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

203 mm Mogami, an idea

28 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Players
5,074 posts
6,257 battles

Just a few thoughts on the matter. I know, WG once hinted at reworking light cruisers and IFHE, but given we didn't hear anything so far, I thought I'd suggest something (not in the least because WG might just scrap the idea again, like they did with 10% from module pens).

 

So, as I see it, Mogami with 155 mm guns is balanced. Mogami with 203 mm guns is a joke. It's basically there for people who cannot afford 4 captain points for IFHE. It's the reason why in the past noone thought highly of Ibuki, as Ibuki basically was just a massive drop in dpm and in 203 mm Mogami, you basically transform your ship from great dpm into bad dpm on one of the squishiest T8 cruisers.

 

Now, what I was thinking, to make the Mogami with 203 mm guns more useful... how about Mogami gets a C-hull that requires using the 203 mm guns and gets a 30 mm deck like Ibuki? Or what kind of advantages could one give the 203 mm gun option for them to be an interesting option that is actually worthwhile?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ITA_C]
Players
287 posts
7,699 battles

I see no problem  with 203 mogami of course if you play that Like a 155 it perform worst, if you chose another caliber you have to change playstyle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Players
5,196 posts
6,651 battles

Maybe they arent even that unbalanced anymore, since IJN CAs got the dispersion buff, note 155mm Mogami guns still have normal CA/CL dispersion, while the 203s have the better one (aka DD dispersion).

 

And ofc, the other 203mm Cruiser suffer the same disadvantage compared to the CLs, its just less obvious since they dont have the option like Mogami has. Like Hipper compared to a Chapa or Cleveland. Hipper does have better HE penetration, which doesnt always matter, and the HE DPM is lousy anyway.

 

I think IFHE should have a bigger impact than only fire chance reduction. Just cut down on the Alpha damage, so that the difference is not so obvious infavor of 155mm guns compared to 203. 203s have better AP characteristics, but that doesnt help one bit if i have to fight angled targets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
205 posts
10,212 battles

Mogami is fine with both guns setup, dont see a problem, with that ship and also Ibuki always the problem was in low gun range with bad armor and big ships siluethe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
5,577 posts
8,178 battles

203mm could use small reload buff at best. They got not so long ago accuracy buff and retain solid firestarting, something kinda lacking in IFHE'd 155mm.

 

Though I'm almost amazed A-hull 155mm Mogami class isn't T7 premium already. It fits into "downtiered and crapped upon IJN premium" theme just right:cap_popcorn:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
3,095 posts
14,060 battles
21 minutes ago, DFens_666 said:

I think IFHE should have a bigger impact than only fire chance reduction. Just cut down on the Alpha damage, so that the difference is not so obvious infavor of 155mm guns compared to 203. 203s have better AP characteristics, but that doesnt help one bit if i have to fight angled targets.

I've been noticing your posts for a while now (a good sign), and maybe you are right - in terms of what is good for the game.

I like light cruisers that have the rate of fire to overcome the frustrations of RNG and the ability to switch between HE and AP as the situation demands.Without IFHE they seem anemic.

(This is not the same as DD gunboats and their "Death of a thousand Cuts" style which sends me to sleep)

Speaking personally, I'm hanging on to the game by a thread and a big nerf to IFHE might be enough to send me over the edge and just walk away. Sorry to sound so dramatic.

 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
4,085 posts
6,840 battles
48 minutes ago, Seiranko said:

Or what kind of advantages could one give the 203 mm gun option for them to be an interesting option that is actually worthwhile? 

 

Access to another Consumable maybe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BABBY]
Players
385 posts
8,026 battles
48 minutes ago, Seiranko said:

Just a few thoughts on the matter. I know, WG once hinted at reworking light cruisers and IFHE, but given we didn't hear anything so far, I thought I'd suggest something (not in the least because WG might just scrap the idea again, like they did with 10% from module pens).

 

So, as I see it, Mogami with 155 mm guns is balanced. Mogami with 203 mm guns is a joke. It's basically there for people who cannot afford 4 captain points for IFHE. It's the reason why in the past noone thought highly of Ibuki, as Ibuki basically was just a massive drop in dpm and in 203 mm Mogami, you basically transform your ship from great dpm into bad dpm on one of the squishiest T8 cruisers.

 

Now, what I was thinking, to make the Mogami with 203 mm guns more useful... how about Mogami gets a C-hull that requires using the 203 mm guns and gets a 30 mm deck like Ibuki? Or what kind of advantages could one give the 203 mm gun option for them to be an interesting option that is actually worthwhile?

I like the idea, the 203mm setup could use some love especially that Myoko has (marginally but still) better reload a tier lower. And actual deck armor. That said 203mm Mogami actually has an advantage over 155 in the form of much better back turret angles. Which would actually matter if angling the thing meant something.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Players
5,196 posts
6,651 battles
8 minutes ago, Admiral_H_Nelson said:

Speaking personally, I'm hanging on to the game by a thread and a big nerf to IFHE might be enough to send me over the edge and just walk away. Sorry to sound so dramatic.

 

Well, i know that feeling, alltho for me its not linked to IFHE... Im basicly trying to through enough ideas out here in hopes that WG might discover something useful instead of their crap they call balancing :cap_old: Just the recent -20% air detection buff for all ships, i think it was just bad. They knew something had to be done (with that i agree), and it feels like that was the easiest solution to come up with.

Could call it desperation mode to not let the game go down the drain.

 

3 minutes ago, BlackYeti said:

Which would actually matter if angling the thing meant something.

 

WG did say they want to do something with Cruiser upper belt armor... usually it would make sense, because right now, US CLs do have a bit thinner armor, which doesnt really matter too much. 27mm plating gets overmatched the same way 25mm does, except for the smaller caliber BBs (which doesnt help when you have to fight Musashis and Yamatos f.e.)

But even if you would buff the Cruiser plating to 32mm, it would still get overmatched by CL HE. That means, CLs still would out-DPM their heavy brethren in a 1v1 situation. (and 32mm plating would be extremely questionable in terms of BB fighting capability)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
5,074 posts
6,257 battles
2 hours ago, DFens_666 said:

Maybe they arent even that unbalanced anymore, since IJN CAs got the dispersion buff, note 155mm Mogami guns still have normal CA/CL dispersion, while the 203s have the better one (aka DD dispersion).

 

And ofc, the other 203mm Cruiser suffer the same disadvantage compared to the CLs, its just less obvious since they dont have the option like Mogami has. Like Hipper compared to a Chapa or Cleveland. Hipper does have better HE penetration, which doesnt always matter, and the HE DPM is lousy anyway.

 

I think IFHE should have a bigger impact than only fire chance reduction. Just cut down on the Alpha damage, so that the difference is not so obvious infavor of 155mm guns compared to 203. 203s have better AP characteristics, but that doesnt help one bit if i have to fight angled targets.

If the dispersion was enough of a buff, Myoko would actually be better than 155 mm Mogami, as it has better reload, better armour and 100 more hp. Obviously, Myoko tier for tier is strong, but not OP, while I'd not call 155 Mogami UP for T8. Dispersion does not make up for the difference between the second best HE dpm after Cleveland and the fourth worst before ships such as Atago and the abyssal HE dpm of the Germans. Atago is barely worse, but better in so many ways than 203 mm Mogami, from better hp pool, repair party, 41 mm deck to better concealment and better torpedo angles.

Spoiler

dpm4-1-1024x617.png

(From here)

1 hour ago, BlackYeti said:

I like the idea, the 203mm setup could use some love especially that Myoko has (marginally but still) better reload a tier lower. And actual deck armor. That said 203mm Mogami actually has an advantage over 155 in the form of much better back turret angles. Which would actually matter if angling the thing meant something.

It really doesn't matter. Especially not on a ship with that rudder shift.

1 hour ago, ForlornSailor said:

 

Access to another Consumable maybe.

Which would be? Better not be TRB.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BABBY]
Players
385 posts
8,026 battles
2 hours ago, DFens_666 said:

But even if you would buff the Cruiser plating to 32mm, it would still get overmatched by CL HE. That means, CLs still would out-DPM their heavy brethren in a 1v1 situation. (and 32mm plating would be extremely questionable in terms of BB fighting capability)

Replacing IFHE would do the world alot of good. Balance between CA and CL would be restored and it would make future balancing easier. WG did try to apply nerfs to IFHE by butchering fire chance (-6% I think) but forums went REEEEEEEEEEEE and it was scrapped.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
640 posts
7,779 battles
19 hours ago, BlackYeti said:

Replacing IFHE would do the world alot of good. Balance between CA and CL would be restored and it would make future balancing easier. WG did try to apply nerfs to IFHE by butchering fire chance (-6% I think) but forums went REEEEEEEEEEEE and it was scrapped.

IFHE is base fused same as AP. Currently it is the best of both worlds with the higher penetration and the immunity to ricochets. The real issue though is the inability of less experienced players to manage AP versus angled targets. We see it all the time with BBs firing HE.

 

Removing IFHE and a complete revamp of the way AP works is what is really needed. AP should be the go to choice for damage, not HE. HE should be for setting fires in superstructures and destroying modules, not for doing 50k damage to a Yamoto bow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
4,085 posts
6,840 battles
2 hours ago, Seiranko said:

Which would be? Better not be TRB.

 

Nah, maybe simultanious def AA and Hydro. Everything else would really be OP I guess. Speed boost maybe not but that wouldnt fit IJN and it still wouldnt make 203mm a decent choice i guess.

 

1 hour ago, BlackYeti said:

Replacing IFHE would do the world alot of good. Balance between CA and CL would be restored

 

What IFHE did is hilarious. I used to play the russian cruisers line before IFHE a lot and these days I easily do double the damage as what my avarage in the stats is. And yea, currently CL > CA. Best example is the US cruiser line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
3,525 posts
8,214 battles
8 hours ago, LemonadeWarrior said:
  1. Remove the 155mm gun set.
  2. Introduce a new premium.
  3. Profit

 

No :Smile_sad:

 

I'm just about to start my Mogami grind :Smile_izmena:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
98 posts
4,272 battles

I personally use the 203s as I prefer the play style of accurate high damage salvos...it does kinda suck when a dd is close you can't spank them but with the buff they are pretty good. I would like more ships that have options so you can choose a play style that fits you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TSCC]
Players
1,610 posts
18,842 battles
12 hours ago, BlackYeti said:

Replacing IFHE would do the world alot of good. Balance between CA and CL would be restored and it would make future balancing easier. WG did try to apply nerfs to IFHE by butchering fire chance (-6% I think) but forums went REEEEEEEEEEEE and it was scrapped.

 

It was 8% and majority of complain was that 8% is too much not that IFHE shouldn't be nerfed. But seems that WG is missing lot of numbers, they tested 8% it showed to much so they decide there is no point of nerfing it as there are no other possible values between 3% and 8%.

 

11 hours ago, That_Other_Nid said:

IFHE is base fused same as AP. Currently it is the best of both worlds with the higher penetration and the immunity to ricochets. The real issue though is the inability of less experienced players to manage AP versus angled targets. We see it all the time with BBs firing HE.

 

Removing IFHE and a complete revamp of the way AP works is what is really needed. AP should be the go to choice for damage, not HE. HE should be for setting fires in superstructures and destroying modules, not for doing 50k damage to a Yamoto bow.

 

While IFHE could be tuned, removing it would made all 152mm/155mm guns that use HE almost useless in T8-T10 bracket, not mentioning that Daring and Jutland 113mm HE could only pen DD superstructure. Unless you give them RN SAP, and even it is nearly useless against bow on ships, performance of all those ships that relay on HE damage wall fall dramatically. Don't forget that unlike RN CLs, US CLs don't have torps and rely only on their guns. And rallying of RNG to give you some fires is far from optimal solution simple because of inconsistency. 

 

Maybe nerfing HE damage instead of fire chance by 20-25% and/or giving 203mm guns better pen, like 1/5 instead of 1/4 which would give 203mm guns chance to pen up to 40mm but also enable 203mm guns with IFHE to pen 50mm and/or buffing deck and mid section armour on CAs so they would be more resilient of 155mm IFHE spam could be a way better options. There is lot more options for this instead of simple removing IFHE.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
640 posts
7,779 battles
23 hours ago, fumtu said:

While IFHE could be tuned, removing it would made all 152mm/155mm guns that use HE almost useless in T8-T10 bracket, not mentioning that Daring and Jutland 113mm HE could only pen DD superstructure. Unless you give them RN SAP, and even it is nearly useless against bow on ships, performance of all those ships that relay on HE damage wall fall dramatically. Don't forget that unlike RN CLs, US CLs don't have torps and rely only on their guns. And rallying of RNG to give you some fires is far from optimal solution simple because of inconsistency. 

That is the thing though, shells really don't bounce, the whole autobounce mechanic is rubbish. AP should largely act like HE unless it penetrates a citadel.  Make autobounce 3 or 4 not 14.3 and let AP start fires outside of a citadel. Bismarck was reduced to a burning wreck by AP shells, British ships didn't carry more than 5% HE and didn't fire it at ships. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TSCC]
Players
1,610 posts
18,842 battles
Just now, That_Other_Nid said:

That is the thing though, shells really don't bounce, the whole autobounce mechanic is rubbish. AP should largely act like HE unless it penetrates a citadel.  Make autobounce 3 or 4 not 14.3 and let them start fires outside of a citadel. HE should only be for shore targets and maybe DDs.

 

But then basically you don't need HE so what would be a point of having two types of shells. Lot of stuff is "balanced" about those two types of shells and their efficiency. Sorry but that is not realistic to expect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
640 posts
7,779 battles
23 hours ago, fumtu said:

 

But then basically you don't need HE so what would be a point of having two types of shells. Lot of stuff is "balanced" about those two types of shells and their efficiency. Sorry but that is not realistic to expect.

None, but then there are the UK cruisers without HE so that is hardly anything new. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TSCC]
Players
1,610 posts
18,842 battles
19 minutes ago, That_Other_Nid said:

None, but then there are the UK cruisers without HE so that is hardly anything new. 

 

Yes but again there are some cruisers that wouldn't be as effective with SAP like US CLs. RN CL still has quite good torpedoes while US CL are rallying only on their guns for damage. Without HE their performance will fall dramatically. And if you give AP same performance as HE than again you have a problem with balancing some lines. Again US CL would be totally useless compared to any other CA/CL simple because lack of torps they wouldn't have a single advantage over any other class. Now I can at least go bow on and try to run against Mino in DD, but if you improve its AP even that wouldn't work.

 

Sorry but that would require complete re-balance of all classes, armour layouts, thickness, gun damage etc etc ... basically complete rework of the game. Sorry but that is not realistic to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
640 posts
7,779 battles
19 hours ago, fumtu said:

 

Yes but again there are some cruisers that wouldn't be as effective with SAP like US CLs. RN CL still has quite good torpedoes while US CL are rallying only on their guns for damage. Without HE their performance will fall dramatically. And if you give AP same performance as HE than again you have a problem with balancing some lines. Again US CL would be totally useless compared to any other CA/CL simple because lack of torps they wouldn't have a single advantage over any other class. Now I can at least go bow on and try to run against Mino in DD, but if you improve its AP even that wouldn't work.

 

Sorry but that would require complete re-balance of all classes, armour layouts, thickness, gun damage etc etc ... basically complete rework of the game. Sorry but that is not realistic to happen.

 

Nope, cruisers over T-8 might need armour adjustments but that's it. The only balancing would be UK cruisers because of their smoke plus SAP mechanic. It's about the only way to finally balance the idiotic fire mechanic as it exists now. 

 

And I really don't see bow tanking a light cruiser in a DD as a mechanic that is worth preserving. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TSCC]
Players
1,610 posts
18,842 battles
20 minutes ago, That_Other_Nid said:

 

Nope, cruisers over T-8 might need armour adjustments but that's it. The only balancing would be UK cruisers because of their smoke plus SAP mechanic. It's about the only way to finally balance the idiotic fire mechanic as it exists now. 

 

Just over T8 ... sure ... only way to balance ... sure

 

20 minutes ago, That_Other_Nid said:

And I really don't see bow tanking a light cruiser in a DD as a mechanic that is worth preserving. 

 

What is counterplay? There isn't one just die DD, nobody loves you anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FIFO]
Beta Tester
433 posts
1,489 battles

to my knowledge almost all targets are best engaged with HE, unless you get a clean broadside at medium range or you have 300mm + caliber. 

pro's for HE.

-IFHE allows for large improvement of penetration on spam-cruisers and DD's allowing them to wither down practically any ship, negating the downsides of having a small caliber weapon. 

-triggers on all ship classes, as all ships have weak superstructures but not all ships have enough armor to trigger an AP fuse...cannot score an overpenetration for reduced damage

-ignores angles, it cannot ricochet or fail to penetrate due to angles.

-ignores shell velocity/drag coefficients, the penetration is the same at all ranges

-has an added chance to apply a DoT that deals % max hp damage/sec, this can make it very effective against high HP targets, this chance is rolled regardless if the shot bounced or not.

-has a frag-box that can destroy or disable modules around the point of impact.

 

cons for HE

-deals less damage then its AP brother.

-rarely scores citadels for full damage, this may happen on carriers and the odd flimsy cruiser...but it will rarely hit for its full damage.

-cannot punch through torpedo bulges into the hull, hitting and penetrating a bulge would cause 0-damage penetrations

 

this makes HE-DPM builds fairly reliable, as the shell ignores almost every aspect that would frustrate AP use, it can be used on a destroyer as well as on a battleship and the orientation of the target doesn't matter, you also get to aim at a relatively large visible area for optimal effect (superstructure)

 

it also makes the german line or 203mm guns rather meh, these guns usually have a lower DPM to balance its better AP ballistics...but the best counter against 203mm AP is to simply turn stern/bow, have no armor...or have a huge amount at a slight angle or long range. and in order to get the best out of AP you have to hit and penetrate a covered target that is partially or entirely obstructed by the waterline through 2-3 layers of armor, and destroyers don't even have that target to shoot at to begin with.

 

this makes me believe that DD and cruiser AP could use some love like That_Other_Nid suggested.

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.

×