Do all T7 - T9 cruisers play the same way

[Molybdane]

Currently, I got my cruisers at T4 RU, T5 GE, T6 IJN, and I can buy the Myoko, and the Pensacola for the USN. From reading the stats on these ships, and considering a general outlook on the playstyle (avoid getting citadeled) it looks to me they all play the same. I asume this is just what it looks like but I still wonder: how are these cruisers different from one another in playstyle?

[Tyrendian89]

They are indeed very different, at least beyond the obvious "try not to get citadel'd" part. A short general overview of the lines and their respective T7 representatives:

IJN tend to be stealthy with really got HE and long(ish) range Torpedoes but bad angles on those. Basically, try out the Myoko and you know what you're getting - the ships just get better at it pretty much.

Germans are pretty tanky (for cruisers) with amazing AP (except Yorck) and (after Hipper C hull) decent HE plus great torp angles that make them fearsome up close. Yorck is a really odd one - not a horrible ship but plays very differently from the others because of its abysmal AP.

RU cruisers have more barrels and higher RoF than the others which makes them very proficient HE spammers, but they tend to handle like whales (as in, Yamato level turning circles) and have really bad armour. Stay at max range and plink away. Very strong line though if you know what you're doing. Shchors doesnt do anything differently than what I just said for the line.

USN cruisers are... whelp. They are meant to be Jacks of All Trades with good AP shells and AA, but they... kinda... don't really work. I mean, they can punish broadsides very well at short ranges, but from farther away you tend to get moon arcs and thus often have trouble hitting things. Also, lack of Torps means you're in trouble up close unless you can citadel the opposition to hell. Pensacola at T7 is also very very squishy - my favourite ship to nuke in any given Battleship.

Also, German cruisers get massively improved Hydroacoustic Search which makes them virtually immune to Torpedoes and amazing at pushing DD smokes, and from T8 onwards USN and RU get Radar which is also pretty handy.

[Venatos]

from what ive seen its pretty sameish allround, the change from T4 to T6 is it.

that said, every cruiser and nation has its own little twist. JPN cruisers have good HE resistances(high minimum armor), good torps and good HEdamage, Germans have long range and good AP, US have good AA and firerate, russians are good allrounders with good accuracy.

that roughly my take on it after many hours studying the wiki and watching youtube vids.

 

edit: if you tend to try and stay with a group and/or play more defensively, US probably fits you well. if you are more the agressive lonewolf, no i dont mean yolorushing, russians might be your thing. if you like shooting enemys at range, like it even more if they cant shoot back, germans have you covered. if you like unconventional fighting with fire and torps, the japanese will probably tickle your fancy.

[ShinGetsu]

They are indeed very different, at least beyond the obvious "try not to get citadel'd" part. A short general overview of the lines and their respective T7 representatives:

IJN tend to be stealthy with really got HE and long(ish) range Torpedoes but bad angles on those. Basically, try out the Myoko and you know what you're getting - the ships just get better at it pretty much.

Germans are pretty tanky (for cruisers) with amazing AP (except Yorck) and (after Hipper C hull) decent HE plus great torp angles that make them fearsome up close. Yorck is a really odd one - not a horrible ship but plays very differently from the others because of its abysmal AP.

RU cruisers have more barrels and higher RoF than the others which makes them very proficient HE spammers, but they tend to handle like whales (as in, Yamato level turning circles) and have really bad armour. Stay at max range and plink away. Very strong line though if you know what you're doing. Shchors doesnt do anything differently than what I just said for the line.

USN cruisers are... whelp. They are meant to be Jacks of All Trades with good AP shells and AA, but they... kinda... don't really work. I mean, they can punish broadsides very well at short ranges, but from farther away you tend to get moon arcs and thus often have trouble hitting things. Also, lack of Torps means you're in trouble up close unless you can citadel the opposition to hell. Pensacola at T7 is also very very squishy - my favourite ship to nuke in any given Battleship.

Also, German cruisers get massively improved Hydroacoustic Search which makes them virtually immune to Torpedoes and amazing at pushing DD smokes, and from T8 onwards USN and RU get Radar which is also pretty handy.

You forgot that RU cruisers have very, very strong AP at close range. So using covers to get closer and blasting your opponent with APs works too.

 

Also I'm tired of reading that "US cruisers are weak/bad/etc.". It's not true. It's like reading "Muh Montana is weaaaak" by people that try to use it like a Yamato. >_<

Pensacola is kinda bad. THIS is indeed true. The guns are powerful but it suffers from a huge lack of concealment ability and is prone to get citadelled.

NO is amazing in the right hands. It's a small, agile ship, with powerful AP and good HE, and good concealment. And don't talk about "moon arc" because Pensa and NO have the SAME GUN ARC as IJN's 203. A NO spamming from 15km is incredibly annoying for a BB. 

Baltimore and DM are more tricky to play. That indeed is true. Guns have indeed "moon arc" and it makes aiming harder. But it also means that AP shells at long range fall vertically on the decks and do tons of heavy damages. Citadelling BB at max range happens. High arc also means using the islands as covers works better than with any other ship. Lack of torpedoes makes close range more dangerous than with other CA, but agility, ROF and AP compensate.

 

USN CA are meant to escort bigger ships. Use them this way.

 

[VC381]

Well, they are the same ship type so they fill a similar role to an extent but they don't play the same way any more than battleships of the same tier do. It's possible to describe pros, cons and differences but sometimes you just like how a ship "feels". Just bite the bullet at try a few of them, T7 is not that expensive yet and repair costs are still OK.

 

In many ways T7 is a "sweet spot" for cruisers because they are all a big jump in power from T6 but their MM is usually good (top tier often because of T8-9-10 playing together).

 

T8 is the opposite, the ships are barely stronger than T7 but you are constantly in T9-10 games.

 

Also it's hard to say what a whole line is like. I think IJN and Soviets the ships are very similar from T7 to T9 but for German and US Hipper and New Orleans are quite different to York and Pensacola.

 

I feel people above have more or less summed up strengths/weakness. I just want to add that US cruisers have amazing rudder shift and turning circles at these tiers. Their AP is strong because of excellent penetration angles, you get more citadels and more damage on angled targets. Although German and even IJN have more raw theoretical damage with AP they require some "co-operation" from the enemy to get it.

[BabyAdmiral]

Do all T7 - T9 cruisers play the same way

 

They play similarly, but not "the same way". They are all cruisers after all. Some are small and nimble, while others are larger and hit harder.

[Molybdane]

Thanks all for your input. This is what I got out of it.

 

IJN cruisers are definitly on the list. They have good concealment, good guns although their torpedo angles are indeed awkward. I enjoyed the Aoba a lot and kept her, even strapped the bootcamp propulsion upgrasde on her. I unlocked the Haruna too yesterday, and will give her a spin before I cough up the 5,8 million credits for the Myoko. That'll set me up for a while.

 

I appreciate the comments on the Russion cruisers, and I hadn't noticed the approach of either stay at very long or very short ranges. Svietlana for me is a pain to level, but it is only T4 so I will make Kirov one day, and give it a spin accordingly. At any rate, I am a speed freak, and russian cruisers are the fastest, by 1 knot, so they are very hard for me  to pass up on.

 

I am having a reasonably good time in the Pensacola atm with very few cits, although this statement means RNG will send me a couple in my next few matches. I concur with the guns having awonderfully flat trajectory. I hadn't considered the rudder shift time of these cruisers which means that although these cruisers are a bit slower than the competition; they may be better at dodging. I might try out a propulsion upgrade on these ships too. Can't wait for the NO; it looks better and has a more reasonalbe concealment rating.

 

As for escorting with USN cruisers; I enjoy the hit and run tactics on my Pensacola, but maybe I shouldn't. I do more escorting on my Mahan, of all ships, and enjoy the trollish nature of upsetting DD torpedo-runs, covering my teams' withdrawal with smoke, and AA-ing dive-bombers. I suppose I can do this with a cruiser too, although it would be more obvious and less trollishto do so..

 

As for the German cruisers, I'll probably move away from them. I like the Konigsberg, but I wonder why I should pick up the Nurnberg. it is the same ship + 1 more secondary gun, more AA, a worse rudder shift time and worse MM. The Yorck being eccentric also scares me off, although it is said the Hipper makes up for it all; that's long haul through citadel city though. These ships are true snipers I suppose, which means you need to shoot someone when they aren't looking at you. But why have torpedoes and a sonar system, I wonder.

 

I'll be on the lookout for the T7 - T8 upgrade too, the NO is first. I have dealt with this upgrade before, on my USN BB so I know (a bit) what is coming. Thanks again all for your input, and I guess more questions can wait for a month or 2.

[S4h3L]

USN CA are meant to escort bigger ships. Use them this way.

you can escort bigger ships with any cruiser just mount AA consumable...

If ship cant do nothing more just escort and punish broadside cruisers/DDs that came too close, its weak/bad/etc

Only exception si DM, bcs HE spam

[_Teob_]

Also I'm tired of reading that "US cruisers are weak/bad/etc.". It's not true. It's like reading "Muh Montana is weaaaak" by people that try to use it like a Yamato. >_<

Pensacola is kinda bad. THIS is indeed true. The guns are powerful but it suffers from a huge lack of concealment ability and is prone to get citadelled.

NO is amazing in the right hands. It's a small, agile ship, with powerful AP and good HE, and good concealment. And don't talk about "moon arc" because Pensa and NO have the SAME GUN ARC as IJN's 203. A NO spamming from 15km is incredibly annoying for a BB. 

Baltimore and DM are more tricky to play. That indeed is true. Guns have indeed "moon arc" and it makes aiming harder. But it also means that AP shells at long range fall vertically on the decks and do tons of heavy damages. Citadelling BB at max range happens. High arc also means using the islands as covers works better than with any other ship. Lack of torpedoes makes close range more dangerous than with other CA, but agility, ROF and AP compensate.

 

USN CA are meant to escort bigger ships. Use them this way.

 

 

While your theory is great, it's just that - a theory. A theory not supported by stats.

 

USN cruisers are the worst performing cruisers overall. There is no debate here. Even if you're very good in them, you are in fact an exception and by no means the rule (I am interested in your personal experience in USN CAs though).

At tier 7, the Pensacola outperforms the Yorck and at tier 10 the DM outperforms the Hindenburg. Apart from that USN CAs are last in damage, win rate, survival rate and kills. This is at both average level and at the top 5% of the playerbase (i.e. the best players).

 

I'm tired of reading that "US cruisers are not weak/bad/etc.". It's objectively not true. They are bad and underperform.

 

Sources for stats:

Warships Today

WoWs-numbers

[Sub_Eleven]

 

While your theory is great, it's just that - a theory. A theory not supported by stats.

 

USN cruisers are the worst performing cruisers overall. There is no debate here. Even if you're very good in them, you are in fact an exception and by no means the rule (I am interested in your personal experience in USN CAs though).

At tier 7, the Pensacola outperforms the Yorck and at tier 10 the DM outperforms the Hindenburg. Apart from that USN CAs are last in damage, win rate, survival rate and kills. This is at both average level and at the top 5% of the playerbase (i.e. the best players).

 

I'm tired of reading that "US cruisers are not weak/bad/etc.". It's objectively not true. They are bad and underperform.

 

Sources for stats:

Warships Today

WoWs-numbers

 

Exacttly. Sticking your head in the sand or whishfull thinking does not magically make the USN cruiser line better.

[ShinGetsu]

 

While your theory is great, it's just that - a theory. A theory not supported by stats.

 

USN cruisers are the worst performing cruisers overall. There is no debate here. Even if you're very good in them, you are in fact an exception and by no means the rule (I am interested in your personal experience in USN CAs though).

At tier 7, the Pensacola outperforms the Yorck and at tier 10 the DM outperforms the Hindenburg. Apart from that USN CAs are last in damage, win rate, survival rate and kills. This is at both average level and at the top 5% of the playerbase (i.e. the best players).

 

I'm tired of reading that "US cruisers are not weak/bad/etc.". It's objectively not true. They are bad and underperform.

 

Sources for stats:

Warships Today

WoWs-numbers

 

You know that average stats just shows that the average player is bad with some ships, right ?

 

I mean, look at NC stats. This things was buffed as hell, is far superior than Amagi in term of armor, mobility, AA, and is nearly self-sufficient. His only downside is that he have less gun than the IJN, and less powerful secondaries.

Still it performs in average less than Amagi. Because most USN BB players are idiots trying to snipe, going broadside all day long, and have trouble figuring the gun balistic.

Same for USN CV : there are so many idiots using AS setup that the average stats are f*cked up.

Same for Montana. Players using it like a Yamato complains it doesn't work well. Of course... 

 

A ship performing badly for the average players doesn't make the ship automatically bad. It just means it's either more difficult or isn't played properly.

I didn't grind the USN cruisers yet. But I have several friends ingame which do wonders with them, and find them far from being weak. And their stats shows it. I fought some well played NO, Baltimore and DM, and they are a real pain to deal with. 

However most of the time you see them showing their broadside at 7km from a Hipper.

 

Hindenburg is another case. I don't understand how its stats can be this weak.

[VC381]

Might I offer an alternative explanation for the lower stats of US cruisers? They don't fit the cruiser meta that WG wants to enforce. They are good escorts but that doesn't bring high damage, XP or necessarily win rate. Their AP and agility makes them great at duelling other cruisers but each other nations has a particular strong point that usually makes them better at the things cruisers are "supposed" to do, hunting DDs and helping to burn down BBs.

But in a pure cruiser contest the US have an upper hand. If this game had a "cruisers only" mode I would be willing to bet US cruisers would be top performers. I had a game with Indianapolis recently where there were no BBs, 100k damage, fairly effortless Confederate + High Caliber, almost Kraken. Pensacola would not have done worse in the same situation, doubt Myoko would have had as good a result.

 

But how often do you get that in a real battle? They're balanced around a strength that's not what's expected of them. But they can do great.

The other thing about US cruisers is nothing about them stands out as bad but neither do they have a real "best" trait. Their all-rounder setup means they can't fall back on a single, simple playstyle that always works. They are dynamic and that's why most people struggle with them.

Also statistics don't measure fun, and US cruisers have a charm when you play them. Sure you don't carry every game but they just feel good, like I said they have no real downsides. I find them very exciting and enjoyable to play, more so than ships I have better stats in.

[S4h3L]

But in a pure cruiser contest the US have an upper hand.

I totaly see how DM is owning Zao/Moskva on 1v1, or Baltimore vs anything, or NOrleans vs Atago, ok its premium, just look at Hipper with 8k more hp or Pepsicola vs Moyoko...

 

[piritskenyer]

*this is gonna turn into a "USN CA's are bad - no they are not - yes they are - no they aren't" thread again and it's gonna make me curse and shout at all of you again, I can feel it*

 

USN cruisers are not bad. Period. What they are is not r-tard-proof. Like really not. They require special attention to be made work, have a very high skill ceiling, and more importantly a very high skill floor, which makes it so that average players who don't give as much human excrement about the game as we tryhards do will do bad.

"Pensacola is squishy ad a prime target for BB shells" is a ridiculous staement. Not because it's not true, but because it's true for every cruiser in the game, not just Pepsi. Pepsi doesn't have diabolically bad armour, certainly not as bad as everyone would have you believe. The max thickness is the same as the Myoko's, and the min thickness is the same as New Orleans'. And yet noone would call either of those two ships thinly armoured for a cruiser.

Problem of the Pensacola is that she gets outspotted by some battleships, and that her firing range is not longer than her detection range, which basically makes her the first target spotted in every other match. Otherwise she's punchy, reasonably quick, handy and she can bounce 8" AP just like the next T7 CA.

 

USN CA's alsogot out-powercreeped by the new cruiser lines IMO. Their base range only exceeds 16km on the NO, which is ridiculous, considering that the cruisers of the VMF and KM lines have sub-16 km range for last time on T4... That said, IJN is not much better off with their rather short ranges (*looks at Mogami angrily*), but they at least get over 16km on T9 and 10... Not to mention torps, lolwin HE and the likes.

[S4h3L]

"You need to have tons of skill or potato enemies to be usefull for team in US CAs, but they are OK"

srsly

[GrossadmiralThrawn]

 it is the same ship + 1 more secondary gun, more AA, a worse rudder shift time and worse MM

 better RoF and turret rotation i think too... also just to nitpick: The Königsberg is Königsberg-class, Nürnberg is Leipzig-class

 

 The Yorck being eccentric also scares me off, although it is said the Hipper makes up for it all; that's long haul through citadel city though.

 it has actually better HE than the Hipper, and below 10km the AP is also good on the Yorck as far as i remember it

[_Teob_]

 

You know that average stats just shows that the average player is bad with some ships, right ?

 

Yes, which is why I told you that the situation is exactly the same at the top 5% of the population. So the best players. I even explained that.

 

ShinGetsu, on 02 August 2016 - 07:16 AM, said:

I mean, look at NC stats. This things was buffed as hell, is far superior than Amagi in term of armor, mobility, AA, and is nearly self-sufficient. His only downside is that he have less gun than the IJN, and less powerful secondaries.

Still it performs in average less than Amagi. Because most USN BB players are idiots trying to snipe, going broadside all day long, and have trouble figuring the gun balistic.

Same for USN CV : there are so many idiots using AS setup that the average stats are f*cked up.

Same for Montana. Players using it like a Yamato complains it doesn't work well. Of course... 

 

I genuinely don't understand what makes you think that you somehow know how to play these ships better than the people playing them. Your arguments are not based on anything. Statistics are facts. Not to mention that mentioning the North Carolina has no relevance to the topic of cruisers. The North Carolina has been buffed but it still performs worse than the Amagi (in the past two weeks so post buff) - that is a fact. We can only speculate as to why that is.

 

ShinGetsu, on 02 August 2016 - 07:16 AM, said:

A ship performing badly for the average players doesn't make the ship automatically bad. It just means it's either more difficult or isn't played properly.

I didn't grind the USN cruisers yet. But I have several friends ingame which do wonders with them, and find them far from being weak. And their stats shows it. I fought some well played NO, Baltimore and DM, and they are a real pain to deal with. 

 

And there it is. You don't have the ships, have never played the ships but you somehow know  (without a shadow of doubt) that everyone playing them is a complete idiot. Even the people at the top 5% of the player base. Everyone else is wrong and you are right.

 

 

 

VC381, on 02 August 2016 - 08:32 AM, said:

Might I offer an alternative explanation for the lower stats of US cruisers? They don't fit the cruiser meta that WG wants to enforce. They are good escorts but that doesn't bring high damage, XP or necessarily win rate. Their AP and agility makes them great at duelling other cruisers but each other nations has a particular strong point that usually makes them better at the things cruisers are "supposed" to do, hunting DDs and helping to burn down BBs.

But in a pure cruiser contest the US have an upper hand. If this game had a "cruisers only" mode I would be willing to bet US cruisers would be top performers. I had a game with Indianapolis recently where there were no BBs, 100k damage, fairly effortless Confederate + High Caliber, almost Kraken. Pensacola would not have done worse in the same situation, doubt Myoko would have had as good a result.

 

 So what you're saying is that USN CAs are not good but they could be if the game had only cruisers. OK, I will give you that. Not sure how this helps their performance but fair point - if this was World of Cruisers, USN CAs would possibly do better.

 

But as it stands they are underperforming and are sub-par.

 

VC381, on 02 August 2016 - 08:32 AM, said:

Also statistics don't measure fun, and US cruisers have a charm when you play them. Sure you don't carry every game but they just feel good, like I said they have no real downsides. I find them very exciting and enjoyable to play, more so than ships I have better stats in.

 

That's the age old fun argument. What is fun for you might not be fun for someone else. And surely you must see that playing a ship that simply cannot perform on the same level as its peers might not be fun. It might even be frustrating (the Baltimore for example).

 

 

piritskenyer, on 02 August 2016 - 08:54 AM, said:

USN cruisers are not bad. Period. 

 

 USN cruisers are bad. Period. (this is based on stats and not subjective, opinion)

 

piritskenyer, on 02 August 2016 - 08:54 AM, said:

USN cruisers are not bad. Period. What they are is not r-tard-proof. Like really not. They require special attention to be made work, have a very high skill ceiling, and more importantly a very high skill floor, which makes it so that average players who don't give as much human excrement about the game as we tryhards do will do bad.

 

Again, the top 5% (i.e. the best players) have similar performance as the average player base. Not in the sense that they do the same damage but in the sense that, for example, the Moskva and the Zao outperform the DM by a wide margin. These are just the facts - you can choose to ignore them.

Let me put it another way, the "tryhards" are also underperforming in USN cruisers across the board.

 

piritskenyer, on 02 August 2016 - 08:54 AM, said:

"Pensacola is squishy ad a prime target for BB shells" is a ridiculous staement. Not because it's not true, but because it's true for every cruiser in the game, not just Pepsi. Pepsi doesn't have diabolically bad armour, certainly not as bad as everyone would have you believe. The max thickness is the same as the Myoko's, and the min thickness is the same as New Orleans'. And yet noone would call either of those two ships thinly armoured for a cruiser.

Problem of the Pensacola is that she gets outspotted by some battleships, and that her firing range is not longer than her detection range, which basically makes her the first target spotted in every other match. Otherwise she's punchy, reasonably quick, handy and she can bounce 8" AP just like the next T7 CA.

 

 So your argument is "the Pensa isn't bad but its got terrible detection which makes it the primary focus for everyone which makes it bad" - OK.

Again, with all possible respect, surely you must see how saying that is a bit of a logical fallacy. 

I won't even go into the fact that the Citadel armour might be similar but overall it's much less armoured and the general consensus is that it is squishier. Even if the armour was the same, it has less hit points.

 

 

piritskenyer, on 02 August 2016 - 08:54 AM, said:

USN CA's alsogot out-powercreeped by the new cruiser lines IMO. Their base range only exceeds 16km on the NO, which is ridiculous, considering that the cruisers of the VMF and KM lines have sub-16 km range for last time on T4... That said, IJN is not much better off with their rather short ranges (*looks at Mogami angrily*), but they at least get over 16km on T9 and 10... Not to mention torps, lolwin HE and the likes.

 

So again, they are bad as they got powercreeped by the new CA lines - your own admission. We can debate the reasons but your conclusion is very much in line with what I said.

 

 

Now look, I really don't understand (and I am not being facetious) what you guys are arguing about. We have one person who doesn't even own the ships but has a very strong opinion about them, another person who (probably rightly) points out that if we only had cruisers then USN CAs would be OK and finally a person who states that they are not bad but then lists multiple reasons (which I agree with on the whole) why they are in fact bad.  

 

This is just silly.

 

I will say again:

- Statistics are a strong indication that currently high tier (tier 7+) USN CAs are underperforming compared to their peers. This holds true at the top 5% of the player base as well so the argument that they are just not played correctly is wrong.

That doesn't mean that they are not fun, or that you can't do well in them.

 

 

[VC381]

You can dismiss the fun argument and rely on your facts all you want, but to be honest a small % win rate or a few k average damage difference will not be felt while playing. You're basically saying if you play two ships 100 games each, in one you win 50 in the other 51, that the first ship is frustrating to play and the other isn't, and that's a fact supported by the stats. Now I've typed it, it sound even more ridiculous than I thought.

 

But you're right, some people enjoy different things so leave it at that. You don't like US cruisers, fine, I can understand why and I accept that. But if your perception of what ships are good/bad is so distorted by a small difference in stats I feel sorry for you.

[_Teob_]

You can dismiss the fun argument and rely on your facts all you want, but to be honest a small % win rate or a few k average damage difference will not be felt while playing. You're basically saying if you play two ships 100 games each, in one you win 50 in the other 51, that the first ship is frustrating to play and the other isn't, and that's a fact supported by the stats. Now I've typed it, it sound even more ridiculous than I thought.

 

But you're right, some people enjoy different things so leave it at that. You don't like US cruisers, fine, I can understand why and I accept that. But if your perception of what ships are good/bad is so distorted by a small difference in stats I feel sorry for you.

 

Your argument is poorly constructed. I will explain why.

1) You assume that the difference is small - it isn't. For example, in the past 2 weeks the Baltimore has been doing on average 34k dmg. All other tier 9 cruisers do on average over 44k dmg (the Baltimore also has the lowest win rate as well). That's an increase of around 30%.

 

2) I never said that if I lose in a ship I find it frustrating. I enjoy plenty of ships that I do poorly in (either because the ship isn't great or because I suck in it). Also this isn't about me.

 

3) You do not hold the ultimate definition of fun. And this is a non-argument anyway. Fun is subjective by its very nature.

 

4) Stats are the ONLY thing that matter when determining if a ship is good/bad. This isn't about how fun or enjoyable a ship is - it's about how good/bad it is. The New Orleans might be fun but it also has the lowest win rate of any cruiser at any tier currently. Are you seriously suggesting that that should be ignored because it's "fun" for some people?

 

And I do enjoy USN cruisers evidenced by the fact that, unlike you, I have played all of them and I have over 200 battles in the Des Moines alone. That doesn't mean that I can't look at stats and say that they are underperforming (note how I don't put forward my own opinion on them)

Also, generally, I would tell someone that "feels sorry" for me to f right off but in the interest of civility I won't. But please, don't make this about me or you for that matter - it really isn't about personal opinion. I would never contest your assessment that they are fun - that is your view for which I have nothing but respect.

 

This is not about me (I can't stress this enough), this is not about how fun the US CAs are, this is not about sodding unicorns or feelings or kittens or whatever.

This is about whether or not USN CAs are good at the moment (based on their performance). The answer is no, they are not. It's super simple.

[Sub_Eleven]

I'll just quote myself from the questions of the community thread:

 

Can we expect a rebalance of the high tier cruisers (tier 7 - 9) in the near future? Are the devs even aware of the fact that some nations are over performing across the board (grab some server stats and try to guess which one) and that others are under performing (again, grab some stats and try to guess which)? There has been quite some threads about this in the cruiser section of the forum, but it seems WG employees are unable to find those -.- Or are you waiting till the brittish cruisers are released (whenever that will be, prolly soon^TM I guess...)?

 

[fnord_disc]

USN cruisers have by far the best cruiser AP in the game in terms of raw penetration (though Germans have better damage and arcs) with much better ricochet angles and generally 25% better penetration than similar shells.

 

This really makes itself felt against angled cruisers. You can citadel 45° angled Myokos easily with USN cruisers and Myoko can't do the same to you.

 

I'm not saying USN cruisers are amazing, but their AP shells have clear strengths that you can't deny.

[S4h3L]

I'll just quote myself from the questions of the community thread:

 

 

 

I had same question in CZ&SK community and answer was that WG has its own charts and if they see some underperforming they will make changes

I personaly think they are blind

[VC381]

Teob, sorry for the over-reaction, I made some assumptions about your PoV that I probably shouldn't have. But you're trying too hard to be objective and it isn't helping your case. Nobody is denying the stats.

 

My point, perhaps not well made, is that good or bad stats don't make the ship good or bad OVERALL on their own. Saying "a ship has bad stats" and "a ship IS bad" are completely different things. When drawing overall conclusions like that you can't ignore aspects about what makes a ship good or bad (such as the fact it can be good in some situations that might not come up as often, or that it can be enjoyable without being statistically successful) just because they are subjective and/or can't be readily measured. Stats may be objective but their relative importance when judging a ship as a player experience is not, as you yourself readily admit.

 

To reduce the sidetrack a little, this thread is about differences in ships and making an informed choice between trees. Saying "ship X has poor server stats but is nevertheless good at Y and is fun because Z" is much more informative in that context than "ship X is bad because stats, fact". I respect your opinion but object to your faux-objective absolutism.

[_Teob_]

 

Teob, sorry for the over-reaction, I made some assumptions about your PoV that I probably shouldn't have. But you're trying too hard to be objective and it isn't helping your case. Nobody is denying the stats.

My point, perhaps not well made, is that good or bad stats don't make the ship good or bad OVERALL on their own. Saying "a ship has bad stats" and "a ship IS bad" are completely different things. When drawing overall conclusions like that you can't ignore aspects about what makes a ship good or bad (such as the fact it can be good in some situations that might not come up as often, or that it can be enjoyable without being statistically successful) just because they are subjective and/or can't be readily measured. Stats may be objective but their relative importance when judging a ship as a player experience is not, as you yourself readily admit.

To reduce the sidetrack a little, this thread is about differences in ships and making an informed choice between trees. Saying "ship X has poor server stats but is nevertheless good at Y and is fun because Z" is much more informative in that context than "ship X is bad because stats, fact". I respect your opinion but object to your faux-objective absolutism.

 

Fair enough - no harm done.

 

I stand by the stats which I consider hard evidence and quite the opposite of faux-objectivity. I take your point about absolutism though. But I never stated that I think that you can't have fun in them or that they can't be useful in certain situations- apologies if I made it seem that way.

 

All I keep saying is that as far as performance goes, they are bottom of the pack. 

[piritskenyer]

 

[...]

 So your argument is "the Pensa isn't bad but its got terrible detection which makes it the primary focus for everyone which makes it bad" - OK.

Again, with all possible respect, surely you must see how saying that is a bit of a logical fallacy. 

I won't even go into the fact that the Citadel armour might be similar but overall it's much less armoured and the general consensus is that it is squishier. Even if the armour was the same, it has less hit points.

 

[...]

 

 

Agreed on most of it.

 

As for the "logical fallacy", I probably didn't explain myself well.

 

What I'm trying to say in this case isn't that

"the Pensa isn't bad but its got terrible detection which makes it the primary focus for everyone which makes it bad"

What I'm trying to say that the ship is hamstrung, rather than outright bad.

The Karlsruhe, for example, is outright bad: slow, short ranged, turning slow with really no armour.

Pensacola, in comparison, has one overwhelming weakness: that stupid detection range. Every other stat is average or better than average. I am willing to bet you actual, real life money, that if the detection range was brought down to normal levels (13-13.5km), the ship's statistical performance would jump up considerably.

 

As for the armour, I would have to look up the ingame armour models to make a real, detailed comparison, but I'm not in a position to do that right now (I'm on vacation), so until then I will maintain that Pensacola's armour isn't significantly weaker, if at all, than other T7 CA's'. It seeming squishier is probably down to the fact that "first seen, first served" means a lot of incoming fire and high fireconcentration kind of ignores armour...