A few small fixes.

[Hangar18]

This is just a small collection of things i noticed that seemed like they needed a touch up.

• The USN Modern battle cruiser hull cannot mount its historical 5" guns. I don't really think this is going to affect balance, but the copy pasted version in the battleship hull is able to.
• This has bothered me so much, and i can't believe no one has said anything about it. The battle cruiser abbreviation is not BC, its CC. BC has never been used (ever).
• The plans diagram, cannot possibly be correct. Stretch out that battle cruiser hull and try to stick a ABX turret layout on there. Lots of empty space but its still very short of what an Iowa should technically be. Beam is in the same category of being slightly off.  I realize this is a small detail that doesn't affect gameplay but it will help the game look more polished whenever release comes around.
• Not a bug, but when going over modules, a tool tip to visibly see the numerical values that will change, would be great

[Cptbarney]

CC actually got retired and replaced by BC (which makes far more sense, i would also have light cruisers as LC’s and CA’s as HC’s but eh).

CC got used as command cruiser then retired then finally as Cruiser i think which is what C is now.

Otherwise i agree with the rest.

[Hangar18]

1 hour ago, Cptbarney said:

CC actually got retired and replaced by BC (which makes far more sense, i would also have light cruisers as LC’s and CA’s as HC’s but eh).

CC got used as command cruiser then retired then finally as Cruiser i think which is what C is now.

Otherwise i agree with the rest.

BC was never used. CC was the battle cruiser designation, which was then retired. It was then applied to command ships, was retired again, and has not been used since.

the only context of BC being used is for large command ships (CBC), and that originates from CB.

[Cptbarney]

2 minutes ago, Hangar18 said:

BC was never used. CC was the battle cruiser designation, which was then retired. It was then applied to command ships, was retired again, and has not been used since.

the only context of BC being used is for large command ships (CBC), and that originates from CB.

Proof?

[Hangar18]

1 minute ago, Cptbarney said:

Proof?

http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/index_ships_list.php

ctrl F BC

 

[Cptbarney]

3 minutes ago, Hangar18 said:

http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/index_ships_list.php

ctrl F BC

 

Too be honest i have never heard of a single battlecruiser being called a 'CC' in general, since from what i've heard the americans only called their BC's large cruisers due to politcal reasons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hull_classifications

This also gives you a list of hull classifications which mentions thats CC was never used in operational means, and also mentions BC as a valid abberiviation as well.

either way im going to be using BC regardless, as im british and im stubborn like that.

 

[Hangar18]

2 minutes ago, Cptbarney said:

Too be honest i have never heard of a single battlecruiser being called a 'CC' in general, since from what i've heard the americans only called their BC's large cruisers due to politcal reasons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hull_classifications

This also gives you a list of hull classifications which mentions thats CC was never used in operational means, and also mentions BC as a valid abberiviation as well.

either way im going to be using BC regardless, as im british and im stubborn like that.

 

Because the USN only had one class of them, the lexingtons. and they were converted to CVs.

The Alaska class were not given the CC designation because they weren't battle cruisers by anyone's definition. Large cruiser is very fitting because its what describes them best.

[Reaper Jack]

4 hours ago, Hangar18 said:

USN Modern battle cruiser hull cannot mount its historical 5" guns. I don't really think this is going to affect balance, but the copy pasted version in the battleship hull is able to.

All of the scaled down hulls have this problem, the BC and CA Hulls for Germany for example cannot mount their four inch guns in the correct snap points either.

4 hours ago, Hangar18 said:

This has bothered me so much, and i can't believe no one has said anything about it. The battle cruiser abbreviation is not BC, its CC. BC has never been used (ever).

CC was only ever used for command ships and proposed for the Alaskas due to their defined class as 'Large Cruisers' itself only coming about because the USN used it to pretend they were cruisers and not capital ships in order to secure funding. This was not officially followed through on. BC has always been the definition for Battlecruisers.

 

4 hours ago, Hangar18 said:

The plans diagram, cannot possibly be correct. Stretch out that battle cruiser hull and try to stick a ABX turret layout on there. Lots of empty space but its still very short of what an Iowa should technically be. Beam is in the same category of being slightly off.  I realize this is a small detail that doesn't affect gameplay but it will help the game look more polished whenever release comes around.

This is an issue with the scaled down hulls, both the American and German CA hulls should have a much narrower beam as well, the British one is just a copied scaled down Iowa so completely wrong. They're placeholders for now. Also, the German ww2 capital hulls are too straight, historically they resemble a pair of teardrops overlapping with their ends pointed away from one another, or an extended, pointy oval shape. 

 

See? The hull is not straight lines at all. Again I am assuming that is because the present base hull (before superstructure) is moreorless the same for all capital ships regardless  of nation at the moment. Going by this image the turrets for the mark 4 381mm guns should also be not quite as elongated, and the barrels should be ever so much shorter. (I wonder if we will see the same mark of guns with a different length in game? Like the Graf Spee 283mm vs the Scharnhorst 283mm?) 

 

Edited February 9, 2020 by Reaper Jack

[Hangar18]

On 2/9/2020 at 1:47 PM, Reaper Jack said:

All of the scaled down hulls have this problem, the BC and CA Hulls for Germany for example cannot mount their four inch guns in the correct snap points either.

CC was only ever used for command ships and proposed for the Alaskas due to their defined class as 'Large Cruisers' itself only coming about because the USN used it to pretend they were cruisers and not capital ships in order to secure funding. This was not officially followed through on. BC has always been the definition for Battlecruisers.

 

This is an issue with the scaled down hulls, both the American and German CA hulls should have a much narrower beam as well, the British one is just a copied scaled down Iowa so completely wrong. They're placeholders for now. Also, the German ww2 capital hulls are too straight, historically they resemble a pair of teardrops overlapping with their ends pointed away from one another, or an extended, pointy oval shape. 

 

See? The hull is not straight lines at all. Again I am assuming that is because the present base hull (before superstructure) is moreorless the same for all capital ships regardless  of nation at the moment. Going by this image the turrets for the mark 4 381mm guns should also be not quite as elongated, and the barrels should be ever so much shorter. (I wonder if we will see the same mark of guns with a different length in game? Like the Graf Spee 283mm vs the Scharnhorst 283mm?) 

 

CC was absolutely used for the Lexington class battle cruisers that were later converted to CVs.

The designation for the Alaska converts was CBC

Large cruiser makes sense because the class really has nothing to do with battle cruisers. They were not capital ships, and in their usage they were supposed to escort, and form up with the cruisers in a screening role, rather than with the battleships.

America had a battle cruiser design, and it came with 16" guns. Which for the time period was beefy. The other plans they had were inspired by HMS Hood. 12" guns hadn't been capital ship guns for the USN in 35 years. On the Wyoming iirc. Battle cruisers generally used contemporary guns. In this case, Iowa was the contemporary, but Alaska has nothing close to the 16" guns on Iowa. You can look at any battle cruiser design ever put to dry dock, and you will not find one that resembles Alaska. They will always have the guns of their battleship contemporaries, and they are generally thinly armored, or armored equal to a battleship (Hood, and Iowa sort of.). 

Even looking at other oddities like scharnhorst and dunkirque, those ships have far better protection that's fit for a battle ship.

You can also look into the ships layout, the rudder is of a cruiser design, rather than a battleship with a double rudder. This is because the ships origins are actually from the pensicola class cruisers. 

So to summarize,

The guns were not capital ship level.

The usage, and intended usage both indicate its not a capital ship.

The armor is unprecedented among any CC designs, being drastically worse in protection of more recent capital ship, but being much better protected than the original concepts 

The design is of a cruiser, as is evident in the steering gear.

 

The class much more resembles a cruiser that has been expanded, than a battle cruiser of any time period. (The hull form is literally an expanded Baltimore)

Edited February 11, 2020 by Hangar18