Post by Enderminion on May 10, 2021 1:18:53 GMT -6
Currently in game there are three types of cruisers.
There are a number of issues in my opinion, not with battlecruisers, those are fine.
Going forwards some suggestions, but first some thoughts. The armored cruiser evolves into the battlecruiser, the heavy cruiser evolves from the light cruiser, however a heavy cruiser is closer to a light cruiser than an armored cruiser is to a battlecruiser. There is a distinction between larger cruisers and smaller cruisers, there is a distinction between 4"-6" armed cruisers, (large) 6"-8" armed cruisers, and a distinction with 10"/11"/12" cruisers; talking only of more modern heavy/large/light cruisers; 9" guns are going to be awkward wherever they are, either overpowered by 10" artillery or blowing away 6" artillery. The CA classification at the start of the game can imo be wholly replaced by BC's with smaller guns, as small as 6" yes.
So my suggestions for cruiser classifications would be to have one classification for small light cruisers, another for modern larger light cruisers and modern heavy cruisers, and lastly a classification for large cruisers with guns larger than 8" (ie 9"-12") possibly with a rolling max gun caliber based on year. Perhaps the last can retain the current CA matchmaking but the other types very much should not. Armor limits should be increased across the board, 3" of armor in 1900 does *not* equal 3" of armor in 1940 and an Atlanta with 5" artillery under the current system is a CA and the perception of CA is that they are effectively BC, an Atlanta is not a 60,000 ton 9x17" BC as their 3.75" belt makes them under the current system. Displacement should probably range 8000/18000/30000 tons respectively for each category mentioned
Comments requested. Particular for numbers
Amusing notes
- Battlecruisers: These are fine, no issues here.
- Armored Cruisers: I specified Armored Cruisers for a reason, an Armored Cruiser is effectively a battlecruiser, this is fine and true and their matchmaking reflects that (or at least the perception of their matchmaking does).
- Light Cruisers: For what exactly these cover, small light cruisers, these are also fine.
The current system of cruisers is very obviously intended for the period from 1900-1915 ish, cracks appear with the Hawkins class and widen considerably with stuff like the Furutaka and Pensacola class, larger cruisers which fill the same role as older smaller light cruisers.
There are a number of issues in my opinion, not with battlecruisers, those are fine.
- CA Armored Cruiser. These are called upon to also cover the more modern Heavy Cruiser and per the game devs also cover particularly heavily armored light cruisers (such as the Atlanta class). While you can quite possibly make a valid argument that particularly well armored 6" gun cruisers can match 8" gun cruisers, they cannot match 10" armed cruisers. Furthermore *none* of these ships are effectively battlecruisers in all but name (barring Alekan's very large cruisers which are a bit exploity imo) while still retaining the same matchmaking as an armored cruiser which has the perception of being the same as that of a battlecruiser.
- Light Cruisers have issues but I do not believe any of my proposed fixes would retain the issues. The primary is that the 3" armor limit is probably too low.
Going forwards some suggestions, but first some thoughts. The armored cruiser evolves into the battlecruiser, the heavy cruiser evolves from the light cruiser, however a heavy cruiser is closer to a light cruiser than an armored cruiser is to a battlecruiser. There is a distinction between larger cruisers and smaller cruisers, there is a distinction between 4"-6" armed cruisers, (large) 6"-8" armed cruisers, and a distinction with 10"/11"/12" cruisers; talking only of more modern heavy/large/light cruisers; 9" guns are going to be awkward wherever they are, either overpowered by 10" artillery or blowing away 6" artillery. The CA classification at the start of the game can imo be wholly replaced by BC's with smaller guns, as small as 6" yes.
So my suggestions for cruiser classifications would be to have one classification for small light cruisers, another for modern larger light cruisers and modern heavy cruisers, and lastly a classification for large cruisers with guns larger than 8" (ie 9"-12") possibly with a rolling max gun caliber based on year. Perhaps the last can retain the current CA matchmaking but the other types very much should not. Armor limits should be increased across the board, 3" of armor in 1900 does *not* equal 3" of armor in 1940 and an Atlanta with 5" artillery under the current system is a CA and the perception of CA is that they are effectively BC, an Atlanta is not a 60,000 ton 9x17" BC as their 3.75" belt makes them under the current system. Displacement should probably range 8000/18000/30000 tons respectively for each category mentioned
Comments requested. Particular for numbers
Amusing notes
- Can't call anything a large light cruiser, thanks Fisher
- Can't call anything a large cruiser, thanks King