VC381

Not sure I get this ship. It's probably me rather than the ship itself but I'm not having fun in it (got all upgrades). Have no problem getting into brawling range but the accuracy is awful even at short range and the guns have no punch when they do hit. Usually I just get burned down by things I can't retaliate against fast enough. Is it "supposed" to be a good ship? I'm not really after "how to" more general feelings about it, it probably just doesn't suit my playstyle or expectations of it.

This post makes no sense. If everybody plays safer the enemy has no support either. The problem isn't camping vs. pushing, it's people playing well or playing badly, whatever the meta is. No buffs/nerfs/skill changes will make a difference there.

I just spotted the Z-23 has 12% fire chance with the 150mm. Err... Wut?! And it's unaffected by AFT so DE is a strong option there. Gonna get Maass today, looking forward to this T8 now though!

Note that RN cruisers CAN'T equip PM2 even if they wanted to, but their acceleration is as if they stole the warp drive from the starship Enterprise so it doesn't matter. I reached a similar conclusion by "feel" but thank you for the very thorough testing and write-up. To be honest, I would only use propulsion on cruisers T8 plus that can compensate with the super rudder shift in the other slot for the full "dodge build", and even then only on US ships or Kutuzov (for smoke tricks). PM2 for all DDs though.

I'm generally in agreement with Trainspite except for the Cleveland. I think a lot of people are drawn in by it being a "wartime" design when this isn't strictly true. The design was finalised to treaty limits then allowed to grow overweight when the ships were actually built. They were mass-produced basically because the design was just there, but are very much still a treaty cruiser, a compromise design and generally over-estimated. In terms of what matters in game, their raw stats are not much different to Brooklyn. The armour is roughly the same, the trade-off is more heavy AA for the loss of a main turret. Since AA is situational but firepower is not, Brooklyn would be the stronger ship in game in most typical tasks cruisers perform (DD hunting, BB burning and duelling other cruisers). Or put another way, Brooklyn would require more soft stat nerfs to fit a lower tier and would be a less enjoyable ship for it. That's why I think Brooklyn should be the T8 and Cleveland the T7 in any split line. We actually have two precedents for this already, where the pre-war "prototype" is T8 while the similar wartime mass-produced version is a tier lower. See Fiji vs. Edinburgh and Kiev vs. Tashkent (Kiev class not actually built but intended as a mass-produced Tashkent variant). As for Pensacola, my experience of that ship was very positive. Of course it has weaknesses but I didn't feel I had to go out of my way to counter them, I just "got" it straight away and really enjoyed it. I'm not trying to brag, I don't have top 10% stats in it but I have above average performance without having to expend extra effort to overcome the so-called "fact" that it's a bad ship. I don't consider the armor to be a huge weakness because any BB will citadel a T7 cruiser anyway, while Pensacola is very agile and can survive better that way. For the same reason I didn't mind the spotting distance, it just meant I could fire constantly without caring and rely on my rudder and small profile to save me. Her firepower is phenomenal, if I ended up in a T5 game I would rub my hands and do an evil laugh, it massacres lower tier cruisers, and DDs. Hell, it can Citadel an Amagi, and you want it regularly matched with Kongos? For me it would be my number 1 sealclubber if it got moved to T6. I guess you could soft stat nerf it but I strongly dislike that approach. Soft stats directly affect enjoyment but only indirectly affect power level. Saying "here's a really strong ship that's balanced because it's frustrating to use" is terrible game design. Same argument as Brooklyn above. If a ship sort of fit between two tiers, I would rather she was a bit weaker higher tier but handled amazingly than a bit stronger lower tier but paid for it with being a complete brick. So I personally want WG to leave Pepsi alone, move Cleveland up but not go nuts with that, and give us a Brooklyn at a tier she deserves without shafting the ergonomics.

This. What's a "normal" 18 point BB build these days? 1 - BFT, BoS 2 - EM 3 - Vigilance, SI 4 - AFT, Manual AA Or some variation with manual secondaries instead of AA. Basically you can have everything you need without any forced choices, all the AA skills and all the survivability goodies on top. Post 6.0, even with 19 points to spend, the above build will be impossible. Let's try the same thing: 1 - 2x fighter 2 - EM 3 - BFT, BoS 4 - AFT, Manual AA That's only 17 points but you're missing Vigilance and SI, both of which are 3-point skills so you can't get either. So you have a stronger AA death bubble (due to fighter and BFT buff) but you're sacrificing TWO key survival skills for it. Want "OP" fire prevention on that? Lose BoS. Want a decent mix of those tanking skills? Lose the AA death bubble. Yes individual things are stronger but BBs face actual choices now. It's not perfect but it is better from a game design point of view than before.

I agree, we really need this ship in game, it has fame, history, awesome looks, everything. I think though as a T6 it could use the as-built hull with three flight decks. Then it would need lower tier planes but could get more (or bigger) squadrons to compensate. Saipan with 2/2 plays a bit like an IJN carrier so Akagi could have a different loadout that makes it different (maybe strike Akagi!).

I respect your opinion and I definitely agree that the new CV skills are garbage as well as the fact the "choice" thing won't really improve. In fact if you look at the XP curve to get 10 points after 6.0.0 will take about as much XP as getting 14 points before, so most people won't be getting that crucial last row skill any sooner, but will spend longer to get the multiple 4 points skills necessary for making good builds as you say. At least though some choice is forced on BBs. I think though it's very difficult to balance BBs because it's such a fine line between healthy aggressive play and just choking the game with BBs that can charge with no consequence, making life hard for other classes (and indeed for BBs that gain an advantage from range). Playing to good range and position advantage is not the same as camping/sniping and it's not healthy for the game if the best strategy is always "all pile into cap as fast as possible and see what comes out of the mess". I'm all for ships that have a low skill floor but then they need to have weaknesses that also take less skill to exploit.

I will bow out of this discussion as it's off the original topic and my personal opinion of Pensacola is so counter to "common wisdom" that there's no point trying to argue.

Absolutely. NO is one of the most agile ships in the game, if you can't dodge torps without that module I'm sorry to say you're doing something quite wrong. If, and only if, you have a 15 point captain with Concealment Expert, take the new -40% rudder shift module in that slot instead. With that setup you can play "can't touch this" as your game sound track as you troll BBs by baiting their shots with a bit of broadside and turning completely clear before the shots land. OK sorry, I'm a huge US cruiser fanboy and I absolutely loved the Pensacola, NO and now Baltimore. You aren't going to get an unbiased opinion from me on this. So I say use the free XP to skip the stock grind but don't skip the whole ship. Yes Baltimore is "better" in a way but it's also worse (always in T10 matches, bigger and more sluggish). The whole line plays the same from here up so you're better off (in my opinion) learning the tricks in NO. If you really don't like it or can't get the hang of it, better drop the line than waste the free XP because Baltimore will not be kind to you if you go to it unprepared.

Well, my highest ship is T9 and I only have one so can't comment on that too much. When I'm in T10 games though it's usually OK. There is a difference between "slow" and "static".

Yup, I agree it's not priority, that an Atlanta variant makes no sense in the main tree and that there are better places to discuss this. But I do want to make the point that, although a lot of people either don't like Pensacola or think she's weak, you cannot seriously believe that her firepower is acceptable on a T6 cruiser. 10x 8" guns is just too much, whatever other nerfs might be implemented to balance her.

Sorry but I disagree with you here. I didn't like what German BBs and this push from WG for over-aggressive play did to the game. It's all too messy and not as fun. I would actually prefer a return to slower and more tactical play.

The biggest hit will be to BBs and how often they can put out fires etc. and to DDs with how often they can sit in smoke. As a cruiser player, BBs that are easier to keep alight and DDs that are easier to keep spotted make me happy

Good changes all around, can't wait to see how they play out!

Brooklyn and even Pensacola would be disgustingly OP at T6. Any split would need one of the preliminary designs as a T6 ship. In fact two of them, one Pensacola preliminary with 6x 8" guns for the CA line and that Brooklyn preliminary with 9x 6" guns for the CL line. There's your T6 and split setup sorted. As for the rest of the CL line, Brooklyn makes more sense as a T8 where she would go up against her actual design contemporaries (Mogami and Edinburgh). Cleveland can fill the T7 despite being "newer" in the same way Fiji does for the RN line. That's what my money's on.

I'm on the fence regarding the "problem" of BB camping. For some time the game has pushed for a quite aggressive meta and the BBs had the tools to push. In this context, BB players who don't understand and "camp" will make their team lose. But if ALL BBs lost some of their tanking power and stayed back a bit more, that would actually create better space for cruisers to play the middle of the map and hunt DDs and each-other. So this is a step in the right direction.

Thanks, that sounds good!

How do the 150s compare to the Russian 130s for farming cruiser tears (citadels)? I'm on Gaede and adapting to the style, really only aiming for Z-23 for uniqueness even if it's not super strong.

Sure thing anyway BB catapult fighters seem to be getting nerfed so that's a step in the right direction.

Well, this is my personal preference of course but I never use different magnification levels. Full zoom or nothing (using Shift key only, never mouse wheel) and I know my aim points at full zoom, all I need

One squadron at a time if you want to bait repairs and stack fires but you run the risk of getting shredded by manual AA or having enemy fighters wise up and come for your planes. All at once works fine if your aim is good.

All sounds reasonable to me, will stop CVs crying that BBs will be un-approachable with two fighters up. Also means that two fighter skill won't be "must have" on everything. I read your post that cruisers get to keep long duration catapult fighter, which will combo well with having two of them and give them an extra tool in the scouting role.

We're not getting the same thing sooner, the XP curve change means you'll only hit 10 captain points when these days you would be hitting 14. We're getting the same thing CHEAPER, a whopping 5 points cheaper, so we can do more with the spare. I don't see why you dismiss the concealment thing so easily, I've played against some CVs that made very clever use of islands to be literally in the middle of the action but still safe, and their impact increased significantly as a result. I think it could be a very powerful tool for those with the skill to micro-manage their positioning. BFT may be stronger but it's also 2 points more expensive, now directly competing with SI, BoS and Vigilance for BBs instead of something you can just throw a spare point at. It's probably more of a buff to DDs anyway... So I'm not sugar coating, I'm genuinely positive about some of the changes, I think as usual too many people are quick to jump to negative conclusions where none are due.

So I finally went and reviewed the skills and there is a silver lining. With servicing expert moved down to T1, you can get the 4 core skills you really need for a CV (Servicing expert, torpedo acceleration, torpedo armament expertise and air supremacy) with only 10 points and none wasted on a random T1 skill. And, with only 14 points, you can get CE on top of all that, something that was actually impossible before. So... For example, Shokaku could be sporting 9.1km surface detection. That is jaw-dropping and better than almost every cruiser. The possibilities in terms of positioning and shorter strike times are pretty interesting... Or with an 18-point captain you can top up your CV with AFT + Manual AA, again without sacrificing anything you would normally get, and be a total plane deathtrap. True sniping is rare at high tiers but combine for example CE and AFT and you're now doubling up as ninja BB AA escort. Or you could get DE since it now affects bombs... And I don't agree AA builds will become default on BBs. The total 8 points cost for AFT + Manual AA is the same and the skills haven't changed but now there's competition from that fire prevention thingy and some of the other shuffling (e.g. BoS to T3) could make BB builds more expensive overall. So yeah, I'm looking on the bright side here, could be interesting...