Light vs Heavy Cruiser Debate & seperate Heavy Cruiser class

[dia]

On Discord we had a discussion about cruisers and the difference between heavy and light cruisers. I know why the classes are setup the way they are in game. But if you're game doesn't have a naval treaty, the difference between a heavy cruiser and light cruiser doesn't make all that much sense. Again, I do know why the classes are set up the way they are. But I wanted to throw my own suggestions on how possibly to improve it.

Short and simplified, armored cruisers developed into the battlecruiser and heavy cruisers developed from the light cruiser. In game that's not how it is for good reasons.

So my suggestions are as follows:
Separate the heavy cruiser and armored cruiser classes (CA for Heavy Cruiser and ACR for armored cruiser - blame the USN classification system for confusion). Have the Heavy Cruiser develop from the Light Cruiser ( Possibly a separate tech tree for cruisers ). After a certain level of technological development, the heavy cruiser (CA) becomes a build-able class. Furthermore, to make the classification of heavy vs light cruisers feasible, the game will have to take intended roles into consideration when classifying a ship. 

Some issues?

• What development is needed to unlock the heavy cruiser (CA)? This is where I was thinking having a separate cruiser tree comes into play. It would be a natural progression of cruiser tech, after superimposed armament and obviously after Light cruiser armor configuration. The game would probably have to have battlecruisers present to allow the unlocking. The year set to maybe 1920.
  
• What differs the CL and CA class? This is the hardest part because if you base it off of stats, you just go back to the original issue and for the purpose of battle generation you need to be able to separate the classes. That's why I think the classification should be based on a combination of stats and intended role. For physical stats, certain attributes should play a part, primarily speed, armament, and displacement as it sort of does now. To cover that blurry line between light and heavy cruisers in reality, the player should be able to assign the ship a certain role(s). In the design screen, the player would have a list of intended roles to choose from (some requiring tech) such as CLAA, scout, cruiser-hunter, fleet unit, colonial, auxiliary/raider etc. The designer does not auto-classifies a ship until it considers the combination of speed, displacement, armament, and intended role.  As for the exact details of those combinations, I think those are up for debate.
  
• How important is role in classifying a CL vs CA? Role does not have to be the deciding factor in classification. A slow-moving heavily-armored 15k-ton cruiser with 10 8" guns will be classified as a heavy cruiser no matter what the player sets as the role. But when it comes to something like the Mogami-class or similar ship that is on the edge, the player's input will make the difference. This is important for battle generation as you don't want a light cruiser designed for screening to be thrown in into a heavy cruiser role just because it's large and has more than 3" of armor.
  
• How does the "intended role" concept work for other ship classes and battle generation? The intended role concept can be applied to other ship classes (Destroyer Leader, 2nd-rate battleship, Destroyer Escort, Escort Carrier etc). In terms of battle generation, the roles on all classes could influence how a ship is deployed, but wouldn't take total control over the battle generator. At the end of the day, they are nothing more than a player's intent. I can discuses this feature in a separate thread if desired. I'm pretty sure I've made similar suggestions before. On the other hand, intended roles don't have to have any influence on the battle generator all and can remain only relevant to CL vs CA classification.
  
• Why not just have single Cruiser class that comes after the Protected Cruiser? This a possibility, but for battle generation purposes you really should have light vs heavy cruiser classes like we do now.
  
• How would this impact Panzerschiffs? There would have to be some exception to allow ships like the Panzerschiffs and Tsukuba-types much like there is now. Though the Tsukuba-types would fall under the ACR class.
  
• Why not keep things the way they are? You could and the current system is not all that bad. But the fact is, heavy cruiser did not develop from the armored cruiser and light cruisers should not be limited by arbitrary limitations set by a treaty that may or may not exist.
  

This is only my view on the subject. Other ideas are welcome. Ultimately it's up to the devs to decide whether such changes are worth it.

[rimbecano]

For my part, I'd just give the CL classification a sliding upper boundary that goes up as the game progresses, and, with no treaty, have the limits on heavy cruisers be identical to those for light cruisers (whether to call a cruiser light or heavy is then entirely up to the player). Then, some possible treaties would place different restrictions on the tonnage, armament, etc. of the two types.

For my part, in a no-treaty world, I'd call anything from the WWII era that exceeded 30 kts and couldn't stand in the line of battle against an Iowa or Yamato a light cruiser. Anything of similar speed that could stand in the line of battle I'd call a battlecruiser. "Heavy cruiser" is a term I'd only ever use when dealing with a treaty.

[wlbjork]

The other option would be that rather than using artificial divisions from the 1922 WNT, what are currently called CLs become Small Cruisers whilst CAs become Large Cruisers. There would be an additional benefit in that you don't have to use the CA designation for some of GBs 1st Rate Protected Cruisers from when they weren't building Armoured Cruisers .

It is still an artificial distinction, but one I consider is necessary. The two are treated differently by the battle generator and I suspect that there are also hidden design differences between the two, such as range.

[thorthemighty]

I feel that at the very least, CLs after a certain point are just no longer viable since its more cost effective to build CAs. This idea makes them more viable as a ship type particularly in the mid to late game.

[Enderminion]

I feel as though both the Tsukuba and Panzerschiffs could be kept under ACR even into the late game, possibly with Alaska type CB being folded in as well.

[aquelarrefox]

Im not sure about the efects in game mechanics (battle building) could have split cl and Ca, but i see much interesting spliting their tech tree. That could be important to make separate building strategies, but its a consolidate concept in the gae desing than i see hard to change. Mybe only spliting techs could be relative easy to implement than a complex indeph reclasification of ships