Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly. You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
In theory there should not be a need for that with the new system as it will autodesing models following historical desing philosophies for each major.
So I understand that if playing as USA you research the 1940 medium chassis and have the right components (guns, engine, armor and such) the system would offer an M4 Sherman model for you to produce or something close to it.
Now, that it works as the devs intend is another matter.
It seems the AI cannot handle it. As the game won't collect the data like the cause of loss statistic of the tank, the Kill/death ratio of the tank, and what are we facing the most to decide what aspect of the AFV need to change and improve. I believe AI will just auto-upgrade your AFV with the latest technology you get.
I mixed the wielded and armor in my mind and ended writing the wrong one. You can see that I mentioned wielded as the most expensive one when the Devs confirmed that the casted armour would be the one with the higher production cost Casted > Wielded > Riveted. Sorry for the confusion.
The French tanks as you said used casted and given the Devs mentioned the Germans would struggle with the armor they probably will represent this right.
@wagnerleung0079 To a 99% certainty the AI will not provide optimal desings, in fact in some cases such as playing as Italy the desings with historical flavour will most likely be inadequate.
But for the players that want to automate to avoid micro it will probably be fair as the AI will be working with the same limitations and rules in desing. For multiplayer the automatic desing feature will probably be useless, but having to micro production would be nothing new in MP games.
As the former account got banned, here's the reply:
The attack values and piercing depend on the gun, not the hull. For almost all purposes, except armour, it's moot to differentiate between a nashorn and a sturer max.
It's the gun and the gun alone that matters. Both are direct fire, non turret designs, so that's TD. Both are medium, so medium TD. But they are both upgunned compared to other MTD2.
(Those would have a 75/6mm gun, like Hellcat or SU-85).
For that reason, I don't get your point.
I think a good example of this is, ironically, related by Donitz in his discussion of submarine experiences in the war. But the situation he outlines also reinforces how some decisions are not optimal simply due to changing circumstances.
He argued in his memoirs that the steel and effort put into the surface fleet could have created enough extra submarines in time for a war in 1939 to make a difference. In his account, there was no point to having a half-assed surface fleet when you could lean fully into something like submarines.
Despite the fact that his memoirs fail to account for things like ENIGMA being broken (which he acknowledged himself when he heard about it in the 70s), I think there is merit to his assessment. Given when the war started, Bismark and Tirpitz weren't the correct choices even if their mere existence tied down more British ships in the Home Fleet. But the ships were started long before 1939, and when Germany signed the Anglo-German Naval Agreement, the situation facing her was substantially different.
Bismark and Tirpitz were not necessarily the optimum choice historically, and some folks realized that in the historical timeframe covered by the game. But it takes years to build a large capital ship, so when the decision was taken to start working on those ships, the "historical" choice made more sense.
Works out that way often enough in practice, certainly. It's really hard to build wargames that are, in fact, true ground-up simulations of everything about that war. Too many unknown details and too much input to handle. So, there's always some bottom level of granularity and a bunch of abstractions that incorporate a lot of assumptions, which may or may not be a great match to reality. Then the doctrines, personalities, office politics, and inter-service rivalries show up to tell the game developers what they ought to do so that the outcomes come out the way the generals want (usually termed "realism", of course).
Huh; this is starting to sound kind of familiar.
(During that first paragraph, did anyone start to think, "well, to do a better job, those kriegspiel builders obviously ought to just ignore all those meddlers"?)
I think a good example of this is... the steel and effort put into the surface fleet could have created enough extra submarines in time for a war in 1939
I agree. Donitz might have been right, but there was certainly a lot of inertia in the way of adopting that notion. Everyone complains about ahistorical sub spam in HoI4 -- but what if Donitz was right, and that plus aircraft really was the most efficient way to control the seas with WW II tech? A grand strategic game is supposed to let you explore alternative options, so you don't want the game mechanics to forbid building lots of submarines -- unless you just want to replay the war and have the game channel the players into doing so. (In the latter case, it'd probably be simpler just to opt for a pre-defined order of battle where historical units just show up, removing the production aspect entirely. Most strategic or operational scale games do exactly that.)
Billy Mitchell would have told us that all that effort for a surface navy should have been put into aircraft. Guderian would be in there pitching the armored troops will always be the decisive element in all future battles bit. They can't all be completely right, especially when taken out of context and to an extreme.
If Germany went full bore into submarines - The UK would have caught wind and allocated more resources to counter the threat. in my honest opinion Germany fully focusing on subs earlier would have pushed the UK to adapt to the threat earlier.
Also in regard to the Bismarck - it is a great Inter-War era Battle ship - But it is not a true 1940 - IMO the only ships deserving that title are the south dakota / carolina class.
You can make a bigger Ship- with more armor - bigger gun - bigger engine etc. Of course it will have good raw stats. However a battleships size doesn't mean it is more technologically advanced.
The same thought process can be applied to tanks. Had nations pushed harder in building bigger tanks in the 1930s we would have seen bigger tanks earlier, but their advantage would have quickly diminished as nations would have adapted in response sooner. But again bigger - heavier - faster doesn't mean better in the long run or more technologically advanced. it means more resources were invested to push the current technologies to the maximum application.
After it was patched (the speed zero BBs were finally gone), some players complained that the game wasn't balanced properly for Germany because you couldn't get the Bismark out in time for its historical actions. I think proceeded to show that you could get a Bismark out in the water in time with 1940 techs across the board by choosing NFs at the right time and putting some real effort into research.
The players then complained that my strategy still didn't answer their objections because you had to take Plan Z in 1936 and spend a ton of time burning research slots to get the techs. In other words, even though I could put the Bismark into the water with high tech equipment in time for its historical commissioning, it still wasn't good enough for some players because the trade offs to get that to happen were too much.
So, what does balanced look like? Historical date for historical commissioning of a historical ship? Historical stats and layout? Or a ship that can fulfill the historical function of the ship within the context of game mechanics? Hell, I don't know. And whatever answer I give will be different than another person's answer.
It seems the balancing factors you are listing are actually the disappointment and the shortcoming that destroy the immersiveness of MtG.
Even you showed that you could get a Bismarck out in the water in time with 1940 techs across the board by choosing NFs at the right time and putting some real effort into research, it doesn't change the fact (even admit) that the MtG Bismarck cannot represent historical Bismarck and need to make a new one. Historically the design of Bismarck was finalized and started building in 1936. Germany should have enough knowledge and technology to build Bismarck with 4 turrets at the start of 1936. MtG should not stop players from spamming battleships through NF and Tech speed run challenges, but by increasing the time and resources required to build and outfitting (a year for Bismarck) warships.
Historical date:
The MtG really cannot recreate almost anything similar to the historical data. The game only allows the player to install a limited number of modules into the ship. Use "Tirpitz" as an example, you either install main turret in the front-section or torpedo tubes in the mid-section of the battleship, as the result the "Tirpitz" in-game can only have three turrets and a pair of torpedo tubes instead of four turrets and a pair of torpedo tubes that the historical "Tirpitz" really had. The game should not limit how many modules a ship can install, but limit the level of the modules(Just the Armor, Engine, and Main Artillary with respect to the size and tonnage capacity of different hulls) that the ship can install.
layout:
The MtG only provides one type of layout for each class of ship. In the case of battleships, many battleships with layouts other than AB-XY turrets layout cannot be represented in MtG. While the difference between the battleship design from pre-WWI to 1922 is much greater than that of battleship design after the Washington Treaty, all the battleship designs from pre-WWI to 1922 are just classified into the variants of the Early Heavy Ship Hull. MtG also unable to correctly represent the Inter-war French Battleships and the Nelson Class with ABC turrets layout.
Historical stats:
The in-game tech tree of MtG cannot represent the "history". Most of the ship hull and Armor Scheme related technology were actually developed in or prior to 1922 for the major power(except USSR). On the other hand, the techs of MtG are too generalized and mix things together. The All-or-Nothing Armor scheme in MtG unlocks the Armor III, which has more armor, more HP, and lesser speed(increase in weight), but in reality, the All-or-Nothing Armor scheme actually reduces the weight of the battleship by arranging the armor more efficiently. The Armor level and the armor scheme should be two separate components. While higher Armor level will reduce the speed (increase the weight) and more efficient armor schemes would increase the speed (reduce the weight).
A ship that can fulfill the historical function of the ship within the context of game mechanics:
MtG is quite good on doing that.
All those historical features regarding Historical date for historical commissioning of a historical ship, Historical stats, and layout can be fixed without touching the core mechanic and obstructing ship to fulfill the historical function of the ship within the context of game mechanics, but all those features were still missing compromised for don't know what reason. Hoping that it won't happen again in tank designer.
To answer my own question. I dont think we will see night vision devices in the editor because the bonus in the inf. Tab upgrades all units as it is. Snorkels for tanks is also going to have the same problem as flamethrowers(Terrain bonus is locked to unit type) . Side skirts is a maybe and zimmerite is probably not. What modules would be sensible from a gameplay perspective? Radio, smoke, wet ammo and sloped armour is confirmed. I guess that we can change old tanks with new modules later. So the french tank fleet can be converted to something useful in short time this time around.
To answer my own question. I dont think we will see night vision devices in the editor because the bonus in the inf. Tab upgrades all units as it is. Snorkels for tanks is also going to have the same problem as flamethrowers(Terrain bonus is locked to unit type) . Side skirts is a maybe and zimmerite is probably not. What modules would be sensible from a gameplay perspective? Radio, smoke, wet ammo and sloped armour is confirmed. I guess that we can change old tanks with new modules later. So the french tank fleet can be converted to something useful in short time this time around.
Gun stabilisation and 'autoloading' starting to make an entrance through this period. Internal protection (firewalls and spall liners) I guess would be hard to model as trickleback won't be decided by equipment. Additional 'main' weapons as occurred with some rocket-launching tanks could take up a special slot. ...
One thing that should definitely be included is that little dice from Stellaris that picks a name for ship classes, When I see the AI with stuff like "1936 hull" or soon to be "1936 tank" ect that really annoys me.
Hello, and welcome back to another DevDiary about content coming in the 1.11 “Barbarossa” patch and its accompanying DLC. As always, keep in mind that the things shown in this DevDiary are still under development, so the numbers and UI might change before release.
Ever since we revealed the ship designer in Man the Guns, people have been asking about a similar system for tanks. We did, however, want to improve a bit on the ship designer. In particular, we felt that the ship designer was encouraging too many generalist designs. Part of the problem is that ships have a very long lead time before they become available, so it is difficult to iterate on the designs in a timely fashion. When your ship takes two years to build, you can’t really specialize it too much, because you can’t always accurately predict the situation in two years.
Thankfully, tanks require a somewhat smaller investment (although our QA certainly has tried to make designs that rival ships in cost), so you see a new tank design in the frontlines much sooner than a new ship, allowing you to react to new situations much faster.
Another thing is that ships usually had trade-offs between different capabilities, in the sense that the space (or module slot) taken up by a torpedo launcher could also be taken up by an AA gun, making the ship better against one or the other type of enemy. But rarely did you want a ship that had no AA or no way to defend itself against surface targets, so you always wanted some AA and some ship attack.
Tanks, on the other hand, don’t usually have trade-offs in the same way. You don’t usually design a tank, wondering if you should put on another AA gun or a second gun against surface targets (unless, of course, you are German and it's 1944).
But Tanks still have trade-offs in their design, and we wanted to represent those. Traditionally, tank design revolves around three aspects: Mobility, Firepower, and Protection. A well-armored tank is slow, a fast tank can’t carry a big gun, and a big gun requires a large tank, which is difficult to armor. During the war, different nations tried different approaches, and learned different lessons from their observations - it is no surprise that the last German tanks of the war were heavily-armored vehicles carrying massive guns, but the first post-war design was the comparatively lightly armored but well-armed and quite nimble Leopard 1.
So we wanted to make you think about these three aspects, and have it be a trade-off between them. However, in a grand strategy game, other aspects also matter more than in the typical comparison of tank designs - the best tank in the world is useless if it breaks down on the way to the battlefield (Panther fans take note), and it is even more useless if you can’t afford it. So we wanted cost and reliability to also matter when designing a tank or armored vehicle.
In contrast to ships, we wanted to make you think more about specializing your designs to fill a certain niche, and optimize it towards a specific role. While you will probably still want to have a somewhat middle-of-the-road design for your main production medium tank (one might call it “the Sherman”), there is a place for more specialized designs as well.
As part of this approach, we will be making changes to the reliability system and the armor system. The details will be forthcoming in a future dev diary (together with other combat changes), but the broad strokes are that reliability will not just affect the rate of attrition, and that the armor system will become less binary. As part of these changes, we also decided to give mechanized equipment some upgrades, so that it can keep up with tanks.
Under the new system, reliability is meant to represent both the likelihood that a given piece of equipment breaks down as well as the likelihood that it suffers catastrophic damage when hit and the effort necessary to repair it. In effect, reliability also represents the carrying capacity of a given chassis, so you effectively have a reliability budget for every chassis to work with. The more armor you put on it, the bigger the weapon etc., the more reliability drops. Heavier or more advanced tank chassis generally have more reliability (over 100% on the base chassis in some cases).
But enough of the basics, let’s talk about what you really want to know: What’s the Kampfwagenkanone Zweiundvierzig in game terms? Is the weird hybrid-electric drive of the Elefant represented? Do we get to set the exact angle of the front armor or just the thickness?
Much like ships, tanks are based on a hull (called a chassis) and a number of modules that define the actual stats of the final design. These modules act a little different from the way the ship designer works. While the main armament is fairly self-evident, other “modules” represent something like “design features”. These features are meant to be distinct enough that even someone who does not have an in-depth understanding of armor development during the war can at least understand that different armor types are good for different things.
Instead of scripting in a gigantic list of armor types with different thickness, armor is represented by a thickness and a production method: Riveted Armor is the cheapest kind, but also the weakest. Cast Armor is the strongest, but also the most expensive.
Welded Armor is a compromise between the two extremes, making it the most cost-efficient (arguments can be made either way between cast and welded armor since welding does require specialized equipment and training).
Armor thickness is changed through something much like the old, vanilla upgrade system, with up to 20 different levels. You start with being able to put up to 5 levels of armor (roughly equivalent to 50 mm of armor) on a tank, but research allows you to put more on. Higher levels of armor protection require more resources, such as steel and eventually chromium. There is no limit to the amount of armor you can put on a chassis as such - if you want to make a light tank with the armor protection of a Tiger, you can (it’s called a Panzer I Ausf. F). The amount of armor upgrades on the vehicle translates to an actual armor value based on the type of armor you have selected, so 5 levels of riveted armor are still weaker than 5 levels of cast armor - but much cheaper.
Engine types are also meant to be simple to understand. Gasoline Engines are faster than Diesels for the same weight, but Diesels are more reliable. Beyond that, Electric hybrid engines are a very situational pick. We originally intended for them to be a joke pick - costly, unreliable, fuel inefficient - but on some further reading, the rationale behind them was that they offered better mobility in broken terrain. In game, this is represented by a small bonus to breakthrough and defense. Finally, there are gas turbines, which are unlocked from jet engine research. They are the fastest engine option, but take up a lot of fuel. Like armor, engines also have an upgrade system where you can set the level of engine power (up to 20). It should be noted that the speed of most historical designs is going to be lower than the stated max speed of the vehicle they are based on. This is because we represent the operational speed of a vehicle, i.e. how far the vehicle can get in 24 hours - tanks don’t drive around all day at maximum speed, they have to stop for refuelling, resting the crew, basic maintenance etc.
Turrets are split between different kinds and are meant to represent things like crew ergonomics. Early in the war, a lot of countries had tanks with one or two-man turrets, and one advantage the Germans had was having a commander who could direct the rest of the crew without also having to service the main gun. This is represented by bonuses to breakthrough with different turrets. A special type is the fixed superstructure. Main guns are differentiated by size (small, medium, large, super-heavy), which correspond roughly with the weight classes of tanks. Light tanks can only carry small weapons etc. - unless they have a fixed superstructure, which enables them to carry guns one size bigger, allowing you to mount a medium gun on a light tank chassis. Having a fixed superstructure also adds bonuses to defense while giving a penalty to breakthrough, making it a good option for vehicles meant to defend.
Suspensions affect mainly reliability and speed. The most basic kind is the Bogie suspension, which adds some reliability, while Christie suspension adds quite a bit of speed. Torsion Bar suspension adds more reliability than Bogies, but is more expensive. Interleaved Roadwheels - as seen on the later German tanks - add some breakthrough, but have reliability problems (the overlapping wheels add some protection and redundancy against fire coming from the side, but are difficult to repair and maintain). Light Chassis can also select wheeled and half-track suspensions, which make the vehicle itself quite a bit cheaper, but also drop reliability.
The main weapon has probably the biggest impact on the offensive stats of the vehicle. There are a lot of different options to choose from, but we have tried to give every weapon type it’s own niche, with realistic drawbacks and advantages, so for example the High-velocity tank guns (like the KwK 42 or the American 76mm) have worse soft attack but very good piercing and hard attack, while howitzers have very poor hard attack and piercing, but spectacular soft attack. This means that for example the early German tanks do struggle a bit against the French, which have pretty heavy armor (but suffer in other regards, mostly because of their one-man turrets).
A full list is included in the spoiler tag:
Weapon
Size
Unlock
HMG
Small
Basic Infantry equipment
Autocannon I
Small
AA Gun I
Autocannon II
Small
AA II
Small Cannon I
Small
GW Artillery
Small Cannon II
Small
Interwar Artillery
Close Support Gun
Small
Interwar Artillery
Medium Cannon I
Medium
Artillery II+ OR AT Upgrade
Medium Cannon II
Medium
Artillery Upgrade OR AT Upgrade
High-Velocity Cannon I
Small
AT Gun I
High-Velocity Cannon II
Medium
AT Gun II
High-Velocity Cannon III
Heavy
AT Gun III
AA Gun I
Small
AA Gun I
AA Gun II
Medium
AA Gun II
AA Gun III
Medium
AA Gun III
Medium Howitzer I
Medium
Interwar Artillery
Medium Howitzer II
Medium
Artillery II
Heavy Howitzer
Heavy
Artillery III
Rocket Launcher I
Medium
Rocket Artillery I
Rocket Launcher II
Medium
Rocket Artillery II
Heavy Cannon I
Heavy
AT Gun I OR AA Gun I
Heavy Cannon II
Heavy
AT Gun II OR AA Gun II
Heavy Cannon III
Heavy
AT Gun III OR AA Gun III
Super-Heavy Cannon
Super-Heavy
Super-Heavy Chassis
As you can see, we made an effort to not have a giant tech tree this time. The tech tree for the new chassis is about the same size as the old armor tech tree, and the other modules are unlocked primarily through the artillery tab.
Finally, every chassis has 4 slots for “Special Modules”. These can include radios, which give bonuses to breakthrough and defense; secondary turrets for all your T-35 needs; smoke launchers; extra ammunition storage and wet ammo storage. Deciding whether or not a tank uses sloped armor also happens in this area. Perhaps most intriguing is the Amphibious Drive, which allows you to designate a design as an amphibious tank for the purpose of amphibious tank battalions (MtG owners only).
Designating designs for certain roles ensures that they are used in those subunits. Some roles require certain characteristics - for example, you can’t have an AA tank that uses a fixed superstructure. But it is completely possible to make both the German tank destroyers with fixed superstructures and the American ones with turrets and have them go to tank destroyer units. The weight class of the chassis determines the weight class of the final design, so a design on the heavy chassis that is designated as a tank destroyer is treated as a heavy tank destroyer. This also means we can represent vehicles that changed roles during the war more easily, so you can have your StuG III equivalent with a high-soft attack gun go to your armored artillery battalions in the early war, but then switch out the gun to something with better piercing and have it work as a tank destroyer afterwards.
Since we want you to optimize designs for different purposes, we also wanted to make sure that you can easily decide where a certain tank design ends up. So for example, you can follow the British approach of having fast cruiser tanks to use in armored divisions, and slower infantry tanks that go to support your infantry divisions. To do this, you tag a design with a symbol. You can then quickly select from a list of symbols in the division designer to make the division only pull equipment tagged as such. Equipment that isn’t tagged (such as lend-lease and captured foreign equipment, or equipment not tagged at all) will still be used for divisions that don’t have a specific tag requirement set.
We also took another look at what automation features were necessary for people who don’t want to spend a lot of time fine-tuning their tank designs (weird and alien though that thought may be to most of us). We do, of course, have the usual auto-design functionality. It takes the design the AI would use and offers it for approval. This has gotten some love, and there should now be some national flavor in how the AI designs its tanks. It also takes the overall situation into account, so tanks will be up-armored during the war and so on. Beyond that, we also have added an auto-upgrade function, which keeps a given design current as you research new guns, chassis etc. You can either click on a design you made in the past and upgrade it with a single click to the newest components (so a Radio I becomes a Radio II etc.), or click a checkbox to do so automatically. You don't have to pay XP for an automatic design upgrade, but you won't get thicker armor or a better engine that way. Still, we think that the combination of auto-design and auto-upgrade allows players to interact with the system as much or as little as they like. View attachment 710383
To make the tank designs more visually distinct in the production view, we have added about 1000 new 2d icons to use for them, mostly stemming from combining parts of existing tanks in new ways (the gun of Tank A with the turret of Tank B etc.). The historical icons are, of course, still available. You can select the icon while making the design, as well as the 3d asset used to represent the vehicle on the map.
That’s all from us today for this feature. Before closing, I would like to note a few things on the subject of giving feedback. When I first started at Paradox, the direct line between community and developers was a major plus for me, because I liked the idea of talking to the community without having to run every post past three different marketing departments first. However, this kind of direct community access comes at a heavy cost for us. As many of you have noticed, we have gotten a little sparse in these forums in the last few months, or even years. The reason for this is that often we do face a debate culture that is not enjoyable to take part in, where it is taken as a given that the devs are either lazy or incompetent and where everything we do is viewed through that lens. Not only is it incredibly demoralizing to spend months of your life creating something, only to see the people you made it for tear it to shreds, it is also a debate that gives no one anything. We aren’t paid to wade through pages of abuse to find a few nuggets of useful feedback, and so that feedback is not acted on. A lot of you have access to sources in languages we don’t speak or have studied some detail that we weren’t aware of. Such feedback is very useful - just a few weeks ago someone sent me a plan of the Turkish railways in 1936 taken from an old Turkish book, so I was able to use that to update the Turkish railway setup at game start.
We’re not looking for fawning adoration (although we will certainly accept it) or a forum in which our decisions can’t be discussed with a critical eye. We want to have your feedback, but there is no point to it if it can’t be delivered with a minimum of respect for each other. If you want to have a forum where developers are willing to go and answer your questions, then it is also your responsibility to build a place where we feel welcome, and where we can disagree in a productive and professional manner. It costs you nothing to assume that we were acting in good faith. None of us wake up in the morning and go to work in order to do a bad job.
Extra Secret Spoiler: here are some tank designs QA has made over the past few months while we were developing this. Please note that the numbers on the screenshots are several versions out of date and that the issues pointed out in these shots have been fixed since then.
View attachment 710391
Why use an engine when you have free continental drift to take you to the enemy?
View attachment 710393
And it was in this moment that someone realized that we should probably cap negative reliability at 0.
View attachment 710390
A super-heavy amphibious tank is an idea too beautiful for this world. It can also only drive backwards for some reason.
[/spoiler
So if light chassis can be wheeled is that a hint that we could have T Series combat cars in 36' USA because the Cav we're not allowed to have tanks but could have cars so they made tanks but then but put them on wheels when the infantry guys were around.
So if light chassis can be wheeled is that a hint that we could have M1 combat cars in 36' USA because the Cav we're not allowed to have tanks but could have cars so they made tanks but then but put them on wheels when the infantry guys were around.
You are joking right? The M1 Combat Car never had wheels. It was simply called a combat car because of the congressional mandate that tanks belonged to the infantry.
Kind of the same way that the Alaska class were called Large Cruisers (CB) instead of Battlecruisers (BC). Or the Kirov class was called "heavy nuclear-powered guided missile cruiser" instead of Battlecruiser, because Battlecruiser didn't sound peaceful enough.
Now I had a horrible vision of Paradox teaming up with Gaijin and a tank designer that asked you to buy golden eagles with real money for the ability to build all sorts of horribly over-powered designs for your tank army.
You are joking right? The M1 Combat Car never had wheels. It was simply called a combat car because of the congressional mandate that tanks belonged to the infantry.
Kind of the same way that the Alaska class were called Large Cruisers (CB) instead of Battlecruisers (BC). Or the Kirov class was called "heavy nuclear-powered guided missile cruiser" instead of Battlecruiser, because Battlecruiser didn't sound peaceful enough.
