These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
12Next page
 

Teir 3 BC's more like the "pocket Battleship"?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Benilopax
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1 - 2011-11-01 23:18:15 UTC
Was watching an old war film today called the Battle of the River Plate, telling the story of a battle between Royal Navy ships and an German armoured cruiser fitted with over size guns nick named by the british forces as the "pocket battleship". Maybe I'm looking to far into a real world counter part for the new ships but I thought it was a cool coincidence.

For those of who don't know the story the "pocket battleship" badly damaged one of three smaller ships pursuing it before the cruisers closed down the range forcing it to dock in the neutral port of Montevideo, faced with rumoured overwhelming opposition that had supposedly arrived to destroy it on leaving the port. The captain scuttled the ship rather than let it be captured or sunk.

It reminded me very much of a possible EVE scenario with theses new ships. Cool

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pocket_battleship

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_River_Plate

For more info.

...
IGNATIUS HOOD
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#2 - 2011-11-01 23:50:14 UTC
OP your assertion is flawed somewhat. Using post Versailles pre WWII German Navy doctrine is not correct. They had imposed limitations on them far and away more restrictive then the Washington Naval Treaty the US and others imposed upon themselves regarding warships in the interwar years.

Actually I would say the existing BCs in EVE are more akin to the ~Heavy Cruiser~ classification simply becuase they essentially are up armored Cruisers but they carry the same armament of their smaller Cruiser Cousins.

IMO to get a more accurate comparison you need to look to WWI German and British Battlecruisers. They possessed Battleship caliber weapons with cruiser rated armored protection relying on speed to be their armor. Long story short it did not work out as intended (see Dogger Bank and Jutland for the reason, also Bismarck vs Hood is another good example)

Battlecruisers are the quitessential ~glass cannon~ (unfortunately the Captains who commanded them and their Admirals didn't figure that out.) and the new BCs coming out this Winter fit this school of thought to a ~T~ as such I would not expect them to survive unsupported.

That being said they are intriguing ships.

I am curious to see the combat doctrine developed around these ships. I see a mixed BC small gang attempt Harbies and Oracles with Logi support and a Command element sounds pretty workable and worthy of further discussion IMO.
"Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats."   --H.L. Mencken
Oswald Patsee
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#3 - 2011-11-02 01:03:13 UTC
^ Very well reasoned response!

I agree. The new ships will most likely fit in well with fast moving gangs that have the benefit of bewsts and some decent logi support. Hard dps to crack tougher tanks followed by a fast gate align and warp out before reinforcements show up.

Of course, the killboards will be stocked up with people losing them because they think they can go head to head with a well tanked BC or BS.

Should be fun.
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#4 - 2011-11-02 01:27:13 UTC
IGNATIUS HOOD wrote:
OP your assertion is flawed somewhat. Using post Versailles pre WWII German Navy doctrine is not correct. They had imposed limitations on them far and away more restrictive then the Washington Naval Treaty the US and others imposed upon themselves regarding warships in the interwar years.

Actually I would say the existing BCs in EVE are more akin to the ~Heavy Cruiser~ classification simply becuase they essentially are up armored Cruisers but they carry the same armament of their smaller Cruiser Cousins.

IMO to get a more accurate comparison you need to look to WWI German and British Battlecruisers. They possessed Battleship caliber weapons with cruiser rated armored protection relying on speed to be their armor. Long story short it did not work out as intended (see Dogger Bank and Jutland for the reason, also Bismarck vs Hood is another good example)

Battlecruisers are the quitessential ~glass cannon~ (unfortunately the Captains who commanded them and their Admirals didn't figure that out.) and the new BCs coming out this Winter fit this school of thought to a ~T~ as such I would not expect them to survive unsupported.

That being said they are intriguing ships.

I am curious to see the combat doctrine developed around these ships. I see a mixed BC small gang attempt Harbies and Oracles with Logi support and a Command element sounds pretty workable and worthy of further discussion IMO.



This is the kind of response I like too - a redeeming post for the forums.

Since you know a bit of history, could you spare some time to share your perspective on any comparison to the changes with Destroyers in Eve and the naval destroyers in history?

I know that the term "destroyer" comes about from a type of ship used to lay it into smaller craft - the kind that could launch torpedoes.

Bring back DEEEEP Space!
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#5 - 2011-11-02 01:37:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Onictus
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
[quote=IGNATIUS HOOD]

I know that the term "destroyer" comes about from a type of ship used to lay it into smaller craft - the kind that could launch torpedoes.




Destroyers, or Cans as we called them on the Navy have traditionally been general ships of the line. The term can's refers to being "Tin Cans" that didn't have the benefit of a Cruiser's armor or bigger guns.

Back before the carrier, the Destroyers were light fast combat ships that served as the first line between an enemy fleet and and the heavier ships, the idea being classic glass cannon stuff, close or the big slower vessels and blast the crap out of them. As well as AA duty their smaller caliber weapons being better to fire on aircraft than traditional big-bore guns of the time.

During WWII Destroyermen were near legendary for taking their smaller less armored ships against ridiculous odds and bringing the ship home later.

Admiral Arleigh Burke was one such Captain, today the entire class is named after him as well as the first ship (DDG51).

Today the Burke Class destroyer is the workhorse of the fleet and the most proliferate surface combatant in the US Navy.

Frigates are the traditional anti-sub platform, though we are moving away from that.
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#6 - 2011-11-02 01:37:53 UTC
lol these forums.
Har Harrison
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#7 - 2011-11-02 01:42:47 UTC
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
IGNATIUS HOOD wrote:
OP your assertion is flawed somewhat. Using post Versailles pre WWII German Navy doctrine is not correct. They had imposed limitations on them far and away more restrictive then the Washington Naval Treaty the US and others imposed upon themselves regarding warships in the interwar years.

Actually I would say the existing BCs in EVE are more akin to the ~Heavy Cruiser~ classification simply becuase they essentially are up armored Cruisers but they carry the same armament of their smaller Cruiser Cousins.

IMO to get a more accurate comparison you need to look to WWI German and British Battlecruisers. They possessed Battleship caliber weapons with cruiser rated armored protection relying on speed to be their armor. Long story short it did not work out as intended (see Dogger Bank and Jutland for the reason, also Bismarck vs Hood is another good example)

Battlecruisers are the quitessential ~glass cannon~ (unfortunately the Captains who commanded them and their Admirals didn't figure that out.) and the new BCs coming out this Winter fit this school of thought to a ~T~ as such I would not expect them to survive unsupported.

That being said they are intriguing ships.

I am curious to see the combat doctrine developed around these ships. I see a mixed BC small gang attempt Harbies and Oracles with Logi support and a Command element sounds pretty workable and worthy of further discussion IMO.



This is the kind of response I like too - a redeeming post for the forums.

Since you know a bit of history, could you spare some time to share your perspective on any comparison to the changes with Destroyers in Eve and the naval destroyers in history?

I know that the term "destroyer" comes about from a type of ship used to lay it into smaller craft - the kind that could launch torpedoes.



Destroyers kick the $#I^ out of Stealth Bombers???
Shawn Pierce
State War Academy
Caldari State
#8 - 2011-11-02 16:03:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Shawn Pierce
IGNATIUS HOOD wrote:
... I would say the existing BCs in EVE are more akin to the ~Heavy Cruiser~ classification simply becuase they essentially are up armored Cruisers but they carry the same armament of their smaller Cruiser Cousins.

Exactly right. In other space universes like the "Honor Harrington" universe, the current Tier1 and Tier2 "battle cruisers" would be called heavy cruisers. They simply do more damage (using more of the same-size weapons) and have better tank than regular cruisers.

Of course, CCP can't simply reclassify them, as they already have Heavy Assault Ships and people would get all uppity as to the differences between them.

The new Tier3 ships are EVE's first true "battle cruisers" and I really like their role. They should literally be cruisers in every way, except for their special ability to use battleship-sized weapons ... like taking a Thorax and giving it the ability to mount Neutron Blaster Cannon IIs. I'm going to be putting some down payments to get some of the first-run Amarr, Minmatar, and maybe even Gallente Tier3 ships.

And the new changes to destroyers will help them match the traditional destroyer role as well.

I definitely like the way these FIS changes are taking EVE...
Benilopax
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#9 - 2011-11-02 16:10:35 UTC
I'm pleasantly surprised by the high brow discussion I've started, even if you've all told me I'm dead wrong. Sad

...
IGNATIUS HOOD
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#10 - 2011-11-02 16:10:55 UTC
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
IGNATIUS HOOD wrote:
OP your assertion is flawed somewhat. Using post Versailles pre WWII German Navy doctrine is not correct. They had imposed limitations on them far and away more restrictive then the Washington Naval Treaty the US and others imposed upon themselves regarding warships in the interwar years.

Actually I would say the existing BCs in EVE are more akin to the ~Heavy Cruiser~ classification simply becuase they essentially are up armored Cruisers but they carry the same armament of their smaller Cruiser Cousins.

IMO to get a more accurate comparison you need to look to WWI German and British Battlecruisers. They possessed Battleship caliber weapons with cruiser rated armored protection relying on speed to be their armor. Long story short it did not work out as intended (see Dogger Bank and Jutland for the reason, also Bismarck vs Hood is another good example)

Battlecruisers are the quitessential ~glass cannon~ (unfortunately the Captains who commanded them and their Admirals didn't figure that out.) and the new BCs coming out this Winter fit this school of thought to a ~T~ as such I would not expect them to survive unsupported.

That being said they are intriguing ships.

I am curious to see the combat doctrine developed around these ships. I see a mixed BC small gang attempt Harbies and Oracles with Logi support and a Command element sounds pretty workable and worthy of further discussion IMO.



This is the kind of response I like too - a redeeming post for the forums.

Since you know a bit of history, could you spare some time to share your perspective on any comparison to the changes with Destroyers in Eve and the naval destroyers in history?

I know that the term "destroyer" comes about from a type of ship used to lay it into smaller craft - the kind that could launch torpedoes.



In the purest wet navy sense Destroyers are escort vessels plain and simple. Going back to WWI Destroyers were basically intended to act as screen to the Cruisers, Battlecruisers, and Battleships of the main fleet. Also the fact that they carried Torpedos left them in a position to be used to launch attacks against the bigger battle wagons of the opposing fleet while at the same time defending against the same actions by the enemy fleet. Once again see the Battle of Jutland as a prime example of both and specifically what happened to those same destroyers in the night action during the latter stages of the battle. In more modern terms the classification fo Frigate ~and~ Destroyer denote the same role Anti Submarine, Missile defense, and Anti Aircraft defense for larger more valuable fleet components. Fundementally still an escort vessel.

From an EVE perspective they are, or should be, fleet escorts. They don't need another mid slot becuase you should see them used as Anti-Tackle ideally in Null Sec, inside a Bubble and I think a smart FC would love to have a flotilla of DDs at his disposal to go after those annoying Frigates trying to tackle his capital ships and to mence those dictors trying to bubble him.

Supercarriers in thier current form limit the utility of Destroyers but with the Nerf you may see a resurgence of the unit without the need to add a second mid slot. Personally I enjoyed the heck out of my Coercer as a mission runner and poor man's Noctis as a ready response in Salvage duty while corpies ran L4 missions when I was a Noob.

What CCP struggles with is the desire of the players to solo against the design of them game which is cooperative. They frequently blur the line and and end up having balance issues as a result. In real life you would never see the USS Nimitz alone without screening elements unless she's heading back to port. Also you would never see all 11 US carriers together acting in concert as a blob without screen. Yet its a common practice in 0.0 to do just that.
"Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats."   --H.L. Mencken
InVictus Kell
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#11 - 2011-11-02 16:17:11 UTC
This entire thread is too smart and civil for these forums. needs moar bacon, beer, and bewbs.
IGNATIUS HOOD
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#12 - 2011-11-02 16:17:25 UTC
Oswald Patsee wrote:
^ Very well reasoned response!

I agree. The new ships will most likely fit in well with fast moving gangs that have the benefit of bewsts and some decent logi support. Hard dps to crack tougher tanks followed by a fast gate align and warp out before reinforcements show up.

Of course, the killboards will be stocked up with people losing them because they think they can go head to head with a well tanked BC or BS.

Should be fun.


This is a sad fact becuase most like the new and shiny and most don't every crack a book to understand the siginifigance. I think CCP does and thats one of the reasons I like this game.
"Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats."   --H.L. Mencken
IGNATIUS HOOD
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#13 - 2011-11-02 16:24:02 UTC
Shawn Pierce wrote:
IGNATIUS HOOD wrote:
... I would say the existing BCs in EVE are more akin to the ~Heavy Cruiser~ classification simply becuase they essentially are up armored Cruisers but they carry the same armament of their smaller Cruiser Cousins.

Exactly right. In other space universes like the "Honor Harrington" universe, the current Tier1 and Tier2 "battle cruisers" would be called heavy cruisers. They simply do more damage (using more of the same-size weapons) and have better tank than regular cruisers.

Of course, CCP can't simply reclassify them, as they already have Heavy Assault Ships and people would get all uppity as to the differences between them.

The new Tier3 ships are EVE's first true "battle cruisers" and I really like their role. They should literally be cruisers in every way, except for their special ability to use battleship-sized weapons ... like taking a Thorax and giving it the ability to mount Neutron Blaster Cannon IIs. I'm going to be putting some down payments to get some of the first-run Amarr, Minmatar, and maybe even Gallente Tier3 ships.

And the new changes to destroyers will help them match the traditional destroyer role as well.

I definitely like the way these FIS changes are taking EVE...


Funny you mention the Honorverse! David Weber basically took Age of Sail and Pre WWII Naval warfare and stuffed them in a blender and then wrote a few million words about it. Its great reading but it would and did make for a crappy game.
"Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats."   --H.L. Mencken
Aethlyn
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#14 - 2011-11-02 16:57:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Aethlyn
Think the issue about people skipping different ship classes in a fleet (e.g. ignoring the mentioned "screening") is the fact that most ships are simply most effective against their own class/size, e.g. medium guns are made to hit medium targets best. There are a few exceptions (e.g. stealth bombers), but overall it's that way. The T3 BCs will definitely change that, adding medium/medium-to-large threats on the table for larger ships. Sure, similar stuff can be done already, but I think you're still losing some effectiveness attacking a target bigger or smaller than you are (if you're not playing one of the exceptions). I'm definitely having a look at the Tornado. Could offer a neat weapons plattform to stick to if you don't want to field battleships, but still want the bigger guns. I just wonder how their stats will play out in the end - close quarters or artillery.

Looking for more thoughts? Follow me on Twitter.
Morganta
The Greater Goon
#15 - 2011-11-02 17:04:30 UTC
the Graf Spee and her 1 year anti merchant roam around the south atlantic was one of the more fascinating stories of WWII.

I strenuously suggest reading "the drama of the Graf Spee and the battle of the river Plate" which combines upwards of 8 different sides of the entire story, taken from eyewitness reports and text from various books written by the people who participated, from Spee crew members, Merchant crew members taken captive by the spee, Royal navy members and government officials in Britain, Germany and south America

Her captain was a classic navy man of great honor and reputation, and would always offer the target the chance at surrender before sinking it. Out of the many merchants sunk at the hands of Spee, only 2-3 crew members were killed in total, the rest were given generous accommodation onboard Spee, and were even allowed to collect personal effects and reading materials from the merc ship before the Spee sunk them. Of course they were still prisoners of war and Spee's supply tender would collect the prisoners at regular intervals for transport back to Germany. Life on the tender for the POWs was very much less comfortable than their accomodation on the Spee.

God, I could sit here telling you lot all the great bits, but if you can find an affordable copy its well worth the read and is as great a naval adventure story as you can get.

But to get back to pocket BS...

Germany was under the restrictions of the treaty of Versailles at the time, and couldn't legally produce hulls over a certain tonnage. BS fell into this tonnage range.
So they came up with the great idea to produce a cruiser hull and fit it with BS guns (I think the spee had 11 inch primary guns and 6 inch secondaries) and kept the tonnage under the specified limit (not really, there was some other trickery at work with the numbers too)

thus they invented the pocket BS, they also did this with aircraft BTW, many of Germany's front line bombers were originally produced as so-called commercial airliners to avoid the treaty restrictions.
Morganta
The Greater Goon
#16 - 2011-11-02 17:11:30 UTC
funny, it's so much like EVE the battle of the Plate

lone ganker on a roam gets found by the fleet hunting it and suffers some moderate damage
docks up for repairs while the hunter fleet camps the undock and waits for cap support

eventually the ganker is forced to undock into the loving arms of the hunter fleet
but knowing its a lost cause the crew escapes in a shuttle and the ganker ship is self destructed off the undock

later the captain biomasses his character out of nerd rage
Little Delicious
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#17 - 2011-11-02 18:45:19 UTC
i lolled because your portrait looks like a nerd who would be into wwii stuff.
Cipher Jones
The Thomas Edwards Taco Tuesday All Stars
#18 - 2011-11-02 18:54:25 UTC
Proof that internet spaceships are srsfknbsns.

+1 to everyone.

internet spaceships

are serious business sir.

and don't forget it
pussnheels
Viziam
#19 - 2011-11-02 18:55:13 UTC
Great discussion and great concepts but alas aslong we don"t have a game mechanism that introduces line of sight , nobody will implement these ideas and the blob will continue to rule

IF however there was a line of sight mechanisme and objects/ other ships blocking your fields of fire.......
i can dream right

I do not agree with what you are saying , but i will defend to the death your right to say it...... Voltaire
Benilopax
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#20 - 2011-11-02 18:59:03 UTC
I should add, the film itself Battle of the River Plate is a great film for anyone who enjoys tactical naval engagements. And reminds me very much of eve, just on the sea, in the past, but still check it out!

More small gang warfare CCP!

...
12Next page