Premium Cruisers etc. with Repair Party Consumable, Prinz Eugen, Tirpitz

[Widar_Thule]

 

According to the website the Armored Patrol (https://thearmoredpatrol.com/category/world-of-warships/) there will soon be a new cruiser in WOWS: Italian Tier 6 Premium Cruiser Duca d’Aosta.

 

 

This is nice, to finally have an Italian warship in WOWS, which in 2017 will purportedly be also joined by the fine Italian battleship "Roma". But that is not what this topic is about.

 

One thing triggered me from the description of Duca d'Aosta:

 

 WoWS: 0.6.3 Italian Tier 6 Premium Cruiser Duca d’Aosta Stats

 

*Please note that the following stats are subject to changes before it is released*

 

"Duca d’Aosta"

Tier 6 Italian Premium Cruiser

 

General Stats:

Ship HP: 29700
Deck Armour: 15-35mm
Citadel Protection: 16mm – 70mm
Torpedo Protection: 7%
Max Speed: 36.5 knots
Rudder Shift Time: 7.63 seconds
Turning Circle Radius: 710 m
Surface Detectability: 12.06km
Air Detectability: 7.35 km

 

Main Battery
152mm/53 Model 1929 (4 x 2)
Range: 14.0 km
Reload Time: 7.5 seconds
Turret Rotation Speed: 30 sec/180°
Sigma : 2.0

 

HE Ammo: 152mm HE
Damage: 2100
Initial velocity: 950m/s
Chance of fire: 7%

 

AP Ammo: 152mm AP Early type
Damage: 3200
Initial velocity: 1000m/s
Penetration (5km/10km) : 200mm/122mm

 

Secondary Battery
100mm/50 Mod. OTO (3 x 2)
Range: 4.5 km
Reload: 6 seconds
Damage: 1500
Chance of fire: 6%

 

Torpedoes
533mm Triple (2 x 3)
Damage: 13367
Speed: 66 knots
Range: 4.5 km
Reload: 71 seconds
Detectability: 1.4km

 

AAA
100mm/50 Mod. OTO (3 x 2)
20 damage, 4.0km range

 

37mm Breda (4 x 2)
46 damage, 3.5km range

 

13mm Breda (4 x 2)
16 damage, 1.2km range

 

Consumables
(1st slot) Damage Control Party
(2nd slot) Hydroacoustic Search/ Defensive AA fire
(3rd slot) Catapult Spotter

 

Note: The official stat sheet of the ship has quite a few errors , for example, the displacement should be 10540 tons instead of 10374, Propulsion is 110000 hp instead of 100000 hp, and there’s only 8 13mm breda MGs, instead of 12.

 

Consumables
(3rd slot) Repair Team

 

So there we have it. Another Premium Cruiser with the Repair Party Consumable, allowing the ship to regain vital Hit Points. This is nice to have on a ship which will presumably cost around 20 Euros.

 

We have the following Premium Cruisers with the Repair Party Consumable, I might forget to mention one, but here we go:

 

- "Graf Spee" (Germany, Tier 6)

- "Duca d'Aosta" (Italy, Tier 6) (Edit: corrected, she does not or will not have it, according to "The Armored Patrol")

- "Belfast" (Great Britain, Tier 7) (Edit: corrected, she does not have it (yet?), but British Tier 8 Edinburgh does have an enhanced Repair Party Consumable)

- "Atago" (Japan, Tier 8)

 

Next to that we have regular line Cruisers and even Destroyers (USSR ones, of course) with the Repair Party Consumable:

 

- All British cruisers from Tier 3 to Tier 10

- USSR destroyers at Tier 9 and Tier 10

- All Tier 9 and 10 cruisers in WOWS (including the upcoming French cruisers)

 

There is however one important ship missing in the list of Repair Party Consumable (Premium) cruisers which incidentally is the most expensive heavy cruiser in the game: the Tier 8 heavy cruiser "Prinz Eugen" which costs 41 Euros rounded up.

 

If one goes over to:

 

https://eu.warships.today/vehicles

 

And selects Tier 8 Cruisers and looks at the stats of the last 2 weeks, then the Tier 7 heavy cruiser "Prinz Eugen" is:

 

- the worst in survivability

- the worst in damage inflicted

- in the bottom two in kill/death ratio

- in the bottom two in average kills

- in the bottom three in win rate

- in the bottom four in experience (XP)

 

The only category in WOWS where "Prinz Eugen" does fairly well is in plane kills, although even in that category she is beaten by and quite a bit below the USSR Premium cruiser Tier 8 "Mikhail Kutuzow".

 

The real world "Prinz Eugen" was easily the largest heavy cruiser (19,042 tons!) of WW2 and, looking at her total equipment suite, by far the heavy cruiser with the highest level of technical sophistication. Late in the war the "Prinz Eugen" and "Tirpitz" were the ships equipped with the most advanced German naval radar which was second to no radar used on any allied warship. One particularly well placed torpedo in WW2 severely damaged part of the stern of the ship, but she still remained afloat and could be steered to safety. The plentiful gunnery of "Prinz Eugen" in the Baltic at the end of the war was crucially important for several military operations and demonstrably accurate. The ship and her crew was honourably mentioned twice by the government for her service. Next to that this rather unique heavy cruiser after WW2 survived two atomic bomb tests (!) in which she was involved. No ship of her class can lay claim to that. So there are enough historical reasons to give this unique and largest heavy cruiser of WW2 a decent treatment in WOWS. There really are no historical or even logical reasons to represent "Prinz Eugen" so badly as has been done in WOWS, and asking 41 Euros for her in WOWS in the poor condition WOWS has chosen to represent her borders on insanity.

 

In WOWS the "Prinz Eugen" is not only the most expensive WOWS cruiser in Euros, it is also the least impressive cruiser to meet as an adversary in any tier 8, 9, 10 match. This is both from an historical and commercial point of view rather stupid. I for one am interested in buying the ship in WOWS, but the way she is presented in WOWS makes her such a "loser" that I cannot justify buying a bad ship like that for any price, let alone 41 Euros. Sure there are some people that bought her for "emotional" reasons, but that is fortunately an exception because I rarely see the ship in matches. No doubt many of the players which have a "Prinz Eugen" choose to leave her in port, where she looks great but that is about it.

 

It appears that from time to time the good folks at WOWS seem to listen to what is written on the forum, but it appears that this is only the case when a lot of people "complain" about things, the more people virtually "shout" on the forum the more likely it is that people at WOWS sit up and take attention. And from what I see the English language part of the forum seems rather oblivious to the newly released German destroyers being generally mediocre/bad at best and the largest WW2 cruiser "Prinz Eugen" being not only really, really bad in WOWS but also the most expensive cruiser at a whopping 41 Euros, and that for inferiority incarnate.

 

It is amazing how many forum "complaints" topics there were about the "Hydro Acoustics Search Equipment" consumable on "Bismarck", which in my opinion had no game changing effect on WOWS. In stark contrast to the really insignificant impact of that "Hydro Acoustics Search Equipment" consumable on "Bismarck",  I have seen "Belfast" in action over the past few weeks and she indeed has quite an impact on matches from random to ranked. I have even seen matches with three "Belfasts" in a division, sailing together in a tight unit in formation, erasing everything in front of them with their combined fire and smoke screens making them virtually untouchable. The impact of the latest USSR destroyer changes (unnecessary "buffs" only really) and the latest added USSR destroyers is clearly for all to see far greater in both random and ranked matches, but this too does not gather much "complaining" on the forum. Not compared to all the "complaints" over the past few weeks on the English language forum about the  "Hydro Acoustics Search Equipment" consumable on "Bismarck", this complaining however was eventually rewarded by WOWS by "nerfing" "Bismarck". "Belfast" and especially "Mikhail Kutuzow" have not and probably will never been "nerfed" however, no matter how good their in game performance stats are.

 

It is easy to suspect that (British and other nationality) forum users are quite (and understandably) happy that "Belfast" is as clearly overpowered as she is, and that the English language forum users are by now so used to USSR ships over performing for their class that they no longer object to it. Maybe the English language forum users are also just as used to that as to German cruisers and destroyers in WOWS generally being generally presented as unremarkable, insignificant and under performing compared to their real world equivalents. That does not make it right or fair though.

 

In like manner I pointed out in another topic about the growing inferiority of the Premium battleship "Tirpitz", of which the "last two weeks" stats can every month be regularly checked at:

 

https://eu.warships.today/vehicles

 

This Premium battleship in 2016 has suffered from successive "Tirpitz" specific "nerfs" to rudder response rate, (horizontal) armour thickness, accuracy (sigma value), torpedo attack angles, main gun range, main gun turret traverse speed etc. and only receiving few "buffs" in return which were not particular to her but were part of general battleship class "buffs". Other line and Premium battleships over the past year have seen important and successive "buffs" to their accuracy (sigma) which are indirect "nerfs" of "Tirpitz" because she was left out of these "buffs" that some of her key adversaries received. By regularly checking the "last two weeks" stats over a period of months on the https://eu.warships.today/vehicles site it becomes apparent that "Tirpitz" clearly is - compared to other Premium battleships - stat wise the worst performing Premium battleship and even the worst performing battleship in her Tier unlike other Premium battleships which are always the best performers in their Tiers.

 

In fact "Tirpitz" is the only Premium battleship in WOWS which performs considerably worse than her line equivalent (in WOWS "Bismarck" has unjustly and unauthentically received longer ranged secondary and tertiary weaponry, has more accurate main guns and has better AAA and even more consumables compared to "Tirpitz") where in real life "Tirpitz" her equipment state, horizontal armour protection and general performance was superior to her older and smaller sister ship "Bismarck". And "Tirpitz" is also the only Premium battleship which is not displayed in her final wartime (1944) equipment state unlike ALL other Premium battleships in WOWS which are ALL displayed in their final wartime equipment state in WOWS. Instead "Tirpitz" is displayed in WOWS in her early wartime (1942) equipment state, making her even weaker by comparison to other (Premium) battleships which are ALL displayed in their final wartime (1944) equipment state. In real life a total of 26 (!) Allied air attacks were launched against the real world “Tirpitz” by well over 1,101 (!) Allied aircraft. No ship in history was attacked so many times and by so many aircraft in military history. Nor did any other ship in history sustain hits by "ship killer" 5.4 ton monster bombs and survive two such hits and several near misses which are at least just as dangerous if not more so due to shock waves etc. Those 1,101 Allied aircraft only managed to score about 21 hits on “Tirpitz” and even attacks by three allied aircraft carriers all at once could not sink "Tirpitz". The Allies admitted the loss of at least 37+ aircraft (no battleship in WW2 shot down more aircraft than "Tirpitz") to the generally solitary “Tirpitz”, whose AAA was severely handicapped because she could not even use her main AAA guns, the hard hitting long range 10.5 cm AAA guns, due to the Norwegian fjords/mountains blocking their field of fire while at anchor. In WOWS however the best AAA effectiveness and highest air attack survivability goes not to "Tirpitz" which deserves it due to her historical war record, but to USA battleships which never fought solitary and which never came close to demonstrating the resilience to air attacks of "Tirpitz" nor matched the effectiveness of her radar guided and computer controlled AAA armament in solitary combat.

 

The newly released WOWS ship lines and Premium ships (USSR, British, USA) of the last six or so months are generally stronger/superior in performance stat and equipment wise (except for of course the "new" German destroyers), and other already existing older ships keep getting buffed (USSR destroyers etc.) without "Tirpitz" and "Prinz Eugen" enjoying the same "buff" benefit and instead being "left behind". The end effect is that both "Tirpitz" and "Prinz Eugen" keep getting worse stats and in game performance over the past few months. Apparently it does not have to be so for all ships however. Some are more equal than others it seems. Premium battleship "Missouri" for example is superior to line "Iowa" (her sister) in WOWS, not because her real life gun range, accuracy and equipment state was superior but because she is a Premium and WOWS chooses to display her as superior to "Iowa". But for "Tirpitz" and "Prinz Eugen" it is the other way round with these ships being displayed unhistorical and unjustly inferior in performance and stats and equipment wise in WOWS compared to their line equivalents in WOWS ("Bismarck" and "Admiral Hipper") as well as to other ships which could not match their size, armour, general level of high tech equipment suite. And those sorry inferior stats and under performance of the WOWS "Tirpitz" can be bought for 45+Euros making "Tirpitz" the most expensive Premium ship to date, which of course draws a comparison with the equally inferior stats and under performance of "Prinz Eugen" in WOWS for 41 Euros. If the good people at WOWS think that their upcoming Premium German aircraft carrier "Graf Zeppelin" is going to be a good seller if it gets the same bad treatment as the WOWS "Tirpitz" and "Prinz Eugen", you better think again.

 

Since we apparently do not have hundreds of people on the forum that "complain" about this sorry state of affairs, either because they have no in depth detailed knowledge of these historic ships, or maybe because they have no "emotional"/"national" investment in them, it seems to be OK for WOWS to display these ships in such a bad way. However, if a hundred people "complain", their numbers do not make them more "right" then when two or more people "complain". The weight of the arguments should be what counts for WOWS on the forum, not just the number of people selectively complaining for "emotional" or whatever reasons.

 

I could just imagine the Russian language forum when the light cruiser "Mikhail Kutuzow" would have been presented as so utterly inept as heavy cruiser "Prinz Eugen" is in WOWS. Or how the British players would have reacted if the light cruiser "Belfast" would be as utterly inept as the heavy cruiser "Prinz Eugen". Both "Mikhail Kutuzow" and "Belfast" are ships to be taken serious and therefore worth both the time to use them and thus buy them, and rightly so. It is more than a little strange however that both of the Premium light cruisers "Mikhail Kutuzow" (Tier 8) and "Belfast" (Tier 7) seriously outperform the Premium heavy cruiser "Prinz Eugen" (Tier 8) and Premium battleship "Tirpitz" (Tier 8) in all categories that matter. Let that sink in for a while, two Premium light cruisers (one USSR and one British) constantly and consistently seriously outperform the two most expensive Premium (German) heavy cruiser and battleship in WOWS in all categories that matter. And it does not end there, since USA Tier 9 Premium battleship "Missouri" also seriously outperforms the two expensive German premiums at Tier 8. Anybody that regularly checks the "two weeks" stats on https://eu.warships.today/vehicles can plainly see that, as well as witness it in WOWS in generally every match. The upcoming release of USA Tier 8 Premium battleship "Alabama" no doubt will further lead to and add to "Tirpitz" and "Prinz Eugen" falling back even further in the in game performance stats.

 

When it comes to "Prinz Eugen", "Tirpitz" and generally the German cruisers and destroyers there seems to be no virtual "shouting" on the forum so things will apparently remain as they are, no matter how bad their stats and how inept/mediocre their in game performance is compared to their Tier and/or Premium equivalent ships in WOWS, which is clear for all to see who face them in a match.

 

Since I have two 19 level German ship commanders I really have no use for a 41 Euro bad ship to "train" commanders, so that too is not a selling point for me.

 

Since so many Premium Cruisers and even line destroyers and cruisers have the Repair Party Consumable there really is no excuse not to also give it to "Prinz Eugen", unless WOWS does not want to sell her of course. But even the Repair Party Consumable  is not enough to make "Prinz Eugen" worth 41 Euros. "Mikhail Kutuzow", "Belfast" and "Atago" have a "bite", they can hit and hit hard in a match. That is what "Prinz Eugen" cannot, and which WOWS could easily implement like done for other Premiums. As is, even the inept WOWS "Admiral Hipper" is better than the WOWS "Prinz Eugen". When I meet a "Prinz Eugen" in a match on the opposing side, she is not dangerous at all, even more so when compared to say a "Mikhael Kutuzow", "Atago" and "Belfast". All three of those Premium ships, which all cost less than "Prinz Eugen" are "special", they bring something "special" to a match and are dangerous foes to be respected generally. Not so the WOWS "Prinz Eugen", it is even painfully clear in matches that the equally unimpressive WOWS "Admiral Hipper" is a better ship than the WOWS "Prinz Eugen".

 

Instead of taking this unauthentic approach to historic warships, I advocate that WOWS would strive to represent historic ships an "authentic" treatment. To be sure, I do NOT mean a "simulator" or "realistic" approach, but an "authentic" one. For those that do not understand the difference:

 

Authentic - "Conforming to an original and/or the real world so as to reproduce essential features".

 

Simulator - "A computer simulation (or "sim") is an attempt to model a real-life or hypothetical situation on a computer under real world conditions".

 

Realistic - "Resembling or simulating real life (conditions)".

 

WOWS is not striving to be realistic and neither do I advocate that it should be. But it can and should be authentic, because if WOWS is not even that, then one might as well start playing some fantasy space combat game and not a game featuring historic ships whose stats and performance are based on real world performance.

 

For the largest and overall best equipped heavy cruiser of WW2 I think the people of WOWS can change things to make the ship better in WOWS and actually worth 41 Euros. Give "Prinz Eugen" some of that "Mikhail Kutuzow" and "Belfast" "special" treatment for example. Like an improvement in gunnery accuracy for example and also give her the Repair Party Consumable not only because many other Premium cruisers have it but also because surviving two atomic bomb blasts in the real world counts for something. Not to mention "Prinz Eugen's" exceptional advanced late war radar which should also count for something. If however the good people at WOWS do not want to sell their "Prinz Eugen" and rather keep her in the current utterly inept state, then by all means let the 41 Euro "Prinz Eugen" remain as inferior as she currently is in WOWS and release some more new and better less expensive Premiums instead. The same applies to "Tirpitz" either display the ship in an authentic manner making her worth 45 Euros, or keep displaying her in her currently inferior and authentic form which keeps becoming worse with each new superior Premium released and each successive "nerf" applied to her either directly or indirectly as has been the case since February 2016 up till now.

 

Here is one overview of ship stat data of the past two weeks. To be sure, anyone who has had regularly checked the last "two weeks" on this website over the past few months can see that these stats have remained a constant. This is important, because the last "two weeks" weeds out all the stat data concerning the "Tirpitz" when she was first released in WOWS in 2015. Looking at the following stats it becomes quite clear that "Prinz Eugen" and "Tirpitz" are not only the most expensive Premium ships in WOWS but also the ONLY losers in their respective Tiers and classes. The price for "Missouri" is fictitious since one cannot directly buy the ship for Euros only as is the case with "Prinz Eugen" and "Tirpitz", because one needs to have 750,000 free XP first for the "Missouri". I can present many more of these data overviews. Instead of that I refer anyone to the "War Ships Today" website where one can easily check for oneself that generally EVERY PREMIUM cruiser and battleship is either the best performing ship in her Tier and class or among the top 3 in those cases where there is more than one Premium in a Tier and class, EXCEPT for "Prinz Eugen" and "Tirpitz".

 

German cruisers and destroyers in WOWS are generally so badly depicted in WOWS that they generally are the stat losers in their respective Tiers and Classes, but the most expensive Premium cruiser "Prinz Eugen" is the ONLY Premium cruiser which actually is the worst performing cruiser in her Tier and class.

 

If one only looks at the battleship Premiums (and ignoring the silly Arpeggio battleships), and battleships being the most played class, the fact that "Tirpitz" too is the only Premium battleship loser in her Tier and class becomes quite clear as well:

 

- USA Premium battleships: 5 (all the publicly released ones are the top performing Premium battleships in their Tier)

- German Premium battleships: 3 (3 of them are the only Premium battleships in their Tier, but only one of them is the worst performing battleship in her Tier ("TIRPITZ") and the ONLY Premium to do so in WOWS)

- Japanese Premium battleships: 2 (1 ship is the only battleship in her Tier, and the other one is ranked behind the USA Premium in its Tier)

- Russian Premium battleships: 1 (TOP PERFORMING BATTLESHIP IN HER TIER AHEAD OF THE USA PREMIUM, THE ONLY NON-USA PREMIUM WHERE THIS IS THE CASE)

- British Premium battleships: 1 (Inferior to the USA and French Premium battleships in her Tier)

- French Premium battleships: 1 (Inferior to the USA Premium battleship in her Tier)

 

 

As can be seen the Premiums "Belfast", "Mikhail Kutuzow" and "Atago" not only are the clear winners in their respective Tiers and classes but Tier 7 Premium cruiser "Belfast" even outperforms the top Tier 8 Premium cruisers. And all three of them seriously and dramatically outperform the most expensive Premium cruiser in WOWS, the 41 Euro Tier 8 heavy cruiser "Prinz Eugen". To add insult to injury even the clear Tier 8 cruiser class loser "Admiral Hipper" is still able to beat the Premium "Prinz Eugen" stat wise!

 

In like manner Tier 8 silver doubloon line battleships "Amagi" and "Bismarck" seriously and dramatically outperform the most expensive Premium battleship in WOWS, the 45 Euro Tier 8 battleship "Tirpitz". That makes the "Tirpitz" the only Premium battleship which is not only beaten stat wise by silver doubloon battleships in her Tier and class but also the ONLY Premium battleship to finish dead last stat wise in her Tier and class, and that for 45 Euros! The Premium Tier 9 battleship "Missouri" however seriously and dramatically outperforms all other Tier 9 battleships. The "Missouri" however can be unlocked for "free" if a player has 750,000 free XP, this cannot be done for the 45 Euro "Tirpitz".

 

There is NO valid reason, not commercially, not historically, nor from the point of game "balance" to have the two most expensive Premium ships underperform so badly compared to all other Premiums and silver doubloons ships in their respective Tiers and classes. That makes "Prinz Eugen" and "Tirpitz" not only the most expensive Premiums, but also the only PAY TO LOSE ships in WOWS, stat wise.

 

ALL USA Premium battleships and even the British Premium battleship (Warspite, commissioned in 1915(!)) in WOWS are ALL given their end WW2 (1944-1945) equipment state, most specifically and most notably their Anti-Aircraft Artillery (AAA) armament EXCEPT for “Tirpitz”. Take for example the 1914 (!) commissioned Premium Tier 5 USA battleship “USS Texas”. That Premium ship has the AAA equipment state of 1945! If you look up every USA and British battleship it is quite clear that their equipment state is generally based on what they historically had in 1944+.

 

Instead the WOWS “Tirpitz” is in sort of a hybrid 1941-1942 equipment state, meaning its Anti-Aircraft Artillery (AAA) is based on roughly the 1941-1942 equipment state. So "Tirpitz" on purpose is given a huge disadvantage compared to the USA and British Premium battleships and even compared to its line/tree equivalent “Bismarck”. Since “Tirpitz” in WOWS mostly faces Tier 8, 9 and 10 battles it means that more often than not its Anti-Aircraft Artillery (AAA) cannot deal as effective with enemy aircraft as the WOWS “Bismarck”. This is even more ridiculous from an authenticity point of view since no real world battleship, or ship for that matter, ever endured more aircraft attacks directed to it personally and beat them off successfully for years AND additionally shot down more aircraft in the process than any other (battle)ship in history.

 

And there is no reason for this state of affairs, simply also give the "TIRPITZ" her authentic mid-1944 AAA setup of:

• 6x2 150mm (which used special AAA burst ammunition)
• 8x2 105mm
• 8x1 20mm
• 18x4 20mm
• 8x2 37mm

 

Now IF the current WOWS “TIRPITZ” was statistically performing superior to all other Tier 8 battleships then there MIGHT be an argument to not bring “TIRPITZ” in WOWS up to “BISMARCK” strength in terms of accuracy, gun range etc. But the fact is that “TIRPITZ” is the worst performing Tier 8 battleship in WOWS in terms of damage inflicted and kill/death ratio. That is simply unacceptable for a ship which was bought for on average 70 Euros by players/customers. And it could be easily fixed by implementing an authentic “TIRPITZ” instead of the "nerfed" to mediocrity one which we have now.

 

I can analyse every single Premium battleship in WOWS compared to its line/tree equivalent and everyone single one is superior to its line/tree equivalent EXCEPT for “TIRPITZ”. Take FOR EXAMPLE the "USS MISSOURI" compared to the "USS IOWA", the "USS MISSOURI" in WOWS has:

 

- Better armour in some areas.

- Better Anti-Aircraft Artillery (AAA) in terms of range and Damage Per Second.

- Longer ranged heavy artillery and medium artillery.

- Better consumable (Surveillance Radar).

 

“TIRPITZ” is a WOWS Premium 2015 battleship and apparently it has not been "updated" to 2016+ Premium status compared to the other Premium battleships in their respective Tiers. This is unfair and unacceptable. For example, if the new standard for tier 8+ (Premiums or otherwise) is that they have special consumables that should be added to “TIRPITZ” as well. The “TIRPITZ” having torpedoes was an authentic historic fact and not a "consumable" or "flavour" so that does not compensate for “TIRPITZ” not having a "special" consumable like its sister “BISMARCK” or the “USS MISSOURI”.

 

The Premium Tier 9 battleship “USS MISSOURI” in WOWS has better armour, better accuracy (without any real authentic real world justification for it) and several other extras which in WOWS puts “USS MISSOURI” way ahead of her sister ship Line Tier 9 battleship “USS IOWA”. The question beckons: why is Premium “TIRPITZ” inferior to “BISMARCK” in WOWS? Whereas Premium “USS MISSOURI” is superior to “USS IOWA” in WOWS, as indeed are all other Premium battleships compared to their line/tree equivalent.

 

I can generally make comparisons like these between every Premium battleship and its line/tree equivalent in WOWS. EACH Premium battleship is superior in WOWS to its line/tree equivalent EXCEPT for “TIRPITZ”. Now if there were some "authentic" reason for “BISMARCK” being superior to “TIRPITZ” it would be fine with me and I would not waste one post or word on it. There is NO “authentic” reason for this state of affairs however. “TIRPITZ” in real life was superior to “BISMARCK” and so it should be in WOWS. That “BISMARCK” outperforms other Tier 8 ships is irrelevant.

 

"TIRPITZ” is statistically not only severely outperformed by “BISMARCK” but also by generally all other Tier 8 line/tree battleships in the areas which matter the most (damage inflicted, kill/death ratio) as statistics make clear. And that makes “TIRPITZ” the ONLY Premium battleship in WOWS which is outperformed by generally all the other battleships in its Tier.

 

And what has WOWS done to “TIRPITZ” compared to “BISMARCK”:

1. “TIRPITZ” is less accurate (at best 257 meter dispersion) than “BISMARCK” with its heavy artillery (38 cm) (at best 255 meter dispersion).
2. “TIRPITZ” has considerably less range on her secondary and tertiary sea target artillery.
3. “TIRPITZ” has inferior 1941/1942 Anti Aircraft Artillery, both in range and in Damage Per second.
4. “TIRPITZ” is slower than “BISMARCK”.
5. “TIRPITZ” is inferior armoured compared to “BISMARCK” (the belt armour 315 to 320).
6. “TIRPITZ” has no “Hydro Acoustic Search” consumable, meaning it has one less consumable than “BISMARCK”.

 

Now compare that to what is “authentic” (= conforming to an original so as to reproduce essential features):

1. “TIRPITZ” was AT LEAST as accurate as “BISMARCK” with its heavy artillery (38 cm). In fact “TIRPITZ” during its various gunnery trials built up an amazing and proven track record of accurate long range shooting unmatched by any other Kriegsmarine ship, including “BISMARCK”, or any other 1940s battleship for that matter.
2. “TIRPITZ” had the EXCACT same secondary and tertiary sea target artillery as “BISMARCK” had. In fact the tertiary sea target artillery of “TIRPITZ” was better because all eight turrets were of the newer model, whereas in “BISMARCK” half of them were of the older model which led to them firing too long since the targeting computer was set to the newer model.
3. “TIRPITZ” had the superior Anti Aircraft Artillery (AAA). The 15 cm secondary artillery had special “burst” ammunition which allowed them to fire on aircraft, something “BISMARCK” could never do because he never received that late war ammunition due to sinking. The 10.5 cm Anti Aircraft Artillery of “TIRPITZ” was better because all eight turrets were of the newer model, whereas in “BISMARCK” half of them were of the older model which led to them firing too long since the targeting computer was set to the newer model. No Kriegsmarine ship ever came close to how many aircraft were shot down by “TIRPITZ” (37+), least of all “BISMARCK” and no Kriegsmarine ship ever had a more powerful AAA armament than “TIRPITZ”.
4. "TIRPITZ” was faster than “BISMARCK” and had significantly more powerful turbines.
5. “TIRPITZ” did have thinner belt armour (horizontal protection) (315 mm) compared to “BISMARCK” (320 mm) BUT that was because “TIRPITZ” had superior deck armour (vertical protection) than “BISMARCK” had.
6. “TIRPITZ” had the exact same “Hydro Acoustic” equipment on board as “BISMARCK”.

 

Some more information on “TIRPITZ” heavy artillery (38 cm) gunnery accuracy comes from real world German wartime GKdos-100 files containing actual primary source gunnery training firing exercises data, which gives the “TIRPITZ” a dispersion of 112 meters at 21 km. This is a far cry from the base 276 meters (257 meters at best) which the “TIRPITZ” has been given in WOW.

 

http://www.kbismarck.com/38cm.html

 

 

 

Based on this primary source gunnery training firing exercises data “TIRPITZ” had the LEAST dispersion of any World War II battleship. Not only that but there are no Japanese, British or USA wartime gunnery training firing exercise records which demonstrate that any Japanese, British and/or USA battleship ever achieved a dispersion at 21 km of 112 meters during the 1940s. And that includes the “USS IOWA” class.

 

 “TIRPITZ” performed several live heavy artillery firing tests during her existence. For example in August 1941 it fired on the remote controlled target ship “HESSEN”, which was an old 140 meter long pre-dreadnought capital ship. Most interestingly, the “HESSEN” was hit 9 times by “TIRPITZ” with her 38 cm rounds at a range of 25 km (25000 meters, 27340 yards) during the tests for example. Those 9 hits at 25 km were the longest range consistent gun hits in the world by any battleship in the 1940s and this performance to my knowledge has never been equalled or outdone by any other battleship. “HESSEN” was a radio controlled target ship especially up-armoured and altered to use it for target practice. “HESSEN” could move up to 21 knots, and was turning during the gunnery practice to make it a more difficult target to hit for “TIRPITZ”. "HESSEN" could change speed, turn and actively smoke, all remote controlled. Here an image of "HESSEN" being targeted by "TIPITZ":

 

 

To put the historic battleship gunnery accuracy data into perspective based on the German Kriegsmarine and US Navy real world training firing exercise evaluation figures the following comparison can be made:

 

 - a “USS NEW MEXICO” battleship firing twelve 14"/35.6 cm naval guns at her maximum 1.75 rounds per minute at a hit rate of .10 hits per gun per minute would have 2.10 hits per minute at a range of 30 km.

 - a “USS COLORADO” battleship firing eight 16"/40.6 cm naval guns at her maximum 1.5 rounds per minute at a hit rate of .10 hits per gun per minute would have 1.20 hits per minute at a range of 30 km.

 - a “ USS NORTH CAROLINA” battleship firing nine 16"/40.6 cm naval guns at her maximum 2 rounds per minute at a hit rate of .12 hits per gun per minute would have 2.16 hits per minute at a range of 30 km.

 - a “TIRPITZ” battleship firing eight 15"/38 cm naval guns at her maximum 3.3 rounds per minute at a hit rate of .225 hits per gun per minute would have 5.94 hits per minute at a range of 30 km.

 

There are also US Navy estimates based on US Navy statistical data. A US Naval War College study performed during World War II which was not based on actual real world training firing exercises estimated that an “USS IOWA” Class (BB-61) battleship firing with top spot against a target the size of the German battleship “BISMARCK” would be (at best) expected to achieve the following hit percentage:

 

- 2.7% "USS IOWA" hits at 30,000 yards (274 hm / 27 km) for “USS IOWA's” nine 16"/40.6 cm naval guns.

 

This US Navy War College “USS IOWA” Class battleship World War II study hit percentage of 2.7% at 27 km against a target the size of “BISMARCK” is not exactly all that impressive compared to the:

 

- 11.1% “TIRPITZ” hit percentage at 30 km;

- 6.4% “SCHARNHORST” hit percentage at 30 km;

- 4.8% “ADMIRAL SCHEER” hit percentage at 30 km;

 

as described in the German wartime GKdos-100 files which are based on the evaluation of actual and repeated WW2 gunnery training firing exercises.

 

The “USS IOWA” study figures are even less impressive compared to the actual German test results when one considers that the number of hits generally increase when the range is decreased, as is evident from both training and combat. In other words the "TIRPITZ", "SCHARNHORST" and "ADMIRAL SCHEER" hit percentages at 27 km are higher than the ones listed at 30 km above. Which is even more bad news for the "USS IOWA".

 

And I have not even mentioned that for example all USA battleships have their theoretical highest rate of fire for their heavy artillery in WOWS which they never actually could attain in real life, neither during training nor in actual combat. Whereas "BISMARCK" and "TIRPITZ" with 38 cm heavy artillery demonstrably could fire an amazing 3.3 rounds per minute, these two ships however both have been given a low rate of fire of about only 2 rounds per minute which is in WOWS about equal to the best USA battleships at tier 7-10. And those USA battleships in real life could not even reach 2 rounds per minute during training, let alone in combat.

 

For those hearty souls who are interested in the details of the AAA armament of the USA battleships compared to "Tirpitz" in WOWS, here is some of it:

 

TIER 5 - TEXAS (COMMISSIONED 1914)

NOTE: THE PREMIUM TIER 5 BATTLESHIP TEXAS HAS THE 1945 AAA SETUP !!! (10x1 - 76.2mm (3in/50); 10x4 - 40mm; 44x1 - 20mm)

 

WOWS HULL

20mm Oerlikon Mk4 44x1 20mm - 2.0 km (DPS 158)
40mm Bofors Mk2 10x1 40mm - 3.5 km (DPS 159)

76.2mm /50 Mk22 Mod. 2 10x1 - 3.5 km (DPS 28)

 

The three oldest battleships--Arkansas, New York, and Texas--were in the Atlantic until late in the war. Their pre-war AA armament consisted of eight 3in/50s--not 5in/25s as in later ships--and eight .50 cals, added in the thirties. Despite their age they were among the first battleships to receive 1.1 quads, presumably because in 1940-1941 Atlantic Fleet ships rated the highest priority. By the time of Pearl Harbor all three ships had four 1.1 quads. New York and Texas, at least, had two additional 3-inch guns, for a total of ten. By late 1942, they each had eight quad 1.1s, and between 30 and 42-20mm guns; the .50 cals were gone, but the last of the 1.1s did not vanish until late 1944. Final armament for New York class: ten 3in/50; ten quad 40s; 44 to 48-20mm.

 

The other pre-war battleships all received a battery eight 5in/25s during modernizations in the late twenties and thirties. Sometime in the thirties they also received .50 cal machine guns, usually eight. In 1940-1941 the King Board envisaged the replacement of both the 5in/25 AA and 5in/51 single-purpose batteries with 5in/38 dual-purpose guns, and the addition of quad 1.1s (later changed to forties and twenties). For the immediate future the battleships were to receive four 1.1 quads each. As few of these were available, most got four 3in/50s as an interim measure; of the Pacific Fleet battleships, only Maryland had 1.1s at the time of Pearl Harbor.

 

After Pearl Harbor the extent of repair and modernization varied considerably among these ships, all the permutations of armament will not be listed in detail. AAA modernization began immediately. Just about all of the serviceable ships got four 1.1 quads after Pearl Harbor, and 20mm guns were soon added as well. The New Mexico class were not at Pearl Harbor and not heavily modernized; all, for example, retained their 5in/25s until Idaho received 5in/38s in 1945. Light AA armament, however, was greatly increased. Idaho by February 1943 had a light AA armament of ten quad 40mm and 43-20mm. New Mexico and Mississippi got 40mm in late 1942 and in the course of 1943 the number of these guns rose from eight to twenty; they also had 43 to 50 20mm by early 1943, while retaining their 1.1s until late in the year.

 

Their armament remained at this level until 1945, when Idaho and Mississippi were refitted (the latter ending the war with 52-40mm). Nevada and Pennsylvania completed major refits in late 1942-early 1943. Both received sixteen 5in/38 in place of their 5in/51 and 5in/25 batteries. Nevada had eight quads 40s and 41-20mm. Pennsylvania had ten quad 40s and 51-20mm. This was apparently pretty close to the final configuration of both ships.

 

TIER 7 - COLORADO (COMMISSIONED 1923)

NOTE: THE TIER 7 BATTLESHIP COLORADO HULL C HAS THE 1944-1945 AAA SETUP !!! (37x 40mm and 42x 20mm)

 

WOWS HULL C

20mm Oerlikon Mk4 37x1 20mm - 2.0 km (DPS 133)

40mm Bofors Mk2 3x2 40mm - 3.5 km DPS 34)

40mm Bofors Mk2 8x4 40mm - 3.5 km DPS 127)

127mm/25 Mk19 Mod. 6 10x2 - 4.1 km (DPS 58)

 

Colorado and Maryland were not heavily modernized. Through 1942 each had four quad 1.1s and varying numbers of 20mm. By February-March 1943 Maryland had six 1.1 quads, 48-20mm, and ten .50 cal. By the end of 1944 each had about 36-40mm and 40-20mm. Maryland finally got 5in/38s in 1945 after kamikaze damage. Tennessee, California, and West Virginia were heavily reconstructed after Pearl Harbor. All got sixteen 5in/38s. They had ten to fourteen 40mm quads, and 43 to 80-20mm.

 

TIER 8 - NORTH CAROLINA (COMMISSIONED 1941)

NOTE: THE TIER 8 BATTLESHIP NORTH CAROLINA HULL B THE 1944-1945+ AAA SETUP !!!

 

WOWS HULL A (= SEPTEMBER 1942 STATUS)

20mm Oerlikon Mk4 46x1 20mm - 2.0 km (DPS 166)
40mm Bofors Mk2 10x4 40mm - 3.5 km (DPS 159)
127mm/38 Mk32 10x2 127mm - 5.0 km (DPS 151)

 

WOWS HULL B (=NOVEMBER 1943 STATUS)

20mm Oerlikon Mk4 44x1 20mm - 2.0 km (DPS 158)
40mm Bofors Mk2 15x4 40mm - 3.5 km (DPS 238)
127mm/38 Mk32 10x2 127mm - 5.0 km (DPS 151)

 

The North Carolina class were originally armed with four quad 1.1s (28 mm) and twelve .50 cal (12.7mm) machine guns. This was increased in 1942: both ships received some 20mm weapons; Washington got two more quad 1.1s (28 mm); North Carolina's 1.1s (28 mm) were replaced by ten quad 40mm when she was refitted after torpedo damage in late 1942. Surprisingly, the .50 cal (12.7 mm) armament was increased to 28 in both ships, but all were removed by the end of 1942. In course of 1943 the 40mm armament of both ships increased to its final level of 60. By mid-1943 each ship had roughly 46 to 64-20mm, although the numbers of this weapon fluctuated through the war.

 

The North Carolina remained relatively unaltered during the Second World War. Only her light and medium anti-aircraft armament saw significant changes. The original quad 1.1in and single .50in guns were replaced by large numbers of 20mm Oerlikon guns and 40mm Bofors guns. The North Carolina ended the war with 15x 40mm quad mountings and 36x 20mm guns.

 

OVERVIEW AUGUST 1942+ upgrades AAA NORTH CAROLINA

AFTER 1942 the original 28 mm AA were removed and replaced by 10x4 40 mm AA

JUNE 1943 it was 14x4 40 mm AA
NOVEMBER 1943 its was 15x4 40 mm AA
APRIL 1942 it was 40x1 20 mm and 12x1 12.7 mm AA
JUNE 1942 it was 40x1 20 mm and 24x1 12.7 mm AA
SEPTEMBER it was 1942 46x1 20 mm and all 12.7 mm AA removed
MARCH it was 1945 53x1 20 mm AA
APRIL it was 1945 56x1 20 mm AA
AUGUST 1945 it was 8x2 20 mm AA 20x1 20 mm

 

The remaining weaponry on board the two North Carolinas was composed of differing numbers of 1.1-inch (28-millimetre), .50 caliber machine guns, Bofors 40 mm and Oerlikon 20 mm guns. Although the ships were originally designed to carry only four quadruple 1.1 in and twelve .50 caliber, this was greatly increased and upgraded during the war. On both ships, two more quadruple sets of 1.1 in guns were added in place of two searchlights amidships. After it was torpedoed in 1942, North Carolina had these removed and ten quadruple sets of 40 mm guns added. Fourteen were present by June 1943, while a fifteenth mount was added on top of the third main turret that November. Washington retained its six 1.1 in quads until the middle of 1943, when ten quad 40 mm guns replaced them. By August, it had fifteen. The two ships carried these through to the close of the war.

 

The .50 caliber machine guns did not have the range or power needed to combat modern aircraft and were scheduled for replacement by equal numbers of 20 mm guns, but nothing immediately came of the proposal. In fact, both North Carolina and Washington carried 20 mm and .50 caliber guns for most of 1942. In April, North Carolina had, respectively, forty and twelve, while Washington had twenty and twelve. Two months later, the number of 20 mm guns remained the same, but twelve .50 caliber guns had been added. By September, Washington had twenty more 20 mm guns added, for a total of forty, but five were removed—along with all of the .50 caliber guns—shortly thereafter when two quadruple sets of 1.1 in guns were added. In its refit after being torpedoed, North Carolina had an additional six 20 mm guns added and all of its .50 caliber weapons removed. Washington had sixty-four 20 mm weapons by April 1943, prior to one single mount being replaced by a quadruple mount, and North Carolina had fifty-three by March 1944. In April 1945, North Carolina was assigned to have fifty-six 20 mm, while Washington was assigned seventy-five. In August 1945, the ships both had eight twin 20 mm mounts; North Carolina also carried twenty single, while Washington carried one quad and sixty-three single.

 

TIER 8 - ALABAMA ST (COMMISSIONED 1942, ALABAMA IS A SOUTH DAKOTA CLASS BATTLESHIP)

NOTE: THE PREMIUM TIER 8 BATTLESHIP ALABAMA ST HAS THE 1944-1945 AAA SETUP !!!

 

WOWS HULL

20mm Oerlikon Mk4 52x1 20mm - 2.0 km (DPS 187)
40mm Bofors Mk2 12x4 40mm - 3.5 km (DPS 191)
127mm/38 Mk32 10x2 127mm - 5.0 km (DPS 151)

 

South Dakota was the only ship of her class completed with 1.1s (seven quad) and .50 cals (eight), while her three sisters completed with six quad 40mm and 35-20mm. South Dakota was in the yard several times in late 1942--grounding at Tongatabu, the bomb at Santa Cruz, the 15 November surface action--and her armament substantially increased; by early 1943 she had seventeen quad 40mm and at least fifty-seven 20mm, a quite heavy armament for that stage of the war. Her sister ships through most of 1943 had six to twelve 40mm quads, and roughly 43 to 60 20mm. This was pretty close to their final armament, except that Massachusetts was later upgraded to eighteen quad 40s. ---South Dakota, at the time of her famous anti-aircraft action at Santa Cruz, had four 40mm quads, five 1.1 quads, and somewhere between 35 and 57-20mm.

 

TIER 9 - IOWA (COMMISSIONED 1943)

NOTE: THE TIER 9 BATTLESHIP IOWA HULL C HAS THE 1945+ AAA SETUP !!!

 

WOWS HULL A

20mm Oerlikon Mk4 21x1 20mm - 2.0 km (DPS 76)
40mm Bofors Mk2 14x4 40mm - 3.5 km (DPS 223)
127mm/38 Mk32 10x2 127mm - 5.0 km (DPS 151)

 

WOWS HULL B

20mm Oerlikon Mk4 49x1 20mm - 2.0 km (DPS 176)
40mm Bofors Mk2 18x4 40mm - 3.5 km (DPS 286)
127mm/38 Mk32 10x2 127mm - 5.0 km (DPS 151)

 

WOWS HULL C

20mm Oerlikon Mk4 32x2 20mm - 2.0 km (DPS 195)
40mm Bofors Mk2 19x4 40mm - 3.5 km (DPS 302)
127mm/38 Mk32 10x2 127mm - 5.0 km (DPS 151)

 

TIER 9 - MISSOURI (COMMISSIONED 1944)

NOTE: THE PREMIUM TIER 9 BATTLESHIP MISSOURI HAS THE 1945+ AAA SETUP !!!

 

WOWS HULL

20mm Oerlikon Mk4 29x2 20mm - 2.0 km (DPS 177) (=Damage Per Second)
40mm Bofors Mk2 20x4 40mm - 3.5 km (DPS 318)
127mm/38 Mk32 10x2 127mm - 5.0 km (DPS 151)

 

The Iowas as completed, or in immediate post-shakedown refits, were also close to their final configuration of light AA armament: twenty quad 40s in most, an average of about fifty 20mm.

 

TIER 8 - TIRPITZ (COMMISSIONED 1941)

NOTE: THE TIER 8 BATTLESHIP TIRPITZ HAS THE 1942 AAA SETUP !!!

 

WOWS HULL

20mm Flak 38 12x1 20mm - 2.01 km (DPS 36)
20mm Flakvierling 38 8x4 20mm - 2.01 km (DPS 48)
37mm Flakzwilling 30 8x2 37mm - 3.51 km (DPS 20.8)

10.5mm L/65 Dop. L. C/37 8x2 10.5mm - 4.5 km (DPS 133.6)

 

The AAA suite of "Tirpitz" was constantly improved due to the 26 (!) Allied air attacks which were launched against “Tirpitz” by well over 1,101 (!) Allied aircraft. By 1944 the "Tirpitz" had the following AAA setup:

 

20mm Flak 38 8x1 (4x1 less than in 1942)
20mm Flakvierling 38 18x4 (10x4 more than in 1942)
37mm Flakzwilling 30 8x2 (same as in 1942)

10.5mm L/65 Dop. L. C/37 8x2 (same as in 1942)

150mm L/55 SK C/28 6x2 (which used special AAA burst ammunition) (6x2 more than in 1942)

 

So to sum things up:

- Premium Tier 5 battleship Texas has a 1945 AAA setup in WOWS (commissioned 1914)

- Line Tier 7 battleship Colorado has a 1945 AAA setup in WOWS (commissioned 1923)

- Line Tier 8 battleship North Carolina has a 1945 AAA setup in WOWS (commissioned 1941)

- Premium Tier 8 battleship Alabama ST has a 1945 AAA setup in WOWS (commissioned 1942)

- Line Tier 9 battleship Iowa has a 1945 AAA setup in WOWS (commissioned 1943)

- Line Tier 9 battleship Missouri has a 1945 AAA setup in WOWS (commissioned 1944)

 

- Premium Tier 8 battleship Tirpitz has a 1942 AAA setup in WOWS (commissioned 1941)

 

So USA battleships commissioned from 1914 to 1944 generally have their 1945 AAA equipment state in WOWS, which is remarkable to say the least. The one battleship which was subjected to the most air attacks in history by in total over a 1,000 aircraft meanwhile more or less has the AAA equipment state with which she was commissioned in 1941. And that while "Tirpitz", unlike "Bismarck", was still afloat in November 1944. So WOWS did not have to make up the 1944 armament for "Tirpitz" as they did for "Bismarck" in WOWS, since there are reputable sources enough which detail the 1944 "Tirpitz" AAA setup for WOWS to use!

 

 

 

 

 

[Mayv]

Belfast doesnt have the repair consumable.

[SaxonHoliday]

It's called "power creep" and it's expected to happen. I wouldn't mind getting more reasons to take out my Pringles, but I don't see that happening in the near future.

 

As a side note: 7% fire chance on an 8-shell broadside with 7.5 seconds reload? That is... not very good at all. Makes me fear that Wargaming are listening to the whiny battleship players and are trying to stealth nerf fires...

[Widar_Thule]

Belfast doesnt have the repair consumable.

 

Yes, you are right. Well maybe it is time for starting a topic for "Belfast" to get the Repair Party Consumable then, haha.

 

 

Seriously, I will correct that in my post, thanks.

 

All the more remarkable how she outperforms both "Prinz Eugen" and "Tirpitz" without it!

 

 

[dasCKD]

I would prefer it if all the tier 8 cruisers receives a heal consumable in line with what the Atago has, with a possible exception of the Kutuzov. I would also extend this to all tier 8 cruisers in the future. I think this would improve the game for everyone.

[Hedgehog_small_tanks]

.

[Spellfire40]

Prinz Eugen is a ship that have working armor unlike UK cruisers. italian crusiers in real live vor pretty lightly armoured too. Graf Spee has a normal level of armor but cant outrun most faster BBs. 

 

Prinz Eugen is a unglamores Hipper clone with a plus credits camo. If you like Hipper you like Prinz and get more credits and exp to Boot.  Not every below T9 cruiser need a Heal. It wont fix their fundamental Problem surving BB citadel hits.

[Aotearas]

Nowhere in your preliminary stats overview does it say "Damage Repair Party". And just to make sure you didn#t just copy&paste it incorrectly I looked up the provided link. Again, nowhere does it say anything about the repair party.

[tajj7]

You can hardly claim some sort of anti-german bias as you clearly trying to make out when the German BBs are as they are and completely dominating the game at the moment.

 

Your whole post has a lot of wehraboo about it (like claiming the hydro on the Bismarck was fine) and all real life stuff which is generally irrelevant to game balance.

 

Tirpitz is fine IMO, still a very strong tier 8 BB and if anything the Bismarck needs bringing down a notch still rather than buffing the Tirpitz, also the Tirpitz probably suffers performance wise from the 'Lowe' syndrome in WOTs with players buying it before they are good enough to use it properly (possibly guilty of that myself). 

 

 other Premium battleships in WOWS which are ALL displayed in their final wartime equipment state in WOWS

 

This is quite a disingenuous statement IMO.  

 

Because I'm pretty sure most of the premium BBs in WOWs are basically WW1 era boats and most of them are in setting that is prior to 1941.  Pretty sure this is true of the Warspite, it's in a pre-war modernisation state IIRC, same with Dunkeruque which basically as launched in 1938, Arizona was obviously sunk in 1941. 

 

All except Missouri which wasn't launched until 1944 so a bit hard for her not to be in a 1944 state. So that makes Tirpitz the most modern premium BB aside the Missouri and still one of the most modern tier 8 BBs. 

 

Eugen probably needs a buff, but that is all your thread really needed to say. 

[Karasu_Browarszky]

Prinz Eugen has by far been the biggest disappointment to me as far as premium ships go, and Prinz goes pretty far before hitting rock bottom on the seabed. Prince of the Ocean's floor...

[StuntMan0369]

Nowhere in your preliminary stats overview does it say "Damage Repair Party". And just to make sure you didn#t just copy&paste it incorrectly I looked up the provided link. Again, nowhere does it say anything about the repair party.

 

Yeah - Duca d'Aosta currently doesn't have a heal. It has the usual Damage Control, standard Def AA and Hydro options, as well as a spotter plane for increased range.

 

Whilst it doesn't detract from the things you're writing, it seems odd this post started from something that doesn't exist.

[Migulaitor]

Totally agree, Tirpitz UP pls WG Buff it, a realistic buff would be to give her the smoke generator (not the german one, its a BB, so bigger and better smoke) considering she spend a lot of time hiding and/or defensive aa, historic reasons.

[walter3kurtz]

tl:dr anyone?

[Loran_Battle]

Totally agree, Tirpitz UP pls WG Buff it, a realistic buff would be to give her the smoke generator (not the german one, its a BB, so bigger and better smoke) considering she spend a lot of time hiding and/or defensive aa, historic reasons.

 

10/10, would buy Tirpitz again!

[Aotearas]

Gib Tirpitz secundairy armament base reinge buff und ze hydro plz. Iz prämium boat, muss be better zan ze regulär boat.

[Hedgehog_small_tanks]

 

As Zombie Cheese has pointed out, Belfast has no damage repair party consumable, unlike the other Royal Navy Cruisers.  That puts it at a disadvantage in that regard, although she has other strengths. 

 

However it does mean your polemic sets out on the  wrong footing. I'll ignore the jingoism because I've not criticised Brits who whined over the  RN not being to their liking.

 

As it is though, I've considered buying Prinz Eugen when she was on deep discount and decided not to.  Neither have I gone above Tier VI in "silver" cruisers apart from the Royal Navy (Best Navy).    I have Atlanta and almost never play her.  I have Indianapolis and have never played her (she came in one of those Santa crates). I've no desire to play cruisers without smoke at high tiers because they're far too vulnerable.

 

 

Tirpitz is OP.

 

(This isn't my main account)

 

 

[Exocet6951]

The real world "Prinz Eugen" was easily the largest heavy cruiser (19,042 tons!) of WW2 and, looking at her total equipment suite, by far the heavy cruiser with the highest level of technical sophistication. Late in the war the "Prinz Eugen" and "Tirpitz" were the ships equipped with the most advanced German naval radar which was second to no radar used on any allied warship

 

Translation:

"SUPERIOR TECHNOLOGY STRONK KRUPPSTAHL KRIEGSMARINE BESTEST MARINE, PLS BUFF"

 

Having a cruiser with the firepower and armor of a another nation's 13k ton ship isn't being advanced, it's 6k tons of poor optimisation.

She and the Tirpitz did NOT have the best radars, that's just a lie.

The best radars by far were American.

[Xevious_Red]

tl:dr anyone?

OP shows premlinary stats of italian cruiser that lists spotting plane as comsumable and then complains how its unfair this ship has repair party (? - yeah this didnt make sense to me either)

-germans should be the best

-unnerf bismark

-give germans more stuff

-nerf the stuff that isnt german

[T0byJug]

 

Block Quote

 other Premium battleships in WOWS which are ALL displayed in their final wartime equipment state in WOWS

 HMS Belfast is post war configuration

Kutuzov was lunched in the 50s so is also Post war

Tirpitz close range AA was a lot stronger just before she was sunk

ships have the armament to there tier and balancing not there Final Wartime Config..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Vaderan]

I seriously appreciate your ambitions to provide a constructive topic concerning one of the most disapointing cruisers in this game, Widar_Thule. While you might even receive some support, regarding your concerns about the Prinz Eugen, you might have forgott about the most important rules about BBs in common and german ships in particular, when it comes up to WG products:

 

1.) German ships (or tanks) are implemented to bait users into playing these games. There is a reason, why you have a Bismarck or a Tiger tank on almost any advertisment/picture for WWII related tech games. They are most iconic, they are attractive. Their purpose ends here. They don´t need to be great, just good enough to attract players and serve as cannon fodder for more glorious tech of allied nations. As premium products, german tech will always sell for the highest price, because of mythology, fame and being iconic. No need to make them powerfull. After all, germans deserve to be beaten, anytime, anywhere.

 

2.) In terms of WoWs, BBs are fine! You get them in (too) large numbers in any match, they serve as XP/HP piniatas for DDs, ruin the day every 100ths salvo for an innocent cruiser, just often enough to justify complains over OP-one-hit-takout-salvos, and suck in any brawl (with a few exceptions, maybe). Complaining about BBs, asking for changes which could be considered as "buffs", or "buffs" directly, will earn you the rage and hate from DD and CA/CL players. Don´t do it, especially not when it comes to the Tirpitz.

 

3.) DDs, and russian DDs in particular, are inferior. Always. Period. A DD which cannot yolorush a +2 tier BB with two escorting cruisers, sinking all three of them by gunfire, fires, torpedoes and/or flodding, doing so within 4km range, disappearing in smoke and repairing a good ammount of the received damage IS INFERIOR. If you don´t agree with that, uninstall the game.

 

4.) Historical facts don´t matter in this game, for balancing is more important. Historical facts (or fantasy russian historical documents) only matter, if they have to justify for buffs on russian ships, nerfs on german ships, or making BBs a bad laugh. Or do you think, BB secondary armament was designed to see it´s shells dropping into the water at 5km? Or having a carrier refueled and reequiped a complete bomber squad withing a few minutes? Or having a DD reload it´s torpedoes in less than two minutes, supplied with an unlimited supply of them, and without any failure of it´s torpedoes, when hitting the targets at most ridiculous angles?

 

You can complain, you can come around with good intentions and constructive suggestions. If any of those go for german ships or BBs, you are throwing yourself into a minefield...

 

Take it like a man, live with it.

 

P.S.: if anybody finds the hint of sarcasm or irony within my posting, he is allowed to keep it ;)

[Masterrix]

a "boring Prinz Eugen" fits perfectly in the "boring german CA-line". thats it ^^

 

the "Prinz" has a very unique feature:

it's the one and only 40 EUR ship, that is both at once: boring and underperforming !

 

 

 

 

 

[T0byJug]

Totally agree, Tirpitz UP pls WG Buff it, a realistic buff would be to give her the smoke generator (not the german one, its a BB, so bigger and better smoke) considering she spend a lot of time hiding and/or defensive aa, historic reasons.

 

the Smoke Generators she hid under were Land based and by this time a lot of here AA had also been removed and shore mounted as the below pic clearly shows

 

[T0byJug]

Belfast doesnt have the repair consumable.

 

never douse the Duca d’Aosta

 

I wish people would learn to Check before they spout off (directed at OP not you Zombi)

 

Consumables + icon for named consumable
(1st slot) Damage Control Party

(2nd slot) Hydroacoustic Search/ Defensive AA fire

(3rd slot) Catapult Spotter

 

[RobS80]

Oops. Seems someone might have mistaken the Damage Control Party on Duca D'Aosta for the Damage Repair Party.

 

Still, the Eugen could sure benefit from damage repair party given its the only tier 8 premium cruiser without smoke or repair. 

[Migulaitor]

Still, the Eugen could sure benefit from damage repair party given its the only tier 8 premium cruiser without smoke or repair. 

 

Because premium ships are supposed to be better than regular ones 

the Smoke Generators she hid under were Land based and by this time a lot of here AA had also been removed and shore mounted as the below pic clearly shows

 

so lets make this, if you are stopped close to an island you have permasmoke and double AA (being on the ground give them better accuracy or whatever) also it has the same secondaries as Bismarck so buff range.... and yes if you are stopped you are not moving, whats else doesnt move? ,,, FORTS , so give the main artillery the same reload as them. 

 

In a serious note the Tirpitz problem is it lose her place on the meta, Bismarck is now a better brawler. So maybe a little buff could be fine (same speed as Bismarck and same secondary range as other tier 8 BBs maybe)