The cruiser tree needs a diet

[198xAD]

I just did a test over the course of 10 years on the 1890 campaign using only 1 vial on cruisers and it got me:

A 13,000 ton CA
A 9,000 ton CL
No BattleCruisers

Comparatively, you can rush some pretty nice dreadnought hulls in about half the time along with some decent DD hulls.

This is not a discussion about historical realism (IE real production year), but relative realism. It should not take an entire research cycle to develop a 12,500 ton CA over a 12,000 ton CA. A lot of these can be merged. I suggest breaking up the tree as well. Add a separate tree for CA's, another one for CL's and merge the battlecruisers into hull strengthening with the battleships (probably retitle that to capital hulls or smth)

[Random Folk]

I agree, playing from 1890 and researching cruisers feels so disappointing and pointless most of the time. I don't know this part of the naval history at all, so maybe designs stagnated at this period, but from game perspective this is very tedious and boring.

Pre-dreadnought BBs are not that much more interesting TBH, the hulls don't give much room to design for your liking. IMHO the game really starts shining when dreadnoughts start appearing, and whole pre-dreadnought era is not that good. The feeling when your first dreadnoughts start appearing and they steamroll your pre-dreadnought enemies -> satisfaction.

So, IMHO whole 1890 start needs some working on.

[Triton]

1. Depends which nation you play, Austria-Hungary has decent CA (after 1920), France has nice CL (after 1920).
2. If you invest research points to Cruiser tree as Italy you get the large Cruiser II (starting in 1890 you will unlock it by 1910), which is in my opinion the best hybrid cruiser.
3. Agree about merging some of them, disagree for separation of CA and CL, historically the Washington Naval treaty in 1922 dictated the design parameters between light and heavy-armored cruiser.
4. Battlecruisers stopped being useful after Fast Battleships came in action (around 1930), the separation should be there, Fast Battleships should be placed in BB line.

[198xAD]

Originally posted by Triton:

1. Depends which nation you play, Austria-Hungary has decent CA (after 1920), France has nice CL (after 1920).
2. If you invest research points to Cruiser tree as Italy you get the large Cruiser II (starting in 1890 you will unlock it by 1910), which is in my opinion the best hybrid cruiser.
3. Agree about merging some of them, disagree for separation of CA and CL, historically the Washington Naval treaty in 1922 dictated the design parameters between light and heavy-armored cruiser.
4. Battlecruisers stopped being useful after Fast Battleships came in action (around 1930), the separation should be there, Fast Battleships should be placed in BB line.

I just don't see how your country can make a 40k ton super dreadnought but not a 30k ton battlecruiser. This makes no sense to me. BC's have far more in common with BB's than CA/CL's. It just doesn't belong in that tree no way.

[Triton]

Originally posted by 198xAD:

I just don't see how your country can make a 40k ton super dreadnought but not a 30k ton battlecruiser. This makes no sense to me. BC's have far more in common with BB's than CA/CL's. It just doesn't belong in that tree no way.

Battlecruisers scarified protection for speed, and every nation used designs with different characteristics.

Example: HMS Courageous was a battlecruiser of 19.490 tons (built in 1915) and speed 32 knots, while HMS Hood build in 1916 also a battlecruiser with 46.680 tons and speed 32 knots. Courageous tends to be similar to a cruiser while Hoods is easily characterized as battleship (or early fast battleship).

Fast Battleships was the evolution of WW1 BBs, example: South Dakota class, King George V class, Littorio class etc while BC evolved to modern cruisers like Alaska class or Admiral Hipper class.

The game allows you to play with beam and draught, therefore you can design a battlecruiser similar to a CA or BB. Battlecruisers are fine in the cruiser tree, Fast Battleships which is the final upgrade are not. That’s the only part (historical speaking) that should be separated.

As for the diet agreed that some parts of cruiser research tree should be merged.

[198xAD]

All these terms are subjective but I'm pretty sure I've even heard Drachinifel state that battlecruisers didn't always take on the glass cannon stereotype. Battlecruisers are capable of becoming battleships and vise verse based on modification.

A more standard definition of a battlecruiser is a large cruiser capable of carrying battleship caliber guns.

Cases like the Kongo and the Scharnhorst also tell us something. Different sources will often use battleship and battlecruiser interchangeably. But no one has ever called something like a Baltimore or a Mogami a battlecruiser.

[Dirty Rider]

I would like the R&D tree split up in a few areas as well, including hull types. That I believe, would cater to a good number of play styles , as well as bring a more meaningful impact on your choices of what to research.

Your Idea's to break the classes up and the merge with BC's\BB's just makes sense. That being said, I don't care for the current iteration of R&D. Specifically how you can pick priority. I fear if this is the system we will get, then breaking up into more trees my slow up RnD overall if you do not pick and choose very selectively (As you should be doing already).

Overall, I think you are on solid ground with this idea and hope it's not lost in the sea of voices.

[198xAD]

Imo, there should be separate vial types for each field. For instance:

3 vials for construction tech
3 for industry tech
2 for theory

But with less weight overall.

Alternatively another option would be to let players turn off research in certain techs.

And finally it would be nice to see some techs require some prerequisites like other games with conventional tech trees.

[Aegis270]

Originally posted by 198xAD:

All these terms are subjective but I'm pretty sure I've even heard Drachinifel state that battlecruisers didn't always take on the glass cannon stereotype. Battlecruisers are capable of becoming battleships and vise verse based on modification.

A more standard definition of a battlecruiser is a large cruiser capable of carrying battleship caliber guns.

Cases like the Kongo and the Scharnhorst also tell us something. Different sources will often use battleship and battlecruiser interchangeably. But no one has ever called something like a Cleveland or a Myoko a battlecruiser.

Trying to determine what is and isn't a battle cruiser on the large cruiser to battleship spectrum from historical precedent is nearly impossible because there's so little consistency.

Is it a fast ship with but smaller than average BB guns? If so, the Scharnhorst is a BC. But if that's the case, what about the Deutschland class? Same guns, albeit it one less turret, similar speed, similar planned role. But no-one calls the Deutschland class BCs, albeit they also disagree on what to call them. Either Panzerschiffs, pocket battleships or heavy cruisers, depending on who you ask and when.

Meanwhile, the Alaska class had bigger guns, faster speed and armor that's far closer to the Scharnhorst than the Deutschland class, but she was emphatically called a "large cruiser".

Meanwhile, on the other side of the spectrum you have ships like the Hood and the Iowa. The Hood had armor that was roughly comparable to her battleship counterparts like the Queen Elizabeth class. Yet she remained classified as a battlecruiser until her sinking, seemingly due to her speed. Meanwhile, the Iowa class shared her high speed, and so despite her battleship grade armor and firepower, some still claim she should be classed as a battlecruiser.

So a battlecruiser can be a ship with high speed, BB guns and BB armor. Or it can be a ship with high speed, no armor and BB guns. Or it can be a ship with high speed, decent armor and sub-BB guns. But not if it's American. Unless it's the Iowa. Seemingly the only consistent part is the high speed, which is rather unhelpful considering that describes just about every non-BB ship in a fleet.

Ultimately, I do think BCs share more with BBs than they do with cruisers. But, perhaps a compromise? Since BCs are very much the meta, and massively powercreep BBs from their introduction, how about making them their own branch that's only unlocked when both the BB and cruiser tech line has reached a certain level. It makes more sense, it's harder to rush, and it trims down the cruiser line a tad.

[Dirty Rider]

Originally posted by Aegis270:

Originally posted by 198xAD:

All how about making them their own branch that's only unlocked when both the BB and cruiser tech line has reached a certain level. It makes more sense, it's harder to rush, and it trims down the cruiser line a tad.

That is quite a good idea, it leaves open choices, both before and after in regards to hull choices. Meets nicely with the point 198x makes and reqeusts.

Originally posted by 198xAD:

And finally it would be nice to see some techs require some prerequisites like other games with conventional tech trees.

As well as what you pointed out above, trims down cruiser line and not at the expense (from what I can see) of anything else. Still unclear how would effect the over-arching issues (As I see it) , having a system in place that is just.....not what this game deserves. ( the last part is more of a "me" issue then an "Us" issue.)

At the rate we are seeing new ideas and changes, it has been and will continue to be my hope, the devman will give us the game we want and know it can be.

[198xAD]

American "CB's" are a bad example. The US was the only country in the world to use this classification and explicitly would not refer to them as battlecruisers.

The Renown class is worth adding to this confusion because they sacrificed practically nothing protectionwise to gain speed. They simply carried one less main battery. But regardless, the renown class was not even on the same planet as any heavy cruiser on earth. Dwarfed panzerschiffe and was comparable to a Revenge Battleship.

I'm not hearing any compelling arguments in this thread that tells me self reported battlecruisers are more like CA's than BB's.

[greigy]

as someone that only plays the crusier tree, I like the little improvements, but they need to be a bit cheaper to get - eg 8 months instead of 14.

I think keep the bc's for later in the tech, and try and flesh out the use of the semi-armoured line a bit.

I have basically ended up playing just ac's until I get bc's due to the cost of supporting a fleet being so high. bb's just don't compete, in build time, cost or repairs. not to mention excess crew costs...

reading the suggestions has been interesting, and I'd like to see the tree split up a bit myself

[Mr.Gold]

Originally posted by 198xAD:

I just did a test over the course of 10 years on the 1890 campaign using only 1 vial on cruisers and it got me:

A 13,000 ton CA
A 9,000 ton CL
No BattleCruisers

Comparatively, you can rush some pretty nice dreadnought hulls in about half the time along with some decent DD hulls.

This is not a discussion about historical realism (IE real production year), but relative realism. It should not take an entire research cycle to develop a 12,500 ton CA over a 12,000 ton CA. A lot of these can be merged. I suggest breaking up the tree as well. Add a separate tree for CA's, another one for CL's and merge the battlecruisers into hull strengthening with the battleships (probably retitle that to capital hulls or smth)

To be honest, the limitation on Hull tonnage is absurd. Hull tonnage was limited by dock capacity. It wasn't some whimsical quantity that made a nation able to build 15k tons battleships couldn't build 10k tons Armored cruisers. The size of cruisers was more a consideration of cost and doctrine.

[Aegis270]

Another important point to think about is the lack of hulls in the tree. There are only a handful, they're pretty much all generic, and similar to pre-dreadnought BB hulls, are incredibly limiting in what players can design with them. The only exceptions are the few unique ones like the Austrohungarian CA, and designs like the Armored Cruiser V where you can get a pseudo dreadnought cruiser design going.

The line wouldn't feel nearly as barren if you'd unlock designs that granted you more and more freedom of design. I barely build CAs anymore, not just because they're pretty bad right now, but because every nation ends up building the same poorly performing CAs run after run, with no real room for experimentation.

[Mr.Gold]

Originally posted by Aegis270:

Another important point to think about is the lack of hulls in the tree. There are only a handful, they're pretty much all generic, and similar to pre-dreadnought BB hulls, are incredibly limiting in what players can design with them. The only exceptions are the few unique ones like the Austrohungarian CA, and designs like the Armored Cruiser V where you can get a pseudo dreadnought cruiser design going.

The line wouldn't feel nearly as barren if you'd unlock designs that granted you more and more freedom of design. I barely build CAs anymore, not just because they're pretty bad right now, but because every nation ends up building the same poorly performing CAs run after run, with no real room for experimentation.

This is actually very true. My 6 inch side belt Protected cruisers (1890 start) with a bunch of 4 and 5 inch guns, can mess up CAs pretty rapidly.

[SievertChaser]

Originally posted by 198xAD:

All these terms are subjective but I'm pretty sure I've even heard Drachinifel state that battlecruisers didn't always take on the glass cannon stereotype. Battlecruisers are capable of becoming battleships and vise verse based on modification.

A more standard definition of a battlecruiser is a large cruiser capable of carrying battleship caliber guns.

Cases like the Kongo and the Scharnhorst also tell us something. Different sources will often use battleship and battlecruiser interchangeably. But no one has ever called something like a Baltimore or a Mogami a battlecruiser.

I wasn't going to step into this discussion... but then you mentioned Drach.

Basically, Jackie Fischer's original idea was, yes, a glass cannon. The Indefatigable notably had an ill-designed turret barbette vulnerable to cruiser pens. Then when von Tirpitz was ordering a German response, none other than the Kaiser himself impressed upon him that these are going to be forced into the line of battle anyway, so you might as well protect them accordingly. The follow-up generations of British ships were similarly armored as a result.

Granted, this experience didn't seem to take. The Nazi battlecruiser designs, for example, were typical first-gen Britain with paper-thin armor.

And yeah, classifying fast battleships as battlecruisers is... odd. Even though they're essentially the main battle tanks of naval warfare.