v7 for Randoms. just WG talking shit
The distinction between battlecruisers and battle ships would be interesting
Thinking along the same lines, should there be a distinction between heavy and light cruisers?
Dunkerque should also be a battlecruiser i think, but they can buff a little bit her speed cause she has not much to offer otherly
It's interesting that in discussing the problem with in-game battlecruisers...you hit the wall of the historical problem with battlecruisers, almost on accident. The class was designed to destroy 'armored cruisers'. They made the class so obsolete the navies of the world stopped building them. So battlecruisers didn't have a role. Eventually they were pressed into the role of 'fast battleships' which they failed miserably at, since battleships ripped them apart.
The problem is that battlecruisers in real life didn't have a viable role when armored cruisers disappeared. I doubt WG will be able to create one in a game where they can't figure out how aircraft carriers and submarines function.
I don't think we need a new class for Battlecruisers, but maybe like a limitation. The already existing Battlecruisers in the Battleships slot should not be tampered with, but I think future Battlecruisers should be implemented into the cruiser class with limitations. This might help solve an ongoing issue with the match maker where you will get a balanced game of 1 Carrier, 4 BB's, 4 Cruisers, and 3 DD's, but the next game you get like 6 DD's, 4 Cruisers, and 2 Battleships, or 10 Cruisers, and 2 Battleships (All Legitimate experiences I have dealt with recently). The battlecruiser issue also adds to the problem where you can get like 5 Battle/Super cruisers on one team and then 5 light cruisers on the other. Adding team caps for this subclass would be good per say at most up to 2 battlecruisers per team, as it would balance both teams not making them lopsided, where one might have 3/4ths of the cruiser force as aggressive, close range ships, with the enemy as mostly passive, support ships. This system could also be instituted with Brawling battleships vs Mid to Long Range Battleships, Gun boat Destroyers vs Torpedo Boats, Strong AA ships (Ex Halland, Petropavlovsk etc) vs Weak AA ships (Yamato, Großer Kurfurst), and so forth. This system is clearly possible as WG has shown by limiting some ships or banning them in Clan Battles and ranked, and I believe this system could make blow out matches more rare due to less lopsided teams, and make the WoWs experience better for all players, regardless of ship class, skill level, or ship tier.
Teammates don’t understand what a battle cruiser is either. They expect you to play it like a battleship and you just can’t do that. I play the constellation more like a cruiser, which allows me to stay mobile while throwing punches with its huge guns!
My opinion on battlecruisers matches what someone said regarding them at the Battle of Jutland: “There’s something wrong with our bloody ships today!” -Vice Admiral David Beatty
AND FOR THE ONE MILLIONTH TIME, THE ALASKA’S WERE SUPER HEAVY CRUISERS NOT BATTLECRUISERS! REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!! RAGE!RAGE AGAINST THE MACHIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNNNE!!!!!!!!
Whoa, Calm down. We get it. Alaska is a super heavy cruiser. So is Azuma, Yoshino, Puerto Rico, Siegfried, and Agir are super heavy cruisers. Now, Stalingrad is a cruiser trying to be a battleship. But that is a whole other argument.
@@Dcarp7 it’s more of an argument iChase and I have had running over the years, don’t worry about it
@@lightspeedvictory No worries. 🤣 I would've pulled the Hood is a better battlecruiser than Alaska argument. But, yes. No worries.
I don't think the USN ever reffered to them as super heavy cruisers. Nevertheless everything between Heavy Cruiser and (Fast) Battleships is a sliding scale on what you want to call it with however many subdivisions you desire. Imo everything inbetween is for all intents and purposes the same, be it "Large Cruiser" or "Battlecruiser".
I feel like every ship in the game would need a speed and agility re-work along with a far larger map for Battlecruisers to be viable, a convoy escort/hunter mission would be fun anyway.
I can't believe I'm watching your videos for almost 5 years now. Time really flies
Cheers! thanks for watching for all these years, I really appreciate it!
The Battlecruisers should be lower tiered ships. Hood, Kongo, Seydlitz, Lutzow, indefatigable are all WWI ships. Gneisenau and Scharnhorst are WWII(the 1936 class) are debatable Battlecruisers/battleships or even fast battleships.
I’ve also been saying we should have a battlecruiser line. There’s been enough over the years to have their own class for UK and Deutschland anyway, even US has a few or a few armored/heavy cruisers that could fit.
A part of me is hoping this question doesn't get solved just to see Jingles try to figure how to refer to battleship battlecruisers vs cruiser battlecruisers in his commentaries. He's pretty adamant on calling cruiser killers/supercruisers/large cruisers as battlecruisers, so I'm curious how he would take it when you have these as cruisers alongside upcoming old school battlecruisers as a battleship subclass.
Also, wishing you a restful break, Chase!
Really need skills set for BC class ships, as this is really hurting the existing ships that could be classified as Battlecruisers. So classification or Captain skills.. it doesn't matter which comes first, but they should existing as their own segment. Also would be time to look at 16 per team instead of 12 if you include BCs and Subs...
This is something ever since Kron and Stalingrad were added into the game
They need there own categories and limit numbers in game so I can get back into my Atago
In general, I would like to see them rework the maps. Many of them are too small. All Tier VIII to X maps should be at least 48x48km and ideally all of the high-tier maps would be even bigger. Having the room to use a speed advantage to disengage and reposition would make it a better compensation for the weaker armor.
I particularly noticed the problem in Grand Battles, where the "Super" battleships seemed to be primarily XP pinatas for the DakkaBoats. Player skill level may have been a factor there - anybody could jump right into Tier X without regard to experience. But to escape being burned to the waterline you need more sea room than most of the maps provide.
Full disclosure - map development and variety is one of my sore points. Recent work seems to have been devoted to providing uncharted shoals to hang your ship up without warning, rather than the needed variety of experience.
Same problem as I've felt with the Odin. She's basically a super armoured battlecruiser, which if she's classified as a battlecruiser would be amazing. She's classified as a battleship however, and sometimes when I'm the only "battleship" in the flank, I can't really support my cruisers with drawing fire and tanking because that's suicide for Odin. But when there are proper Battleships, like NC or Vladivostok, i can fulfill my role as mid-range bombardier, basically playing as a super heavy cruiser, which is what i think WG intends for the Odin to be.
So yeah, the German Battlecruisers wouldn't be having too much difficulty in the lower tiers, but once it gets to te T8, it's going to suck. At least that's how a potato thinks.
I know it wouldn't be easy, but creating a battlecruiser class would probably be good just so the talents and general rules make sense. And at the same time you can (at least) make a distinction between light and heavy cruisers. Then, instead of requiring a perfectly balanced number of classes per team, you build in some flexibility so matchmaking can flex a battlecruiser into a battleship slot a pinch, or a light cruiser in for a DD, or a heavy cruiser for a light cruiser, etc.
And again, I know this wouldn't be easy. Just the matchmaking tech alone would be troublesome, and then you have to re-do the captain skill trees (again) so that these flexible classes get access to skills that flex their role. You probably need to re-write the general rules for these classes as well. Like, do CLs need new requirements to limit citadel hits if they're going to act as DDs? Do battlecruisers need special armor rules so they can actively avoid damage from full-fledged battlships?
Even if you figure that out, you might still need match-specific buffs for flexed classes, like a stealth boost for a CL acting as a DD, or a health buff for a Battlecruiser filling in a battleship role. It's...certainly going to be complicated, but it might be the right call if more of these "in-between" ships are going to be added.
I think of them more like Battlestars.
Battlecruisers were built to hunt down armoured cruisers and run away from battleships.
In game you can't run away due to the borders so they must fight...something they weren't built for.
(Same goes for subs. They weren't built for what they are shoehorned into in the game to do.)
Worse in the case of subs because they could not get fleet submarines to ever work, every major navy tried and abandoned the concept. But wargaming would rather force through an idea than to backtrack and fix or admit defeat.
I think they missed the mark with these German ones, historically German BC's had great armor but low gun caliber for their size.
That being said, I think these should have been more like the Graf Spee or O class (Agir/Siegfried).
And those BC were designed with 420mm
Battle cruisers definitely need their own class tree
They need their own class for team balancing reasons - not that weegee gives a toss about balancing things, i mean, 5 v 0 radar is balanced, right?
I actually think of it in a different manner, I don't like the term 'Super Cruiser' but it's somewhat functional, Large Cruiser would be a better term. Most of them were designed as 'oversized Cruisers' whereas traditional Battlecruisers were designed with Battleships as the start point, or that's as I understand it.
Either way, I don't think lumping in Stalingrad, Moskva, Alaska and PR into the same category as Amagi/Kongou/Hood is the right move.
Are there some overlaps? Sure.
Are they the same sort of ship? Not really.
As I see it;
BCs = BB firepower with a stripped down BB hull.
SCs = Big CAs with oversized CA guns.
Due to their characteristics you can probably lump Kongou and Hood in the Fast Battleships bucket
@@zephyros256 yeah to a degree, and Amagi too...
Keeping in mind that Fast Battleships share more in common with BCs of old.
Regardless we're talking about the game here and I thoroughly disagree with lumping in Large Cruisers as 'Battlecruisers'
Different ship types and functions.
Different evolutions
But this question is always a controversial one, even in history circles (AFAIK)
@@SappeREffecT yeah, how one would classify anything between heavy cruiser and battleship is (imo) quite subjective. Since the end of this scale (Full BB and clearly a CA) are well defined, but anything between that depends a bit on where you would make the line.
Like, you could include distinctions for Large Cruiser, Super Heavy Cruiser, Fast Battleship, Cruiser Killer and Battlecruiser. Or you could just include some or none of them, with it also differing greatly between different Navies.
@@zephyros256 Yeah 100%, at the end of the day it would be easy enough to do in game (considering the tiering system)
"Anything with comparable gun calibre to BBs at tier is a BC (BB) anything else is a CB (CA)"
Basically the whole thing would make a lot more sense in game if WG had a set of conditions that applied, let us know what that is and stuck to it, lol.
The biggest problem I would see with categorizing all BC’s and Large Cruisers/Panzershiff into one class is that you would then have to rework the Japanese battleship line and make a corresponding BC line. Unless you’d want to have to play through three non battleships in the Japanese battleship line.
Well with ships like those, that were armoured in a way that makes them BBs, I'm okay with that. It's just the German BCs are obviously BC armour since they aren't at the same level as the BBs. The old ships can stay, the new ones need some more rethinking
Just split the tech tree off. After all, you have to play a whole other line to tier 3 to unlock battleships for instance, get some Chester games in, and your St Louis before you go for the South Carolina. Why not climb up a tree, and laterally jump across?
@@jamesmckenzie9551 the problem is more so that you don’t go through the US heavy cruiser line as Pensacola, Helena, Cleveland, Buffalo, and Des Moines
Going through separate classes to reach a line is not a problem, but if the line itself isn’t consistent or has multiple completely different play styles it really doesn’t teach you on how to play the T10. Like for instance the new American BB line is SC to VT, they all have the same basics play style of being slow ships with most having a long reload and good guns. Then there’s the Fast BB branch off that has good guns, much better speed and better accuracy, within both branches there are two completely different play styles but through out both lines (NC to MN and SC to VT) stay consistent.
Unlike the Japanese line which would definitely benefit from a rework/ line split. On one hand you have the average speed, semi accurate, large amount and or large caliber guns of Kawachi, Fuso, Nagato, and Yamato.
Then you have the high speed, low quantity, high quality guns of Myogi, Kongo, and Amagi.
Then you have Izumo who has a completely unique turret setup, heavy hitting guns with great penetration, and will reliably hit what your shooting at, unlike Yammy, who from my experience has guns that either can’t hit the broadside of a barn from point blank range, or can hit a nat mid-flight 10km away.
@@beedrillbot121 well that can be said of many lines, some improved, some didn’t. For example, Moskva sitting atop Dimitry Donskoi was quite a change but Donskoi was a light cruiser. If people can adjust from that to the Moskva, they can adjust from a Buffalo to an Alaska. They could do what they do in World of Tanks where you have a line and it splits into two, and you can play either ship, and they converge back into the same line later. They could also remove tier 9 and consolidate the tier 9 and 10 ships into a single tier, that would retire so many of the paper ships and improve a lot of the quality.
@@jamesmckenzie9551 That's why now Donskoi goes to Nevsky and you have a separate CA line :v
iChase, did not the British and Germans have the same issue with battlecruisers during WW1, specifically Jutland. They were using their BC like BB. If I recall, it cost the British dearly. So, possibly, by accident, WG has put some realism into the game ...
BTW, anyone catch the irony of the Constellation attacking the Lexington?
Everytime one of my battlecruisers gets devstruck i cant help but say ''There seems to be something wrong with our ships today''.
:D we finally proved the superiority of surface ships against CVs, bwahahahaha
meanwhile petro is a submarine battleship classified as a cruiser kek
I think the changing roles is okay but really its them using the random queue poorly.. they could match BC's with BC's and BB's with BB's if they wanted to.. but for some reason they only want it on competitive matches?? either it uses a lot of server power or some other money reason why they'll fuck their game over $5.
My Bourgongen does about 45 kts that is faster than most dd's so i outrun them to the flank....:) with 12.2 km concealment is funny.
Isn't it like 13.2?
@@ryanli5803 correct, typo but effect stays the same :)
Totally...
If a new class is to be introduced, It should be BC, but web are getting subs instead...
They don't make sense in WoWS.
BCs were meant to hunt down and kill cruisers particularly the original ones were supposed to do that in the colonies far away form any BB, so tehy could get away with only having standard cruiser armour schemes.
Even later designs with more armour could not fight a BB in a 1v1, the higher speed just ment that direct combat could be avoided.
Yet in WoWS not only are they forced to fight BBs that are far better at their role, they also rob their team of an actual BB.
WG should either pretended to uparmour them to a relevant scale, give them their own classification* or not add them at all.
*Giving them their own classification opens a whole new problem, because then large cruisers, CAs and CLs should not be together in the same classification, nor should destroyers and destroyer leaders.
It would also indirectly demand that the number of ships per match be increased and we all know how bad WG servers are, they can sometimes barely handle the 24 ships we have right now.
Imperial Battlestar Destroyers you meant xD .
WG has proven that they do NOT have to think.
Battle cruisers need their own class
How dare you expect WG to build a better matchmaking engine....
You’re overinflating the role of BBs. I’ll take a constellation with radar over a BB any day.
I'm new to the game, but I think WG is spreading things out too thin, too quickly, with very little player input and then not actually listening to the players.
It definitely feels that way at times, way too much content, not enough time
Come join the club. And you can understand why many of the old timer players had left the game due to frustration and lack of communication between the player base and the developers.
@@ichasegaming why only livestream on twitch?
I think you deserve Doner Kebabs iChase. Sorry, but you cannot compare the Incomparable. Doing any streams on your holidays?
Yeah, gonna get the RUclips content going first, then start streaming :D
Well, people have been clamoring for battlecruisers for ages without thinking about how they'll fit into the game. Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind I guess.
They fit in as their own category which many of us said from the start. Worst case we would have accepted them as the high tier cruisers, or low tier battleships. But with light cruisers going all the way to tier 10, and the focus on making fleet submarines a thing, that’s untenable.
Been saying this for years(battlecruisers getting their own class) If hybrids gain more than a handful of diff ships, same applies with them.
kinda have the same problem as they did in real life.
At this point I think WG has to make a STOP...
And rethink everything from scratch, at least on the branching of Ships...
Separate BBs, BBFs, BBVs, CBs, CAs, CLs, CLTs, etc etc etc.
Also about the "new ships" I think they forgot to do some kind of "thinking exercise" to re-adapt the pre-WWI and post-WWI design doing an "alternate history" type of visualization of what would have really been those ships expectations and outcomes.
I like this idea. Create a separate battlecruiser class. It's neat and logical, which is why Wargaming will never go for it. For those people who say that adding a new class will increase wait times to get into a game, I've got a solution for that. Don't introduce submarines and remove CV's. Problem solved.
Second half is bullshit. You dont need new clases
I think you're asking the wrong question.
I think the question you should be asking about this expansion, evolution is how many pixel ships can WG try to sell to people.
Because.... I don't see the game anymore. I really don't. It's about pixel ships, always has been about pixel ships and will never not be about pixel ships. It has a competitive mode tacked onto the collection of pixel ships.
I might be very cynical though.
Do Battlecruisers need their own class, eh maybe. I mean the thing is Battlecruiser as many will point out has this sliding scale definition of what they are supposed to be, Like far as im concerned a "BattleCruiser" Is a Fast, lightly armored (relatively speaking) vessel, with battleship firepower. By that definition the Constellation fits that bill, But then you have all the SUPER HEAVY Cruisers like Alaska, Congress(screw you wargaming and your reskin BS), Stalingrad, ectara ectara, the "Large Cruisers" are in a even wierder place, generally speaking they are better then normal cruisers and technically can take a battleship role (your still gonna get overmatched to all hell but you can fight BBs in Super Heavy cruisers).
Then you have the new skill system, Battleship BCs can negate the Downsides of Battlecruisers (Fire damage for 60s) While Cruiser BCs cant. So not only would they add a new class in a already crowded game but new skill tree and all that jazz.
This makes too much sense. Wargaming is not going to do this. It would break their sacred MM and game infrastructure.
Hood, Repulse, Scharnhorst classes, they should all be Battlecruiser classes.
WG is like a cat i sits even if don't fits and broke the game, well is already so all good tovarich! DA !
well if they put my Georgia as battlecruiser or nerf it to perfom like a one, I will quit the game. And im hardcore player.
The problem is that they added 'super cruisers' without making them their own class and just going "These are battlecruisers," which they are btw, they're not cruisers. So when they introduce real battlecruisers with realistic stats instead of "DA DA COMRADE..>DAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!" fapfic ships in the Soviet tree they seem weak. Its not made better with them not having any AA or being hypothetical refits/modernisations as a B hull to give them some AA. And with the German BC's having realistic guns instead of Soviet Seekrut dokumunts then their guns are gonna seem weak to the railguns we're use to or when you hold them up against a late era design like the Alaska. really what they need to do is rethink the whole super cruiser idea (which is a bad one) and reclassify them. Yes they've got weaker guns. That's because they're made to kill cruisers, not tangle with BB's. Give them more rational gun performance instead of Seekrut dokumunts Komrade and then see how they perform.
another ruiser 10 knots faster then a destroyer,and this cruiser keeps his speed while changing course,while a destroyer looses half of it´s speed when changing course for 1 second only!
fully fair
fully balanced
fully logic
"gameplay"
How players can even remotely call Alaska a great ship is beyond me. Only time you're gonna get something good out of that ship is when the enemy players literally potato their asses off....