Imaginary Patch Notes

[Ascender]

 

So for a while there have been issues with balance throughout this game. Rather than keep approaching each issue individually in some drawn-out topic discussion, as I see most frequently here, I decided to unleash my nerdy self on some "alternate history" stuff, writing up my own patch notes of how I would like to see things in this game changed. I cannot stress enough that these patch notes are IMAGINARY and in no way reflect the work of Wargaming or its staff. I have written the philosophy and thought behind each change below the actual 'notes' contained in spoilers, any feedback, thoughts and ideas are welcome. Please try to stay positive and enjoy the thought of what could have been:

 

Carrier/Aircraft changes

 

Carrier aircraft loadout changes

Hakuryu gains a 3-3-2 split (3 fighters, 3 torpedo bombers, 2 divebombers)

Midway gains a 2-2-1 split (2 fighters, 2 torpedo bombers, 1 divebombers)

 

Japanese fighter changes

A6M2 increased DPS from 55 to 70 and loadout from 47 to 40 (total damage capacity 2800)

A7M1 increased DPS from 63 to 78 and loadout from 40 to 35 (total damage capacity 2730)

N1K5-A increased DPS from 70 to 90 and loadout from 38 to 35 (total damage capacity 3150)

J7W-1 increased DPS from 80 to 95 and loadout maintained on 33 (total damage capacity 3135)

A8M increased DPS from 88 to 100 and loadout from 33 to 31 (total damage capacity 3100)

J8N1 increased DPS from 96 to 120 and loadout from 30 to 28 (total damage capacity 3360)

 

American fighter changes

F4F-3 increased DPS from 53 to 65 and loadout from 56 to 44 (total damage capacity 2860)

F4U increased DPS from 63 to 80 and loadout from 46 to 35 (total damage capacity 2800)

F8F increased DPS from 73 to 100 and loadout from 40 to 31 (total damage capacity 3100)

F2H increased DPS from 80 to 105 and loadout from 36 to 34 (total damage capacity 3570)

 

Changes to American air launched torpedoes

Bliss Leavit Mk.7 Type DA (stock Langely) damage increased from 5900 to 7500

Mk.13 Mod0A is now only introduced at the TBF (elite Lexington)

Mk.13 Mod0A range decreased from 3.7km to 3.0km

 

Changes to Japanese air launched torpedoes

Introduced new torpedo Type 91 Mod.2 starting at B7A (elite Taiho), new torpedo characteristics:

Maximum damage 10.567, speed: 42 knots, range: 2.0km

 

Ship changes

Increased Hakuryu's resistance to torpedoes slightly

Increased the effectiveness of Taiho and Hakuryu's anti-air by 15%

Decreased Midway's rudder shift time from 15.5 seconds to 13.2

Decreased Midway's detectability by sea from 18.4km to 16.4km

Decreased Midway's detectability by air from 18.1km to 15.5km

Decreased Midway's health from 67.600 to 64.900

 

Changes to floatplane fighters

A6M2-N increased DPS from 55 to 70 and decreased loadout from 180 to 120 (total damage 8400)

N1K1 increased DPS from 68 to 90 and decreased loadout from 180 to 100 (total damage 9000)

F4F increased DPS from 53 to 65 and decreased loadout from 180 to 125 (total damage 8125)

XP-40Q increased DPS from 64 to 85 and decreased loadout from 180 to 110 (total damage 9350)

 

 

Battleship changes

 

Fuso

Decreased Fuso's rate of fire from 2.1 to 1.9 in top configuration and 2.0 to 1.8 in stock configuration

Increased Fuso's turret traverse speed from 3.3 degrees per second to 3.8 degrees per second

Increased the relative effectiveness of Fuso's anti-air slightly

 

Nagato

Increased Nagato's rate of fire from 1.9 to 2.2 in top configuration and 1.7 to 1.9 in stock config

 

Izumo

Increased rate of fire in top configuration from 2.0 to 2.2

Decreased detectability by sea from 19.3 to 18.3

 

Colorado

Increased hitpoints in top configuration from 50.100 to 61.000

Increased rate of fire in top configuration from 1.7 to 2.0 rounds per minute

Increased engine power from 28.900 horsepower to 33.500 and top speed from 21.4 to 23.1

Decreased maximum dispersion from 227 meters at 16.7km to 216 meters

 

Montana

Increased maximum range from 23.6km to 24.6km

Decreased maximum dispersion from 297 meters to 290 meters (on the new maximum range)

Increased maximum range of secondary guns from 5km to 6km

 

 

Cruiser changes

 

Mogami

Increased Mogami's 155mm turret traverse speed from 3.5 degrees per second to 4

Decreased Mogami's 155mm rate of fire from 6 to 5

Increased Mogami's 203mm rate of fire from 4 to 4.5

Increased Mogami's base range to 15.1km

Module FCS Type 7 Mod. 2 is now available for unlock only after the 203mm guns are mounted

 

Ibuki

Increased rate of fire from 4.0 to 5.0

 

Cleveland

Rate of fire in top configuration decreased from 7.5 to 6.3

Health decreased from 35.200 to 32.800

 

Pensacola

Increased anti-aircraft firepower by approximately 15%

 

New Orleans

Increased health from 35.400 to 38.100

Increased rate of fire in top configuration from 4.3 to 4.8

 

Baltimore

Increased rate of fire from 4.6 to 5.2

 

 

Destroyer changes

 

Isokaze

Type 6 torpedo rate of fire decreased from 1.4 to 1.2

Type 92 torpedo rate of fire decreased from 1.3 to 1.0

 

Minekaze

Type 92 torpedo rate of fire decreased from 1.3 to 1.1

 

Mutsuki

Type 8 Mod.1 torpedo range increased from 6.0km to 8.0km

Type 8 Mod.1 torpedo rate of fire increased from 0.8 to 0.9

Type 8 Mod.2 torpedo rate of fire increased from 0.8 to 1.1

 

Hatsuharu

Type 8 Mod.2 torpedo rate of fire increased from 0.8 to 1.1

Type 90 Mod.1 torpedo rate of fire increased from 0.7 to 1.1

Type 90 Mod.1 torpedo range increased from 10.0km to 11.0km

 

Fubuki

Type 90 Mod.1 torpedo rate of fire increased from 0.7 to 0.8

Type 90 Mod.1 torpedo range increased from 10.0km to 11.0km

 

Kagero

Type 90 Mod.2 torpedo rate of fire increased from 0.6 to 0.75

Type 93 Mod.1 torpedoes rate of fire increased from 0.5 to 0.6

 

Farragut

Mk.15 Mod.3 torpedoes range increased from 4.5km to 5.5km

Mk.15 Mod.3 torpedoes rate of fire decreased from 0.6 to 0.5

 

Mahan

Mk.15 Mod.3 torpedoes range increased from 4.5km to 5.5km

Mark 12 torpedoes rate of fire increased from 0.7 to 0.8

127mm Mk.21 main gun rate of fire increased from 15.0 to 17.5 (Mahan only)

 

 

Long explanation:

Carriers/Aircraft explained

 

As for carriers I feel they need drastic changes to make them fun to play again and useful in the game. I start off with something I feel should and could have been done long ago, truly balanced loadouts, not completely fighter-centric and not completely bomber-centric. I feel Tier 10 would be the perfect tier to do this on as a "final goal" for a good all-round split. The fighter combat should be extremely equal in this tier (12 vs 12 or 15 vs 14 with Air Supremacy) in terms of fighter numbers.

 

I rebalanced the fighters completely starting on tier 7. I feel that the previous jump in power from tier 6 to 7 should still be present in some form as the aircraft changes allow for this and it made for a great sensation when advancing to this tier. The suggested jump in power from tier 6 to 7 would still be significantly smaller than it was pre-4.1. I then sought to increase the overall power of fighters keeping the Americans and Japanese relatively equal, culminating on tier 10 in Japanese DPS vs American endurance. Pre-4.1 Japs had 148 DPS to American 120 DPS on tier 10, I feel 120 to 105 should be fairer and make fighters significantly more effective against bombers and fighters alike, making combat proceed faster giving fighters more value in the game as more contact can be made with other airplanes wasting less time on actual air combat.

 

Changes to Torpedoes are quite simple. The stock American ones were just stupid, bring them at least to a more comparable level to the top torpedoes on the Langely. Done. Next I wanted to push back the increase in torpedo power jump for the Americans to the first torpedo bomber which would have used it in quantity, the TBF/TBM Avenger, or at least I would want to push it back to the TBY-2. It just feels strange having the Independence equip these torpedoes and it should start with fleet carriers. The range on American air-dropped torpedoes was just silly and unnecessary, so I suggest to reduce this to a more reasonable level. On the Japanese I suggest the Mod.2 version of the Type 91, which introduced a significantly larger warhead on a torpedo with overall larger dimensions. As the Japs recently got a nerf on their re-arming time of aircraft, this doesn't need to be changed as it would already incorporate this. As this new torpedo has 2.000 damage potential more than the previous one and I would only like to see it on tier 9 and 10 games with the Taiho and Hakuryu on account of its strength.

 

For ships I always felt Hakuryu took excessive damage from torpedoes. Indeed it takes significantly more than the Midway, so I suggest increasing its armor here slightly. Anti-air defense will always be weak on carriers, but it is especially weak on Japanese which basically stagnate after the Shokaku with a loss of DPM and maintaining of the AA-rating rather than increasing it. Thus I suggest boosting it from 252 maximum total DPS to about 300. As for the Midway I suggest making it slightly more comparable to the Japanese carrier, giving it better rudder shift (without touching actual turning performance), decreasing detectability significantly and decreasing health to be more comparable to the Hakuryu (which has 63.100). The aim of the above changes is to make both carriers more or less equally vulnerable to each other from air-launched torpedoes. They will still have their significant differences, but the differences themselves will be more moderate.

 

Floatplane fighters would be changed to be on-par with fighters of their own tier. Particularly fighters on tier 9 and 10 cruisers need to gain increased destructive power comparable to similar fighters.

 

 

Battleships explained

 

Fuso is currently a DPM monster which makes the Fuso universally claimed to be the best battleship in the game right now for good reason as only the Montana and Yamato have a higher theoretical AP DPM values while the Fuso's HE DPM is second to none in the BB class. Decreasing it's rate of fire from 2.1 to 1.9 will decrease its maximum theoretical AP DPM from 257.0 to 232.5, which is still highly competitive but no longer at such a broken level as before. To compensate for the loss of rate of fire I would suggest increasing other soft stats like anti-air and turret rotation.

 

Nagato is considered a weak battleship primarily due to its lack of sustained damage output which is currently lower than all battleships immediately around it. Increasing its rate of fire from 1.9 to 2.2 will increase its theoretical AP DPM from 191.5 to 221.8 which would make it far more competitive with the Fuso and Amagi around it.

 

Izumo needs some love and I feel these two things can just about do it. The rate of fire increase will raise theoretical AP DPM from 232.2 to 255.4 which would put it on-par with the Amagi. Its sea detectability of 19.3km makes it less stealthy than even the mighty Yamato (which has 18.0km) thus I suggest addressing this slightly. These changes will not make the Izumo a good ship by all means, but they will make it more worth its weight in the matchmaker.

 

Colorado much like the Izumo needs some love. The first big one is health, as the Colorado currently has less health than even its predecessor and a whopping 14.900 less than the Nagato I felt a substantial but moderate increase was needed, putting it below the Nagato but significantly higher than the New Mexico. Its theorietical AP DPM currently is lower than all other American battleships with sole exception the South Carolina. Increased the rate of fire from 1.7 to 2.0 will raise its AP DPM from 168.6 to 198.4 which would make it a slight downgrade from the New Mexico and slightly worse than the Nagato but significantly better than it is currently. Another gripe with the Colorado was its really poor speed characteristics and poor range and poor accuracy, especially the correlation between the three. The range can be overcome by modules. As for speed and accuracy I felt to keep it in-line with American battleships but at a more tolerable/competitive level. Closest comparison is Ibuki which has 147m on comparable range to Colorado's 227. In my sheets this accuracy increase would make its accuracy level sit well below the Japanese but comparable to the North Carolina.

 

The Montana is competative-ish compared to the Yamato but lacks in a number of key areas, including its relative vulnerability to torpedoes compared to the Yamato. However, rather than addressing this directly I feel it would be better to make the Montana a slightly better improvement over the Iowa instead, more than the current 'improvement' which consists merely of adding a single rear turret and not much else. I suggest increasing its maximum range by 1km from 23.6 to 24.6 (Iowa has 23.3 and Yamato 26.6 to throw you some comparison material), as well as increasing its accuracy from being identical to the Iowa to being slightly superior, though still behind every Japanese battelship at a rating of approximately 11.8 (compared to the Yamato 10.4 and Izumo 11.1 and Montana's previous 12.6 which it shares with North Carolina and Iowa). I feel these small but subtle changes will make the Montana stand out more from the Iowa. Finally the increase in range on secondary guns at this tier is no longer a luxury. Battleships universally have a secondary range of 5km on tier 7, 4.5km on tier 8, and then the Japanese jump to 7km and the Americans back to 5km. Secondary battery strength is not something usually associated with American battleships, this is mostly caused by the range difference. I feel at 6km compared to the 7km of the Japanese the Japs still maintain enough of an advantage to call it their own, besides having more guns to use this additional range, while for the Americans it would maintain the utility of secondary guns into the higher tiers as they have had use of their secondaries in lower tiers where the same range meant more.

 

 

Cruisers explained

 

We start with the Mogami. The 155mm guns have one problem only, the sheer HE DPM value. Decreasing its rate of fire from 6 to 5 will lower this value from 234 to 195. It is still higher than any other Japanese cruiser, but lower than the Baltimore and Des Moines, as those boats are designed to be high tier fire-spitting monsters I feel this is OK. The nerf in turret traverse time in the last patch I feel was overdone and could do with at least a partial reversal. While all this goes on, however, the Mogami needs to have a REALISTIC alternative. Currently the 203s are nothing but a joke, making the Mogami a straight downgrade from the Myoko, this has to change. This would increase HE DPM from 133 to 148.5 and AP DPM from 188 to 211.7 making this a straight but moderate upgrade from the Myoko (due to 0.2 higher rate of fire). Lastly to make the 203s viable the Mogami needs to have the range to back it up, without giving its 155mm guns something like 21km range. Making the fire control system an unlock only after the 203mm guns would give them 16.6km range without making the 155mm guns any less effective with advanced fire control training (by comparison Ibuki 16.5km, Zao 16.2km, New Orleans 16.2km).

 

Ibuki I would buff just the rate of fire to the values previously found on the Myoko. Basically the old Myoko would be the Ibuki now, much like the Ibuki now is the level to which the Myoko was brought. This would increase AP DPM from 188 to 235 and HE from 133 to 165, both these values are still significantly worse than the Zao but better than the Mogami.

 

Cleveland need a bit of a nerf let's face it. The DPM values and health pool were too far out of whack compared to the Aoba.

 

Pensacola is a hard one to buff. I feel one of the things that could be improved significantly are the anti-air firepower and the armor. As armor increase is unlikely and maybe not even that necessary I feel increasing its overall AA power will increase the ship's utility in battle. It fills a rather unique anti-cruiser role with AP, a sort of glass cannon, and I feel it fulfills that role quite well and doesn't need much increase or decrease. Thought could be given to an increase in overall health pool...  but I don't know, you be the judge of that (comparison material HP 34.300, Myoko 39.200, New Orleans 35.400)

 

While I could let the Pensacola get off easy with health the New Orleans just can't. It needs to be competitive in both DPM and Health with at least the Myoko to stand a chance of being considered good. Increasing its rate of fire from 4.3 to 4.8 increases its DPM values for AP from 178 to 198.7 and HE from 108.4 to 121.0 making it a substantial upgrade over the Pensacola and make it competitive with the buffed 203mm Mogami as suggested above.

 

The Baltimore was a bit tricky. I'm mostly prodding in the unknown here, I do not see many of these cruisers AT ALL (compared to say Ibukis) and the performance gap with the Des Moines is GIGANTIC. But I have read that Zao has good soft stats, AP performance, flat trajectory etc, so I am not going to touch either Zao or Des Moines in this. Baltimore however would need buffs to keep up with the new New Orleans and Ibuki performance figures. Increasing rate of fire from 4.6 to 5.2 would increase AP DPM from 207 to 234 and HE DPM from 115.9 to 131 making its gun performance only slightly worse than the new Ibuki which would be offset by the Baltimore's currently existing higher health pool and better anti-air.

 

 

Destroyers explained

 

I personally feel that Japanese destroyers need an overhaul similar to carrier fighters have gotten in 4.1. The Minekaze and Isokaze having a higher sustained torpedo DPM over all other Japanese destroyers with sole exception the Shimikaze is just ridiculous. This would change their torpedo DPM with Type 9 torpedoes from 112.3 to 95.0

 

Mutsuki would likewise have to be a slight upgrade over the Minekaze in torpedo performance. The loss of flexibility of going from 3x2 to 2x3 launchers combined with a lower top speed and decrease in firepower must account for something. Increasing its Mod.2 torpedo rate of fire from 0.8 to 1.1 would increase the DPM from 78.1 to 107.4, making it substantially higher than it was while still being lower than what the Minekaze and Isokaze CURRENTLY have. In the theoretical scenario of changes above this would make the Mutsuki slightly more destructive than the Minekaze, offset by slower torpedoes and more awkward torpedo handling on a slower ship.

 

Hatsuharu probably needs most love in the tree out of all ships. It is slower than the Mutsuki with significantly worse stealth. While a big improvement in gun performance the turrets are prone to being knocked out and gun fighting is not a Japanese destroyer's main job. To make it playable I suggest making the Type 90 Mod.1 torpedoes (also Fubuki's stock torpedoes) have the same rate of fire as the Type 8 Mod.2 torpedoes of 1.1 increasing DPM from 72.4 (the lowest since Wakatake) to 113.7, which would be on-par with the current Minekaze DPM. In addition I suggest buffing their range from 10.0 to 11.0 kilometers as an introduction to longer range torpedoes in the IJN DD line while maintaining significant advantage for Fubuki's 15km Mod.2 torpedoes.

 

Fubuki gets similar treatment, but as it has 3 additonal torpedo tubes little needs to be done to this boat. With the 11km range on stock torpedoes and additional rate of fire these torpedoes become a real option besides the torp torpedoes which are slower with a slightly lower rate of fire but 4km more range. Torpedo DPM on stock torpedoes will be 124.1 while top ones maintain the 108.6 they currently have.

 

Kagero needed some improvements too. Its loss of one torpedo tube and lower rate of fire ment it was less destructive than the Fubuki, but with the gainining of 20km range torpedoes. Increasing Type 93 torpedo rate of fire from 0.5 to 0.6 raises overall DPM from 83.9 to 100.6. Mod 2 torps rate of fire from 0.6 to 0.75 increases DPM from 82.7 to 103.4 making it on-par DPM-wise with the top torpedoes and with the Fubuki (to some degree). The loss of DPM again offset by the extra range. I saw no reason to change the Shimikaze as it is already a very good allround ship.

 

On the American side we start with the Farragut. On the whole this is a pretty decent destroyer, the torpedo DPM value is higher than that of the Nicholas by about 25%, but the loss of 1km of range makes them suicide weapons only. Looking at the statistics of these weapons the DPM game is secondary to the alpha damage gain from these torpedoes, thus boosting their range up to 5.5km but reducing rate of fire further to keep DPM in check seems reasonable enough. Decrease in rate of fire would drop DPM from 79.8 to 66.5 (Nicholas 62.6).

 

Mahan would also benefit from the range increase but maintain the 0.6 rate of fire because of being a higher tier DD (you should get those luxuries!). I would increase the rate of fire on the top torpedoes slightly to maintain DPM, though this has little practical value for American destroyers. As the Mahan is the last of the 'suicide torpedo' destroyers in the American line (where torpedoes have less range than detectability) as well as being an exceptionally slow ship at 35.4 knots and having the worst detectability of any American destroyer at 7.9km I suggest to make the Mahan the ultimate gun torpedo boat in this tier range, increasing rate of fire from 15.0 to 17.5 increasing HE DPM from 108 to 126.

 

As the Fletcher seems to be in a good place the only thing that needs adressing is the Gearing's abysmal torpedo DPM values which are lower even than the current Hatsuharu's (72.4) at a miserable 71.6. I know, the Gearing is supposed to be the proper ULTIMATE gun boat, but with a range of 11.1km and a poor trajectory even if you manage to boost this that simply isn't going to bring down something like a Yamato, Montana, Zao or New Orleans, the torpedoes MUST be viable waepons! Increasing rate of fire substantially from 0.4 to 0.65 means its DPM is raised from 71.6 to 116.4. To put this into perspective the Fletcher CURRENTLY has 114.2 on its torpedo DPM so to ask for 116.4 on the Gearing is NOT an excessive luxury.

 

After some discussion regarding the Gearing it became clear that it is not unreasonable to think that the Gearing can perform well on its current torpedo performance figures. Though some changes would still be wishful at tier 10 destroyers it is mostly up to statistical evidence gathered from players to determine how much this should be (and if possible in what respect). It is quite possible that Gearing's increased gun performance compensates for the reduction in torpedo DPM values despite the overall worse semi-soft stats of the Gearing compared to the Fletcher. I have thus dropped the above written idea of increasing its torpedo rate of fire from 0.4 to 0.65 as there is not enough stuff to warrant a buff, at least of such magnitude.

 

 

[CloakingDonkey]

I'd like to see some changes to smoke and module health on destroyers at higher tiers. Or generally some reason to actually play that line past tier 5.

 

Other than that your notes look pretty reasonable. Addresses a lot of problems the game has. Well done =)

 

P.S.: Your long version spoilers don't unfold for some reason =(

[Ascender]

P.S.: Your long version spoilers don't unfold for some reason =(

 

Should have fixed it. For some strange reason the font (of the spoiler tag) seemed to break them lol.

 

As far as module damage goes on high tier destroyers I can't judge them beyond the Hatsuharu (which was terrible in that regard) but as it is a Japanese destroyer the guns are more or less relegated a secondary role so I didn't think too much of it. =)

[dr_slump_]

It's not really the damage on the guns you have to worry about.

[Takeda92]

I'm not sure about the extra 1km range on the 10km torps would do anything. Range wasn't the problem with those torps, the high detection is, If they just give those torps the same 9 seconds reaction time then we'll see if they need another buff or not.

[Flavio1997]

For dds and cv's  I'm  completely  with you,

with ca's  i don't  think that Cleveland  need more nerf, at least, I'm  doing way better in the aoba than with cleve, and also the euro stats tell you that the difference  damage wise between the 2 tier 6 ca is a mere 5% in favour of the cleveland ( but aoba has higher wr).

I agree for the rest about cas.

-for bbs: the fuso nerf is a bit too harsh, i would decrease  the rof by 0.1, not 0.2 and leave everything  else as it is now ( maybe  a thought  on the aa)

- nagato imho don't  need any buff, is a beast as it is ( i have 95k of avg damage with her, 76 with fuso ) is just that a lot of player have to change her mindset  to " spray and pray" fire to a " make every shots count", and the first time is quite hard

- i would give the colorado OR the rof buf Or the hp buff, with both it would be blatantly  Op ( and still, i don't  think that is a bad ship, i svore 71k on average with her, not that bad), while the speed boost and the slightly better dispersion would be a welcomed change

- i agree with the changes to the Montana, and I would increase also the 2ndaries  range from 5 to 6 kilometres, because you have a steep change in  your secondaries  armament power  ( the Montana's secondaries would have been way better than iowa's ones) but i would delete the option that it has over the Yamato modules wise: the yamy  have to choose between better rof or longer range ( i know that noone right in mind would  mount the latter) while the Montana  can choose both, so that she arrives to 27.6 kilometers with his actual range ( it would arrive at 29+ kilometers with your range plus the module),  outranging even the yamy in one of his strength , and having also better rof.

 

 

At the end, i would  like to see your changes 

 

[CloakingDonkey]

For dds and cv's  I'm  completely  with you,

with ca's  i don't  think that Cleveland  need more nerf, at least, I'm  doing way better in the aoba than with cleve, and also the euro stats tell you that the difference  damage wise between the 2 tier 6 ca is a mere 5% in favour of the cleveland ( but aoba has higher wr).

I agree for the rest about cas.

-for bbs: the fuso nerf is a bit too harsh, i would decrease  the rof by 0.1, not 0.2 and leave everything  else as it is now ( maybe  a thought  on the aa)

- nagato imho don't  need any buff, is a beast as it is ( i have 95k of avg damage with her, 76 with fuso ) is just that a lot of player have to change her mindset  to " spray and pray" fire to a " make every shots count", and the first time is quite hard

- i would give the colorado OR the rof buf Or the hp buff, with both it would be blatantly  Op ( and still, i don't  think that is a bad ship, i svore 71k on average with her, not that bad), while the speed boost and the slightly better dispersion would be a welcomed change

- i agree with the changes to the Montana, and I would increase also the 2ndaries  range from 5 to 6 kilometres, because you have a steep change in  your secondaries  armament power  ( the Montana's secondaries would have been way better than iowa's ones) but i would delete the option that it has over the Yamato modules wise: the yamy  have to choose between better rof or longer range ( i know that noone right in mind would  mount the latter) while the Montana  can choose both, so that she arrives to 27.6 kilometers with his actual range ( it would arrive at 29+ kilometers with your range plus the module),  outranging even the yamy in one of his strength , and having also better rof.

 

 

At the end, i would  like to see your changes 

 

I would argue that the Aoba probably has a higher winrate because it's played by a smaller group of more dedicated players. I mean Tenryu and Kuma aren't exactly your typical Cruisers and Furutaka used to suck quite hard... By the time you reach Aoba you just HAD to have learned some stuff about the game. The USN Cruisers are a lot more forgiving in that regard.

 

I'm not saying the Cleveland is still the exact same crazy OP ship it was during CBT but it still is stronger on average because it fairs a little better in matches where it isn't top tier. Tier 8 is pretty nightmarish in the Aoba, when your lack of DPS really comes to kick you in the bollocks. 

[_Conan_Librarian_]

Fix torpedo bombers, remove or force manual torpedo drop min range, let torpedo planes to act like torpedo planes not dive bombers with torpedo, no need for more

[Flavio1997]

Fix torpedo bombers, remove or force manual torpedo drop min range, let torpedo planes to act like torpedo planes not dive bombers with torpedo, no need for more

 

give me a brain, an eye too look at the minimap  and the other to look at the screen, and a finger  to press A and D key, no need for more 

[Ascender]

@Flavio

Liked the thought of the secondaries range on high tier American battleships. That is something that completely slipped my mind (since it is mostly a Japanese thing one tends to forget the Americans even have them lol). The 6km would make another subtle and significant differentiation between the previous battleships and the Montana as well as just being somewhat necessary at that tier. I'm actually going to incorporate that if you don't mind

 

About the Fuso, my reasonings as explained is that currently there are only 2 other battleships in the game with a theoretically higher AP DPM, the Montana and Yamato, so to make the Fuso 'normal' it needs a serious hit, not a small one. With the suggested change it would still be less than 10% behind the AP DPM values of the Amagi and still lightyears ahead of anything else around it. Just consider that the Kongo at the moment has a rate of fire of 2.0. The extra 4 guns aren't the only thing the Fuso already gains over the Kongo, even if it is the primary one. This one can be debated on for a while, but at least it is agreed it would have to be reduced.

 

Nagato/Colorado it's just theoretical DPM values. I often term theoretical because ofcourse penetration values are also very important. With the suggested changes here they would still be behind DPM values of both their predecessors as well as their replacements but they would be more competitive to them. The Colorado specifically I also gave the health buff because I really do feel its armor does not compensate for a lack of health and is in no way better to the Nagato's. Maybe both changes could be a little less drastic but I feel it is important to have both of them to a degree.

 

Montana, interesting. While personally I do not view much advantage of having range in excess of the ~25km rated (as at those ranges not only does it become hard to hit something but also ships are infrequently spotted so far out). In terms RoF/DPM compared to the Yamato I feel that the Yamato's advantage of penetration (probably) outweighs the decrease in DPM compared to the Montana. The accuracy is mostly compensated for by the addition of 3 guns on the Montana, but this is then an indirect hit on it's DPM values as the theoretical DPM is simply less effectively applied, as you know...   it would miss more. Changing out the range modules is not really an option as the lower tier American battleships are practically build around having it installed. I could see value with changing either it's accuracy or it's maximum range but not both. It would, in both cases, still result in better accuracy than the current and a slight improvement over the Iowa, which is the ultimate goal behind my thinking - making the Montana a sufficient upgrade over the Iowa to make it appealing.

 

Oh yeah as for cruisers on the Cleveland it would merely reduce the spamming nature of the guns. I agree views could be had on perhaps not decreasing it as much as I have projected on account of the bad trajectory at range. The Aoba is a lovely ship, one of the 2 ships I kept thus far, but despite this I have not made it be as effective as many other ships around it (Myoko, Mogami, Fuso), the DPM is not as bad as people perceive it to be since it has the highest rate of fire per 203mm gun out of all 203mm guns in the IJN cruiser line (right now the DPM is somewhat comparable to the Ibuki and Mogami with 203s at a DPM of 155.1 to 188 for AP as an example). Also important to note is the Cleveland's 152mm guns have a 12% base chance of fire, compared to the Mogami 155's 10% or the Aoba's 17% this is a very high chance for the type of guns it is equipped with.

 

@Donkey

Thanks! It's nice to hear all that from someone like you ^^ I'm sorry I don't know what else to say but I want to thank you for reading.

[_Conan_Librarian_]

 

give me a brain, an eye too look at the minimap  and the other to look at the screen, and a finger  to press A and D key, no need for more 

 

1997? let me guess,  tight trousers, fancy hair dress, probably some cool tatoo, to much pressure on balls and here we go a comedian

[Ascender]

Fix torpedo bombers, remove or force manual torpedo drop min range, let torpedo planes to act like torpedo planes not dive bombers with torpedo, no need for more

 

Could you not go way offtopic and start a flame war please? We already have every other topic where people are doing that, Thanks.

[_Conan_Librarian_]

 

Could you not go way offtopic and start a flame war please? We already have every other topic where people are doing that, Thanks.

 

Flaming? imo CV totally broken and silly, they need to be fixed asap, other ships even those to strong ones dont have such impact on gameplay

[Flavio1997]

Sorry ascender, he was too tempting.

Ofc you can put my tought about montana in the open post.

I have to agree to your  second post, but the fact is that i don't  see the tier 7 bbs that much underperforming, i see them rather an hard school  for the high tier.

About the cleveland, we know it will bece a tier 8 ship with his real power

Ending  with the montana: i know that hit over 25 kilometer are rather uneffective, especially with 16" gun, but the "over 25 kms shooting" is a pecularity of the yamato, and i would like it to remain one of jer pecularities

[Takeda92]

But stats are showing Fuso and New Mexico are very balanced. Fuso is not the beast it was during CBT it seems. Still a good ship, but so is NM. NM has very monstrous armor an I don't think you should nerf Fuso like that and let NM untouched.

 

As for Montana, does extra range over 23km even matters? Even with the extra range Yamato has you won't find them blowing up Montanas left and right. I think the game should set a limit to how far ships should fire and 26km is already way far enough.

[Userext]

 

 

Takeda dont be so greedy. They probably pressed the wrong button and buffed DDs instead of nerfing. I am kinda happy that they at least are trying to help IJNDDs.

[Ascender]

But stats are showing Fuso and New Mexico are very balanced. Fuso is not the beast it was during CBT it seems. Still a good ship, but so is NM. NM has very monstrous armor an I don't think you should nerf Fuso like that and let NM untouched.

 

As for Montana, does extra range over 23km even matters? Even with the extra range Yamato has you won't find them blowing up Montanas left and right. I think the game should set a limit to how far ships should fire and 26km is already way far enough.

 

My idea with the Montana is primarily to make some changes to set it apart from the Iowa, it's just a wild idea. Currently it has 23.6km with North Carolina and Iowa both having 23.3km ranges combine this with the fact that the Montana has the same accuracy as NC & Iowa it all becomes rather meaningless. 1km or more extra range means a lot more than 300 meters, and that's the idea I'm going with. If we are going to expand on this I would say that the modules could use some possible changes with the Americans getting the choice over gun accuracy (which is also very very useful for almost all USN battleships) OR the extra range, rather than choosing both, with the faster reload but slower turret traverse being the separated one. But that is a different idea/subject/thing entirely.

 

And the Fuso is OP like all hell. Speaking from personal experience. I played 10 games with it yesterday and out of those 10 games only 2 games were less than 100k damage done. My average is currently sitting at 90.4k dmg in the Fuso which is easily superior than any other battleship I have with only the Amagi giving it a run for its money here. The New Mexico is left behind on a good but not insane 72.4k average damage. The main reasons for this is the New Mexico complete lacks the accuracy or top speed that the Fuso has and while its DPM values are very high they are still way shy of the current numbers the Fuso has (NM has 226.8k AP DPM and Fuso has 257.0k, by comparison Amagi has 252.0 and North Carolina has 235.8). Combine the lower DPM with worse accuracy and worse range and the damage outputs as I have gotten them seem very much in line with their relative offensive performances. By all means the Fuso is a better ship than the New Mexico, and no matter what you can't deny the value of 3 kts more top speed. As stated a few times before it's got more theoretical AP DPM than any other Battleship with sole exception of the tier 10 ships and it's theoretical HE DPM is higher than ANY other Battleship, whereas the theoretical AP DPM of the New Mexico is currently worse than 7 other battleships. I don't see any real arguments that can be made which would change my mind on this matter tbh.

[Takeda92]

I agree the Fuso is a beast but nerfing a ship because of a personal experience seems rather unfair. You have to look at stats, maybe somewhere there are people struggling with it. I believe what Flavio1997 suggested should be enough.

[ironhammer500]

Minekaze - Detection range has a bug and has been corrected to the value of 3km....wait they pop up at that range now due to server lag...

[Userext]

Minekaze - Detection range has a bug and has been corrected to the value of 3km....wait they pop up at that range now due to server lag...

 

are you going to whine about how bad you are?

[ironhammer500]

 

are you going to whine about how bad you are?

 

What makes  you think i was whining? I actually had no problem with the Minekaze before its nerf, in fact i own one and i liked playing it....oh well RIP Minekaze.

[Userext]

What makes  you think i was whining? I actually had no problem with the Minekaze before its nerf, in fact i own one and i liked playing it....oh well RIP Minekaze.

Minekaze - Detection range has a bug and has been corrected to the value of 3km(after edit)wait they pop up at that range now due to server lag...

This sounded a lot like a whining BB captain

[Ascender]

Sometimes I wish there were tools for moderating one's own topic...

[Userext]

Sometimes I wish there were tools for moderating one's own topic...

 

sorry if we took the discussion off topic.

 

I disagree with you buffing gearing. If you didnt know gearing's torpedoes are more usefull than shimakaze's. Shimakaze is supposed to be a torpedo boat kind of ship and it fails doing that

[ironhammer500]

 

sorry if we took the discussion off topic.

 

I disagree with you buffing gearing. If you didnt know gearing's torpedoes are more usefull than shimakaze's. Shimakaze is supposed to be a torpedo boat kind of ship and it fails doing that

 

I always thought the Gearing was known for its fastest firing guns in the game, while yet a 15km tighter spread is better then 20km torps the shimakaze is still very good its torps deal more damage.