[REQ] Allied surface raider?

[CPT America]

Is anyone out there working on an allied cruiser/battlecruiser class vessel? The British battlecruisers were designed for the shipping iterdiction role, like the American Alaska class and the German "pocket battleships."

On a seperate note, since carriers arn't as effective in this game as in real life, what about some "what if" mods resulting from some of the projects abandoned after the london and washington naval conferences? The American Lexington class BC, which became the carriers Saratoga and Lexington, would be cool, as would the proposed Tillman battleships. It would be cool to take one of those mothers against a Yamato. (For those who don't know, Tillman was a pacifist american Senator who proposed outrageously large battleships and battlecruisers to make the American navy too imposing to fight. The vessels were to be armed with 18" and later 20" guns.)

[Raptor1]

The Allies did not use specific Surface Raider warships like the Germans as far as I know, the British Battlecruisers were supposed to be fleet scouts and anti-cruiser vessels, the American Alaska class were designed to counter a new supposed Japanese cruiser that was based on the same principles as the Pocket Battleships

So, unless you take something fictional, there are no surface raiders

[Captain Vlad]

There are, however, ships that could've been easily used as such had there been a reason to do so.

[CPT America]

The alaskas were obsolete for their intended role by the time they entered service. By the time they were commissioned in 1944 submarines and aircraft had superceded them, so they had increased AAA installed and were used as light battleships for carrier protection and shore bombardment.

[AntEater]

Dominant Seapowers like Britain or the US do not neet surface raiders. They can simply (in classical mahanese sense) block the enemy coast and then there is no enemy merchant traffic to raid.
The only allied power that did construct vessels with that purpose was France, and even that more out of habit than out of necessity.
While France was allied with Britain since 1912, much of its naval thinking was still influenced by the "jeune ecole", which postulated merchant raiding in a potential war against Britain.

[CPT America]

Look up the Alaska and Lexington classes, they were designed for scouting and convoy interception. Even the British and American navies could not be everywhere at once. In both world wars the Royal navy was pinned down by their need to protect england from a powerful German navy, leaving the fleet weak across the rest of the world. Hense the fear of the Bismark. Had the Bismark made it into open ocean, the only opposition the RN could have offered would have been from the destroyers and scattered cruisers in the atlantic, as the main fleet was kept in England to protect the shores from the percieved German threat. Battlecruisers were designed to operate seperate from the rest of the battle fleet and to provide the projected power of which you speak, to hunt down enemy vessels away from the blockaded area, and to force the enemy to waste assets away from the friendly fleet, aiding in improving superiority of firepower for the battle line.

[AntEater]

Actually Battlecruisers were a part in a hugely complicated plan to lure both sides into the decisive battle fleet encounter.
Today we can't imagine that, but a set piece naval battle like Jutland was every bit as formalized as a medieval joust.
Light forces gain initial contact, call for backup. If light forces are destroyers like at Jutland, backup is cruisers. Cruisers call for backup themselves if outmatched, which are the Battlecruisers. These fight aside the enemy screen and ultimately sight the enemy battlefleet, keep contact and vector own battlefleet towards it. Of course in doing that they ran into their own counterpart, which happened at Jutland and went quite badly for the RN.
Lighter forces like destroyers were to be kept back until the tactical opportunity or necessity for a mass torpedo attack arose.
Before the advent of the aircraft, every ship short of a battleship was mainly a scout.
In the 1930s, the US heavy cruisers were officially still the "scouting force" of the US Fleet, like the imperial german battlecruisers had been officially designated the 1st scouting squadron.
This role only became redundant with aircraft and aircraft carriers.
You're right that "raider killer" was a role of RN cruisers in WW1, but it was not their envisaged role, and in the 1920s the world's admirals (except the french and germans, and the few soviets) had come to the conclusion that WW1 was an abberation and the next naval war would be Tsushima all over again. In WW1, german battlecruisers or even light cruisers lacked the range to do raiding. Actually any capital ship raider with coal firing was doomed to fail sooner or later for sheer logistics.
So the actual role the Lexingtons were designed for was to scout ahead of the battle fleet, fight aside the Kongos and Akagis (which were designed as Battlecruisers) and shadow the IJN main force so the US battle squadron could destroy them.

The IJN pretty much thought in these terms, hence the whole pretty useless "distant cover groups" the IJN employed in nearly every battle without any useful purpose.
The only WW2 battles that were fought along that recipe were those in the med between the RN and the Italians, and those mostly ended in mutual (not cowardly italian, as mostly claimed) retreat because no side could gain any advantage.

[Raptor1]

The early Battlecruisers were designed as Fleet Scout and as Armored Cruiser killers, they were largely obsolete by WWII because of the events of Jutland

The Alaska class' history is rather ironic, they were designed to counter an imaginary super-heavy Japanese cruiser, but their appearance actually caused the Japanese to design such a cruiser, which became the Super Type A cruiser (B64 and B65), to counter them, so technically the Alaska class was designed to take out the cruiser class that was designed to destroy the Alaskas (Paradox, anyone?)