WG should start a new line for CA (Armored Cruisers)

[kitttt2002]

As we all know , we have a lot of different type of cruiser , but they are all with a different role by their own nature

 

But the problems is the spectrum of cl is too large to simply categorize  them as "CL" 

As the work of "L" is mean light not heavy

 

That why I think it is not appropriate to put all of them in to just one cl line to say : oh you all CL and that it.

 

so I think WG should really think about open a new class 

 

CA

[kitttt2002]

OMG i want to move this top to dev section. sorry guys

[S4pp3R]

I'm assuming you aren't trolling... Because I'm nice.

CA and CL designation denotes gun calibre.

203mm+ are CAs

Below are CLs...

There are some oversized monstrosities that we call Super Cruisers (SCs) with guns around or over 300mm

In game they are all lumped together as 'Cruisers'.

CLs and CAs in some nations have their own complete lines, see USN and RN. Others progress to CAs at a specific point, usually between T5 and T7.

If you are talking about separating their class, not a good idea as they all overlap in functionality.

[iDd_Sloth]

Armored Cruisers design fell out of favor after WW I.

The armored cruiser was not a close ancestor of heavy cruisers, even though the name might suggest this.

Armored cruiser is the direct predecessor of and inspiration for the battlecruiser.

The heavy cruiser was a direct product of the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922, which limited cruisers to a standard displacement of no more than 10,000 tons, with main guns not exceeding 8 inches (203 mm) caliber.

[Paladinum]

Probably confused after seeing other players using "CL" (or "CA") as the collective term for cruisers.

Yeah, that's why I have been using "C/CR" if I'm talking about cruisers in general, regardless of gun size or design.

AND MORE PEOPLE SHOULD DO IT.

The USN actually used "C" as abbreviation for all cruisers in the very early days. Look up C-1 USS Newark.

[Grygus_Triss]

2 hours ago, Paladinum said:

Probably confused after seeing other players using "CL" (or "CA") as the collective term for cruisers.

Yeah, that's why I have been using "C/CR" if I'm talking about cruisers in general, regardless of gun size.

AND MORE PEOPLE SHOULD DO IT.

The USN actually used "C" as abbreviation for all cruisers in the very early days. Look up C-1 USS Newark.

I will adopt the C/CR terminology.

I’ve just been typing “cruisers” whenever I talk about cruisers in general...

[S0und_Theif]

34 minutes ago, Grygus_Triss said:

I will adopt the C/CR terminology.

I’ve just been typing “cruisers” whenever I talk about cruisers in general...

Me and @Paladinum have been using C / Cr for Cruiser designation as a whole.

ACR: Armored Cruiser (pre-1920)
B: Battleship (pre-1920)
BB: Battleship
BM: Monitor (1920–retirement)
C : Cruiser (pre-1920 protected cruisers and peace cruisers)
CA: (first series) Cruiser, armored (retired, comprised all surviving pre-1920 armored and protected cruisers)
CA: (second series) Heavy cruiser, category later renamed gun cruiser (retired)
CB: Large cruiser (retired)
CC: Battlecruiser (retired, never used operationally by USN. Lexington was converted to CV.)
CC: (second usage) command ship (retired)
CL: Cruiser, light (retired)
CLAA: Cruiser, light, anti-aircraft (retired)
CS: Scout cruiser (retired)
D : Destroyer (pre-1920)
DD: Destroyer
DDE: Escort destroyer, a destroyer (DD) converted for antisubmarine warfare – category abolished 1962. (not to be confused with destroyer escort DE)
DE: Destroyer escort (World War II, later became Ocean escort)
DE: Ocean escort (abolished 30 June 1975)
DL: Destroyer leader (later frigate) (retired)
DM: Destroyer, minelayer (retired)
DMS: Destroyer, minesweeper (retired)
PG: Patrol Boat (retired)
K: Corvette (retired)
FF: Frigate
M: Monitor (1880 - 1920)
TB: Torpedo Boat

Note: I have removed Missile ships (BBG, CAG, CLG, CBG, DDG), as well as some of the ship hull designations as it is not currently needed game wise.

Full list here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hull_classification_symbol

 

This is why I use:
CC for battle cruisers but falls under BB designation in the game.
while
CB for large cruiser but falls under C designation in the game.

[Adorable_Arona]

Please read this first

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hull_classification_symbol

[Mechfori]

Game wise the CL, CA, and CB really should be separated into different categories, but it should not be separated as history goes , which is by an arbitrary value of gun caliber , most high tier USS CL are just CA with a bunch of 152mm instead of real CL ( as in tactical sense ). This is intentional in real history as the term is only coined per the naval treaties between WWI and WWII and really only by the reigning naval powers almost all still intent on just as best not abiding wit the treaty but abiding within the terms of the treaty. Historically CL really are what the Royal Navy once termed the Scout Cruiser , Flotilla Leader and the were quite a lot around until Navy Holiday period , when almost all country just made CRUISER with 152mm guns ad  call them Light Cruiser.

Do I agree the class should be separated as their own  ; YES I do. Do I agree that all current CL just looped into the CL category : NO I don't, many of the USS/Soviet CL are just CA with 152mm ans should be spec and classify as such. Do I think CB and CLA should get their own classification, YES, absolutely so , does anyone think matching a Stalingrad vs a Smolensk really fair and equally matched !!!

[dejiko_nyo]

Battleships fell out of favour after WWII. Cruisers are falling out of favour now. Destroyers are currently the "in" thing. 

Only designations of interest to me: CVN, BCGN, CGN, BBN, SSN, SSBN.

[tsuenwan]

57 minutes ago, dejiko_nyo said:

Battleships fell out of favour after WWII. Cruisers are falling out of favour now. Destroyers are currently the "in" thing. 

Only designations of interest to me: CVN, BCGN, CGN, BBN, SSN, SSBN.

There are so many modern DDs have their displacement similar to WWII heavy cruisers though. and FFs are way heavier than WWII DDs.

[dejiko_nyo]

24 minutes ago, tsuenwan said:

There are so many modern DDs have their displacement similar to WWII heavy cruisers though. and FFs are way heavier than WWII DDs.

The term destroyer originates from "torpedo boat destroyer" which was their original role. Subsequently people kept tacking more roles for them until today where they now serve as a cheaper and more economical alternative to larger platforms. I have a ship that performs almost as good as a bigger ship, but needs much less crew and maintenance. For the price of 1 big ships, I can have 2 or 3 smaller ships with 2 or 3 times more firepower and potential targeting headaches for the opponent. Which would you chose?

In-game, the destroyers honestly are overpowered. Why? "for the sake of balanz"

[S0und_Theif]

1 hour ago, dejiko_nyo said:

Only designations of interest to me: CVN, BCGN, CGN, BBN, SSN, SSBN.

And when they get killed / destroyed, they will leave an area with radioactive stuff.

Damaging any ship that dares to pass through that area.

Just like those desolators or demolition trucks.

 

"My ship is loaded!"

 

Advanced / modern ships would be around tier XV / 15.

[dejiko_nyo]

40 minutes ago, S0und_Theif said:

And when they get killed / destroyed, they will leave an area with radioactive stuff.

Damaging any ship that dares to pass through that area.

Just like those desolators or demolition trucks.

 

"My ship is loaded!"

 

Advanced / modern ships would be around tier XV / 15.

Not as bad as Dr. Thrax and his SCUD storm!

[tsuenwan]

1 hour ago, dejiko_nyo said:

The term destroyer originates from "torpedo boat destroyer" which was their original role. Subsequently people kept tacking more roles for them until today where they now serve as a cheaper and more economical alternative to larger platforms. I have a ship that performs almost as good as a bigger ship, but needs much less crew and maintenance. For the price of 1 big ships, I can have 2 or 3 smaller ships with 2 or 3 times more firepower and potential targeting headaches for the opponent. Which would you chose?

I would think their type naming was more political than following any historical conventions. CV centric warfare also reduce the roles required to support their operation.

[Mechfori]

6 hours ago, dejiko_nyo said:

 

In-game, the destroyers honestly are overpowered. Why? "for the sake of balanz"

But also in game it do not abide by reality that for each BB, there is likely 2 to 4  DD along as escort and separately DD flotilla that do the vanguard, flanker duty , no sane navy would send a fleet of 12 with a CV, 5BB, heavy Cruisers with only 1DD. The only time any Navy would send fleet out without enough DD us that they just do not had any left.