British Heavy Cruisers and How To Make Them Better?

[FloatingTarget]

First off, let me open this up with an apology, I have been quite rude and spikey if you will, frustration can do that. I will be looking to improve my behaviour and not be so harsh. I am getting the hang of the Daring. However...

 

My current gripe is with British Heavy Cruisers. At least I know this is a subject other will agree with me on.

 

With British Destroyers, Light Cruisers (despite them being giant citadels) and Battleships, I have found that they do indeed have some redeeming quality's. British DDs for example can turn on a dime, though I still feel they are inferior to their counterpart with other nations.

 

The same can't be said with British Heavy Cruisers, this is my second time going through the tiers and once again it's a chore.

 

I feel there is a problem when in the British Heavy Cruiser introduction video you have WoWs telling you to play one way (medium range support) then everyone else either saying how crap they are or telling you that they must be played another way (hug your concealment, lob HE).

 

The problem is they are heavy only in name and do not perform the function they are suppose to. Here are some bullet points.

 

Cons:

 

• They have ludicrously short range. As such you will constantly find yourself under fire with no way to respond.
• Their AP is poor at range whereas other cruisers can easily citadel at range.
• They have weak armour and a giant citadel, despite WoW saying the contrary, you will eat citadels for breakfast, even when angled.
• They are slow and turn like a battleship.
• They apparently have good HE but I struggle to cause any real damage with them.
• They are slow to reload.

• Small health pool in comparison to other Heavy Cruisers

• Secondaries are short range

• Lack of consumables,

• Floaty shell syndrome

 

Pros:

 

• They have okay AA
• They have okay concealment (negated by Wargaming obsession with CVs and Subs)
• Zombie heal (but you will be citadel hit so much it's not that great) 

 

I feel the cons far outweigh the pros, I very rarely see people playing them and I think I understand why, their counterparts do what they do but better.

 

I had a game where I snuck up on a Sherman (a bad idea, yes but we were getting hammered and I was desperate. I used hydro and spotted them in their smoke, I hoped that my firepower would be enough to devastate them. I fired into their broadside and got a bunch of pens but the RNG gods frowned upon me and I didn't do more than 6000 damage. My secondaries were out of range and my reload meant that by the time I could fire again I was eaten alive. I was outgunned in a Heavy Cruiser by a Destroyer.

 

You will be overmatched by most and will take massive damage even when angled.

 

With all the issues these ships have and the general lack of regard for them I would have thought that Wargaming would have taken notice, after all they were universally panned upon launch. But it seems that Wargaming went straight to their next Soviet, paper drawn lovechild abomination and have not revisited them since.

 

The question is how to improve them? Because as it is, once I have completed the tiers and got my research bonus, I see no reason to play them again since they are inferior to other Heavy Cruisers, by quite a large margin.

 

Once again, sorry if I have been annoying, just wanted to discuss this.

 

Makes you wonder how Britain ruled the waves when everyone else had better ships.

[invicta2012]

36 minutes ago, FloatingTarget said:

I was outgunned in a Heavy Cruiser by a Destroyer.

Yes, but Forrest Sherman is a DD with SAP (2700 damage) and a 1.3 second reload. If you let it get all three guns on target (it has terrible forward firing angles) then it *will* do nasty things to lightly armoured targets.

 

Were you playing Albemarle, by any chance? 

[FloatingTarget]

3 minutes ago, invicta2012 said:

Yes, but Forrest Sherman is a DD with SAP (2700 damage) and a 1.3 second reload. If you let it get all three guns on target (it has terrible forward firing angles) then it *will* do nasty things to lightly armoured targets.

 

Were you playing Albemarle, by any chance? 

Yep, as I said we were getting hammered and I figured I may as well try. Never stood a chance.

 

What's the point of a Heavy Cruiser that can't even fight or even put up a decent fight against a DD or another cruiser?

 

Seems like the Forest Sherman gets to have a little of everything.

[Karkong_the_Impaler]

1 hour ago, FloatingTarget said:

I feel the cons far outweigh the pros

It's a you issue. They have their niche in CW because they can deal with other cruisers quite well.

 

 

1 hour ago, FloatingTarget said:

Makes you wonder how Britain ruled the waves when everyone else had better ships.

But the decline of the british empire didn't end there.

[allufewig]

1 hour ago, FloatingTarget said:

First off, let me open this up with an apology, I have been quite rude and spikey if you will, frustration can do that. I will be looking to improve my behaviour and not be so harsh. I am getting the hang of the Daring. However...

 

My current gripe is with British Heavy Cruisers. At least I know this is a subject other will agree with me on.

 

With British Destroyers, Light Cruisers (despite them being giant citadels) and Battleships, I have found that they do indeed have some redeeming quality's. British DDs for example can turn on a dime, though I still feel they are inferior to their counterpart with other nations.

 

 

Its a bit hard to generalize, but I pretty much agree on the heavies. They are mediocre performers and boring to play imho. Thats why you see not much  of them in battle, at least in randoms.

 

CLs are... weird, but have their niche. BBs are rather powerful actually, but dumb by design (HE-spammers). Absolutely not agreeing on the DDs. Pretty much the best DD-line in the game in my opionion. From T6 onwards all of them are in the top-3 of the best DDs of their tier, when excluding the premiums. Daring especially is a gem.

 

If there is any nation that tends to get the garbage with some regularity its the germans (and even they have some good performers).

 

Edit: Bringing history as an argument as to how an arcade shooty shooty game should be designed just makes peoople look stupid btw. Please avoid.

[invicta2012]

26 minutes ago, FloatingTarget said:

Seems like the Forest Sherman gets to have a little of everything.

It's situationally very strong, but not that great overall - quite slow, poor forward gun angles, poor torpedo angles. If it can get into a farming position, though, it's as potent as a DD can be.

 

1 hour ago, FloatingTarget said:

Makes you wonder how Britain ruled the waves when everyone else had better ships.

WG has this thing about British ships being glass cannons. Drake and Goliath used to be a little more durable but I'm not sure they stand up well in the age of superships. I think range is something they could have as a USP (and to some extent, they already do, with the availability of a spotter on Albemarle) but I suspect WG will look at the stats and say that they perform normally and there's no need for changes.

 

Just now, Karkong_the_Impaler said:

But the decline of the british empire didn't end there.

Ho ho ho. The RN fought the most battleship vs battleship engagements of any navy and came out more than a little on top.  

[Karkong_the_Impaler]

19 minutes ago, invicta2012 said:

Ho ho ho. The RN fought the most battleship vs battleship engagements of any navy and came out more than a little on top.  

When we talk about a development, we look at the current state and compare it to it's history. The formerly great empire isn't doing too well, recently. And I wasn't only talking about the navy.

[Bland_42]

1 ora fa, Karkong_the_Impaler ha scritto:

 

I don't wanna speak about the thread (I don't know enough about british CAs in-game) but to be fair... this image is [edited], and I'm sure you know it.

They are almost 20 years apart projects (and also different kinds: BC vs BB). Conceptually something like this below:

 

Spoiler

 

 

[Karkong_the_Impaler]

14 minutes ago, Bland_42 said:

but to be fair... this image is [edited], and I'm sure you know it.

 

But the question was "how britannia ruled the waves with everyone having better ships". So - you're saying, the others had the better ships? That was exactly my point.

[Panocek]

2 hours ago, invicta2012 said:

Yes, but Forrest Sherman is a DD with SAP (2700 damage) and a 1.3 second reload. If you let it get all three guns on target (it has terrible forward firing angles) then it *will* do nasty things to lightly armoured targets.

 

Were you playing Albemarle, by any chance? 

While Sherman indeed does have 2/3 firepower in the rear and can't stay bow-on to make use of that, her firing arcs are far from bad. Or rather, 99% of the ships in game would love to have such "terrible" firing arcs on their rear guns

 

2 hours ago, FloatingTarget said:

Seems like the Forest Sherman gets to have a little of everything.

Sherman is product of WG balancing that run out of sensible combinations like 4 years ago, now it just throws everything at the wall and see what sticks. In her case, she is functionally a cruiser in destroyer slot. Question is, why the  you want to replace the most valuable ship class with a cruiser, and one that doesn't have any utility besides DPM at that?

 

29 minutes ago, Bland_42 said:

 

I don't wanna speak about the thread (I don't know enough about british CAs in-game) but to be fair... this image is [edited], and I'm sure you know it.

They are almost 20 years apart projects (and also different kinds: BC vs BB). Conceptually something like this below:

 

  Hide contents

 

 

You mean 20 years was enough to go from biplanes to jet aircraft?

[invicta2012]

1 hour ago, Panocek said:

Or rather, 99% of the ships in game would love to have such "terrible" firing arcs on their rear guns

It's a very good ship, but the firing arcs have been limited to make it balanced. It's also quite big and cumbersome, and reasonably easy to blap with British HE when it shows some side (which it has to do to get those rear turrets into play), and that will usually mean at least one module breakage for the DD. So a British CA does have a little window of opportunity if trying to take it down. I wouldn't fancy my chances, though., if the Forrest S. player is canny. 

 

2 hours ago, Karkong_the_Impaler said:

When we talk about a development, we look at the current state and compare it to it's history. The formerly great empire isn't doing too well, recently. And I wasn't only talking about the navy.

It's fine. I was reading a book about Britain's history in the 1970s recently (the Three Day Week and all that) and there was a chapter with many amusing headlines from European newspapers of the time, all of which could have been written last month. It seems predicting Britain's imminent doom is what European tabloids write about when they've got nothing else to do. 

 

But enough of that. I was talking about the RN ships and WG's tendency to make them all out of tinplate, while German BBs are tough and tanky, which doesn't *quite* fit the reality.

 

Obvs. we have the active careers of the QE class (and especially Warspite and her continued refusal to sink), and the KGVs (2-0 up as far as BB vs BB engagements go), and yet WG still keeps coming up with Marlborough type nonsense because of National Flavour considerations. 

[Panocek]

3 minutes ago, invicta2012 said:

It's a very good ship, but the firing arcs have been limited to make it balanced. It's also quite big and cumbersome, and reasonably easy to blap with British HE when it shows some side (which it has to do to get those rear turrets into play), and that will usually mean at least one module breakage for the DD. So a British CA does have a little window of opportunity if trying to take it down. I wouldn't fancy my chances, though., if the Forrest S. player is canny. 

I'm not sure where you've got your own Sherman, but mine still have one of the best firing arcs ever put on a ship in WoWs. Sure, she still needs to show bit of her side, but its FAAAR from "german grade bad" firing arcs.

many ships would love to have such firing arcs.

 

5 minutes ago, invicta2012 said:

It's fine. I was reading a book about Britain's history in the 1970s recently (the Three Day Week and all that) and there was a chapter with many amusing headlines from European newspapers of the time, all of which could have been written last month. It seems predicting Britain's imminent doom is what European tabloids write about when they've got nothing else to do. 

 

But enough of that. I was talking about the RN ships and WG's tendency to make them all out of tinplate, while German BBs are tough and tanky, which doesn't *quite* fit the reality.

 

Obvs. we have the active careers of the QE class (and especially Warspite and her continued refusal to sink), and the KGVs (2-0 up as far as BB vs BB engagements go), and yet WG still keeps coming up with Marlborough type nonsense because of National Flavour considerations. 

I'm positively convinced one major part of "ship unsinkability" are crew damage control efforts, not so much armor layout, which is reflected especially on KGV and her knockoffs, in shape of improved heals. Bunker Hill and Franklin, both Essex class CV aren't something you'd consider "armored" yet both survived absolutely brutal mauling. At the same time, "armored" Taiho (and IIRC Ark Royal) went down due to... lacking damage control efforts in what would be otherwise manageable incident.

 

Besides, both QE and KGV classes make rather extensive use of all-or-nothing armor layout, not sure what kind of armor you're expecting there  main belt thickness on KGV and derivatives is already top notch and only on tier 10 it "equalizes" with peers at +-400mm

[Bland_42]

2 ore fa, Panocek ha scritto:

You mean 20 years was enough to go from biplanes to jet aircraft?

 

Gloster Gladiator, first flight 1934.

Spoiler

 

Gloster (yes, the same manufacturer) Meteor, first flight 1943.

Spoiler

 

9 years.

 

 

 

2 ore fa, Karkong_the_Impaler ha scritto:

But the question was "how britannia ruled the waves with everyone having better ships". So - you're saying, the others had the better ships? That was exactly my point.

Historically british ships weren't always the bests, even during the Napoleonic Wars a lot of "british" ships were France or Spanish made.

What made the difference was always the competence of officers and crews.

 

Exactly what happen in WoWs, someone could say.

 

So you were right... but the example wasn't.

[lafeel]

4 hours ago, Karkong_the_Impaler said:

But the decline of the british empire didn't end there.

Frankly didn't even start there either but that's rather off topic.

[Ronchabale]

5 hours ago, FloatingTarget said:

First off, let me open this up with an apology, I have been quite rude and spikey if you will, frustration can do that. I will be looking to improve my behaviour and not be so harsh. I am getting the hang of the Daring. However...

 

My current gripe is with British Heavy Cruisers. At least I know this is a subject other will agree with me on.

 

 

The same can't be said with British Heavy Cruisers, this is my second time going through the tiers and once again it's a chore.

 

I feel there is a problem when in the British Heavy Cruiser introduction video you have WoWs telling you to play one way (medium range support) then everyone else either saying how crap they are or telling you that they must be played another way (hug your concealment, lob HE).

 

The problem is they are heavy only in name and do not perform the function they are suppose to. Here are some bullet points.

 

Cons:

 

• They have ludicrously short range. As such you will constantly find yourself under fire with no way to respond.
•  

Was looking at just that today and yes I agree

Tier 6 CL Nürnberg has 150mm guns 16.5 km range, Reload 6 secs. 38mm HE pen   (the germans have improved HE pen too.. )

Tier 7 CA Surrey has 203mm guns 14.8 km range, Reload 12.5 secs. 34mm HE pen

 

[invicta2012]

2 hours ago, Panocek said:

I'm positively convinced one major part of "ship unsinkability" are crew damage control efforts, not so much armor layout, which is reflected especially on KGV and her knockoffs, in shape of improved heals. Bunker Hill and Franklin, both Essex class CV aren't something you'd consider "armored" yet both survived absolutely brutal mauling. At the same time, "armored" Taiho (and IIRC Ark Royal) went down due to... lacking damage control efforts in what would be otherwise manageable incident.

 

Besides, both QE and KGV classes make rather extensive use of all-or-nothing armor layout, not sure what kind of armor you're expecting there  main belt thickness on KGV and derivatives is already top notch and only on tier 10 it "equalizes" with peers at +-400mm

Crew training isn't something WoWS has got into (I know it's a *big* thing in WoT) but it could be something worthy of expansion. I wouldn't go too deep into it (having played Star Trek Online, where you need to max out all the bridge crew members in order to be competitive) but I think, as you say, there is a real-world difference between the crews of HMS Kelly or HMS Eskimo (both of which suffered major damage and survived due to first-class damage control) and the Blucher or Shinano which foundered quickly because of newbie crews, and that could be reflected in-game (even as a simple Adrenaline-Rush mechanic, lowering fire and flooding duration by a % based on games played per ship).   

 

I know the KGV armour model is relatively realistic but realistic armour (largely on the broadside) isn't effective WoWS armour. It's more to do with transverse bulkheads, citadel height and turtleback citadel slopes and I find high Tier RN BBs lacking on that front. I know the RN was very into sloped internal belts when they designed all the Lion class derivatives late in WW2 but I don't see them in the game, the IX and X BBs are generally weakly armoured with heavy guns, and the cruisers aren't much better. 

 

2 hours ago, Panocek said:

I'm not sure where you've got your own Sherman, but mine still have one of the best firing arcs ever put on a ship in WoWs. Sure, she still needs to show bit of her side, but its FAAAR from "german grade bad" firing arcs.

 

I know I have DDs with 360 turrets in X position... but overall I think Forrest is another one of those "Tier Xs which aren't as fun as the publicity says" (at least as far as PVE goes, anyhow). 

 

[lafeel]

24 minutes ago, invicta2012 said:

I know I have DDs with 360 turrets in X position... but overall I think Forrest is another one of those "Tier Xs which aren't as fun as the publicity says" (at least as far as PVE goes, anyhow). 

 

She's very much a one trick pony. Great when that trick works, in trouble when it doesn't.

[Karkong_the_Impaler]

1 hour ago, Bland_42 said:

9 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_He_178 1939

Even earlier if you consider pulsejets or coandas thermojet 

 

Basically biplanes and jets satisfy different demands and thus don't overlap in their application - but they don't exclude each other: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PZL_M-15_Belphegor
 

[lafeel]

12 minutes ago, Karkong_the_Impaler said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_He_178 1939

Even earlier if you consider pulsejets or coandas thermojet 

 

Basically biplanes and jets satisfy different demands and thus don't overlap in their application - but they don't exclude each other: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PZL_M-15_Belphegor
 

No more than jet engines and flying boats (yes, a couple of those exist too)

[Bland_42]

11 minuti fa, Karkong_the_Impaler ha scritto:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_He_178 1939

Even earlier if you consider pulsejets or coandas thermojet 

 

Basically biplanes and jets satisfy different demands and thus don't overlap in their application - but they don't exclude each other: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PZL_M-15_Belphegor
 

I know, but I preferred to show how the same manufacturer, for almost the same role (air fighter) could go from a piston propelled biplane to a turbojet airplane in less than 10 years.

It was to highlight how fast the technological evolution was at those times.

[FloatingTarget]

Not sure why people are getting off topic.

 

As Ronchabale mentions above despite having larger guns she has less penetration and less range which is frustrating.

 

The Goliath at tier X is a good example of things wrong with this line. She demonstrates all of the cons but with an added con. For whatever reason her spotter plane gets removed, thus making her worse than the Drake and I have heard a lot of comparison between them with many people stating that the Drake is better.

 

I find also that the small HP of these ships in comparison is an issue, though less so due to the zombie heal but as I stated, you will be eating APs and Citadel hits which the heal can't help with.

 

Certainly the range can be worked on, but if Wargaming wants us to play with their "optimal" playstyle of medium range support then they definitely need to make these ships more tanky, you will get consistently overmatched and blapped hard. Thus it's HE island hugging or death and as mentioned their concealment is pretty good but is negated by the continued obsession with CVs and Subs and due to their poor reload times fair badly against enemy DDs.

 

It's also hard to play "support" without a better hydro or more consumables. The most you can do is provide AA cover but with infinite plane spawning it's a battle you will lose.

 

These ships just don't feel "Heavy", excluding their speed and turning. I do wish Wargaming would have a look at this line instead of having tunnel vision for their next soviet supersubs. Because as I have seen myself, these ships rarely get played.

[Miscommunication_dept]

They need to buff Gibraltar before they buff the Goliath!

[Panocek]

2 hours ago, FloatingTarget said:

These ships just don't feel "Heavy", excluding their speed and turning.

What was the definition of a heavy cruiser? Something something guns only?

 

Besides, if you want ability to withstand AP shells with battleship grade penetration, then no cruiser comes close in terms of armor plating. Even vaunted Petro and her combined 300mm around magazines is positively underage against 500mm+ penetration.

 

And last time WG made cruisers resistant to overmatch, it was quickly neutered by introduction of sufficiently big guns. And I'm not gonna lie, playing BB that can't overmatch cruisers and then cruiser you're facing isn't played by certified brainlet is simply frustrating, doing ricochets and maybe some overpens while bleeding hp like a stuck pig.

[Karkong_the_Impaler]

8 hours ago, Bland_42 said:

I know, but I preferred to show how the same manufacturer, for almost the same role (air fighter) could go from a piston propelled biplane to a turbojet airplane in less than 10 years.

It was to highlight how fast the technological evolution was at those times.

Ok, again - While biplanes were an early way to make a stiff wing with the disadvantage of interference and adding drag through struts, the concept is just something out of the toolbox of an aircraft designer. For fast planes, where jet engines are applicable, these disadvantages are especially bad, thus we don't see many jet biplane designs. I know of one, see above.

 

But if you want to design a rugged pane that is capable of being launched from escort carriers and able to take subtantial punishment due to its rag and roof batten construction, look no further than the Faery Swordfish. To launch a jet with a very high minimum speed from a rather short strip, you need jump through a lot of hoops.

 

So, no, while the jet engine is one example of technological advances, one cannot equate biplanes with lack of innovation.

[invicta2012]

3 hours ago, FloatingTarget said:

Not sure why people are getting off topic.

We were discussing ship survivability, and how part of that is the resilience of the ship and how it heals. The Specialised Repair Teams that the RN CAs have are pretty powerful (50% of citadel damage can be restored) but I have the feeling that it's difficult to make that a satisfying game mechanic: the window for deploying the repair teams is much smaller than is comfortable (as every salvo can bring a citadel on something like Albemarle) and people don't really want to be taking that sort of damage in the first place, they'd like the ability to bounce heavy shells via icebreakers, upper belts, etc. But that can make cruisers *too* tanky, as Panocek suggests.