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

More heavy cruisers needed?

60 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[NWP]
Beta Tester
1,184 posts
11,870 battles

Hello dear fellow captains and WG staff,

 

while pondering about buying some santa crates I re-noticed that while there is a huge number of premium BB's and a lot of more or less gimicky premium CL's our current premium ship selection is very limited when it comes to open-water heavy cruisers (Atago and clones, Prinz Eugen; not counting the Russians for obvious reasons). Some navies don't have CA's at all, not even in the tech tree. In the end I did not buy additional crates because I already have a large enough selection of premium BB's and I am tired of having to hide behind rocks or in smoke to be effective in a CL.

 

So how about some more plain solid heavy cruisers in order to the strengthen the cruiser meta (and I am not talking about battlecruisers or large cruisers like Alaska)?

 

If I would be allowed one wish for 2019 this would be one of them (along with restoring the old division window). What do you think?

  • Cool 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
277 posts
11,476 battles

Where, where?

 

They need to give heavy cruisers a reason to exist before they add more. Right now there is rarely a good reason to play them instead of a similar IFHE CL.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Players
3,517 posts
5,849 battles
5 minutes ago, 300ConfirmedKills said:

They need to give heavy cruisers a reason to exist before they add more. Right now there is rarely a good reason to play them instead of a similar IFHE CL.

 

This.

Best proof: 155 Mogami > 203 Mogami.

There is no tradeoff for IFHE. The skill is bad in itself and shouldnt exist. Ships should be balanced properly, by giving them the correct HE penetration and then balance the DPM between CLs and CAs.

And i think the all or nothing damage for HE is kinda bad, kinda hard to explain like that: If you dont have IFHE you can basicly only hurt the superstructure. With IFHE the damageable area expands to pretty much every part of the ship except some BBs and Moskva/Stalin. That simply means, that most CAs are screwed against CL HE. So they lose in HE DPM, but also they cant win in AP DPM, because the CL can just angle, while the CA cant.

There must be a distinct difference in CL/CA armor, and currently there really isnt. You could go as far and say, CL citadels are harder to hit than their heavy brethren, if you compare Moskva vs Worcester f.e. Moskva can bowtank very long, but get his broadside and he WILL die (maybe not in one salvo if he has full HP). Getting a Broadside Worcester and its rolling the dice if you devastate him, get 1-2 cits or 1-2 overpens.

 

How to balance that? Personaly im not sure, the closest which could work in my mind:

- Make the plating really thin, that 203mm CA AP can overmatch it.

- Remove the Citadel

- Elevate the current Citadel belt armor, so that BBs have a chance to get penetrations when they shoot them broadside

  • Cool 3
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Beta Tester
1,184 posts
11,870 battles

I think one possible approach could be to distinguish CA AP and CL HE better.

 

CA AP - Fast shells, high range, flat arcs, slower reload, possibly add a "IFHE" skill for AP which e.g. is turning regular AP into sAP and give CA decent armor => open water cruisers

CL HE - Slow shells, low range, rainbow arcs, faster reload, IFHE => out-of-line-of-sight cruisers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
3,545 posts
7,307 battles
18 minutes ago, DFens_666 said:

 

This.

Best proof: 155 Mogami > 203 Mogami.

There is no tradeoff for IFHE. The skill is bad in itself and shouldnt exist. Ships should be balanced properly, by giving them the correct HE penetration and then balance the DPM between CLs and CAs.

And i think the all or nothing damage for HE is kinda bad, kinda hard to explain like that: If you dont have IFHE you can basicly only hurt the superstructure. With IFHE the damageable area expands to pretty much every part of the ship except some BBs and Moskva/Stalin. That simply means, that most CAs are screwed against CL HE. So they lose in HE DPM, but also they cant win in AP DPM, because the CL can just angle, while the CA cant.

There must be a distinct difference in CL/CA armor, and currently there really isnt. You could go as far and say, CL citadels are harder to hit than their heavy brethren, if you compare Moskva vs Worcester f.e. Moskva can bowtank very long, but get his broadside and he WILL die (maybe not in one salvo if he has full HP). Getting a Broadside Worcester and its rolling the dice if you devastate him, get 1-2 cits or 1-2 overpens.

 

How to balance that? Personaly im not sure, the closest which could work in my mind:

- Make the plating really thin, that 203mm CA AP can overmatch it.

- Remove the Citadel

- Elevate the current Citadel belt armor, so that BBs have a chance to get penetrations when they shoot them broadside

I wonder about "minor penetrations" for HE. Lets say, Mogami 155mm have by default 25mm HE pen, as she have now. Ships with 25mm plating and below get normal HE damage (0.3), but ships with plating above that receive only 0.1 HE damage.

 

To prevent DD killing BB by shooting main belt, if plating hit exceeds HE pen+30% then shell shatters and deals no damage. That way change could be applied to CL only, without changing plating across the entire game. 

 

Then, IFHE would improve "minor pens" at complete expense of fire chance. Or change skill into something else entirely

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Players
3,517 posts
5,849 battles
8 minutes ago, Panocek said:

I wonder about "minor penetrations" for HE. Lets say, Mogami 155mm have by default 25mm HE pen, as she have now. Ships with 25mm plating and below get normal HE damage (0.3), but ships with plating above that receive only 0.1 HE damage.

 

To prevent DD killing BB by shooting main belt, if plating hit exceeds HE pen+30% then shell shatters and deals no damage. That way change could be applied to CL only, without changing plating across the entire game. 

 

Then, IFHE would improve "minor pens" at complete expense of fire chance. Or change skill into something else entirely

 

That sounds good too, ive been thinking about that aswell, a bit different.

Like you still have to take IFHE, but as a tradeoff you will deal less HE damage in general. That way you could choose, if you want to deal more damage to lightly armored ships/parts, or deal more constant damage but less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
3,545 posts
7,307 battles
2 minutes ago, DFens_666 said:

 

That sounds good too, ive been thinking about that aswell, a bit different.

Like you still have to take IFHE, but as a tradeoff you will deal less HE damage in general. That way you could choose, if you want to deal more damage to lightly armored ships/parts, or deal more constant damage but less.

HE damage reduction as IFHE penalty could work too.

 

Or go World of Tanks way

Equation_explosion-damage.png

 

Basically, if HE shell doesn't penetrate, it deals half damage THEN armor thickness further reduces damage received up to complete absorption. What could be added as upgrade is spall liner, further reducing HE impact. No idea if it was used in warboats though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-AP-]
Players
588 posts
2,683 battles
44 minutes ago, DFens_666 said:

 

How to balance that? Personaly im not sure, the closest which could work in my mind:

- Make the plating really thin, that 203mm CA AP can overmatch it.

- Remove the Citadel

- Elevate the current Citadel belt armor, so that BBs have a chance to get penetrations when they shoot them broadside

There is a need for a rebalance between ca and cl, but this is just stupid. We dont need more overmatch spam that you cant angle against, that will just make everything all the more braindead.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Players
3,517 posts
5,849 battles
2 minutes ago, thiextar said:

There is a need for a rebalance between ca and cl, but this is just stupid. We dont need more overmatch spam that you cant angle against, that will just make everything all the more braindead.

 

But HE spam you cant do nothing against is fine? Thats what its currently is....

In general it doesnt matter, but since the HE DPM from CLs is so high, it actually does matter with CA <-> CL interaction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[AXIS]
Beta Tester
4,057 posts
17,279 battles

If you guyz remember long long time ago, DE was +5%, while Fire Prevention was jackshit. Because of BB tears, they nerfed DE to +2%, while buffing Fire Prevention to what is today. Also they eliminated AFT for medium guns and stealth firing, so light cruisers were fuked. IFHE came as a compensation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HUN]
Players
204 posts
2,137 battles

I know that sometimes a little bit of historical accuracy has to be sacrificed for gameplay balance, but we shouldn't throw too much historical accuracy out the window either.

 

  • Cool 2
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TOXIC]
Players
1,143 posts
16,353 battles
3 minutes ago, DFens_666 said:

 

But HE spam you cant do nothing against is fine? Thats what its currently is....

In general it doesnt matter, but since the HE DPM from CLs is so high, it actually does matter with CA <-> CL interaction.

 

Changing one bad mechanic with another only push problem somewhere else. Reducing damage when using IFHE have way more sense than making CLs frustrating to play by making them overmetchable by anything above 200mm. WG tried this with 13mm DD plating and 25mm BB bow and it didn't ended well. Tuning IFHE and increasing CAs durability and better AP/HE penetration sound more reasonable.

 

49 minutes ago, Ubertron_X said:

I think one possible approach could be to distinguish CA AP and CL HE better.

 

CA AP - Fast shells, high range, flat arcs, slower reload, possibly add a "IFHE" skill for AP which e.g. is turning regular AP into sAP and give CA decent armor => open water cruisers

CL HE - Slow shells, low range, rainbow arcs, faster reload, IFHE => out-of-line-of-sight cruisers

 

Guns muzzle velocity and shell weight are more or less based on historical values. Also some ships were balanced around gun characteristics. US CAs don't need flatter arcs, they were already powerful enough. Also what would be point of having Chapayev with rainbow arcs if you have Cleveland. 

 

1 minute ago, 22cm said:

If you guyz remember long long time ago, DE was +5%, while Fire Prevention was jackshit. Because of BB tears, they nerfed DE to +2%, while buffing Fire Prevention to what is today. Also they eliminated AFT for medium guns and stealth firing, so light cruisers were fuked. IFHE came as a compensation. 

 

IFHE also enable high tier CLs. Without IFHE, Wooster and Seattle would be a c***. Only thing they would be able to damage would be superstructures and DDs. They wouldn't be able to pen even the armour of themselves. IFHE is currently to powerful but without it CLs, with exception of RN, should stop at T7. Yes it is stupid design that some ships were basically so much dependent on one skill for consistent damage, but without complete overhaul of HE pen mechanics, IFHE is necessary skill. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
3,586 posts
7,303 battles
27 minutes ago, 22cm said:

so light cruisers were fuked. IFHE came as a compensation. 

 

IFHE was there purely for one ship, Akizuki, but then WG in their wisdom moved the 6" guns out of tier 6 where they belong and into T8/9/10 where they don't.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
6,241 posts
14,480 battles
On 12/13/2018 at 8:41 PM, fumtu said:

IFHE also enable high tier CLs. Without IFHE, Wooster and Seattle would be a c***. Only thing they would be able to damage would be superstructures and DDs. They wouldn't be able to pen even the armour of themselves. IFHE is currently to powerful but without it CLs, with exception of RN, should stop at T7. Yes it is stupid design that some ships were basically so much dependent on one skill for consistent damage, but without complete overhaul of HE pen mechanics, IFHE is necessary skill. 

 

As the controversy about IFHE cruisers and heavy cruisers is older, some might think an overhaul of HE pen mechanics should had been made BEFORE the US CL line release...

 

On 12/13/2018 at 8:52 PM, Capra76 said:

 

IFHE was there purely for one ship, Akizuki, but then WG in their wisdom moved the 6" guns out of tier 6 where they belong and into T8/9/10 where they don't.

 

Hahahahahahahaha... just nope!

IFHE got into the game namely Kutusow and Cleveland players whined about "my HE doesn't do damage when BB superstructure is saturated".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TOXIC]
Players
1,143 posts
16,353 battles
9 minutes ago, Capra76 said:

 

IFHE was there purely for one ship, Akizuki, but then WG in their wisdom moved the 6" guns out of tier 6 where they belong and into T8/9/10 where they don't.

 

This is not true. Akizuki had improved HE pen before IFHE was introduced and this was returned to 1/6 value after that. IFHE is always intended for 152mm guns. Also keeping 6inch guns only on lower and mid tiers don't have sense. There is a lot of cruisers equipped with 6inch guns and this would mean that a lot of them probably would never be implemented into the game.

 

8 minutes ago, Alipheese_XV said:

 

As the controversy about IFHE cruisers and heavy cruisers is older, some might think an overhaul of HE pen mechanics should had been made BEFORE the US CL line release...

 

Shoulda coulda woulda ...

 

6 minutes ago, Alipheese_XV said:

 

Hahahahahahahaha... just nope!

IFHE got into the game namely Kutusow and Cleveland players whined about "my HE doesn't do damage when BB superstructure is saturated".

 

But this is not a "whining" that is not based on facts. 152mm in T10 games, especially with usual 5 BBs were definitely lacking. Try to play Cleveland now with and without IFHE and tell me if there is a difference. Problem is that skill is simple to powerful and definitely mandatory for all CLs. It is also mandatory for Jutland and Daring as without them their HE can't even pen a BB superstructure or DD hull. Currently it is no brainier when you consider what you are getting with it and what you are loosing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Players
3,517 posts
5,849 battles
21 minutes ago, fumtu said:

Changing one bad mechanic with another only push problem somewhere else. Reducing damage when using IFHE have way more sense than making CLs frustrating to play by making them overmetchable by anything above 200mm. WG tried this with 13mm DD plating and 25mm BB bow and it didn't ended well. Tuning IFHE and increasing CAs durability and better AP/HE penetration sound more reasonable.

 

As i said, i dont oppose the idea (i think i also mentioned that once i made a thread about IFHE). And we are anyway just throwing out ideas here, its not like WG is usually listening to us :Smile_teethhappy:

The difference between the 2 ideas:

- Having CLs getting overmatched by smaller caliber AP doesnt interact with BBs at all. Thats why i said remove the citadel, which make them more durable vs BB AP, while at the same time making them overmatchable is making them weaker vs CA AP. Imo thats not a bad idea, because CAs should be strong against CLs, and it wouldnt hurt if BBs would be weaker against CLs.

 

- If you reduce HE damage based on armor thickness, BBs will again get the upper hand in that change, as they naturally have more armor. CLs get "more" weaker vs BBs than vs CAs. That was Panoceks 2nd idea. The first one would be more reasonable as it doesnt make a difference if the armor is 30 or 32mm. If you cant pen it, you will only deal x0,1 damage, which means its the same for CAs and BBs.

 

1 hour ago, thiextar said:

There is a need for a rebalance between ca and cl, but this is just stupid. We dont need more overmatch spam that you cant angle against, that will just make everything all the more braindead.

 

I forgot to mention, that by having a higher belt armor, you can ofc use that to bounce shells (i wrote it, but i think you dismissed the idea rather fast).

Also i totaly disagree that overmatching is braindead. You see the difference in BB behaviour between midtiers and hightiers? Midtiers you cant just sit bow in like a retard and get away with it. Hightiers you can do that unless you see a Yamato/Musashi infront.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[4_0_4]
Players
4,294 posts
10,731 battles
1 hour ago, Capra76 said:

the 6" guns out of tier 6 where they belong and into T8/9/10 where they don't.

 

Wait, whut? Why?

 

The Wooster belongs next to the Des Moines, but IFHE is questionable.

 

1 hour ago, Capra76 said:

IFHE was there purely for one ship, Akizuki,

 

And nope. after all, they buffed the 100mm to 1/4 HE pen, which made IFHE 100mm guns broken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Players
3,517 posts
5,849 battles
2 hours ago, fumtu said:

WG tried this with 13mm DD plating

 

Forgot that one aswell:

You cant look at DDs and say its the same thing compared to CLs. DDs getting overmatch by 203mm CA AP would be far worse than BB AP was. Better accuracy, faster reload, look at a Hindi with almost 2k AP penetration damage, with 12 shells in the air! Or Zao... That would be horrible. Cruisers should counter DDs, but that would have been crazy.

 

With CAs / CLs its imo different: CAs are supposed to be stronger than CLs. Currently CLs just out DPM the CAs, while not being much more vulnerable. Depending on the angle, CAs can be more vulnerable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TOXIC]
Players
1,143 posts
16,353 battles
2 minutes ago, DFens_666 said:

 

Forgot that one aswell:

You cant look at DDs and say its the same thing compared to CLs. DDs getting overmatch by 203mm CA AP would be far worse than BB AP was. Better accuracy, faster reload, look at a Hindi with almost 2k AP penetration damage, with 12 shells in the air! Or Zao... That would be horrible. Cruisers should counter DDs, but that would have been crazy.

 

With CAs / CLs its imo different: CAs are supposed to be stronger than CLs. Currently CLs just out DPM the CAs, while not being much more vulnerable. Depending on the angle, CAs can be more vulnerable.

 

Still looking your proposal, concept is very similar. Sure you'll remove citadel, but then image 6 DM shells overmatch your bow. Even with 30% or 33% of pen damage this would be massive and in the on the other CL can't do a s*** in return. Damage suffered from CA AP, especially high tiers per volley would be ridicules. CAs would need to provide a somewhat different way of playing to CLs, they don't need  to be straight better. This shouldn't be like "Oh, there is a CA vs CL. Well CA should win as it is stronger".

 

CAs has slower reload and less DPM. That's why their shoots needs to count more. They can't be HE spammers as CLs. Give them more damage per shot or better pen. Maybe small increase armour or different armour layout so that they should be more durable. But please no need to nerf CLs to ground to make CAs more relevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Players
3,517 posts
5,849 battles
1 minute ago, fumtu said:

 

Still looking your proposal, concept is very similar. Sure you'll remove citadel, but then image 6 DM shells overmatch your bow. Even with 30% or 33% of pen damage this would be massive and in the on the other CL can't do a s*** in return. Damage suffered from CA AP, especially high tiers per volley would be ridicules. CAs would need to provide a somewhat different way of playing to CLs, they don't need  to be straight better. This shouldn't be like "Oh, there is a CA vs CL. Well CA should win as it is stronger".

 

CAs has slower reload and less DPM. That's why their shoots needs to count more. They can't be HE spammers as CLs. Give them more damage per shot or better pen. Maybe small increase armour or different armour layout so that they should be more durable. But please no need to nerf CLs to ground to make CAs more relevant.

1. Well, if you keep bowtanking him, why should the CL win :cap_hmm: Worcester has more HE DPM than basicly any other Cruiser? 6 Pens on the bow would be like ~10k damage. That includes hitting all and no damage saturation.

A Hindi can tank a Montana even when the Monty can overmatch his Bow (and lets say, BB AP hurts more than CA AP). Just needs to angle properly. If you elevate the belt armor, the CLs can bounce all other AP shells aswell. Not to mention CLs do have advantage in spotting, well except Zao. There are many options to not let them take too many CA AP damage, while still making it more valuable than spamming HE.

 

2.The problem with that, you will make them invulnerable to CL HE, but at the same time also vs CA HE, and - this is actually much worse - vs BB AP. Imo we already have enough problems by having ships that are extremely strong vs all classes (Harugumo f.e.). You cant make CAs that can outDPM and outtank BBs.

The only way to make CAs more relevant is to nerf CLs, or buff CAs. Both ways can screw with interaction against BBs/DDs. Basicly a Buff will pretty much always result in screwing with the interaction with the other classes - this cant be desirable.

 

Also: What can you do if they arent supposed to be HE spammers? They are forced into that PRECISELY because of everyone is bowtanking. AP is just situational for them. Whether it does occur often or not depends on your own playstyle and that of the enemies, and to lineup to some extend. F.e. If you play a Hindi in a game with 5 BBs/5 DDs you probably can hardly use AP at all, just because you have to

- shoot DDs all the time

- being permaspotted makes it harder to push to a flank to get broadside BBs

- And even then they still can decide to angle against you again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UTW]
Weekend Tester, In AlfaTesters
8,056 posts
6,696 battles
3 hours ago, Panocek said:

HE damage reduction as IFHE penalty could work too.

 

Or go World of Tanks way

Equation_explosion-damage.png

 

Basically, if HE shell doesn't penetrate, it deals half damage THEN armor thickness further reduces damage received up to complete absorption. What could be added as upgrade is spall liner, further reducing HE impact. No idea if it was used in warboats though. 

Everything but WOT HE damage model, please. It's terrible in every single way and simply doesn't work. It punishes way too much the use of HE on lower caliber and give extreme randomization of the damage even against armor you should send to kingdom come.

 

I think the biggest issue of the HE DPM of CLs is not the fact they can farm BB, but the fact they can farm other cruisers way too easily.

 

Compared to DM, Worcester lose a LOT in the AP department (ergo : burst), but in a pure HE DPM contest against another angled cruisers, Worcester is just way too strong.

 

What I think they should do at this point, is to revamp the MM. Leave Worcester/Harugumo/Kebab and IFHE alone, but creates the CL-MM and always mirror a CL with a CL. And of course Harugumo and Khebab will join this designation, instead of "just" being DD. This way those ship have a clearly "different role" of spamming HE at everything and are always countered by their opposite in one way or another. But they don't take the slot of a heavy cruiser or a destroyer when they can't do the same job at all.

After that, you may think nerfing a bit their HE penetration.

 

What I don't want to see is a rollback to the old situation pre-IFHE where you had no choice but to spam the superstructure of even cruisers with 152mm, and pray for starting some fire that wouldn't be put out immediately. It was horrible. Add to that FP that got buffed a lot and DE that got nerfed...  

 

Another option for IFHE would be to triple the fire chance nerf. Make it -10%. This way you will really have a trade-off of losing DOTs for gaining raw damage. And it would still be a worthy pick.

 

If they nerf Worcester penetration to, say, a base of 23mm, it just would sucks for everyone but the BBs. CA would STILL get the short end of the stick as IFHE would still allows for penetration, while BB would not only not get penetrated but also will profits on less fire on their hull thanks to IFHE+DE nerf + FP buff. Also it would means there's no reason anymore to play the Worcester when you can get a DM with strong AP, almost as powerful HE and a longer ranged radar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-AP-]
Players
588 posts
2,683 battles
2 hours ago, DFens_666 said:

I forgot to mention, that by having a higher belt armor, you can ofc use that to bounce shells (i wrote it, but i think you dismissed the idea rather fast).

Also i totaly disagree that overmatching is braindead. You see the difference in BB behaviour between midtiers and hightiers? Midtiers you cant just sit bow in like a retard and get away with it. Hightiers you can do that unless you see a Yamato/Musashi infront.

I must have misread your statement then, i thought you meant that we should be able to overmatch all of their armor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
3,545 posts
7,307 battles
26 minutes ago, ShinGetsu said:

Everything but WOT HE damage model, please. It's terrible in every single way and simply doesn't work. It punishes way too much the use of HE on lower caliber and give extreme randomization of the damage even against armor you should send to kingdom come.

 

I think the biggest issue of the HE DPM of CLs is not the fact they can farm BB, but the fact they can farm other cruisers way too easily.

 

Compared to DM, Worcester lose a LOT in the AP department (ergo : burst), but in a pure HE DPM contest against another angled cruisers, Worcester is just way too strong.

 

What I think they should do at this point, is to revamp the MM. Leave Worcester/Harugumo/Kebab and IFHE alone, but creates the CL-MM and always mirror a CL with a CL. And of course Harugumo and Khebab will join this designation, instead of "just" being DD. This way those ship have a clearly "different role" of spamming HE at everything and are always countered by their opposite in one way or another. But they don't take the slot of a heavy cruiser or a destroyer when they can't do the same job at all.

After that, you may think nerfing a bit their HE penetration.

 

What I don't want to see is a rollback to the old situation pre-IFHE where you had no choice but to spam the superstructure of even cruisers with 152mm, and pray for starting some fire that wouldn't be put out immediately. It was horrible. Add to that FP that got buffed a lot and DE that got nerfed...  

 

Another option for IFHE would be to triple the fire chance nerf. Make it -10%. This way you will really have a trade-off of losing DOTs for gaining raw damage. And it would still be a worthy pick.

 

If they nerf Worcester penetration to, say, a base of 23mm, it just would sucks for everyone but the BBs. CA would STILL get the short end of the stick as IFHE would still allows for penetration, while BB would not only not get penetrated but also will profits on less fire on their hull thanks to IFHE+DE nerf + FP buff. Also it would means there's no reason anymore to play the Worcester when you can get a DM with strong AP, almost as powerful HE and a longer ranged radar.

Ship version of WoT HE certainly could skip this so much working as intended part of "shoot the front turret to radiate HE damage onto much thinner hull roof"

 

34 minutes ago, herrjott said:

They are already working on it. Nobody remembers that?

image.thumb.png.f0c30bc504580a9b4dc43c87475169d5.png

  Hide contents

 

 

And we're talking about WG, remember that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×