[UNICS] Solo_Wing_Potato Players 317 posts 7,782 battles Report post #26 Posted September 12, 2016 @Creamgravy There's a couple of YouTube clips worth watching, one is a short clip from FerdinandNL on a close range brawl using Minotaur the other is Panzerknacker in a game with Flamu in the Neptune, he freecams Flamu through the game so you can see the playstyle adopted (mix of long range HE and short range AP). No UI on either video, apart from Panzerknackers New Orleans. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[R3B3L] HystericalAccuracy Players 1,505 posts 40,353 battles Report post #27 Posted September 12, 2016 I am surprised to see Leander at T6, i expected the HMS Superb/Swiftsure there. On paper, it looks very similar to the Russian T6 Budyonny. Why did they leave the Swiftsure-class out completely? BTW, the T8 Edinburgh seems on paper similar to Kutuzov - which means, that i am very looking forward to grind it Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
creamgravy Players 2,780 posts 17,292 battles Report post #28 Posted September 12, 2016 Well not sure what those tables are for. But without it, they are still very viable targets. Total DPS is the ability to defend yourself from attack. Long range DPS is the ability to protect others from attack. Montana is great at defending herself but is less useful at protecting others, Großer Kurfürst can do a better job in this regard. Neptune and Minotaur have top tier AA, both can be turned into no fly zones that protect themselves and others. A fully upgraded Neptune has more AA DPS than a standard Hindenburg using the defensive fire consumable. @Creamgravy There's a couple of YouTube clips worth watching, one is a short clip from FerdinandNL on a close range brawl using Minotaur the other is Panzerknacker in a game with Flamu in the Neptune, he freecams Flamu through the game so you can see the playstyle adopted (mix of long range HE and short range AP). No UI on either video, apart from Panzerknackers New Orleans. Cheers! Yeah, that's typical CL gameplay. Hug that wafu and hide from BBs/heavy cruisers at all costs. They just need to to be a bit less punishing to play, I've seen a Tirpitz derp a salvo into smoke and wipe out a near full HP Neptune Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[SCRUB] piritskenyer Players, Players, Sailing Hamster 3,462 posts 5,363 battles Report post #29 Posted September 12, 2016 Well as for citadels, its like Dropsiq said - its not 100% accurate. Other things that might affect that: - all kinds of slopes. The mentioned Nurnberg is actually pretty hard to citadel at SHORT range. At long range - it gets citadelled like no other ship. But then it shows you broadside at 6km while torping you and suddenty all you get is 1000 dmg overpens. - If they underperform they will just add some weight to them and put them deeper in the water. As for AA however, they definitely have rather weak AA. I see you checked t10 Dropsiq - its the exception, it actually has good one. But tier 9 and below have excellent AA , but not excellent ENOUGH to do much without AA skill. Given low torpedo protection and AA still below the level of BBs, I can see them becoming my favorite food on my CVs. Cruisers in general are sitting ducks from a CV point of view if they dont have AA skill, but you never know... - and thats saving grace for those CA captains that decide to use sonar instead - many CVs wont risk going for them. Well with Brit CLs you WILL know they are ripe for plucking . Actually both the TX and the T9 have beastly AA. Fully geared for AA, the T9 is basically gonna have insanely high DPS, well up in the combined 900's. In contrast the TX can only do 800-and-something at most, although most of that firepower is going to come from the 3"/70 DP (in game not DP sadly), and the 6"/50 DP with some 20mm/70's thrown in basically just so you can say you have them, while the T9 will have a good measure of Bofors guns as well. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[UNICS] Solo_Wing_Potato Players 317 posts 7,782 battles Report post #30 Posted September 12, 2016 Cheers! Yeah, that's typical CL gameplay. Hug that wafu and hide from BBs/heavy cruisers at all costs. They just need to to be a bit less punishing to play, I've seen a Tirpitz derp a salvo into smoke and wipe out a near full HP Neptune Types out a message then deletes it instead of posting Shortened version: Smoke is a double edged sword, you can use it offensively but it also becomes a magnet for torps and blind fire (once you get a good idea of where someone is by the pattern of the shots), a heightened map awareness is going to be key for smoke. Also..........I want to see more, I've only seen Edinburgh so far Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
VC381 Players 2,928 posts 6,549 battles Report post #31 Posted September 12, 2016 I believe the Swiftsure was left out because despite having only 9 guns she is on balance a more modern ship. It would be a bit out of place. To be honest we should have had Southampton instead of Fiji but the difference there is minor. My initial reaction was also that Leander is an odd T6 choice but I've changed my mind. I think she'll be good. But I mostly want Fiji, that ship just looks awesome! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Historynerd Beta Tester 4,249 posts 848 battles Report post #32 Posted September 12, 2016 2. There are no 8" gunned RN cruisers in the line up although their a plenty of historic examples. Exeter 6 x 8", Kent 8 x 8" with sub-classes London & Norfolk. These perfectly line up against Yorke and Hipper. Make space by removing a 6" gunned triple mount cruiser, which cover 5 levels, Fiji, Edinburgh Belfast, Neptune, Minotaur. Belfast & Edinburgh are the same ship and one could be lost. All of these cruisers are really at the Cleveland tier 6 level, maybe Belfast / Edinburgh could go to tier 7 because they were designed with armour against 8" gunned ships. 2. I'm actually glad they missed out the 8" ships. To be honest they are an anomaly, the RN felt obliged to build up to the treaty limit but their needs were more suited to the light cruisers they built afterwards. There were plenty of ships to fill the tree and the progression is more logical this way, rather than suddenly jumping to 8" armed ships for a tier or two (probably around T6-7) then back to 6" ships for the Edinburgh. Maybe we'll get them one day as their own dedicated "side line" similar to what IJN DDs have, but without paper ships it would basically be a dead-end line with e.g. York/Exeter at T6 and the County class at T7. Bold part: against Yorck (not Yorke), perhaps; against the Admiral Hipper, not going to happen. Also, compared with what powers like the USA and the Japanese Empire did, both the absolute number of cruisers armed with 8-inch guns and the number of their classes are not that numerous (especially considering that the subclasses of the Country-class are not that important, at least not enough to warrant Tier separation in-game). Honestly, despite the British being the forerunners of the heavy cruisers (with their Hawkins-class cruisers, which were the models on which the Washington Naval Treaty's definition of 8-inch cruiser was based), they never focused on that (quite rightly), and to be completely honest I was never particularly impressed by the ones they did build. Anyway, paper ships are surely going to be needed for Tiers 8-10; the former can be fitted quite nicely by the Surrey (as this post by Trainspite shows). 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GhostRiderMax123 ∞ Players 769 posts 3,782 battles Report post #33 Posted September 12, 2016 Don't know if it has been mentioned here yet but judging by some of the videos of the new British cruisers it would seem that one of their party tricks will be the ability to launch one torp at a time. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Darth_Glorious Beta Tester 2,464 posts Report post #34 Posted September 14, 2016 Single torp launching : 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Diminios Players 324 posts 3,103 battles Report post #35 Posted September 14, 2016 According to The Armored Patrol, they're changing the RN cruisers: In todays twitch the developers mentioned that the RN cruiser line will be reworked, possibly getting Speed Boost, Improved Repair Party, better ballistics, orientation to AP, and may even lose HE. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
anonym_MfZ6T7iwWpUC Players 1,139 posts Report post #36 Posted September 14, 2016 According to The Armored Patrol, they're changing the RN cruisers: I cant see how they canget rid of HE for 6" gunned cruisers. HE is the only weapon they have against BB's and good angled heavy cruisers. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
anonym_MfZ6T7iwWpUC Players 1,139 posts Report post #37 Posted September 14, 2016 (edited) Great to see that the Royal Navy line is getting developed However, I have a couple of observations 1. They seem to be 1 level over tiered from Leander. It is crazy to put Leander in the same tier as Cleveland. Leander was a very light cruiser 8,000 tonnes, Cleveland nearer 14,000 tonnes. A complete mismatch. Designed in the early 30's it should be at tier 5. Create space at tier 5 by removing one of the lower cruisers. Caledon, Danae & Emerald are all too alike. 2. There are no 8" gunned RN cruisers in the line up although their a plenty of historic examples. Exeter 6 x 8", Kent 8 x 8" with sub-classes London & Norfolk. These perfectly line up against Yorke and Hipper. Make space by removing a 6" gunned triple mount cruiser, which cover 5 levels, Fiji, Edinburgh Belfast, Neptune, Minotaur. Belfast & Edinburgh are the same ship and one could be lost. All of these cruisers are really at the Cleveland tier 6 level, maybe Belfast / Edinburgh could go to tier 7 because they were designed with armour against 8" gunned ships. 3. The addition of the Dido class, would be a great comparator for the Atlanta class. Survivability Artillery Torps AA Def Maneuv Conceal Leander 38 47 20 36 65 68 Cleveland 45 48 53 65 50 Aoba 42 61 22 33 73 58 Nurnberg 36 46 14 37 62 56 Budyonny 40 52 15 37 71 51 G.Range AP Dam AP DPM HE Dam HE DPM Rate of Fire Leander 13.2 3100 198400 2100 134400 8 Cleveland 14.6 3200 288000 2200 198000 7.5 Aoba 14.9 4700 155100 3300 108900 5.5 Nurnberg 16.5 3900 351000 1700 153000 10 Budyonny 16.6 3300 222750 2200 148500 7.5 H.Points Gun Casemate Citadel Armored Deck For/Aft Ends Leander 28700 16-100mm 13-100mm 16-32mm 13mm Cleveland 35200 16mm 13-127mm 16-51mm 16mm Aoba 31900 6-25mm 13-76mm 35-48mm 13mm Nurnberg 27000 20-25mm 13-50mm 16-20mm 13-35mm Budyonny 30800 13-19mm 13-140mm 13-40mm 13mm Max Speed Turn Radius Rudder Shift Air detect Sea detect Leander 32.5 640 7.8 6.7 10.3 Cleveland 32.5 660 7.2 8.1 13.3 Aoba 35 710 6.5 7 12.1 Nurnberg 32 720 7.6 6.9 12.6 Budyonny 35 710 8.6 8.2 13.1 Comparing Leander to only the Cleveland doesn’t give a full picture. We all know the Cleveland is a little OP for its tier. You need to look beyond the surface to try and get a clearer picture. Obviously the above stats are subject to change before release. Looking at the max gun range of 13.2km, it looks way down on the others at tier 6. But it has a sea detectability of 10.3km, the Cleveland is detected at 13.3km. 3km is a hell of a long way in WoWs. Then look at the Gun Casemate and Citadel armour, which is better than both the Aoba and Nurnberg. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating as they say. We will have to wait and see how it plays. But I think there is way too much doom and gloom around the RN CL’s in general, at the moment. Edited September 14, 2016 by anonym_MfZ6T7iwWpUC 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[P0RT] Admiral_H_Nelson Players 3,938 posts 23,206 battles Report post #38 Posted September 14, 2016 Survivability Artillery Torps AA Def Maneuv Conceal Leander 38 47 20 36 65 68 Cleveland 45 48 53 65 50 Aoba 42 61 22 33 73 58 Nurnberg 36 46 14 37 62 56 Budyonny 40 52 15 37 71 51 G.Range AP Dam AP DPM HE Dam HE DPM Rate of Fire Leander 13.2 3100 198400 2100 134400 8 Cleveland 14.6 3200 288000 2200 198000 7.5 Aoba 14.9 4700 155100 3300 108900 5.5 Nurnberg 16.5 3900 351000 1700 153000 10 Budyonny 16.6 3300 222750 2200 148500 7.5 H.Points Gun Casemate Citadel Armored Deck For/Aft Ends Leander 28700 16-100mm 13-100mm 16-32mm 13mm Cleveland 35200 16mm 13-127mm 16-51mm 16mm Aoba 31900 6-25mm 13-76mm 35-48mm 13mm Nurnberg 27000 20-25mm 13-50mm 16-20mm 13-35mm Budyonny 30800 13-19mm 13-140mm 13-40mm 13mm Max Speed Turn Radius Rudder Shift Air detect Sea detect Leander 32.5 640 7.8 6.7 10.3 Cleveland 32.5 660 7.2 8.1 13.3 Aoba 35 710 6.5 7 12.1 Nurnberg 32 720 7.6 6.9 12.6 Budyonny 35 710 8.6 8.2 13.1 Comparing Leander to only the Cleveland doesn’t give a full picture. We all know the Cleveland is a little OP for its tier. You need to look beyond the surface to try and get a clearer picture. Obviously the above stats are subject to change before release. Looking at the max gun range of 13.2km, it looks way down on the others at tier 6. But it has a sea detectability of 10.3km, the Cleveland is detected at 13.3km. 3km is a hell of a long way in WoWs. Then look at the Gun Casemate and Citadel armour, which is better than both the Aoba and Nurnberg. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating as they say. We will have to wait and see how it plays. But I think there is way too much doom and gloom around the RN CL’s in general, at the moment. Great work in creating these tables so that the ship data can be compared easily. After compliments to the poster, the rant against Wargaming begins.... Yes, "the proof of the pudding is in the eating", but given the fact that RN cruisers are NOT going to be delivered with the features that were promised when they were announced (e.g. smoke) then the Leander is the last Tier 6 cruiser that I'd want to take to battle. A Budyonny would murder it, and the Leander wouldn't even be able to outrun it even with speed boost! Not to mention the thought of being caught by the Tier 6 Premium Russian cruiser "Molotov" with it's 180mm high-tier railguns. (Speed 36 kts) This RN cruiser fiasco is a "double whammy". I'm fine with WG saying that there are issues in testing the RN cruisers, and that they need to delay their introduction while these are sorted out. That is why you do testing, after all. What bothers me is the off-the-cuff, half-baked, not-thought-through garbage coming from official sources talking about going for useless junk gimmicks such as speed boost (which isn't going to help a cruiser much), better repair (to delay dying only until the very next salvo), better AP (what use is that for 6" guns at T10 FFS), severely nerfing HE, possibly even removing it altogether. They would have been better off saying nothing, rather than pouring petrol on the fire with this rubbish! 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
anonym_MfZ6T7iwWpUC Players 1,139 posts Report post #39 Posted September 14, 2016 They would have been better off saying nothing, rather than pouring petrol on the fire with this rubbish! Well lets face it, they are damned if the do and damned if they don't. When WG have kept quiet in the past, the community have gone off on one, because they haven't said anything. I wouldn't believe anything that is said at the moment, no matter who it allegedly comes from. We will have to wait and see. Still, wont stop me from wanting to play them. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
VC381 Players 2,928 posts 6,549 battles Report post #40 Posted September 14, 2016 To be honest, they should have known that a line of Kutuzovs would be so broken as to have to be redone. Personally, as long as they get released I don't mind what exactly their "tricks" will be. It will be interesting to see what they do with the ammo. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Darth_Glorious Beta Tester 2,464 posts Report post #41 Posted September 15, 2016 According to The Armored Patrol, they're changing the RN cruisers: RN: 1. They are experimenting with bouncing angles for the British AP. 2. The gameplay will be sufficiently different from Königsberg/Nürnberg concept. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Darth_Glorious Beta Tester 2,464 posts Report post #42 Posted September 15, 2016 http://wows.duowan.com/1609/337862176552.html Some bad news for Belfast : - AP has low penetration - HE has low fire chance - bad shell arc (<10 km range, good arc but >10 km range, same Cleveland shell arc) - bad acceleration, bleed speed when turning Good point : - excellent concealment - very good AA (even without DF), can decimate Saipan planes - radar/sonar/smoke screen combo If you don't like Atlanta play style, this ship is not for you. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Capra76 Players 5,001 posts 7,787 battles Report post #43 Posted September 15, 2016 http://wows.duowan.com/1609/337862176552.html Some bad news for Belfast : - AP has low penetration - HE has low fire chance I think those are the stats for the original version that has been binned, the 9% fire chance is the original proposal and it still seems to have smoke. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ryuuteimaru Players 503 posts 4,703 battles Report post #44 Posted September 15, 2016 (edited) Looks like the whole lines going to be garbage with nothing but decent concealment going for them. If they gimp the HE then this line will be dead in games above T6 they simply won't be capable of fighting against Heavy cruisers or Battleships. Edited September 15, 2016 by Ryuuteimaru 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[SCRUB] piritskenyer Players, Players, Sailing Hamster 3,462 posts 5,363 battles Report post #45 Posted September 15, 2016 Looks like the whole lines going to be garbage with nothing but decent concealment going for them. If they gimp the HE then this line will be dead in games above T6 they simply won't be capable of fighting against Heavy cruisers or Battleships. Heavy cruisers maybe, but agreed on the rest. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[FK] Combat_Hamster Players 438 posts 33,869 battles Report post #46 Posted September 17, 2016 http://wows.duowan.com/1609/337862176552.html Some bad news for Belfast : - AP has low penetration - HE has low fire chance - bad shell arc (<10 km range, good arc but >10 km range, same Cleveland shell arc) - bad acceleration, bleed speed when turning Good point : - excellent concealment - very good AA (even without DF), can decimate Saipan planes - radar/sonar/smoke screen combo If you don't like Atlanta play style, this ship is not for you. Played Belfast at Chatham today and this is quite accurate, except I didn't see any good points.. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[P0RT] Admiral_H_Nelson Players 3,938 posts 23,206 battles Report post #47 Posted September 17, 2016 Played Belfast at Chatham today and this is quite accurate, except I didn't see any good points.. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ksielvin Alpha Tester 120 posts 2,477 battles Report post #48 Posted September 17, 2016 Played Belfast at Chatham today and this is quite accurate, except I didn't see any good points.. Well... You've played 182 games, never tier 7 and 2 games at tier 6. Not learned T7+ ships, maps or gameplay yet. More battleships than cruisers. None in destroyer. Not a single game in a ship with smoke or radar. And you may not have ever had to use vision mechanics to keep a ship alive while setting up opportunistic shots. Perhaps you were not ready for Belfast yet. You might come to like that sort of ship in the future. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[FK] Combat_Hamster Players 438 posts 33,869 battles Report post #49 Posted September 18, 2016 Well... You've played 182 games, never tier 7 and 2 games at tier 6. Not learned T7+ ships, maps or gameplay yet. More battleships than cruisers. None in destroyer. Not a single game in a ship with smoke or radar. And you may not have ever had to use vision mechanics to keep a ship alive while setting up opportunistic shots. Perhaps you were not ready for Belfast yet. You might come to like that sort of ship in the future. One second, who are you to say what I do and don't know? I have been naval wargaming for over 40 years. I played Belfast within strict parameters as there is a hint that smoke may be withdrawn. I was concerned with the durability of the ship and the effectiveness of her guns, and I think Darth's statements are accurate. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ksielvin Alpha Tester 120 posts 2,477 battles Report post #50 Posted September 18, 2016 One second, who are you to say what I do and don't know? I have been naval wargaming for over 40 years. I played Belfast within strict parameters as there is a hint that smoke may be withdrawn. I was concerned with the durability of the ship and the effectiveness of her guns, and I think Darth's statements are accurate. Alright. A lot of players just feel that one needs to relearn and adjust to this game at each step when going up the tiers. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
