| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Saul Elsyn
INTERSTELLAR ENTERPRISE
   |
Posted - 2009.10.01 18:30:00 -
[1]
There's been quite a bit of discussion about possible tier 2 destroyers and tier 3 battlecruisers, most of which amount to trying to add a bit more flavor to these beloved classes. Both of these classes are a sort of intermediary ship, half-way between two other classes of ship, so why not make new variants use some features of the class bigger?
Tier 3 Battlecruisers, Pocket Battleships.
Historically there are two distinct lines of thought to the design of battlecruiser. One is to armor up a cruiser to fit in the line of battle while keeping similar armament to its smaller cousins. The Drake is a great example of this line of thought in that it can fit a truly massive tank, but does less damage than most of us would like.
A Tier 3 Battlecruiser would be the reverse of this. With enough powergrid and bonuses to fit large guns while sacrificing defensive capabilities. It's akin to HMS Hood: battleship guns, cruiser armor. I'd think forcing the ship into such a mission profile would be relatively easy if given a slot layout akin to the tier 1 destroyers. Lots of high-slots, few mids and lows.
Tier 2 Destroyers, "Super Destroyers"
During World War II the Japanese went a little crazy with their destroyers fitting cruiser size weapons on their hulls. A Tier 2 Destroyer has roughly half the high-slots of its Tier 1 Cousin, but enough powergrid to fit cruiser size weapons. If it retains the same range and rof bonus/penalty as normal destroyers you end up with a highly competent long-range skirmish vessel.
|
Saul Elsyn
INTERSTELLAR ENTERPRISE
|
Posted - 2009.10.01 18:54:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Saul Elsyn on 01/10/2009 18:56:55
An example Tier 3 Battlecruiser
The Gallente Danaan-class Battlecruiser
Battlecruiser Skill Bonus:
5% Bonus to Large Hybrid Turret Damage
7.5% Bonus to Large Hybrid Turret Tracking
Role Bonus:
-99% reduction in the CPU need of Warfare Link Modules
CPU: 550 TF
PG: 15000 MW
High Slots: 8
Mid Slots: 2
Low Slots: 3
Turret Slots: 7
Shield Capacity: 3,906 hp
Armor Capacity: 4,395 hp
Hull HP: 4,883 hp
Cap Capacity: 2,350 points
Cap Recharge: 625,000 ms
Max Velocity: 145 m/s
Warp Speed: 3 au/s
Drone Space: 50 m3
Cargo Bay: 500 m3
Scan Resolution: 200mm
Signature Radius: 300mm
Magnometric Strength: 18 points
Max Targeting Range: 55,000 meters
|
Syfa
|
Posted - 2009.10.02 09:26:00 -
[3]
You misunderstand the role of tech 3 ships... Tech 2 was designed to take something a ship could do, and specialize it for a 'niche' role, Missile frigates => Bombers, Speedy frigates => Interceptors, etc.
The idea behind t3 ships, is customisation, where t2 specialized you, t3 allows you to specialize yourself, and swap out for different roles.
Your battlecruiser idea doesn't really give customisation, it gives poor niche specialization 'all gank and no tank'. Your destroyer idea is also similar and doesn't really fit any 'niche' roles "lets give cruiser guns to a ship about the frigate size and let it outrange or outperform the ship that actually fits these weapons", this is not a good idea, destroyers were designed to swat *frigates* not cruisers, a t2 destroyer should make them *better* at that. As it currently stands, there's no real niche for (another) t2 destroyer to fill, or for a t3 battlecruiser (as of yet).
|
Elegbara
|
Posted - 2009.10.02 09:46:00 -
[4]
 Originally by: Syfa
You misunderstand the role of tech 3 ships...
It's tier 3, not tech 3.
Like Typhoon is tier 1 battleship, Tempest is tier 2, Maelstrom is tier 3.
Open your eyes.
And Awaken. |
Saul Elsyn
INTERSTELLAR ENTERPRISE
|
Posted - 2009.10.02 19:23:00 -
[5]
These aren't tech 3... they're tier 3 (tier 2 for the destroyer), which means they're tech 1 ships that require more training to use (Battlecruisers 3 or Destroyer 2).
The cruiser gun wielding destroyer does need more balancing to get to work properly. I'd think of them as a harassment ship with cruiser guns, able to shoot and scoot at range, but unable to easily combat frigates.
The battlecruiser is pretty straight forward however. I'd bet the minamatar variant would be really popular, considering the tendency for their boats to be high speed gank platforms as it is.
|
wallenbergaren
|
Posted - 2009.10.02 19:33:00 -
[6]
Edited by: wallenbergaren on 02/10/2009 19:33:32
Your example ship looks more like a very big destroyer
2 mids slots on a Gallente ship? Come on
If it fits large guns then it's going to have the same skill requirements to fly it as a battleship. In most cases the DPS isn't what's lacking on battlecruisers. With 3 lows that ship will either have zero tank and do slightly more damage than a Brutix or do less damage than a Brutix, track much worse and have worse tank AND speed with no tackle at all. Add to that the fact that it will cost like a Dominix
Sorry but that looks like a terrible ship. Nothing about it is tier 3, it's all "gimp"
|
XIII'th
|
Posted - 2009.10.02 20:34:00 -
[7]
I'm against your idea (but not against tier 2 destro & tier 3 BC). Your new destro would be worse than cruiser, and BC worse than... well, anything. Think about it again.
|
TimMc
Gallente
Brutal Deliverance
Tactical Narcotics Team
|
Posted - 2009.10.02 21:31:00 -
[8]
Whats the point of large guns? First off they will look stupid on the models. Second the damage increase isn't worth it considering the tracking loss.
|
Dakki
Kabuki TransSolar
|
Posted - 2009.10.02 22:19:00 -
[9]
Discussions about the balance/feasibility of fitting upsized weapons (mediums on a destroyer, large on the tier 3 BC) aside, I'd be concerned about the balance problems you'd get by simply giving them the grid and cap necessary to pull this off. For example, taking tier 3 BC and use the grid/cap increase to fit a large armor rep and medium guns.
I think you could avoid that by giving a cap/grid reduction bonus, the way stealth bombers do. I'm still not convinced that fitting upsized weapons is a good idea, but it would at least not completely throw off balance.
Citizen of the Intaki Syndicate |
ropnes
|
Posted - 2009.10.02 22:52:00 -
[10]
So you get a ship with a grid bonus to large guns and no dmg / tracking bonus?
Or you make it T2 but then you just fly a BS instead
You need to come up with a different niche for the tier 3 BC
|
Delenne Sheridan
|
Posted - 2009.10.07 20:07:00 -
[11]
Originally by: ropnes
So you get a ship with a grid bonus to large guns and no dmg / tracking bonus?
Or you make it T2 but then you just fly a BS instead
You need to come up with a different niche for the tier 3 BC
As currently concieved, these "Battlecruisers" are nothing more than Heavy Cruisers. Real Battlecruisers had Battleship class guns on hulls with about 3/4 the armor than Battleships.
These Cruisers are nothing more cruisers with a little higher armor and crusier class weapons.
BTW, the Battlecrusier idea turned out to be a failure in the Battle of Jutland.
|
Kristofer Kekius
|
Posted - 2009.10.07 20:23:00 -
[12]
Thinking too much in terms of our beloved wet water navies I'm afraid. Don't get me wrong I like the idea of more classes of Destroyers and Battlecruisers in the Tier II category but besides name, the roles of the ships ingame are fairly distinct.
Anyway Battlecruisers did pretty well in World War II as commerce raiders (if you consider the German Panzerschiffe and Scharnhorst classes respectively), and the french Le Fantastique is about the most uber-WWII era destroyer around. But as far as the current navy analogy goes, even these days the roles of "cruiser" and "Destroyer" are quite a bit different than their older namesakes, the current role of the destroyer is as a detachable main surface combatant, the cruiser primarily as an Anti-aircraft fleet support ship (in the case of the USN, the only other navy with cruiser sized ships besides the Peruvians [who operate one ex-USN WWII era light cruiser] is the Russians, and they're dedicated ship killers, especially the Kirovs)... the carriers are more or less dead on, especially if you were to compare them to most of the world's aircraft carriers which can operate in a dozen to twenty fighters at most.
So, super carriers operating 90+ drones next patch? =P
|
Delenne Sheridan
|
Posted - 2009.10.07 20:56:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Kristofer Kekius
Anyway Battlecruisers did pretty well in World War II as commerce raiders (if you consider the German Panzerschiffe and Scharnhorst classes respectively),
I dont think thats correct, all the German Battlecruisers (or Pocket Battleships) were hunted down and sunk on their first missions, if they ever got out.
|
Kristofer Kekius
|
Posted - 2009.10.07 21:08:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Delenne Sheridan
Originally by: Kristofer Kekius
Anyway Battlecruisers did pretty well in World War II as commerce raiders (if you consider the German Panzerschiffe and Scharnhorst classes respectively),
I dont think thats correct, all the German Battlecruisers (or Pocket Battleships) were hunted down and sunk on their first missions, if they ever got out.
Uh, what? The Graff Spee was scuttled after a good time at sea raiding, the Gneisanau survived the war as a bottomed out hulk after many successful missions (including the channel dash with her sister the Scharnhorst), the Scheer ended the war much the same as Gneisanau bottomed in harbor after successful raiding in the Atlantic, the Deutschland/Lutzow the same. The only two that were sunk in combat were the Scharnhorst in the Arctic Sea and Bismarck in the North sea, the only sunk on her first sorty was Bismarck during operation Berlin. The others were inoperable by wars' end surely, but most were operable to some extent except for Tirpitz due to the sheer amount of bomb tonnage dropped on her.
Learn your Kriegsmarine history.
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |