Jump to content
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
Anthoniusii

Lion British Battleship or Cruiser?

27 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Players
407 posts

The question in the title has to do with the extremly small ammount of hit points the spesific ship has for tier 9.

Even its abillity to repair in larger areas does not counter measure that lack of hit points that are 14000 less than the next weakest tier 9 Batteship because before a player will try to re-use the consumable is already sunk!

So WG can you answer us what is Lion anyway? A Battleship (it has less hit points than Bismack that is a tier less), a Battlecruiser (it has not the agillity that would justify that) or a heavy Cruiser because if it is why is in the line of batteships?

Even in WG's description , mentions Lions heavier armor than King George or Monarch but actually is a paper armor in reality.

So either British shipbuilders were IDIOTS according to WG or WG has somekind of hate in anything British as I notticed in World of Tanks were all British tanks that saw action and proved themselvs in battles are crap comparing to imaginary tanks of other nations. Can a WG member answer us please why such hate fo anything British?

Not to mention LEANDER that has same gun range with the Destroyers that supposed that hunted!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TKBS]
[TKBS]
Alpha Tester
888 posts
8,096 battles

the fact that if you use it right is the ship with more hp on his tier is a little detail right? even more than the musashi .

i smell a git gud here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PARAZ]
Beta Tester
11,329 posts
16,508 battles

I don't really like the Lion because in my experience her dispersion is even more trollish than on German BBs.

Never had any problems with her survivability tho. Proper DCP management, topkek heal and practical invulnerability to citadels allows her to absorb hilarious levels of punishment.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,788 posts
1,673 battles
31 minutes ago, Anthoniusii said:

So either British shipbuilders were IDIOTS according to WG or WG has somekind of hate in anything British as I notticed in World of Tanks were all British tanks that saw action and proved themselvs in battles are crap comparing to imaginary tanks of other nations. Can a WG member answer us please why such hate fo anything British?

 

 

Proved themselves in battles?

 

Conq never fired a shot in anger, Caern never saw service, the whole assault gun line is fiction with ONE Tortoise being built and the project canceled. Most of the arty are fiction.

 

Crusader was a failure and the early cruisers proved to be obsolete.

 

No the Churchill was pretty good in rough terrain  which made it useful in Italy but they where easy targets in NW Europe. Cromwell was a very good recce tank but was not a good battle tank, google Wittman and his little joyride through the 7th Armoured Division.

 

Now the Centurion was a god of tanks and ingame the Cents are what they where in real life, good hulldown snipers

 

Now take your [edited] and bugger off pwease

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ADRIA]
[ADRIA]
Players
4,945 posts
7,322 battles
1 hour ago, Anthoniusii said:

with the extremly small ammount of hit points the spesific ship has for tier 9.

Which is still far above anything any cruiser has (battlecruisers are a different story). So the answer is clear.

 

All RN BBs, at least at tiers 7+, have relatively low HP pool, you should have noticed.

 

1 hour ago, Anthoniusii said:

Even its abillity to repair in larger areas does not counter measure that lack of hit points that are 14000 less than the next weakest tier 9 Batteship

Oh yeah it does. Quite quickly in fact.

 

Also Alsace is 6.8k HP ahead of Lion, so that's way way below your 14k

 

1 hour ago, Anthoniusii said:

Battlecruiser

These are not actually separated out. There are plenty of BCs in both - BB and CA - lines

 


 

Overall it sounds like a classic case of "git gud"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WCWVE]
Players
897 posts
14,465 battles

The historic reason why British Battleships are smaller HP wise can be traced back to Jackie Fisher's policy of new ships but no new dockyards, hence British Battleships had to be constructed so that thy could be serviced/repaired in the existing dockyards

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[B0TS]
Beta Tester
1,782 posts
6,332 battles
1 hour ago, pzkpfwv1d said:

The historic reason why British Battleships are smaller HP wise can be traced back to Jackie Fisher's policy of new ships but no new dockyards, hence British Battleships had to be constructed so that thy could be serviced/repaired in the existing dockyards

RMS Titanic - 262.1 x 28.2m, launched 1911                  

HMS Warspite - 196.2 x 27.6m, launched 1913                         SMS Baden - 180x30, launched 1915

HMS Nelson - 220x32m, launched 1925                                      KMS Scharnhorst - 234.9x30m, launched 1936

HMS KGV - 227x31m, launched 1939                                           KMS Bismarck - 241.6x36m, launched 1939

The Lion class ,1939,would have been 239.3x32m, so still smaller than Bis', but 10% less tonnage (full load) so perhaps to be expected.

 

Not so different until Bismarck, so not so much to do with Jackie F perhaps :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,788 posts
1,673 battles

British BBs have less hp because of the superheal.

 

They had average hp in supertest where it was found the superheal made them far too good. So WG decided to keep the crappy gimick and nerf the hp to "balance".

 

All we bloody wanted as a good, solid line of workhorse BBs along the lines of Hood and Warspite. A heal that could do  percentage of cit damage maybe and the Hood style AP fuses would of made an interesting line not these stupid flamethrowers.

 

Would of made a line of tanky, light cruiser killers with less overpens at the cost of range and distance pen but a heal that could heal a bit more than others as compensation.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
[NWP]
Players
8,241 posts
11,737 battles

Well Vanguard has MORE hp than the Lion which is amusing as I'm fairly sure Vanguard is an incomplete Lion Hull with old 15" turrets taken out of storage and popped on her so Britain could get one more BB at short notice.

 

Vanguard armour is trash too, I'm fairly sure it differs from Lion...

 

Balance I guess? :Smile_child:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BGBRD]
Players
322 posts
9,762 battles
7 hours ago, Negativvv said:

Vanguard armour is trash too, I'm fairly sure it differs from Lion...

Balance I guess? :Smile_child:

The armor is pritty much the same... it's just that Vanguard have citadel that is not 50 m beneath the water line and after all Vanguard is T8, Lion is T9.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SICK]
Weekend Tester
4,852 posts
10,027 battles

 

8 hours ago, fallenkezef said:

All we bloody wanted as a good, solid line of workhorse BBs

 

You can blame a fellow much like yourself for that, spouting how the KGV absolutely had to be T7, how British guns absolutely couldn't be made to function because of low velocity, and this sort of trash actually reaching some STs and people on Facebook who took offense to one or two tiers being harder to play. 

Thus they came up with a solution to make sure everyone and their mother could make the branch function : give it ammo that's effective no matter the range, target and angle. 

 

 

Interestingly, this fellow sowed the seeds of destruction, and left right after the branch was released. 

 

 

And this, my friend, is why nationalism and game balance don't mix. 

It didn't for German BBs, it didn't for RN BBs, and it didn't for French BBs who campaigned for years to have the absolutely moronic 29knot remastered Normandie, and the insanity that is the Lyon. 

And the "WG hates the French because République doesn't have 3x4 431mm guns. " which I find particularly insane. 

 

 

Just keep the two separated, and the game will be so much better off. 

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,788 posts
1,673 battles
11 minutes ago, Exocet6951 said:

 

 

You can blame a fellow much like yourself for that, spouting how the KGV absolutely had to be T7, how British guns absolutely couldn't be made to function because of low velocity, and this sort of trash actually reaching some STs and people on Facebook who took offense to one or two tiers being harder to play. 

Thus they came up with a solution to make sure everyone and their mother could make the branch function : give it ammo that's effective no matter the range, target and angle. 

 

 

Interestingly, this fellow sowed the seeds of destruction, and left right after the branch was released. 

 

 

And this, my friend, is why nationalism and game balance don't mix. 

It didn't for German BBs, it didn't for RN BBs, and it didn't for French BBs who campaigned for years to have the absolutely moronic 29knot remastered Normandie, and the insanity that is the Lyon. 

And the "WG hates the French because République doesn't have 3x4 431mm guns. " which I find particularly insane. 

 

 

Just keep the two separated, and the game will be so much better off. 

 

Much like myself?

 

Thanks for the morning chuckle. I've always been against nationalist gimicks, I've been a campaigner for characteristics based on historical accuracy.

I believe the Royal Navy was one of the best not because our ships where somehow better (they where not) but because the sailors where generaly better trained, stubborn and dedicated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
2,551 posts
2,756 battles
1 hour ago, fallenkezef said:

I believe the Royal Navy was one of the best not because our ships where somehow better (they where not) but because the sailors where generaly better trained, stubborn and dedicated.

Always having more ships than the two closest competing navies combined - which is admittedly a sound strategy if you can afford it - may also have been a contributing factor? :Smile_Default:

(Please note that I am not disputing the quality of British sailors.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
1,932 posts
6,131 battles
2 hours ago, fallenkezef said:

I've been a campaigner for characteristics based on historical accuracy.

 

And that is the problem. Any person with nationalistic tendencies will say that their navy were the best at X or having the best Y based on Z. For instance: "German accuracy were the best due to superior optics which was proven when Bismarck sank the Hood!" and "Britain had the best radars at the start of the war so RN ships should have radar" or other such nonsense.

 

In any case, a redesign of the RN BBs could work by simply giving them citadels, slightly increase their accuracy/sigma (adjust their fuse times as well, I suppose) and reduce their fire chance significantly. With these changes, the ships will be turned from unskilled and "unpunishable" HE-spammers to ships with low(er) calibre guns but with great HE damage to deal with angled ships.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,788 posts
1,673 battles
23 minutes ago, Kartoffelmos said:

 

And that is the problem. Any person with nationalistic tendencies will say that their navy were the best at X or having the best Y based on Z. For instance: "German accuracy were the best due to superior optics which was proven when Bismarck sank the Hood!" and "Britain had the best radars at the start of the war so RN ships should have radar" or other such nonsense.

 

In any case, a redesign of the RN BBs could work by simply giving them citadels, slightly increase their accuracy/sigma (adjust their fuse times as well, I suppose) and reduce their fire chance significantly. With these changes, the ships will be turned from unskilled and "unpunishable" HE-spammers to ships with low(er) calibre guns but with great HE damage to deal with angled ships.

Any person? I'm a Brit nationalist and I'm not asking for radar....

 

I'd like to see the Belfast's radar removed so we can have that iconic ship back on sale without being stupidly op.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
533 posts
9,698 battles
6 hours ago, Kartoffelmos said:

In any case, a redesign of the RN BBs could work by simply giving them citadels, slightly increase their accuracy/sigma (adjust their fuse times as well, I suppose) and reduce their fire chance significantly. With these changes, the ships will be turned from unskilled and "unpunishable" HE-spammers to ships with low(er) calibre guns but with great HE damage to deal with angled ships.

 

I completely agree, I find the Vanguard to be exactly what the line should have been and I was also devastated when the KGV was moved down to tier 7, cause it made one of the tanky-est  BBs built into something that is over-matched by everything from every angle all for it to be able to fight tier 5 cruisers so it can over-match them.

 

I have tried many times to use AP in the line but ended on giving up unless under 8km from the target as the dispersion is so bad you only end up with Shatters/Over-pens/Bounces, which means your back to slinging HE praying to RNGesus you hit the target then praying again that you cause multiple fires...

 

Get rid of the OP HE fix the wonky guns and maybe give them a improved rudder (though not as good as Vanguard, 7.8 secs might be pushing it) presto you have an interesting line that rewards good aim and using the rudder to mitigate damage, no need for a super heal or Napalm HE shells.

 

Then it will bring the tech-tree inline with the premiums other than Nelson and DoY.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BBMM]
Players
3,966 posts
4,426 battles
16 minutes ago, Chaos_Umbra said:

 

I completely agree, I find the Vanguard to be exactly what the line should have been and I was also devastated when the KGV was moved down to tier 7, cause it made one of the tanky-est  BBs built into something that is over-matched by everything from every angle all for it to be able to fight tier 5 cruisers so it can over-match them.

 

Well, you can imagine my joy when I was greeted by King Grog the Filth after liking Queen Elizabeth and buying Hood...

ALMOST glad to have those same guns (with just a bit of extra Oomph...) back in T8 on the Bone-Argh. 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[B0TS]
Beta Tester
1,782 posts
6,332 battles
37 minutes ago, Chaos_Umbra said:

 

...the KGV was moved down to tier 7, cause it made one of the tanky-est  BBs built into something that is over-matched by everything from every angle ...

 

18 minutes ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

 

Well, you can imagine my joy when I was greeted by King Grog the Filth after liking Queen Elizabeth and buying Hood...

 

 

I was lucky enough to get T4-6 via boxes and really looked forward to KGV, until reality hit and actually 'rejected' the concept and how WG implemented her (serious levels of'rejection'), strangely I like the DoY.... weird. Monarch..hmmph. But the premiums.. oh the premiums.. serious love for those :)

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
533 posts
9,698 battles
38 minutes ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

 

Well, you can imagine my joy when I was greeted by King Grog the Filth after liking Queen Elizabeth and buying Hood...

ALMOST glad to have those same guns (with just a bit of extra Oomph...) back in T8 on the Bone-Argh. 

 

 

17 minutes ago, philjd said:

 

I was lucky enough to get T4-6 via boxes and really looked forward to KGV, until reality hit and actually 'rejected' the concept and how WG implemented her (serious levels of'rejection'), strangely I like the DoY.... weird. Monarch..hmmph. But the premiums.. oh the premiums.. serious love for those :)

 

I was so disgusted by the existence of the Monarch that I Free XP'd to the Lion (did not even consider buying it), The Lions okay but still the same accuracy and RNG reliance as the rest of the line... The line totally needs a rework, almost as much as the CVs did whether that succeeds or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BBMM]
Players
3,966 posts
4,426 battles
1 minute ago, Chaos_Umbra said:

I was so disgusted by the existence of the Monarch that I Free XP'd to the Lion (did not even consider buying it), The Lions okay but still the same accuracy and RNG reliance as the rest of the line... The line totally needs a rework, almost as much as the CVs did whether that succeeds or not.

 

See, this part I do not understand. AFAIK the line is fine upto T6 & Hood. 

What you get is sturdy BBs, after that they are made from cake and can't shoot straight or kill anything.

The Monarch is what the KGV should have been, but at T8... which means it is mediocre at best with its trollish RNG.

 

Yeah sure some (most?) people do good in KGV. Well yeah, hide behind stuff and set fires (it IS good at that). But no fun.

Also, I'm definately not liking 'Mega-heal'. If you have a large health pool, like Hood, well you can be sure an extra hit/fire is not gonna kill you.

But in KGV/Monarch (probably also in Lion/Conq) it might just mean the end if your heal is on cooldown or can't keep up.

Resulting, you have to play 'fast in fast out' drive-by shootings. But it's not that fast, nor as agile as Hood (at T7).

And usually I seem to miss a barn door at 10m with it. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
533 posts
9,698 battles
6 minutes ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

 

See, this part I do not understand. AFAIK the line is fine upto T6 & Hood. 

What you get is sturdy BBs, after that they are made from cake and can't shoot straight or kill anything.

The Monarch is what the KGV should have been, but at T8... which means it is mediocre at best with its trollish RNG.

 

Yeah sure some (most?) people do good in KGV. Well yeah, hide behind stuff and set fires (it IS good at that). But no fun.

Also, I'm definately not liking 'Mega-heal'. If you have a large health pool, like Hood, well you can be sure an extra hit/fire is not gonna kill you.

But in KGV/Monarch (probably also in Lion/Conq) it might just mean the end if your heal is on cooldown or can't keep up.

Resulting, you have to play 'fast in fast out' drive-by shootings. But it's not that fast, nor as agile as Hood (at T7).

And usually I seem to miss a barn door at 10m with it. 

 

What I meant by needing a rework for the whole line is that the Stupid HE trait needs to be removed then in compensation the accuracy can be improved as there won't be the risk of 4 fires with every salvo, the survive-ability drop at tier 7 is due to the designs moving to an all or nothing Armor scheme like the High tier US BBs (means lots of 25-32mm armor all over that is weak to HE and can be over-matched), also WG doesn't consider the effectiveness of Cemented composite armor that was part of the main belt, and as such the side armor is weaker then it's IRL counterpart.

 

Basically I would remove the stupid HE trait and portable dry dock and replace those with reasonable accuracy, decent maneuverability and tankyness when angled but can be citadel-ed.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×