How good is the Tirpitz now

[RAMJB]

1 hour ago, Kenliero said:

Yeah. the optimal range to fight with Massa is 10-11km. Not 6km. Everyone is saying that, including me.

It's still way better ship than Tirpitz in secondary battle. Also, you assume that every time the ships engage each other in secondaries, it is bow on and you are already engaging in full speed right towards Massa. That rarely happens in actual fight and if you play Massa intelligently, you never engage ships like that.

You play Massa more like a cruiser. You hit enemies behind islands, over the islands, just like with Atlanta. That is the most effective way to kill ships with secondaries. No other ship can do the way Massa does. 

I could pummel your Tirpitz long before you can even get your guns to Massa, if even one of us have any kind of island cover.

 

You know what, I'm tired of discussing this subject with person who actually have zero experience with 50% of the ships in comparison. You've stuck your head in sand with your favorite ship and stand your ground without actually knowing better. You compare it to something like North Carolina, which is totally different animal. Your whole argument is based only on stats instead of actually playing the ships, so, I rest my case.

 

-optimal range being 10-11km: Exactly. The closer Tirpitz gets the worse for the american ship. close enough (under 8km) he begins having the advantage.

-"It's better in a secondary battle": Depending on the range, but that's besides the point. A Tirpitz is not going  to sit at 10k looking at you raining secondary shells on him. If the situation doesn't allow for the Tirpitz to rush, he's just going to move away and you can't keep him within range (Tirpitz is faster)so you won't win that "secondary battle" because there will be no battle to fight. And if it IS a 1v1, he's going to step on the gas and come straight at you, and then it's no longer a "secondary battle", it's a brawl. And guess which is the best brawler. Tip: it's not Massa.

-"I assume secondary engagements are bow on": And so should you: I assume that if a tirpitz sees a BB he'll point the bow at it. I assume if a Massa sees a BB, he'll point the bow at it. So if a Tirpitz and a Massa see each other, it's going to be a bow on engagement, wether you like it or not, unless one (or both) players are completely clueless and show broadsides. Of course, in a case of a single BB (either Tirpitz or Massa) vs several, spaced, BBs in a crossfire, things change- but in that case both BBs will be equally effed up either way in that position...and if anything Tirpitz has the advantage there (he can turn around without eating citadels and run away at 30 knots, while Massa risks getting citadels, and is slower while running away).

 

"I could pummel your Tirpitz long before you can even get your guns to massa", with island cover". Highly situational - you need to be behind cover high enough for my guns not to reach you but low enough for your secondaries to hit me. Spots like that aren't that common- even while they exist. And it still will make no difference because you'll be pretty much static while I'm racing towards you at 30 knots, your secondaries will do some damage but not (BY FAR) enough to kill a Tirpitz, and once I'm on top of you you're as good as dead once I let torpedo loose. 4 torpedoes at point blank >>>>>>>>>> ten 127mm guns firing in the time it takes me to run from their top range down to your position. And once I turn and let the other 4 loose, guess the rest.

-"you play Massa like Atlanta": So you want to play a T8 full-grown battleship like a T7 paper armor overgrown destroyer?. Not saying secondaries won't be effective like that, mind you, but that's an interesting concept to say the least. I'm sure your cruisers will have a thing or two to tell you about how they feel about me firing at them instead of firing at you, because you're behind a mountain. But hey, if that's your cup of tea, all power to you...

-"you have your head stuck in the sand with your favorite ship". My favorite ship is Gearing, not Tirpitz, my favorite battleship is Yamato, not Tirpitz, and even between the german battleships my favorite one is Scharnhorst, not Tirpitz, and I like Bismarck more than I do Tirpitz (Ironically Bismarck is much weaker vs Massa than Tirpitz but that hydro is really useful while torpedoes are situational and usable only during rushes). I do like Tirpitz, that's a given, but is FAR from being my favorite ship. It's my most played one because until I got a hand on the Missouri she was my prime credit maker, not because it's my "favorite" ship.
Doesn't mean I don't recognize the IMMENSE threat a rushing Tirpitz is even for T10 battleships, let alone a T8 one like Massa.

 

-"My whole argument is made without playing one of the ships": that's an insult to the intelligence of anyone with a proper understanding of game mechanics and who has experience in the game.

See, I've never played a Grozovoi, I PERFECTLY know how a Gearing-Grozo matchup plays. I've never played a Kitakaze, I PERFECTLY know how a Kita vs Z-46 matchup plays. I've never played a Henry IV, I PERFECTLY know how a Hinden-Henry matchup plays. Likewise, I've never played a Massa, but I PERFECTLY know how a Tirpitz-Massa matchup plays. Why?

Because:
A). I have full access to the stats of all the ships, through in-game, and through the many sources of information available about them.
B). I have first hand experience in those matchups, from only one perspective (granted) but against a range of very different skilled players and exctracts conclussions of the outcomes, of what works in each matchup, of what doesn't, of which is the stronger of the two in a 1v1, and which one is the stronger of the two in engagements where a lot of ships are involved.

C). I have a brain that, with A) and B) enables me to extract valid conclussions.

 

In case of Tirpitz, the conclussion is always the same: if a reasonably healthy Tirpitz can rush a Massachussets (meaning, in a straight up 1-v-1 with no other meaningful external factor), the Massa dies. Everytime . No exceptions, and regardless of the player quality on the american ship. And if it's not a 1v1 or the situation isn't adequate for Tirpitz to rush, Tirpitz has the speed to choose what to do. Massa can only do as Tirpitz lets him do so - because Tirpitz is faster and can choose wether to engage or not, and the range of said engagement.


Now, look noone is saying here Massa is that bad. It's not. In fact it seems a great ship indeed (one I'm not interested in because for that cost I want a captain trainer and Massa needs a captain skillset that no other american ship demands). Nobody is even saying Massa is INFERIOR to Tirpitz (because when you hit "to battle" you don't queue to a 1v1 battle), because it's not either. I'm of the opinion that both are equally competitive in a random match, both have advantages and disadvantages in battle, but that's besides the point.

What we're INDEED saying here is that

A) in a 1v1 a Tirpitz will rush the heck out of a Massa, and Massa can't prevent it to do so (because Tirpitz is 10% faster)

and
B) Massa can't, and won't, survive a rush by the best brawling battleship in the game because a) Massa is no brawler, b) Massa can't prevent Tirpitz rushing it, and c) Tirpitz is the best BB at brawling, period. No shame in that.

And that in the context of a random battle both Massa and Tirpitz can do extremely well. Both have different pros and cons. Yet, in the particular scenario of a 1v1 between both, Massa is just the inferior ship. Which comes to no surprise because the same can be said about almost any T8 BB (Bismarck included) because those 8 torpedoes on that turtleback armored 30 knot ship with those secondaries just blast other BBs out of existance and make any 1v1 engagement a foregone conclussion if Tirpitz can close the range. Which it can against almost every thing it crosses paths with.

Doesn't mean, and nobody is saying, that Massa is a worse ship. Means Massa is a worse ship in a 1v1 VS TIRPITZ. That's all

That you're trying to somehow deny that means that the one with the head in the sand here is not me, mate...

[BLUB__BLUB]

39 minutes ago, bloodynicknames said:

 

well, in the montana at least(the only BB i still play mind you) its ok. you can survive for a good while 

I suppose that is a lot better at the GTFO movement than the lower tier US BBs... try that in a Colorado or anything lower.

Have you ever seen a snail in the desert, roasting to a crisp.... 

 

[BLUB__BLUB]

Double post (working as intended... always happens if you are on the "not the end"page).  

 

 

[Mr_Tayto]

Massachusetts (with at least an 18point, specific captain) is by far my favourite ship at the minute.

 

If you have any experience (successful, at least) with NC, Alabama, then Massa fits like a glove. yes, the guns are more inaccurate but a bit of map awareness, positioning and timing means you can hold down a flank by yourself by engaging with mains while the secondaries hurt them. And they do hurt.

[_DeathWing_]

Still good. The best brawler BB at tier VIII. 

[Leo_Apollo11]

Hi all,

 

17 hours ago, gopher31 said:

I have just received a Tirpitz black.

I was comparing it's stats to the Massachusetts black.

 

One is at the top of the T8 battleships standings and one is at the bottom.

Tirpitz does 20,000 less damage per battle on average.

 

I was aware that the normal Tirpitz performed badly but I assumed it was inexperienced players buying it causing it's stats to go down.

 

However, in this event I'd expect those buying the Tirpitz  and Massachusetts black would be the same kind of players.

 

Why then such a difference?

 

If you check the "WoWs Stats & Numbers":

 

https://wows-numbers.com/ship/4292818736,Tirpitz/

 

you can see the "All Time" statistic averages for the "Tirpitz" and comparison to all other "Tier VIII" BBs.

 

 

The Tirpitz is dead last...

 

 

Also if one checks the last week stats for all WoWs ships:

 

"MapleSyrup - Weekly"

 

http://maplesyrup.sweet.coocan.jp/wows/ranking/20181124/eu_week/average_ship.html

 

and last quarter (i.e. 3 months) for all WoWs ships:

 

"MapleSyrup - Quarterly"

 

http://maplesyrup.sweet.coocan.jp/wows/shipstats/eu/ship_20180929.html

 

 

it is quite obvious that stats are falling down drastically... 

 

 

Leo "Apollo11"

 

 

P.S.

The "Tirpitz" is my very 1st "Premium" and still my most played ship...

[Miscommunication_dept]

It does look in need of a buff....

 

[ColonelPete]

40 minutes ago, Leo_Apollo11 said:

Hi all,

 

 

If you check the "WoWs Stats & Numbers":

 

https://wows-numbers.com/ship/4292818736,Tirpitz/

 

you can see the "All Time" statistic averages for the "Tirpitz" and comparison to all other "Tier VIII" BBs.

 

 

The Tirpitz is dead last...

 

 

Also if one checks the last week stats for all WoWs ships:

 

"MapleSyrup - Weekly"

 

http://maplesyrup.sweet.coocan.jp/wows/ranking/20181124/eu_week/average_ship.html

 

and last quarter (i.e. 3 months) for all WoWs ships:

 

"MapleSyrup - Quarterly"

 

http://maplesyrup.sweet.coocan.jp/wows/shipstats/eu/ship_20180929.html

 

 

it is quite obvious that stats are falling down drastically... 

 

 

Leo "Apollo11"

 

 

P.S.

The "Tirpitz" is my very 1st "Premium" and still my most played ship...

Better to read format.

Considering that Bismarck and Tirpitz are VERY similar, it should be obvious that Tirpitz is not a bad ship.

[RAMJB]

13 minutes ago, gopher31 said:

It does look in need of a buff....

 

 

It does not.

[Miscommunication_dept]

9 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

Better to read format.

Considering that Bismarck and Tirpitz are VERY similar, it should be obvious that Tirpitz is not a bad ship.

I'd take Hydro and AA over torps but it does look like it must be player style.

Maybe some are too desperate to use those torps..

[ColonelPete]

Possible. But their stats are very similar apart from WR, damage and kills, which hints at positioning errors and wrong target selection.

Otherwise they tank the same, survive the same, spot the same and have only a slight difference in hit rating.

[BLUB__BLUB]

32 minutes ago, RAMJB said:

 

It does not.

 

Definately does not. My mate has a Bismarck, many times he'd have gotten even more kills and damage when he had torps.

Hydro and AA being of less use to him (he sometimes radars a DD in smoke, but not much else). Planes  = usually eat torps.

WR is a consequence of almost always getting uptiered too - not much you can do to win. He still kills a lot with it though.

 

But hey, I do a lot less in The Monarch - but when I see a Tirpitz, I always look  for signs if it's a Derpitz. And if it is, he's usually toast.

No matter if I am sort of a potato myself, well, I get him - so my guess is stats are quite influenced by that. 
 

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Leo_Apollo11]

Hi all,

 

But have you guys, for example, checked the average damage for the "Tirpitz" and "Bismarck"?

 

"Tirpitz" average damage:

All time = 47.501

Last quarter = 45.358

Last week = 44.719

 

"Bismarck" average damage:

All time = 53.151

Last quarter = 45.949

Last week = 43.736

 

 

Leo "Apollo11"

[ColonelPete]

BB numbers went down slightly. Less HP Pool to share between ships.

[anonym_FDOLXpxOfXXq]

Maybe not a buff, but a bit more differentiation from Bismarck could be interesting, since both ships are quite close in specs now.

[Animalul2012]

bad dispersion, the 105 secondarys are useless at your tier, bad aa ( even tho in real life this ship managed to shot down 39 airplanes and was an aa platform) torpedoes break almost every game and good luck brawling in the current meta. tirpitz and bismarck are just decent ships, nothing special. they would become god like brawlers if they could give the 105mm secondary guns the 1/4 pen. like they are going to do for FDR. oh and roma and kii need buffs aswell, but hey battleships dont deserve buffs, only nerfs.

[BLUB__BLUB]

1 hour ago, Leo_Apollo11 said:

Hi all,

 

But have you guys, for example, checked the average damage for the "Tirpitz" and "Bismarck"?

 

"Tirpitz" average damage:

All time = 47.501

Last quarter = 45.358

Last week = 44.719

 

"Bismarck" average damage:

All time = 53.151

Last quarter = 45.949

Last week = 43.736

 

 

Leo "Apollo11"

Looked at that too, yes. I'd not consider 'last week' though as that is a very short period. 

The thing we learn from 'All time' compared to 'last quarter' is that Bismarck was much heavier hit by the HE spam.

Probably because the Tirpitz also has lower 'All Time' as of the "Derpitz Effect". They do seem very much similar now (as should be).

 

[Miscommunication_dept]

Well, just won the Masschusetts Black via a free container!

 

Great ship, Guns don't seem much worse than an Alabama,

Seems to work well without manual secs  due to the dispersion decrease.

 

Now I have to buy a Atlanta So I can share the captain with something!

[Linkaex]

Why is the Tirpitz B more expensive than the normal Tirpitz? 

[Miscommunication_dept]

It's cheaper at the moment

[RAMJB]

4 hours ago, Leo_Apollo11 said:

Hi all,

 

But have you guys, for example, checked the average damage for the "Tirpitz" and "Bismarck"?

 

"Tirpitz" average damage:

All time = 47.501

Last quarter = 45.358

Last week = 44.719

 

"Bismarck" average damage:

All time = 53.151

Last quarter = 45.949

Last week = 43.736

 

 

Leo "Apollo11"

 

 

 

the dropoff is not a new thing. It's not either something ongoing in the last quarter or last week, it's been happening for long months now. And it's not related with the new HE spam meta because german BBs are the ones that suffer the least from it (because they have on average much thicker plating than other nations BBs)

The reason is different.

Simply stated, each time either BB is matchmaked with an american T8+ CV or a GZ, those ships are usually the first ones to go since they can be deleted by a single strike from those very balanced AP bombs. CV drivers know it and actively do it all the time. A dead ship in the 3 first minutes of a battle doesn't score any damage, bringing the averages down. Those ships are walking corpses the second an american CV is in play, and those who aren't are seriously handcuffed by being pretty much forced to stick next to an AA cruiser for the duration of the battle, completely ruining their ability to exploit independent positioning or actively looking for flanks to achieve crossfires, thus scoring far less than what they usually would.

 

No real way around it, and is the main reason the second I queue in any german BB and I see carriers on the queue I immediately return to port, wait a couple minutes, and try again. Which I've begun to do anyway in most ships because CVs, simply stated, have no place in this game and should've been never introduced. But with the german BBs is pretty much a must do.

[Miscommunication_dept]

4 minutes ago, RAMJB said:

 

 

the dropoff is not a new thing, since AP bomb introduction. It's not either something ongoing in the last quarter or last week, it's been happening for long months now.

Simply stated, each time either BB is matchmaked with an american T8+ CV or a GZ, those ships are usually the first ones to go since they can be deleted by a single strike from those very balanced planes. CV drivers know it and actively do it all the time. A dead ship in the 3 first minutes of a battle doesn't score any damage, bringing the averages down. And those ships are walking corpses the second an american CV is in play.

Makes sense.

I had one drop from a Lexington(?) that took 48,000hp from me in my Bismarck.

The Tirpitz has far worse AA, there is no better target for AP bombs!

The rework may change things.

[RAMJB]

4 minutes ago, gopher31 said:

Makes sense.

I had one drop from a Lexington(?) that took 48,000hp from me in my Bismarck.

The Tirpitz has far worse AA, there is no better target for AP bombs!

The rework may change things.

There should be no rework because nothing can balance a class that has no business in a surface gunnery combat game. The only way to handle the CV "problem" is to just amputate the problem, and take the whole class off PVP modes. It should've never been added to this game to begin with anyway.

And the rework will do nothing because AP bombs are still present there, and those very balanced, very fair, tools, will keep on doing what they've been doing until now to ships with any meaningful deck armor. Which is, deleting them outright.

But that's completely off topic, so I'll leave it there.

[ColonelPete]

14 minutes ago, gopher31 said:

Makes sense.

I had one drop from a Lexington(?) that took 48,000hp from me in my Bismarck.

The Tirpitz has far worse AA, there is no better target for AP bombs!

The rework may change things.

Just an Enterprise:

 

[RAMJB]

That's a tremendously lucky tirpitz. 9/10 times he'd been straight up deleted, seems the stars alligned for him on that one...