Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Spellfire40

American BBs AA a bit overpowered?

52 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[BLOBS]
Beta Tester
5,072 posts
9,827 battles

They seriously need to  check up the american Line BB aa firepower. Last night i atacked a colerado with and Ryujo. On Direct auck with 2 group of Dive bombers without any suporting fire he completly shot down one and decimated the other to a single plane. Not even a Cleaveland with active aa skill does that much damage to atacking flights. I kind of understand that i loose 1 to 3 Torp bombers per atack since this on a dime turning BBs can be only hit by close manuel drops but this is compleatly off. Who needs fighter cover or defending CAs with this kind of firepower? I realise that he was one lv higher but that was never a problem before when atacking BBs. Any of you noticed fights like that were it was clearly not a case of suporting fire of fighter cover?

 

 

cu

 

Spellfire40


 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
219 posts

dont think so.. they need it becauce they have no torpedobelts... they take a lot of damage by torps.

Edited by IceZapfen
  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BLOBS]
Beta Tester
5,072 posts
9,827 battles

I wasnt talking about damage per hit you just dont hit them because of their tiny turn radius but that wasnt the point if you get very close to actually land manuel torp hits you lose planes and with that i dont have a problem but shoting down a nearly 2 flights of divebombers without suport?. This is way to much.


 

cu


 

Spellfire40

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
2,271 posts
1,040 battles

The combination of insane AA and DDlike turning radius can't good balance idea and they don't take much more damage (compared to IJN BBs).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BORF]
Beta Tester
581 posts
1,144 battles

dont think so.. they need it becauce they have no torpedobelts... they take a lot of damage by torps.

 

a lot of damage by torps ! hahahah you are a funny guy ! next time my torps do more than 3k damage i'll let you know alright ?
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FMMI]
Beta Tester
11 posts
638 battles

Well, historically AA fire from US BBs was very intense, so it makes sense that they are well protected.

My experience with torpedo bombers is that if I don't turn toward them when they close I get slaughtered, which is good. Damage seems a lot more than 3k per torp, yesterday I ate a full 6 torp spread (yes, all of it) with a slow tier IV BB and lost about 40k. Would have sunk through flooding, too, if not for me killing the last CV ten seconds later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weekend Tester
109 posts
836 battles

Honestly I don't find them overpowered. 

 

First you attacked the last of the treaty battleship, surely upgraded to its max, thus with most than impressive AA, her captain surely had  AA improvement and the ship AA module.

Second you were in a Ryujo one tier lower and in aircraft quality it does a lot.

Third don't forget that they pay for their good side armor and good AA with an incredibly slow speed, a really short firing range (shorter than CA) and horrible steering time even if their turn radius is good, due to their shortness.

 

So to me they are balanced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,088 posts
2,073 battles

Well, historically AA fire from US BBs was very intense, 

 

Historicaly US BB did not have a turning radius that would make DD seem sluggish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BORF]
Beta Tester
581 posts
1,144 battles

Well, historically AA fire from US BBs was very intense, so it makes sense that they are well protected.

My experience with torpedo bombers is that if I don't turn toward them when they close I get slaughtered, which is good. Damage seems a lot more than 3k per torp, yesterday I ate a full 6 torp spread (yes, all of it) with a slow tier IV BB and lost about 40k. Would have sunk through flooding, too, if not for me killing the last CV ten seconds later.

 

historically us bbs were used for screening of carrier task forces that's why they had strong aa which is completly different from what they do in the game, right now a north carolina or an iowa are nearly unattackable from the sky while having really strong armor range and armament and are still pretty agile that is too much especially when compared to the jap counterparts like amagi which is not even a battleship but a battlecruiser
Edited by Zaods

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
4,194 posts
9,512 battles

Honestly I don't find them overpowered. 

 

First you attacked the last of the treaty battleship, surely upgraded to its max, thus with most than impressive AA, her captain surely had  AA improvement and the ship AA module.

Second you were in a Ryujo one tier lower and in aircraft quality it does a lot.

Third don't forget that they pay for their good side armor and good AA with an incredibly slow speed, a really short firing range (shorter than CA) and horrible steering time even if their turn radius is good, due to their shortness.

 

So to me they are balanced.

 

However in the game, the speed is of nearly no consequence, only the turning time is, and the ability to pretty much turn faster than an equal tier TB squadron can circle into position from outside medium range AAA.

 

Now, being able to avoid torps is fine, however US BBs can avoid them just by turning as they're dropped or spotted.

 

However, I've found this to nearly be the case with many ships in 3.1, so it seems to me it's rather the general increase in turning ability ontop of the generous turning of US BBs that puts it somewhat into silly category (ie, turning in less than the length of the ship).

Edited by AgarwaenME

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weekend Tester
109 posts
836 battles

 

However in the game, the speed is of nearly no consequence

 

speed no consequence?  Wow ever been mauled by a CA/BB staying out of your fire range but within his because they speed allow them to outrun you ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FMMI]
Beta Tester
11 posts
638 battles

 

speed no consequence?  Wow ever been mauled by a CA/BB staying out of your fire range but within his because they speed allow them to outrun you ?

 

This. Speed is very important. Also for being where you are needed, instead of being at the end of the line for half the match.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FAIL]
Beta Tester
185 posts
3,233 battles

 

a lot of damage by torps ! hahahah you are a funny guy ! next time my torps do more than 3k damage i'll let you know alright ?

 

i will just leave this one here then

 

http://gfycat.com/SoggyLegalBaiji

 

perfectly balanced that, yup, nothing wrong, nope!

 

anyway, the problem is not the AA capability but rather the handling that makes a go-cart green with envy if it could corner that tightly, it seems meaningless to muck about with any values until that has been resolved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
990 posts
3,372 battles

"I attacked a hard counter to my planes and I lost that fight so that means it's OP"

 

You don't see me complaining about getting roflstomped by a wall of torpedoes launched by a destroyer after I made a mistake of sailing my battleship too close to one. 

 

Don't attack North Carolina / Iowa / Montana with airplanes and you're good. Just like a battleship shouldn't sail straight at a destroyer. Their immense AA is historical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
2,271 posts
1,040 battles

Don't attack North Carolina / Iowa / Montana with airplanes and you're good. Just like a battleship shouldn't sail straight at a destroyer. Their immense AA is historical.

 

You are kidding right?  It's like I will tell you don't attack USN cruisers (your food - cruisers), because they can spam HE on you. If CVs don't attack BBs who should they attack, DDs probably?

Also what's historical about it? Better then on IJN ships? Of course. Shooting down plane every 1.5 sec when 3 km or closer, so killing 3 japanese TB squadrons in 18 sec? I'm sure the modern AEGIS can't do that (against modern planes of course)...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
990 posts
3,372 battles

I have an Iowa myself and when attacked by 3 squadrons of TB it usually only manages to kill one squadron before the other two can drop their torpedoes. It absolutely slaughters dive bombers but then again IMO that would be the CV captain's fault for trying to fly above something that has an AA armament worthy of an entire field division. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
2,271 posts
1,040 battles

I have an Iowa myself and when attacked by 3 squadrons of TB it usually only manages to kill one squadron before the other two can drop their torpedoes.

Because you don't the have all the AA upgrades and 2 of the captain perks. You also probably don't focus the squadrons to increase the damage.

The entire point is that some BBs (food of CVs who are supposed to be weak to airpower unescorted by cruisers) don't just have better AA then the other BBs, they simply have the best AA ingame and that's by far. 1 Iowa has the effective AA power (in terms of dps to planes) of dew Des Moines and DM is AA cruiser after all. That might be normal only for you when you are sailing with your Iowa :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
990 posts
3,372 battles

I have every AA upgrade except the +20% effectiveness, I always use focus fire on squadrons.

 

Anyways we can have this argument for days, I personally think it's fine for a battleship that doesn't have the best mobility and a bad antitorpedo belt and which historically had an insane amount of AA to perform as well as it currently does (which is worse than you make it out to be). Especially after I've invested several modules and captain skills into improving it. Iowa usually kills 'only' about half the planes that attack it, and 2/3 TB squadrons usually make it far enough to drop their torpedoes and only get further destroyed on their way back home. But as neither of us have both ships in port we can't really compare since we clearly experience clashes between the two completely different. Plus apparently our opinion on fundamental gameplay elements seems to differ, since I agree with the game currently sporting hard counters you should just avoid (avoid Iowa with planes, like Iowa should avoid destroyers) while you apparently want perfect asymmetrical balance between ships/classes. 

 

The fact that it's so much more effective than Des Moines IMO has more to do with the fact that they gave the DM a ridiculously low amount of DPM for the mid-long range guns.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
2,271 posts
1,040 battles

I have every AA upgrade except the +20% effectiveness, I always use focus fire on squadrons.

 

Anyways we can have this argument for days, I personally think it's fine for a battleship that doesn't have the best mobility and a bad antitorpedo belt and which historically had an insane amount of AA to perform as well as it currently does (which is worse than you make it out to be). Especially after I've invested several modules and captain skills into improving it. Iowa usually kills 'only' about half the planes that attack it, and 2/3 TB squadrons usually make it far enough to drop their torpedoes and only get further destroyed on their way back home. But as neither of us have both ships in port we can't really compare since we clearly experience clashes between the two completely different. Plus apparently our opinion on fundamental gameplay elements seems to differ, since I agree with the game currently sporting hard counters you should just avoid (avoid Iowa with planes, like Iowa should avoid destroyers) while you apparently want perfect asymmetrical balance between ships/classes. 

 

Well Iowa is not taking really more torp damage compared to the Izumo and it's not much sluggish either. Also you think that counters shouldn't be limited to class vs class ... well how do you imagine high tier cruiser that is turning slower then BB and has pathetic AA (without the defensive fire ability) so it's easy target for CVs and should search protection from ... BBs. Or another high tier cruiser that will have some alien guns and armour so that BBs shouldn't engage in artillery with that ... cruiser.

I see that you have 0 battles with CV, but do you understand now how your suggestion that CV should avoid BB sounds?

 

Btw if you don't shoot them all down you simply took some damage already, because when you receive hits the AA guns are destroyed, so after few  good HEs on the superstructure the AA is not so OP anymore and planes can at least drop some torps. But it's the same with every other ship ingame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,196 posts
5,309 battles

AA power in the game is at least about 5-10 times more effective then in reality.

 

We had a pretty constructive discussion over here about it if you are interested in details or motivations why:

 

http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/13742-cv-plane-repair-regenerate-aircraft-over-time/

 

Basically to sum it up in reality you could except between 2 - 20% of the attacking airplanes to be shot down by AA fire against latewar targets. The former would be ineffective and smaller groups of ships overwhelmed by air attacks like the Yamato suicide mission, and the latter would be a full USN task-force of hundreds of ships in formation all opening up against sporadic attacks from fragile Japanese bombers.

 

 

 

 

As primary a Battleship captain I can say that I think AA is too powerful and needs some kind of change.

 

The primary effect real AA had was disruption, not shooting down enemy airplanes.

 

As such I suggest that the "panic" is revamped to become a gradual change from perfect lined up drop until around half as bad as when targeted by cruiser ability or fighters. This means that any AA if the combined fire is dense enough, can make noticeable disruptions in accuracy of bombers but only against the targeted squadron. Since it's a gradual buildup you can't instantly switch target to the approaching bomber and disrupt them, and AA defenses can still be overwhelmed by higher number of squadrons.

 

In turn you can lower the AA damage across the board to around half of what it is now, at least in higher tiers.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weekend Tester
109 posts
836 battles

AA power in the game is at least about 5-10 times more effective then in reality.

 

The primary effect real AA had was disruption, not shooting down enemy airplanes.

 

 

But it is in the game because it is a game.   In reality it was not because they had air cover to protect them from the sky.  Here you don't have air cover so to balance it the AA efficiency has been  raised.    It's the same otherwise do you think that air group returning to their aircraft landed down and in 2 seconds another air group was ready to take off ?  No it took hours to do so but for game balance it has been made possible.   It's not a question of possible in reality but of game balance.  And as it is right now it's fine balanced, there is no class that might claim to be the all mighty and no one wants the game to be so with one class dominating everything else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,196 posts
5,309 battles

 

But it is in the game because it is a game.   In reality it was not because they had air cover to protect them from the sky.  Here you don't have air cover so to balance it the AA efficiency has been  raised.  

 

No, not all fleets in reality had aircover.

 

Many battleships were sunk from the air without a single airplane coming to their help like PoW, Repulse, Yamato, Musashi and so on...

 

And in the game you can also have air cover to proected your fleet from the sky, the only problem in the game is that it's not very rewarding to play this role so few Carrier captains choose a fighter focused loadout right now.

 

 It's the same otherwise do you think that air group returning to their aircraft landed down and in 2 seconds another air group was ready to take off ?  No it took hours to do so but for game balance it has been made possible.   It's not a question of possible in reality but of game balance. 

 

The scale of both time and distance in the game is compressed to make battles exiting and not span several days like they could in reality. If a real Carrier launches a strike from 300km away instead of 15km like in the game and if the aircraft and ships in the game have a factor 5 difference in speed they can move, then landing, refuel and rearm and launch in the game needs to be 300/15 * 5 = 100 times faster then in reality to mimic real war dynamics and feeling...

 

So if landing rearming and refueling and launching a squad in the game takes 40 seconds then it will take 4000 seconds in reality = 1 hour and 7 minutes. That feels pretty accurate if you ask me!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weekend Tester
109 posts
836 battles

 

Long post

 

PoW, Repulse, Yamato, Musashi all sacrified ship sent in impossible to win fight without air protection.  Every Major battle was led with massive air cover and we can guess the game battle are massive engagement not just suicidal on one side.

 

And yes that's true you pointed one thing There is no reward for a CV to air cover his  team BB so they just leave them alone to be swarned by enemies squadrons.

 

 

 

Well if you find timescale realistic I didn't know that was taking a BB 30 sec X 100 so 3000 or 50 minutes to reload....    It's just balance not realistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,196 posts
5,309 battles

 

Well if you find timescale realistic I didn't know that was taking a BB 30 sec X 100 so 3000 or 50 minutes to reload....    It's just balance not realistic.

 

100 factor does not apply for Battleships since I used Carrier real vs ingame launch ranges to factor that part of compression in... It doesn't impact Battleships since they don't fight 20 times closer in the game then they do in reality.... ( but Carriers do ).

 

 

PoW, Repulse, Yamato, Musashi all sacrified ship sent in impossible to win fight without air protection.  Every Major battle was led with massive air cover and we can guess the game battle are massive engagement not just suicidal on one side.

 

Nope, of those 4 examples only Yamato was a sacrificed ship sent in impossible odds.

 

Musashi was part of the largest fleet Battle in WW2, and one of hundreds of Japanese ships that attacked the US landings at Leyte gulf pretty much without any serious aircover. The only Japanese airplanes to take part in that attack were either Kamikazes or a decoy Carrier fleet from the north used to lure away the US ships. I hope thats massive enough for you.

 

 

Germany operated many ships in the Atlantic without any aircover ( including BB Bismarck ).

 

 

In reality just like in the game you will sometimes have aircover, and sometimes you wont, so you can't rely on it. It's not a good reason why AAA in the game should be stronger then reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weekend Tester
109 posts
836 battles

 

100 factor does not apply for Battleships since I used Carrier real vs ingame launch ranges to factor that part of compression in... It doesn't impact Battleships since they don't fight 20 times closer in the game then they do in reality.... ( but Carriers do ).

 

 

Nope, of those 4 examples only Yamato was a sacrificed ship sent in impossible odds.

 

Musashi was part of the largest fleet Battle in WW2, and one of hundreds of Japanese ships that attacked the US landings at Leyte gulf pretty much without any serious aircover. The only Japanese airplanes to take part in that attack were either Kamikazes or a decoy Carrier fleet from the north used to lure away the US ships.

 

Germany operated many ships in the Atlantic without any aircover ( including BB Bismarck ).

 

 

In reality just like in the game you will sometimes have aircover, and sometimes you wont, so you can't rely on it. It's not a reason why AAA in the game should be stronger then reality.

 

That's true time shortening goes as advantage for  CV but BB must not be touched unless reduce their firing range.    sounds more and more like I want my CV  to be the mighty god.  Just don't send your plane alone on a well reputed for its AA BB  focus the attack with the other CV if there is another in your team or just wait the BB to be in fight with other  ship so the player is distracted and might be less responsive to avoid torpedoes...  Manual launch them... send your fighter on the BB to distract its AA while your TB and DB attack....    That's all I can say.  I just don't want this game turning into what wot has been for too long "I spot an enemy bb I send my two squad the BB is dead they return intact."

 

Next mmhhh musashi leyte... That was a joke a lost before it started fight...  It was a fleet suicidal mission.  IJN knew it but honor and pride made them go, they all knew it was a no return point.   By the time IJN had no more carrier, US planes were dominating the sky, all the japanese pilots were dead and only kids were rushed in planes with just basic knowledge on how to take off, follow a heading and nothing more... they were all sacrified, none was expected to return.  

 

PoW and repulse : the most supid ever taken decision from a prime minister  believing that two ship without escort or defense would terrify a navy that by that time at complete air superiority and a fleet able to annihilate those two ships...

 

Kriegsmarine... well Kriegsmarine always played the war with no airplane because Kriegsmarine had no carrier, no airplane.  Fat Goering was 'I own everything that flies and no aircraft for you Raeder...'

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.

×