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

Buffing the tier 10s (cruiser edition)

What buffs should the tier 10 cruisers get?  

58 members have voted

  1. 1. The Des Moines

    • Improved gun arcs
      35
    • Better cruise speed
      14
    • Better concealment
      20
    • Better turret mechanizations
      12
    • Torpedoes
      15
  2. 2. The Hindenburg

    • Better speed
      14
    • Tighter turning circles
      13
    • Better concealment
      16
    • More health
      8
    • Better AP normalization angles
      30
    • Better rudder shift
      5
    • Better HE
      11
  3. 3. The Zao

    • Better torpedo angles
      27
    • More health
      14
    • Better turret mechanization
      15
    • Better RoF
      27
    • Better AP normalization angles
      9
  4. 4. The Minotaur

    • Better armor (bow especially)
      30
    • Radar + smoke
      26
    • HE shells
      13
    • Better speed
      20
  5. 5. The Moskva

    • Better Concelement
      38
    • Torpedoes
      16
    • Better turret mechanization
      8
    • Better rudder shift
      18
    • Longer lasting radar
      14

45 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[WOTN]
Quality Poster
2,085 posts
14,011 battles

I was going to write a long meandering article today about how AA speccing for ship should be permanently removed from the game and how WoWS should be managing their art assets, but there aren't enough hours in the game and I need to spend some time drawing weeb bait to post in the Chinese cartoon addict therapy thread so instead I wanted to start a short thread here. 

 

Now I am the last person who would say that the tier 10 cruisers need a buff. My experience on the test server is admittedly quite limited as I would almost inevitably end up fighting against subpar enemies, but I find them all to be at least perfectly serviceable. This is just for fun though. You get two buffs for each ship, apply them as you like. I'll start.

 

Because people don't like reading:

I am NOT asking for a buff. This thread is just for fun.

Edited by dasCKD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-5D2-]
Players
492 posts
3,644 battles

What if I only want the Minotaur buffed and the Des Moines debuffed? This polls a fix :trollface:

 

Minotaur;

  1. Better armor (everywhere especially)
  2. Better speed
  3. Lower citadel
  4. Secondaries added

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[YARRR]
Beta Tester
7,399 posts
13,813 battles

Isn't normalization now tied to gun caliber? I remember reading something along those lines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WOTN]
Quality Poster
2,085 posts
14,011 battles

You need an option for each for no changes, some of them are fine as is.

 

 

I'm not asking for a buff, as I said in my opening thread. I, for one, think that the Hindenburg is probably the best ship in the game to my knowledge and that the Zao is very good at doing what she does. The thread is here in the vein of "if you could change one thing, what would you change?". It's not a thread about whether or not the changes are necessary. They're really not. Apart from maybe making the Hindenburg go faster. I mean seriously, outpaced by a battleship?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
204 posts
4,742 battles

 

I'm not asking for a buff, as I said in my opening thread. I, for one, think that the Hindenburg is probably the best ship in the game to my knowledge and that the Zao is very good at doing what she does. The thread is here in the vein of "if you could change one thing, what would you change?". It's not a thread about whether or not the changes are necessary. They're really not. Apart from maybe making the Hindenburg go faster. I mean seriously, outpaced by a battleship?

 

You have to vote in every question in the poll, I can't vote for the Des Moines without selecting at least one buff for the Zao for example. You should put an option for no changes so you don't have to vote for unneeded buffs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Alpha Tester
17,384 posts
5,400 battles

Well Zao could use better HE and higher fire chance.

Des Moines needs higher ROF. 

Minotaur needs better concealment and smoke + radar ofc.

Moskva needs the same concealment as Zao ( while firing ).

Hindenburg needs the same AP normalization as Minotaur.

 

 /sarcasm

 

All the buffs are unneeded... Tier X CA's are fine, all of them. 

 

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
4,154 posts
9,221 battles

I would buff Des moines side armor above citadel to at least 30mm  , current 27 is not enough :p

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Alpha Tester
17,384 posts
5,400 battles

also. Des moines does NOT need another f*cking rate of fire buff. its great at that already

 

:popcorn:

 

Do you even spoiler brah :hiding:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
3,041 posts
3,645 battles

 

:popcorn:

 

Do you even spoiler brah :hiding:

 

weeeelll nobody's patient enough to grind through the papercola, the katrina and the balti to get to it so it doesnt even matter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,174 posts
7,666 battles

The ballistic is the most accurately modeled/realistic [apart from swapping horizontal with vertical disperison] part of WoWs. Not a single time has WG deviated from parameters like MV or shell weight. It is far more realistic that the Des Moines will get smoke, hydro and RN CL repair combined than getting better shell speed.

 

Although the purpose of the this thread is purely hypothetical, mentioning shell speed for the Des Moines is just as useful as talking about VLS cells for ASHMs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SICK]
Weekend Tester
4,682 posts
9,234 battles

Oh god, I can just imagine the rage if the Minotaur got HE, and spec'd it with IFHE.
"You are now on fire. And so are you. And so are you. Cheeky destroyer, here's some triple fire. Bet you haven't seen that before on a DD"

 

Still, if I absolutely needed to buff some tierX CAs, I would pick a tougher bow and deck armor to prevent frontal overmatches and citpens.

Except from the Yamato, because lol balance.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
432 posts
6,448 battles

The only thing i want for the Des Moines is better armour, especially on the bow. Why isnt that an option in your vote?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DSW]
Players
3,784 posts
7,726 battles

The only thing i want for the Des Moines is better armour, especially on the bow. Why isnt that an option in your vote?

 

and similarly, the only thing I'd want for the Hindenburg would be slightly better pen on the AP - also not an option (well except normalization...)
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Alpha Tester
17,384 posts
5,400 battles

Isn't normalization the only real issue with Hind/Roon AP shells? The pen when flat on seems pretty ok to me, it's the fact that if they even angle a tiny bit you suddenly don't pen anything. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,202 posts
8,169 battles

Isn't normalization the only real issue with Hind/Roon AP shells?

 

Normalization only depends on calibre, it's the same for all 203 mm shells in the game. American CAs have better auto-bounce angles, Japanese CAs and Moskva are equal to the Germans in this regard as well. German CAs just lack penetration due to their light shells, especially at longer range. 

 

Moskva

idIxwD1.png

 

Zao

94ApqaK.png

 

Des Moines

8lweCT5.png

 

Hindenburg

8TVNuyV.png

 

All graphs created by fnord_disc and originally posted in this thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Alpha Tester
17,384 posts
5,400 battles

But Zao shoots HE at range anyway, Moskva has bigger guns, so it's Hindenburg which would have the biggest benefit from better normalization on the AP shells. 

 

Edit: just to add, I know the shells are lighter but when flat on I citadelled cruisers from 20km with Hindenburg so I am not asking for higher pen it's fine. But if they angle even a tiny bit the effective armor increases and the lower penetration hurts. having better normalization would fix this even without buffing base penetration ( giving it higher shell weight for instance ). 

 

Unless I'm wrong?

Edited by mtm78

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
4,154 posts
9,221 battles

The only thing i want for the Des Moines is better armour, especially on the bow. Why isnt that an option in your vote?

 

You know Des has best armor on the bow out of all cruisers? :trollface:

 

Issue is that you have same armor on the deck and on the sides  - 27mm where every other cruiser has 25 bow/stern but 30mm and higher on the deck  and side armor.

 

What is the effect of this ? Des Moines can bounce Bismark/Derpitz shells all day long but for any other BB it is just a floating citadel where in every other t10 cruiser you can at least try to angle and bait people to shoot at your armored side armor .

 

To be precise Des Moines is just oversized Atlanta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,174 posts
7,666 battles

...............

Edit: just to add, I know the shells are lighter but when flat on I citadelled cruisers from 20km with Hindenburg so I am not asking for higher pen it's fine. But if they angle even a tiny bit the effective armor increases and the lower penetration hurts. having better normalization would fix this even without buffing base penetration ( giving it higher shell weight for instance ). 

..................

 

Normalization was unified for a reason, I doubt this change will be reverted. Also WG doesnt change historical values like shell weight, but there is this value called Krupp, WG could mess with it to increase the pen on the AP shell used by Hipper/Roon/Hindenburg.

 

"The krupp values of many shells in the game were clearly chose in a way that gave the guns particular ballistic properties, especially DD guns. Almost all DD AP shells have roughly similar ballistics and can penetrate cruiser citadels at around 4-5km, but this is only possible by choosing vastly different krupp values. Theoretically the USN AP should have dreadful ballistics and the only reason you can penetrate citadels at 4-5km is because they have 2700-ish krupp. Russian DDs on the other hand have really nice ballistics, but because the krupp is horrible (1600-ish) you end up with a similar performance compared to USN AP. Krupp was clearly chosen in a way here that leveled the playing field when it came to AP."

 

"It's a scaling constant. It directly modifies all penetration values over distance. If one shell has 2000 Krupp and another shell is exactly the same but has 2200 Krupp, then it will have 10% more penetration at any distance."

 

- fnord_disc

 

It is simply the fact that Roon and Hindenburg use the same AP shell the Hipper uses, while the performance at T8 is great, at T10 it is a lackluster, since all other nations get far more powerful AP shells.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,806 posts
5,762 battles

I'd rather ask for better turret mechanization on 155 mm Mogami, T 10s can't complain at all.

 

As for T 10, I don't own any of them, but for what I see from replays and when I play public tests myself I'd agree with better shell arcs for Des Moines (and Cleveland while we're at it). I don't get the new relaod buff though. Why Des Moines need that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
957 posts
7,719 battles

Only one that remotely needs changes is Hindy. Des Moines was just buffed and others are fine.

Hindy however could use her BB level concealment being buffed and/or her penetration values adjusted, she hits broadside cruisers attheir waterline at 4km for zero citadels too often.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×