Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ABED1984

Tirpitz or Massachusetts?

10 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[PNAVY]
[PNAVY]
Players
1,102 posts
31,418 battles

Both ships Tirpitz or Massachusetts have good secondaries but which is more reliant than the other especially in T10 MM?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
598 posts
6 hours ago, ABED1984 said:

Both ships Tirpitz or Massachusetts have good secondaries but which is more reliant than the other especially in T10 MM?

Massachusetts only has 18k shooting range and a slow top speed of 27 knots, something you should keep in mind playing at T10. It has a plane to shoot further, but only using it for a short time when you can. You can extend the main battery guns to 21k with the plotting Room module (but doing it at the expense of sacrificing not using the secondary gun module). Not something you really want to do if going for the full secondary spec build.

 

The Tirpitz already has 21.45k shooting range and plane for using to extend that range even further. It also has torps, which is plus factor in T10 matches that the Massachusetts lacks for close up brawling with T10 BB. So I'd say the Massachusetts is only really better in T10 matches than the Tirpitz because of its more powerful main battery guns. But you may struggle to put them to good use with a short base firing range of only 18k.

 

AA on the Massachusetts  is awesome though, far better than Tirpitz to combat CV planes.

 

I have not played the Tirpitz to know what its main battery guns are like (pen wise) at T10. I've had the Massachusetts B and it's main battery guns seem pretty okay to use at that level, just that short base firing range of 18k limits you "somewhat" in T10 matches at the start. Mostly because T10 games tend to be more of a stand-off and shoot at distance type games for BB's at the very start.

 

I think having already played the Massachusetts B at T10. I would probably go for the Tirpitz now due to its better flexibility playing at T10. I found that short 18k main battery range was too much of an issue at T10, plus I wasn't willing to lose the secondary build on the ship just to extend it to 21k to suit playing T10 matches better.

 

I think ship building wise, it's easier to make a decision which way to go with the Tirpitz. It's AA is only average, so the obvious choice is build secondary guns instead. The Massachusetts though has both good AA and Secondary, so you're kind of stuck between building either the AA or Secondary further - or doing neither with the AA/Secondary module and extending the main battery guns instead using Plotting Room. Easier decision to make with the Tirpitz, as it's rather pointless going the AA build route instead of secondary (not worth it for the AA), and its main battery guns are okay on range already

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-T-O-]
Alpha Tester, Players, In AlfaTesters
2,185 posts
6,359 battles

Tirpitz any day if you're asking me. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[MXII]
Players
63 posts

greetings.

 

Thread cleared.

 

Answer OP's question, and don't go off-topic, don't post if you have nothing useful to say, thank you.

 

Admiral Hierrark

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[JUNK]
Beta Tester
1,908 posts
7,396 battles

Tirpitz, it just fits better with the general KM commander and torps is a uniqur flair over its tech tree counterparts.

 

That said, Massa is overall a better ship imo.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BGNAV]
Players
146 posts
5,794 battles
On 1/6/2019 at 10:54 AM, Affeks said:

Tirpitz, it just fits better with the general KM commander and torps is a uniqur flair over its tech tree counterparts.

 

That said, Massa is overall a better ship imo.

I completely agree with the first sentence. Massa requires a dedicated commander to leverage its pros.

 

For the second part - it's of course a matter of personal preference, but I find Tirpitz better for me. It's just better for brawling and CQB, while at longer range both suck. If I could trade my Massa B for Alabama, I would.

Also don't forget that Massa's secondary shells are sent via US postal services and take ages to reach their target.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[JUNK]
Beta Tester
1,908 posts
7,396 battles
On 1/8/2019 at 10:45 AM, almitov said:

For the second part - it's of course a matter of personal preference, but I find Tirpitz better for me. It's just better for brawling and CQB, while at longer range both suck. If I could trade my Massa B for Alabama, I would.

Also don't forget that Massa's secondary shells are sent via US postal services and take ages to reach their target.

personally disagree. Tirpitz is too crippled when up tiered where a lot of cruisers have 27mm platings. Not only that, but the far inferior turret layout makes for some bad mid range effectiveness in matchups where you cant play super aggressive. To top it off the half CD heal Massa gets lets her get away from some sticky situations.

 

But I agree, Alabama > Massachusetts... buuut then again NC >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alabama, even more so now that NC got .66 heal and buffed rudder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BGNAV]
Players
146 posts
5,794 battles
17 hours ago, Affeks said:

personally disagree

 

From what I can see you are a better player than me, so maybe you are also better at making the Massa work.

I find the secondary spec mostly useless on this ship and a waste of modules/points... and it's its main gimmick. The heal is nice though. 

Tbh I somewhat regret buying it.

 

18 hours ago, Affeks said:

Alabama > Massachusetts... buuut then again NC >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alabama

NC is a keeper for me. Sadly my stats in this ship are not that good because I've played most of my games in it while still learning the basics - the USN BB line was my first. When I play it now the results are a lot better.

 

18 hours ago, Affeks said:

Tirpitz is too crippled when up tiered where a lot of cruisers have 27mm platings. Not only that, but the far inferior turret layout makes for some bad mid range effectiveness in matchups where you cant play super aggressive.

I never found the lack of overmatch capability a real issue - when they are bow-on to me, I just focus my secondaries on them while shooting something else. As for the turret layout - yup, it sucks.

For me it seems similar to Massa and NC when it comes to Tirpitz and Bismarck. The latter is just better as it has hydro, allowing for much more aggressive gameplay. The torps on Tirpitz are mostly unusable - a couple of HE hits and they're gone.

Overall for KM BBs for me what best works is to be near islands close to a capture point and bully everything that comes near. The island cover allows you to pick your fights - otherwise you may get focused and killed very fast. As most of the targets will be CA/CL/DD, that also helps stat-padding :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
[NWP]
Players
877 posts
6,953 battles

I prefer Massachusetts, although both are tremendous fun to play.

 

Massa, as has been mentioned, needs her own captain at at least 18 points. Her main guns are better than Tirpitz and she can angle/bow on to targets and do more main damage that way, of course at parallel brawling angles (~90deg to enemy guns) she suffers more than Tirp due to Tirps better armour profile but I find if I can control the engagement I can use her bow to blap an enemy down before it gets to that stage. Also, while she has a uniform 5in secondary suite, having the captain specced for secondaries means you will absolutely pepper anything in range of them, constantly. I have had a double strike on DDs before using this spec.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×