British Heavy Cruisers and How To Make Them Better?

[Panocek]

1 hour ago, Karkong_the_Impaler said:

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.

I'm sure both Gloster aircraft mentioned were purpose built fighters intended to engage enemy aircraft as their primary purpose, task for which speed and climb rate quickly proven to be better properties than agility. So in that sense, biplanes quickly became obsolete once better engines and airframes came into the picture.

 

Sure, you can make functional modern biplane which can have specific niche, but its going to be exactly that, a niche. And in era Swordfishes operated already existed single wing aircraft which had the same properties - ruggedness, meaningful payload carrying capacity and unassisted carrier take offs and landing. Just ask english speakers on other side of the big pond

[FloatingTarget]

3 minutes ago, invicta2012 said:

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.

 

 

More talking about why people are talking about bi-planes and jet engines and stuff.

 

1 hour ago, Karkong_the_Impaler said:

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.

Point in case.

 

1 hour ago, Panocek said:

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.

 

True, I wouldn't expect anything to not get messed up by that, it's just comparatively to other heavy cruisers British ones seem fragile for the slowness they have to pay. Being made out of citadel doesn't help. Other cruisers can regularly mess you up at angles whilst you struggle to respond with your poorer AP.

 

3 hours ago, Miscommunication_dept said:

They need to buff Gibraltar before they buff the Goliath!

 

Not played that one yet, I assume it suffers from inflated citadel syndrome too?

[FloatingTarget]

It double posted for some reason.

[Bland_42]

1 ora fa, Karkong_the_Impaler ha scritto:

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

Mate, never intended to say it, rather the opposite.

It was only an example to show how fast the innovation was in aircraft design, and consequently that 20 years (between Hood and Bismarck designs) are a lot in naval design.

[Bland_42]

14 minuti fa, invicta2012 ha scritto:

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.

For me, this can be seen like a problem for all british lines (except DDs obviously).

Yesterday I was in Ops (Aegis) with my KGV and one Nagato made multiple citadels on me through my bow from around 10km.

I'm not complaining about the fact itself (bothersome, but so was the situation) however to have a BB so fragile make me wonder about the concept itself, because I can't  find a way to be reasonnably safe from taking heavy damage... and a battleship should be designed to tank quite a bit, those are issues that you would expect from a battlecruiser.

[invicta2012]

2 hours ago, Bland_42 said:

Yesterday I was in Ops (Aegis) with my KGV and one Nagato made multiple citadels on me through my bow from around 10km.

You do have to remember that Nagato has large calibre guns for Tier VII (410mm, 16.15 inch) and so that AP will *hurt*. 410mm will overmatch KGVs 26mm bow (410/14.3 = 28.67) and her casemate/belt armour isn't keeping an AP shell of that calibre out at Ops ranges.  It's quite an under-rated opponent, really - people tend to remember playing the stock Nagato hull rather than the fully researched ones you get in Ops these days. If you ask WG about KGVs they will say it's standard plating for a Tier VI or VII BB*, so there's nothing to address - if you want to avoid this then bring Monarch,  which has a 32mm bow and can bounce 410mm shells. 

 

*Apart from those crafty German, Italian and Soviet icebreaker bows....

 

Perhaps WG could take the hint and issue a Monarch prototype at Tier VII with the better bow armour (perhaps with 3 x 3 14 inch guns as compensation) but I think they've got the RN ships pegged as glassy HE cannon types.

[cracktrackflak]

The British lines feel like they were designed for the game as it was in 2015, and that they are not equipped for the current and future game.

 

 

[lafeel]

1 hour ago, invicta2012 said:

You do have to remember that Nagato has large calibre guns for Tier VII (410mm, 16.15 inch) and so that AP will *hurt*. 410mm will overmatch KGVs 26mm bow (410/14.3 = 28.67) and her casemate/belt armour isn't keeping an AP shell of that calibre out at Ops ranges.  It's quite an under-rated opponent, really - people tend to remember playing the stock Nagato hull rather than the fully researched ones you get in Ops these days. If you ask WG about KGVs they will say it's standard plating for a Tier VI or VII BB*, so there's nothing to address - if you want to avoid this then bring Monarch,  which has a 32mm bow and can bounce 410mm shells. 

 

*Apart from those crafty German, Italian and Soviet icebreaker bows....

 

Perhaps WG could take the hint and issue a Monarch prototype at Tier VII with the better bow armour (perhaps with 3 x 3 14 inch guns as compensation) but I think they've got the RN ships pegged as glassy HE cannon types.

For the longest time Nagato, in fact, had *the* largest guns at tier 7, it's also what makes Ashitaka a ship you can't take lightly. No amount of angling is going to help a tier 7 BB bounce 406/410/419 (Collingwood)mm ap.

 

And no, the icebreaker is not foolproof either, if you can find just the right angle you can blow straight through that too.

[Ymustihaveaname]

22 hours ago, FloatingTarget said:

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

 

21 hours ago, allufewig said:

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. 

If we really want to bring history in, and I agree, it's stupid to actually learn anything about how to play this game would it not be that RN just brought more ships to most fights not much better ships (why fight 1 v1 when you can fight 2 v 1 remember how long asymmetric battle mode lasted....?) and had 21 pt captains due to no gap from disbanding its navy after WW1...?

[lafeel]

16 minutes ago, Ymustihaveaname said:

 

If we really want to bring history in, and I agree, it's stupid to actually learn anything about how to play this game would it not be that RN just brought more ships to most fights not much better ships (why fight 1 v1 when you can fight 2 v 1 remember how long asymmetric battle mode lasted....?) and had 21 pt captains due to no gap from disbanding its navy after WW1...?

Tended to have the better admirals, too, and the better trained crews. Several of which have ships named after them in game (Nelson, Collingwood and St Vincent (which, as a bonus, is also who Jervis is named for)) all spring to mind.

 

Also I am pretty sure that Conkek, St Vinny, Daring, and, yes, even *Goliath* have their niche in this game. And, while I can of course only speak for myself, I haven't found the Albemarle to be that bad, Surrey however was hot garbage.

[FloatingTarget]

2 hours ago, invicta2012 said:

You do have to remember that Nagato has large calibre guns for Tier VII (410mm, 16.15 inch) and so that AP will *hurt*. 410mm will overmatch KGVs 26mm bow (410/14.3 = 28.67) and her casemate/belt armour isn't keeping an AP shell of that calibre out at Ops ranges.  It's quite an under-rated opponent, really - people tend to remember playing the stock Nagato hull rather than the fully researched ones you get in Ops these days. If you ask WG about KGVs they will say it's standard plating for a Tier VI or VII BB*, so there's nothing to address - if you want to avoid this then bring Monarch,  which has a 32mm bow and can bounce 410mm shells. 

 

*Apart from those crafty German, Italian and Soviet icebreaker bows....

 

Perhaps WG could take the hint and issue a Monarch prototype at Tier VII with the better bow armour (perhaps with 3 x 3 14 inch guns as compensation) but I think they've got the RN ships pegged as glassy HE cannon types.

 

As I mentioned in my original post, the cons far outweigh the pros. There are Heavy Cruisers that have better armour, guns, HE and AP and speed and turning. All often in the same boat and at tier X the Goliath feels like a downgrade. It gets punished as a glass cannon without having the pros to back it up and make it viable. As mentioned, I have no reason to play it after I have got my research points.

[Bland_42]

2 ore fa, invicta2012 ha scritto:

You do have to remember that Nagato has large calibre guns for Tier VII (410mm, 16.15 inch) and so that AP will *hurt*. 410mm will overmatch KGVs 26mm bow (410/14.3 = 28.67) and her casemate/belt armour isn't keeping an AP shell of that calibre out at Ops ranges.  It's quite an under-rated opponent, really - people tend to remember playing the stock Nagato hull rather than the fully researched ones you get in Ops these days. If you ask WG about KGVs they will say it's standard plating for a Tier VI or VII BB*, so there's nothing to address - if you want to avoid this then bring Monarch,  which has a 32mm bow and can bounce 410mm shells. 

 

*Apart from those crafty German, Italian and Soviet icebreaker bows....

 

Perhaps WG could take the hint and issue a Monarch prototype at Tier VII with the better bow armour (perhaps with 3 x 3 14 inch guns as compensation) but I think they've got the RN ships pegged as glassy HE cannon types.

I know the Nagato and love its guns... and I know the "thing" about the KGVs armor. I wasn't lamenting about being cit-pen (was an unavoidable situation, given the Op) but it was an example about the "relative nonsense" that is a BB incapable to do BB-things in a seemingly reliable way.

 

Like someone else wrote, british BB and CA lines have an anachronistic feeling, they seems to be part of a game that isn't here anymore.

They can work, but it's harder to do than with other lines.

 

 

 

 

 

Must add however, that the almost zero dispersion that bots shows in Ops is somewhat frustrating...

[Margin_Walker]

3 hours ago, FloatingTarget said:

 

As I mentioned in my original post, the cons far outweigh the pros. There are Heavy Cruisers that have better armour, guns, HE and AP and speed and turning. All often in the same boat and at tier X the Goliath feels like a downgrade. It gets punished as a glass cannon without having the pros to back it up and make it viable. As mentioned, I have no reason to play it after I have got my research points.

Late to the thread, but Goliath isn't a glass cannon. It can be situational with the lack of range, but you really shouldn't be dying quickly in it. It's very survivable. 

 

I find it a comfortable ship to play, especially when you are on a flank being pushed by enemy BBs. When angled, it takes a long time to kill. 

[FloatingTarget]

52 minutes ago, Margin_Walker said:

Late to the thread, but Goliath isn't a glass cannon. It can be situational with the lack of range, but you really shouldn't be dying quickly in it. It's very survivable. 

 

I find it a comfortable ship to play, especially when you are on a flank being pushed by enemy BBs. When angled, it takes a long time to kill. 

Overmatch chews through it pretty quickly.

[Margin_Walker]

That's playing a cruiser though. Overmatch is an issue for most ships. As long as you're not over extending and offering your belt as a fairly decent target to bounce on, you've got decent healing potential to stick in the fight.

[FloatingTarget]

52 minutes ago, Margin_Walker said:

That's playing a cruiser though. Overmatch is an issue for most ships. As long as you're not over extending and offering your belt as a fairly decent target to bounce on, you've got decent healing potential to stick in the fight.

True, but with a Heavy Cruiser you would expect a bit more from angling, not so much for British ships. Healing isn't so great for AP and that goes double for citadel hits which you will get from plunging fire. With poor AP you can't really respond, especially with the short range of their guns and any attempt to flee just gets you broadsided. It's a general lack of everything that British Heavy Cruisers have. It ranges from "meh" to utterly terrible. It's the bizarre choices by Wargaming, from making giant floating citadels with British Light Cruisers and "meh" British Heavy Cruisers (with giant citadels) that don't really do anything well.

 

A lack of good consumables hurts as well, hydro is meh and improved AA is irrelevant due to never ending plane spawning and CVs that will just focus you until you die. It makes British Heavy Cruisers concealment increasingly irrelevant as well as you will be spotted by planes or subs and like Battleships you are left with very little defence against a sub unless they are an idiot.

 

I agree with a post above that they feel like they are for what the game used to be but have not been touched since they were introduced whilst Wargaming works on submarine carriers or some abomination hybrid.

 

Something that I really don't understand is why they gave the Drake a spotter plane but took it away from the Goliath? It seems like just another downgrade and that's what the Goliath feels like.

[Margin_Walker]

4 minutes ago, FloatingTarget said:

Something that I really don't understand is why they gave the Drake a spotter plane but took it away from the Goliath? It seems like just another downgrade and that's what the Goliath feels like.

 

They gave the Goliath a substantial hp upgrade (46k to 58k), a decent DPM uplift, better upper belt/deck armour and a KM more base range. Spotter plane too would probably have been too much. 

 

It's fairly clear upgrade on the Drake and can hold its own at tier 10 imo.

[Eikkuu]

Le 06/01/2023 à 16:49, FloatingTarget a dit :

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.

It's alway the same probleme, why l will play Goliath when l can play Hindenburg ? Also a lot of cruisers have the same probleme getting blasted by overmtach (if we don't say Petro, Napoli, Stalin,...) 

[Karkong_the_Impaler]

On 1/7/2023 at 8:21 AM, Miscommunication_dept said:

They need to buff Gibraltar before they buff the Goliath!

I'm all for buffing Gibraltar. Say... british radar option?

Getting rid of that step in the citadel? Stronger Belt? Faster reload?

[FloatingTarget]

16 hours ago, Margin_Walker said:

 

They gave the Goliath a substantial hp upgrade (46k to 58k), a decent DPM uplift, better upper belt/deck armour and a KM more base range. Spotter plane too would probably have been too much. 

 

It's fairly clear upgrade on the Drake and can hold its own at tier 10 imo.

It's got more health but comparatively it still sucks to other ships of its tier. It's still outgunned, out manoeuvred, out tanked and out ranged. There is a reason most people don't play British Heavy's Cruisers, it's because there are much better options. The most you will be doing in a game is either trying to get in range and failing as everything can outpace you, or getting Dev struck because of your giant "shoot me here" spot.

[Karkong_the_Impaler]

Uh.. again, it's as if it's a write only thread: Goliath is quite good in dealing with other cruisers. Where do you meet a lot of cruisers? In CW, where it has it's niche.

[FloatingTarget]

17 minutes ago, Karkong_the_Impaler said:

Uh.. again, it's as if it's a write only thread: Goliath is quite good in dealing with other cruisers. Where do you meet a lot of cruisers? In CW, where it has it's niche.

So why don't more people play it?

 

Most cruisers can just spam it to death and with such short range and slow reloading guns it's not worth it.

[Karkong_the_Impaler]

2 hours ago, FloatingTarget said:

So why don't more people play it?

Why don't people play more Gibraltar? Maybe it's not fun for them? I personally love that thing...

[Nibenay78]

On 1/7/2023 at 2:04 PM, invicta2012 said:

*Apart from those crafty German, Italian and Soviet icebreaker bows....

Italian - icebreaker? 

[Bland_42]

4 ore fa, Nibenay78 ha scritto:

Italian - icebreaker? 

Napoli (more or less)... if I remember correctly.