| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Veneth
   |
Posted - 2004.12.09 16:49:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Veneth on 09/12/2004 17:00:31
ok I've seen way to much whining on these forums about the preformance of battlecruisers. lots of people are complaining that battlecruisers in the real world where ships that were lightly armored and carried big guns, hence the name.
BUT THAT'S HALF THE STORY the british half
The German's later decided that instead of making a tin can with big guns that they would design a ship that functioned more like a HEAVY cruiser, carrying more guns and better protection while still keeping up with the speed of a average cruiser, this was they're battlecruiser and the battlecruiser I feel the Dev's used when designing these ships.
and is exactly what you have. a more heavily armored Cruiser with a decent speed while still carrying more guns than a cruiser
|
Veneth
|
Posted - 2004.12.09 16:49:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Veneth on 09/12/2004 17:00:31
ok I've seen way to much whining on these forums about the preformance of battlecruisers. lots of people are complaining that battlecruisers in the real world where ships that were lightly armored and carried big guns, hence the name.
BUT THAT'S HALF THE STORY the british half
The German's later decided that instead of making a tin can with big guns that they would design a ship that functioned more like a HEAVY cruiser, carrying more guns and better protection while still keeping up with the speed of a average cruiser, this was they're battlecruiser and the battlecruiser I feel the Dev's used when designing these ships.
and is exactly what you have. a more heavily armored Cruiser with a decent speed while still carrying more guns than a cruiser
|
Toran Mehtar
|
Posted - 2004.12.09 17:12:00 -
[3]
Oh look, another thread about battle cruisers and why they are/n't wrong.
Could somebody lend me a rusty spoon; I need to gouge my eyes out.
|
Toran Mehtar
|
Posted - 2004.12.09 17:12:00 -
[4]
Oh look, another thread about battle cruisers and why they are/n't wrong.
Could somebody lend me a rusty spoon; I need to gouge my eyes out.
|
Veneth
|
Posted - 2004.12.09 17:46:00 -
[5]
go troll somewhere else, I'm simply pointing out that people expect battlecruisers to preform to what they call a BC, meanwhile there's more than one concept of the ship, one that very well fits what we have in Eve atm.
|
Veneth
|
Posted - 2004.12.09 17:46:00 -
[6]
go troll somewhere else, I'm simply pointing out that people expect battlecruisers to preform to what they call a BC, meanwhile there's more than one concept of the ship, one that very well fits what we have in Eve atm.
|
Ancilla
|
Posted - 2004.12.10 01:56:00 -
[7]
The ships were simply misnamed...if you read some of the actual DEV Blogs from when the ships were being tested, they said the ships were really pocket battleships. And that really is what they are. Pocket battleships could outgun anything smaller than them, and outrun anything bigger than them (although they could not outrun the U.S. Iowa Class Battleships, which is why they disappeared almost as soon as they showed up). If you want a better description of pocket battleships, just look them up on Google...one of the most famous was the Graf Spee.
Battlecruisers were exclusively British, as Veneth stated. They were the size of battleships, carried large guns, were faster than battleships (again until the apperance of the Iowa Class), but they gained their added speed at the cost of losing their thick armor. These ships disappeared from navies rather quickly since they had a tendancy to explode after the first or second shot that they took from a battleship. Read about the battle between the H.M.S. Hood and the Bismarck (World War II) or the battle of Jutland (World War I).
Of the two, I doubt anyone world really want a Battlecruiser if they made them like they were in real life. As for the misnomer...they probably just did it because 'Battlecruiser' sounds cooler than 'Pocket Battleship'. So instead of trying to stand toe to toe with a real battleship that costs over three times what a battlecruiser does, come up with some new strategies to kill them...because no ship (other than a heavy assault cruiser) can out-damage or out-tank a battleship. 
Apologies for the history lesson, but it seems most of you guys need it. |
Ancilla
|
Posted - 2004.12.10 01:56:00 -
[8]
The ships were simply misnamed...if you read some of the actual DEV Blogs from when the ships were being tested, they said the ships were really pocket battleships. And that really is what they are. Pocket battleships could outgun anything smaller than them, and outrun anything bigger than them (although they could not outrun the U.S. Iowa Class Battleships, which is why they disappeared almost as soon as they showed up). If you want a better description of pocket battleships, just look them up on Google...one of the most famous was the Graf Spee.
Battlecruisers were exclusively British, as Veneth stated. They were the size of battleships, carried large guns, were faster than battleships (again until the apperance of the Iowa Class), but they gained their added speed at the cost of losing their thick armor. These ships disappeared from navies rather quickly since they had a tendancy to explode after the first or second shot that they took from a battleship. Read about the battle between the H.M.S. Hood and the Bismarck (World War II) or the battle of Jutland (World War I).
Of the two, I doubt anyone world really want a Battlecruiser if they made them like they were in real life. As for the misnomer...they probably just did it because 'Battlecruiser' sounds cooler than 'Pocket Battleship'. So instead of trying to stand toe to toe with a real battleship that costs over three times what a battlecruiser does, come up with some new strategies to kill them...because no ship (other than a heavy assault cruiser) can out-damage or out-tank a battleship.
Apologies for the history lesson, but it seems most of you guys need it. |
Korkoff
|
Posted - 2004.12.10 05:17:00 -
[9]
Great info and I for one appreciate the history lesson. I have not played this game in six months, so just to see that these ships were added will get me back for a month or two.
Thanks for the info.
Korkoff
|
Korkoff
|
Posted - 2004.12.10 05:17:00 -
[10]
Great info and I for one appreciate the history lesson. I have not played this game in six months, so just to see that these ships were added will get me back for a month or two.
Thanks for the info.
Korkoff
|
ariola
|
Posted - 2004.12.10 05:51:00 -
[11]
Good plan designing Battlecruisers after german ships.
They lost the war.
|
ariola
|
Posted - 2004.12.10 05:51:00 -
[12]
Good plan designing Battlecruisers after german ships.
They lost the war.
|
Hobbsalong
|
Posted - 2004.12.10 06:57:00 -
[13]
They still had superior quality. So yes, it was a good job.
|
Hobbsalong
|
Posted - 2004.12.10 06:57:00 -
[14]
They still had superior quality. So yes, it was a good job.
|
theRaptor
|
Posted - 2004.12.10 07:28:00 -
[15]
 Originally by: ariola
Good plan designing Battlecruisers after german ships.
They lost the war.
Only because heavy gun ships where rendered obsolete by the Aircraft Carrier (oh and they where a bit behind with Radar). The Germans by the end of the war had probably the best war machines of the time. But technology can't save you from incompetent (insane?) leadership. The Cold War was fueled by all the german technology and scientists that the British, Americans and Russians took home.
--------------------------------------------------
|
theRaptor
|
Posted - 2004.12.10 07:28:00 -
[16]
Originally by: ariola
Good plan designing Battlecruisers after german ships.
They lost the war.
Only because heavy gun ships where rendered obsolete by the Aircraft Carrier (oh and they where a bit behind with Radar). The Germans by the end of the war had probably the best war machines of the time. But technology can't save you from incompetent (insane?) leadership. The Cold War was fueled by all the german technology and scientists that the British, Americans and Russians took home.
--------------------------------------------------
|
Slithereen
|
Posted - 2004.12.10 07:29:00 -
[17]
I don't really understand the comparison. In WWII, light cruisers had 6 inchers for cannons, the Heavy Cruisers have 8 inchers, but the so called German Battlecruisers and Pocket Battleships have 11 inch cannons. They are still well superior to a Heavy Cruiser in over all caliber and protection.
The British Battlecruiser still has armor superior to a Heavy Cruiser as well. The Hood thing was one lucky shot.
I prefer the idea of 'battlecruiser' like that of the Klingon Battlecruiser, which do not sacrifice firepower, but instead protection for more speed and agility.
_______________________________________________
"Is it me or the bad guys just getting totally pathetic?"---Clover, Totally Spies,
"Hope is wasted on the Hopeless."---Mandy, The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy.
"Stars are holes in the sky from which the light of the Infinite shine through."---Confucius.
|
Slithereen
|
Posted - 2004.12.10 07:29:00 -
[18]
I don't really understand the comparison. In WWII, light cruisers had 6 inchers for cannons, the Heavy Cruisers have 8 inchers, but the so called German Battlecruisers and Pocket Battleships have 11 inch cannons. They are still well superior to a Heavy Cruiser in over all caliber and protection.
The British Battlecruiser still has armor superior to a Heavy Cruiser as well. The Hood thing was one lucky shot.
I prefer the idea of 'battlecruiser' like that of the Klingon Battlecruiser, which do not sacrifice firepower, but instead protection for more speed and agility.
_______________________________________________
"Is it me or the bad guys just getting totally pathetic?"---Clover, Totally Spies,
"Hope is wasted on the Hopeless."---Mandy, The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy.
"Stars are holes in the sky from which the light of the Infinite shine through."---Confucius.
|
Def Antares
|
Posted - 2004.12.10 11:42:00 -
[19]
omg realism and real world comparisons.
explain force fields
explain 1600mm projectiles (1,6M!! that's the size of a boy in diameter. MOST ridiculous)
|
Def Antares
|
Posted - 2004.12.10 11:42:00 -
[20]
omg realism and real world comparisons.
explain force fields
explain 1600mm projectiles (1,6M!! that's the size of a boy in diameter. MOST ridiculous)
|
Vance Valorium
|
Posted - 2004.12.10 12:02:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Def Antares
omg realism and real world comparisons.
explain force fields
explain 1600mm projectiles (1,6M!! that's the size of a boy in diameter. MOST ridiculous)
1600mm projectiles might not be as ridiculous as they seem at first, considering how advanced EVE's technology is compared to our own.
In 1990 British customs officials effectively ended the Iraqi "Project Babylon" when they seized parts intended for the supergun. Designed by Gerald Bull, the gun's bore would have had a diameter of over 1000mm and would have been capable of launching projectiles into orbit. Bull was killed outside his home while working on Project Babylon, allegedly by the Israeli Mossad.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Babylon
Never say never...
|
Vance Valorium
|
Posted - 2004.12.10 12:02:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Def Antares
omg realism and real world comparisons.
explain force fields
explain 1600mm projectiles (1,6M!! that's the size of a boy in diameter. MOST ridiculous)
1600mm projectiles might not be as ridiculous as they seem at first, considering how advanced EVE's technology is compared to our own.
In 1990 British customs officials effectively ended the Iraqi "Project Babylon" when they seized parts intended for the supergun. Designed by Gerald Bull, the gun's bore would have had a diameter of over 1000mm and would have been capable of launching projectiles into orbit. Bull was killed outside his home while working on Project Babylon, allegedly by the Israeli Mossad.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Babylon
Never say never...
|
Grimpak
|
Posted - 2004.12.10 13:54:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Vance Valorium
Originally by: Def Antares
omg realism and real world comparisons.
explain force fields
explain 1600mm projectiles (1,6M!! that's the size of a boy in diameter. MOST ridiculous)
1600mm projectiles might not be as ridiculous as they seem at first, considering how advanced EVE's technology is compared to our own.
In 1990 British customs officials effectively ended the Iraqi "Project Babylon" when they seized parts intended for the supergun. Designed by Gerald Bull, the gun's bore would have had a diameter of over 1000mm and would have been capable of launching projectiles into orbit. Bull was killed outside his home while working on Project Babylon, allegedly by the Israeli Mossad.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Babylon
Never say never...
...the babylon canon
-------------------
Quote:
Fragm's Oversized Ego Cannon barely scratches the forums, inflicting omgnoonecares damage
|
Grimpak
|
Posted - 2004.12.10 13:54:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Vance Valorium
Originally by: Def Antares
omg realism and real world comparisons.
explain force fields
explain 1600mm projectiles (1,6M!! that's the size of a boy in diameter. MOST ridiculous)
1600mm projectiles might not be as ridiculous as they seem at first, considering how advanced EVE's technology is compared to our own.
In 1990 British customs officials effectively ended the Iraqi "Project Babylon" when they seized parts intended for the supergun. Designed by Gerald Bull, the gun's bore would have had a diameter of over 1000mm and would have been capable of launching projectiles into orbit. Bull was killed outside his home while working on Project Babylon, allegedly by the Israeli Mossad.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Babylon
Never say never...
...the babylon canon
-------------------
Quote:
Fragm's Oversized Ego Cannon barely scratches the forums, inflicting omgnoonecares damage
|
Iachrites Archveult
|
Posted - 2004.12.10 14:05:00 -
[25]
It's a name.
For Gawd's sake! A plague on both the 'British' camp and the 'German'.
Is this what we've got to look forward to when the 'Dreadnaughts' come out?
They're EVE cruisers with brass knobs on. That's it.
Iac
|
Iachrites Archveult
|
Posted - 2004.12.10 14:05:00 -
[26]
It's a name.
For Gawd's sake! A plague on both the 'British' camp and the 'German'.
Is this what we've got to look forward to when the 'Dreadnaughts' come out?
They're EVE cruisers with brass knobs on. That's it.
Iac
|
Def Antares
|
Posted - 2004.12.10 14:19:00 -
[27]
Edited by: Def Antares on 10/12/2004 14:22:13
Originally by: Vance Valorium
Originally by: Def Antares
omg realism and real world comparisons.
explain force fields
explain 1600mm projectiles (1,6M!! that's the size of a boy in diameter. MOST ridiculous)
1600mm projectiles might not be as ridiculous as they seem at first, considering how advanced EVE's technology is compared to our own.
In 1990 British customs officials effectively ended the Iraqi "Project Babylon" when they seized parts intended for the supergun. Designed by Gerald Bull, the gun's bore would have had a diameter of over 1000mm and would have been capable of launching projectiles into orbit. Bull was killed outside his home while working on Project Babylon, allegedly by the Israeli Mossad.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Babylon
Never say never...
not ridiculous?
well then at last it's volume of 0,1m3 / shot is. those projectiles must be some sort of discs =)
as i said ... eve != realism
Def
|
Def Antares
|
Posted - 2004.12.10 14:19:00 -
[28]
Edited by: Def Antares on 10/12/2004 14:22:13
Originally by: Vance Valorium
Originally by: Def Antares
omg realism and real world comparisons.
explain force fields
explain 1600mm projectiles (1,6M!! that's the size of a boy in diameter. MOST ridiculous)
1600mm projectiles might not be as ridiculous as they seem at first, considering how advanced EVE's technology is compared to our own.
In 1990 British customs officials effectively ended the Iraqi "Project Babylon" when they seized parts intended for the supergun. Designed by Gerald Bull, the gun's bore would have had a diameter of over 1000mm and would have been capable of launching projectiles into orbit. Bull was killed outside his home while working on Project Babylon, allegedly by the Israeli Mossad.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Babylon
Never say never...
not ridiculous?
well then at last it's volume of 0,1m3 / shot is. those projectiles must be some sort of discs =)
as i said ... eve != realism
Def
|
Ithildin
|
Posted - 2004.12.10 14:33:00 -
[29]
I don't really know, but shouldn't there be a separate forum for these posts? It has little to nothing to do with in game mechanics and is a simple comparison to real life. I.e. it is not a post about EVE, but a post about real life!
I'm sorry if you feel flamed over this, but if these posts go on, I fear that I'll loose interest in one of my favourite forums because of all the irrelevant things posted here. (already the "help me fit my ship" threds are cluttering things, but they belong here atleast)
--
If TC causes you discomfort that you feel is unwarranted or may be outside TC's current contract - contact me, please. |
Ithildin
|
Posted - 2004.12.10 14:33:00 -
[30]
I don't really know, but shouldn't there be a separate forum for these posts? It has little to nothing to do with in game mechanics and is a simple comparison to real life. I.e. it is not a post about EVE, but a post about real life!
I'm sorry if you feel flamed over this, but if these posts go on, I fear that I'll loose interest in one of my favourite forums because of all the irrelevant things posted here. (already the "help me fit my ship" threds are cluttering things, but they belong here atleast)
--
If TC causes you discomfort that you feel is unwarranted or may be outside TC's current contract - contact me, please. |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |