Community - Forum - View old data

Categories :  



  • Give battlecruisers their real strengths.

    12. 11. 2005 04:15

Now the concept of a Battlecruiser is the speed of a cruiser, the firepower of a
battleship, and to be able to travel much furtherfaster than a battleship. This
concept had a point in reality for th British who had a massive empire, some of it on
the other side of the world, but was pointless for the Germans.

Now back to the game, as you can imagine this concept can't work in the game,
there is no need to travel around the world and because of the 3 times as fast as
reality reload times a BC's speed is made useless and they are left more vunerable
from lack of armor.

I suggest that TNF give the battlecruisers their main strength, in crease thier speed
by at least 5 knts and overheat time by at least 3 seconds. This is should
Battlecruisers a bit level the playing field with Battleships.

  • Re : Give battlecruisers their real strengths.

    03. 19. 2011 08:32

You are all missing the point...BC's were actually intended to service the "Empire"
and be the BB's on the periphery...since BB's didn't have the cruising range to sail to
the Pacific...

Battle cruisers were intended to cruise the sea lanes and sink CA's, not serve in the
line of battle. The Brit's used their BC's in the battle line because they didn't feel
they had enough BB's to counter the Germans. So they constituted a "fast
squadron" of BC's...but, because they didn't have the armour to stand up to BB's
they were sunk in un precidented numbers.

Had they been used in the manner intended, as CA killers, with their vastly heavier
guns, and slightly heavier armour, they would have dominated the sea lanes, but
since they were used in the battle fleet, they were an expensive failure.

The US Alaska class were never intended or classed as Battle Cruisers. They were
classed as large cruisers and were intended to counter the Myoko class of the
Japanese with larger guns and heavier armour than a CA, but no where near the
protection of a BB or a CB (US designation of Battle Cruiser), and were designated
as CC's...or large cruiser.

  • Re : Give battlecruisers their real strengths.

    03. 16. 2011 13:46

If we're playing for historical accuracy then AP shells should have a chance to blow
up the ammo lockers instantly knocking guns out if not the whole ship. Besides BC's
at the age of WW2 we're obolete, I can go dig up some resources if y'all want.

  • Re : Give battlecruisers their real strengths.

    03. 16. 2011 13:32

LOL "I saw HISTORY channel" you didn't really watch too close huh?

Also were are discussing the issues with Battle Cruisers, not SS. Please go find the right
topic for that.

  • Re : Give battlecruisers their real strengths.

    03. 16. 2011 06:12

We are in WW2......

  • How About Ballistic Missile SN SS

    03. 16. 2011 04:10

I saw in HISTORY Channel about Russian SS. How i wish having a BALLISTIC missile for the
Submarine in NF.

  • Re : Give battlecruisers their real strengths.

    03. 16. 2011 00:36

holy crap guys really? There fast enough want me to prove it? I can speed cap the
Alaska/Guam with 1 80+ engie. They don't need a speed improvement

  • Re : Give battlecruisers their real strengths.

    03. 15. 2011 23:10

If Battlecruisers stayed away from other battlecruisers as well as battleships, the
battlecruisers usually performed excellently. An Example in WW1 was the Battle of the
Falkland Islands where the British Battlecruisers Inflexible and Invincible (ironically
Invincible was later sunk at Jutland) engaged and destroyed a German cruiser flotilla led
by the older armoured-cruisers Scharnhorst and Gneisenau (the names would be reused by the
WW2 ships).

  • Re : Give battlecruisers their real strengths.

    03. 15. 2011 14:31

Actually, the BC concept was a pre-WWI idea that failed. The ships were designed for
scouting or to fight cruisers, using their speed to stay out of range while hitting with
their own bigger guns. They failed because sooner or later they came into contact with
battleships who had the same size guns plus armor, or other battle cruisers with the same
size guns causing devestating damage. The naval rule of thumb is that a ship should carry
armor that can typically defeat its own guns. This is why after Jutland, battle cruisers
were no longer in production. The only ones that come to instant memory are the four
Japanse Kongos (rebuilt into BBs between wars and were devestated by the USN) The two
Repulses, and the Hood (I shouldn't have to lecture about the failures of the BC regarding

During WWII, the only things close to battle cruisers built were the Scharnhorst and
Alaska Classes. The german ships were built with much more effective armor. The sacrificed
the guns (using 11") while keeping speed and protection. The USN didn't want to call the
Alaskas battle cruisers but rather large cruisers. Their life was very short. They were
used roughly one year in the war, then mothballed and scrapped in 1960. The USN recognized
that the Alaskas were a failed concept, hence the exceptionally short life, shorter than
any other USN capital ship.

Finally, the most modern of all battleships, the Iowa class, was capable of the same 32-37
knot speed of the Alaska class. Ship designers in the US were able to put heavy guns,
armor AND speed all on one platform with more modern engine output. The Alaska class,
Kongo, Renown and Hood were all the same speed or slower.

Thus, the BC is entirely failed, except for those of us that admire the way they look or
image so to speak. I think that the real solution here is to make it so that all the
BB1/BC1s can just stay in blitz. GB should start with BB2s. When the game was started,
there were probably a lot less BB5s/6s out there so it was a little easier. As time goes
on, it will get harder and harder.

  • Re : Give battlecruisers their real strengths.

    03. 14. 2011 22:34

This is World War 2. Battlecruisers as a type have become obsolete from the development of
the Fast Battleship (battleships that were able achieve speeds higher than 25 knots
without sacrificing armour or fire-power) and effective Carrier Strike planes

  • Re : Give battlecruisers their real strengths.

    12. 12. 2005 09:18

Mix, it was that u said "sure give them more speed" which sounds sarcastic to me,
guess it wasn't.
1 2 3