Lion is just utter Trash

[Nit0]

20 hours ago, spicata said:

Did 145k dmg last match before Conq. Will actually miss her a bit.

It's not a problem doing high damage with the Lion, but to carry a flank with it is not easy, and that's the main problem. All other tier 9 BB I can push and tank some dmg, not with this one

[Kiwi1960]

There is NO SUCH thing as a bad ship.... even the Krispy Kreme "in the right hands" can be a good ship.

 

The thing with the Lion is that its an unforgiving ship, one mistake and its all over sort of thing...

 

Experience will tame even the hardest ship.... and wild Stallions need to be broken in before you can ride the range on them...

 

one size doesn't fit all... but sooner or later, you will find a ship you love and for me, it was the Jean Bart ... it didn't take me long to earn my first 19 point skipper in her and she now has ship XP of nearly 5 million....

 

But till you find that special one ship you want to spend your life with.... sleep around a little, learn the ins and outs of all the ships you own.... because when you face one, you will know how to sink it faster...

 

For that reason, never give up and say its a dud... what would be a "dud" is if you're in a ship a Tier higher and being sunk by the Lion... a ship you said was no good....

[lafeel]

1 hour ago, Kiwi1960 said:

There is NO SUCH thing as a bad ship.... even the Krispy Kreme "in the right hands" can be a good ship.

 

The right map and mm do help considerably too..

[Kiwi1960]

On 1/11/2020 at 7:56 PM, lafeel said:

The right map and mm do help considerably too..

True, but then, to the OP, ALL ships would be crap... as his one complaint was about the Lion, it cannot be MM or the maps....

 

 

[Captain_Newman]

18 hours ago, Kiwi1960 said:

There is NO SUCH thing as a bad ship.... even the Krispy Kreme "in the right hands" can be a good ship.

 

The thing with the Lion is that its an unforgiving ship, one mistake and its all over sort of thing...

 

Experience will tame even the hardest ship.... and wild Stallions need to be broken in before you can ride the range on them...

 

one size doesn't fit all... but sooner or later, you will find a ship you love and for me, it was the Jean Bart ... it didn't take me long to earn my first 19 point skipper in her and she now has ship XP of nearly 5 million....

 

But till you find that special one ship you want to spend your life with.... sleep around a little, learn the ins and outs of all the ships you own.... because when you face one, you will know how to sink it faster...

 

For that reason, never give up and say its a dud... what would be a "dud" is if you're in a ship a Tier higher and being sunk by the Lion... a ship you said was no good....

 

 

Any ship can perform in the right hands, in the right MM, and on the map that happens to suit it. The difference between a good and a bad ship is that good ships care less about all that stuff and reliably perform in the right hands regardless of map and uptiering. So, I can't agree that there's no such thing as a bad ship in general, in the sense of "selecting this gives less chance of being able to contribute positively and substantially to my team's chance of success than selecting another ship". There's definitely bad, good, OP and russian ships in this game

 

As for the Lion, it's been ages since I played it, I remember not liking it back then. Technically it has the same sigma and dispersion as the Conq, but I guess it's the fact Conq gets another turret that makes the guns that much more reliable? Not sure. I just remember there being a huge difference between the two. It's not the worst ship I've ever played, but it's far from being good or enjoyable tbh.

[Kiwi1960]

1 hour ago, Captain_Newman said:

 

 

Any ship can perform in the right hands, in the right MM, and on the map that happens to suit it. The difference between a good and a bad ship is that good ships care less about all that stuff and reliably perform in the right hands regardless of map and uptiering. So, I can't agree that there's no such thing as a bad ship in general, in the sense of "selecting this gives less chance of being able to contribute positively and substantially to my team's chance of success than selecting another ship". There's definitely bad, good, OP and russian ships in this game

 

As for the Lion, it's been ages since I played it, I remember not liking it back then. Technically it has the same sigma and dispersion as the Conq, but I guess it's the fact Conq gets another turret that makes the guns that much more reliable? Not sure. I just remember there being a huge difference between the two. It's not the worst ship I've ever played, but it's far from being good or enjoyable tbh.

That is EXACTLY what I said, go re-read what I said. Then, tell me what your point was again?

[Captain_Newman]

@Kiwi1960 Your claim was:

 

2 hours ago, Kiwi1960 said:

There is NO SUCH thing as a bad ship....

I'm just saying that regardless of any ship being able to perform in the right hands and under the right conditions, there are still good and bad ships. I can't agree with the claim that there's no bad ships in the game,there are. The fact they get good games sometimes doesn't change that. Anything can be situationally good. What we're usually talking about is overall good (as in, able to perform in most situations, not a very distinct set).

[HaachamaShipping]

On 1/11/2020 at 6:11 PM, Kiwi1960 said:

There is NO SUCH thing as a bad ship.... even the Krispy Kreme "in the right hands" can be a good ship.

Krasny Krim isn't even a terrible ship, if you put in the proper investment. But yes, objectively bad ships exist: Yahagi, Gorizia, Puerto Rico, Indomitable, Admiral Hipper... just to name a few. No amount of "breaking in" will make these ships "good" All you can achieve is having such crap players on the enemy team as to allow you to actually still win, but technically, such ships cannot properly carry the weight of their tier and class (unlike KK which totally can carry the weight of a T5 cruiser).

On 1/11/2020 at 7:56 PM, lafeel said:

The right map and mm do help considerably too..

And a captain with enough skill points.

[Kiwi1960]

3 hours ago, Sleepy_Bunny said:

Krasny Krim isn't even a terrible ship, if you put in the proper investment. But yes, objectively bad ships exist: Yahagi, Gorizia, Puerto Rico, Indomitable, Admiral Hipper... just to name a few. No amount of "breaking in" will make these ships "good" All you can achieve is having such crap players on the enemy team as to allow you to actually still win, but technically, such ships cannot properly carry the weight of their tier and class (unlike KK which totally can carry the weight of a T5 cruiser).

And a captain with enough skill points.

Cannot disagree. If it has engines, guns (maybe torps) and even some tin foil armour.... it can be used as a warship ...

 

Back in the 1970's, during the "Cod War"... England had Leander class frigates to protect it nations fishing vessels .... Iceland had a converted fishing boat I think (not sure now) with a gun added and they called it a fisheries protection vessel... Iceland won in more ways than one... their ship rammed a frigate albeit by accident... but it still proves the point... its not the ship, its good or bad, its STILL a ship....

 

And if you use it to her full potential, you will succeed. For example, Taking a BB through the gap in "Two Brothers" (I think) is going to get you sunk most times...

 

Gorizia is a ship not worthy of Premium status... it has no redeeming features....

 

Aviation theory says a Bumble Bee cannot fly.... but it gets up and flies....

 

The Gorizia, with its problems, can still be a potent force.... any ship has that potential in the right hands...

 

Me, I'm still learning, but I've seen some people do amazing things in that ship....

 

 

[Captain_Newman]

6 minutes ago, Kiwi1960 said:

Aviation theory says a Bumble Bee cannot fly.... but it gets up and flies....

 

Can we please, please, with a cherry on top, and finally once and for all burn this common misconception with fire? Bees don't break any laws of physics.

 

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bumblebee_argument

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2013/08/bumblebee-flight-does-not-violate-the-laws-of-physics/

https://www.businessinsider.com/bees-cant-fly-scientifically-incorrect-2017-12

 

Misinformation and pseudoscience propagate extremely well through the internet all on their own, let's not help them.

[HaachamaShipping]

1 minute ago, Kiwi1960 said:

Cannot disagree. If it has engines, guns (maybe torps) and even some tin foil armour.... it can be used as a warship ...

 

Back in the 1970's, during the "Cod War"... England had Leander class frigates to protect it nations fishing vessels .... Iceland had a converted fishing boat I think (not sure now) with a gun added and they called it a fisheries protection vessel... Iceland won in more ways than one... their ship rammed a frigate albeit by accident... but it still proves the point... its not the ship, its good or bad, its STILL a ship....

Your point? Because there is none to this anecdote.

7 minutes ago, Kiwi1960 said:

And if you use it to her full potential, you will succeed. For example, Taking a BB through the gap in "Two Brothers" (I think) is going to get you sunk most times...

Still pointless.

7 minutes ago, Kiwi1960 said:

Gorizia is a ship not worthy of Premium status... it has no redeeming features....

 

Aviation theory says a Bumble Bee cannot fly.... but it gets up and flies....

 

The Gorizia, with its problems, can still be a potent force.... any ship has that potential in the right hands...

 

Me, I'm still learning, but I've seen some people do amazing things in that ship....

 

 

Terrible ships perform well when bad players let it perform well. Good ships perform badly when bad players waste their potential. It's like saying the CV is not OP because DDs regularly kill CVs, even in 1v1 ranked. Apart from CVs much more often crapping on DDs than the other way round, some players being too stupid to play the objectively better ship and dominate the weaker ship does not mean that in the hands of decent players, the good ship isn't going to utterly roflstomp the bad ship. 

[lafeel]

3 hours ago, Kiwi1960 said:

Iceland had a converted fishing boat I think (not sure now) with a gun added and they called it a fisheries protection vessel... Iceland won in more ways than one... their ship rammed a frigate albeit by accident...

As a Icelander myself I'd like to point out that we claim to this day that 1: It was the other way around and 2: it was anything but a accident (and not the only time it happened either)

 

And yes they were armed..with 1890's wintage Hotchkiss 6pdr's.

[Kiwi1960]

8 hours ago, Captain_Newman said:

 

Can we please, please, with a cherry on top, and finally once and for all burn this common misconception with fire? Bees don't break any laws of physics.

 

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bumblebee_argument

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2013/08/bumblebee-flight-does-not-violate-the-laws-of-physics/

https://www.businessinsider.com/bees-cant-fly-scientifically-incorrect-2017-12

 

Misinformation and pseudoscience propagate extremely well through the internet all on their own, let's not help them.

Actually, AVIATION science says Bumble bees (not bees) should not be able to fly.... because AVIATION Science says they are too heavy.... Bees are fine... big fat BUMBLE bees shouldn't be able to fly according to those the design and build airplanes... I hope this helps.

[Kiwi1960]

5 hours ago, lafeel said:

As a Icelander myself I'd like to point out that we claim to this day that 1: It was the other way around and 2: it was anything but a accident (and not the only time it happened either)

 

And yes they were armed..with 1890's wintage Hotchkiss 6pdr's.

I agree, I saw the video, but however, when two ships approach at speed, suction is created that draws them together.... just saying...

[Kiwi1960]

8 hours ago, Sleepy_Bunny said:

Your point? Because there is none to this anecdote.

Still pointless.

Terrible ships perform well when bad players let it perform well. Good ships perform badly when bad players waste their potential. It's like saying the CV is not OP because DDs regularly kill CVs, even in 1v1 ranked. Apart from CVs much more often crapping on DDs than the other way round, some players being too stupid to play the objectively better ship and dominate the weaker ship does not mean that in the hands of decent players, the good ship isn't going to utterly roflstomp the bad ship. 

Then if you think its pointless, why your pointless reply? Move on already.

[lafeel]

2 minutes ago, Kiwi1960 said:

I agree, I saw the video, but however, when two ships approach at speed, suction is created that draws them together.... just saying...

Indeed, and note that there were (apparently, our history books speak of them even if Wiki does not) several encounters like that, especially during round 3.

 

In any event while the Cod War(s (we count them as three seperate wars)) are a fun discussion they're not really related to this now are they.

[Kiwi1960]

1 minute ago, lafeel said:

Indeed, and note that there were (apparently, our history books speak of them even if Wiki does not) several encounters like that, especially during round 3.

 

In any event while the Cod War(s (we count them as three seperate wars)) are a fun discussion they're not really related to this now are they.

I support Iceland claiming it "won", in the end, they did.

 

My original point was you could stick a gun on any ship and make it work like a warship... I had to use a real world example as "real" examples don't exist in the game... sure, paper ship, but they are hardly a trawler with a gun stuck on in so they can claim its a warship. During any war, private ships are always the first to be recruited... armed trawlers in WW1 and 2, passenger ships as armed troop transports, armed freighters... even the small ship fleet which saved the UK Soldiers from the beaches of Dunkirk... hmmm, in game, the Dunkirk mission might count....

[Captain_Newman]

13 minutes ago, Kiwi1960 said:

Actually, AVIATION science says Bumble bees (not bees) should not be able to fly.... because AVIATION Science says they are too heavy.... Bees are fine... big fat BUMBLE bees shouldn't be able to fly according to those the design and build airplanes... I hope this helps.

 

Irrelevant. They don't fly like airplanes. It's literally applying a wrong set of rules to come up with a "miracle" of defying them. Read the links I posted, they explain it in greater detail. There is nothing weird or unexplained in how they fly.

[Spartacus_Mills]

On 12/17/2019 at 3:17 AM, DrMechano said:

The Lion is JUST awful...with the raised citadel meaning the Yamashi combo crap on her from all directions, 32mm of armour all over meaning she eats HE shells like a fat guy at a buffet and now probably the wonkiest dispersion at tier 9 mean that the Lion is now, in my opinion, probably the worst tier 9 available. The Soyez was a dream to play through, the Izumo is passable with very accurate guns, the Fat Freddy is...decent now..., the Iowa had its citadel lowered long ago. So yeah she is probably now the worst tier 9 BB.

How did you find the Monarch?

[Kiwi1960]

15 hours ago, Captain_Newman said:

 

Irrelevant. They don't fly like airplanes. It's literally applying a wrong set of rules to come up with a "miracle" of defying them. Read the links I posted, they explain it in greater detail. There is nothing weird or unexplained in how they fly.

Helicopters don't fly like airoplanes either, abut "aviation" is the art of flying, irrelevant if by glider, propeller, jet, and with or without wings.

 

You logic would dictate that an office building could fly regardless of weight provided it had engines... either way, lets get back on topic...

[Captain_Newman]

11 minutes ago, Kiwi1960 said:

Helicopters don't fly like airoplanes either, abut "aviation" is the art of flying, irrelevant if by glider, propeller, jet, and with or without wings.

 

You logic would dictate that an office building could fly regardless of weight provided it had engines... either way, lets get back on topic...

 

Except this whole claim originated not by applying a rule set that included all flying machines with fixed AND rotary-wing aircraft, but by attempting to apply a fixed-wing aerodynamics rule set to a creature that doesn't fly like a regular airplane, thus rendering it invalid. I repeat, bumblebees flying is no miracle, this isn't something that has scientists confounded, it isn't some science-shattering thing, we understand their flight entirely.

 

Again, read the links I posted. A bumblebee couldn't fly if you apply a  rule set from fixed-wing aerodynamics, to be specific. This argument is a well known example of bad logic due to applying a ruleset that doesn't apply here. There is nothing forbidding them from flying, and indeed they are, and we understand entirely how. Using this argument to suggest a miracle or to try and suggest science is wrong (hence you should buy into this set of completely unsubstantiated beliefs, usually perpetuated by various pseudoscentists and the like) is just false logic. Now please, go read up on it, there are plenty of articles from respectable, verifiable sources that explain why that whole argument is false in great detail.

 

An office building could fly if you detached it from it's foundations and somehow provided enough thrust. It's a simple matter of overcoming thrust to weight ratios. Of course, there is no reason to do so, it would be impractical, expensive, and dangerous, which is why nobody's doing it, but it's still a bad example.

 

 

[Kiwi1960]

8 minutes ago, Captain_Newman said:

 

Except this whole claim originated not by applying a rule set that included all flying machines with fixed AND rotary-wing aircraft, but by attempting to apply a fixed-wing aerodynamics rule set to a creature that doesn't fly like a regular airplane, thus rendering it invalid. I repeat, bumblebees flying is no miracle, this isn't something that has scientists confounded, it isn't some science-shattering thing, we understand their flight entirely.

 

Again, read the links I posted. A bumblebee couldn't fly if you apply a  rule set from fixed-wing aerodynamics, to be specific. This argument is a well known example of bad logic due to applying a ruleset that doesn't apply here. There is nothing forbidding them from flying, and indeed they are, and we understand entirely how. Using this argument to suggest a miracle or to try and suggest science is wrong (hence you should buy into this set of completely unsubstantiated beliefs, usually perpetuated by various pseudoscentists and the like) is just false logic. Now please, go read up on it, there are plenty of articles from respectable, verifiable sources that explain why that whole argument is false in great detail.

 

An office building could fly if you detached it from it's foundations and somehow provided enough thrust. It's a simple matter of overcoming thrust to weight ratios. Of course, there is no reason to do so, it would be impractical, expensive, and dangerous, which is why nobody's doing it, but it's still a bad example.

 

 

The whole claim was incidental to a forum dedicated to warships and world of.....

 

I suggest there that if you want to continue the discussion, we try to find a way of applying it to "flying warships"  ... seeing as you do not really "drive" a CV but fly her.....planes.... which is odd, I thought this was WoWs... not WoWp....

 

hmmm.... someone should be shot.... heck, they have a better argument for sinking subs.... than flying ships..... and yes, I am changing the subject.... I do not wish to get told off for going off topic ... even IF we should be discussing the Lion and its failure to be a good ship.... but a flying ship is still more on topic than what we were discussing.... Live long and prosper, Captain_Newman, and keep your powder dry...

[Nit0]

50 minutes ago, Kiwi1960 said:

The whole claim was incidental to a forum dedicated to warships and world of.....

 

I suggest there that if you want to continue the discussion, we try to find a way of applying it to "flying warships"  ... seeing as you do not really "drive" a CV but fly her.....planes.... which is odd, I thought this was WoWs... not WoWp....

 

hmmm.... someone should be shot.... heck, they have a better argument for sinking subs.... than flying ships..... and yes, I am changing the subject.... I do not wish to get told off for going off topic ... even IF we should be discussing the Lion and its failure to be a good ship.... but a flying ship is still more on topic than what we were discussing.... Live long and prosper, Captain_Newman, and keep your powder dry...

A carrier is a warship, simple as that.

[Kiwi1960]

16 minutes ago, Nit0 said:

A carrier is a warship, simple as that.

But in this game, you do buy the carrier, but really, you fly the planes.... even you should admit to that.

[Nit0]

4 hours ago, Kiwi1960 said:

But in this game, you do buy the carrier, but really, you fly the planes.... even you should admit to that.

True, anything else would be a bit weird. You control it's weapon system just like any other ship in the game.