Discussion thread for "some interesting info around the world"

[ForlornSailor]

3 minutes ago, Toivia said:

Duke of York is miles worse than base KGV (that one could be considered too strong). Bismarck and FDG are struggling hard given the very campy meta. Iowa is a bad version of Missouri. Kurfurst is better than Bis and FDG, but still mostly a damage sponge.

 

Atleast I can back up my PoV with arguments & facts, instead of having to rely on starting each post with insults.

Not my fault people cant use the strenghts of ships.

 

 

btw - Iowa a bad version of Missouri? Same guns, same concealment, same dispersion, Iowa has more Health, same speed, pretty much same AA, same maneuverability. Looks like the same ship in 95% of the engagements to me.

 

 

[Toivia]

8 minutes ago, DFens_666 said:

So why is it OP? You can tell me.

Musashi - which isnt considered to be too good by many ppl, has just better stats than Missouri. Musashi must be even more OP then?

 

 

I dont think Kronshtadt is OP. Alaska i dont know yet. If you have typical T8-T10 MM with Kronshtadt, it doesnt really matter too much imo. With plating 25mm all around, it cant bounce any BB shells (except Scharn and Lyon). I have had one T7-T9 match so far, where Kron cound be considered OP -> Only 2 T9 ships, enemies had Missouri/Kron we had FDG + some "normal" T9 Cruiser. That was bad. Those 2 raped our whole team.

This is a problem with MM, not so much with the Ship. In a pure T9 game, i wouldnt consider Kron to be OP. Yes, it can take a bit more of a beating, but with the worst concealment, it also has a harder time escaping when necessary.

ALso Kron doesnt have any help against Torps - unless you are not running DefAA, which would make you totaly defensless vs CVs.

And Kron has very vulnerable Citadel infront of the turrets -> can be overmatched by BB shells.

Granted, alaska doesnt have most of this negative stuff, and is immune to citadels close combat, but we will see if its OP or not, dont want to comment yet.

 

On another note:

Yes i agree, this mixing up classes is something which is bad for the game and i dont like it either.

I think we could do without, but WG obviously wants to make ppl spend more money so thats why we have to have "different" stuff all the time. French ships didnt work out with only speedboost only - so now they get MBRB - which is imo OP af

Oh I do consider Musashi OP as well, don't worry. In my eyes, Missouri is simply too good because it keeps all Iowa attributes (which make it a decent normal T9 BB) and adds something on top: radar. Basically if any T9 BB gained radar without losing anything significant, it would be OP. And what makes the combination of radar and BB particularly bad is that Missouri herself is rather accurate for a BB.

 

(On Kron I said it all already, don't want to repeat myself, again. But not sure I understand your point about no defene to torps, Kron has no hydro. And I have no idea what you mean by a part of its citadel being overmatchable by BB shells. IIRC, the only parts of the citadel accessible directly are part of the main belt, thus over 100mm. If it's some internal part, than it gets a lot more complicated and it's frankly quite common even on BB citadels.)

 

MBRB is indeed very strong as a tool (Jean Bart, here we come another OP boat). Personally I didn't find french cruisers weak before, so they got indeed very strong now. Not sure if OP, because they are really paper thin. Quite the typical glass cannon.

But yeah, all would be nicer and easier without the MBRB gimmick...

 

 

2 minutes ago, ForlornSailor said:

 

Atleast I can back up my PoV with arguments & facts, instead of having to rely on starting each post with insults.

Not my fault people cant use the strenghts of ships.

 

 

btw - Iowa a bad version of Missouri? Same guns, same concealment, same dispersion, Iowa has more Health, same speed, pretty much same AA, same maneuverability. Looks like the same ship in 95% of the engagements to me.

 

 

Insults? Where did I write insults? I mean I am very tempted now, but whatever. I have no clue what that picture is showing and what it is supposed to prove. Somebody clearly didn't have good battles in the KGV. Doesn't change that it is a more nimble DoY with a better reload and one more heal. For all that, DoY gets hydro and it seems some better autobunce angles on AP. That last part is irrelevant since HE is so much better in general, and hydro is questionnable since RN BBs are wholly unsuitable to front line engagements in the first place.

 

Missouri comment see above.

[HaachamaShipping]

1 minute ago, Toivia said:

Ok, guys, now you start claiming Missouri is not OP either. This is getting ridiculous...

I mean fine, you don't consider Kron and Alaska stronger than regular T9 cruisers, @Riselotte. I disagree. Kron (and supposedly Alaska) are way more resilient than other T9 cruisers. Against BBs (HP, similar or better armor), against DDs (HP, Kron good torp belt). Only against cruisers, they end up being similarly sustainable (fires will do more, but they still have to eat through a lot more hp). They pack that BB firepower (granted, without overmatch - except RN CLs). And they really are strong counters to DDs with their radar and overmatching guns (only at ridiculously short ranges will HE on regular cruisers be more deadly), not only thanks to their guns, but thanks to the fact that they can survive multiple torp hits from the panicked DD (or you know, survive the hail of fire from the DD's allies) and still live and radar and shoot (like Missouri).

Unlike what you claim, they barely have worse concealment and larger size than regular cruisers (and I already noted that yesterday upthread), so they are not that easier to hit.

 

One area where you are absolutely right is AA. Kronshtadt is defenceless against CVs if you don't take Defensive fire (you can and if CVs get played, should). Then again, the large HP pool and good torp belt mitigates the damage somewhat. But Alaska has no AA issue at all.

 

The large cruisers may not be as OP as some of the lower tier sealclubbing machines, but they still are powercreep. I heartily recommend getting them and you'll see yourself.

Vs BB: Kronshtadt has only more hp and better belt. Aim at upper belt, aim at bow, you absolutely wreck the ship, given it is 25 mm all over (even Ibuki has 30 mm sections to help). If it shows broadside, it gets easily multicitadelled. The ship is a lot of hp, but also so massive, you can't miss it and it's hard to dodge in it, nor does it have any other survivability tools. Worst concealment, no smoke, not suited for island camping. And I tell you, no cruiser ever got millions of potential damage from armour bouncing off shells.

Vs DD: 34% torp belt is nice. But not eating a lot of torps in the first place, because you can actually dodge is nicer.

Vs cruisers: fires go through all hp as fast. 1v1, any other CA will crap on Kronshtadt, because they can just angle to autobounce degrees and dpm it down. Even Seattle can do that. Or torp the Kron.

 

And you can claim they aren't larger, but really? Kronshtadt is larger than a Hindenburg, it compares to a Gneisenau, though Gneisenau sits lower in the water and Kronshtadt only gets surpassed by proper BBs at its tier. Similarly, Kronshtadt has concealment on the leve of a Donskoi. Which basically has the worst concealment at the tier. That's like saying Stalingrad has decent concealment for a cruiser, because Moskva exists.

 

Alaska has no AA issues, but also can't snipe across the map, unless you sit stationary or don't know how to dodge.

39 minutes ago, Toivia said:

(Oh, and on a personnal note, I do consider Moskva very, very strong at Tier 10, that's why I grind the soviet line despite originally not wanting to grind anything soviet. Worcester is OP as hell. Zao is very strong, but also has huge weaknesses.)

Moskva has huge weaknesses too. Low dpm and absolute horrid survivability from the side. Also atrocious concealment. It's not a bad T10 cruiser, but it certainly doesn't outperform the others when played properly. No other T10 cruiser dies as fast when showing side than a Moskva, except Minotaur. And with its massive size, hitting it isn't hard, even at range. It can take an insane beating from the front (unlike Kronshtadt, given Moskva has bow and deck armour worth a damn), but make a mistake and you die. Even Zao is way more forgiving, not to mention that Zao isn't outspotted by a Yamato or Concealment build Kurfürst. Moskva can wreck cruisers 18 km away, but basically any cruiser with such range can wreck broadside Moskva too and given the size of the ship, good luck getting out before you die, despite massive hp pool.

 

Cruisers are more than just belt armour, a bunch of hp and gun size, which is basically why Worcester can be insane, despite being uninspiring in all three categories.

[HaachamaShipping]

2 minutes ago, Toivia said:

(On Kron I said it all already, don't want to repeat myself, again. But not sure I understand your point about no defene to torps, Kron has no hydro. And I have no idea what you mean by a part of its citadel being overmatchable by BB shells. IIRC, the only parts of the citadel accessible directly are part of the main belt, thus over 100mm. If it's some internal part, than it gets a lot more complicated and it's frankly quite common even on BB citadels.)

Kronshtadt has a citadel roof at the extreme ends that can get overmatched, which can be nasty. From LWM's review of the ship:

Spoiler

That 15 mm part. Easily wrecked. And no, when not at autobounce, 230 mm belt is not going to hold off BB ammunition much better than your typical CA belt.

[ForlornSailor]

2 minutes ago, Toivia said:

I have no clue what that picture is showing

 

I know you dont - and it shows...

 

3 minutes ago, Toivia said:

hydro is questionnable since RN BBs are wholly unsuitable to front line engagements in the first place.

 

One thing gets clearer and clearer: You have no clue how to play BBs. I snack almost every round a DD with my DoY.

 

6 minutes ago, Toivia said:

Doesn't change that it is a more nimble DoY with a better reload and one more heal. For all that, DoY gets hydro and it seems some better autobunce angles on AP.

 

And you just confirmed, that Iowa and Missouri are the same ships. Cuz if thats what makes differences then there is no difference between them. Glad we finaly agree.

 

7 minutes ago, Riselotte said:

Moskva has huge weaknesses too. Low dpm and absolute horrid survivability from the side. Also atrocious concealment. It's not a bad T10 cruiser, but it certainly doesn't outperform the others when played properly. No other T10 cruiser dies as fast when showing side than a Moskva, except Minotaur. And with its massive size, hitting it isn't hard, even at range. It can take an insane beating from the front (unlike Kronshtadt, given Moskva has bow and deck armour worth a damn), but make a mistake and you die. Even Zao is way more forgiving, not to mention that Zao isn't outspotted by a Yamato or Concealment build Kurfürst. Moskva can wreck cruisers 18 km away, but basically any cruiser with such range can wreck broadside Moskva too and given the size of the ship, good luck getting out before you die, despite massive hp pool.

 

Cruisers are more than just belt armour, a bunch of hp and gun size, which is basically why Worcester can be insane, despite being uninspiring in all three categories.

 

Fully agree. I feel that many arguments, about how ships perform, are excuisvly build around stats like HP and Guncaliber. Its no wonder that these kind of arguments often come frome people, that have never played said ships. Im usualy not someone to dismiss anyones opinion because of that, but when its so obvious, then you can only tell them: Go play that ship, if you really think its that strong, then come back and tell us how it was.

 

 

 

[ForlornSailor]

12 minutes ago, Toivia said:

Missouri [..] keeps all Iowa attributes (which make it a decent normal T9 BB) and adds something on top: radar.

 

Wrong. Iowa has spotter plane. Which is a HUGE advantage against RN CLs and nowadays even against IJN gunboats.

[DFens_666]

4 minutes ago, Toivia said:

Oh I do consider Musashi OP as well, don't worry. In my eyes, Missouri is simply too good because it keeps all Iowa attributes (which make it a decent normal T9 BB) and adds something on top: radar. Basically if any T9 BB gained radar without losing anything significant, it would be OP. And what makes the combination of radar and BB particularly bad is that Missouri herself is rather accurate for a BB.

 

That would just simply imply that Radar is OP in itself - which is imo not correct.

Missouri doesnt get better when you play it like an Iowa. You have to do something (taking risks mostly) to make use of the Radar. You dont just gain anything 4 free.

Compared to Musashi, which has sole overmatch capability on T9, and it has this ability every time it shoots. Whether he is 9km away or 23 - always the same.

 

4 minutes ago, Toivia said:

(On Kron I said it all already, don't want to repeat myself, again. But not sure I understand your point about no defene to torps, Kron has no hydro. And I have no idea what you mean by a part of its citadel being overmatchable by BB shells. IIRC, the only parts of the citadel accessible directly are part of the main belt, thus over 100mm. If it's some internal part, than it gets a lot more complicated and it's frankly quite common even on BB citadels.)

 

any BB that hits the 15mm will overmatch it. Most likely the angle is too small, when you hit the center you will bounce off it, resulting in Pens/Overpens i suppose.

Also the Citadel is below water, and you could go for below water citadels at the same spot - while i dont think it would work as well in the center of the ship. Ive seen much more citadels on Kron when hitting infront of the turrets as compared to hitting the center of the ship.

 

[Toivia]

11 minutes ago, Riselotte said:

Vs BB: Kronshtadt has only more hp and better belt. Aim at upper belt, aim at bow, you absolutely wreck the ship, given it is 25 mm all over (even Ibuki has 30 mm sections to help). If it shows broadside, it gets easily multicitadelled. The ship is a lot of hp, but also so massive, you can't miss it and it's hard to dodge in it, nor does it have any other survivability tools. Worst concealment, no smoke, not suited for island camping. And I tell you, no cruiser ever got millions of potential damage from armour bouncing off shells.

Vs DD: 34% torp belt is nice. But not eating a lot of torps in the first place, because you can actually dodge is nicer.

Vs cruisers: fires go through all hp as fast. 1v1, any other CA will crap on Kronshtadt, because they can just angle to autobounce degrees and dpm it down. Even Seattle can do that. Or torp the Kron.

 

I'll just make a really simple example: A regular T9 cruiser eats multiple citadels -> dead. Kron eats multiple citadels -> heals to half HP.

No T9 regular cruiser can easily dodge torps, that's why I hate high tier games, every capital ship is extremely sluggish. Kron may be somewhat worse thna them, but the difference is minimal. And any T9 regular cruiser will die to cruiser He as easily as Kron.

11 minutes ago, Riselotte said:

And you can claim they aren't larger, but really? Kronshtadt is larger than a Hindenburg, it compares to a Gneisenau, though Gneisenau sits lower in the water and Kronshtadt only gets surpassed by proper BBs at its tier. Similarly, Kronshtadt has concealment on the leve of a Donskoi. Which basically has the worst concealment at the tier. That's like saying Stalingrad has decent concealment for a cruiser, because Moskva exists.

But worst at T9 is within 1-2kms from most of the pack. That is very comparable indeed. One thing I haven't even mentioned before is that Kron is actually faster than say the germans.

 

Good point about the citadel roof, forgot about that, but still, it is internal.

[Toivia]

7 minutes ago, ForlornSailor said:

 

Wrong. Iowa has spotter plane. Which is a HUGE advantage against RN CLs and nowadays even against IJN gunboats.

Spotter plane has its uses, but it's nothing compared with a radar. Unless you are a Yuro disciple and use a spotter plane on radar cruisers as well?

9 minutes ago, ForlornSailor said:

Fully agree. I feel that many arguments, about how ships perform, are excuisvly build around stats like HP and Guncaliber. Its no wonder that these kind of arguments often come frome people, that have never played said ships. Im usualy not someone to dismiss anyones opinion because of that, but when its so obvious, then you can only tell them: Go play that ship, if you really think its that strong, then come back and tell us how it was.

 

 

Well at least I have played a Moskva, Kron and Missouri. Which not all people here can say...

7 minutes ago, DFens_666 said:

 

That would just simply imply that Radar is OP in itself - which is imo not correct.

Missouri doesnt get better when you play it like an Iowa. You have to do something (taking risks mostly) to make use of the Radar. You dont just gain anything 4 free.

Compared to Musashi, which has sole overmatch capability on T9, and it has this ability every time it shoots. Whether he is 9km away or 23 - always the same.

 

Yes, I consider radar in its current iteration very OP indeed. I guess that is the whole issue with this damn argument. The people disagreeing with me on Kron, Alaska and Missouri probably don't see radar as the gamechanger it is. Well, I'm glad we got to the crux of the problem: Radar itself.

Yes, possibly Musashi is far more OP than Missouri.

 

(Thanks as well for the citadel notes.)

[HaachamaShipping]

5 minutes ago, DFens_666 said:

 

That would just simply imply that Radar is OP in itself - which is imo not correct.

Missouri doesnt get better when you play it like an Iowa. You have to do something (taking risks mostly) to make use of the Radar. You dont just gain anything 4 free.

Compared to Musashi, which has sole overmatch capability on T9, and it has this ability every time it shoots. Whether he is 9km away or 23 - always the same.

 

 

any BB that hits the 15mm will overmatch it. Most likely the angle is too small, when you hit the center you will bounce off it, resulting in Pens/Overpens i suppose.

Also the Citadel is below water, and you could go for below water citadels at the same spot - while i dont think it would work as well in the center of the ship. Ive seen much more citadels on Kron when hitting infront of the turrets as compared to hitting the center of the ship.

 

As you can see in your image, if they hit at a slight incline (so, from any greater distance) at the waterline, even at the centre they'll cit, because they pass through the belt, fall a bit, hit 90 mm citadel bulkhead. So, that centre part is not cit-proof. Just nowhere as easy to wreck.

 

1 minute ago, Toivia said:

I'll just make a really simple example: A regular T9 cruiser eats multiple citadels -> dead. Kron eats multiple citadels -> heals to half HP.

No T9 regular cruiser can easily dodge torps, that's why I hate high tier games, every capital ship is extremely sluggish. Kron may be somewhat worse thna them, but the difference is minimal. And any T9 regular cruiser will die to cruiser He as easily as Kron.

Thing is, smaller cruisers eat less cits and better deck armour on cruisers end in less ships that can just lolpen it. A Gneisenau can screw your Kronshtadt over, but will curse a good Roon or Buffalo. And I'm pretty sure high tier CLs aren't anywhere as sluggish as your Kronshtadt. CAs might not be the most agile, but they still can do quite well.

Few T9 cruisers get out-dpmed in the HE contest though. Only Neptune is worse, but Neptune has other means to get by.

7 minutes ago, Toivia said:

But worst at T9 is within 1-2kms from most of the pack. That is very comparable indeed. One thing I haven't even mentioned before is that Kron is actually faster than say the germans.

11 km is within 2 km from 9 km. One of the two numbers is deeply average to bad for a cruiser, the other is basically only for light cruisers and IJN. 2 km radius is a lot and shouldn't be taken lightly, else, why do you think Concealment mod and CE are so important, despite only taking off 1-2 km?

[Kartoffelmos]

Regarding the Kronshtad's supposed citadel weakness and overmatch-vulnerability: you're wrong. Kronshtaht vulnerability stems from the 25 mm bow plating. Yes, the citadel roof is 15 mm thick on the fore/aft ends on the ship, but in order to reach that area, you will either have to:

1. Penetrate the 25 mm and 90 mm decks above it:
   
    
2. Penetrate the 25 mm bow plating, hit low enough to avoid the 90 mm deck, penetrate the 330 mm citadel front armour (275 mm at the rear) and then either overmatch the roof or enter the citadel directly:
   

 

I would not call that vulnerable, not by cruiser standards at least. From the side is a different matter entirely, but only for certain battleships (the ones who can overmatch the 30 mm thick middle citadel roof). The rest will either have to hit the 15 mm sections or have a steep enough angle to avoid auto-bounce. Cruisers can go  themselves unless they penetrate the 230 mm belt armour and hit the citadel sides (which is one pixel above the waterline) either at the front or the rear. The central section has spaced armour which means 90 mm additional citadel protection.

[ForlornSailor]

16 minutes ago, Toivia said:

Well at least I have played a Moskva, Kron and Missouri. Which not all people here can say...

 

Do you enjoy shooting yourself in the foot?

[DFens_666]

7 minutes ago, Toivia said:

Spotter plane has its uses, but it's nothing compared with a radar. Unless you are a Yuro disciple and use a spotter plane on radar cruisers as well?

Well at least I have played a Moskva, Kron and Missouri. Which not all people here can say...

Yes, I consider radar in its current iteration very OP indeed. I guess that is the whole issue with this damn argument. The people disagreeing with me on Kron, Alaska and Missouri probably don't see radar as the gamechanger it is. Well, I'm glad we got to the crux of the problem: Radar itself.

 

Well, then we cant really argue about specific ships really, because you consider most radar ships to be OP then? Id agree on some, but not only because they have Radar.

Radar is imo a problem when the range is as good as the concealment (imo Chapa can be left out by this, because its so squishy, and usually RU cruisers work better from longer ranges).

Belfast - is it OP because Radar? Not really. Its OP because it has access to T8 concealment module - remove that and IMO it would be fine. Combination makes the OP factor - not one thing alone.

Worcester - OP because it has everything: Hydro vs Torps, DefAA vs CVs, Radar the moment it gets spotted vs DDs. Good Arcs to camp behind Islands. Insane DPM. Now it loses the ability to insta Radar, which gives DDs the opportunity to spot one for his team.

Cleveland and Seattle arent as strong as Worcester because they lack DPM, and a bit shorter duration radar. Still Seattle will be fine imo despite getting a nerf aswell. Cleveland isnt really too powerful anyway, despite retaining its Radar range = concealment range.

Chapa/Donskoi/Moskva = imo not OP despite long range radar. They take risks when they go so close, because their concealment is bad.

Black: Not too sure, the torps are pretty aweful. So its good at killing DDs... but else?

PA-DDs: When looking at CWs, they are much better than other DDs, because most clans use them because of Radar. Still, i think they could have done without the ability to choose Radar or Smoke.

Indianapolis: Pretty bad DD hunter.

Atlanta: Short range radar - imo not so much a problem.

Kron/Stalingrad: Bad concealment. If anything, Stalingrad is OP because other reasons, but not because Radar.

 

6 minutes ago, Riselotte said:

As you can see in your image, if they hit at a slight incline (so, from any greater distance) at the waterline, even at the centre they'll cit, because they pass through the belt, fall a bit, hit 90 mm citadel bulkhead. So, that centre part is not cit-proof. Just nowhere as easy to wreck.

 

Probably true at long range fire, yes. But at closer ranges imo you will bounce off.

[HaachamaShipping]

8 minutes ago, Kartoffelmos said:

Regarding the Kronshtad's supposed citadel weakness and overmatch-vulnerability: you're wrong. Kronshtaht vulnerability stems from the 25 mm bow plating. Yes, the citadel roof is 15 mm thick on the fore/aft ends on the ship, but in order to reach that area, you will either have to:

1. Penetrate the 25 mm and 90 mm decks above it:
   
    
2. Penetrate the 25 mm bow plating, hit low enough to avoid the 90 mm deck, penetrate the 330 mm citadel front armour (275 mm at the rear) and then either overmatch the roof or enter the citadel directly:
   

 

I would not call that vulnerable, not by cruiser standards at least. From the side is a different matter entirely, but only for certain battleships (the ones who can overmatch the 30 mm thick middle citadel roof). The rest will either have to hit the 15 mm sections or have a steep enough angle to avoid auto-bounce. Cruisers can go  themselves unless they penetrate the 230 mm belt armour and hit the citadel sides (which is one pixel above the waterline) either at the front or the rear. The central section has spaced armour which means 90 mm additional citadel armour.

The reason it's a weakness is that when BB shots come in from the side, the upper belt won't stop them, but once through, in the center, the 30 mm deck might bounce the shells (same as how 30 mm deck armour at T10 just bounces shells), the 15 mm part does not. So if you aim for the belt at the first turret, you either straight up pen the 230 mm or overmatch the 25 mm section and overmatch the citadel roof. Few ships at the tier have this crap a citadel roof. Yes, you can also crap on this ship in other ways as a BB, but having one more isn't exactly of no importance. And your one pixel above the waterline still matters. Fuso and Hood sit at the waterline, German CAs have citadels a pixel above the waterline. They all take citadels pretty often. To actually get any degree of resilience there, you need a citadel significantly below the waterline, like Conqueror or Alaska.

 

[Toivia]

6 minutes ago, Riselotte said:

Thing is, smaller cruisers eat less cits and better deck armour on cruisers end in less ships that can just lolpen it. A Gneisenau can screw your Kronshtadt over, but will curse a good Roon or Buffalo. And I'm pretty sure high tier CLs aren't anywhere as sluggish as your Kronshtadt. CAs might not be the most agile, but they still can do quite well.

Few T9 cruisers get out-dpmed in the HE contest though. Only Neptune is worse, but Neptune has other means to get by.

11 km is within 2 km from 9 km. One of the two numbers is deeply average to bad for a cruiser, the other is basically only for light cruisers and IJN. 2 km radius is a lot and shouldn't be taken lightly, else, why do you think Concealment mod and CE are so important, despite only taking off 1-2 km?

While technically both of those points are good, I really don't find they work in random battles. (That's where I get back to the "6th BB in a match" etc.) For one, the concealment is very important and you obviously almost always want to get it as low as possible, but: In a random battle, it's very rare you'll fight one on one and you will get spotted at most times anyway if you shoot.

And about regular T9 cruisers eating fewer citadels: Roon is among the most sluggish and is also huge. It relies on its armor more. Ibuki is one ship I would consider maybe manoeuvrable enough, but that thing eats citadels like no other, from everywhere (even cruisers somehow citadel it from the aft, no clue how that is even possible). Neptune can be manoeuvrable, but is even worse than Ibuki (even Kron overmatches it). Donskoi is both sluggish and fragile. Saint-Louis is a floating citadel. Seattle I don't know, but I keep hearing it's very underwhelming and incredibly fragile. Buffalo seems to also be rather sluggish in a turn given its stats, and I seem to recall it does eat citadels as well.

 

So yeah, I don't see regular T9 cruisers eating fewer citadels than Kron on a daily basis in Random battles.

4 minutes ago, ForlornSailor said:

 

Do you enjoy shooting yourself in the foot?

I never said I'm a good player, mate.

 

3 minutes ago, DFens_666 said:

 

Well, then we cant really argue about specific ships really, because you consider most radar ships to be OP then? Id agree on some, but not only because they have Radar.

Radar is imo a problem when the range is as good as the concealment (imo Chapa can be left out by this, because its so squishy, and usually RU cruisers work better from longer ranges).

Belfast - is it OP because Radar? Not really. Its OP because it has access to T8 concealment module - remove that and IMO it would be fine. Combination makes the OP factor - not one thing alone.

Worcester - OP because it has everything: Hydro vs Torps, DefAA vs CVs, Radar the moment it gets spotted vs DDs. Good Arcs to camp behind Islands. Insane DPM. Now it loses the ability to insta Radar, which gives DDs the opportunity to spot one for his team.

Cleveland and Seattle arent as strong as Worcester because they lack DPM, and a bit shorter duration radar. Still Seattle will be fine imo despite getting a nerf aswell. Cleveland isnt really too powerful anyway, despite retaining its Radar range = concealment range.

Chapa/Donskoi/Moskva = imo not OP despite long range radar. They take risks when they go so close, because their concealment is bad.

Black: Not too sure, the torps are pretty aweful. So its good at killing DDs... but else?

PA-DDs: When looking at CWs, they are much better than other DDs, because most clans use them because of Radar. Still, i think they could have done without the ability to choose Radar or Smoke.

Indianapolis: Pretty bad DD hunter.

Atlanta: Short range radar - imo not so much a problem.

Kron/Stalingrad: Bad concealment. If anything, Stalingrad is OP because other reasons, but not because Radar.

I agree with your initial assessment. Radar may not be OP if the ship suffers drawbacks to having it. I mostly agree with the Chapa in that way with you.

If you want to go ship by ship, fine...

 

Belfast, radar is what makes it OP. T8 module would be fine without radar. And removing the T8 module while keeping the radar still makes it OP because it keeps smoke+radar.

Worcester, yeah, that is a beast. Possibly too strong even without radar...

Seattle/Cleveland, they are very close range cruisers (can't hit at range), very fragile. Maybe the combination of radar+hydro can be very strong in that close range position, but mostly fine.

Chapa, incredibly fragile and not manoeuvrable. Can stealth radar though. I'd say mostly fine given the insane fragility.

Donskoi, in practice can also radar as soon as spotted (only 600m difference), but also quite fragile, bad DPM, bad manoeuvrabilty. Fine.

Moskva, bad concealment, fragile from sides. It needs spotting options for itself to keep good positioning.

Black, OP as hell. It just owns caps versus any DD. Then again we get OP Kamikaze and Jutland coming, so... There's so much DD powercreep lately.

PA DDs, they have to sacrifice smoke. They may be very strong with radar, but imo a fair tradeoff.

RN CLs, same as PA DDs above really.

Indianapolis, awful DPM, very fragile. Still a strong ship.

Atlanta, again limited to very short range, very fragile, no HP. Fine.

Kron, similar ability to Donskoi. Can radar within seconds of getting spotted and spot enemy DD (or cruiser), very capable ship even without radar, clearly powercreep.

Stalingrad, oh boy. That ship would be OP without HE and radar...

Missouri, an Iowa with radar slacked on top, powercreep.

 

[ForlornSailor]

15 minutes ago, Riselotte said:

The reason it's a weakness is that when BB shots come in from the side, the upper belt won't stop them, but once through, in the center, the 30 mm deck might bounce the shells (same as how 30 mm deck armour at T10 just bounces shells), the 15 mm part does not. So if you aim for the belt at the first turret, you either straight up pen the 230 mm or overmatch the 25 mm section and overmatch the citadel roof. Few ships at the tier have this crap a citadel roof. Yes, you can also crap on this ship in other ways as a BB, but having one more isn't exactly of no importance. And your one pixel above the waterline still matters. Fuso and Hood sit at the waterline, German CAs have citadels a pixel above the waterline. They all take citadels pretty often. To actually get any degree of resilience there, you need a citadel significantly below the waterline, like Conqueror or Alaska.

 

Funny enough: saw strangers do this yesterday and he even explains is:

 

https://www.twitch.tv/videos/319548958?t=06h09m11s

 

[HaachamaShipping]

19 minutes ago, Toivia said:

While technically both of those points are good, I really don't find they work in random battles. (That's where I get back to the "6th BB in a match" etc.) For one, the concealment is very important and you obviously almost always want to get it as low as possible, but: In a random battle, it's very rare you'll fight one on one and you will get spotted at most times anyway if you shoot.

And about regular T9 cruisers eating fewer citadels: Roon is among the most sluggish and is also huge. It relies on its armor more. Ibuki is one ship I would consider maybe manoeuvrable enough, but that thing eats citadels like no other, from everywhere (even cruisers somehow citadel it from the aft, no clue how that is even possible). Neptune can be manoeuvrable, but is even worse than Ibuki (even Kron overmatches it). Donskoi is both sluggish and fragile. Saint-Louis is a floating citadel. Seattle I don't know, but I keep hearing it's very underwhelming and incredibly fragile. Buffalo seems to also be rather sluggish in a turn given its stats, and I seem to recall it does eat citadels as well.

Concealment isn't about not being spotted when shooting, it's about being able to make an approach and being able to disengage. Especially for a cruiser it is vital to beable to disengage and not be forced to continue fighting after the advantage passed to the enemy. Most cruisers have a far easier time going dark again, Kronshtadt meanwhile handles like a battleship in that matter. A battleship with inadequate armour. Because it's a cruiser with a ton of hp and a terrible concealment for a cruiser. Try to play it like a 6th BB, any BB you meet can likely remind you that you are a cruiser and not a BB and that you might reload faster, but your dpm is garbage. Like, Kronshtadt isn't harmless, but as long as a BB doesn't expose its broadside, you can just murder it, while it either bounces off or tries to HE spam you with terrible HE. It is basically what Graf Spee already has at T6. Graf Spee can wreck BBs if they show broadside or if they are close enough for torps, but a 1v1 vs a BB is just terrible, a kiting Nürnberg has more chances to dodge and burn down the BB. Similarly, in a 1v1, a Kronshtadt is basically free damage for a BB, while at least any other cruiser could try to kite or torp. Like Graf Spee, these ships are designed as cruiser killers and that's basically the one and only thing they are really somewhat good at, if they get the broadside. Everything else they are at best passable and against cruisers game mechanics screw them in a 1v1.

 

 

[Kartoffelmos]

2 hours ago, ForlornSailor said:

Missouri is not OP. There. I said it. By your logic, we need to add the following BBs to the list of OP ships:

- Bismarck

- FdG

- Kurfürst

- Duke of York

- Iowa

- KGV

 

List goes on. Shall we talk if Fuso is OP?

 

First of all, I've considered the Fuso to be OP since closed beta but that's beside the point. The rest of the ships listed will have to get way closer to utilise their anti-smoke tactics which means plenty of time for a destroyer to either sail away or line up a close-range torpedo strike (at 6 km, the Kurfürst will have some issues dodging all the torpedoes and there is also the possibility of a suicide-rush if it's an 1vs.1-situation). With the Missouri, the same buffer is 9,45 km and 66,67 % of her firepower is located in the front. Rushing her or, RN torpedoes excluded, hitting more than 3 torpedoes on her bow is not very likely to succeed. Does a scout plane offer the same utility? Not even close.

Alternatively, should a battleship have (some of) the same utility as a cruiser when said utility is a direct counter to a destroyer? The answer should obviously be "no".

 

With the introduction of "O marks the spot" on the minimap, the scout plane has also lost some of its strengths but yes, it is by far more easy to hit smoke-campers if you have one available. On the other hand, you are at the mercy of RNGesus so your better aim might not necessarily yield significantly better results. Radar works every time if you time it right.

 

The problem is not the ship itself or the radar itself (well, in my opinion at least) but rather that WG gave an already strong ship (at the time of implementation) a tool to directly deal with her counter and another way to enforce map control. Usually, the concealment disadvantage is the battleship's Achilles heel when it comes to map control which is why destroyers are so valuable in cap-contesting. With the Missouri? Not so much.

 

49 minutes ago, Riselotte said:

The reason it's a weakness is that when BB shots come in from the side, the upper belt won't stop them, but once through, in the center, the 30 mm deck might bounce the shells (same as how 30 mm deck armour at T10 just bounces shells), the 15 mm part does not. So if you aim for the belt at the first turret, you either straight up pen the 230 mm or overmatch the 25 mm section and overmatch the citadel roof. Few ships at the tier have this crap a citadel roof. Yes, you can also crap on this ship in other ways as a BB, but having one more isn't exactly of no importance. And your one pixel above the waterline still matters. Fuso and Hood sit at the waterline, German CAs have citadels a pixel above the waterline. They all take citadels pretty often. To actually get any degree of resilience there, you need a citadel significantly below the waterline, like Conqueror or Alaska.

 

I assumed that the "problem" in question was the vulnerability from the front. From the side, she is less vulnerable than most cruisers at tier 9 since her central section is well protected apart from "perfect" waterline hits (those will penetrate the belt and head into the 90 mm citadel sides unless the impact angle is steep enough to bounce). In order to hit the citadel roof you must avoid the 90 mm deck armour and I'm not convinced that the impact angle will be good enough to prevent auto-bounce (overmatch excluded) in most cases due to the distance between the belt armour and the actual citadel (thanks, WG for not allowing us to test these things in the training room, by the way).

 

The 15 mm front/aft vulnerability from the side (I like how this is a point of "controversy" by the way; that a cruiser of all things is vulnerable to BB citadel hits from the sides at certain areas) is rather negative but again, which cruiser at tier 9 (apart from Roon, I guess) does not eat citadels from the side?

 

Only the Donskoi comes close but as long as you hit the entire section under the 50 mm deck armour (in order words, the 100 mm belt armour), you will citadel her. The only saving grace is if the shell for some reason detonates before it reaches the citadel (spaced armour) but that is not a problem for most, if not all, battleships. This is in no way comparable to the Kronsthadt.

 

The Alaska appears to be yet another "problem child" in this regard, however.

[HaachamaShipping]

1 minute ago, Kartoffelmos said:

I assumed that the "problem" in question was the vulnerability from the front. From the side, she is less vulnerable than most cruisers at tier 9 since her central section is well protected apart from "perfect" waterline hits (those will penetrate the belt and head into the 90 mm citadel sides unless the impact angle is steep enough to bounce). In order to hit the citadel roof you must avoid the 90 mm deck armour and I'm not convinced that the impact angle will be good enough to prevent auto-bounce (overmatch excluded) in most cases due to the distance between the belt armour and the actual citadel (thanks, WG for not allowing us to test these things in the training room, by the way).

 

The 15 mm front/aft vulnerability from the side (I like how this is a point of "controversy" by the way; that a cruiser of all things is vulnerable to BB citadel hits from side at certain areas) is rather negative but again, which cruiser at tier 9 (apart from Roon, I guess) does not eat citadels from the side?

 

Only the Donskoi comes close but as long as you hit the entire section under the 50 mm deck armour (in order words, the 100 mm belt armour), you will citadel her. The only saving grace is if the shell for some reason detonates before it reaches the citadel (spaced armour) but that is not a problem for most, if not all, battleships. This is in no way comparable to the Kronsthadt.

 

The Alaska appears to be yet another "problem child" in this regard, however.

The problem regarding this isn't "Is it better than a typical T9 cruiser in tanking?" 70k hp ensure that. The problem is that when you know where to aim in a BB, you can quickly bring a Kronshtadt down. And while you can kill most other cruisers fast too when you shoot at them, most other cruisers don't rely on hp + belt to keep them alive. The 15 mm section just means, showing broadside in this ship gets you killed faster than you'd think against people who know where to aim and the 25 mm bow means you cannot bowtank either. Typically, cruisers just don't rely on tanking, though 27 mm and 30 mm plating on some can make it viable against select few ships, where it then is rather reliable. But Kronshtadt is anything but reliable armour.

[Verdius]

I just hope that the next T9 free XP after what currently in the works is not going to be another BB or supercruiser (aka BB disguised as CA).
Traditional cruisers and DDs need some love too. 

 

Spoiler

AND NO WG THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT WE NEED ANOTHER 20KM DEEPWATER TORP AT T9

 

[NothingButTheRain]

On 7-10-2018 at 11:29 AM, Riselotte said:

Also while they increased the hp of above water modules a bit, it still shouldn't prevent that you can sit perfectly broadside and still not get citpenned. This should still be doable, whereas Kronshtadt basically just blows up in this situation.

 

Also, funnily enough, I'm not even all up in arms about this, because lack of reachable citadel is basically already a standard for BBs and vs cruisers Alaska just gets wrecked by the massive dpm if it doesn't watch out. 

I understood that Alaska can get citadelled through the nose.

[HaachamaShipping]

1 minute ago, NothingButTheRain said:

I understood that Alaska can get citadelled through the nose.

I do not have the armour model, but unless you aim very low or the roof is overmatchable, no.

[Verdius]

3 minutes ago, NothingButTheRain said:

I understood that Alaska can get citadelled through the nose.

Just now, Riselotte said:

I do not have the armour model, but unless you aim very low or the roof is overmatchable, no.

 

Don't forget that Alaska has 27mm bow plating meaning that it bounces 15'' guns like on the Jean Bart, Alsace, Bourgogne, and most BBs when she is top tier.

[NothingButTheRain]

2 minutes ago, Riselotte said:

I do not have the armour model, but unless you aim very low or the roof is overmatchable, no.

It's from the same streamer you posted this here from 

Or it was Flambass, but I think it was actually Flamu as well. After this, he started experimenting and came up with going sideways to a Yamato, which is the easiest tier 10 BB to citadel through the cheek weakspot.

[HaachamaShipping]

Just now, Verdius said:

 

Don't forget that Alaska has 27mm bow plating meaning that it bounces 15'' guns like on the Jean Bart, Alsace, Bourgogne, and most BBs when she is top tier.

I played enough Roon to know, that's once in a blue moon MM where all the BBs have guns that bounce off you. A Single T7 Nagato can spoil the fun.