Jump to content
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
Seinta

Do Royal Navy CLs need citadels?

17 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[BLUMR]
Beta Tester
847 posts
8,856 battles

Having played the RN CLs and ground out the Emerald, I think I can share my opinion about them at mid tiers.

 

Starting out at the Emerald the first feeling I got from the ship was, "this  is a fat DD" and this idea persisted as I played on.

Soon I noticed a trend, every time a BB points its guns at me, my citadel has a 50/50 chance of imploding on itself and causing a citadel hit or deletion.

 

Personally, I believe that the only thing they have in common with other Cruisers is the ship class and Citadel. Throughout the line all ships retain the nothingness some would call armor and relatively low effective range due to the guns and ammo. They play more like US DDs than Cruisers, far even from the Cleveland(13.2 km range at tier 6?)

 

My suggestion is for the RN CLS to receive the Russian DD treatment. At tier 8 and higher, Russian DDs have the size and the armor of a small Cruiser, this allows for all ships to harshly punish mistakes with normal penetrations from AP.

Remove the Citadel and some HP to increase the survivability against BBs that can easily overmatch your armor regardless of angle.

 

I don't believe that a line should be so harshly punished by 1 class, given the disadvantages it has compared to all other ships in the class.

You are forced to hide and play as a DD instead of being able to push, simply because (so far in my experience) it's just a matter of time, before that 1 BB shell plows right trough the bow of your ship and takes half of your HP or outright deletes you. 

 

DDs can burn ships and evade shells, these Cruisers can only kill with paper cuts at range, but get punished for pushing.

 

Share your thoughts.

 

 

 

 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BONI]
Players
1,255 posts
11,322 battles

Don't German CLs have hard-to-hit citadels below the waterline? How does that work out for them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
19 posts
3,002 battles

I've been contemplating if the removal of citadels from all cruisers would work and just leaving them for battleships. This would allow Battleships to deal the big numbers to other battleships and do damage to cruisers but remove the autodelete/3/4 health removal that currently plagues cruiser gameplay.

 

CB

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WOTN]
Quality Poster
2,221 posts
15,712 battles

The removal of citadel and a significant amount of health might be an interesting development for the RN cruisers, especially considering how much they have to extend in order to do any type of meaningful damage. I also think that the adding of a large firing penalty (in order to prevent low-tier stealth firing) and the significant improvement of concealment range to all RN cruisers would also be extremely useful. They would be able to get into the position to cause significant damage to destroyers without a 30 second stretch where they are exposed to the entire enemy fleet and they can also crawl up the flank of battleships and whittle them down from their side by using their smoke. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BLUMR]
Beta Tester
847 posts
8,856 battles

Yes they need. We have CLs without citadels ---> soviet DDs.

 

Except they will be nothing close to Soviet DDs.

 

Soviet DDs have excellent weapons capable of landing accurate hits at max range and they have HE.

 

 

Don't German CLs have hard-to-hit citadels below the waterline? How does that work out for them?

 

How well does HE, long range and good arcs work as well?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BONI]
Players
1,255 posts
11,322 battles

How well does HE, long range and good arcs work as well?

 

I wasn't being sarcastic, just asking since I'm not familiar with them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BLUMR]
Beta Tester
847 posts
8,856 battles

 

I wasn't being sarcastic, just asking since I'm not familiar with them.

 

Oh, my bad.

 

Well you can kite and rain hell on ships. You are not limited to any range by shell velocity or ammo type.

You do get punished by BBs, but at 16km you have all the time in the world to dodge the shells, all the while burning your enemy.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WOTN]
Quality Poster
2,221 posts
15,712 battles

Actually how about this: RN cruisers should get the 5th upgrade slot starting from the tier 6. It'll put them into similar class as the Belfast and the improved concealment would greatly improve their survivivability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,210 posts
1,486 battles

I've been contemplating if the removal of citadels from all cruisers would work and just leaving them for battleships. This would allow Battleships to deal the big numbers to other battleships and do damage to cruisers but remove the autodelete/3/4 health removal that currently plagues cruiser gameplay.

 

CB

 

I like this idea.  Might bring Cruisers back into the game a bit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,806 posts
5,868 battles

While I understand your point, low tier battles are becoming slow because of almost everything now it's the new CLs with only AP and people is actually learning a bit of angling for once and they can actually bounce that AP for no damage so they take forever to sunk between them. Removing the citadels on them is the last thing we need.

 

I would agree if at least they had HE to make for it, but without HE... no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PKTZS]
Weekend Tester
2,445 posts
15,697 battles

Seeing the crappy ships they have released, the right question would be "Do we really need the British cruisers?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
324 posts
2,096 battles

Maybe instead of completely removing Citadels why not just reduce their potency on RN cruisers as sort of a middle ground, by which I mean for example taking only 50% citadel damage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-AWF-]
Players
1,196 posts
6,599 battles

Seeing the crappy ships they have released, the right question would be "Do we really need the British cruisers?"

 

More accurate: Do we need Wargaming if the treat RN this way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
2,026 posts
9,304 battles

Purely from a logical point of view RN CLs should have citadels as CAs have because they are large ships with huge volumes of machinery, magazines and other important stuff needed to make the ships combat machines, however as their survivability is effectively lower than DDs when hit by heavy calibre AP there is a need for increased survivability in order for the ships to be viable for all skill levels of players and not just the extremely good ones.

I can see two ways, but there are undoubtedly quite a few other ways I am sure, to increase the survivability of the  RN Cls and that is to either:

 

a) place a hardcap on capital ships to max 3 BBs or any combination of 3 Bs and CVs

or

b) increase the range by 20-25% and the muzzle velocity of the 152mm guns to about 900m/s while increasing the dispersion by 10-15% but also make the AP* work as a HE shell with low area of effect and low probability of fire chance while decreasing the penetration a bit which would change the way the line is played to a jack of all trades where it will be extremely strong in the short range and adequately effective at medium to long ranges but not as strong as the other nations due to larger dispersion and less penetrating power. The reason for this is to have the players use long range range fire to harass the larger ships by chipping away their HPs through a combination of low probability of fire, HE area of effect damage and damage from penetrating, if possible, and non penetrating hits which would be limited in numbers due to increased dispersion then work their way to closer and closer distances as the battle progress as the primary means of increasing the survivability.

 

* Actually the british 152mm AP shell for the 152mm guns was in fact a Common Pointed Ballistic Capped(CPBC)/Semi Armour Piercing(SAP) type shell and not a pure AP shell with about twice the mount of explosive compared to a standard AP shell @1,7kg of high explosive compared to the typical 0.5-1kg explosive weight for a 6" AP shell and about 4.5-6 kg explosive weight for 6" HE shells making it an in between all rounder type of ammunition that had less penetrative power than a AP round but twice the destructive force and more penetrative power than a HE shell but only a third to a half of the destructive force of that type making it a shell type that would be a strong choice for engaging lightly to medium armoured threats at all combat ranges as those targets that could not be directly penetrated and destroyed by shells detonating inside the target could be set on fire and having the rangefinders, radars, gunnery directors, bridge personel and lightly armoured turrets knocked out by explosive force and steel splinters from the shell casing.

Edited by atomskytten
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-TPF-]
Players
2,230 posts
10,583 battles

Seeing the crappy ships they have released, the right question would be "Do we really need the British cruisers?" 

 

Tiers IV and V need a lot of work. They could push Weymouth and the Caledon up a Tier (with a little buffing), hide Danae and Emerald in the file marked "bad ideas" and put the Hawkins/Drake Heavy Cruiser in Tier V. That would be a half decent line. As it stands, though - big, clumsy, fragile, destroyers. No fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HF_30]
Players
1,373 posts

a) place a hardcap on capital ships to max 3 BBs or any combination of 3 Bs and CVs

 

This. Maybe if we keep mentioning it in every halfway relevant topic we can get WG to listen. Might take a few years though. If CVs can live with increased average waiting time for their battles due to parity requirements, so can other classes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×