British BBs Good?

[Miscommunication]

On 3/17/2020 at 10:00 AM, Bunny_Lover_Kallen said:

I mean, it's same CD as any normal repair party.

But normal BBs have actual armor

[HaachamaShipping]

On 3/19/2020 at 3:24 PM, Drasnighta said:

But normal BBs have actual armor

French are pretty much same, Americans only have the difference of being more resistent to hits amidships from Yamato and 32 mm pen HE, the Germans, Russians and Yamato are the only ships that can actually boast having a great deal better armour. But there are reasons why a Conqueror/Thunderer can 1v1 any non-British BB except Yamato, given 32 mm plating still bounces basically everything else.

[mirage77]

On 3/18/2020 at 7:29 AM, BarskiPatzow said:

Oh, I've passed both KGV and Monarch. I Loved both ships, with Monarch being my favorite tier 8 ship. Whole line so far seems to suit me very well. I feel like whole line is pretty flexible.

Reading this it seems to me there are 2 diferent Monarch in the game. The one that i played was almost useless with poor AP, ok He and no accuracy. Never hated a ship so much.

From the players i have talk to, they either love it or hate it. Funny how 2 diferent players have the oposite impressions of the same ship.

[Pegasus2022]

On 3/29/2020 at 6:40 PM, mirage77 said:

Reading this it seems to me there are 2 diferent Monarch in the game. The one that i played was almost useless with poor AP, ok He and no accuracy. Never hated a ship so much.

From the players i have talk to, they either love it or hate it. Funny how 2 diferent players have the oposite impressions of the same ship.

Monarch used to be much better untillit was passively nerfed by the global conceilment nerf.

 

It used to have 11.2km but now has 12+

[HaachamaShipping]

1 minute ago, Pegasus2022 said:

Monarch used to be much better untillit was passively nerfed by the global conceilment nerf.

 

It used to have 11.2km but now has 12+

It has 11.5 km.

[Pegasus2022]

5 minutes ago, Bunny_Lover_Kallen said:

It has 11.5 km.

It's much less viable ship after the CV rework.

Monarch could rely on concealment and it was sort of its thing. Now it's pretty worthless to put points into with the concealment rework nerfing it and aircraft spotting everywhere.

[HaachamaShipping]

10 minutes ago, Pegasus2022 said:

It's much less viable ship after the CV rework.

Monarch could rely on concealment and it was sort of its thing. Now it's pretty worthless to put points into with the concealment rework nerfing it and aircraft spotting everywhere.

Concealment nerf was global and hit Monarch with 300 m. Still is the stealthiest T8 BB, outspotting many cruisers.

 

CV rework actually mostly removed global spotting, making it more localised and also culled DD population, which means fewer ships outspotting it. Apart from that, still has best dpm of T8 BB.

[Pegasus2022]

On 4/4/2020 at 10:04 PM, Bunny_Lover_Kallen said:

Concealment nerf was global and hit Monarch with 300 m. Still is the stealthiest T8 BB, outspotting many cruisers.

 

CV rework actually mostly removed global spotting, making it more localised and also culled DD population, which means fewer ships outspotting it. Apart from that, still has best dpm of T8 BB.

I sometimes think you argue for the sake of arguing. Monarch is a poor T8 ship, even IF you know how to play it even before the CV rework and with a stealth build. You could make it work then if it was in the right hands and played it that way.

 

Now what edge it had has been eroded. It's very rarely seen in game and I didn't see one in 1v1 ranked, apart from myself and I took the masochist route and took Vanguard in for a lot of my games.

 

It is a poor T8 BB, whichever way you look at it.

[lafeel]

8 minutes ago, Pegasus2022 said:

It is a poor T8 BB, whichever way you look at it.

In your opinion, you mean. Opinions are not fact.

[Pegasus2022]

24 minutes ago, lafeel said:

In your opinion, you mean. Opinions are not fact.

You know, whenever I see this I think people have nothing to argue a point with and that's because they don't.

Monarch is the least T8 silver BB bar the Vladi, which has been in much less time and has been played half as much. Even the French T8 BB has more games played and came in after Monarch.

Before any changes and on release, it was always generally considered a poor BB so it's not just my opinion, but a lot of other people's too.

 

Finally, it's not as if I haven't played the thing extensively.

[lafeel]

24 minutes ago, Pegasus2022 said:

You know, whenever I see this I think people have nothing to argue a point with and that's because they don't.

Monarch is the least T8 silver BB bar the Vladi, which has been in much less time and has been played half as much. Even the French T8 BB has more games played and came in after Monarch.

Before any changes and on release, it was always generally considered a poor BB so it's not just my opinion, but a lot of other people's too.

 

Finally, it's not as if I haven't played the thing extensively.

Funny, I'd bet you'd sing a different song if our positions were reversed..

[HaachamaShipping]

2 hours ago, Pegasus2022 said:

I sometimes think you argue for the sake of arguing. Monarch is a poor T8 ship, even IF you know how to play it even before the CV rework and with a stealth build. You could make it work then if it was in the right hands and played it that way.

 

Now what edge it had has been eroded. It's very rarely seen in game and I didn't see one in 1v1 ranked, apart from myself and I took the masochist route and took Vanguard in for a lot of my games.

 

It is a poor T8 BB, whichever way you look at it.

Monarch still has solid stats in its server performance.

Monarch still has a concealment edge, still has a dpm advantage, access to high HE alpha and an improved repair party.

1v1 ranked is not how you evaluate a ship that usually should be balanced for randoms. It's not representative and trying to based on 1v1 ranked is either dishonest or just stupid. You decide what you want to be.

1 hour ago, Pegasus2022 said:

You know, whenever I see this I think people have nothing to argue a point with and that's because they don't.

Monarch is the least T8 silver BB bar the Vladi, which has been in much less time and has been played half as much. Even the French T8 BB has more games played and came in after Monarch.

Before any changes and on release, it was always generally considered a poor BB so it's not just my opinion, but a lot of other people's too.

 

Finally, it's not as if I haven't played the thing extensively.

Just because people don't play it much doesn't mean its bad, just like a ship being played a lot doesn't make it bad. Amagi is not even played half as much as the Bismarck and every T8 tech tree ship except Bismarck gets put to shame by the amount of Tirpitz there are. Yet few would argue that Amagi and NC are absolute trash because they get played less than the German sisters, despite being way older. Or I guess the Henri IV is an absolute piece of trash, because it has less battles played in it than the Worcester and even compares not that well with the Salem that might overtake it. Nevermind that it once dominated CB.

 

As to your own experience in it, tell me, how does it compare to your performance in other T8 tech tree BBs?

[Grimsley]

The reason lots of people don't like Monarch compared to KGV isn't just because it has worse HE fire % than KGV, like the first page of this thread seems to try and portray.

It has:

• The same HP as KGV.
• The same base concealment (both air and sea) as KGV.
• The same speed as KGV.
• The same turning circle as KGV.
• The same rudder shift as KGV.
• The same consumables as KGV.
• The same secondaries as KGV.
• The same firing range as KGV.
• The same traverse as KGV.
• The same sigma as KGV.
• The same dispersion formula as KGV.
• The same reload as KGV.
• One fewer barrel than KGV.
• Lower HE damage per shell than KGV.
• The same long range AA as KGV.

 

When you go up a tier in a ship, you tend to expect it to... y'know... go up in stats. Not be the 90% the same and a big chunk of the remainder sidegrade.

 

But hey, at least the short and mid-range AA is better! And it gets the standard perks awarded to every tier 8 upon entry (32mm plate and concealment mod)!

 

You could argue that the AP is better, but to be brutally honest relative to its competition the AP is still absolute crap. The penetration is terrible (every other 15" BB at tier 8 has better pen), the accuracy is poor and it doesn't get 16" overmatch. Upgrading its guns to 'worst tier 8 AP level' certainly doesn't make up for the rest its stats being a tier 7 KGV sitting at tier 8 that accidentally lost some flamethrower fuel.

 

The sad thing is, if you put the current tier 7 KGV in its spot and only gave it the standard tier 8 perks, you'd probably have a more powerful ship - or at the very least, if the identical stats are anything to go by: you'd have the same ship.

 

Add to that the fact that it's a lazy 'famous and historical' copy paste assets model of frankenstein parts sitting where KGV could be and the disappointment with her grows further.

Bear in mind, it's still a BB. As such its still overall forgiving, comfortable to play and a half decent player should be able to do well in her and have good games. But if you're thinking, 'well, that must be because I know something they don't!' as if you've cracked the Monarch code and discovered a diamond in the rough, I can say for certain that it sure isn't because she's objectively good, and there is good reason the Monarch is pretty much the bottom of the barrel pick for anything serious. As far as the tier 8 BBs go and even relative to the KGV before it: it's a stinker.

[Odo_Toothless]

On 4/4/2020 at 11:04 PM, Bunny_Lover_Kallen said:

Concealment nerf was global and hit Monarch with 300 m.

Had 10.9 km, so 600 m. But even then, was not so fun to play in constant matches vs IX/X ships. Highly inaccurate, with AP without penetration. Des nose in on flank ? Retreat - You can do nothing. Montana full broadside on 11 km ? It will be on hit You think. Reality ? All shells can't penetrate her citadel or just miss, salvo after salvo etc. But at least it was almost immune herself to citadel hits ...

 

Had 80k average after almost 100 games, but it was often struggle for me. Main factor was terrible MM.

[HaachamaShipping]

16 hours ago, Grimsley said:

You could argue that the AP is better, but to be brutally honest relative to its competition the AP is still absolute crap. The penetration is terrible (every other 15" BB at tier 8 has better pen), the accuracy is poor and it doesn't get 16" overmatch. Upgrading its guns to 'worst tier 8 AP level' certainly doesn't make up for the rest its stats being a tier 7 KGV sitting at tier 8 that accidentally lost some flamethrower fuel.

The gap between KGV and its competition and the Monarch and its competition in terms of AP performance certainly closes down by going up a tier, which is pretty much one of the main points of the Monarch. Arguing the caliber increase still does not overmatch everything also is not really telling the entire story when you consider that most cruisers only get 25 mm at high tiers as minimum plating, not 27 mm, same with mid-tier BBs that get 26 mm. Monarch will overmatch all these, while a KGV won't. Monarch can be an effective threat to a T8 or T9 light cruiser, KGV won't.

 

And the comparison of the Monarch vs KGV without considering the difference in what kind of armaments it brings and what a difference in light plating means, as well as T8 concealment mod is like trying to argue the Mogami is crap, because you can make the same list of the ship compared vs Myoko.

Quote

It has:

 

100 hp less than Myoko

Worse base air detection.

Half a knot worse speed.

The same rudder shift as Myoko.

The same consumables as Myoko.

The same secondaries as Myoko.

Almost the same firing range as Myoko.

The same traverse as Myoko (unless you mount the 203s).

The same sigma as Myoko.

Worse dispersion formula than Myoko (unless you mount the 203s).

Lower HE damage per shell than Myoko (unless you mount 203s).

The same long range AA as Myoko.

Is higher in the water compared to Myoko.

Has a worse deck plating than Myoko.

Needs IFHE skill (unless you mount 203s).

Way worse AP penetration (unless you mount 203s).

If you mount 203s, you have worse dpm than Myoko.

Similar kind of cherry picked list can be made for Mogami vs Ibuki.

 

Or you can acknowledge that 203s are just a different kind of gun than the 155s and that getting 27 mm plating and a way better concealment from concealment mod might actually be enough of an increase when going up a tier (and the addition of repair, reload/range mod and spotter plane for Ibuki). Because I could also whine about how the Mogami in neither 203s nor 155s is outstanding, because for both CAs and CLs you now got better ships. Who cares that both are workable guns?

17 hours ago, Grimsley said:

Bear in mind, it's still a BB. As such its still overall forgiving, comfortable to play and a half decent player should be able to do well in her and have good games. But if you're thinking, 'well, that must be because I know something they don't!' as if you've cracked the Monarch code and discovered a diamond in the rough, I can say for certain that it sure isn't because she's objectively good, and there is good reason the Monarch is pretty much the bottom of the barrel pick for anything serious. As far as the tier 8 BBs go and even relative to the KGV before it: it's a stinker.

Guess most T8 DDs are garbage, because Akizuki and Kiev are the top DD picks for anything serious outshining ships like Benson, Harekaze, Le Fantasque and even Kidd. Because T8 CB sure was not a DD fiesta of those ships. And if you consider Ranked modes, Monarch is workable, unless its 1v1, in which case, guess Tirpitz OP. For T8 competitive, Monarch struggles at the 1 BB restriction, because most rather run a Vladivostok. Yet if you'd pit Monarch vs stuff like Richelieu, Monarch actually is a better pick already, just because it is tankier, has more options to deal with ships it cannot overmatch, has better dpm, concealment and actually better accuracy. That much for "bottom of the barrel". It's not insanely good, but it's also far from garbage when you look at what you actually get for going up a tier.

[Maris_Piper]

On first starting the game and being from England and into Naval History since I was a child I so looked forward to playing these ships, In reality they had world beating armour Great Guns etc It didn't take long to realise that what it offered in game is nothing like reality, they look pretty but that is about it. I went to the German and IJN  line and ground those out.. Why 72 second turret travers I'll never know,. I did finally get to HMS Lion but then threw some coal at HMS Thunderer and thought  it... What was done to HMS Vanguard was a Travesty even down to the wrong secondary armament .Rant Over 

[Pegasus2022]

On 4/8/2020 at 4:12 PM, Bunny_Lover_Kallen said:

.And if you consider Ranked modes, Monarch is workable, unless its 1v1, in which case, guess Tirpitz OP. For T8 competitive, Monarch struggles at the 1 BB restriction, because most rather run a Vladivostok. Yet if you'd pit Monarch vs stuff like Richelieu, Monarch actually is a better pick already, just because it is tankier, has more options to deal with ships it cannot overmatch, has better dpm, concealment and actually better accuracy. That much for "bottom of the barrel". It's not insanely good, but it's also far from garbage when you look at what you actually get for going up a tier.

I dont think Ive never seen a Monarc in ranked, other than when ive been playing it and then had random team mates tell me why did I bring it.

 

I can make it work to a degree but im not an average player and it is a uphill struggle with it.

 

You're hilarious to say its a viable ranked pick. It's literally bottom stock.

 

Monarch is rarely seen in randoms, never mind ranked.

It's the same story for Vanguard except its a premium.

[HaachamaShipping]

1 minute ago, Pegasus2022 said:

I dont think Ive never seen a Monarc in ranked, other than when ive been playing it and then had random team mates tell me why did I bring it.

 

I can make it work to a degree but im not an average player and it is a uphill struggle with it.

 

You're hilarious to say its a viable ranked pick. It's literally bottom stock.

 

Monarch is rarely seen in randoms, never mind ranked.

It's the same story for Vanguard except its a premium.

Because the average random player is the best source of wisdom regarding ship picks. That's why last non 1v1 Ranked Sprint (Season 9) was 11.2% Bismarck, 7.5% Tirpitz and only 4.8% Vladivostok. Guess Bismarck is just the most OP T8 BB ever. Meanwhile Kagero was most-played T8 DD and the Hipper the most played T8 cruiser after Cleveland, but I guess with the Bisko spam, at least Hipper has some role.

[SoothingWhaleSong]

I did very well (for me) with the King George V and especially Monarch.

It does encourage a dubiously usefully cruiser play-style of staying mobile and fire at range, which arguably doesn't draw enough fire away from allies to be that useful as a BB.

 

I'd be interested in people's ideas of what the British BB's should have been better at instead of stealth and HE spam.

[dapprman]

Think I was close to the Conqueror before the CV rework curse came about.  I enjoyed the series and really enjoyed the Monarch - more so than the South Carolina, Bismarck, Richelieu and Amagi, though I never played it as a long range sniper, so the 'stealth' build never came in to it.

 

Of note, don't ignore the AP, against CLs at any range (and most CAs) and against BBs at ~12km and less, it is deadly, it's just at range that it's fuse mechanism makes it near useless against anything with armour.

 

Conqueror is the only one I've struggled to get on with and I think that's because I do not enjoy sitting at the back of the map and sniping.

 

Note this is my personal opinion having actually played my way through the British line without the use of free exp and having played every non-Premium tier 8 BB in the game aside from the Soviet one (and premium wise the Roma and Massachusetts B- though not much on the latter).

[Hopeless_Guppy]

On 4/13/2020 at 8:08 PM, SoothingWhaleSong said:

I did very well (for me) with the King George V and especially Monarch.

It does encourage a dubiously usefully cruiser play-style of staying mobile and fire at range, which arguably doesn't draw enough fire away from allies to be that useful as a BB.

 

I'd be interested in people's ideas of what the British BB's should have been better at instead of stealth and HE spam.

Aha I have seen you in various battles, always marvelled at your name, sort of relaxed me, quite a bit in fact.

My favourite British BB is the Nelson, the KGV and her premium sibling never really took hold for me, the monarch at first I viewed as a British Roma, bad range, same goes for the Vlad, but then I started to warm to her, no idea why, I just did, on one account i have the Lion and the Conqueror, and on the alt (the one with fairy decent WR) I am grinding up through to the Lion, and eventually to the tier 10.

 

Personally BB wise only the German and Ru BB's come close to enjoyment stakes, with Wyoming Texas and Massachusetts, (for the US) being the exceptions and the  Kongo, Nagato and the mighty Mushashi for the IJN

[MRGTB]

If you like QE, then you'll like KVG and Monarch that comes after it ever better.

 

Many rate KVG as being the best Brit BB playing at tier 7 level, but many don't seem to like the Monarch that much coming after it playing at Tier 8.  I think both are pretty okay ships, far better than playing QE with its ultra slow turret traverse speed.

 

Is the QE a good representation of the rest of the line? Well maybe yes, when you get to Lion and Conq. But KVG and Monarch differ a bit from QE because they have 3 gun turrets and are more like heavy cruisers with better mobility but at the cost of weaker armour. But after them two - Lion and Conq sort of go back to being more like QE again

[HaachamaShipping]

15 hours ago, MRGTB said:

If you like QE, then you'll like KVG and Monarch that comes after it ever better.

 

Many rate KVG as being the best Brit BB playing at tier 7 level, but many don't seem to like the Monarch that much coming after it playing at Tier 8.  I think both are pretty okay ships, far better than playing QE with its ultra slow turret traverse speed.

 

Is the QE a good representation of the rest of the line? Well maybe yes, when you get to Lion and Conq. But KVG and Monarch differ a bit from QE because they have 3 gun turrets and are more like heavy cruisers with better mobility but at the cost of weaker armour. But after them two - Lion and Conq sort of go back to being more like QE again

Actually, QE and Monarch play more similarly to each other, KGV and Lion play similar.

 

QE is the first in the line to feature all-or-nothing armour, so armour-wise, QE to Conq is about as crap, only QE has the lower cit. But from KGV on you now get the new prominent citadel, so hull-wise, you are dealing with just upscaled KGVs. Lion and Conqueror tier for tier are the same the KGV and Monarch were, which is minimal plating everywhere except the armour belt, which is decent. In a way, Monarch tier for tier has the best protection of them all, because it has one of the best belts at T8, while Conqueror at T10 is just mediocre compared to peers with few being poorer. Mobility for KGV is good only by comparison in tier, Monarch meanwhile compared to T8 is underwhelming, Lion too, Conqueror is average. No big issues, but calling Monarch's mobility good is like calling the Monarch's AP pen good. It exists, it's not good, but at least passable enough to work.

 

The biggest difference in playstyle is due to guns and here the breaks are from QE to KGV, from KGV to Monarch and from Monarch to Lion. QE has big guns for T6, which are accurate, so it can go use AP and only use HE if it needs the big alpha (e.g. DDs), as the fire chance is not anything special. KGV then has small guns that have great HE, but the AP is kind of trash, so you rely heavily on HE. Monarch which is next in line has underwhelming AP, but the AP at least is good enough to use it most of the time, falling back on HE to shoot BB at range or bow-in ships you cannot overmatch. Monarch keeps KGV reload, so it also has good dpm. Lion and Conqueror then fall off with AP performance compared to tier, where they have straight up the worst AP performance on the tier, being poor in dpm, pen, shell velocity, accuracy, ... while the HE becomes better again. As a result, while you can use AP to shoot broadside targets at mid to short range, the HE will be far more prominent again than on Monarch. This leads to a situation where Monarch and QE are far more similar than the other three, as they are AP-heavy ships, not HE. 

[Wizzmeister]

Dont play them, they are not battleships, some weird quasi heavy cruiser, the only thing you got is stealth, but if you want stealth, play a DD instead. It sucks for me atleast.

I cant figure them out, they get overmatched by everything. and cant citadel a BB at all.

 

Sure you can sit behind an island and pretend to be a cruiser and HE spam, but cruisers do it better.

 

I regret grinding this line.

 

In short, the only thing they are good for is stealth kiting other bbs and spam HE(assuming they dont have a dd infront spotting you, then your fucked)

 

EDIT: I checked my stats and nvm, I suck with all BBS, but especially with the UK ones=P

[MixuS]

British have some great premium BBs, namely Warspite, Nelson and Thunderer. Tech tree is pretty ok up to and including Monarch, but Lion is, for me at least, pretty much the worst tier 9 I have played. At least worst tier 9 BB (Neptune competes strongly on worst ship overall). Haven't got Conqueror yet but it feels a bit pointles since I got Thunderer.