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

Conqueror thoughts

19 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[BOBS2]
[BOBS2]
Players
529 posts
19,040 battles

Some of these thoughts apply down the line with other Royal Navy Battleships, but as the Conqueror’s what most of the arguing has been about, and what I paid most attention to stats for, that’s what I’m using as the example. And before you go to the trouble of trying to look up my hidden stats I’m a 48% win rate potato whose average XP dropped a lot on the Conqueror compared to the Lion or most of my other battleships. So if that matters to you then please feel free to ignore this wall of text.

 

High Explosive and Armour Piercing shells:

(Applies to varying degrees up and down the RN BB line)

 

I’ve had some okay results with the Armour Piercing, perhaps because it’s unexpected enough that people are more careless with their broadsides and unusual enough that I was asked if I was insane to not be spamming High Explosive in a Conqueror. Which I took as friendly banter, given my results, and was disappointed to realise from the follow up comments was more intended as unfriendly sledging. That aside the reason I might have agreed with the fellow was that the results are only okay and are actually so similar to if I was using just High Explosive.

 

A common thread of the criticism of the Royal Navy High Explosive is that it lets people be lazy, and I think that’s too simplistic. I’m by no means the best at it, but I do have some idea of angling and ammo choices, even if I do have plenty of potato moments when putting those ideas into practice. The question with the Conqueror for me though is whether to bother; I’ll admit there’s likely some element of “lern 2 aim nub”, but I’ve had enough games where I’ve done roughly the same damage per shell with HE and with AP to be wondering if all I’m doing by using AP is to ‘cheat’ myself out of the module damage and chance to set fires. A good AP salvo against a Battleship will do more damage and a good one against a cruiser might destroy it, but the HE is more consistent against the first and can citadel cruisers without the overpenetrations.

 

So, assuming my results are typical, the question is how to fix this and it seems a matter of tweaking things so HE does less direct damage and AP does more so there is more benefit in switching ammo types, though the latter is trickier than the former. With the High Explosive it does a lot damage, has a high fire chance, and has ¼ penetration so there is room for it to be worse and still be the best battleship HE, but the Armour Piercing already does closer to the same damage as other battleship AP.

 

A 10% reduction in the damage of the RN BB HE, with a matching reduction of the fire chance, would still leave it better than the other ships in the comparisons I’ve done. Using the 419mm guns on Conqueror (and Lion) as an example this would take them from 7200 down to 6480, a tiny fraction worse than the 6500 of Japanese 410mm HE, and the fire chance from 48% down to 43%, a little better than the 41% of the German 420mm.

 

Or to reverse things a lot better than the 5000 damage of the German 420mm and the 30% fire chance of the Japanese 410mm, so still rather powerful and does make me wonder what effect also reducing the penetration to 1/5 rather than ¼ would make. How badly would that affect the ability to citadel cruisers with HE and how many more shatters would that cause against battleships? It does seem, to me, that RN HE being barely-second/barely-first/second for damage/fire chance/penetration would still leave it strong and preserve the flavour they chose for Royal Navy Battleships, but without it being as excessive as being long-way-first/long-way-first/equal-first.

 

Note though, just to make it clear, I’m not saying it has to be as much as 10% or that the penetration has to be reduced. Just that 10% seems about the maximum before the RN HE becomes less absolutely the best and that a reduction in damage could be combined with a reduction in penetration.

 

With the Armour Piercing though the 419mm RN AP does 13 000 damage, compared with the 13 500 of the US 406mm and German 420mm and the 12 900 of the Japanese 410mm, so more than about 5% extra (for 13 650) doesn’t seem right. 5% could be enough though, if the HE is worse then the AP is already better by comparison and the more that people use AP the less the HE being worse affects them and the less that needs to be compensated for. If 5% isn’t enough, however, then how else to boost the AP? Longer fuses might be better against Battleships, but would more easily overpenetrate cruisers (so both ammo types would be worse against them, if the HE has been tweaked). Giving the shells slightly less chance of bouncing would help, but it would have to be slightly, an extra penetration every few salvoes against badly angled ships rather than affecting well angled ships. Or, as mentioned before, I need to “lern 2 aim nub” to bring the average damage up by avoiding the bounces and overpenetrations.

 

This is all fairly minor though, same sort of effect as if one or two extra shell(s) per salvo of AP do good damage and one or two shell(s) per salvo of HE don’t. But if the ratio is 11:9 rather than 10:10 that does give some reward for switching ammo depending on target and what angle it is at and some penalty for not.

 

Summary: Make HE worse, make AP better (maybe), make it more worthwhile to switch ammo.

 

Durability and Superheal:

(Applies to Lion and Conqueror mostly.)

 

The Conqueror feels squishy, and I don’t know why. Looking in the armour viewer she seems good and I can’t argue with the tests done during the ‘debate’ in that other thread. It could just be that the superheal means I lose that much health over again, and the prolonged death when being heavily focussed is more memorable. On the other hand it does seem like I have the same chance to survive a bad situation as I do in other battleships, rather than the superheal improving the chances, which suggests she must be taking more damage to counterbalance the extra health she’s recovering so fast.

 

And there’s the fact that Lion and Conqueror do have a superheal, which on other ships appears to have been given to them to balance their greater vulnerability. The Edinburgh has a section of armour on each side of the ship, the Neptune has the citadel extend up behind that and has a superheal; The KGV has a nice armour belt that is part of the casement, the Nelson has an armour belt that’s part of the citadel and has a superheal. So it would follow that if Lion and Conqueror have a superheal there is some vulnerability I am missing.

 

My preference is the more conventional one of taking less damage and healing less damage; as I said after trying the Lion on the PTS some of the most satisfying games are those where you manage to survive taking heavy damage and then claw back your health. There is some tension in whether or not the superheal will recharge in time, but almost more tension in whether someone will complain about it or not. And it can be rather ridiculous how different the amount able to be healed can be, depending on whether you’ve been smacked in the citadel by AP or whether someone has decided to farm damage on you with HE and fires.

 

(Though that could be Wargaming’s intent; make some ships whose durability depends on their heal, and therefore which varies so much depending on what is being fired at them, and therefore which encourages people to fire AP at them. Though it seems a bit contradictory to discourage HE spam against some ships while encouraging HE spam from them and their brethren.)

 

So what I’d like is some small increase in durability with a matching decrease in the strength of the superheal, though this might be difficult to balance given how much the effects of the superheal can vary, and there does seem room to reduce the total healed even without any matching increase in durability. My main suggestion though would be to change the rate of healing and the duration of this. As things stand the superheal on Lion and Conqueror acts very fast, though it does only last 20 seconds rather than 28, but if you doubled the duration and halved the rate of each heal then I think that would have two effects. The first is that the cooldown only starts once an ability has finished, so if the heal lasts 20 seconds longer then it would be 20 seconds longer before it could be triggered again. The second is that the slower the rate of healing the easier it is for incoming damage and any fire or flooding on the ship to outpace that rate of healing. This would make it easier to focus the ship down and avoid the sort of luck I’ve had a few times where it’s healed enough between impacts for my ship to survive.

 

(Example I’m thinking of is a couple of spreads of torpedoes. Damage taken from them was more than the hitpoints my Conqueror had when I realised I’d messed up, but healed some back in the time between realising and when the first one hit and continued to heal more back as they hit. And I’m pretty sure the lowest the hitpoints went (until the enemy team finished me off less than a minute later) was less than the amount recovered during that time.)

 

It does seem though that people have got used to the idea of needing to focus fire on a Conqueror (or a Lion or a Nelson) before it can recover its health and that trying to burn them is not as effective as putting big holes in them, if the aim is to sink rather than score large damage numbers. So as people have learned to counter the superheal how much it actually needs to be altered is another question.

 

Summary: Better durability would balance a reduction in the effect of the superheal and a slower rate of repair would prevent it outpacing incoming damage.

 

Secondaries:

(Applies to KGV, Monarch, Lion, and Conqueror)

 

These seem a bit pathetic, I wasn’t expecting a rain of death like with some Battleships but I did hope they’d be more than a mild inconvenience for a Destroyer that strayed within range of them. I reminded myself they were fairly high calibre guns and had ¼ penetration so they might be more effective than the simple calculation of “damage-per-shell times rounds per minute” suggested, but if they are that doesn’t seem to make much difference. It bothers me a little that, using the simple calculation, these ships’ secondaries have only about 2/3 the surface damage of the Hood’s secondaries and almost identical AA performance despite having 8x2 rather than 7x2. Or that, despite that only having 6x2 and being a cruiser, the Neptune’s secondaries outgun them, they’ve about ¾ the surface damage and about 40 points less AA.

 

Looking at the Wikipedia page for the 5.25” gun, as fitted to the KGV, this did mention they had hoped for 10-12 rounds per minute rather than the 8 they achieved or the 9 they have in game with the 6.7 second reload. My thought had been for the Monarch to get a 5% boost in firing rate over KGV and Lion a 10% boost (same as taking Basic Firing Training), which with the rounding up would make about 9.5 (6.3s reload) and 10 (6s reload) rounds per minute, getting closer with the Monarch and managing to reach the bottom of the hoped for range with the Lion. AA rating for those would also go up, either by the same amount or double that (since Basic Firing Training does 20% to AA), and they might lose some medium range AA to compensate (though even a 20% improvement to those is not much).

 

With the Conqueror I was thinking of two options. The more complex would be for her to get the same 10% boost in firing rate as Lion but to also get a fifth secondary turret on each side, since no catapult for that to be in the way of. This would give her almost a third more secondary firepower (1.1*1.2=1.32), but her 10 boosted turrets would still only be about the same as the Neptune’s 6 against surface targets and (even with a 20% improvement) have about 10 points less AA. So the main problem with this idea seems to be that it would require a change to the ship model and that the US Navy might feel that having five secondary turrets on each side is copying them, again.

 

(“Goddamn Limeys! First they fitted bigger guns in four triple turrets for main armament and now they’re fitting bigger guns in ten twin turrets for secondaries...”)

 

Simpler idea would be to just boost the firing rate again to the same effect. The turrets on the Conqueror look like the flatter ones as fitted to HMS Vanguard, rather than the KGV style ones that Monarch and Lion have, and the guns are “134mm/50 Mk.I” rather than “134mm/50 QF Mk.I”. So there are those differences and Conqueror’s secondaries are already 6km rather than 5km, so a better firing rate to add to increased range seems plausible.

 

Though, actually, why does the Lion have the KGV secondary turrets? Vanguard was born by modifying one of the Lion class hulls so the 4 twin 15” turrets that had been removed from Glorious and Courageous when they were converted into aircraft carriers could be mounted on it (and modifying the turrets to bring them more up to date). So I could argue that Lion ought to have the Vanguard-style turrets and probably the same secondary guns as Conqueror. And by that token it would make sense to leave Monarch’s firing rate alone and have a boost happen for the Lion because of the change in turrets and guns. Though that would argue against another boost for the Conqueror, so if she was going to get better secondaries than the Lion that might have to be through having the extra two turrets.

 

Or an overpowered alternative would be to remove the 5.25” turrets and replace them with the 4.5” turrets from the Neptune, though if 6 of those are about as good as 10 boosted 5.25” turrets then you can imagine how much better 8 would be. Actually be almost as good as the Montana, though shorter ranged, so would be too much of an improvement to keep the balance between long and medium range AA and to still have bad surface firepower from the secondaries.

 

And note that I wasn’t suggesting the extra two turrets be part of a B-hull, seems better to me to just worsen the existing arguments about nerfing the Conqueror rather than open up fresh ones. To wit, if the extra turrets were the only change on a B-hull then some people would complain about having to research such a “useless” upgrade when they’d also had to research the 457mm guns to give the Conqueror elite-status and be able to convert XP to free-XP on her. If that B-hull had other improvements, in the same way as normal, then other people would complain that they’d said to nerf, not buff. And if they made it so the B-hull was, essentially, the present one with the extra turrets and the A-hull was worse then the first lot of people would complain about having to spend XP to “improve” their Conqueror back to how it was before.

 

Of course this is all a bit pointless; you can argue that if the suggestions still leave even the Conqueror with such bad secondaries then that’s not too big a change, but you could also argue that if it’s not going to be more of a change then there’s no need to bother. You could also argue that these are supposed to be stealthy long range ships so having something come within secondary battery range is almost as much of a mistake as if you were in an Aircraft Carrier, and that I’m talking about the secondary firepower shows what a potato I am. And I’m not sure how much improved secondaries are worth even to me in terms of how they’d balance it by weakening other things.

 

Summary: Better secondaries would be nice, but maybe not worth sacrificing something else for, and these ships aren’t meant to be getting that close to the enemy anyway. Plus it would add fuel to the arguing.

 

Third consumable:

(Applies to Conqueror, though some digression)

 

I don’t very often use the plane on the Battleships that have one, so I’m happy enough with the Conqueror not having a plane, and do prefer the look of not having a gap in the superstructure for a catapult. At the same time though it’s nice to have options and another button to press, even if I’m already pressing more buttons than some people as I’m pressing the ones to switch ammo types.

 

So the question would be what, if anything, would fit on the Conqueror and how much would that cost to balance it out? A spotter plane, which I’m not suggesting, was worth enough that Wargaming removed the one from the Nelson as a balance tweak. Similarly Radar was considered for the Conqueror (and Lion?) and removed as being unbalanced, so not suggesting that either. I think I read that the French Battleships are getting speed-boost, to match their cruisers, but with the revised mechanics it wouldn’t be useful for the Conqueror to get smoke to match hers, so not that either.

 

Perhaps inspiration from the version of HMS Duke of York I saw iEarlGrey playing in a stream, which was before the latest patch and the changes to that ship that made it closer to being a normal Battleship? The older version had Hydroacoustic Search and Defensive AA, but paid for those and that fires only lasted as long as on a cruiser with the lack of a Repair Party. Hydroacoustic Search seems to be the German Battleship flavour so I was going to suggest Defensive AA, since the Hood has her funky rockets-only version, but them removing that from the newer version of Duke of York weakens the argument that RN Battleships can have it. They also changed the fires back to the normal duration, which undercuts my other idea that if the Conqueror (and Lion) were taking less fire damage through shorter lasting fires that would balance a large reduction in the superheal. Though I expect that people would just keep setting fresh fires, so those burning out sooner wouldn’t make much difference.

 

Another idea would be a new consumable (for at least some other British Battleships as well) that boosted Main Armament in the same way as Torpedo Reload or the consumable on the Cruiser in the second Halloween Scenario, though without it also healing your ship and probably not by the same degree. This would have historical precedence with what the Royal Navy did at the Battle of Jutland where some ships ignored proper ammunition handling precautions to fire more rapidly. And what would have historical precedence is a much increased chance of detonation as three Royal Navy Battlecruisers (Queen Mary, Invincible, and Indefatigable) were lost due to this. I might also disable the Repair Party and Damage Control, on the basis that those sailors are busy carrying ammunition instead.

 

Or nothing. People were annoyed about the Hood having Defensive AA, balancing a reduction in the superheal against shorter fires would be tricky, and the new consumable would be a lot of work to create just because I want to push an extra button. And, as with the secondaries, there’s the question of what would need to be sacrificed to balance this.

 

Summary: More options can be nice, but might be too much work and cost too much. And unless balanced in an obvious manner would add fuel to the arguing.

 

Stealth:

(Applies to KGV, Monarch, Lion, and Conqueror)

 

As you can tell from the fact I was worried about the performance of the secondaries I tend to get close enough in these ships to be seen by something, even with their comparatively low detection ranges. I also took the module on Lion and Conqueror for faster reload on the main guns, so even if I do drop out of sight between salvoes that’s for 6 seconds rather than 10. So I’m the sort of potato that underutilises this quality of these ships and therefore undervalues it.

 

Disclaimer aside it does seem fair to me that the Conqueror should be the stealthiest Tier-X Battleship as she is the smallest by tonnage. Though I could also understand an argument that the stealthiest might be the Montana. Looking at the profiles of Conqueror and Montana I’m a bit reminded of Neptune and Minotaur where one has quite a large square superstructure and the other is lower and sleeker, and it’s the latter that’s the stealthier. Montana does have that big tower sticking up above the level of the bridge though.

 

My feeling from looking at the ships is that the Conqueror seems about as visible as the Friederich der Grosse, which before modules or captain skills has a detection radius of 17.3km. With the Lion I’d say that since the dimensions and tonnage of Vanguard and Hood were so close to each other (Hood was 14m longer, 1m narrower, and 2000 tons lighter) that Lion and Hood would have the same detection radius of 16.2km. And with the King George V and Monarch I might increase it to at least as much as the Nelson, which is 15.3km.

 

This is adding something like 700m, 900m, and 1600m to the detection ranges though, which is a lot, and thinking about it I’d probably change the figure for the Lion to 15.8km for two reasons. Firstly that giving the KGV a 15.3km detection range still leaves her 400m stealthier than the (longer, but lower and slightly lighter) Gneisenau or Scharnhorst, so giving the Lion the same advantage over the (lower, but much longer and heavier) Iowa by only bumping her up by 500m seems fair. Secondly the difference in detection radius between Iowa and Montana is 1600m, and although I’d already increased the difference between Lion and Conqueror from 400m to 1100m making that 1500m is even closer.

 

Same note though as with the 10% reduction for HE; this is more thinking about the maximum change before the flavour is lost rather than necessarily being as much as things should be changed. 700m, 500m, and 1600m is quite a difference so something more like 500, 300, and 1400 might be more acceptable to those players who are using these ships as their description suggested. Still significantly stealthier than comparable ships and the Conqueror still gets a bigger advantage, but not as much stealthier and the Conqueror’s advantage isn’t so huge since it’s not so close to being as stealthy as the Lion.

 

Summary: Increase the detection radii of the KGV, Monarch, and Lion by a bit. Increase that of the Conqueror by a lot so it has only the same sort of advantage as the other ships and is closer to being as much more visible than the Lion as the Montana is than the Iowa.

 

Summary of summaries:

Conqueror would be a slightly tougher ship with a worse heal (both total and speed), much worse High Explosive (though still the best), significantly worse stealth (ditto), better secondaries (though still the worst), and possibly better Armour Piercing. If it could be balanced for and a suitable one could be thought of or created then possibly a third consumable, but probably not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[THROW]
Players
865 posts
23,246 battles

*Edited

Edited by Nohe21
*This post has been edited by the moderation team due to non-constructive content.
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DREAD]
Players
9,910 posts
6,951 battles
3 minutes ago, FishDogFoodShack said:

Wilkatis countdown in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...

 

"Don't touch my ships! I am right and the rest of the world is wrong!"

 

I need popcorn 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
3,168 posts
9,352 battles

dont touch conqueror. i only got it recently and i didnt have much time to test its OPness :Smile_trollface:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
57 posts
6,091 battles

After Reading through all of that i do agree with some points and it does seem reasonable well spoken about strengths and weaknesses i recently got Conqueror and it does seem like you take more damage (that could just be my play style though) i do like the secondary idea because they do seem a little underwhelming having basically the same guns from T7 to T10 for secondaries having a 5th one on either side could be good and i dont think it would break things too much since they dont do too much anyway.

 

For the extra consumable i also kinda miss having something else to click but i can not think of anything that will keep balance at most maybe a Standard Hydro search that starts with 1 charge 2 for premium version so you can get a max of 3 in a game if you also use Super Independent it this might be straying into the German BBs territory a bit much. 

 

Ammo Types yes the HE does seem a bit silly but is historically the Royal navy used something they nicknamed as super HE these were incredibly heavy HE shells so it makes sense for them to be the better with HE but maybe they do need some change i like the going from 1/4 pen to 1/5 pen idea that will make it less than the Germans maybe also decrease the fire chance a little maybe around 4-5% For the AP from what i can tell (and yes im not that good of a player) the AP seems fine to me maybe a little buff in damage but might not be needed.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[THROW]
Players
234 posts
12,987 battles
On 12/17/2017 at 10:04 AM, Mr_Snoww said:

*Edited

 

*Edited

Edited by Nohe21
*This post has been edited by the moderation team due to Off-Topic content.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TACHA]
Players
1,450 posts
16,110 battles

But surely all the OP is saying is make it like all the other T10 BBs. Now I confess to not really playing BBs, though I do have a Conqueror but don't play it. But isn't part of the way the RN BBs play to do with adding variety to this arcade game? The Conqueror is a paper ship with no real base in reality which makes it less exciting for me anyway. But making the same as all the others makes it even more boring. Will be interested in seeing how the French perform.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SICK]
Weekend Tester
5,104 posts
11,146 battles
1 hour ago, triumphgt6 said:

But surely all the OP is saying is make it like all the other T10 BBs. Now I confess to not really playing BBs, though I do have a Conqueror but don't play it. But isn't part of the way the RN BBs play to do with adding variety to this arcade game? The Conqueror is a paper ship with no real base in reality which makes it less exciting for me anyway. But making the same as all the others makes it even more boring. Will be interested in seeing how the French perform.

 

Funny how "adding variety" is the excuse used when a ship blatantly overperforms, but is the last thing to be said when a ship adds variety by being completely awful.

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
5,061 posts
8,562 battles
12 hours ago, Johmie said:

I’ve had some okay results with the Armour Piercing, perhaps because it’s unexpected enough that people are more careless with their broadsides and unusual enough that I was asked if I was insane to not be spamming High Explosive in a Conqueror. Which I took as friendly banter, given my results, and was disappointed to realise from the follow up comments was more intended as unfriendly sledging. That aside the reason I might have agreed with the fellow was that the results are only okay and are actually so similar to if I was using just High Explosive.

 

Many people assume that you never use AP on RN BBs the same way as many never use their guns on IJN DDs. On Lion and Conq I found similar result to what you described - shoot AP or HE, scores average out to approximately the same. But the score gets far far better when you switch between them according to situation :cap_like:

 

12 hours ago, Johmie said:

wondering if all I’m doing by using AP is to ‘cheat’ myself out of the module damage and chance to set fires.

 

On broadside BBs and cruisers at close and mid range AP is the better choice, for everything else there's HE. But then again, you could assign this exact description to almost every BB in the game, and it would fit

 

12 hours ago, Johmie said:

With the High Explosive it does a lot damage, has a high fire chance, and has ¼ penetration

 

The HE dmg throughout the line is on par with IJN BB HE dmg (sometimes ahead of it, sometimes behind it)

The fire chance - while I haven't calculated it for all tiers, at tier 10 it goes like this - if all 4 BBs fired at a BB with the same fire prevention setup, Conq would have on average 1 fire in 5 shells, while all 3 others would get 1 fire in 6 shiells hit. The difference is far smaller than it looks.

And penetration - there is basically nothing (*) that the extra pen on BBs would let you pen over normal BB pen, it would be like Notsers IFHE DesMemes - maybe you get 1 extra pen in 100 hits.

(*) - I've been told from a more or less reliable source that RN BBs can HE citadel RN CLs while others can't. I haven't got to playing around with that idea just yet, but if that is the case then I do agree that the /4 pen is a problem.

 

12 hours ago, Johmie said:

A 10% reduction in the damage of the RN BB HE, with a matching reduction of the fire chance, would still leave it better than the other ships in the comparisons I’ve done.

 

So their dmg would be close to US / KM BB HE dmg with IJN having a clear lead, and the fire chance would be pretty much the same as on other BBs. A.k.a. just make more of the same

 

12 hours ago, Johmie said:

what effect reducing the penetration to 1/5 rather than ¼ would make.

 

419s would have 83mm HE pen... I'll keep this in mind while checking that RN CL thing. :cap_yes:

 

12 hours ago, Johmie said:

make AP better

 

AP's already great, at below 16km on broadside targets you can easily and reliably score 20....35k salvos without citadelling them. I can't think of many ships who could do that

 

12 hours ago, Johmie said:

The Conqueror feels squishy, and I don’t know why. Looking in the armour viewer she seems good

 

Should I post the armour zone pictures here? Basically TL;DR version is: if you exclude main belts which all 4 have quite similar, superstructure armour which all of them have identical, and main batteries / barbettes as they are 0 dmg zones, the rest of the armour (hull) plating is weaker on Conq than on others. Yeah, you still have the 32mm bow / stern, but in the case of Conq she's still at 32mm in the middle. Closest to her is the Montana with 38mm (massive difference if cruiser HE is taken into account) and then Yamato and GK have their platings at 50...60mm.

Conq can be HE pen'd everywhere by all cruisers she meets (the russian 152s would need IFHE), which is not something you can say about other 3 BBs.

 

The heal is there exactly as a solution to this - you take more damage, and you heal more. Armour for heal or vice versa - fair trade.

 

12 hours ago, Johmie said:

The Edinburgh has a section of armour on each side of the ship, the Neptune has the citadel extend up behind that and has a superheal; The KGV has a nice armour belt that is part of the casement, the Nelson has an armour belt that’s part of the citadel and has a superheal. So it would follow that if Lion and Conqueror have a superheal there is some vulnerability I am missing.

 

CLs are super squishy themselves. KGV does not have a superheal, but it works becuase t7 is simply a good tier. Monarch at 8 is perfect example - same armour scheme as Liona nd Conq, but without the heal it's just a turd of a ship. Nelson has very high citadel (way higher than it was in reality) but it still has the short 72s cooldown on his superheal (unlike the Lion / Conq which basically have to wait for over 2 min)

 

13 hours ago, Johmie said:

it would be 20 seconds longer before it could be triggered again

 

As it stands currently, with premium heal, with the flag that reduces the cooldown, and with Jack Dunkirks improved JoAT you can get the time between 2 consecutive activations down to 2 min 3 seconds. You are suggesting increasing that to 2min 23 sec. 2 min is already a really long time, unless the Conq is out of the battle and safe while waiting for heal to come off of the cooldown he'll simply die as the armour doesn't do much in terms of protecting. increasin g that to 2 and a half would basically force Conq to lpay even more passive - don't we have enough passive borderhugging BBs already?

 

13 hours ago, Johmie said:

So as people have learned to counter the superheal how much it actually needs to be altered is another question.

 

I have to say that I'm happy to see some trends that I've been talking about since Day 1 to be finally catching on. More AP fired at Conqs, they actually get bursted down between heals. Turns out the community can learn, just very, very, very slowly :cap_old:

 

13 hours ago, Johmie said:

these ships aren’t meant to be getting that close to the enemy anyway

 

Actually quite the opposite. Submerged citadel can't be hit at close range, but can at long ranges. Also stealth allows you to get closer to perform more accurate attacks. Good gun traverse allows you to track targets at short ranges, and quickly switch between targets at wide angles between them. They're good at close range, but not every ship has to have great secondaries, just look at US BBs - they do fine without them.

 

13 hours ago, Johmie said:

Third consumable

 

Man do I miss having a Spotter on Conq, but oh well, can't have it all.

Radar should not be on BBs, it's as simple as that. I don't even like the idea of radar on DDs, but at least the PA DDs have to trade smoke for it (unlike the great examples of Payfast and Black who have radar and smoke at the same time)

Hydro is a German thing, probably wouldn't fit

AA is US thing, so giving another nation this ability would kind of take it way from them.

 

Personally I've always liked the idea of "boost the reload by X% for Y amount of time at the Z% increase of detonation chance" for RN BBs, whith their "tradition" of leaving doors open where they shouldn't be to speed things up, but that would have to be balanced out with the anti-detonation flag which would otherwise nullify the drawback of it. Unless you use it as a flat addition not multiplicatively.

 

13 hours ago, Johmie said:

Summary: Increase the detection radii of the KGV, Monarch, and Lion by a bit. Increase that of the Conqueror by a lot so it has only the same sort of advantage as the other ships and is closer to being as much more visible than the Lion as the Montana is than the Iowa.

 

KGVs slightly stealthier than others at 7, Monarch is already bad, Lion and Conq are supposed to outdetect other BBs.

Generally it's a little overrated, especially with DDs generally roaming much closer to you than enemy BBs are thus spotting you before you can use it as a 1-on-1 advantage.

In a 1-on-1 between BBs Conq is supposed to have the upper hand. Also they really should accent the air detectability more, as BBs with their spotters would actually be able to spot Conq well ahead of themselves that way.

And as for Conq outspotting Hindy and Moskva - I see that more as a problem with those cruisers than with the BB.

 


 

Nice to see that you actually put quite a lot of thought in the post :cap_like:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SHAFT]
Players
10,327 posts
9,122 battles
6 minutes ago, wilkatis_LV said:

On broadside BBs and cruisers at close and mid range AP is the better choice, for everything else there's HE. But then again, you could assign this exact description to almost every BB in the game, and it would fit

 

They can do the same thing, but the result is always worse. So its not the same in the end.

 

6 minutes ago, wilkatis_LV said:

The HE dmg throughout the line is on par with IJN BB HE dmg (sometimes ahead of it, sometimes behind it)

The fire chance - while I haven't calculated it for all tiers, at tier 10 it goes like this - if all 4 BBs fired at a BB with the same fire prevention setup, Conq would have on average 1 fire in 5 shells, while all 3 others would get 1 fire in 6 shiells hit. The difference is far smaller than it looks.

And penetration - there is basically nothing (*) that the extra pen on BBs would let you pen over normal BB pen, it would be like Notsers IFHE DesMemes - maybe you get 1 extra pen in 100 hits.

(*) - I've been told from a more or less reliable source that RN BBs can HE citadel RN CLs while others can't. I haven't got to playing around with that idea just yet, but if that is the case then I do agree that the /4 pen is a problem.

 

Id say Conq is 1 in 4, GK 1 in 5, Montana/Yamato 1 in 5,5~6. The question is ofc, do u flag Fire flags on the conq? Cant answer that, maybe i would tho. On the other BBs: Certainly not.

The difference isnt that big, but for Yamato it is, since it has only 9 guns, often it only uses 6. So HUGE difference in the end. Also there is a difference when the chance for 1 fire in one salvo is bigger than the others. Having a fire after 2 salvos is worse than getting a fire right in the first one.

I dont think Conqueror can citadel Neptune and Mino with 419. 104,75mm, i think those 2 have 105mm (or is it actually 115?) citadel armor. Orion/Ironduke can citadel several cruisers.

In the first case 457mm could do it, but in the latter not even those.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TACHA]
Players
1,450 posts
16,110 battles
37 minutes ago, Exocet6951 said:

 

Funny how "adding variety" is the excuse used when a ship blatantly overperforms, but is the last thing to be said when a ship adds variety by being completely awful.

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) 

Actually I do agree that the HE meta is not a very good addition - not a very enjoyable play style either hence my having all the RN ships but I play the Conqueror almost never. One could argue the AP only on the cruisers was also adding variety but that does d=seem quite well balanced as the ships, with the obvious exception of the Emerald (shudders) have benefits that outweigh the drawbacks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
5,061 posts
8,562 battles
13 minutes ago, DFens_666 said:

 

They can do the same thing, but the result is always worse. So its not the same in the end.

 

 

Id say Conq is 1 in 4, GK 1 in 5, Montana/Yamato 1 in 5,5~6. The question is ofc, do u flag Fire flags on the conq? Cant answer that, maybe i would tho. On the other BBs: Certainly not.

The difference isnt that big, but for Yamato it is, since it has only 9 guns, often it only uses 6. So HUGE difference in the end. Also there is a difference when the chance for 1 fire in one salvo is bigger than the others. Having a fire after 2 salvos is worse than getting a fire right in the first one.

I dont think Conqueror can citadel Neptune and Mino with 419. 104,75mm, i think those 2 have 105mm (or is it actually 115?) citadel armor. Orion/Ironduke can citadel several cruisers.

In the first case 457mm could do it, but in the latter not even those.

 

I don't remember the exact numbers from the top of my head, I think Conq was like 4.8, and the other 3 were like 5.8 / 6.2 / 6.5 <- but those numbers might be a bit wrong. They are buried in the "Nerf Conq" thread :cap_haloween:

 

And all those are without fire flags, personally I spec'd my Conq with a full on tank build to increase the survivability (as I tend to play far more aggressive than the average BB), and my flags went the same way. Also since I play 10s almost exclusively in CB (in most cases I prefer to play a tier 9 ship over a 10 in randoms) I've set all of my free flag spaces for xp boosts :cap_haloween:

 

I can definitely confirm that Conqs 419 HE can citadel a Minotaur, have done that multiple times. Just that I expected other BBs to be kind of able to do that too. I mean, could it simply have something to do with the splash range? :cap_yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SHAFT]
Players
10,327 posts
9,122 battles
7 minutes ago, wilkatis_LV said:

I don't remember the exact numbers from the top of my head, I think Conq was like 4.8, and the other 3 were like 5.8 / 6.2 / 6.5 <- but those numbers might be a bit wrong. They are buried in the "Nerf Conq" thread :cap_haloween:

 

Basicly u could just divide the firechance by 2 and u got a rough estimate. For T10 that is. T8/9 are ofc more prone to fires.

 

7 minutes ago, wilkatis_LV said:

And all those are without fire flags, personally I spec'd my Conq with a full on tank build to increase the survivability (as I tend to play far more aggressive than the average BB), and my flags went the same way. Also since I play 10s almost exclusively in CB (in most cases I prefer to play a tier 9 ship over a 10 in randoms) I've set all of my free flag spaces for xp boosts :cap_haloween:

 

Still the Conq or RN BBs in general, would profit from fire flags.

 

7 minutes ago, wilkatis_LV said:

 

I can definitely confirm that Conqs 419 HE can citadel a Minotaur, have done that multiple times. Just that I expected other BBs to be kind of able to do that too. I mean, could it simply have something to do with the splash range? :cap_yes:

 

Yep my bad, they have 102/101 mm Citarmor. So Conq can pen it, and German 406 can Cit Minotaur but not Neptune. German 420 can citadel both. Yama/monty cant do it. (Chapa can be citadelled by RN/German 400+mm)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
5,061 posts
8,562 battles
1 hour ago, DFens_666 said:

Basicly u could just divide the firechance by 2 and u got a rough estimate. For T10 that is. T8/9 are ofc more prone to fires.

 

Pretty much, yeah. I think I calculated in Fire Prevention (10%) and that module that reduces the chance (3%), but overall just halving it is a good way to roughly estimate it.

 

1 hour ago, DFens_666 said:

Still the Conq or RN BBs in general, would profit from fire flags.

 

I can see that working. Especially if it's a muliplicative addition not just a flat addition, as bigger base would produce bigger bonus :cap_yes:

 

1 hour ago, DFens_666 said:

Yep my bad, they have 102/101 mm Citarmor. So Conq can pen it, and German 406 can Cit Minotaur but not Neptune. German 420 can citadel both. Yama/monty cant do it. (Chapa can be citadelled by RN/German 400+mm)

 

Didn't even think of Germans, right, they too can do it. So that means it's not unique, just that RN has like 50-ish % more alpha on HE.

Share this post


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

×