Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'cruisers'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Forum
    • English Speaking Forum
    • Deutschsprachige Community
    • Polska Społeczność
    • Česká a slovenská komunita
    • Communauté francophone
    • Comunidad de habla española
    • Türkçe Topluluk
    • Comunità Italiana
  • Mod Section
    • Rules, Announcements and General Discussion (English)
    • Modding Tutorials, Guides and Tools (English)
    • Interface Mods
    • Visual Mods
    • Sound Mods
    • Modpacks
    • Other Mods and Programs
    • Archive
  • Historical Section

Calendars

  • Community Calendar
  • This Day in History

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Twitter


Location


Interests

Found 90 results

  1. For god sake give cruisers from T6 and up heals because all cruisers get punished where other classes may not. No amount of angling or moving can stop random over matching and citadeling. It Doesn't seem to matter what skill you have, even if you predict a shot and move accordingly, that one shell will hit (mainly lower tiers) and citadel and it just isn't fair in most cases. And in the end we can do nothing to come back from this! once you lose the health its gone but BBs with a huge health pool get a heal! Leander and Abrruzi are classic examples of a ship that would suffer heavily if it weren't for their heals, I know I'm not the only one!
  2. Supersubway

    Italian cruisers

    Hello, We were told that a Italian cruiser line was scheduled for q4 18, is there any update on that? Thanks
  3. pzkpfwv1d

    IJN T9 Light Cruiser - Kano Class

    Armament: 12 - 6,10" / 155 mm 60,0 cal guns - 123,17lbs / 55,87kg shells, 150 per gun Quick firing guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1930 Model 4 x 3-gun mounts on centreline, evenly spread 2 raised mounts 12 - 3,94" / 100 mm 65,0 cal guns - 28,66lbs / 13,00kg shells, 250 per gun Dual purpose guns in deck and hoist mounts, 1938 Model 6 x Twin mounts on side ends, majority forward 24 - 1,57" / 40,0 mm 60,0 cal guns - 2,20lbs / 1,00kg shells, 1 500 per gun Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1945 Model 10 x Twin mounts layout not set 2 raised mounts 2 x Twin mounts on centreline, evenly spread 1 raised mount 38 - 0,98" / 25,0 mm 60,0 cal guns - 0,55lbs / 0,25kg shells, 2 000 per gun Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1936 Model 10 x Triple mounts on side ends, majority aft 4 raised mounts - superfiring 4 x Twin mounts on side ends, evenly spread 4 double raised mounts Weight of broadside 1 896 lbs / 860 kg Main Torpedoes 16 - 24,0" / 610 mm, 29,53 ft / 9,00 m torpedoes - 2,496 t each, 39,935 t total In 4 sets of deck mounted side rotating tubes
  4. Capitaine_Clement

    Croiseurs italiens

    Bonjour, J'espère que ce topic n'est pas (trop) placé au mauvais endroit. Voilà, l'année dernière nous avons eu droit a un "certain nombre" de premium italien, et selon toutes vraisemblances, la branche des croiseurs devrait arriver cette année, surement après le split US, probablement avant les dd français voir anglais. Je voudrais donc savoir ce que vous penser/supposer pour la future ligne, ainsi que des infos sur le sujet puissent être facilement échangée ect... A votre avis auront ils des torpilles? seront ils léger ou lourd? les deux? ect ect, des suppositions de lignes... Pour ma part, je pense que comme beaucoup d'autre, la ligne sera composé au debut de croiseurs légers puis de croiseurs lourd. Je pence qu'ils auront des torps pour la plupart (dont le tier 10), mais probablement peu, (2x3?) mais qui auront une très bonne portée et un bon reload (pourront les tirer furtivement?) [De ce fait, le Zara sera peut être premium, car pas de torps???] Une [très] bonne maniabilité furtivité et speed seront également d'actualité, pour moi (un peu comme le duca quoi) Un bon reload, mieux que l'hinden et moins que le des moines) ainsi que des obus HE et AP équilibré, tant pas les dégâts que par le % de feu) Mais compenser pas un faible AA, et une forte vulnérabilité de flanc (un peu normal façon). Mais il tankeront bien de face (car profil étroit ect) (enfin, moins que le moskva et l'hinden!) ainsi qu'une faible portée (15 km ne m'étonnerait pas Il seront aussi les navires avec le plus de consommables (tier 9 et 10 : contrôle des avaries, hydro (non amélioré je pence), AA, avion et repair) De ce fait, je pence qu'il y aura deux écoles : 1) avion de spoting et module de porté + furtivité : jeu un peu comme le zao 2) reload + maniabilité : jeu plus au contact, a esquiver les tirs et cannarder Enfin, ce ne sont que des suppositions! (et un peu d'espoir, car si ils sont ainsi, ce serait la ligne qui me conviendrait le mieux!) et pour l'arbre, je n'est pas beaucoup de suggestion, mais je pence que le tier 9 et 10 seront des papers ships Bonne journée / soirée!
  5. klemi007

    Radar mechanics

    Hi all, Since we got the new US line, we got too much radar in the game. I am sure most would agree it's making dd captains either too passive in taking objectives or it makes them dead. Here is an idea. I suggest change to radar mechanics, even if you just test it, I would be thrilled. Make radar LOS (as it was in real life) and cross section dependent. Practical consequence: LOS would mean radar would be unable to spot anything behind hard cover (like an island) or even behind other ships, making ambushed and even piggy backing a viable option. Cross section would work in a way that if, for example, a dd turns it's bow towards the radar source (maybe introduce a rdf like pointer for radar), it would either fade in - fade out, or significantly reduce the effective radar range. Any thoughts?
  6. Blood_Rave_1984

    What's with the Russian/Soviet cruiser line?

    There seems to be a lot of paper ships in the Russian/Soviet line
  7. Thoughts on Italian cruisers. As some of you may know, it's been confirmed for a while now, Italian cruisers are coming on their merry way in late Q3 to early Q4 2018 after RN DDs. Feel free to speculate on the branch's composition, but a better thread for that is the fan made tree here: An excellent read. Instead, I thought I would bring the forum in this new thread for a little brainstorm/feedback/speculation session. WG loves its gimmicks, that's no secret, and with speed boost gone for the French (for some reason) and every other consumable having already been taken, the prospect of finding a consumable combination that makes sense and hasn't been taken by another branch is not looking good. So where does that leave us? Well, it turns out that a solution might be found in one of WG's oversights regarding existing Italian ships. As @Historynerd pointed out, some Italian HE shells are currently using SAP shells as a basis, and that somewhat limits their alpha damage, making them overall the worst HE shells of those calibers. Even in soft stats, they fall short of even the low damage German shells. So why is this a potential solution? Well, if WG wants to use SAP shells as HE shells, why not make said shells actually act like pseudo-SAP shells? The concept is rather simple, you have an HE shell bound by exactly the same constraints as currently, only instead of having a krupp modifier of 1 (thus having a penetration of a fraction of a millimeter), you increase it to a bit more. Say, enough to penetrate a superstructure or very lightly armored ship that's not too angled. And presto, you now have a shell capable of exploding inside a ship thanks HE's natural 0.01s fuze setting. The second part of it is damage. That's the tricky part, and one with which I won't delve into absolute numbers, because theory rarely seemlessly merges with practice on the first try. The current alpha damage on Italian HE is pretty poor. So you keep that. In fact, you can probably lower a bit, because this hypothetical SAP shell would act in on of two ways: First scenario is the classic one. The shell doen't have enough penetration to go through, so it explodes on contact. Classic HE damage rules, HE penetration checks, low damage because Italian HE cannot into damage nor fire chance, etc... Second scenario is the interesting bit. The shell manages to penetrate. What's the pay off? Increased damage. The damage fraction goes up so the shell deals more than the regular contact fuze damage. What's the cost? If the shell explodes in the ship, it's not exploding at the feet of some poor AA crewmen. Less module damage. And that's the pitch. A branch whose gimmick is simply having potentially more or less damaging HE shells, depending on your aim and RNG. A bigger focus on HE damage than fire chance, without relying on the lazy 1/4th HE penetration rule. NOTE: IFHE shouldn't interact with this hypothetical shell's physical penetration, as the skill only acts upon the HE penetration. I'd really love to hear what you guys and gals have to say about this, and if you feel that it's a stupid suggestion (it was born at 4AM during a sleepness night, so chances are that it is) tell me why and what you think a better direction for these ships are. I'd also love to ask @MrConway if it's even technically feasible.
  8. Most players agree, that Survivability Expert is a top choice for virtually every DD captain, providing a HP bonus ranging from 15.5% (Khabarovsk) – 20% (Shimakaze). Where it gets controversial is its utility for cruiser captains. Here many players argue that here the additional HP are not worth the 3 skill points and advise to not spec into it. In this post I want to show with a very short and simple argument that this is not necessarily the case. In my humble opinion SE on cruiser captains is not nearly as useless as commonly suggested and I want to back this up with some numbers. Note, that I am not trying to promote SE as a must-have skill for all cruisers, since its utility depends on the playstyles of both the ship and its owner. My aim is to look at the hard numbers to assess the usefulness of SE in the very same way, that numbers have to be involved in deciding wether to use IFHE for a given gun caliber. I like to know these things instead of only relying on gut feelings. Edit: The numbers in this tread are not correct, since contrary to a widely made assumption, SE does not increase the amount of HP healed by the Repair Party consumable. This greatly reduces the overall HP bonus provided, as you can see in a table at the end of this post. The obvious bonus SE provides at T10 is a flat 3500 base HP increase. However, since the amount of HP restored by the Repair Party consumable is derived from a ship's base HP (14% of base HP total, 40% for UK), it also increases the amount of HP healed per use. In the following table you can for each T10 cruiser see its (1) base HP, (2) base HP including SE, (3) HP / Heal, (4) HP / Heal including SE: Here I am just showing the obvious: the less HP a ship possesses, the more it benefits from SE. The real subject of the debate is, wether these boni are worth the 3 points one has to spend for them. When trying to quantify the usefulness of SE I look at the cumulative potential HP that a ship has access to over the course of the game: Potential HP = Base HP + #Heals * HP/Heal This represents the maximum amount of HP a ship can spend in order to exert influence on the course of the game and is effectively modified by the type of damage it suffers (not every HP loss can be healed 100%). The potential HP accessible by 4 uses of the Repair Party consumable with and without SE can be taken from the following table. The absolute HP bonus ist not surprisingly the same for all cruisers with Minotaur being the noteworthy exception. It gains 9100 potential HP by slapping SE on top of SI in your captain build. I am showing you these numbers in order to put SE into perspective by comparing it to another skill most people agree to be a no-brainer for high tier cruisers: Superintendent. The non-UK cruiser benefitting the most from SE is Zao. Here the sum of base HP increase (+3500) and the increased healing (+490 HP/Heal) almost has the same effect as getting a 5th heal (5460 vs. 5712 HP). Every Zao player using Superintendent obviously thinks that 5712 additional HP are well worth the 3 skill points. In that case, 3 points for 5460 HP (which is 95.5% of one heal) cannot suddenly become a horrible deal. That would be like saying: '3€ for 20 bottles of beer is a great price, but 3€ for 19 bottles is a ripoff'. I intentionally picked Zao here, because out of all T10 cruisers it benefits the most from SE and thus serves best to illustrate my point. A valid point of view here is, that skill points are limited and SE (assuming its non-uselessness is accepted) is competing against DemoExpert and Vigilance. In this context I will now make the most controversial statement. Please keep your pitchforks and torches in the shed for now. If next to Vigilance and DemoExpert there are just 3 Skillpoints left, then in some cases picking SE instead of SI is actually a good choice. That guy must be insane, right? Well, maybe. But let's look at the numbers again. In the following table you see for each T10 cruiser the total potential HP in the case that the captain has either SI (4 heals) or SE (flat bonus + 3 enhanced heals). Also we see a breakpoint value, that determines wether SI or SE is more effective for each player (more on that later). On Zao, Des Moines, Hindenburg and Henri replacing SI with SE nets a HP loss of less than 3% when all heals are being used. In return you gain access to these HP at an earlier time in the game, increasing your ability to survive until the late game. On top of that the increased base HP mean, that you can endure those extra few overpens, possibly allowing you to escape to use your next heal. A more aggressive playstyle thus favors SE over SI in my opinion. So can we quantify how much sense it makes to take SE instead of SI? This picks up the question of playstyle. If you want that 4th radar/hydro charge (i never find myself needing more than 2 or 3 DefAA charges), then of course there is no discussion. As a consequence I will limit my discussion strictly to HP considerations. A cruiser with SI will have more potential HP only if it is able to use its 4th heal. That means if you find yourself being unable to use that 4th heal on a regular basis, then you would benefit more from SE. Since the HP bonus that you get from SI compared to SE is quite small, you would indeed need to use your 4th heal in most of your games in order to break even with the HP advantage SE provides up until that 4th heal. This is described by the breakpoint value in the last table column. It means that e.g. a Hindenburg needs to use its 4th heal in 68.4% of all games so that when averaged over many games, SI provides as many potential HP as SE. If that Hindenburg uses its 4th heal in 100% of all games, then it will gain 2.9% potential HP over another Hindenburg that uses SE instead. Looking at these numbers it means that from a survivability point of view SE is still not perfectly viable in all situations, but it is far from being a useless captain skill for cruisers. Personally I will try replacing SI by SE on my IJN captain as soon as I reach Zao (on Ibuki now), since I cannot see myself using 4 DefAA charges and only consider my HP pool. Being an average player (at least according to WTR) I am not using all 4 heals all the time, so in this regard SE seems like a more effective choice. Even if my skill eventually becomes sufficient to be able to pull this off, I think paying a negligible 1.2% of my overall HP for being able to take more risks and get away with it in the early game is a really great deal. If you have read this wall of text until here, I thank you for your time. You may now bring your pitchforks and torches, but I am also looking forward to reading your more objective arguments concerning this topic Erratum: As it turns out, SE does not enhance the amount of HP healed by the repair party consumable, which stronly reduces the HP bonus when measured with the total potential HP in mind. As a negative side effect SE increases the amount of fire damage taken, since it depends on a ship's base HP. This effect would have canceled itself with the increased heal, but as it stands this does not apply. In the following table you can see the bonus SE provides with respect to base HP and total potential HP. This does indeed cast doubt over the utility of SE, since the total HP bonus is below 5% with the exception of Zao. Thanks to ColonelPete, Affeks and tmGrunty for bringing up these points!
  9. How come EVERY CRUISER - INLCUDING GERMANS - use Anti-aircraft consumable when they FULLY KNOW that because of Wargamings intelligence when it comes to balance - There are NO CV'S farting around UNLESS YOU PLAY TIER 4-6 ? High level cruisers (7-10) HAVE NO FLIPPING IDEA on how to hydro - YES, SOME cruisers use radar - but WHY THE EFF are noone using hydro and FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF kill those FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF destroyers so our battleships can advance? (PS: Battleships ! STOP FISHING!) Either REMOVE the ANTI-AIR consumable at tier 7-10 or FFFFFFFFFF LEARN TO EFFINGS HYDRO OR HUNT TO FEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE Destroyers !!!!! Also - Carriers - keep up the amazings :) atleast THEY KNOW how to scout and kill stuff.
  10. Captain_LOZFFVII

    Ideas for Cruiser/Battleship Rebalancing

    I've had a couple of thoughts recently regarding how to balance cruisers and battleships in WoWS, and I thought I'd share them with the forums to see what others think. Please vote for whichever you think sounds better, or leave your own idea if you think my ideas are rubbish. BB-1/CLCA+1 What this means is Battleships have their consumable counts reduced by 1 while Cruisers get their consumable counts increased by one. To clarify: take my Nelson, she currently has 4 uses of the Damage Repair Party (Premium but no Superintendent) while my Atago has 3 uses of DRP (Premium and Superintendent). My proposal would mean Nelsol would get one less use (3) while Atago gets one more use (4). This would also apply to all other consumables mounted on the ship, so Missouri (for example) would get one less DRP and one less Radar while Baltimore would get one more of each (and whatever other consumables she has). The idea behind this one is both to takle the BB survivability issue and promote what cruisers are all about (consumables) all in one motion. Exceptions: October Revolution. I get the feeling that with limited access to the Damage Control Party, reducing her access to it may make her go from 'alright' to 'barely playable'. Cruiser Smorgasbord Give all cruisers access to all consumables available at their tier, but limit them to a maximum number dependent on their tier (like 2 for T2-5, 3 for T6-8 and 4 for T9+10). So they can customise what kind of consumables they want, e.g. one player could have a Mogami with DRP, Radar and Smoke, another could have a Mogami with Defensive AA Fire, Hydroacoustic Search and Spood Beest. Further, players can also choose what order they want their consumables in, so one player may go for (T)DRP-(Y)Smoke-(U)DefAA the other may go for (T)Smoke-(Y)DefAA-(U)DRP. Obviously, different nations would still have their national 'flavours', such as German Efficient Uber Hydro, Russian OPdar and British Tea-Fixes-Everything Repair. The idea behind this one is, while leaving consumable charges the way they are, to promote cruisers being the 'Jack-of-all' they were envisioned when this game began. I'm sure someone's noticed that (apart from RN CLs) T8 cruisers don't get the DRP, as such my above example of Mogami with DRP doesn't make sense, but I'm of the opinion that in addition to the above ideas, cruisers from T6 upwards should have access to a Heal anyway. Let me know what you think of my ideas and what you think would be better.
  11. Butterdoll

    RPF in cruisers

    Well, until now RPF never were use in cruisers (at least that I know of)... And for some time now I'm thinking about it. And I know that only "spots" the general position of the ship that's it's closer to you And I would like to ear your opinions because it's a skill that demands 4 points, so not very cheap. the advantages I got in mind are. 1) they will never suspect of the cruiser when you are in a flank with other ships or with a dd close by. (general use) 2) it would helps triangulate the ship position more accurate, when you are with other dd. (general use) 3) when the cv it's in danger of a lurking dd, or other ship. (specific use) 4) It Will help if a red ship enter your lines, and if it is a dd you will have much less trouble in the cat and mouse game. (specific use) 5) With RPF together with MM information you can buff your concealment, you can "see" a ship's there and if you can't spot to a certain point that only can be certain ships (that will spot you first like dds, cruisers and some BBs) and then it's up to you what to do. (general use)
  12. Five of the Brooklyns and one of the two St. Louises were sold to three of the major navies of South America. Brooklyn and Nashville to Chile as O'Higgins and Capitán Prat: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Brooklyn_(CL-40)#Chilean_Navy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Nashville_(CL-43)#Chilean_Navy Philadelphia and St. Louis to Brazil as Barroso and Tamandare: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Philadelphia_(CL-41)#Brazilian_Navy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_St._Louis_(CL-49)#Transfer_to_Brazil Phoenix and Boise to Argentina as General Belgrano (called 17 de Octubre when sold, renamed after a military coup) and Nueve de Julio: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Phoenix_(CL-46)#Argentine_service https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Boise_(CL-47)#Argentine_Navy This offers Wargaming a unique opportunity: They can use three of the ships, one from each nation, as premiums, and keep the other three for a future tech tree. To diferentiate the tree premiums, they can give each of them a different consummable. One can have radar, one hydro, and the last one defensive AA. If you want to separate them even more, one can have smoke (preferably not the ones with radar and hydro), one can have speed boost, and the last one repair party. Also, since there isn't the same level of recentment or whatever that apparently caused problems with the pan asian branch (I'm from Argentina, and though there IS a good deal of resentment, it's not to the level of nation-wide hatred towards all the other countries in the region), they could give each ship its nation's flag. For the tech tree in general, they can use this flag, which was proposed as the flag of the UNASUR (didn't win), the international organization that integrates all south american countries.
  13. I compared the damage between AP and HE bombs in the training room on T9+ BBs. AP bombs For AP bombs I flew 9 strikes on each of the T9+ BBs and then averaged the damage. Both squads were used to strike the same target together. Montana - 21.493 damage per strike Yamato - 19.795 damage per strike GK - 21.640 damage per strike Conq - 19.446 damage per strike Iowa - 21.264 damage per strike Izumo - 22.684 damage per strike FdG - 47.119 damage per strike Lion - 21.262 damage per strike AP bomb damage is heavily dependent on damage saturation. The initial strike almost always caused damage in excess of 25k, reaching over 30k occasionally. Subsequent strikes usually deal around 15k to 20k. I once managed to saturate one Conqueror completely after three strikes at which point I only got 6k following up. This could be important due to heal, but on the other hand you will probably never fly against the same target more than two times anyway, so complete damage saturation should be incredibly hard to achieve and thus negligible. FdG is the only T9+ BB vulnerable to citadel hits. You can probably sink her in a single strike in coordination with TBs. Or just straight up nuke her if you're lucky enough (though that didn't happen in testing). (For a test on how damage saturation affects AP bombs, see a couple of posts below.) HE bombs For HE bombs I only flew 6 strikes per ship as damage was fairly consistent across the board, both damage saturation and nation of the target seemed to play no role whatsoever. Then again with fires being what they are I could never drop the same target too often so damage saturation may become a factor with heal in play, but as I said above it'll probably never be a decisive one since you're rarely ever going to attack a ship more than twice anyway. Also I obviously ignored fire damage. Montana - 23.353 damage per strike Yamato - 25.179 damage per strike GK - 24.437 damage per strike Conq - 21.050 damage per strike Iowa - 22.182 damage per strike Izumo - 23.574 damage per strike FdG - 21.919 damage per strike Lion - 21.821 damage per strike On a good drop you can expect anywhere between 20-30k damage, with opportunity to go higher. Bad drops yield around 10-20k. Conclusion As you can clearly see, HE bombs deal more alpha strike than AP bombs on T9+ BBs (although a very negligible amount). And can set fires. And break more AA. AND properly hurt DDs, too. In addition to that, AP bombs only deal high damage when the target is unsaturated, aka when you don't wanna attack it anyway because all AA is still operational. So what are AP bombs good for? Well, I flew a couple of strikes against T10 cruisers for the lulz. Hindenburg - around 15k damage per strike Des Moines - oneshot without exceptions Zao - either 35k+ damage or oneshot Henry IV - oneshot without exceptions Moskva - oneshot without exceptions Minotaur - 15k+ damage, with the occasional oneshot So yeah, if you wanna hurt BBabies, go for HE bombs. If you wanna celebrate "World of not Cruisers lol" and pray for cyclones or that people dont use DFAA, AP bombs will serve you better. I would only truly recommend AP bombs for Lex as she has plenty of ships vulnerable to them in her MM spread. Even considering that I would not fault you for using HE bombs instead.
  14. After abusing my new uberlikes to further my anti-battleship agenda and finally digging myself out of my self-perpetuated cycle of procrastination, I'm baaaack~ Before we go on into this article, I would like to extend my public and formal apology to @El2aZeR for something else. He has helped me greatly in creating an article meant to instruct newer carrier players on the art of carriers. That has been indefinitely postponed. The Universal Class The term "universal class" can mean different things. It could mean a generalist class that could do just about anything, it could mean the most average class with the most balanced abilities across the stat sheets, or it could mean the class that is meant to take up the largest numbers of spots in a team. In a game where a single player manages many units, this is fundamentally different from a game where the matchmaker has a first come first serve policy. A game where the class that is meant to occupy the largest number of spots in a team but doesn't is an imbalanced game. The battleship numbers at the medium to high tiers in particular is passed imbalanced. The scale has tipped off balanced, tumbled off the table, and rolled itself into the Marinara trenched. A panda's diet is more balanced than the game right now, and the nerfs to the battleship class and buffs to the cruiser class has done little to address the problems with the game. This article isn't about what to nerf on battleships but to talk about why I think that the battleship plague was as inevitable as the heat death or any conversation about religion, politics, or waifus destroying friendships. The problem ultimately is relatively simple: cruisers fail as a universal class. People may think of this as an oversimplification, so to refute this I would like to cite the third law of thermodynamics: "das is always right". Whilst many war games would start newer players off with a smaller unit and let them work their way up to heavier armed units, WoWS starts you off with a cruiser. Cruisers, as opposed to destroyers, are also the most numerous class in the game in terms of variety with them contributing far more silver ships than any other class. This is all the more worrying in the context of the game where cruiser numbers quite commonly can go as low as 1 per team where it's an anomaly for battleship numbers to dip below 3 and numbers from 4-6 are far from rare. There are many who argue against the battleship plague even being a thing, but the numbers speak far louder than any flimsy ad hoc justification and arguments from personal incredulity possibly could. It is a fact that some of the worst players in the game find battleships rewarding and that battleships are far more common than just about any other class at the higher tiers in particular. I am of the belief that players will eventually gravitate towards the state of maximum reward for minimum effort which is where I believe the problem comes in. The problem isn't that battleships overperform or that they have too much armor or even that they could do too much damage. Being the class that does the most damage or has the most armor isn't fundamentally a problem, it's the way that the problems compound that causes the problem. The underlying issue is that battleships are simply performs the role of a better universal ship class than cruisers and the issue lies with the game mechanics themselves and will not be fixed by twiddling with the class performance. The Battleship Problem Much has been made of the battleship plague. The nigh-extinction of cruisers and carriers at the medium to higher tiers, the resurgence in torpedo boat destroyers, and the dominance of the Midway on damage charts are all symptoms of the larger battleship problem. The battleship problem is far reaching due to the fact that the game is built around them not being the universal class. The ability for battleships to kill other ship classes in a single salvo whilst persistently resisting incoming damage would be fine if they were a slightly rarer and more difficult to master class from a gameplay perspective. The problem, however, is that everything in the battleship class from the way that overmatching functions to the ease on transitioning between nations is characteristic of a universal and not a specialist class. Bang Bang Goes the Sniper Attack of the Clones Compensation Much? More Unnecessary Armor Battleships, Shore to Salty Shore Playing the Numbers Power of the Heart Cruisers and the Specialist Class Before I make this point, I would like to you a little more about myself. I am terrible with destroyers. Destroyers, basically being small ships, are a bit like children and I react to children like most people react to parasitic worms. That is what children are anyways with their tiny malformed bodies and- The point behind this is that despite being a poor destroyer captain, I chose the American destroyers as one of my first destroyer lines. With the Farragut, I would be able to average 40k damage against enemy ships by sitting in a smoke screen and raining fire on enemy battleships. For reference, this meant that my first tier 6 destroyer averaged better damage than my first tier 8 cruiser. I was able to do this because back then, high explosive caliber basically didn’t matter. As long as you could get shells down range and hit the target, you would deal hideous amounts of damage against whatever you are shooting at. It was the age where the St. Louis, Cleveland, and Mogami were the most powerful ships in the seas. I would talk about some solutions, but I quite frankly think that this article has gone on for quite long enough even by my standards. If this feels like an abrupt end, that’s because it really was. You may consider this to be an artifact of me going rusty after not having done an article for so long but you’d be wrong. There are things that Wargaming could do from tooling battleship into something more or a generalist class than it is now to changes to the cruiser class to make them the easier class for newer players. That will have to wait until later. It’s a bit like a DLC to milk even more attention.So you see, I’m not incompetent. I’m just evil. All the best.
  15. SovietFury43

    IFHE on French Cruisers?

    Is it worth it? Or should i get CE instead? Their concealment is not that great to begin with so i don't think CE would be a very useful skill on them. IFHE i think would be a better choice, but is it worth the -3% fire chance?
  16. The idea to give Heavy Cruisers repair has been discussed for over a year now, and it would solve some of the survivability issues that Heavy Cruisers face in high tier without making them OP. Especially super fragile ships like the Mogami, you can dodge and angle and weave all you want, it is only a matter of time before the RNG decides to give you the finger and gift the BB player an angled citadel hit. Those stupid hits can sometimes literally end your game right there. If the Mogami (for example) had repair, those [edited] citadel hits while punishing would not be game ending. With repair you could still somewhat recover. After all, Atago already has it and is not OP.
  17. HNMLS_Bloyesvantreslong

    Flotilla leaders small cruisers or large destroyers.

    This is a question that keeps popping in to my mind. When you look at the Shimikaze and Akazuki Destroyers they are very large for their classes around 130 meters. The Atlanta is 160 meters officially a flotilla leader in game as a premium cruiser . The Dutch Tromp and the Heemskerk are officially flotilla leaders 130 meters. The amount of guns and size of the guns of these ships would then be one of the more powerful Destroyer classes in game . Or the most stealthy cruisers in game. If classified as Destroyer a destroyer tech tree would be more than possible. Just take a look at the specs of all 3 ship classes and the 2 dutch variants. Let me know what you think, flotilla leader a cruiser or destroyer. Akizuki on trial run off Miyazu Bay on 17 May 1942. Class overview Name: Akizuki class Builders: Maizuru Naval Arsenal Sasebo Naval Arsenal Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Uraga Dock Company Operators: Imperial Japanese Navy Republic of China Navy Soviet Navy Subclasses: Akizuki class (Pr. F51) Fuyutsuki class (Pr. F51) Michitsuki class (Pr. F53) Cost: 12,090,000 JPY in 1939 17,820,400 JPY in 1941 19,194,000 JPY in 1942 Built: 1940–1945 In commission: 1942–1945 (IJN) Planned: 6 (1939) + 10 (1941) + 23 (1942) Completed: 12 Cancelled: 20 Lost: 6 Retired: 6 General characteristics (as per Whitley[1]) Type: Destroyer Displacement: 2,700 long tons (2,743 t) standard 3,700 long tons (3,759 t) full load Length: 134.2 m (440 ft 3 in) overall Beam: 11.6 m (38 ft 1 in) Draught: 4.15 m (13 ft 7 in) Propulsion: 3 × Ro-Gō Kampon water tube boilers, 2 × Kampon impulse geared turbines, 2 shafts, 52,000 shp (39 MW) Speed: 33 knots (38 mph; 61 km/h) Range: 8,000 nmi (15,000 km) at 18 kn (21 mph; 33 km/h) Complement: 263 (Akizuki in 1942) 315 (Akizuki in October 1944) Armament: Akizuki in 1942[2] 8 × 100 mm / 65 cal Type 98 DP guns (4 × 2) 4 × Type 96 25 mm (0.98 in) AA guns (2 × 2) 4 × Type 92 torpedo tubes (8 × 610 mm Type 93 torpedoes) 56 × Type 95 depth charges Suzutsuki in April 1945[3] 8 × 100 mm / 65 cal Type 98 DP guns (4 × 2) 47 × 25 mm AA guns (7 × 3 + 26 × 1), 3 × 13 mm AA guns (3 × 1) 4 × Type 92 torpedo tubes (1 × 4) 8 × 610 mm Type 93 torpedoes 56 × Type 2 Mod.1 depth charges Shimakaze underway. History Empire of Japan Name: Shimakaze (島風) (Island Wind) Builder: Maizuru Naval Arsenal Laid down: 8 August 1941 Launched: 18 July 1942 Commissioned: 10 May 1943 Struck: 10 January 1945 Fate: Sunk in the Battle of Ormoc Bay near Cebu, Philippines, 11 November 1944 General characteristics Class and type: Shimakaze Type: Destroyer Displacement: 2,570 long tons (2,610 t) (standard)[1] 3,300 long tons (3,400 t) (full load)[2] Length: 129.5 m (424 ft 10 in) o/a 126 m (413 ft 5 in) w/l Beam: 11.2 m (36 ft 9 in) Draft: 4.15 m (13 ft 7 in)[3] Installed power: 75,000 shp (56,000 kW) Propulsion: 2 × Kampon impulse geared steam turbines 3 × Kampon water-tube boilers 2 × shafts Speed: 40.9 kn (75.7 km/h; 47.1 mph) Range: 6,000 nmi (11,000 km; 6,900 mi) at 18 kn (33 km/h; 21 mph) Complement: 267 (May 1943) Armament: As Built: 6 × 12.7 cm Type 3/50 cal dual-purpose guns (3x2) 6 × 25 mm (1 in) Type 96 25mm anti-aircraft guns (2x3)[4] 2 × 13.2 mm (0.52 in) anti-aircraft machine guns (1x2) 15 × 610 mm (24 in) torpedo tubes (3x5) 18 depth charges Early 1944 Refit: 6 × 12.7 cm Type 3/50 cal dual-purpose guns (3x2)[5] 16 × 25 mm (1 in) anti-aircraft guns (4x3, 2x2) (increased in June to 28)[6] 15 × 610 mm (24 in) torpedo tubes (3x5) 36 depth charges Tromp in 1936 Class overview Name: Tromp class Builders: Nederlandsche Scheepsbouw Mij. Operators: Royal Netherlands Navy Built: 1936–1940 In commission: 1938–1969 Completed: 2 General characteristics Type: Flotilla leader Displacement: 3,350 long tons (3,404 t) standard Length: 131.95 m (432 ft 11 in) Beam: 12.43 m (40 ft 9 in) Draught: 4.32 m (14 ft 2 in) Propulsion: 2 Parsons geared steam turbines 4 Yarrow boilers 2 shafts 56,000 shp (41,759 kW) Speed: 32.5 knots (37.4 mph; 60.2 km/h) Complement: 380 (Tromp) 420 (Jacob van Heemskerk) Armament: Tromp : 6 × 150 mm (5.9 in) guns (3×2) 4 × 75 mm 8 × 40 mm (4×2) 2 × 20 mm 6 × 533 mm (21 in) torpedo tubes (2×3) Jacob van Heemskerk : 10 × 102 mm (4 in) guns (5×2) 8 × 40 mm (4×2) 4 × 20 mm Aircraft carried: 1 × Fokker C.XIW floatplane (Tromp)
  18. ABED1984

    Pan Asian DDs and Cruisers

    Are we gonna get a list of the Cruisers that are immune to "Deep Water" torpedoes? I think not all Cruisers will get sunk from these torps.
  19. Before anythin else, I am a cruiser main. I don't like the slow pace of mammoths BBs, and DDs are a bit too fragile to my taste. CVs? don't fit in this game, i'd prefer subs instead. At the beginning i played cruisers in more than 40% of my games, but once you past tier 6, cruisers are a no-go, specially heavy ones (203 mm ones). Their guns don't improve too much; you must fire almost continuously to make some damage, so stealth is rarely useful; they don't have smoke and their armor is like wet paper. On the other side, BBs improve inmensely; their guns get bigger, they outrange every cruiser, armour almost impervious to AP hits from smaller caliber hits and you must rely on HE and fires to get some dmg. And even fires are almost useless against latest Battleships (British) with their OP healing. So time and again, when you play cruisers, you get games like this: A cruiser deleted in two salvos. It's the same if you are firing from max range, changing speed and course, because each hit is an almost a sure citadel. Can't even count the number of times i've been erased by a BB sitting more than 15km away, or the times i received a lone hit... and it's a citadel. To make things even worse, once you get past tier 4, you get matched almost 75% of games against superior tiers. My latest high tier games are a BB vs DD contest, with perhaps a couple cruisers or a CV to spot and harass, while battleships exchange shots at max range, rarely moving and in most cases just sitting there camping bow on. Pls WG, i know you're here to make money, and little things like your customers, or making all ships playable and enjoyable don't mind to you, but i believe you should think a bit in the long term.
  20. jerkchicken

    Moskva HE buff

    The moskva need for real a HE buff... Its just terrible compared to the other T10 CL's. Some comparisons (not all T10): Hindenburg: 4 main turrets, 202mm devided by 4: 50,5mm of penetration and excellent fire change. And great DPM! Zao: 4 main turrets, high HE damage, 203mm devided by 6: 33.8mm of penetration and the best fire change (~19%) Des Moines: 3 main turrets, heavy HE shells, 203mm devided by 6: 33.8mm of penetration and high change of fire per minute. Moskva really needs a HE buff because the way the HE is right now is just really bad. Moskva hits because his arcs alot of the belt armor which in the most case will ''recesse'' (break) = No damage. Moskva now has 220mm of main armament guns which will be devided by 6, so we will come out of 36,7mm of penetration. This can't pen the deck armor of a Yamato, Großer Kurfürst and even the Khabarovsk. While the hindenburg can do this with 4 guns and better reload! And yes why only the moskva? and not the Des moines: Des moines has better arcs that can hit the superstructure better then the moskva can do. Most of the time in the moskva you will use only 2 main guns on the front and not the rear gun. Moskva get focused alot these days, it had worst consealment among all cruisers + bad ruddershift and the worst of all bad belt armor and can get citadeld all over the time with sailing at the weirdest angles. So what does the moskva needs to make the HE useable? Just devide it by 4. So we can atleast pen more then before, because the HE right now is in bad shape real bad shape...
  21. Here I have a list that needs nerfing/reworking and my suggestions on how: British battleships - Fire chance should be greatly reduced, their overpowered heal should be set to a heal that is marginally better than their counterparts, and on higher tier ships their AA should be reduced a little Cruisers - Increase rudder shift time, increase turning circle radius, decrease RoF with high explosive loaded Belfast - Remove Radar and smoke Flint - Remove radar and smoke All Battleships - increase accuracy, reduce the chance to be set on fire HE in general - reduce fire chance and decrease RoF Large guns (above 283mm) increase RoF and increase accuracy Until these changes or something similar is implemented, the Belfast, Flint and British battleships should be BANNED from Random and ranked battles
  22. Hi, anybody knows approximately WHEN the alternative American Cruiser Line is to be expected to launch? +/- 1 month accuracte guess. Thanks
  23. I see that to make the game ever more "just sail around in a BB and shoot at stuff" by removing tactics and variation that the smoke change is about to be inflicted in the most ham fisted way possible. They have therefore removed whatever incentive was left to drive a CA and made the game reward those who play completely, utterly passively (by and large BB players.) There was more than enough of this to wreck DD game play with the ham fisted removal of stealth firing. Yes, it had issues, no it wasn't necessary to create such a brain dead fix - they could for example have made bloom period relative to caliber so a DD firing a 127mm gun would only bloom for 5 seconds whilst a 420mm gun would bloom for the full 20 seconds. But no, the BB players must be given yet more reason to play without thinking. I have not played my Blys since because WG pretended that they would track performance - how about the fact that you almost never see them anymore - when that was just BS. If they were tracking performance they'd have noted that it was a common ship until the "save our BB's from nasty DD players" nerf and now is a VERY rare sight. But what have they done to make the ship more competitive? Nothing. At least this time round WG has had the decency to offer a refund for the ruination of a premium ship. The Blys has just been a €20 mothball without the slightest care from WG apart from the lie that they will track its performance. It was sold as a ship that had no strengths apart from its ability to engage in a very large concealment shadow. It is merely OK at everything else so offers nothing to the player that other ships don't give you better choices in. So now to please arcade warriors in BB's and really finish the Cruiser class off whilst further hampering DD's we have this ham fisted nerf to remove smoke from the game. Which are the only Cruisers that regularly go to the front of the fight? RN Cruisers. Will they now? No, they will probably sit at max range and join the BB's in doing nothing for most of a game as far from the fight as they can get. How about Cruisers supporting DD's in cap? Nope. They need smoke to be an effective supporter in areas in and around cap because they get citadelled by BBs otherwise the moment they fire. Now they fire to support a DD and they get slaughtered anyway. Best thing a CA can do now? Go for max gun range and fire starting ability, sit back at the start line (or go further back if you can) like our heroic BBs do and then spam from max range. Drop all sonar / DD hunting and go for AA modules then cruise around with BBs covering them from air attack and kill steal off the drolling dolts just to annoy them so they can start whining about how CA's should not only be citadelled very easily, they should just blow up altogether if hit by a BB. Oh and they should not be allowed to change tack either. However, there is one Cruiser line for whom this is not viable, who have very limited range, no HE and no ability therefore to start fires: RN Cruisers. Already a highly situational line who need very careful use to get the most out of - rewarding aggressive positioning, punishing a failure to plan hard - are now finito. Especially the Neptune that has for no apparent reason been given an extra 1.16Km of "screw you" by WG. There are inumerable counters to an RN Cruiser - who has no HE remember - sitting in smoke, not least of which is that they are depending on their team to spot and most teams are anything but. Torp wall, radar, sonar and ping! you have a dead RN Cruiser who can be citadelled by a T4 DD. Balance? Nah, why bother! Lets just publish that we will make changes if it seems that RN cruisers are screwed then do nothing because people stop playing them anyway! A simple solution would have been to extend the sonar reach of these ships to match the greatly reduced effectiveness of smoke, but no, they had to finish the RN Cruiser line completely - the Neptune fires and its visible from a completely ridiculous 6.58Km away to ensure that it is seen about as often from now on as a Blys after they got wrecked. The 5.4Km "screw you RN players" the rest get is bad enough but for some reason the Neptune needed to be made completely unplayable. BBs are the greatest poison in this game because every single game I have ever played you can see a cluster of BBs as far from the fight as they can get praying to RNGesus for a bit of long range stat padding. Now they will be joined by CAs for whom there is now no way to utilise smoke to get closer and ambush their much stronger, better gunned, better armoured BB enemy. WG you have sucessfully killed your own game for anyone who wants more than an extremnely passive sit at the back and put your faith in RNGesus arcade game for BBs. Bravo.
  24. Heya all After waiting an utter eternity for the patch to download yesterday i booted up the system and took out British Cruisers into the game and had two games in my Minotaur and a game in the Fiji to test out the new smoke changes. Sadly in both the Minotaur games i was cursed with the worst CV's know to man and both came dead last in the team XP as they both tried to go sniping rather then actually helping the team, and even failed at that, but that is RNG just hating me as i also lost the Fiji game but managed to get double the XP of the next person on my team and 3rd highest overall thanks to 4 kills, confederate and 120k damage. So the smoke change experience. Its not the end of the world, DD's are still terrified to get too close to the smoke and an RN destroyer in general, i had a benson try and spot me in my smoke towards the end of the second game in the Minotaur, at that point the game was already lost so i wasn't too caring wise and promptly deleted him in 4 salvo's and by that point i could see the game was lost so it was a case of doing as much damage as possible, i was spotted in the smoke but then seconds later i was radared. The Fiji game i really did not see much difference the only changes was when i was spotted and attacked by a pair of Queen Elizabeths towards the end of the game and i was just trying to farm as much damage as possible. the only other time i was spotted in my smoke was by a DD that pushed in range and he was also then spotted and took 10k damage before retreating behind his own smoke screen and i disappeared off contact. either way early impression is that it has not made that much of a difference and if you are within 5.5km of the front lines you have over extended and time to fall back, hydro helps but its not 100% whats everyone else's experience so far
  25. Azakeit

    Playing high tier cruisers

    Hello, With the Conqueror right now, I Wonder what is the point playing cruisers anymore ? I recently read the Q&A on reddit with @Sub_Octavian saying that his favorite ship is the Henry 4, but the Conqueror is : - Stealthier (11 km as opposed to 13 IF the H4 takes the concealement module, I play the steering gears mod 3 to try to evade shells...) - More tanky and can heal 50% of damage taken with his repair party, citadel invulnerable - More HE DPM and more HE penetration - More Fires per minutes - Shells have better ballistics (faster travel time) - More AP damage on cruisers due to shorter fuse (less pénétrations and usual citadels on cruisers Don't tell me that the speed is an advantage, for a DD maybe to cap faster but the H4 can't cap with his concealement. And if the point of speed is just to flee... The cruiser accuracy sure is better than battleships, but at approx 15km this has no influence on the outcome of a fight. Cruisers are hard counter to nobody (DD can delete any ships with torpedoes, BB with their AP, CV with a good strike). Cruisers are only here for "sustained DPS" but the only sustained DPS available is Fire, 100% healable, and you have to inflict a lot of fires to a target to destroy it. A BB can easily spec for Fire Prevention and Damage control mod 2 + flags to mitigate fire damage (and sometimes even Basic of Survavibility). Sure a BB captain can spec on other things but AFT and BFT are not required due to the lack of CV in game (and I don't even speak about Clan battles...), only 1 branch of BB can effectively spec into secondaries build. Whereas there's only 1 skill to increase the fire chance and 2 flags, one of them increasing your detonatio chance... And of course no skill to mitigate AP damage a cruiser can receive.
×