Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Grunty_McFuttocks

British Cruiser pain

148 posts in this topic

I'll admit the Emerald was garbage and the Caledon / Danae were underwhelming but from the Leander onwards they're great and in the case of the Fiji and Edinburgh they can be and frequently are beastly.


1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I just loaded up a training room in the Danae. I put in some stationary unarmed BB bots to see how long it would take to kill them and I'm not sure that you can. Against a stock Kaiser I got it to around 3-4k before it just stopped taking damage altogether. This was after about 200 hits, broadside on from 4km range.

 

 

Is this ship literally in the game just to sell free XP?

 

Just finished Danae grind with 11 wins and 3 losses (no division). While it's guns are certainly bad versus battleships, those torpedoes are more than just auxiliary weapons. 6km range, ability to lauch one by one and good arcs are very powerful at tier 4. Emerald seems harder because of matchmaking. So far 3 tier 7 games. I'm doing fine but I can't carry.

 

I'm very happy that RN cruisers turned out to be different. I enjoy playing all kind of ships and I'm sure RN cruisers can be made to work in random battles if you are playing well. Looking forward to higher tiers.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Face it they are complete Sh!t....

 

Yep, complete sh1t...  T10 130k avg, T9 107k avg, T8 79k avg, T7 86k avg, T6 67k avg etc. Really, complete sh1t ships:D 

Some screens after complete sh1t ships battles:

 

 post-539399499-0-63226600-1477418627.jpg

post-539399499-0-19370900-1477771321.jpg

post-539399499-0-61386200-1477771384.jpg

post-539399499-0-02432300-1477771366.jpg

post-539399499-0-65586700-1477674236.jpg

and many others... Doing 200k+ with Minotaur is not so hard, Neptun is very good too, and T6-T8 ships are great. Only T4 and T5 are very hard.

 


1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Danae is just an insult to the memory of its real life counterpart. However, I've actually been getting along much better with Emerald. Angled targets are of course a headache, but I'm finding that intelligent target choice counts for a lot in her. Danae and below I just couldn't understand WG's thinking for at all; even using cover it'd be possible to die from a shot in the funnel or something. I know it's been said to death on this forum and the self-entitled among you will no doubt attack me for saying this, but for the world's best WW2 armour manufacturers to get the weakest cruisers in-game, seems almost cruel/like a practical joke from WG. Sheffield Cemented Armour was superior to EVERYTHING due to its composition, meaning these should be the strongest in game, not the weakest.

 

Hell, I don't even want to do a guide on any of the ones I've had so far...and they're *about* unpopular ships! :amazed:


2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Danae: UP really this ship need some rework, feels like sailing a US DD without HE, smoke and concealment but with a huge (and easy to hit) citadel, the rock paper scissor thing isn't working that well: vs DD nothing impressive (other nations CL works better with HE) also the high shell ark doesnt help, vs CL again nothing impressive and again u feel the lack of HE when enemy angle the ship, vs BB there's no story... AP do minimal damage to broadside BBs (not great superstructure in this tier), the only reason it's bearable it's because in this tier there are many potato players that sail near island without using the WASD hack... 

 

Emerald: pretty much the same as Danae but with smoke generator, it's arguably ok vs other tier 5 DD and CL (the smoke helps a lot) but again no story vs BBs..., it's garbage vs tier 6+ and u'll meet those tiers half of the times (I was forced to use free exp to progress... a pain)

 

Leander: this ship is the light at the end of a very dark tunnel, the AP perform a lot better overall: you'll punish hard every player who dares show a little of broadside and now you're finally able to deal significant damage vs BBs (3-5k damage per salvo when broadside), also 8km torps range works great; this ship feels almost OP coming from Emerald... lot of fun, average of 50k damage even with weekend's teams, can't wait to unlock Fiji

 


2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Danae is just an insult to the memory of its real life counterpart. However, I've actually been getting along much better with Emerald. Angled targets are of course a headache, but I'm finding that intelligent target choice counts for a lot in her. Danae and below I just couldn't understand WG's thinking for at all; even using cover it'd be possible to die from a shot in the funnel or something. I know it's been said to death on this forum and the self-entitled among you will no doubt attack me for saying this, but for the world's best WW2 armour manufacturers to get the weakest cruisers in-game, seems almost cruel/like a practical joke from WG. Sheffield Cemented Armour was superior to EVERYTHING due to its composition, meaning these should be the strongest in game, not the weakest.

 

Hell, I don't even want to do a guide on any of the ones I've had so far...and they're *about* unpopular ships! :amazed:

 

I think  the US  made  better  homogenised  armour  that  us Brits  or  Germans....they could  make it a  lot cheaper too...I have a  copy  of  Jane's  Fighting  Ships  1906/7  and  that book seems  to think  Italian Terni  armour plate  was  the best at the  time  by a small margin..but point taken,  RN cruisers  were  as well protected  as  their contemporaries,   all post-Jutland  ships  had 'box-citadels'  as a result of experience.  WG wanted to make  the ~RN  cruisers  'big  destroyers'..great if you like playing  DDs...not  so great if you don't.....

They need to  make  the top part  of  the armour  belt  which sticks up 'non-citadel'...the  reason I was  given at Chatham was that  the boilers  stick  up on RN  cruisers..hmmmm debatable  that one......sounds  more like an excuse  to make them go bang....as a counter  RN  cruisers  could  be  more prone  to having  the  propulsion knocked out..making last stand a must..as a balance,  also all the 'fire at the superstructure  thing'......doesn't  really work when  someone is charging you...


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's face it - British cruisers were an extreme experiment to create a gimmicky nation-based group of ships that would be unique to play.

 

Basically - at first, they wanted to simply give them smokescreens but it basically created a tech-tree of Flints. Invisible HE spammers WITH GOOD TORPS. 

So, taler on, they removed the HE, to mitigate their damage over time potential, and kept experimenting with consumables.

They tried different smoke duration, hell, they even tried stuff like engine boost on them - but ultimately went for short smokes that are supposed to be only your escape device and not much else - in theory. HE never went back. Smoke is kind of necessary here - all of the British cruisers are light cruisers - so they absolutely require some kind of defensive mechanics to make them less vulnerable.

 

Now, the AP only thing proved problematic. It is easily negated by ship angles, so it had to get some special characteristics, like shorter fuse times and better normalisation angles. 

What does it mean in practice? They kill destroyers like there is no tomorrow. They can easily compete with top HE spammers here. The AP values combined with high rates of fire mean almost no overpenetrations and high effective DPS against low armour targets.

The same principle makes British cruisers effective at hunting other cruisers.

With battleships, stuff gets complicated. British AP is good, but it is still low calibre AP, so it can't reliably pen most BB's, even from the sides, and angling negates most of the damage. You can fire at superstructure, sure, but there is this thing called damage saturation - if ship's section takes enough damage, shots to the "destroyed" area will become less and less effective, to the point of complete damage mitigation, with the exception of damage over time status effects.

Other ships, even in such case can still cause fire, which overrides damage saturation, British are screwed. 

British torpedoes are good and are a solid suplement weapon against heavier targets, but they are not really a suitable alternative to guns - you are a cruiser after all, easy to hit for a BB if you get into torping range. And torpedoes are easily avoided if enemy player is aware of WSAD hacks.

 

Basically, British cruisers are an attempt at "national gimmick" that is supposed to be more prominent than gimmicks thus far.

I mean - we have German BBs with turtleback armour making them virtually impossible to citadel; Russian AP mini-cruiser destroyers, long range monster Japanese BB's, magical American AA and so forth. In comparison, British gimmick makes a massive difference.

On the other hand, they needed something like this - without smoke, these things would be dead meat, with HE they would become Flint clones, and with lower rate of fire they would not be effective, even with HE but they would still be annoying to play against. It is a no-win situation, really.

 

 


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are the people who whines about the RN line worse than the BBabies now? 

Adapt to the line and stop complaining. The stats for the RN shows good average damage. Kinda contradict the fact that you guys claim the RN is weak because it lacks HE.

 

Getgud


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You seem to have missed the grand point we're trying to make. Nobody disputes that by 'gettinggud' as you so eloquently put it, will make them more enjoyable and the player more successful in them; neither did many of us mention that HE is a problem; I for one don't find it *that* impeding. However, your 'adapt to the line' comment hits the nail right on the head. Adapting to various lines and ships is central to success of course, but with these it feels far less 'fun'...I 'enjoyed' adapting to other classes. Why not these? I love a lot of the less forgiving ships in the game, so it's not that I'm simply a glutton for ease of use. And the thing is, as you also point out by inferring we 'whine' like BBabies, I'm not alone in this sentiment. 


1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ehh  guess its as good of a topic as any to vent my frustration ... just unlocked the Emerald .....  that ship definitely does not deserve its name .... should be named "poop boat"  it is by FAR the worst T5 Cruiser , any other T5 cruiser is atleast "decent"  but the emerald  .. ehh    its poop


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm almost done with Emerald and I do have decent and terrible battles with it.

Destroyer/Cruiser heavy MM and I'm quite reliabley pumping out 40-55k damage and couple kills.

Battleship heavy MM I'm pretty happy if I get 15k damage, assuming I have decided to try to stay alive.

How ever there has been few relatively successfull "Kamikaze" attacks, where I dish out +60K damage, but have failed to escape from the strike, as only reliable way to get reasonable damage is torpedo strike from relatively close range.

Then again I have died more often on these kamikaze runs, than successfully killed the ship I'm going for, so I have decided to go on those runs only when the situation is really desperate.

 

So far the "excellent rocochet angle" seems to be that if I shoot my full broadside at Dunkerque sailing broadside towards me, my full salvo results more often than not with less than 1000 damage done and 4 bounces, (For this example is was me shooting over an island and it was not exactly plunging fire but still relatively steeply falling, (Dont remember exact distance but around 9-10 km)

I put at least 16 salvos on it, and the result was 6-7k damage. and at the time it was only target I could shoot withuot moving, and exposing my self to 3-4 other enemy ships, or showing my broadside to the said BB.

With Furutaka, Omaha, or Koenigsberg I would have dished out at least 15k on that Dunkerque, + it would most likely have been left burning due HE ammo, Kirov might hve had issues due it's very flat shell arc.

 

How ever still dont like to call it a "bad" ship, And I'm not really tecnicly calling out HE ammo either,

How about adding HE damage to the current ammo, with 0 fire chance, and no way to rise it from there (Demo expert does not affect)

Therefore we would have an ammo that would damage if it happens to hit, The damage would be very minor, but at least it's damage, and has a chance of penetration on light armor (We know that you can allready citadel with HE ammo on some ships)

 

By comparoson of my ships how ever, My survival chance, and win rate among the T5 cruisers is higest on emerald, How ever damage is lowest excluding Omaha, but Omaha was 5th ship that I ever had, so I'd guess my experience here is helping me. and at the same time "showing" Emerald as superior ship. How ever compared to the Omaha for example, That's experience from 3000 battles that is talking, not superior ship.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aye a smart BB is a pain in the [edited], but more often I run into BBs who broadside my cloud and aiming above the waterline but below the superstructure (the same place you aim at german BBs) lands me some pretty regular 4 - 8k salvos. As soon as they angle just a little bit you may as well go back to firing at the superstructure though.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The standard gitgud line. While some players do need to adapt, howsever ome of the early cruisers are so dire, that no amount of git gud saves them. T1 and 2 are fine, T3 against its own tier is ok but struggles on the up tier a bit. The Danae I thought was dreadful as you start to encounter more BBs and you just get deleted, and the Emerald suffers by far the most since the mm is not kind to it at all. These ships are severely off putting from the line which is not healthy to have early ships in such a crippled position as it deters others from the line. 

But all is forgiven at the Leander ironically, as on paper it looked like one of the worst cruisers at T6 which most predicted it would be worst in line. Luckily it turned to be a complete gem. And I cant understand some people suggesting it be a T5 (probably wanting the Emerald to never return).

 

What should be done is probably make some munor tweaks to the Caledon, a set of moderate tweaks to the Danae and probably some heavy changes to the Emerald as its so blindingly obvious that it is a massive problem ship.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just got Danae and so far it seems the ships are a bit challenging but still quite fun. The whole argument about being countered by angling assumes a skill level that is generally absent at those tiers and it's not hard to "pull your weight" (damage done > own HP). You might not carry or club but in the context of those tiers they have some strong tricks up their sleeve.

 

I guess people who are after consistent performance will hate them but I play for the really great moments despite the ups and downs. First game Danae I got double strike in 4 salvos by ambushing two cruisers around an island. The ships work best when switching target often.

 

The only thing I'm struggling with slightly is the rudder shift. A few times I've been caught out trying to pull turning tricks I thought I could and just drove straight into an island.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

had some good battles last night with Leander and Belfast. But F*ck me running, if I didn't get team after team of potatoes. 10 games and 9 losses.

 

I admit I like them now, but British cruisers are totally ruining my WR and WTR.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The standard gitgud line. While some players do need to adapt, howsever ome of the early cruisers are so dire, that no amount of git gud saves them. T1 and 2 are fine, T3 against its own tier is ok but struggles on the up tier a bit. The Danae I thought was dreadful as you start to encounter more BBs and you just get deleted, and the Emerald suffers by far the most since the mm is not kind to it at all. These ships are severely off putting from the line which is not healthy to have early ships in such a crippled position as it deters others from the line. 

But all is forgiven at the Leander ironically, as on paper it looked like one of the worst cruisers at T6 which most predicted it would be worst in line. Luckily it turned to be a complete gem. And I cant understand some people suggesting it be a T5 (probably wanting the Emerald to never return).

 

What should be done is probably make some munor tweaks to the Caledon, a set of moderate tweaks to the Danae and probably some heavy changes to the Emerald as its so blindingly obvious that it is a massive problem ship.

 

I didnt do well either on the first tiers either btw, but you dont hear me whine about it. Couple of matches and they where gone. But people act like its the end of the world because they doing a little worse in the RN ships than the other lines. 

For some weird reason people expect a new line to be the best line. Its always been like this. Same whiny crapover and over again every time someone under performs in a ship. Its like its a rule here on the forums. Thats why I usually say, get good or stop complaining. Dont expect to be godtier in every ship in the game.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I didnt do well either on the first tiers either btw, but you dont hear me whine about it. Couple of matches and they where gone. But people act like its the end of the world because they doing a little worse in the RN ships than the other lines. 

For some weird reason people expect a new line to be the best line. Its always been like this. Same whiny crapover and over again every time someone under performs in a ship. Its like its a rule here on the forums. Thats why I usually say, get good or stop complaining. Dont expect to be godtier in every ship in the game.

 

I do agree. The complaining is excessive.

I think people were too spoiled with the German BB line and people forget that cruisers arent exactly meta.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with the WoWs community is that when a line hits, they have to be the best of the best for some reasons. The release of the KM cruiserline springs to mind...

 


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really can't find myself in the OPs post, having played the Tier 5 through 8 now I feel that the line has a ton of potential but has to be played in a certain (new) way to be effective

As a player that loves to play high tier US DDs (Benson, Fletcher) and high tier cruisers in general the RN CL line feels like a perfect middle ground

 

Their concealment is absolutely top tier, allowing you to get into good smoking positions. And the combination of Hydro and destroyer like acceleration means you are pretty safe from getting torped.

They also don't feel as squishy to me as some people leave me to believe. Yes you explode if you show your broadside to enemy BBs or CAs for an extended period of time, so try to avoid that!

If you smoke while you are bow in to the opposing team you can reliably slow down and conceal yourself before exposing your broadside and getting your rear guns on target

 

As far as the damage goes, try to put yourself in a position where you have multiple targets in range. This is super important so you can swap to a different target if the ship you are shooting at decides to go bow in on you


1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see the last few commenters have a rather ignorant and little reflected attitude regarding those saying low tier UK cruisers are bad. Most of them have very few games in them, or none at all, so I guess they must be talking trough their butt. If players tend to get better average score in them than other nations, its because they are seasoned players, not because ships are good.

 

This reminds me of the Karlsuhe before it was buffed discussion earlier on, where some claimed it was a l2p issue, not the ship that failed.

Of course the cruisers in low tiers can perform good, if they are not insta-deleted by a BB or other cruiser. It is very situational, as in if they get lucky and are top tiers, can use torps and cap, etc.

Games at low tiers are very random, and I find UK low tier cruiser very unforgiving. The combination of large (high) flanks, no armor and a big citadel, with guns that has high arks and no ap (!) is a receipe of how to make ships underperforming.

So get down from your high horse, and put your finger in the dirt before you say it smell of roses.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see the last few commenters have a rather ignorant and little reflected attitude regarding those saying low tier UK cruisers are bad. Most of them have very few games in them, or none at all, so I guess they must be talking trough their butt. If players tend to get better average score in them than other nations, its because they are seasoned players, not because ships are good.

 

This reminds me of the Karlsuhe before it was buffed discussion earlier on, where some claimed it was a l2p issue, not the ship that failed.

Of course the cruisers in low tiers can perform good, if they are not insta-deleted by a BB or other cruiser. It is very situational, as in if they get lucky and are top tiers, can use torps and cap, etc.

Games at low tiers are very random, and I find UK low tier cruiser very unforgiving. The combination of large (high) flanks, no armor and a big citadel, with guns that has high arks and no ap (!) is a receipe of how to make ships underperforming.

So get down from your high horse, and put your finger in the dirt before you say it smell of roses.

 

That's the issue though really, for a lot of people a couple of games will be enough to get to the next tier for those ships so they don't get a wide selection of matches. But they are not entirely wrong, my first attempts at playing the Danae went terribly as I tried to stay as far as possible from the enemy. Later I found just charging DDs and BBs was the best thing I could do in the ship, getting a ton of torp hits and kills. Playing it like a low tier US DD and trying to hide round islands and ambush people. After adopting this playstyle I had a lot of fun in the ship and got some great games.

 

This battle changed my opinion on the ship, but I also liked the Derzki so I might be crazy.

QxzrN2h.png


1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I finally got fed up with Emerald and free-XPed the last 13k for Leander. That ship is just hopeless at current tier 5, with all the tier 6-7 battles and the BB invasion.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ten battles in my Emerald - all of them heavy Tier 7.

 

So is 100% bottom tier also a "feature" of British cruisers?

 

Stacked MM aside, this ship is very weak. Its no "DD killer" as advertised; shells are too slow, too much arc, and the pen is hopeless against anything except a tomato. The ship can't even reliably win a gun fight against a same-tier DD - and thats my experience both playing Emerald and playing a DD against Emeralds.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ten battles in my Emerald - all of them heavy Tier 7.

 

So is 100% bottom tier also a "feature" of British cruisers?

 

Stacked MM aside, this ship is very weak. Its no "DD killer" as advertised; shells are too slow, too much arc, and the pen is hopeless against anything except a tomato. The ship can't even reliably win a gun fight against a same-tier DD - and thats my experience both playing Emerald and playing a DD against Emeralds.

Nah, that's just a feature of T5 atm, it's a horrible tier to play and it's even worse as a light cruiser. 


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.