Batle ships are too strong vs aircraft

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Batle ships are too strong vs aircraft

      i think battleships are too powerull vs aircraft becauce where need cruisers if you have bs.

      i think cruisers are anti-air ships bs attack much more agaist ships if you have many bs and much many destroyer you dont need anything more

      if opponent attack subs destroyer kill them if attack aircraft bs shoot them down if cruisers bs sunk them if attack destroyers bs sunk them

      only lots of rockets can sunk huge destroyer and batlleship flotilla



    • Temex92 wrote:

      I think battleships are too powerful vs aircraft because why build cruisers if you have BBs.
      I think cruisers are anti-air ships. BBs attack much more against ships. If you have many BBs and even more destroyers you don't need anything else.
      If your opponent attacks with subs, destroyers kill them. If he/she attacks with aircraft, BBs shoot them down. If with cruisers, BBs sink them. If he/she attacks with destroyers BBs sink them.
      Only lots of rockets can sink a huge destroyer and batlleship flotilla.
      I completely agree wih what you're saying. In the game, cruisers are obsolete, and BBs are awesome. In WW2 it was the other way around. I don't suggest we make BBs obsolete, but I do suggest we give cruisers a buff by increasing their AA value a lot, and decreasing the other units' AA value.
      "You can't break a man the way you break a dog, or a horse. The harder you beat a man, the taller he stands." -Jackal (Far Cry 2)

    • Jaws wrote:

      Yet the best use the US found for their newer generation BB's was as AA cover for their CV's.....
      That's both true and misleading. Only two ships in the U.S. Navy could put up more AA fire than the fast battleships of the Washington, South Dakota and Iowa classes, and those were the two completed heavy cruisers of the Alaska class -- and they could put up only marginally more AA fire than the American fast BBs. From the time of Billy Mitchell's bombers-vs.-battleships demonstrations of the early 1920s, the U.S. Navy was made painfully aware of the need for greater AA defense on its ships, and its capital ships in particular.

      The key to the U.S. fast battleships' success as AA platforms was the incorporation of the dual purpose 5-inch dual mount guns as their secondary armament, which could be used either against other surface ships or fire fuse-timed AA shells. The Iowa class design included twenty 5" guns in 10 dual-mount turrets; as completed, they also included eighty 40 mm and forty-nine 20 mm AA guns. As stated above, only the two cruisers of the Alaska class had slightly more AA defense than the Iowa and other two BB classes because the new BBs were designed to carry enough AA to protect themselves, their escorts and the fleet carriers in their task group. So, it was not a newly discovered "best use," but one of the inherent purposes incorporated into their design.

      The other reason for carrier escort duty in the Pacific becoming one of the two primary roles of the American fast battleships was, of course, the absence of any real challengers to their supremacy as battleships. The Iowas were qualitatively superior to any BBs built by the Brits, Germans or Italians, and only Japan's two Yamato class BBs could have gone toe to toe in all-gun fight between capital ships. In that regard, the new American fast BBs were victims of their own success; by mid 1944, the only surviving BBs that could challenge them were the King George V class BBs of the allied Royal Navy.

      Oh, and let's not forget shore bombardment -- the primary reason the Iowas survived as active warships until the 1990s, and were repeatedly refitted and recommissioned. Until the advent of modern smart bombs and sophisticated bunker-busters, no non-nuclear projectile weapon packed more punch than their 16-inch naval rifles, and the U.S. Marine Corps was more than a little bitter when the four Iowas were finally retired.

      The post was edited 3 times, last by MontanaBB ().

    • Here are the existing AA defense values for in-game battleships by research level:

      L1 BB: 3.6
      L2 BB: 5.0
      L3 BB: 6.0
      L4 BB: 8.1
      L5 BB: 9.0
      L6 BB: 11.0

      While there was obviously wide variation in the AA capacity of the various BBs in service from 1939 to 1945 (and also between BBs of the same navy), the AA values above strike me as a fair approximation of the increased AA strengths of BBs as the war progressed. Let's also keep in mind that the AA defense value for in-game AA regiments starts at 4.0 for level 1 and progresses to 8.0 for level 5.

      Now, here are the existing AA defense values for in-game cruisers by research level:

      L1 CC: 6.0
      L2 CC: 7.0
      L3 CC: 8.5
      L4 CC: 10.0
      L5 CC: 11.0
      L6 CC: 13.0

      In the U.S. Navy, with only two late-war exceptions, there were no cruisers whose AA capacity exceeded that of the 10 new construction fast battleships, and I believe you will find this equally true of the Royal Navy. So, the historical reality was that by 1944-45, the average AA capacity of BBs equaled or exceeded that of CCs within the same navy. Therefore, the present AA values of in-game BBs do NOT overstate the AA capacity of battleships.
    • Jaws wrote:

      ". . . the Alaska class will always be a battlecruiser to me . . ."
      The Alaskas were intended to counter the German "pocket" battleships (really, heavy cruisers), and what was perceived to be a threat from Japanese "super" cruisers rumored to be in the works. By the time the USS Alaska and USS Guam were commissioned in mid 1944, the German cruisers were either sunk or cornered, and as a practical matter Japanese cruisers never operated independently as raiders. The other four planned cruisers in the class were canceled.

      As I'm sure you know, the definition of "battlecruiser" was always subject to debate, but conceptually, they were fast cruisers with battleship-size guns that could defeat other cruisers, with enough speed to run away from real battleships. There were never a lot of them, and the concept was largely a failure because admirals seemed to forget that battleship-size guns, minus battleship armor, often led to tragedy as battlecruisers attempted to trade blows with battleships. The U.S. Navy converted its only 2 planned battlecruisers (Lexington and Saratoga) into aircraft carriers while they were still under construction in the early 1920s. Whether the Alaska and Guam fit the basic battlecruiser definition -- with intermediate-size 12-inch guns -- is a matter for debate among enthusiasts because no one was building battlecruisers by 1942.
    • MontanaBB wrote:

      Oh, and let's not forget shore bombardment -- the primary reason the Iowas survived as active warships until the 1990s, and were repeatedly refitted and recommissioned.
      Unfortunately, shore bombardment is totally overlooked in CoW. The USS Missouri was superb at shore bombardment even into the Vietnam war. Ask any US Marine: would you prefer to call for fire support from Marine Arty, Marine Air or Big Mo?

      British Cruisers were unbelievable effect in shore bombardment against fixed German positions along the Italian coast, in particular ammo dumps whose positions were revealed by Italian Partisans.
    • Quasi-duck wrote:

      I'm no Marine but I think it depends where you are
      Say, hypothetically, within 20 miles of your landing beach . . . The I6-inch guns of the Iowas left impact craters the size of a house. Unless the Bad Guys were 100 feet underground in a hardened bunker, they did not want to be on the receiving end of those. When the Iowas were decommissioned for the last time in the early '90s, the U.S. Navy's gunnery experts were fiddling with experimental powder loads that would have doubled the effective range of their guns.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by MontanaBB ().

    • MontanaBB wrote:

      Quasi-duck wrote:

      I'm no Marine but I think it depends where you are
      Say, hypothetically, within 20 miles of your landing beach . . . The I6-inch guns of the Iowas left impact craters the size of a house. Unless the Bad Guys were 100 feet underground in a hardened bunker, they did not want to be on the receiving end of those. When the Iowas were decommissioned for the last time in the early '90s, the U.S. Navy's gunnery experts were fiddling with experimental powder loads that would have doubled the effective range of their guns.
      'Twas simply a jest.
      Forum Gang Commissar



      I changed it for you Dia <3
    • MontanaBB wrote:

      Quasi-duck wrote:

      'Twas simply a jest.
      I know. But I used your jest as a point of digression. Heh. Who's jesting now?
      I don't know, but maybe you should. You imply that you know the answer via your use of the English language, and the vibe you use throughout your post. I don't think you do know.
      Forum Gang Commissar



      I changed it for you Dia <3
    • Digressions aside, and in direct response to the original question raised by the OP above . . .

      No, the AA defense values of the in-game battleship should not be significantly reduced for the reasons explained above. Regarding the AA defense values of the in-game cruiser, its AA defense appears to be proportionate to that of the in-game battleship in a semi-realistic manner based on the evolution of both types of warship during WW2. I would not support the creation of a super AA cruiser, nor do I think it would be historically accurate to strip the in-game battleship of its current AA defense at its higher levels of research simply to make the in-game cruiser more important.

      Now, if we want to discuss reducing the current AA defense values of the in-game submarine, especially relative to the anti-submarine attack values of the naval patrol bomber, that's a serious discussion to which the Bytro devs need to be listening . . . . Currently, the AA defense values of in-game subs are roughly equivalent to an entire AA regiment. That's preposterous, especially when it's considered relative to the ASW attack values of the naval patrol bomber. In a battle between a 1943 u-boat and navalized B-24, the u-boat was going to lose the contest 9 out of 10 times. Other forum participants have pointed this out repeatedly, and the response from the game developers has been deafening silence.