Exocet6951

Oh god where do I even start?... 5 DD games with the obligatory 5 BBs per side as per 95% of the matches means that there are 2 cruisers per side. Less if you count CVs. You're actually going to say that a class that,in your example, represents 1/6th of the team, is at fault for making BBs snipe? Really? REALLY? Gee, I wonder why there are 3-4 DDs per side currently....does it perhaps have something to do with the fact that there has been 5 BBs per side per battle (the class that DDs should counter....but in reality deals barely a half of a BB's total HP per battle without even counting repairs) since mid 2016? No, clearly cruisers and DDs, those are the culprit for making people stay back or island hump, not the 5 ships per battle with enough range to hit just about the entire usable map with guns large enough to overmatch and damage enemy non-BBs with every hit....which can happen every 30 seconds, and deals a quarter of a cruiser's HP with a single citpen, or a quarter of a DD's HP with a single regular penetration. Bear in mind that you have 8 to 12 guns. But no, clearly it's the big meanies in DDs with 30k average damage at T8 and the selfish cruisers not braving 5 long range overmatch top kek citpen machines in order to hunt down DDs that both outspot and out maneuver them who are to blame.

Post war De Grasse when?

When you use a T1 Katori to fight off a horde of Kongos

262 < 186, apparently. Sure showed us !

I find it surprising that people have a hard time differenciating between real life and a game. As far as the game goes, what would be the actual game play and game mechanic difference between an Alaska as a T9 cruiser, and an AA refit Kongo as a T8 cruiser? Speed? Similar Armor? Similar Firepower? No overmatch threshold difference, similar ballistics, similar penetration. Hmm.. Let's compare that to an actual T9 cruiser now, the St Louis for a perfectly bland ship. Speed? Louis is faster and more agile. Armor? Lol Firepower? Louis fires much more quickly, at the cost of less alpha and penetration and much smaller shells incapable of even overmatching a DD. Perhaps, in the scope of the game, if the ship is more comparable to lower tier battleships and is in a league of it's own compared to other high tier cruisers which don't even get close to the armor, alpha and penetration of even t5 BBs, then said ship should be more compared to battleships than cruisers. After all, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. And that's the very same case with the Russian twins. They aren't even remotely comparable to same tier cruisers. They're more comparable to lower tier battleships crammed into high tier cruiser slots for better or for worse. But hey, if you want to balance them as battleships, give them a battleship slot in MM then call it a cruiser for historical reasons, go for it. Just don't make it a BB, maybe give it arbitrary nerf then call it a perfectly balanced cruiser that's taking a cruiser slot.

No it's not, because it's looking more and more like they're coming before lovely Italian ships. >:(

Also... It has the slowest firing guns in T10.... Are you sure you know what the Henri IV is?

Vilkommen to the World of Warboot forums. Humor ist sehr verboten!

Bad idea. Too many games would be ruined due to sticky keyboards after playing with an Atlantaifu with a waifu captain.

@Tordenskjold Actually keep going. I'm trying to learn Danish, and seeing how to be a monumental EDIT in Danish is helpful experience for deciphering context.

Jesus, what is it today with people completely oblivious to how obnoxious and downright moronic they're being? Is there a full moon tonight? Are the planets lined up? Because people certainly living up to the name "Uranus". And on that awful joke unworthy of even a 10 year old, I'll see myself out.

50mm plating and "trust us, we totally tested these guns and they total have that rate of fire and ridiculous penetration" guns.

Play Atlanta or CV and it plunges downwards. Or just play torpedo DD successfully :'D FU Morten, that's just sympathy compliments for all the detonations and multiple AP pens on DDs you take.

Just because something is already in the game doesn't mean we should stop talking about how they might just be a terrible idea, in their current form.

Then you should avert your eyes if this conversations keeps going, as I might make the case that using the very same flawed logic, the Cesare could be a T7 "large cruiser"

Total War games have some players using exclusively the turn based campaign map and never actually playing a single RTS battle, prefering to autoresolve every battle. But hey what do they know, only one of the most successful PC franchise of all times, using a formula that's been around since the early 2000s.

You're losing WR because you're below average, not because of some grand conspiracy.

"you can compare her to dunkerque, but to have her at tier 6 seems completelly ridiculous for me." Your exact words. Enough said. Kongo has a weak belt, goes 30 knots, and only 8*356mm guns can't overmatch 25mm plating, much like 305mm guns. Clearly high tier cruiser material. IJN Kongo T8 cruiser when? I have legitimately and verifiably been saying that my only issue with her placement is the MM slot. On the other hand, I've been hearing "She's a large cruiser, so a cruiser" from the very start. But wait, it turns out that having a BB that's not that much faster, with actually weak firepower for T9 or T10 might be unfair to people with those types of ship in their team taking up a valuable BB slot... If only there was a way to put it at T8. Taking up a BB slot.... Wait, that would effectively make her a T88 BB in all but name, wouldn't it? Huh, if only someone with a Pikachu in a Starcraft space marine forum avatar had been claiming that very thing from the start. Also, quote me on mid tier. I have always said "LOWER tier" to avoid going into the nitty gritty nitpicking from the get-go. An argument relies on people having an exchange of ideas and moving their opinion to reach an understanding. I have done nothing but that, fully explaining that my problem wasn't the designation but rather having 6 to 8 BBs' worth of firepower in a single team, thus asking large cruisers and battlecruisers to take up BB slots, much like other lightly armored or armed battlecruiser like the Kongo, Dunkerque, Scharnhorst already do. I have been met with nothing but "she's an oversized Baltimore, so clearly a cruiser" or "She's a large cruiser (CB), so clearly a cruiser!" or my favorite "Only 305mm guns with 9k alpha, it can't overmatch bows, so clearly weak guns! Cruiser material!", with the occasional 180 degree shift in view where for some reason, you decide to agree with me on the fact that it might deserve a BB slot in the MM because 9 guns with 9k alpha, 20km of range and cruiser accuracy *might* actually be dangerous. Come back to me when you have a concrete position that you stick to and evolve from there, rather than going back and forth just to disagree with me on principle.

Because experence shows that having up armored large cruisers with 9k alpha and [edited]you level penetration on shells with a lower fuze sensitivity than battleships screws over two classes hard, and while that would be manageable if it were one of 5 max ships of that class per battle, it would be a trade-off, but as it stands, it's a 6th RNG doom salvo from 20km you have to worry about. That's my only concern. I don't care what the hell the icon next to the ship is, nor the name of the ship's class is, as long as it takes up a battleship slot in order to avoid having literally half or more of the ships in a match having enough firepower to literally one-shot cruisers and DDs with one lucky salvo. As for the Dunkerque comment, are you literally unable to grasp the concept of an example? I point out that a faster, less armored, less well armed ship than other t6 BBs is a BB, so suddenly what I mean is that the Alaska has to be t6? Hell, I had that conversation twice in a single thread, including explaining my position on tiering twice to you specifically. Seriously, there are plenty of examples of battleships with lowish armor, but that are fast and have good but situational firepower. Why do large cruisers that fit that description perfectly have to be cruisers just because there's "cruiser" in the title? The Hood is fast, with situational armor and rather underwhelming and situational firepower And has "cruiser" in it's class type of "battlecruiser". By your logic, shouldn't the Hood be a T8 cruiser? All this, I remind you, just to have a specific icon next to a certain ship while my primary concern is ship slots not the class name, which I care little about. Keep arguing about that, and it'll just confirm my suspicion that all you care about is having a ship that can delete cruisers and DDs without having the in-game obligation to tank like BBs should do. A free pass be a long range, commitment-free dev strike machine using "history" as pretense.

Especially when the only payoff here is "I can have the uss Alaska in a cruiser slot instead of a battleship slot, huzzah!" Because let's face it, Alaska is Stalingrad with some tweaks. Why people are so vehemently hell bent on that happening is incomprehensible. If "they can balance it, just you watch!" is an argument for it [coughs in Kron and Stalin], why can't it work for the other side of the argument?

I was careful to use navies whose country didn't change completely. You're basing the fact that the British Royal Navy has been around longer....because of the way the English invented the English term of "navy" used by the English? Huh? "The RN is the world's oldest and most famous navy!" *cough* I concede that your point *might* be true although far fetched, I just dislike nationalist knob polishing, especially when it's wrong, and no matter the nation. I find it crass in a European forum.

That's a funny way of calling the Portuguese navy. I mean, as it stands, the British Royal Navy isn't even in the top 5 oldest in Europe. Portugal, Spain, the Netherlands, Sweden and Denmark all have older navies.

CVs are here, deal with it! Oh wait.... BBs with radar are here, deal with it! Oh wait, community outrage made WG delete radars on RN BBs. It's not a case of giving up, it's a case of realizing that you're screwing over 2 classes of ships for literally no other reason than "I want a ship that can wreck cruisers and BBs, but I want cruiser accuracy and a cruiser slot. And a radar lul" As for your last argument... Scharnhorst says hi. In some ways, Dunkerque (a bona fide battlecruiser) says hi. Inb4 "muh overmatch"

Stalingrad says high. Besides, your argument isn't exactly worth much because theory and practice are two different things. Just because one thing works in practice doesn't mean it's a good idea to try in practice. That's the reason we don't have nuclear powered vacuum cars (actual 50's concept) nor jetpacks. WG is proving time and time again that it can't handle large "cruisers", so it's time to stop asking. PS:If you want to convince people, you might want to stop telling them that they're annoying simply because they have an opinion different to yours.

It's not. That's what happens when people ask for large cruisers/battlecruisers as high tier cruisers. WG obliges.