German Battleships Secondaries

[Nufessa]

We all know that German BBs flavor are secondaries, but the amount of captain skills needed to make it work is too much. I mean for a complete secondaries build i need at least 18 points captain, eliminating the possibility to use other tank skills useful for pushing. One interesting thing could be to improve basic sigma of german sec in order to make them more accurate by default, like on Massachussets. This would be a little simple buff that will indirectly improve tankiness on them, because honestly they have become not so tanky as they were in the past. Any thoughts? 

[Miscommunication_dept]

Massachusetts has the same 1.0 sigma on her secondaries but 40% reduced dispersion.

The manual secondary skill gives 60% reduced dispersion.

Better accuracy would be great but the Massachusetts with manual secondaries is beastly toward DDs so I think we'd have to think about that balance.

 

I had in mind the secondary module. It's hard to pick 20% secondary accuracy and range against 7% main battery accuracy. I only have that on my GK Bismarck and Tirpitz. The Americans do not have an aiming module in that slot so suffer less when specced for secodnaries.

 

I would like the secondary module to be say 30% range with 40% smaller dispersion elipse.

 

With that they could remove the manual secondary skill possibly

 

[HaachamaShipping]

For a very basic build, you need 8 points in secondary-related skills and even then one could discuss that need. Because frankly, among secondary-related skills, there are only 5 skills that do anything for your secondaries and those are:

 

Manual Secondaries: Doubles the accuracy, must-take for a secondary build.

AFT: Buffs range. Useful, but can be cut if necessary. 9+ km secondaries still can be useful.

IFHE: Give your small caliber guns enough pen to pen BBs. Only really worth the points from T8+ at best and even then.

BFT: ~11% more secondary dpm. I consider 30k damage on secondaries already a decent job, 60k would be exceptional. Is 3-6k damage a game worth 3 points? I don't think so. Unlike all prior listed skills, this skill is also not adding any additional capabilities, it thus isn't even necessary to allow secondaries to do their basic job.

AR: Buffs secondaries among other things. I take it anyway for the other things.

 

So, sure, you can go all in. The return is likely not worth it. But it also isn't required.

 

Personally, I run secondary builds on PEF, Gneisenau, Scharnhorst and Bismarck and for Gneisenau captain, you get by with 8 skill points in Manual Secondaries and AFT (31 mm base pen is enough at T7) and Bismarck captain only added IFHE. Survivability-wise, I don't find it too troublesome.

2 minutes ago, gopher31 said:

With that they could remove the manual secondary skill possibly

Not really, because as you pointed out with Massachusetts, additional accuracy still is what people pick. Who wouldn't want their German secondary guns that have less lazy arcs to have Massachusetts accuracy?

[Fat_Maniac]

10 minutes ago, Cagliostro_chan said:

Personally, I run secondary builds on PEF, Gneisenau, Scharnhorst and Bismarck and for Gneisenau captain, you get by with 8 skill points in Manual Secondaries and AFT (31 mm base pen is enough at T7) and Bismarck captain only added IFHE. Survivability-wise, I don't find it too troublesome.

But that is sort of the point the OP is making. in order to spend those 8 pts you need at least a 14pt captain (1+2+3+4+4), and without Concealment as your first 4pt you become a target for the HE spammers, as you make your push to get those 2ndrys in range, so really you do need 18pts to get there.

[HaachamaShipping]

7 minutes ago, Fat_Maniac said:

But that is sort of the point the OP is making. in order to spend those 8 pts you need at least a 14pt captain (1+2+3+4+4), and without Concealment as your first 4pt you become a target for the HE spammers, as you make your push to get those 2ndrys in range, so really you do need 18pts to get there.

With all due respect, no, you don't. I get by without concealment expert on secondary builds for pretty much most of my career. Is it a worse build than stealth/tank build? Likely. But that is the general nature of secondary builds with their automated armaments of secondary importance. It's like complaining that building into AA pays off worse than building into tanking.

 

Just use islands or whatever to deal with your horrendous concealment.

Spoiler

Just from yesterday, when someone challenged the viability of Gneisenau, so I played one game in it.

 

[anonym_MfZ6T7iwWpUC]

This thread makes me re-think my whole strategy around a secondary build. Its not something I have done previously when I played two years ago. But I now have BB's that are clearly going to need a secondary build.

 

I have a Gascogne, which I enjoy playing, but the traditional 14 point secondary build doesnt include IFHE skill. I was thinking I would need it, but I wonder now. I could re-roll the skills now and dump BFT as there are some other skills at level 3 that would be really handy to have.

[Panocek]

1 hour ago, atlasapl said:

This thread makes me re-think my whole strategy around a secondary build. Its not something I have done previously when I played two years ago. But I now have BB's that are clearly going to need a secondary build.

 

I have a Gascogne, which I enjoy playing, but the traditional 14 point secondary build doesnt include IFHE skill. I was thinking I would need it, but I wonder now. I could re-roll the skills now and dump BFT as there are some other skills at level 3 that would be really handy to have.

Given small caliber secondaries on croissant BBs with exception of Republique, I'd ignore IFHE and leave them be as firestarters. And then there is question if French battleboats are good at brawling, from my experience - not so much.

[Hopeless_Guppy]

2 minutes ago, Panocek said:

Given small caliber secondaries on croissant BBs with exception of Republique, I'd ignore IFHE and leave them be as firestarters. And then there is question if French battleboats are good at brawling, from my experience - not so much.

Still nice though when your slinking around ad a corner, and from another direction comes a DD, they can get a nasty surprise, by default if I can build any ship with secondaries that are long range, I will.

[Panocek]

Just now, NoobySkooby said:

Still nice though when your slinking around ad a corner, and from another direction comes a DD, they can get a nasty surprise, by default if I can build any ship with secondaries that are long range, I will.

Only Massa due to base improved dispersion and then all the accuracy buffs can hope to sink "ambushing DD" within reasonable timespan. And even then said DD is very likely to release torpedo payload.

[Migantium_Mashum]

2 minutes ago, Panocek said:

Only Massa due to base improved dispersion and then all the accuracy buffs can hope to sink "ambushing DD" within reasonable timespan. And even then said DD is very likely to release torpedo payload.

As I did last night on a Vlad in my Cossack.... he hit me but died as the direct result of my torpedoes whilst I smoked and escaped... Free to spot and kill whilst he languished under the waves...

[Miscommunication_dept]

3 hours ago, Cagliostro_chan said:

For a very basic build, you need 8 points in secondary-related skills and even then one could discuss that need. Because frankly, among secondary-related skills, there are only 5 skills that do anything for your secondaries and those are:

 

Manual Secondaries: Doubles the accuracy, must-take for a secondary build.

AFT: Buffs range. Useful, but can be cut if necessary. 9+ km secondaries still can be useful.

IFHE: Give your small caliber guns enough pen to pen BBs. Only really worth the points from T8+ at best and even then.

BFT: ~11% more secondary dpm. I consider 30k damage on secondaries already a decent job, 60k would be exceptional. Is 3-6k damage a game worth 3 points? I don't think so. Unlike all prior listed skills, this skill is also not adding any additional capabilities, it thus isn't even necessary to allow secondaries to do their basic job.

AR: Buffs secondaries among other things. I take it anyway for the other things.

 

So, sure, you can go all in. The return is likely not worth it. But it also isn't required.

 

Personally, I run secondary builds on PEF, Gneisenau, Scharnhorst and Bismarck and for Gneisenau captain, you get by with 8 skill points in Manual Secondaries and AFT (31 mm base pen is enough at T7) and Bismarck captain only added IFHE. Survivability-wise, I don't find it too troublesome.

Not really, because as you pointed out with Massachusetts, additional accuracy still is what people pick. Who wouldn't want their German secondary guns that have less lazy arcs to have Massachusetts accuracy?

I'm a little unconvinced by semi secondary builds

I do run my french ships without the secondary module but with manual secondaries and AFT. 

If it wasn't or the Republique I would forgo manual secondaries as the 100mm are only good for setting fires so are worth it only against battleships in my opinion.

 

However, AFT with secondary modules yields a range of about 9km on the Jean bart, Alsace and Richelieu. They are rarely used in battle so 8 points are wasted.

Republique has a little over 10km which is far more useful.

It's very hard to justify the secondary module on these ships due to their armour profile, not good for brawling.

 

I do think if you aren't going all in for secondary builds the benefit is too small to warrant the points spent for manual secondaries.

 

So my GK Tirpitz and Bismark are all in:

Secondary module

PT

AR 

BFT (probably should be superintendent)

AFT

Man Sec

IFHE

11.3/11.6km range

All my secondaries pen 32mm and are really quite effective. It is the norm to get more secondary/fire damage than main gun damage.

 

For Massa/Georgia:

Secondary module

PT

AR

DE and SI

AFT

Manual Sec

11.3km range

IFHE makes it a beast against tier 7 battleships but is useless against T8+

 

Jean bart:

Aiming module

PT and Reload 

AR

DE SI

AFT 

CE

9.3?km range secondaries

 

My point regarding removal of the manual secondary skill would be if all secondary accuracy was buffed and it was geared toward game balance.

 

[Migantium_Mashum]

11 minutes ago, Panocek said:

Given small caliber secondaries on croissant BBs with exception of Republique, I'd ignore IFHE and leave them be as firestarters. And then there is question if French battleboats are good at brawling, from my experience - not so much.

They're more a Cruiser killer in my opinion... of all the BB's I have the Alsace and Jean Bart give me the most citadels.

[Panocek]

2 minutes ago, Migantium_Mashum said:

They're more a Cruiser killer in my opinion... of all the BB's I have the Alsace and Jean Bart give me the most citadels.

And then, 100mm guns even with IFHE can't dent most cruisers you're likely to bump into, while base HE pen of 16mm is enough to melt Brit cruisers

[Miscommunication_dept]

IFHE in French secondaries only allows penetration of DDs and battleship superstructure.

Not worth it

[HaachamaShipping]

19 minutes ago, gopher31 said:

So my GK Tirpitz and Bismark are all in:

Secondary module

PT

AR 

BFT (probably should be superintendent)

AFT

Man Sec

IFHE

11.3/11.6km range

All my secondaries pen 32mm and are really quite effective. It is the norm to get more secondary/fire damage than main gun damage.

Basically what I use on Bisko, FdG and GK, but instead of BFT I use BoS. I consider BoS more useful, as it saves more hp up front. SI works if you run through four heals regularly. And I still get more main battery damage than secondary damage. Secondaries are always secondary to me. They are an asset, but certainly not a reason to throw my ship away for and the main battery is not this garbage that it is unworkable.

 

On the other hand, while absolutely not recommended for top performance, I do use sec module and Manual Secondaries on Yamato (instead of FP), where it basically is just for very close in defence. As said, not peak performance, but interesting when people enter 8.8 km.

[anonym_MfZ6T7iwWpUC]

The range on my Gascogne secondary guns is currently 10.6km. So I guess they are an annoyance to make people think twice. Its why I was considering the manual secondary skill for the increased accuracy.

[Migantium_Mashum]

6 minutes ago, atlasapl said:

The range on my Gascogne secondary guns is currently 10.6km. So I guess they are an annoyance to make people think twice. Its why I was considering the manual secondary skill for the increased accuracy.

I have Manual Secondary control on my Tier 7 to Tier 9 French BB's and do just as well as my German BB's... Scharnhorst, Bismarck, Tirpitz, FDG...

[Kenjiro_]

T8 is the last tier where secondaries are usefull. Tirpitz, Biscmark, Gneisenau and Massa could benefit from secondary builds but those skills are pretty much a waste at T9-10 ships...

[LowSpeedHighDrag]

Unless of course you have a Georgia that does well with secondaries at Tier 9 or GK. 

German Battleships still have the secondary punch.  Just not as "unique" as it used to be, now that we have other battleships with hitting ranges beyond Bismarcks.

 

[Miscommunication_dept]

The viability of secondary build is wholly reliant on getting close to the enemy.

Try any of the Germans with IFHE against french or British battleships they penetrate everywhere with 540,000 DPM.

 

 Secondary builds are however  fun build.

It can be very effective but it requires lots of points as well as a play style change. 

Pushing  in a GK melting the bow on Yamato in front of you with secondaries while citadeling the Minotaur to your port is very fun.

[MadBadDave]

Zero wrong with German Secondaries, it’s the mains that need fixing, everyone seems fixated on Massa. I’ve mentioned several times it’s a one trick Pony with no turtle back, Every time I’ve been in a 1vs1 Bis always kicks Massachusetts [edited], Even in Alabama I’ve lost track of the amount of times  I’ve had to bale a Massa out, very tanky

bow on but any hint of a side and it’s good night.  My secondaries killed a Massa from full HP whilst under fire from a Montana and cruiser.

 

Its even easier for a tirp to trash a Massa (torps).

 

Japanese secondaries are good but lack the distance, Brit are non existent, French are good, Russian : zero interest in op paper ships, us only Massa stands out.

 

Until the next secondary post. 🥳.

[Miscommunication_dept]

 

The Massa has the same hull as the Alabama. It's not squishy.

 

I would fully expect the Bismarck to win in a close in brawl as it's secondaries would deal direct damage while the Massa's would shatter on anything but superstructure.

The Massa can be citadeled at close range  while the Bismarck is very unlikely to be.

 

The Massas advantage is in the majority of the game when it's not in a close range battleship brawl.

In this situation it's guns are far more usable than the Bismarck and the manoeuvrability of the Massa is very useful. 

 

Its secondaries are very accurate and can do a lot of damage to destroyers. Massachusetts dispersion Ellipse is 40% smaller than the Bismarck. The Bismarck’s secondaries will miss a lot more.

Massachusetts can also overmatch 27mm armour found on many high tier cruisers.

 

Finally Massachusetts has been near the top of all T8 battleships for a very long time.

 

The Massachusetts is the better ship.

 

 

[NothingButTheRain]

Gib us Secondary Battery Reload Boostah! 

[HaachamaShipping]

1 hour ago, gopher31 said:

The Massa has the same hull as the Alabama. It's not squishy.

Among T8 BBs, yes, it is squishy, just like all high tier USN ships are comparatively squishy, thanks to lackluster side belt + overmatchable citadel deck. If we look at T8:

• Bismarck and Tirpitz: No contest. 50 mm deck, best turtleback.
• Amagi: Less belt armour, but has turtleback that works at closer ranges and a non-overmatchable cit deck.
• Kii: Almost as much belt, non-overmatchable cit deck (except by Yamato).
• Richelieu and Gascogne: Less plating, but at least better citadel protection with a slight turtleback. Closest you get to USN levels of squish.
• Vladivostok and Lenin: Only from the side or from the air. Bowtanks like nothing else.
• Roma: Vladi light. Second best belt armour in the game.
• Vanguard: less plating, but at least only gets citpenned when you hit the waterline, as cit deck is 32 mm. Also, large hp pool.
• Monarch: citadels only at waterline, because 32 mm cit deck, some of the best belt armour at T8 and a better repair party.

It's not squishy on levels where its unmanageable, but the USN BBs are some of the most reliable ships to get citpens on if you show side.

[Miscommunication_dept]

10 minutes ago, Cagliostro_chan said:

Among T8 BBs, yes, it is squishy, just like all high tier USN ships are comparatively squishy, thanks to lackluster side belt + overmatchable citadel deck. If we look at T8:

• Bismarck and Tirpitz: No contest. 50 mm deck, best turtleback.
• Amagi: Less belt armour, but has turtleback that works at closer ranges and a non-overmatchable cit deck.
• Kii: Almost as much belt, non-overmatchable cit deck (except by Yamato).
• Richelieu and Gascogne: Less plating, but at least better citadel protection with a slight turtleback. Closest you get to USN levels of squish.
• Vladivostok and Lenin: Only from the side or from the air. Bowtanks like nothing else.
• Roma: Vladi light. Second best belt armour in the game.
• Vanguard: less plating, but at least only gets citpenned when you hit the waterline, as cit deck is 32 mm. Also, large hp pool.
• Monarch: citadels only at waterline, because 32 mm cit deck, some of the best belt armour at T8 and a better repair party.

It's not squishy on levels where its unmanageable, but the USN BBs are some of the most reliable ships to get citpens on if you show side.

All true of course.

IFHE spam is so prevalent in high tiers and against that Massachusetts armour is better than the everything you mention but the Germans and Russians (equal with Roma).

I suppose I don't view them as 'squishy' as I feel all battleships should be punished when they show broadside. However, you are right that the Americans do take citadels very reliably.