C4PT41N_0BV10US

I'm just editing similar vid. Now please, do remember, that indeed, this is too much. Damage should be lowered, but it still should be massive. My expectations would be 40 - 50k damage from 2 7 plane squads from Midway. Enterprise should be able to do 20 - 30k with 2 squads. Currently, they are a bit too strong. I oneshotted Gneisenau, which is not ok. Autodrops are not ok. Defensive Fire is not ok. So, while I overall enjoy the change, I'm advicing to tweak it a bit: lower the alpha, increase aiming circle from autodrop and massively increase aiming circle when on Defensive Fire. If you're doing it manually, and with no cruiser to pop defensive, I expect massive damage like taking half of the BB HP.

That he overpenetrates Bayerns? Who care about Bayerns! You will not overpenetrate any german BB from tier VII up. You will do normal, massive damage to them. I did test Enterprise on Bismarck, Tirpitz, Gneis, Scharn and FdG as well as Grosser and they all eat a big chunks of damage. So no, it's not a buff to GE BB's.

No probs m8. The thing with Neptune and Mino is that you really rely on those torps. Not only on dealing damage, but more on denying certain area or forcing your target to turn. They're very important and I almost use them on CD, especially later in the game.

Dzisiaj również nie będzie streama. Jeszcze mi nie przeszło

How is this buff to GE BB?

Not effective from what I tried. Against all DD's it's just wasted bombs. 730 damage from strike, so very little. Against cruisers it varies on their deck armour and citadel position. I think that RN cruisers will have big problems with AP bombers.

You can have different opinion, sure. I also agree, that slapping AP bombs without any change on Midway and Essex would be a bit too much. But slapping those bombs on Midway and Essex with forced 2/1/2 loadout would be completely ok and I'm actually looking forward to it. And for the BB vs CA issue - we only discuss it here as to have context, what is considered ok and what is considered balanced. I try to show, that a lot of argument about "oneshoting is bad" comes from a class that already do that to every other class, but when confronted with similar (yet waaaaaaaay less prevalent) mechanic, screams it's OP and must not be introduced.

So, again, double standard? I mean what the actuall hell m8? So average cruiser player getting freakin massacred is totally ok, but poor BB player will be fed up and camp? And, a very important thing, deleting cruiser happens every game. But deleting a BB with a CV will happen maybe once in ten games. If you wan't to discuss if some change in the game is bad or good, you don't look at it in vacum. Now, I know this will sound harsh, but from what I saw since the release of this game,this is my strong opinion: You can't balance the game on the wishes of average joe. Just can't do it. It will always fail. It will always devolve the game to numb, boring, and broken gameplay. Average joe will always be bad, always. You need to hear to average joe about what he want's to see in your game. Dragons? Sure Joe. Convoy missions? No problem Joe. New RN DD line? Right away Joe. Buff BB's? Now now Joe, don't get ahead of yourself. Balance should be based on multiple feedback, but from above average players. You take 20 - 30 good players specialising in different classes, with a lot of games under the belt, and you ask them about the problems. You compile memo and then you balance things out. But, we listen to Average Joe now, and so, we have utter fuckin [edited]Tirpitz monster, we have german BB's that are just lolworthy OP idiot proof class, we have buffs to Iowa and Montana armour, cause apparently, 10 minutes of constant pounding to sink one is way to short. We have carriers that are a dying class, we have DD's that are struggling to remain competitive, and we have CA's from which only one nation is truly skill dependent - RN one. And BB [edited]are already asking when WG will nerf them. So instead of developing, we're regressing. New lines are added, but the game devolves into more and more shitty gameplay. Any "esport" is dull and static. Randoms are becoming flooded with one and only playable class - BB's. And, regarding new RN BB's. When GE BB's were introduced the amount of BB players increased by almost 10% - from 31% to 40%. Now, RN being as popular as they are, I expect at least the same amount of them, so we're looking at 50% players choosing BB for their games. You don't fight that amounts of BB's by capping them. And like I said, it really doesn't resolve any fuckin problem with BB, just hides it. So, when WG introduces a new thing that actually hurts BB's and BB's only, it's a way to go. But, clearly, averages Joes are preparing for their hurr durr assault, so I expect to have this mechanic watered down to become little more then a flavour. @EdiJo Clearly, we have different experiences and I find no use in discussing this topic further with you. If you're saying to me that avoiding a CV strike is impossible in a BB, then I'm done. Go, play Shokaku, Hiryu, Essex and tell me how it went. I'm sorry, but unless you actually played CV's yourself, you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

It is not? So what we're discussing here? Class A can oneshot class B. So class C should be able to oneshot class A. Unless we remove the ability of a class A to remove class B instantly, I don't see a problem with class C being able to do the same to class A. I didn't get the memo on this one. Again, yes and no. Cause when BB life gets a bit harder, my life as a cruiser gets a lot more easier. But, due to quality of players on BB, I doubt any change is possible at all to way they work. I mean, even knowing how they dominate games WG still buffed Tirpitz, Iowa and Montana. I'm sorry man, but should we be some martyrs going with "oooh, my fun in a cruiser is ruined, but no, let's not touch BB's cause they might not have fun anymore". No, screw that. Either we treat each class equally and don't listen to average Joe whines, or we can already uninstall this game. Cause you know what? The RN BB's are coming fast, and I hope you don't mind 55% - 60% playing only BB's.

So, again, it's a double standard approach. You, in BB, can't be bothered to take turn cause you might get shot at your broadside and take damage. But, a cruiser that is forced to do this cause he is outspotted by DD's, can't bow tank is a misplay from the cruiser and punishing him with oneshots or near oneshots is balanced and ok. And dodging TB in a BB is pretty ok, it's about minimising the incoming damage, not negating it completely. I'm sorry, but if I just spent 4 minutes preparing my attack, and I'm decent player, I don't believe you should just evade all my planes and you should eat some damage. Huge if you're bad player, moderate if you're good one. And no, planes at T VII+ aren't that much faster then rotating BB. Tier X planes indeed are quite fast, but tier X AA is so insane, that the speed buff is balancing itself. Which is [edited], and say volumes about your knowledge of CV gameplay, not to mention the idiotic "hurr durr just cap BB's to 3 per team and everything will be fine". No it will not be fine. Because you still will be oneshotting a cruiser that will show you broadside, and you still will not be punished in a BB for doing the same. While you play cruisers your job is to scout, hunt DD's and fight other cruisers. But alas, you can't do that, cause if you commit to the job you will be focused by every BB on the way, and at some point you will have to make a turn. And it's gg for you then. It doesn't matter if there are 4, 5 or 10 BB's per side. The only thing that matters is the fact that you will be oneshotted/left on vapours the moment you show your side. But yeah, this is ok right, cause that's how BB's should work right? So, that leaves a lot of cruiser captains to kiting, which is mostly safe, but you're not doing your job, you're not winning the game (cause you run away giving enemy team control of the map), all you do is farm meaningless damage (that's where those legendary cruiser players on this forum that they actually like more BB to burn... appears - useless players keeping distance from any fight wondering how they lost and blaming team 9/10 battles - can't really blame them though). All this "3 BB cap" thing would achieve is to make a BB even more powerfull and important. What we need is to make them much more vulnerable and lessen their carry potential. Now, for the CV thing. I mean, you can and should use islands and terrain to help you against CV attack. It will not protect you from strike, but it will force CV player to make it's attack from the other side. This means lost planes and time. You can of course angle, and quite a lot. Saying you can't cause you will expose broadside and OH MY GOD you might even lose HP! <the horror>. You should use terrain, use smoke, use rudder and dodge into torpedoes. When you see enemy bombers will commit, you just brake and turn hard left or right and there, you're safe from those insane 40k hits. I checked to see how many game in CV do you have, to find 112. Now. The point in becoming a better player is to understand what your opponent can do to you. So I advise you to play tier VIII Shokaku, get some 50 games in it, and then come back here and tell me how those helpless BB's avoided your strikes eh? Oh yeah, cause if you would put Leander/Nurnberg against North Carolina/Amagi they'd fare better. Oh riiiight, they already are instagibbed 9/10 shots. But hitting Fuso for 40k? Nonono, we won't have anything like that. This is not true. US CV's right now are exactly that. You will hit almost the same amount of bombs on auto as on manual, and yet, there is a huge difference between unicum on Midway and BB Kevin on Midway isn't it? Yeah, I agree. It is easier to avoid the drop in that case, but still, the circle is way to small. I expect Essex and Midway to have bigger circles (still, the BB's at that tier are also more massive so I don't know). The point is. The overall idea is, in my opinion, a great one. It surely needs some tweaks, but not that many, defensive fire for example. We might finally see some reliable BB counter and that excites me a lot.

First, I'm not accusing you of being BBaby I'm not accusing anyone for anything really. But there is something like "double standard" here ain't it? I mean, nuke'ing cruisers and destroyers with BB's is totally fine, cause they're "supposed to do so" for no real reason at all. But when you apply same logic to CV's, then it's overpowered and broken. Enterprise, in it's current form is a very hard CV. You got tier VII planes, on a CV that most of it's matches will play at tier X due to lack of CV's at all. That means your attacks will cost you a lot of planes. And if you screw something, just look at the time - 4 minutes to prepare attack (launching planes, moving to position, dodging threats like fighters and shitloads of catapult fighters), wasted your attack, and you just got 6 minutes time till next one. So, basically, if you screw over, that means you'll be reaching half of the game and you did nothing thus far. There is no such punishment for BB's, or in fact for any other class. CV's of course are less threatened by enemy attacks and survive much longer. So, with tier VII planes it's very easy to flop your attack. Before AP bombers, I just didn't want to play her. Showed her few times on stream and left her in my port to rust. Now, with bombers added, she's fun. She's dealing damage at least. And to BB's! And BB's only in case of bombers, which is super great. The torpedo drop really sucks in Enterprise, it's hard to hit with more than half of your torps on BB's. Furthermore, it's hard to torp DD's that dodge well. But, it is still possible. Hard, but possible. Which gives Enterprise a unique feature - you can hunt DD's with your torpedo planes while still being able to nuke BB's with bombers. Or you can choose to combine bombers and torpedo planes for chance of complete nuke some BB terrible player. And this is very very good change for me. I like CV's as a concept, I want them in game, but the interaction between CV and DD was horrible. Part of it is coming from other CV problems, part of it is coming from fact, that DD is the target you have the most chance to kill in one strike. And so you just used 4 minutes of the battle to strike that DD. It's kinda fair, but not the thing I would like CV to do. Enterprise is a great CV here. The torpedo drop enables to kill the DD, but rarely in one strike, more like 2 (but remember, dodging Enterprise torps is easy and I expect good DD players to be able to dodge 80% of them with ease), so still you have that option. Your DB's do insane damage to BB's, but rarely enough to kill them with one swoop. AP bombs will propably come with changed loadouts for US CV's. And I expect them to have bigger drop circles (though not as big as they have them now). If Ranger, Lex, Essex and Midway got more sensible loadouts, this could help a lot in terms of US CV's gameplay and, ultimately, fun with the line.

And it doesn't occur to you that while sailing BB you can do the same every 30s, not every 4 minutes? All it takes is just one broadside, one cruiser being forced to turn, and you do exactly that kind of damage, and with far more ease then CV will ever do. Is this ok and balanced, but nuke'ing a BB once every 4 minutes is overpowered and unbalanced,

Well, yes and no. You need to remember, US CV will strike you once in like 4 minutes, maybe longer if he need to make a detour. So I'm sorry, if you're left alone, your escort dead, you're not the best at dodging game, you build your BB for secondaries and survi instead AA - you should just be left on vapours after that attack. And buffing damage of DB squad, making it a alpha damage, not fire DoT damage, this is great and very rewarding. I think it needs some balancing (bigger circle when under Defensive Fire and no 3 DB squads loadouts, but apart from that, it's a very nice change and make US CV a really hard hitter against BB's. Which is great! You have gimmicky IJN line relying on eliminating lighter craft or mounting damage on floods and fires, and then you have US CV's which target mostly BB's and just freaking nukes them. Being able to remove a BB quickly is just freakin great and I expect it to speed up games quite a bit, making them more dynamic, more pace changing, more team oriented. I like this change. Oh, and for loadouts. 2/1/2 for Midway and Essex would be nice. And I expect, that the circles will not be as tight as they are in Enterprise. I'm mixed about that really, since it's shifting from "sure" damage to "RNG damage" which is not really my thing. But, 2/1/2 Midway, with AP bombers just destroying 40 - 50k of BB HP's in one swoop? That's what I would like to see.

I played quite a few games with Enterprise with and without AP bombs. Without the ship was super bad. It struggled in tier VII games, but in tier X it was hilarious, because even if you attacked low AA targets your planes were still in a bad shape after attack. Basically, the torpedo drop is not good, the bombers were not good, fighters were meh. And after three attacks you started to run out of planes. Now, with AP bombers at least the damage is here finally. I attacked various BB's with very good effects. I oneshotted Gneisenau (8 bombs hitted, 54k damage - I assume there was some massive citadel rape going, but since it doesn't show the citadel "marker" it's just a guess - also, no detonation, double and triple checked it), did 20k damage to Yamato, 27 to Alabama, 24 to Bismarcks. It seems that AP bombs indeed make the difference. However, I'm all for buffing CV's, and this US bomber flavour is a very good choice. What worries me is Essex and Midway, with their 1/1/3 setup. They have 1 more squad and 1 more plane in each squad. If the damage will be similar to Enterprise, we're looking at instakills on BB's. Also, the drop circle remains pretty small while under Defensive Fire. If they will remove 3 DB squad loadout from US CV's this will work nicely. Midway and Essex with 2/1/2 will be good damage dealer, although limited to BB and some CA's. So, overall, I'm pretty satisfied how this bombs work.

I've written this in previous topic about skills for Minotaur captain. You can check the topic for more knowledge too. It's like 10 topics below this one.

Once you go Perth, you can never go back. Crankey.

Too gud ghash, too gud.

Nuh uh. "Double build" is the bestest build. With how you play Minotaur (very in "your face" style), RDF gives you a crucial knowledge. It also gives you the edge in DD fights. Minotaur is agile when moving, and you have hydro for smoke barrage to keep you safe from torps. So, how you gimp your Mino to kill everyone: 1. Whatever. Priority Target or Preventive Maintenance (I go preventive cause when I'm spotted I'm assuming every freakin ship on the map is targeting me). 2. Adrenaline Rush. Not really so for RoF buff, but for torpedo reload. You rely on torps a lot in Neptune/Mino, so having them sooner helps. And a bit faster salvoes is always good. 3. Superintendent. A must have. 4. Camo 5. RDF 6. Survivability Expert 7. Jack of all trades. This is the bestest of the bestest builds, 10/10 would build again. Doctors hate me, cause I found a way how to rape in Mino. Enjoy.

To nawet masz okazję, bo niestety dziś i jutro nie będzie telewizji jak to mówi panda. Nastąpiło zmęczenie materiału a i trochę spraw "zawodowych" mi się nazbierało, więc niestety trochę mi zejdzie zanim je ogarnę. Także widzimy się dopiero w poniedziałek!

Kupiłem i zainstalowalem Dishonored. Także jutrzejszy stream niestety nie będzie stateczkowy :<

Yeah, but, you know, we engage in discussion and that's good And maybe I should call cruisers the most universal warships. Maybe that's the better term, since I kinda agree with you, that some ships might have their tasks minimalised/removed in favour of some specialisation. But, that's the beauty of diversity of opinion

Nie da się, sprzedałem :<

You're aware we're talking about light cruiser post WW I early designs here? I can even agree with you 100% on those topics. Early light cruisers were not universal ships. Light cruisers and cruisers built in 1930's were definitely universal ships. Funny thing, that despite being big enough and armed enough to be classified as cruisers, they're often referred as destroyer leaders, exactly due to the differences in role those ships were expected to perform. Which would again support my claim that cruiser type is less defined by their size and armament, and more by their role as a class. Then again, point me to that different roles and thus the difference in design. Cause I can see some optimalisation, like torpedo armament and high speed for IJN cruisers, but they're certainly similar to Pensacola class, County class and every other "treaty" cruiser class. Guys above already compare Myoko to County class, and they have some good points. Both classes had similar challenges placed before them - cruiser hunting, harrasing support lines, supporting destroyers and work as a power element in small task forces. Although IJN cruiser was expected to join main battlefleet in the "decisive battle", the County class didn't had this task so blatantly exposed due to limited fleets of their nearest enemies. Still, it was used as a scout, escort cruiser, and also fought with the heaviest opponents as a power elements, provided "the navy is here" policy in the colonies and all other cruiser jobs. Same with IJN cruiser. During Java invasion the cruiser force was escorting the convoy carrying troops, battle near Komandorski Islands resulted when IJN was escorting their transport ships. And this is my whole point. By choosing to build a cruiser class vessel, you already have a set of defined roles this ship will have to perform. Then, the Admiralty, Bureau of Whateveritscalled or their Japan counterparts decide if they want to maximize the ship capablilities in certain field. But, the ship is still a cruiser and have to perform every task that cruisers should do. I was kinda thinking about dividing it in three different categories: 1. early post WW I cruiser (up to Washington Treaty) 2. Washington Treaty cruisers 3. Pre WW II and wartime designs. But I don't know if we can just outright say that every cruiser built pre 36' is just outright worse. They were modernised and some of them were nice designs (Amphion subclass, Towns, Condottieri subclasses, Zara class). I'm more akin to find, you know, like a secret formula, what makes a good cruiser Cause it's easy to just increase size and multiple the cost of a vessel like US Navy did. They just didn't care. 8" guns are meh cause they fire to slow? Well, let's built 20 000 tons beast to accomodate 9 autoloading 8". Is it still a cruiser though? Is it the best ship to perform cruiser tasks? Or maybe 3 vessels of smaller size that could be built for one Des Moines would fare better? You get the idea.

I've put the timestamp in the opening post. Roughly 1919 to 1945. Naturally, all equipment should be taken into account. We can't exclude radar suites because one navy didn't have one at the time. Just as we shouldn't exclude IJN glorious torpedoes, cause other nations didn't produce as sucessfull models. Well, that's tricky one. Crew indeed can change a lot of things, but we should just assume each crew is properly trained. They actually had some seakeeping issues. Mainly they "rolled" badly due to being top heavy ships. That's why Fargo class had their superstructure and gunmounts relocated. It was pretty bad, but not as bad as to prohibit usage in very bad conditions. @fallenkezef If it's vastly different, could you point me to the differences in design?

The problem is, that "provide recoinassance and deny reconaissance" aplies mostly to light cruisers. Which is in fact their overall main task, in every nation. Omaha's were mostly the same. Their job was to scout enemy force, run back to main fleet, join their destroyer flotillas and harass flanks, repel enemy torpedo runs and overall do what cruisers do - making sure that friendly main battle line is safe from their flanks while providing informations of the enemy. So, while you so elegantly put all this tasks into single sentence, it covers a lot of jobs that needs to be done. That's what you in turn keep ignoring. That even if it is single task, it often contains multitude of smaller tasks that overall define what certain ship will look like, and what, roughly, will be it's capabilities. Now, you insist that IJN cruisers roles, thus design, were so different, that direct comparison is impossible. This is not true. While the navies might name their role differently, they weren't that different in the slightest. IJN cruisers, were roughly divided into two groups: light ones, employed as destroyer leaders, and heavy ones, mainly grouped in independent task forces. Light ones were obvious, and very similar to US ones. Post WW I light cruiser design was mainly envisaged as a destroyer leader. RN cruisers from C class and later designs were exactly the same. All post WW I light cruiser design was created as a big destroyer in fact, with powerfull torpedo armament, high speed, light armour, 5" - 6" guns. They should either be employed as their destroyer flotillas leaders, or as a semi independent squadrons, working with the destroyer flotillas. Sound familiar? Yup, you guessed it. All IJN early light cruiser design was exactly the same. Why? Mostly cause that's what light cruiser do, and also cause IJN navy was still severly influenced by european navies. In my opinion, that's the best separation of the cruisers - light cruisers were designed as destroyer leaders and cruisers/heavy cruisers were mostly designed to provide more typical cruiser roles. With heavy cruiser the whole thing get's a little more complicated. It all begins with Hawkins class, which sprunged the heavy cruiser race in the first place. RN got information, that German cruisers were rearmed with 6" guns, and they deemed current armament insufficient to fight it. Thus, 7.5" guns on Hawkins class were installed. This in turn made all other navies worrying how their cruisers will defeat cruisers like Hawkins class. So all navies began to design and build 8" cruisers. The main "role" was to defeat enemy cruisers. Again, Furutaka/Aoba, Myoko, and Mogami types are completely the same as Pensacola, County, and New Orleans types. The only difference was the IJN push for night torpedo attacks which US navy didn't plan for their cruisers (RN highly valued torpedo armament, though not as highly as their Japanese counterparts). They were all expected to do the same things. Harass the enemy support lines, defeat any cruiser thrown their way, scout and provide information, escort main battle fleet to action and provide fast moving flanking force in battle. Where are those differences that make any comparison impossible? Even with Takao cruisers, which had those big [edited]brigdes to act as "command ships", US Navy had exactly the same ships, as were RN, but they didn't modify their ships as extensively as IJN ones. All this brings us to one simple conclusion. It's possible to have a rough comparison between the ships, because they were build mostly as an answer to what other navies built. By building cruiser you already chose a set of roles that weren't changed from the beginning of this class. You can however adopt or increase certain possibilities to better suit the designed cruiser for the quirks and tactics of your navy. Italian cruisers didn't have to had huge sailing range (I'm just guessing here, will have to check it), cause they were operating in confined areas of Mediterrean Sea. IJN cruisers could have worse living conditions and their machinery could be working on higher RPM's cause they weren't expected to patrol long shipping lines. But, those differences do not prohibit comparison, and I would even say they should encourage it, cause you can see what can you get on the same displacement if you swap things. Exactly the opposite. Some, very few, doesn't represent. Leander class, New Orleans class, De Ruyter class, Konigsberg class, Aoba class, Trento class and most of the other cruisers represent the cruiser warship type quite well. Perfectly? No, but more then enough. It's very simple, if you hear a word "cruiser" what do you think about?