Jump to content
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
nambr9

Cleveland (T8) stats - ST

60 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[SCRUB]
Players
3,837 posts
10,491 battles

From The dev Blog.

I havent made any comparison, but noticed it will be able to slot radar.

The range seems crap, reload too. What do you guys think?

 

ST, American cruiser Columbia, tier VIII (ex-Cleveland, moved two tiers up, the stats were corrected accordingly)

Hit points – 30600. Plating - 16 mm. Armor belt – 127 mm. Torpedo damage reduction – 4%.

Main battery - 4x3 152 mm. Firing range – 13.3 km. Maximum HE shell damage – 2200. Chance to cause fire – 12%. Maximum AP shell damage - 3200. Reload time - 10 s. 180 degree turn time - 22.5 s. Maximum dispersion - 125 m. HE initial velocity - 812 m/s. AP initial velocity - 762 m/s. Sigma value – 2.0.

Maximum speed - 32.5 kt. Turning circle radius - 660 m. Rudder shift time – 9.3 s. Surface detectability – 13.3 km. Air detectability – 8.1 km. Detectability after firing main guns in smoke – 6.7 km.

Available consumables:

Slot 1 - Damage Control Party

Slot 2 - Defensive AA Fire/Hydroacoustic Search

Slot 3 - Catapult Fighter/Surveillance Radar Data

All stats are listed with stock modules, without crew and upgrade modifiers.

 

 

 

From

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PARAZ]
Beta Tester
13,147 posts
18,879 battles

What we have is an almost exact copy of the T6 stock Cleve copied to T8.

A far more reasonable approach would've been to use the fully upgraded T6 version of her as her new T8 stock hull and go from there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BYOB]
[BYOB]
Players
4,265 posts
18,360 battles

There are two ways of looking at these stats.

 

The first, is that these are the base stats that will be used to gauge which stats need to be improved to make the ship viable at T8. They will go through at least one, probably more, rounds of testing, and are not final.

The second, is that these are the final stats and the ship will be fighting T10 ships with  them. Which will make the ship a free XP target.

 

The fact that these exact stats are being used, makes me wonder how little work has been done on the split by WG up until now.

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HOO]
Players
2,191 posts
11 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

What we have is an almost exact copy of the T6 stock Cleve copied to T8.

A far more reasonable approach would've been to use the fully upgraded T6 version of her as her new T8 stock hull and go from there.

 

Too true, well put. 

 

That range is utterly suicidal for a T8 cruiser, I really hope it gets improved as it still can't slot the range module upgrade (stand fast I mean the upgrade Gun Fire Control System 2 not the one you buy with exp) and it will be very easy lunch for any T8-10 BB that it sees, which will be most of what it sees and it won't even be able to fire back at similar tier cruisers for that matter. Bit disappointed by this initial look, here's hoping it gets a good tweak upwards as it currently looks like fish food.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WGB]
Community Contributor
2,146 posts
28,656 battles
1 hour ago, nambr9 said:

I havent made any comparison, but noticed it will be able to slot radar.

The only difference I could find:

Columbia: Hit points – 30600. Plating - 16 mm. Armor belt – 127 mm. Torpedo damage reduction – 4%.

ClevelandHit points – 30500. Plating - 16 mm. Armor belt – 127 mm. Torpedo damage reduction – 7%.

Everything else seems exactly the same as the Cleveland, I dare say more changes would be made after ST's feedback.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator
5,835 posts
10,262 battles

Yeah, didn't know if this was already discussed in the 'news from the world - discussion' thread, but from the looks of it: WG went on with a lazy clickbait post regarding the USN CL split. Either because there is no more information available or WG only want's us to know that the USN CL testing phase is about to begin.

 

And this lack of stats is not only a problem of the T8 Cleveland. The other downtiered ships as well, look ... strange. The new Buffalo with less bow armour plating than the current (and soon to be) Baltimore? 

 

I get it, it's testing, but if the testing information are so rudimentary, without any meaningful information to the public, then why post it in the first place.

 

 

WG could've basically put that post from reddit up and simply telling us, 'hey USN split testing phase begins.' 

 

Greetings

 

 

 

  • Cool 2
  • Funny 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
3,837 posts
10,491 battles

I fear they will kill the Cleveland with this change.

Dont get me wrong, its a great powerful ship at T6, but Cleveland would only need to swap with Pensacola and it would be fine.

 

I cant imagine that Cleveland with this stats could fight T10 ships. Even the Hipper is better - with or no radar.

 

And we all know how T8 MM is ....

 

They said: "ex-Cleveland, moved two tiers up, the stats were corrected accordingly" ... so ... sounds more or less final. Lets hope not.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator
5,835 posts
10,262 battles
1 minute ago, nambr9 said:

They said: "ex-Cleveland, moved two tiers up, the stats were corrected accordingly" ... so ... sounds more or less final. Lets hope not.

 

From the discussions on reddit: Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V, rename "columbia.txt"

 

Since e.g. Pensacola keept (so far) her 19mm bow plating (unique among T6 cruisers), I call out WG for being lazy and clickbaiting with these particular posts.

 

 

Greetings

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
3,837 posts
10,491 battles
1 minute ago, Allied_Winter said:

 

From the discussions on reddit: Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V, rename "columbia.txt"

 

Since e.g. Pensacola keept (so far) her 19mm bow plating (unique among T6 cruisers), I call out WG for being lazy and clickbaiting with these particular posts.

 

 

Greetings

 

Agreed.

 

The split wasnt really required (ok more ships  + more content is always nice).

They just should switch Pensa with Cleveland and give NO a slightly faster reload. There. Fixed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CR33D]
[CR33D]
Players
2,574 posts
25,383 battles
2 hours ago, Allied_Winter said:

 

From the discussions on reddit: Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V, rename "columbia.txt"

 

Since e.g. Pensacola keept (so far) her 19mm bow plating (unique among T6 cruisers), I call out WG for being lazy and clickbaiting with these particular posts.

 

 

Greetings

 

But on the other hand they did change NO 25mm to 19mm on Astoria. Yes I hope too that this is just copy - paste T6 to T8 but I'm skeptical. Cleveland with 16mm armour, 14.6km range and 10sec stock reload? I mean I could accept 14.6km if WG keeps the arcs but 16mm armour and 10sec reload is ridicules. Her bow could be overmatched not just by all BBs from T6 to T10 but also by HIV and future Stalingrad and Kronshtadt. 16mm on high tier UK cruisers is a trade for heal and smoke, hope WG wan't go this path for US CLs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Supertester, Players, Sailing Hamster
3,400 posts
4,112 battles

Guys, these are the stock ship stats. If they follow their posting pattern for the devblog that is. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
3,253 posts
16,204 battles
7 minutes ago, piritskenyer said:

Guys, these are the stock ship stats. If they follow their posting pattern for the devblog that is. 

Yes, but then there must be a huge difference between stock hull and top hull to make Cleve somehow playable.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CR33D]
[CR33D]
Players
2,574 posts
25,383 battles
6 minutes ago, piritskenyer said:

Guys, these are the stock ship stats. If they follow their posting pattern for the devblog that is. 

Yes we know. But that would suggest 14.6km of top hull. Also I don't know a single cruiser that have different armour on stock and top hull so this would mean that top hull will also have 16mm. Also even for a stock version 10sec reload at T8 is ridicules. T6 Cleveland gun upgrade decrease reload time but increase turret traverse speed. At T6, Cleveland is a strong ship but far from being OP. I don't see how putting the same ships at T8 could work.   

  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[COMFY]
Players
1,335 posts
7,812 battles

>these are preliminary stats

Sure, but why they have to waste STs time with this garbage?

If everyone knows it will be changed why not to propose something clearly different from the start?

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[XODUS]
Players
799 posts
4,848 battles

A Fully upgraded T6 Cleveland can hold its own at T8.
Would i want to take the T6 Cleveland fully upgraded into T10

Prob not, cause thinks like the Minotaur would annihilate it, a half way house between the Stock and fully Upgraded Cleveland would prob be pretty good for T8 for the Stock Ship. 

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Supertester, Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Sailing Hamster
777 posts
28 minutes ago, ImperialAdmiral said:

>these are preliminary stats

Sure, but why they have to waste STs time with this garbage?

If everyone knows it will be changed why not to propose something clearly different from the start?

I guess because there is a whole lot of data with exactly these stats. It makes a nice reference point to work on from. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
5,760 posts
14,436 battles

Well, I had my share of Cleveland games - if the new version happens to suck, I'll just respec her captain and but him into the Sims/Fletcher as full AA build, which guys like @xXx_Blogis_xXx might enjoy :cap_rambo:

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Supertester, Players, Sailing Hamster
3,400 posts
4,112 battles
1 hour ago, fumtu said:

Yes we know. But that would suggest 14.6km of top hull. Also I don't know a single cruiser that have different armour on stock and top hull so this would mean that top hull will also have 16mm. Also even for a stock version 10sec reload at T8 is ridicules. T6 Cleveland gun upgrade decrease reload time but increase turret traverse speed. At T6, Cleveland is a strong ship but far from being OP. I don't see how putting the same ships at T8 could work.   

 

1 hour ago, Randschwimmer said:

Yes, but then there must be a huge difference between stock hull and top hull to make Cleve somehow playable.

 

That is why the supertest prpgram exists. Purple people are the ones who are going to have to suffer first, and I'm not even sure if the devs have implemented their adjustments yet, because if you look, based on the stats, at the moment it's the very same ships with NO changes that are being put to their new place. 

I know the split has been announced in the end of last year, but I can only insist that you guys keep being patient. 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
3,837 posts
10,491 battles
7 minutes ago, piritskenyer said:

That is why the supertest prpgram exists. Purple people are the ones who are going to have to suffer first, and I'm not even sure if the devs have implemented their adjustments yet, because if you look, based on the stats, at the moment it's the very same ships with NO changes that are being put to their new place. 

I know the split has been announced in the end of last year, but I can only insist that you guys keep being patient. 

 

Whats the point of them releasing this then ... on Facebook?

Specially titled as ST, American cruiser Columbia, tier VIII (ex-Cleveland, moved two tiers up, the stats were corrected accordingly) 

 

Better for them not to release any info then. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
[NWP]
Players
8,241 posts
11,737 battles

New Orleans SUCKED at T8... New Cleveland looks possibly no better.

 

I'm not one to go on about MM much but that's the main issue for me. A NO simply cannot compete in hard T10 games, not the RoF or DPM for anyone to care about. 

 

Let's see what happens anyway...

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
3,328 posts
15,811 battles
13 minutes ago, piritskenyer said:

 

 

That is why the supertest prpgram exists. Purple people are the ones who are going to have to suffer first, and I'm not even sure if the devs have implemented their adjustments yet, because if you look, based on the stats, at the moment it's the very same ships with NO changes that are being put to their new place. 

I know the split has been announced in the end of last year, but I can only insist that you guys keep being patient. 

Great advice. :Smile_honoring:

IMHO everyone on the forum should consider this.

 

I only wish that Wargaming had heeded it also - instead of releasing "stats" prematurely which get people all excited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
3,837 posts
10,491 battles
Just now, Admiral_H_Nelson said:

I only wish that Wargaming had heeded it also - instead of releasing "stats" prematurely which get people all excited.

 

In this case, probably the info was released to do the opposite of excited (cant use harsh language).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
3,168 posts
9,352 battles
15 minutes ago, Negativvv said:

New Orleans SUCKED at T8... New Cleveland looks possibly no better.

 

I'm not one to go on about MM much but that's the main issue for me. A NO simply cannot compete in hard T10 games, not the RoF or DPM for anyone to care about. 

 

Let's see what happens anyway...

cleveland looks worse than NO. it has almost same RoF, but has 152mm guns. also that range..

 

it wont excel at shooting dd cause of gun arcs, it wont excel at shooting bb cause of range and it wont excel against ca cause of everything. only thing it has going for it is AA.. but what was OP AA on t6, is just meh AA on t8...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,735 posts
10,310 battles

Every day I'm more and more positive guys at WG are doing A LOT of drugs.

Cleveland was a lot stronger when she first came out.
Then they nerfed it because "oh she is too strong, she should be t8 with this stats bla bla bla".
Then they put even stronger ships then Cleveland in game.

Then they put Cleveland with same stats as she had in t6 into t8 and say "This is fine."


Yes, I know theese are preliminary stats and everything. But What the heck are you doing. What the heck are you thinking about when doing things like this??? Why even put those stats out for the masses if you want to change them afterwards?
And why the hell isn't she called Cleveland anymore? My Cleveland is probably the only ship that never left my port since the first day I bought her (like 2 years ago), and now you are changing her name? :cap_wander:

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×