Magni56

When you're up against a lone battleship, you might actually want to just commit to a torpedo attack.. The secret here is that Furu has enough belt armor to bounce 14in when heavily angled and she has a very slim forward profile. Driving head-on towards an enemy BB is suprisingly survivable. Once you get to point blank, either wait out his final salvo or just pass by him in front or behind him so close that his turrets won't track. Then turn and let the fish loose. If you don't wait out the salo or do this, you're liable to eat a full salvo into the citadel and go pop before getting to launch, so it's not a tactic for the faint-hearted. I personally found the Furutak workable, though not overly fun. The Aoba is just great, though. If you want a bad and painful grind, try the stock Fuso. That thing is just irredeemable garbage. 8in AP works against US cruisers just as well once you have a feel on where to aim. And the Standards pay for that thick armor of theirs with a grand old top speed of 21 knots, which combined with sluggish accelleration and braking also ain't exactly helping when dodging torps besides being a big strategic issue. Destroyer guns do in fact work against any destroyer. US DDs might have better guns, but those guns don't magically become less powerful when shooting at another US destroyer. As it is, US ships are as a general rule more noob-friendly and better against other ships of their own class while IJN ships are (outside DDs that are specialised battleship/carrier assassins) more flexible and potentially more powerful, but less forgiving of mistakes.

Done myself: Magazine-detonated an Amagi with my Fubuki with a spread of 15km torps fired at two enemy BBs ~8km away. The Amagi was 17km away at the time I launched. Second place was an accidental double teamkill around a corner on Big Race with IIRC the Isokaze as two other DDs ran right through my spread fired at a cruiser. Witnessed: The two most memorable are a RRanger nuking himself with five torps trying to get my Mutsuki off his back - the real irony being that his secondaries would have likely squashed me before my torps reloaded - and a magical moment in the Kongo on Two Brothers. I was in a bit of a YOLO mood and took the Kongo through the middle channel only to meet a Sims. Who immediately panicked, beached himself sideways, fired both his launchers early and out of alignment scoring one hit into my bow with 8 torps from about 3km. And then he promptly ended up as my new bow ornament.

Wrong. As it is, CAs counter badly-played BBs. A BB played well eats cruisers for breakfast. But for that, people would need to get out of the mindset of sitting in the back uselessly, underperforming and then whining on the forums instead of actually trying to change their tactics and improe themselves. And good luck getting the majority of bad BB players to do tha. After all, it'd require some actual effort on their behalf.

FTFY. And that's how you spot an excuse.

Um... they don't. Torps can do way less than their max damage. Especially against battleships when hitting into the torpedo bulges covering the sides instead of hitting the stern or bow. Also, Myogi gets 14in guns that have a better time penetrating otehr battleships and angled cruisers compared to the 12in on the Wyoming.I was not overly aggressive wih my Myogi grind, but also not afraid to get my hands dirty - and ended up with ~33% more average damage than you've been doing with yours. Also, close range for BBs doesn't mean point blank. Try 8km or so and if you have troubles dodging torps at such a distance, you are quite frankly just hopeless.

And yet here I am with a 60% winrate and 2.33:1 k/d in my Kongo while playing her aggressively and I seem to have absolutely no issues with fires or torpedos. (My average damage needs some improvement, though. 56k isn't up to my performance on her during CBT.) So, how's that happen? Also, AP can still do a sizeable amount of damage to DDs, so there's zero reason to not have AP loaded always and only switch to HE if you're engaging a tincan and just fired the AP you had up in the barrels. The problem is that it actually takes a bit of effort and learning to properly play aggressively in battleship, at which point it becomes just flat-out more effective to such a degree that it's pretty obvious that that is how you're actually meant to play the class. Too bad that most people are content to camp the back and then [edited] on the forums because they're underperforming. Because god beware any of these misunderstood geniuses would actually ever try to change their tactics and learn something new. We can't have that, now can we?

And another one. Low-tier BBs are somewhat lackluster and newbies think they can play them like cruisers or pretend to be WoT arty. Stick with AP and aim low so you don't overpenetrate the target to little effect. Learn to find those citadels and develop situational awareness and the ability to think ahead. It's what you'll need to be any good with BBs.

No, no they're not. They rely on armor? Yes, because that's what they need when they go into an ugly brawl - not what they'd need if they were exclusively for long-range sniping. A massive hit point pool, a regeneration ability and heavy armor are completely WASTED on a long-range support class. Good thing then that battleships are NOT meant to be exclusively long-range support. And you're still pretending that a full-on single-file YOLO-charge is the only way to play aggressively. Short range means you simply aim lower and blow the AP shell through the belt armor of your target. With the huge increase in accuracy, it is in fact the single MOST effective way to deal damage and deal damage reliably with a battleship. And for an actually good player who knows what he's doing, it is also in no way, shape or form "sure death". The only waste of a player slot is a battleship driver who spends the entire match sitting at long range and doing absolutely nothing beyond slighly inconveniencing enemy ships with the odd 1k damage glancing hit from a full salvo. If you are deathly afraid of anything ever scratching the paintjob on your boat, stop playing battleships and hop into carriers. 13km is mid-range for the New York, especially against the smaller low-tier cruisers. You want to be at 8-10 or so to really hammer it home against those.

No. EVERYTHING counters badly-played BBs and only those. Torps require a bit of prudence and situational awareness and fires are more annoying than actually deadly unless you decide to charge right into a full division of Clevelands or something like that.. And holy hell, yes you can 1on1 *any* cruiser. So what if you're gonna get singed a bit? Your repair can get you the vast majority of those hp back - no such luxury for the little cruiser eating an AP shell or two to the citadel. Timidity is actively counterpoductive when dueling a CA - you let the crusier dance around at max range lobbing shells and he'll end up doing a lot more damage to you than if you'd just manned up and waltzed in to turn the fight into a short, ugly and decisive brawl. Long range favours the maneuverability and RoF of the cruiser, short range favours your sheer durability and firepower. Also, why are people thinking that a full-on #YOLO charge is the only way to play a BB aggressively?

*Begins furious search for the Tillman design layouts.*

"I lay at rest vey close to an island" The whole bug on some maps with torp drops into islands aside, that's where you made a classic noob mistake. Also, you don't respond to torpedo bombers dropping. You respond to torpedo bombers coming within ~5-6km of you. If you just twiddle your thumbs until they drop the salvo, you deserve to eat it all.

Erm, what? Ibuki is for all intents and purposes a Mogami+1. Load AP and go for citadels. Furutaka also has something resembling amo can can be hella hard to hit if you angle correctly because she's very long, but also slim. The really funny thing is you can charge a BB head-on angling her bow to like 30 degrees - it'll actually bounce or spall 14in AP at an extreme angle - and get so close that the BBs turets won' track anymore before you turn slightly and let loose the torps. She's not a fun sip to play and a low point on the line, but she can still put in work.

Ahh, the last refuge of those incapable of presenting factual proof or logcial argument and who are unarmed in a battle of wits - empty namecalling. You have been utterly unable to support any of your claims with actual worthwhile and relevant evidence even after being repeatedly asked to do so. the only valid conclusion is that you have in fact no such evidence to present and that your claims are hence to be dismissed as entirely insubstantial and outright false. Your concession is duly accepted.

[edited] Besides some very questionable play, the vid at best shows that there's something screwy with the Colorado's damage model - I tend to last considerably longer than that in an Atlanta's HE shower with my Kongo and pre-wipe the New Mexico and Nagato. The Nagato in particular tends to barely even acknowledge 5in hits beyond the occasional fire.

You have produced absolutely nothing at all that supports your utterly counterfactual and insane claim that fire has not been considered one of the greatest dangers to exist for any warship ever throughout the entire history of mankind. Your quote was completely useless because it in no way, shape or form does anything to actually support your baseless claims. I take it then that you do in fact have nothing to support your meaningless claim but incessant whining and logical fallacies.

Geez, it's almost like you're talking about fires right there. Irrelevant and useless demand is irrelevant and uselesss. Also, nice attempt at trying to shift the burden of proof. You will no doubt pull out tons of historical archives detailing how fire was in fact utterly inconsequential and never any danger at all to any battleship ever. I'll be waiting. And I suspect I'll be waiting forever for anything but more attempts at shifting the burden of proof like this one.

[edited]

Which is completely irrelevant and no, the superstructure has no meaningful amount of armor. Light splinter protection at best, which will do jack crap against a diret impact by any shell - as soft as a destroyer. And yes, out of control fires were an absolutely lethal danger for any warship in battle. In fact they were considered a threat right on par with flooding, hence why damage control put such an emphasis on firefighting. Outside of your utterly ignorant and useless opinion, there are oodles of things that burn on a warship and a proper-sized fire is absolute hell to try and contain as it can even start more fires through the compartment walls through heat transfer alone even if compartmentalisation works out fully. And in-game HE only wrecks stupid battleship drivers who are incapable of proper maneuvering or using their repair and damage control skills well. If you consider HE a hardcounter against battleships, it only proves that you are bad at battleships.

Nice. Now what do all the areas detailed in that quote of yours have in comming? Oh yeah. They're NOT part of the unarmored supestructure.

The Deutshlands would not really fit as battleships in-game. With their size and armor, they're basically heavy cruiser that trade rate of fire for penetration and alpha damage.

The plural of anecdotes is not "data". Average statistics are. Your very arguments (or pale attempts at them, given how they rely on nothing but appeals to authority and anecdotes) make a mockery of your claim to have all the experience you need. Calling the damage potential "drastically limited" is yet again just another way to try and blame every one of your faults and your inability and unwillingness to learn on the evil, evil RNG. It's nothing more than insubstantial whining, no matter how you try to present it. Mid-range BB salvoes will score multiple hits reliably with odd citadels thrown in. This is MORE THAN ENOUGH to allow a decently-played BB to outlast smaller ships in an extended gun duel when combined with heir massive durability. You claim that lead and aim are the only relevant factors. They are not. POSITIONING and the myriad ways it interacts with situational awareness and thinking ahead are a massive part in leveraging your guns in a BB. Your St. Louis scenario is quite frankly completely nonsensical and rather dishonest to boot. The St. Louis is in fact considerably harder to citadel than any japanese CL. It's kinda notorious for that and with your "vast experience" as an alpha tester I'm loathe to believe that you wouldn't know that. Also, there's a very simple and quick counter to that whole tactic. Just turn away from the cruiser before he starts the final turn and engage with your tail guns. Tail-chase torp shots are easily dodgeable and if he tries overhauling you he'll present his broadside for a long time before getting into a position for a proper torp shot. Your scenario depends on the battleship player to act passively in a most stupid manner and then blames his mistakes on "bad luck". That's kind of a trend with you, it seems. Knowing how and acting to minimise RNG impact is skill in its own right. The very fact that there's a massive gulf in results between a good and a bad BB player utterly destroys your completely unfounded and illogical claim that skill is not important for BBs. But hey, I guess it's just easier to believe yourself a good player and blame everyhing that goes wrong on the RNG - instead of doing such silly things as acknowledging the presence of the RNG and planning your actions around it. You make a fine display of Dunning-Kruger in action.

That would make little to no sense. And probably get a lot of complaints why BBs are so much more expensive to research/buy/upgrade than othe ships of the same tier.

Scharnhorst would fit into the BB line starting with tripple-11in turrets giving her high RoF/low alpha and an optional gun upgrade replacing the 11-inchers with the proposed, but never realised twin-15in turrets.

Full group of decent BB players and the cruisers will get butchered. Simple as that. Teamwork on both sides makes it *even worse* for the cruisers because then the BB players can coordinate with each other to draw damaged ships out of the fight (and tear up any cruiser dumb enough to overextend trying to catch the wounded one), repair and bring them back, allowing them to flat-out outlast the cruisers by attrittion alone even in case they don't nuke half the cruiser group with citadel hits within a few minutes. Your unfounded opinion contradicts both actual in-game reality and the experiences of pretty much anyone who has played a lot of BB games throughout CBT. Videos can "flow" all they like, WG is smart enough to not care one bit about that. They base balance decisions on hard data gathered throughout the servers and hard data right now suggests that BBs are hardly underpowered and will in fact beat cruisers silly unless the BB player is flat-out inferior in skill. Your frankly pathetic attempt to now flee the discussion when faced with someone who actually knows what he's talking about betrays just how empty and factually irrational your position actually is. Wow, starting out your answer with a completely useless attempt to appeal to your own authority, eh? That's rich. Newsflash: Everyone is an expert on the internet. You can claim as much authority as you want, nobody cares. Your spiffy alpha tester title proves exactly *nothing* in regards to the topic or the facts presented. Then you go on about another useless anecdote, as if that has any actual relevance or value at all, while still trying to continue your useless appeal to authority fallacy. Congrats, you managed to manufature a supposed ideal scenario, though at 20km you are simply delusional if you want to be able to score reliable hits with most of your salvo unless you wnat current shell damage to be reduced by something like a factor of three for balance reasons. Then again, to actually consider 20km valid for more than harassment fire does betray a lot about your actual competence and/or understanding of the game mechanics and balance. Or rather, the lack of it. And then in your second scenario you deliberately take a series of bad shots at a minimal-profile target instead of waiting for the target to give you a better angle. Why exactly are you expecting anything but marginal result from this? And no, "crossing the T" is not a particularily superior position within the game mechanics. Anyone with a dozen games in BBs should be able to realise that. You're dmeonstrating some pretty hard Dunning-Kruger right there. Given that that "poor" 27% hitratio will result in average damage on par with a cruiser at 35-40% hitratio, it really isn't poor at all. You're just bitching for no rational reason at all. The hitratio number is entirely meaningless as far as actual end results are concerned. Battleships hit less, but harder. That's how they work. If you can't accept that fundamental issue out of some frankly irrational obsession with a meaningless number, then BBs are just plain not for you and will never be for you.

You can do that against a *bad* BB driver. No doubt. That's not the point of contention, though. My "1 in a 1000 scenario" is how things normally play out when I am in a battleship. You wanna deal in fact? Fact is that one on one with decent players on both sides a BB will take a cruiser apart baring outlier situations like the BB blundering into the torp arc of an IJN cruiser at point blank around an island corner. Outside of that, the cruiser driver needs both a skill disparity and luck to pull it off.