Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles


About RamirezKurita

1 Follower

Recent Profile Visitors

369 profile views

    This is something that everyone forgets about, they can effectively nerf the ship by changing overall game mechanics or by making relative changes to everything else around the Saipan. In fact, because of this balance policy these methods are the only ways to fix problems.
  2. No surprises here, I've had games with 150k+ spotting damage that didn't seem to yield any more XP and credits than similar games without the spotting. I also feel that it is quite bad that some classes get shafted even more when it comes to spotting bonuses. While I am loathe to suggest buffing of BBs, I feel that if they had reasonable spotting bonuses they might be encouraged to move in closer and not simply camp while relying on allies to spot for them. Likewise, I agree that the detection bloom while firing is an issue as ships tend to be extremely visible in combat, which means the original spotter that forces them into the engagement gets pretty much nothing. It would make more sense for spotting rewards to be awarded as if gun bloom wasn't a thing (for example, a ship with 12km base detection and 20km bloom detection would still reward spotters within 12km for damage beyond 12km even while shooting).
  3. Big Gunned Heavy Cruisers Discussion Thread.

    3x3 305mm guns would be reasonably effective, but somewhat situational. They wouldn't overmatch anything (and consider how often your shells shatter compared to overpenetrating or bouncing) while also not really offering enough penetration to threaten battleships. They would obviously offer a much stronger broadside than the Baltimore, likely doing 50% more damage per salvo (going by how USN shells' damages scale with bursting charge), but the Baltimore has twice the RoF. You also seem to forget that the Stalingrad is larger, much larger, and more modern than the Alaskas. Yes, it was to have slightly thinner belt armour (180mm vs 230mm) but against battleships they are both paper thin as long as the shell doesn't bounce. Meanwhile the Stalingrad was to have higher speeds, incredibly high penetration and muzzle velocity rivalling the Moskva and even higher RoF. If anything, the Stalingrad should be a tier higher than the Alaskas. The Alaskas were also just enlarged cruisers, basically being a scaled up Baltimore rather than a design offshoot of the Iowas; the Alaskas were even originally given the designation CA2, showing that they were simply an offshoot variant of heavy cruisers rather than giving them the proper battlecruiser designation - the Alaskas were never officially classed as battlecruisers. And you can't compare the Alaskas to the Kongos, the Alaskas were 30,000 tonne ships in an era of 45,000 tonne capitals while the Kongos are pre-WWI dinosaurs that were leviathans during their time but their age caught up with them. Compare them to the Amagi class, which is a much fairer comparison, and you can see that they are not proper battlecruisers.
  4. Big Gunned Heavy Cruisers Discussion Thread.

    Sure, it's a ship made specifically to counter cruisers, but at the cost of being much less effective against almost everything else. Against BBs they can potentially punish broadside exposure on the Yamatos and Izumos, but they wouldn't have the penetration to threaten anything else as they wouldn't have the penetration at range to go through the water and citadel belts at the right angle, but that's very situational compared to simply slinging vast amounts of HE or obliterating the superstructure with AP with rapid fire. Considering how the Des Moines has a DPM of almost 275k by slinging HE, while the Scharnhorst (probably the most similarly equipped ship in the game currently, although admittedly it has lower calibre guns) has only 86k DPM and even if the Alaska had the same HE damage per shell as the NC it would still have 153.9k DPM. Sure, they would have improved AP penetration, but at most combat ranges in-game even the 203mm guns practically ignore cruiser armour unless they autobounce and the most of the CBs wouldn't be capable of overmatching CA plating. Meanwhile, they would lack the maneuverability and RoF to deal with destroyers, while having barely increased AA, in a package that will have sacrificed torpedo bulges and has poor maneuverability to avoid torps. Sure, you can take a few more hits and can punish broadside cruisers, but it would be insanity or plain bias to completely ignore their drawbacks. And that's exactly what they have, advantages and disadvantages; they are a ship class intermediate between the CAs and the true battlecruisers/battleships with properties intermediate between them, combining some degree of both of their advantages and disadvantages.
  5. Big Gunned Heavy Cruisers Discussion Thread.

    The Alaska as a high tier cruiser would bring with it its own complete set of drawbacks though. Any argument to use the Des Moines over the Moskva would be increased tenfold as the Alaskas wouldn't have good turning circles, they would have relatively poor DPM and firestarting capability and they would still remain vulnerable to BB AP shells. Depending on what kind of rudder speeds, hull plating and consumables they give the CBs, it's quite possible to fit them into the upper tiers. If anything, I'd be worried about them becoming the worst of both worlds, as they will be extremely vulnerable to BBs if they have the turning capabilities of a BB but the 25mm plating of a cruiser. That being said, the other point is that WG is already putting the Stalingrad at T10 as a cruiser, which is a ship much larger and more modern than the Alaska. If anything, the Alaska would belong in T9 by comparison with the 4x3 preliminary of the Alaska following into T10.
  6. Big Gunned Heavy Cruisers Discussion Thread.

    Yeah, the concept of the battlecruiser vs the fast battleship did get increasingly blurred during the 1920s to the point of being indistinguishable as engine technology advanced. Some historians argue that the first on the true fast battleships that combine the strengths of both the battlecruisers and the battleships wasn't any of the 1920s leviathans but was instead the Royal Navy's Admiral-Class battlecruisers which had comparable armour and arms to battleships of the time but on a 30 knot capable hull. The early royal navy battlecruisers generally did have relatively thin skins, but after Jutland they did a complete 180 and every subsequent RN battlecruiser design had battleship grade armour on them. The G3s were actually to have thicker armour than the 1940s Iowas, despite being listed as battlecruisers. The German battlecruisers weren't some intermediate between battleships and cruisers like you suggest though, in terms of scale they rivaled their battleship cousins as they ranged from 20,000 tonnes up to about 30,000 tonnes by the end of the war with the unfinished designs going up to 40,000 tonnes just like the RN designs; the difference was that the German battlecruisers simply sacrificed a combination of armour and weaponry to achieve their speeds rather than just armour like the RN CCs. Either way, the main thing they had in common was size and speed, being as fast as cruisers of the time and as large as battleships of the time. Speaking of the Germans, things get doubly confusing when you look at their terminology. Their WWI battlecruisers were always referred to as grossekreuzer (which explains why their development names were usually GK-something), or "large cruiser" if translated; meanwhile, the only ship they ever referred to as schlachtkreuzer, the 29,000 tonne O-class, is far more in line with the large cruisers of other navies of the time.
  7. Big Gunned Heavy Cruisers Discussion Thread.

    I agree that the 1047 battlecruiser is a tricky one because the design predates most of the CBs by a decade or so, but the Dunkerque is already in the game as a T6 which shows that a 28,000 design from the mid 1930s is indeed T6 capital ship material by WG's standards. It's also quite easy to see how the 4,000 extra tonnes of the Scharnhorst puts it up to T7. I suppose the simplest way of thinking about it from my point of view would to ask the questions "could this ship be placed in the same tier as rough contemporaries as a battleship without being a waste of space?" and "could this ship be placed alongside rough contemporaries as a cruiser without completely breaking the game?". Obviously, there is some degree of flexibility as the relative sizes of ship need to be factored in, but nobody wants to have a ship tiered alongside ships that are several generations apart. For example, the Alaska class were basically part of the same generation of ships as the Iowas, in order to fit them into the in-game battleships they would have to be downtiered to at least 8, if not T7, in order to remain competitive, placing them alongside 1920s ship classes like the Colorados; alternatively, we just put them as a T9 cruiser, using the various cruiser consumables, dispersion and soft stat increases to bring them up to standard. Comparatively, the Kongos would have to be massively uptiered to remain balanced if they were to be given cruiser consumables, dispersion and soft stats, as their age puts them at T3-4 cruiser material yet balance would require them to be a T7 cruiser at least, so it makes sense just to lump them in with the battleships. The USN didn't have any other CCs planned, it was just the Lexingtons. Granted, the Lexington's design process was drawn out enough that they could probably still fill out a line from T4-7/8, but it was still just the Lexingtons. Even then, comparing the Lexingtons to the 1920s SoDaks shows that USN nomenclature still puts CCs as being as large as BBs; after all, why would they bother creating an entirely new designation if they considered the Alaskas to be part of the same category of ship? (I know CC ended up being reused for Cruiser - Command, but that was much later) It also doesn't help the way the Iowas were basically battlecruisers in all but name anyway, being a ship that's as big as a battleship yet as fast as a cruiser.
  8. Big Gunned Heavy Cruisers Discussion Thread.

    The easiest way is to compare them to their peers from the same period and nation. Historically, battlecruisers were similar in size to their battleship cousins and indeed all current battlecruisers in the game (Myogi, Ishizuchi, Kongo and Amagi classes) are already implemented as "battleships". Meanwhile, the Stalingrad class "battlecruiser" that is coming for T10 is dwarfed by other capital ships of the late 1940s/1950s, being a ship intermediate between true capital ships and the regular cruisers similar to the Alaskas. The Scharnhorsts were somewhat undergunned, but they were actually almost as large as the treaty battleships of the time (32,000 tonnes vs 35,000).
  9. Big Gunned Heavy Cruisers Discussion Thread.

    Also don't forget all the numerous Alaska design preliminaries, the heavy WWI USN scout cruisers and the RN "large light cruisers". The idea of a ship intermediate between true capital ships and regular cruisers is something most nations have dabbled in, even if only a few nations have enough designs to even make a reasonable branch.
  10. New Japan tier 10 cruiser

    Regarding RoF, we don't have any idea as to what they would have been historically as they were only proposed very late on in the ships development and received very little attention, which basically means that WG would have the freedom to give them whatever RoF they want within reason (which basically translates to 2-3 RPM depending on balance). The improved capabilities to penetrate and overmatch 25mm cruiser armour would also improve the ships performance. If the shell penetration of them is high enough, they would also be quite capable of threatening T8-9 BBs at mid ranges. There's also the point that the 360mm version was also armoured to resist the same, which would translate into another 50mm or so on the belt armour, plus possibly armour on other locations (such as giving them the 27mm plating the Des Moines enjoys, or even the capital grade 32mm).
  11. New Japan tier 10 cruiser

    Considering how the Stalingrad is appearing as a T10 cruiser, it would be nice to see the IJN equivalents also appear as cruisers. Put the 360mm gun equipped version as the T10, while the earlier development of the B64 310mm version being the T9 ship in the branch. Then WG just needs to implement a CB branch for the USN (with the Alaskas as T9, the CA2-D at T10 and some of the Alaska preliminaries at T7-8) and we can enjoy standoffs with these awkward in-between ships. Unfortunately, most nations didn't really put much effort into large cruisers, so there wouldn't be much scope for most nations to have them. The only thing that confuses me with the picture you posted is that the B64/65 was to use the 100mm DP guns, not the older 127mm guns. A small collection of 127mm guns wouldn't cut it at T9/10, but with their historically planned loadout of 8x2 100mm guns they would have some reasonable AA capabilities.
  12. New Japan tier 10 cruiser

    What about giving the Zao the same selection of torpedoes as the Shimakaze? That way, they can choose to keep the 8km desperation strike, or alternatively go for the stealthable 12km torps or spam away with the 20km torps.
  13. Idea: Captain skills

    Except that the skills would work multiplicatively, not additively. A single point in TAE would give 10% (0.9^1), while 2 would give 19% (0.9^2) and the third would bring the total up to 27.1% reduced reload time (0.9^3), which works out to a 37% increased RoF. And that's all assuming linear scaling and costs; if they adopted my suggestion for scaling the costs where it's simply the same skill duplicated into extra price points, TAE would cost 4 points for the second level and 5 points for the 3rd stage (which would require the readdition of the 5 point skills), making for a total cost of 12 points to get that reload speed. Alternatively, it's entirely possible that each successive point would offer diminishing returns, so the first one would be 10%, the second might be 8% and the third might be 6% for example. Skill trees themselves are not intrinsically a bad idea, but they require either nearly all skills to be useful for all ships (impossible to do in WoWS as some ships literally lack certain gameplay facets; although a lot of skills could quite easily become more viable on many more ships with some tweaks still), or for there to be sufficient branching and alternative paths such that players don't have to pick up any useless skills (which would require far more skills to be added, which in itself is a desirable thing I guess).
  14. Idea: Captain skills

    A simpler solution, rather than reworking the entire skill system to allow for multiple skill points to be invested into a single skill, would be to add duplicates of certain skills into the game at different skill point costs. For example, we currently have adrenaline rush for 2 points, but we could also have an otherwise identical adrenaline rush 2 skill for 3 points. The values could quite easily be tweaked for balance to ensure that all versions of a skill would remain somewhat viable, particularly as pretty much every single 1-point skill that could work if duplicated would be outright terrible for 2 points unless the level 2 version has improved values. Players would then have the option of maxing out the skill using 5 points (2+3), just getting the 2 point version or even just getting the 3 point version if there's no other 3 pointers they want and they want 4 point skills. Such a method could quite easily increase the number of skills in the game by 30-50%, while also opening up a bit more build flexibility, all while costing almost zero work on the developer's part.
  15. Saipan [wrong neighborhood, lol / closed]

    Working with the air supremacy skill, changing it to only affect squadrons of 4 or more planes would be a very good start. It would also open up the option for WG to add things like single DB squadrons to use as scouts without air supremacy suddenly doubling their bombing potential. Something else that would help would be to add an additional skill or an extra feature onto a carrier skill to punish disengaging players more, such as by reworking the expert rear gunner skill to also cause enemy squadrons to lose an additional plane whenever they disengage from one of your squadrons (so normal carriers would lose 2 fighters on a disengage, the Saipan would only lose 1). Combining the above two points would bring the Saipan much more back in line while also technically not directly nerfing it, and so circumventing WGs policy on not nerfing premiums