These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Tier 3 Battlecruisers – A Warning From History
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Mithrandere
Perkone
Caldari State
#1 - 2011-11-06 22:56:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Mithrandere
“There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today." Adm. Beatty to his Flag Captain, after hearing that HMS Queen Mary had just blown up- the 3rd battlecruiser to explode due to weak armor at the battle of Jutland, 31st May 1916.

Sorry about this, but as a military historian I can’t fail to draw some parallels between ACTUAL battlecruisers of WW1 and WW2 vintage and the new T3 BC’s. I thought I would share it as it, just for a bit of fun and because it may have bearing on how useful and effective these things will be in fleet fights. That is, if they ever get there –my Caldari one will sit in a hanger with me drooling at it according to the pics ive seen of it!

So, back to my quote: “There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today."
Allow me to explain, in brief. Historically, battlecrusiers were supposed to be a compromise between the heavy firepower of a battleship, and the speed and endurance of a cruiser. To achieve this, battlecruisers mounted battleship sized weapons (sometimes bigger). Just like EVE though, there was a trade off – in this case, armour. WW1 and WW2 is replete with examples of just how bad an idea this was in general terms. I could go on, but allow me to give two brief examples of this:
- 3 British battlecruisers blown up (not just sunk- blown up) at the battle of Jutland, mostly due to plunging fire penetrating the thin deck and magazine armour.
- HMS Hood, blown up (again, blown up with the loss of all but 3 crew of nearly 1500) whilst engaging the German Battleship Bismarck, also due to plunging fire setting off a magazine.

History tells us that ship designs with big guns and poor armour sink – often in spectacular fashion. This is when they are as fast as a cruiser and have the range and firepower of a BS. I wonder – will it be any different in eve? We already know that the new BC’s will have BS guns just like their realistic brethren and that the trade off is poor armour AND slow speed similar to a BS.

So will there be something wrong with our bloody T3 BC's when they come out? Well history says we should at least watch out – I wonder if ‘history will repeat itself’ in EVE?

EDIT: Please note - this is for a bit of fun, and really doesn’t need to be taken to seriously.
Also, having spent 4 years in the army, completed university education up to a PhD in military science and working in the defence industry, I don’t need to be reminded that EVE is a game, and is massively different from real life, thanks. This article - like the game, is for a bit of fun. Shocked
Markus Reese
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#2 - 2011-11-06 23:03:12 UTC
Yes, but fortunately since that time, industry has proceeded rapidly, and our highly trained brains can now be cloned so we don't lose all the training into the command of a vessel. Now currently, there is a problem with ships that have heavy armor, and heavy guns slugging eachother in the face. Sometimes you need high damage and nimble. Prototype testing has shown that there are effective areas for these ships to be deadly, though care is taken as they can be countered.

To quote Lfod Shi

The ratting itself is PvE. Getting away with it is PvP.
Miss CEO
Universal Excavation Services
#3 - 2011-11-06 23:20:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Miss CEO
Some game this would be if ships would never blow up.

Even the strongest tank in EVE fails if the ship is not used correctly.That said, glass cannons can be quite the weapon IF used correctly. Every ship loss is due to a miss-calculation from pilots part, not because the ship is what it is. This holds true to WW2 and EVE alike.
TrollFace TrololMcFluf
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#4 - 2011-11-06 23:36:29 UTC
Eve isnt like RL these things are more like real world battle cruisers than the current battle cruisers which are more like heavy cruisers IMO

PS. P royal last time i checked didnt blow up it was damaged and sold for scrap in 1927 it was the queen Mary that literally blew up.
Pattern Clarc
Citeregis
#5 - 2011-11-06 23:38:39 UTC
Haven't supercarriers replaced battleshi.... oh.

Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Mithrandere
Perkone
Caldari State
#6 - 2011-11-06 23:57:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Mithrandere
Miss CEO wrote:
Some game this would be if ships would never blow up.

Even the strongest tank in EVE fails if the ship is not used correctly.That said, glass cannons can be quite the weapon IF used correctly. Every ship loss is due to a miss-calculation from pilots part, not because the ship is what it is. This holds true to WW2 and EVE alike.


In EVE- I agree whole heartedly. In real life - you couldnt be more wrong, unless by 'pilot' you also refer to the overall industial and political pressues that lead to poor ships being built. Sometimes, if its naff, its just coz its that built that way.
Mithrandere
Perkone
Caldari State
#7 - 2011-11-07 00:05:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Mithrandere
TrollFace TrololMcFluf wrote:
Eve isnt like RL these things are more like real world battle cruisers than the current battle cruisers which are more like heavy cruisers IMO

PS. P royal last time i checked didnt blow up it was damaged and sold for scrap in 1927 it was the queen Mary that literally blew up.


HA HA - quite right, sorry I tore out a load of that from the original and its got garbled. The orginal quote by Beaty was made when a flag officer wrongly identifed the Queen Mary as the PR, as the Lion classes were similar to the QM. (That is my understanding of it anyway) But you are of course right :)

Just correcting the PR mistake tho - thanks :)