Don't you think USN tech tree is too weak?

[Innnovation]

I really want to say that the USN tech tree is too weak now. Yamato can easily destroy Montana, but Montana can not use AP shells to fight with Yamato. Is Montana tier XII cruiser? And it is obviously that USN CA is much weaker than others from tier 7 to tier 10. And now, you are going to change the fight control for USN CV. Sometimes I really confused about how the USN won the pacific war by using such weak ships?

[Vogel]

They won them through industrial might and economic power.

 

Seriously, are you disregarding the entire USN BB-line up to tier 10 just because Yamato is too strong? And what's wrong with being a tier 12 cruiser? 

 

[Fonfalks]

As far as Yamato goes, then it was a beast and would have killed any BB 1v1 of its time, sure this game has very little to do with reality, but there must be someone better and someone worse or everyone will have same ship. I have not played Yamato nor Montana, but i can tell you that DD wise Gearing will tear up my Shima 1v1 in 99 cases out of 100. 

Also Midway is better then Japs carrier, at least i think so from what i have seen (Midways usually have more kills dmg xp etc).

So at least in DDs and carriers US>JPN and i am not sure about cruisers. 

[BadGene616]

There are good ships and bad ships on every tier, I'd say op is making a generalisation too far.

The biggest problem usn ships have ATM is a lack of role from the absence of carriers. That AAA is a wasted perk. This runs for CA as well as bb.

 

Edit:

Though the glacial shell travel time/howitzer arc on DD is just painful.

And the absence of a readily available reliable premium ship. Arkansas isn't bad but it's not the most useful crew trainer. Atlanta is just redundant ATM.

[ghostbuster_]

I really want to say that the USN tech tree is too weak now. Yamato can easily destroy Montana, but Montana can not use AP shells to fight with Yamato. Is Montana tier XII cruiser? And it is obviously that USN CA is much weaker than others from tier 7 to tier 10. And now, you are going to change the fight control for USN CV. Sometimes I really confused about how the USN won the pacific war by using such weak ships?

 

I have both, yamato and montana. Yes yamato can destroy montana in a 1 vs 1 situation but the extra turrent of montana gives her so much extra power against any other ship. Btw montana gamplay is totaly different from yamato. If you sit with montana against a yamato you will be destroyed. Montana gameplay is little bit more dynamic and its similar to cruiser gameplay.

[anonym_EFwxJOPWzlER]

They won them through industrial might and economic power.

 

 

 

The major battles were Midway and Guadalcanal, the Japanese badly messed up at Midway like the Americans did at Pearl Harbour, at Midway the Japanese had the chance to put the American Fleet out of action for at least 6 months totally outnumbering the American Fleet but the Japanese made serious blunders after attacking Midway island resulting in heavy losses. Yamamoto had the tactics right, but his commanders were indecisive. From there on i think the Americans were too good tactically

[von_Boeg]

The US tech tree is the weakest among the four implemented so far, no question about that. This was the situation as per the 19th of December:

 

Okay, I did a new comparison.

 

This time I looked at WR on all ships played more then 100 times on the EU server, and listed them from 1-106.

 

Then I added up the placement and divided them with the number of ships for each nation.

 

That will give us the placement for each nations "avarage" ship on a scale from 1 to 106, where the total avarage is 53. The number within brackets show how many places above or below total avarage each national avarage is:

 

Soviet:  23 (+30)

Japan: 48 (+5)

Germany: 58 (-5)

USA: 70 (-17)

 

It must be obvious to the most "no bias"-diehard that these numbers tell a totally different story; the avarage Soviet ship is better then 75% of the ships in game...

 

http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/35629-the-blatant-russian-bias-of-the-game/page__st__140__pid__739718#entry739718

 

There have been changes since then and the situation might be a bit different now, but I think that will show at least something.

[ghostbuster_]

The US tech tree is the weakest among the four implemented so far, no question about that. This was the situation as per the 19th of December:

 

 

http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/35629-the-blatant-russian-bias-of-the-game/page__st__140__pid__739718#entry739718

 

There have been changes since then and the situation might be a bit different now, but I think that will show at least something.

 

Listed according to what? 

Because in my list they are not at the bottom. For example if there is a CV i like to play my montana more than yamato. Or at mid tiers, if there is a CV i like to play my pensaloca. 

[von_Boeg]

 

Listed according to what? 

Because in my list they are not at the bottom. For example if there is a CV i like to play my montana more than yamato. Or at mid tiers, if there is a CV i like to play my pensaloca. 

 

Do not quite know what you mean here, but the ships were listed according to WR on the EU server. The ship with the highest WR got number 1 and the one with the lowest got 106. Then I added the numbers for each nation and divided the sum with the number of ships.

 

It has nothing to do with personal preferences.

[ghostbuster_]

 

Do not quite know what you mean here, but the ships were listed according to WR on the EU server. The ship with the highest WR got number 1 and the one with the lowest got 106. Then I added the numbers for each nation and divided the sum with the number of ships.

 

It has nothing to do with personal preferences.

 

oh its my fault sorry. misunderstood you.

[ColonelPete]

Tech Trees do not consist of a single ship.

Look at the whole tree.

[D7v]

US DDs are best 5.3 will bash Mogami (3 km lower range nerf) so New Orleans will be I guess superior to Mogami except torps. 

[Panocek]

Tech Trees do not consist of a single ship.

Look at the whole tree.

 

So far "whole tree" is on rather bland side.

BB: USN bricks from tier 3-7 are well armored and good at slugging it out, but lack of speed and range compared to IJN makes them simply tedious, things get tad better from tier 8, but then you're within range to meet Yamato...

CA: USN 203mm are simply inferior to IJN/GER 203 guns, "superior AA" matters little when carriers are extinct. Also USN BBs from tier 7 have superior AA than "AA cruisers" anyway.

DD: Freedom derpstroyers are supposed to be "versatile" ones, so they end up with useless guns and mediocre torps

CV: air superiority can't carry games and post 5.3 even Essex/Midway will be mediocre at strike setups.

[allufewig]

Single ship issues imho. The branches are generally fine. The only exception is maybe the cruiser- line which lacks a real highlight from T7-10. Not only do all those ships play the same, they are also all underperforming with the exception of Des Moines (which is still quite a bit situational).

[ColonelPete]

It may be bland for you, but others like it.

[Kazomir]

US DDs are the best DDs in the game at least in my opinion.

 

Also, Nicholas can destroy the crap out of a Minekaze but a Minekaze is still considered a better ship. IT is the same for montana/yamato. While Yamato can destroy a Montana easily, Montana is better at various other situations.

[von_Boeg]

It may be bland for you, but others like it.

 

Well, one might like many things but that does not mean they are good. Do you not see a problem with the avarage Russian ship taking a 23rd place in WR and the avarage US ship taking a 70th? That can not be balanced?

[ColonelPete]

I doubt your analysis reflects the power of the trees.

[von_Boeg]

I doubt your analysis reflects the power of the trees.

 

Well premiums with over 100 battles are included too, so it is structly not just the trees, and it only measures WR, but it does measure how the different nations score according to WR on the EU server.

 

It is kind of hard to measure "power" when it is not defined what that means, but I do think WR gives a decent indication.

[anonym_EFwxJOPWzlER]

Don't you think USN tech tree is too weak?

 

Quite the opposite in the DD line, can't say much for the rest

[Innnovation]

There are good ships and bad ships on every tier, I'd say op is making a generalisation too far.

 

The biggest problem usn ships have ATM is a lack of role from the absence of carriers. That AAA is a wasted perk. This runs for CA as well as bb.

 

Edit:

Though the glacial shell travel time/howitzer arc on DD is just painful.

And the absence of a readily available reliable premium ship. Arkansas isn't bad but it's not the most useful crew trainer. Atlanta is just redundant ATM.

 

Can't agree any more. Most of time USN ships' AA is useless. For the shell travel time, what can I say. The trajectory is high enough to shoot the aircraft down.

[allufewig]

It may be bland for you, but others like it.

 

 

Cant argue about that. If someone likes to play Pensacola, New Pensaleans, Pensamore and a turbocharged Des Pensoines for some 500 battles, thats fine.

 

 

Statistically they arent exactly overperformers though. (They were not even great when carriers were abundant).

[Innnovation]

 

So far "whole tree" is on rather bland side.

BB: USN bricks from tier 3-7 are well armored and good at slugging it out, but lack of speed and range compared to IJN makes them simply tedious, things get tad better from tier 8, but then you're within range to meet Yamato...

CA: USN 203mm are simply inferior to IJN/GER 203 guns, "superior AA" matters little when carriers are extinct. Also USN BBs from tier 7 have superior AA than "AA cruisers" anyway.

DD: Freedom derpstroyers are supposed to be "versatile" ones, so they end up with useless guns and mediocre torps

CV: air superiority can't carry games and post 5.3 even Essex/Midway will be mediocre at strike setups.

 

It's right, but USN CA's AA is useless in no CV game. And for CV, it seems nothing change from tier 4 to tier 10 in 5.3. They can not do anything in high tier game with only one torpedo bombers. Well, I'm a IJN CV player, but I still think the balance of CV for IJN and USN now is good. I think if there is more CV in the game the plight for USN ships might be better. However, CV is always been nerfed, that makes no one light DDs, no one light torpedoes and the advantage of USN is not very clear.

[Panocek]

 

It's right, but USN CA's AA is useless in no CV game. And for CV, it seems nothing change from tier 4 to tier 10 in 5.3. They can not do anything in high tier game with only one torpedo bombers. Well, I'm a IJN CV player, but I still think the balance of CV for IJN and USN now is good. I think if there is more CV in the game the plight for USN ships might be better. However, CV is always been nerfed, that makes no one light DDs, no one light torpedoes and the advantage of USN is not very clear.

 

I guess lowering USN aerial torps damage and keeping two TB squads would be too obvious

[von_Boeg]

We can simplify it even more in order to make it understandable:

 

Of the 20 ships with lowest WR on the EU server 15 are US ships.