Let Us Discuss the British CL Neptune!

[RedLimitFreeway]

I think this should probably be posted under Ship Reviews–feel free to move, if needed. I did not see a way to add reviews.

This is an updated post from the original WoWs forum, one that I added in the final days and probably did not get seen by many. I figured a good place for this review is somewhere on Dev Strike. General Discussion seems a good start.

Exploring a Ship's Fatal Flaw: Intercomparing the Neptune and Leander

Fig 1. The Neptune at port, a dangerous-looking ship but with a fatal flaw.

There does appear to be a weakness in the Royal Navy light cruiser line starting at Tier VII, Fiji, to at least Tier X, Minotaur. (Well, CLs in general might be considered soft by many a player!) Broadside attacks, especially with larger calibers, can have devastating results on these ships. This vulnerability takes on a whole new level with the Neptune. It is perhaps the best example of an Achilles heel in the game, thus prompting the analysis done here.

Using Training Battle, a series of trials testing the weapons from different ships and using varied firing azimuths relative to the Neptune’s long axis was conducted. The Scharnhorst was the primary vessel used for artillery tests, with other vessels having a more limited role. The trials included: 1) Firing full salvoes of AP and HP shells at the Neptune’s broadside with an aim at the centre of the ship near the waterline; 2) then firing AP shells with the Neptune’s fore pointed directly at the Scharnhorst–a front attack, with the citadel protected; and 3) then firing with the Neptune’s aft pointed at the Scharnhorst–a rear attack, with the citadel protected. Other angles were also tried. For a basis of comparison, steps 1 and 2 were then repeated on Neptune’s Tier VI cousin, the Leander. A torpedo test was also conducted, this time using the Neptune’s torps and firing them one at a time into the side of both the Neptune and Leander.

The table below summarizes the results:

The difference in survivability from AP broadsides between the Neptune and Leander is quite striking. In short, using the same BB, the Scharnhorst, and firing a broadside of all guns from a distance of 7.5 km, it only required 2 to 3 salvoes to sink the Neptune. This is for the 39 900 HP configuration. For the Leander, a ship with 28 700 HP–some 11 200 less than the Neptune–it took 4 to 5 salvoes before sinking. On average it took 2.3 salvos to sink the Neptune and 4.2 salvoes to sink the Leander.

Fig 2. The mighty Leander.

This rather large difference in broadside survivability appears to be mainly due to the higher and broader citadel in the Neptune relative to the Leander—the Fiji and Edinburgh also have lower citadels, also giving them better protection though seemingly not as much as the Leander based on my own in-battle experience. See Figures 3 and 4 for the citadel arrangement of each vessel. While the Neptune appears to have a more robust armor configuration overall than the Leander, including a longer and thicker belt, thicker turret armor and 16 mm plating from stem to stern, this does not compensate for the large and high citadel. Thus, even though the Neptune has higher HP than her lower tier cousins, it is a much weaker ship in terms of enduring CA and BB broadsides, most especially compared to the Leander. This Achilles heel of the Neptune makes the Leander seem like a tank, a ship that can take some serious punishment and stay in the fight, and is one of the reasons why the Leander is one of my favorite CLs in the game.

Fig 3. The Neptune’s high and vulnerable citadel.

Fig 4. The Leander’s smaller, lower and therefore less vulnerable citadel. 

Moving away from AP to HE and keeping in mind that the HE shells sometimes triggered fires, confounding the damage totals per salvo to some degree, the Neptune had somewhat better survivability than the Leander when under broadside attack from the Scharnhorst’s HE shells–requiring more salvoes to founder. has approximately 1.6 times more HP than the Leander, so 9.1 HE salvoes to destroy verses 7.5 for the Leander, a ratio 1.2, is not fully accounted for by this one characteristic alone.

Neptune did not do so bad with torpedo hits for a CL, taking an average of 3.7 fish to sink compared to the Leander’s 2.0. The 13% torpedo protection verses 0% for the Leander likely contributed to the Neptune’s better performance. I saw this in action in a random battle with the Neptune when I did not anticipate a torpedo spread fast enough and took at least three hits as a wall of fish swept into my vessel, knocking the HP to a very low level. I used the enhanced repair party and brought that back up to about 50% quite quickly, keeping the ship in the game. Given the data and experience after over two dozen random battles in the ship, I do not see Neptune as deficient in surviving torp hits–not a BB of course but not weak, either. Of course, "your mileage may vary" depending on the types of torpedos being fired at your vessel.

AP shells fired at the fore or aft of Neptune were not much of an issue, too, with results similar to the HE broadside attacks. Here Neptune did even better than its ability to take HE salvoes when compared to the Leander. This underscores the importance of protecting the citadel when using the Neptune. Not always easy to do under combat situations, but something to keep in mind. The best protected "corridor" is rather narrow, with a spread of approximately 20º to either side of the midline–see accompanying boardgame simulation graphic below, Fig 5. There is a transition zone between fully protected and fully exposed, but it appears rather narrow, with shots at approximately 35º delivering close to full impact. Likely the best protected zone is inside 15º. Such a narrow safe zone makes it quite challenging to keep the ship from exposing its sides to attacks that are likely to cause major damage. Incidentally, the percentage of citadels indicated in the graphic is a rough estimate–I did not start collecting that info until late in the study.

Fig 5. The Neptune’s safe and vulnerable zones with respect to main gun attacks. (Unfortunately, for some reason the image quality for these kinds of graphics gets seriously degraded by the image processing on this site.)

Other Data

The Scharnhorst design falls within that nebulous grey area between BC and BB, the 28 cm guns being a key example. Thus, I did one broadside test on the Neptune with the North Carolina’s bigger 40.6 cm guns. The salvoes so easily destroyed the Neptune that there were not many numbers to sum up. Because of this effectiveness, I did not even bother to move the North Carolina to my standard 7.5 km distance for the trial, shooting broadsides in the 8.2 to 11.7 km range. The outcome: out of five samples, three Neptunes were destroyed with the first salvo. This includes the one that was furthest away. The other two targets only required two salvoes–in these cases, the first salvo knocked HP down to approximately 10% of full. If the North Carolina were close enough, it could probably get away with the first salvo and then let the secondaries finish off the ship. Utterly devastating. 

Interestingly the twelve 20 cm-gun broadsides delivered by the CA Buffalo were more effective than the Scharnhorst! Likely, the extra three shells with each salvo increased the likelihood of citadel hits, resulting in extra damage. On average, it took just two salvoes to sink the Neptune. The average first salvo removed 57% of the Neptune’s HP.  Given the relatively rapid fire-rate of the Buffalo, the CA is certainly a more effective Neptune killer than the Scharnhorst—at least with respect to broadside attacks.

Higher-tier CL broadside attacks against the Neptune were generally not as effective as the Buffalo, though still proved quite damaging. Shooting the Neptune with the Neptune’s twelve 15-cm guns required 3.2 salvoes to sink. Using the Dallas and its ten 15-cm guns had a similar result with 3.3 salvoes/founder, but data was more limited. On average there were 12.6 citadel hits before the Dallas sent the Neptune down to the bottom–this underscores the vulnerability of the citadel. If you need to farm citadel ribbons, the Neptune appears to be a good target.

At the other end of the spectrum is the mid-tier Omaha, which could train eight 15-cm guns at the Neptune. These weapons seemed unable to cause citadel hits as none were scored. As such, it took many, many salvoes to sink the Neptune–here is where this vessel shined. An average of 17.7 salvoes were required to founder the higher-tier British CL. In one case, it took 124 hits to sink the Neptune–somewhat better than the Scharnhorst’s secondaries (see below). As a side note, the Omaha’s guns proved more accurate than the Scharnhorst, scoring 78.4% hits on average over the German BB’s 55.6%, all from the standard range of 7.5 km. What gives here? Would not the Scharnhorst have fire control at least as good as the Omaha? Or visa versa? Is this a “drunken gunner” effect imposed by WoWs akin to those wildly-firing secondaries seen on many ships? Questions to be explored at another time–and demonstrating how one detailed analysis can lead to further inquiry and ultimately additional discovery about the game.

The Interesting Case of the Minotaur

Unlooky recently produced a great review of the Minotaur, and I am not going to spend a huge amount of time on this ship. The key detail relevant to this review of the Neptune is that the Minotaur has a very similar citadel configuration. Indeed, the entire armor setup is not much different from the Neptune’s. From this I would expect a similar vulnerability to broadside attacks.

To explore this, I did two limited broadside tests and indeed detected Neptune-like vulnerability. The Scharnhorst from a range of 8.8 to 9.3 km sank the Minotaur in an average of 2.75 salvoes. In two cases out of four trials it only took two. In one case, Minotaur’s HP were knocked down to 10 620 from a 43 300 configuration (24%) after a single salvo that landed 4 citadel hits. Interestingly, one of the target Minotaurs fell under the fire of the Scharnhorst’s secondaries from a range of 8.8 km, these being given full capability with a 17-point commander. It took 193 hits to sink the Minotaur–only two fires were triggered by all those hits.

The Iowa from a range of 7.1 to 10.9 km proved devastating, sinking the Minotaur in the first salvo on two of five trials. It took 2 to 3 broadsides for the other trials. The average: 1.8 salvoes to sink. These numbers look much like the Neptune.

Fig 6. The Minotaur’s citadel–quite similar to the Neptune’s.

Neptune – Summary and Conclusions

The Neptune’s Achilles heel I believe puts this ship in a class for skilled to expert players. This is not an ideal vessel for beginners, and it is a good thing it is at Tier IX. There are some approaches with this ship that can help it be effective in the battlespace. These appear to be some of the key positives about the vessel:

1. The Neptune has twelve main guns with fairly rapid reload times.
2. The ship also has 4 x 4 torps with single fire ability.
3. 13% torpedo protection.
4. Smoke is an option, as is surveillance radar.
5. Concealment is decent.
6. Has a robust repair party.
7. Strikes toward the fore and aft have much less effectiveness than broadside.
8. Can take a few torps before going to the bottom.

Given the above, strategies that come to mind include:

1. The obvious one: Protect the citadel by keeping enemy to the fore and aft. This can be difficult to do when pursuing an aggressive strategy (see 5), but can help in certain circumstances, especially if falling back to a new location.
2. For ship modules, use the concealment option. Also pick the concealment skill for your commander. The harder your ship is to detect, the less opportunity the opposing team has in targeting the Neptune.
3. I recommend smoke over radar, though at Tier IX there are likely to be radar vessels on the opposing team, so smoke may have limited benefits. For those good at using island cover and keeping the citadel protected, radar may be the better option as it allows targeting any nearby DDs and CLs that are using smoke. The Neptune’s main guns are effective DD killers.
4. As noted in 4 above, use any available cover, such as islands. Not my favorite strategy as I am a bit of a brawler and like to get in close, generally keeping my vessel in motion and maneuvering to the best of my ability to protect the ship. But island camping can certainly help keep the Neptune in the game.
5. The ship has a good chance of getting sunk early in the game. Farm out as much damage as possible during the available time. Use those 4 x 4 torps to the best of your ability, smoke for protection and the main guns at every reasonable opportunity. Be relentless.
6. Study the Wiki for the Neptune. There are many great suggestions–more than I have time to cover.

While there is a strategy for using the Neptune and it can work, the Achilles heel to me does seem to be too significant of a weakness for me to place this ship among my list of favorites. It is very challenging to deal significant damage and protect the citadel, especially with more than one enemy within striking distance. Being in Tier IX battles, there are many skilled players who are familiar with the Neptune and see it as an irresistible target. A dev strike back to port is a constant threat. In this situation, it is difficult not to be “gun shy” and want to hang back or hide behind shelter instead of fully engaging in the battle. This is why, ultimately, I think the Achilles heel should be addressed via a mod by WoWs (not likely to happen, of course). It was a long climb through the CL tech tree to get this ship–no surprise to find it a little disappointing that this vessel has such a critical weakness. As such, I do not tend to take this ship into battle as frequently as the other RN light cruisers–but I do not neglect it completely in part because some of it capabilities are quite fun to use.

Where the Neptune Excels

As of this writing, at tier IX, the Neptune cannot participate in Operations, as these are limited to Tiers VI to VIII. However, a special operation for Halloween, Last Voyage of the Transylvania, proved to be an excellent venue for the Neptune (and the CL Seattle, too, though this is another story). I repeatedly scored at the top of the team roster with this ship. I believe the combination of four rapid-fire main turrets, decent maneuverability, smoke and 4 x 4 torpedoes gave the vessel ample ability to farm damage. The bots, of course, are not as dead set as some human players on going for the Neptune’s main weakness, and this helps. Even so, I was dev struck out of the game twice due to broadsides. These cases both happened near the end of the scenario when I had maneuvered in close to use my fish, increasing the likelihood that a BB salvo would strike citadel and send the Neptune down into the drink. But overall, I had a fun time, and collected the experience to tier-up to the Minotaur while escorting the Transylvania to its explosive destination.
 

Edited December 9, 2023 by RedLimitFreeway

[YouSatInGum]

I like the non-traditional review here... interesting perspective.

 

I like the Neptune.  But it's not a good ship.  It can excel but really only does real well when paid actors are involved.

 

When driving a Neptune you have to pretend it's a DD with 5k hp left meaning if you are spotted then the whole map is gunning for you. 

From the garbage turret angles, questionable concealment, to the sluggish handling for a CL, Neptune is always trying to be a submarine.... and only your wits and and the good graces of RNGesus can stop it.

 

Mino's citadel may be just as bad but it's easier to keep alive since it's relatively nimble (and great conceal).

[RedLimitFreeway]

2 hours ago, YouSatInGum said:

I like the non-traditional review here... interesting perspective.

 

I like the Neptune.  But it's not a good ship.  It can excel but really only does real well when paid actors are involved.

 

When driving a Neptune you have to pretend it's a DD with 5k hp left meaning if you are spotted then the whole map is gunning for you. 

From the garbage turret angles, questionable concealment, to the sluggish handling for a CL, Neptune is always trying to be a submarine.... and only your wits and and the good graces of RNGesus can stop it.

 

Mino's citadel may be just as bad but it's easier to keep alive since it's relatively nimble (and great conceal).

Thank for the compliment. And this is great additional information. Yeah, if Neptune had better firing angles and concealment it would be quite helpful in protecting the vessel from those pesky citadel hits! I will have to take a look at the Mino at some point.

-best

[aleksi111]

To focus attention to point I've noted aswell

Quote

High Citadel 

It may obviously be camera perspective messing with us, but to my Eyes Neptune rides very high in the water compared to Minotaur for example.

Her main belt looks to me to be roughly 0,5m/20" further up from WL and contributes to larger target area of her citadel.

Combined with Neptune being Extra-Thick, to quote Aku, compared to other British CL's & having worst surface and smoke detection of the bunch leads to the issue with large Chuck damage exposure and reception.

[invicta2012]

10 hours ago, RedLimitFreeway said:

Interestingly the twelve 20 cm-gun broadsides delivered by the CA Buffalo were more effective than the Scharnhorst! Likely, the extra three shells with each salvo increased the likelihood of citadel hits, resulting in extra damage. On average, it took just two salvoes to sink the Neptune. The average first salvo removed 57% of the Neptune’s HP.  Given the relatively rapid fire-rate of the Buffalo, the CA is certainly a more effective Neptune killer than the Scharnhorst—at least with respect to broadside attacks.

 

They would be. Buffalo's AP shells are slower than Scharnhorst's. At a range of 7.5km (which it looks like you used for your tests), Scharnhorst's AP rounds are moving at around 700m/s, Buffalo's at 540 m/s. Assuming that both shells have the same fuse time (0.033s) then the AP shells will arm on the Neptune's main belt and explode after 23.1m for Scharnhorst (700*0.033) and 17.8m for Buffalo (540*0.033). With a beam of 23.2m, Neptune is in trouble. Small variations in range (and the natural tapering of a ship's beam) might make the Scharnhorst over penetrate Neptune, but Buffalo is going to hit her square in the citadel every salvo. You've mentioned North Carolina in the tests, as well, and her oft-criticised slow shells are what makes her so effective here - at 7.5km her AP rounds have a velocity of 592m/s = which means they'll explode after 19.5 metres - comfortably inside the citadel. 

Leander's beam, by contrast, was 17.1m - so she benefits from the way in which low tier cruisers can sometimes be saved by giving too much side, offering an AP shell the shortest route from one side of the ship to the other, hoping to turn certain citadels into overpens. 

Edited December 9, 2023 by invicta2012

[RedLimitFreeway]

6 hours ago, invicta2012 said:

They would be. Buffalo's AP shells are slower than Scharnhorst's. At a range of 7.5km (which it looks like you used for your tests), Scharnhorst's AP rounds are moving at around 700m/s, Buffalo's at 540 m/s. Assuming that both shells have the same fuse time (0.033s) then the AP shells will arm on the Neptune's main belt and explode after 23.1m for Scharnhorst (700*0.033) and 17.8m for Buffalo (540*0.033). With a beam of 23.2m, Neptune is in trouble...

This is an excellent observation and explains much. Your comments, invicta2012 and those of aleksi111, have opened a new dimension in my thinking about the game mechanics of landing citadels. I note that the Minotaur has a somewhat narrower beam, around 22 m, and this may offer at least some benefit against certain AP attacks over the Neptune. This may explain, along with somewhat improved concealment and maneuverability, why I have not had quite as much trouble getting dev strikes with Minotaur compared to Neptune, even though Minotaur is still clearly vulnerable.

-best

Edited December 9, 2023 by RedLimitFreeway

[Andrewbassg]

17 hours ago, RedLimitFreeway said:

However, a special operation for Halloween, Last Voyage of the Transylvania, proved to be an excellent venue for the Neptune

Yes. By far was one the best performing ships, for me, in that mode. Made the resetting grind very easy.

14 hours ago, YouSatInGum said:

It can excel but really only does real well when paid actors are involved.

Yoo.......don't badmouth my past favourite ship ....

I still grealty prefer her over Mino...

[Verytis]

I find it odd you set distance at 7.5km for a shooting test. That might be suitable against a DD sneaking close, but it makes no sense against a CL with 10km detection. There is also no mention of whether you took repairs into account.

 

Enjoy having concealment of large and heavy cruisers. You're completely dependent on DDs and CVs to spot for you, while the opponent gives you broadside to shoot. But then again most T9 cruisers just get shafted one way or another, and its hard to say how bad it really is.

Edited December 9, 2023 by Verytis
typo

[Nevermore135]

8 hours ago, invicta2012 said:

Assuming that both shells have the same fuse time (0.033s) then the AP shells will arm on the Neptune's main belt and explode after 23.1m for Scharnhorst (700*0.033) and 17.8m for Buffalo (540*0.033).

Scharnhorst has 0.010s fuse time on her AP shells. It’s one of the reasons she is so much more effective at deleting broadside cruisers than Odin (whose AP was adjusted to the standard 0.033s fuse time during testing).

Interestingly, Scharnhorst’43 has 0.033s fuse time on her AP shells. WG did something similar recently with Schill, which features 0.033s AP fuse times compared to Graf Spee’s 0.010s despite supposedly having the same shells.

Edited December 9, 2023 by Nevermore135

[SoshiSone]

There is only ONE way to Neptune.  My many years in WOWs has positioned me as the number one educator of THE Neptune method, as illustrated in a video I made many moons ago, but still relevant today if not more so:

 

[invicta2012]

2 hours ago, Nevermore135 said:

Scharnhorst has 0.010s fuse time on her AP shells. It’s one of the reasons she is so much more effective at deleting broadside cruisers than Odin (whose AP was adjusted to the standard 0.033s fuse time during testing).

Thanks for the info - that *does* make a difference. That means the arming distance on OG Scharnhorst is (700*0.01) which is 7m, so very effective against cruiser citadels. Unless it hits spaced armour or sloped internal belts. (I'm also pleased that WoWs Ship Builder has this info, I thought it had got lost when the old forums shut down - I'd really like a quick reference list if anyone knows where it might be)....

[RedLimitFreeway]

11 hours ago, Verytis said:

I find it odd you set distance at 7.5km for a shooting test. That might be suitable against a DD sneaking close, but it makes no sense against a CL with 10km detection. There is also no mention of whether you took repairs into account.

Good points, Verytis. The 7.5 km resulted from a desire to maximize the number of shells per salvo hitting the target ship, while also staying just outside the range of the firing ship's secondaries as these would have added their own damage, making the damage estimate per salvo less precise. It would have been interesting to fire at a few standard ranges, say 7.5, 10, 12.5 and 15 km, for example, but believe me just limiting it to one range took a lot of time. There were some days where I mainly spent my whole WoWs time in the Training Battle, not advancing in the game though learning some things.

Repairs is an interesting question–I did not take that into account per se, but never once did I see the ships use repair party. I had the bots set into an unmoving and non-firing mode. This may have disabled the repairs, too. There also seemed to be no effort to clear fires that were started by the HE shells.

-best

[RedLimitFreeway]

10 hours ago, SoshiSone said:

There is only ONE way to Neptune.  My many years in WOWs has positioned me as the number one educator of THE Neptune method, as illustrated in a video I made many moons ago, but still relevant today if not more so:

 

LOL. SoshiSone, I had a suspicion where this video was headed when I noted its length, but was a little hopeful that the you would pull off a miracle with the Neptune. Well demonstrated! In the battle one second, and headed to the bottom the next.

-best

[RedLimitFreeway]

13 hours ago, Andrewbassg said:

Yes. By far was one the best performing ships, for me, in that mode. Made the resetting grind very easy.

Yoo.......don't badmouth my past favourite ship ....

I still grealty prefer her over Mino...

Andrewbassg, the Neptune for me is a ship that I want to love, but cannot quite get there due to the dev strike potential. I like it, but struggle to go beyond that. It is kind of maddening, in a way! 🤯

-best,

Wolf

[Unlooky]

On 12/8/2023 at 6:43 PM, RedLimitFreeway said:

The Scharnhorst design falls within that nebulous grey area between BC and BB, the 28 cm guns being a key example. Thus, I did one broadside test on the Neptune with the North Carolina’s bigger 40.6 cm guns. The salvoes so easily destroyed the Neptune that there were not many numbers to sum up. Because of this effectiveness, I did not even bother to move the North Carolina to my standard 7.5 km distance for the trial, shooting broadsides in the 8.2 to 11.7 km range. The outcome: out of five samples, three Neptunes were destroyed with the first salvo. This includes the one that was furthest away. The other two targets only required two salvoes–in these cases, the first salvo knocked HP down to approximately 10% of full. If the North Carolina were close enough, it could probably get away with the first salvo and then let the secondaries finish off the ship. Utterly devastating. 

I have to take issue with this methodology. A light cruiser at 7.5km, flat broadside, deserves to die. Even a heavy cruiser should either die or be extremely crippled. A 7.5km engagement in Neptune either involves a DD, or a horrible miscalculation/misplay. 

 

On 12/8/2023 at 6:43 PM, RedLimitFreeway said:

t is very challenging to deal significant damage and protect the citadel, especially with more than one enemy within striking distance. Being in Tier IX battles, there are many skilled players who are familiar with the Neptune and see it as an irresistible target. A dev strike back to port is a constant threat. In this situation, it is difficult not to be “gun shy” and want to hang back or hide behind shelter instead of fully engaging in the battle. This is why, ultimately, I think the Achilles heel should be addressed via a mod by WoWs (not likely to happen, of course). It was a long climb through the CL tech tree to get this ship–no surprise to find it a little disappointing that this vessel has such a critical weakness. As such, I do not tend to take this ship into battle as frequently as the other RN light cruisers–but I do not neglect it completely in part because some of it capabilities are quite fun to use.

I don't agree with this entirely. I would argue that the entire line was just as squishy, it's just at T8/9 where Battleships gain the accuracy (and experienced captains) to truly punish mistakes. In my opinion, Neptune's concealment should be buffed to be brought in line from 10.2km to perhaps 9.1km (max concealment) as an middle ground between her predecessor Edinburgh (9.2km) and successor Minotaur (9.0 km.) This would make the ship much more comfortable to play and make radar equally viable for all three ships. Anyway, it's important for a ship to have balanced strengths and weaknesses, and I think any buffs should increase the capabilities of Neptune, not diminish her weaknesses and make her more braindead. 

 

On 12/8/2023 at 6:43 PM, RedLimitFreeway said:

Where the Neptune Excels

As of this writing, at tier IX, the Neptune cannot participate in Operations, as these are limited to Tiers VI to VIII. However, a special operation for Halloween, Last Voyage of the Transylvania, proved to be an excellent venue for the Neptune (and the CL Seattle, too, though this is another story). I repeatedly scored at the top of the team roster with this ship. I believe the combination of four rapid-fire main turrets, decent maneuverability, smoke and 4 x 4 torpedoes gave the vessel ample ability to farm damage. The bots, of course, are not as dead set as some human players on going for the Neptune’s main weakness, and this helps. Even so, I was dev struck out of the game twice due to broadsides. These cases both happened near the end of the scenario when I had maneuvered in close to use my fish, increasing the likelihood that a BB salvo would strike citadel and send the Neptune down into the drink. But overall, I had a fun time, and collected the experience to tier-up to the Minotaur while escorting the Transylvania to its explosive destination.

The Neptune excels in the farmer role, just like every ship in the line T7+. Her DPM is arguably better tier for tier than Minotaur, since T9 cruisers generally have lower DPM than T10. She puts out the 2nd most shells per minute at T9, compared to Minotaur's 4th place position. She also handles decently and has the British acceleration gimmick. She's far from being unplayable in Random battles. It's really the poor concealment and firing angles that prevent her from being great. 

[Andrewbassg]

2 hours ago, Unlooky said:

A 7.5km engagement in Neptune either involves a DD, or a horrible miscalculation/misplay. 

Ummm...somewhat true. Generally speaking, all engagement in the Neptune under 11 km, against any, decent AP wielding ship is... not recommended. Especially not sitting. And the "problem" with Neptune (and the line)  isn't the broadside.The window for angling is very very small.

 

3 hours ago, Unlooky said:

In my opinion, Neptune's concealment should be buffed to be brought in line from 10.2km to perhaps 9.1km (max concealment) as an middle ground between her predecessor Edinburgh (9.2km) and successor Minotaur (9.0 km.) This would make the ship much more comfortable to play and make radar equally viable for all three ships.

 

Nooo......Reducing the concealment will embolden people and they will die even more quickly. Also, talking about max concealment (i.e both capt AND upgrade) is just plain wrong. Double rudder( T7+)  is a MUST on the line. The removal of disp debuff from camo's made that mandatory. Even on the Edin switched to rudder shift, whereupon previously was the only one which mounted concealment. Once you run out of conceal.......you have zero chance for survival with reduced manoeuvrability.

 

3 hours ago, Unlooky said:

Anyway, it's important for a ship to have balanced strengths and weaknesses, and I think any buffs should increase the capabilities of Neptune, not diminish her weaknesses and make her more braindead. 

That's true, tho I would take issues with calling the line "braindead". If anything, teaches people how to WASD and how to wiggle. Ya know...the Beegees game 🙂 

3 hours ago, Unlooky said:

The Neptune excels in the farmer role, just like every ship in the line T7+. 

You know......they are not Kutuzovs . So no. They are "second line dd's" and that's how one needs to play them. Especially, for example, in ranked.  Cap defenders, support "dd's", that's what they are. 

3 hours ago, Unlooky said:

Her DPM is arguably better tier for tier than Minotaur, since T9 cruisers generally have lower DPM than T10. She puts out the 2nd most shells per minute at T9, compared to Minotaur's 4th place position. She also handles decently and has the British acceleration gimmic

 Also the different environment ( i.e T10 is much more "lethal" and T9 is more prone to be toptier) is what made me like more her than  Mino.

3 hours ago, Unlooky said:

She's far from being unplayable in Random battles.

Well.....after the ec rework I kinda gave up playing the line, whereupon before it was my most played and also go to reset line. Now one  can't reliably troll even KM babbies..... for context I have like 17 mil  XP on the line, on EU alone, tho i also played them a LOT in ops. Sadly,  Wedgie butchered both ops and Leander......

 

[Unlooky]

1 hour ago, Andrewbassg said:

Nooo......Reducing the concealment will embolden people and they will die even more quickly. Also, talking about max concealment (i.e both capt AND upgrade) is just plain wrong. Double rudder( T7+)  is a MUST on the line. The removal of disp debuff from camo's made that mandatory. Even on the Edin switched to rudder shift, whereupon previously was the only one which mounted concealment. Once you run out of conceal.......you have zero chance for survival with reduced manoeuvrability.

 

Um, what? Why on earth would you not spec into your concealment? Neptune has pretty poor concealment for a superlight, so it's important to minimize ships that outspot you. Minotaur has the best cruiser concealment at tier 10, barring Kitakami. What on earth are you going to drop concealment expert for? Double rudder CAN be justified for some weird open water gunboat playstyle, but the skill is absolutely essential to the line. Concealment allows you to take important positions or go dark when necessary. Is this build still for PvP? I have to ask if your bad experiences was a result of running this no concealment build. 

 

1 hour ago, Andrewbassg said:

You know......they are not Kutuzovs . So no. They are "second line dd's" and that's how one needs to play them. Especially, for example, in ranked.  Cap defenders, support "dd's", that's what they are. 

You could, but with smoke configuration they are undeniably great at farming damage numbers. The British AP characteristics make their DPM much less paper than some CLs with 5" guns. Of course with Neptune there is the issue of firing angles but that can be partially negated with smoke. All the ships in the line are great for putting out massive damage numbers. What you suggest is more of my preferred, radar playstyle. 

[Andrewbassg]

1 hour ago, Unlooky said:

Um, what? Why on earth would you not spec into your concealment? Neptune has pretty poor concealment for a superlight, so it's important to minimize ships that outspot you. Minotaur has the best cruiser concealment at tier 10, barring Kitakami. What on earth are you going to drop concealment expert for? Double rudder CAN be justified for some weird open water gunboat playstyle, but the skill is absolutely essential to the line. Concealment allows you to take important positions or go dark when necessary. Is this build still for PvP? I have to ask if your bad experiences was a result of running this no concealment build. 

 

Well....that's not what l've said. I was referring  to FULL concealment, meaning CE+ the upgrade, coz your numbers are attainable only that way, bar Mino.

 

1 hour ago, Unlooky said:

You could, but with smoke configuration they are undeniably great at farming damage numbers. The British AP characteristics make their DPM much less paper than some CLs with 5" guns. Of course with Neptune there is the issue of firing angles but that can be partially negated with smoke. All the ships in the line are great for putting out massive damage numbers. What you suggest is more of my preferred, radar playstyle. 

For me farming is of secondary importance and there are far better suited ships for that. But again, that's not the objective. Winning is the objective.

What she can do, in that context,  for example is to act as a deterrent (i e the "angry smoke screen") against pushing ships, via her DPM.  And she also can push, tho obviously not alone, but part of a "battlegroup". Go forward, when spotted smoke up, start firing until the reds retreat and then rinse repeat. 

 

Well.... sort of past tense, coz with the ec rework things changed and quite LOT. And also subs....

Edited December 10, 2023 by Andrewbassg

[RX160S_Byarlant_Custom]

If I wanted to win I wouldn't play Neptune. 

Ok ok, in all seriousness...

4 hours ago, Andrewbassg said:

Nooo......Reducing the concealment will embolden people and they will die even more quickly. Also, talking about max concealment (i.e both capt AND upgrade) is just plain wrong. Double rudder( T7+)  is a MUST on the line. The removal of disp debuff from camo's made that mandatory. Even on the Edin switched to rudder shift, whereupon previously was the only one which mounted concealment. Once you run out of conceal.......you have zero chance for survival with reduced manoeuvrability.

Neptune has almost unnaturally large concealment compared to the line in general - that's why it's considered the black sheep. Buffing the concealment to a more competitive level (considering at this point that several large cruisers can pop up in its face and eat it alive) will make it easier for players to take positions and support/farm as a consequence. The ship's fragile nature does not change - so I am not really sure how it would "embolden" players to the point which they suddenly take suicidal positions because they have >0.5km better concealment. Concealment is DIRECTLY tied toward survivability, which is why a vast majority of builds include prioritising it, especially in ships that suck at directly tanking like DDs and what do you know, Neptune.

Neptune without concealment has an astounding 12.8km conceal, which is worse than Donskoi with full concealment. Assuming every other cruiser is running full conceal, because they probably are, enjoy getting left clicked as you get spotted first. You take concealment also because the stock figure sucks, it is the worst for any British CL tier for tier and equivalent to many heavy/large cruisers at the same tier, in fact it is the absolute worst for any CL in T9 if you do not count Donskoi. It has probably the worst armor too, so...

You should be running max concealment in the first place anyway - you cannot take prop mod so you put rudder mod in that slot, and you take conceal in slot 5 as well as CE. On Edinburgh and Minotaur this gives them pretty much, if not actually best in tier concealment as well as the ability to stealth radar. Their questionable survivability also means that you need every shred of stealth the ship can give you. 

4 hours ago, Andrewbassg said:

You know......they are not Kutuzovs . So no. They are "second line dd's" and that's how one needs to play them. Especially, for example, in ranked.  Cap defenders, support "dd's", that's what they are. 

Against broadside and even relatively angled targets smoke Neptune can rack up damage impressively fast. Obviously it's not a DEDICATED farming ship so it's not going to touch Azuma or Roon or whatever, as well as the lack of fire setting, but for a CL it does pretty damn well in putting out raw damage. Their DPM is meant to be applicable to any ship type barring situations that benefit HE. So yes, I would actually say, with smoke, she is undeniably a great farmer. Different story with radar but only masochists take radar on Neptune, she is the only one that cannot stealth radar. Of course they can deal huge damage to DDs but farming is always open as a valid tactic especially as ships that do not like being seen or close to action all the time, as with other CLs. 

[Andrewbassg]

1 hour ago, RX160S_Byarlant_Custom said:

If I wanted to win I wouldn't play Neptune. 

 Touche.

1 hour ago, RX160S_Byarlant_Custom said:

Neptune has almost unnaturally large concealment compared to the line in general - that's why it's considered the black sheep. Buffing the concealment to a more competitive level (considering at this point that several large cruisers can pop up in its face and eat it alive) will make it easier for players to take positions and support/farm as a consequence. The ship's fragile nature does not change - so I am not really sure how it would "embolden" players to the point which they suddenly take suicidal positions because they have >0.5km better concealment. Concealment is DIRECTLY tied toward survivability, which is why a vast majority of builds include prioritising it, especially in ships that suck at directly tanking like DDs and what do you know, Neptune.

Neptune without concealment has an astounding 12.8km conceal, which is worse than Donskoi with full concealment. Assuming every other cruiser is running full conceal, because they probably are, enjoy getting left clicked as you get spotted first. You take concealment also because the stock figure sucks, it is the worst for any British CL tier for tier and equivalent to many heavy/large cruisers at the same tier, in fact it is the absolute worst for any CL in T9 if you do not count Donskoi. It has probably the worst armor too, so...

 

Yes. But that's the thing, at (a bit) of range, she has a chance. Under and around 10 km, she has exactly none. Exactly because of her nonexistent armour and not only. At around 13-ish she has a chance to use her manoeuvrability, to sorta troll incoming fire. And that's why...

1 hour ago, RX160S_Byarlant_Custom said:

You should be running max concealment in the first place anyway - you cannot take prop mod so you put rudder mod in that slot, and you take conceal in slot 5 as well as CE.

.....again, at close ranges the line has exactly zero chances of survival, in face of almost everything in the game, tier for tier. So the line needs a bit of range. Also needs all the wiggling she can muster. But horses for courses....

1 hour ago, RX160S_Byarlant_Custom said:

On Edinburgh and Minotaur this gives them pretty much, if not actually best in tier concealment as well as the ability to stealth radar. Their questionable survivability also means that you need every shred of stealth the ship can give you. 

Yes and that's why I used that before on Edin. She has the worst manoeuvrability from the three. But since the ec rework... I changed my mind. Trolling babbies is not really an option anymore.

1 hour ago, RX160S_Byarlant_Custom said:

Different story with radar but only masochists take radar on Neptune,

 Yep there is no benefit. As for the rest, I played mostly ranked with her and there one needs to do what must be done . So...

I did played some randoms, but not much.

Edited December 10, 2023 by Andrewbassg

[RedLimitFreeway]

10 hours ago, Unlooky said:

I have to take issue with this methodology. A light cruiser at 7.5km, flat broadside, deserves to die. Even a heavy cruiser should either die or be extremely crippled. A 7.5km engagement in Neptune either involves a DD, or a horrible miscalculation/misplay. 

Yeah, no issue with this objection. Someone upthread also brought it up, and with it appearing more than once, it is clear to me that this is an important consideration. The purpose of having a fixed distance was to control for the variable of distance. The purpose of 7.5 km was to land as many hits as possible with each salvo given shell dispersion, while keeping the Neptune just outside the range of the Scharnhorst's secondaries. The data gathering took quite a bit of time–as I noted to the other commenter upthread, this was time in Training Battle where I was not progressing in the game. I was interested in anything that would shorten the duration of the trials. Thus, firing distances that would be more realistic in the battle space were largely not done. I do like the idea of taking this kind of approach and, if I get the bug to go back into TB to conduct more tests, I will certainly keep this one in mind, as it wold generate data that might be of more interest to players.

Thanks for reading/commenting on this post–and this also goes to everyone else!

-best

[Verytis]

6 hours ago, Andrewbassg said:

Nooo......Reducing the concealment will embolden people and they will die even more quickly. Also, talking about max concealment (i.e both capt AND upgrade) is just plain wrong. Double rudder( T7+)  is a MUST on the line. The removal of disp debuff from camo's made that mandatory. Even on the Edin switched to rudder shift, whereupon previously was the only one which mounted concealment. Once you run out of conceal.......you have zero chance for survival with reduced manoeuvrability.

Theres nothing stopping you from taking double rudder AFTER the buffs.

The current concealment renders it a back line ship that can't push or spot because it lacks any ability to pick fights or armour to tank, aside from smoke as a crutch.

[Andrewbassg]

9 minutes ago, Verytis said:

Theres nothing stopping you from taking double rudder AFTER the buffs.

 Oh I'm defo not gonna protest against a buff, especially given how much Wedgie loves anything else, BUT cruisers. We are just discussing things...

[NMA101]

On 12/9/2023 at 8:16 AM, RedLimitFreeway said:

I note that the Minotaur has a somewhat narrower beam, around 22 m, and this may offer at least some benefit against certain AP attacks over the Neptune.

Your review is very informative, always good to see people testing out ship performance in the training room. LittleWhiteMouse's influence goes a long way!

On Shiptool, I found the Minotaur has a wider beam than Neptune (by 1.3 m). Is the site wrong? 

https://shiptool.st/filter?g=T&ty=C&n=B&tn=6&tx=10&c=top&p=gen&os=gen&op=Beam&o=desc

[RedLimitFreeway]

2 hours ago, NMA101 said:

Your review is very informative, always good to see people testing out ship performance in the training room. LittleWhiteMouse's influence goes a long way!

On Shiptool, I found the Minotaur has a wider beam than Neptune (by 1.3 m). Is the site wrong? 

https://shiptool.st/filter?g=T&ty=C&n=B&tn=6&tx=10&c=top&p=gen&os=gen&op=Beam&o=desc

Where I got my number is Wikipedia, which incidentally is cited on the WoWs Minotaur page. But on Wikipedia I see there were two variants indicated for Minotaur, one with a 23 m beam (design Z, version D) and the other with a 22 m beam (design ZA alternative). I do see the listing in the table you cite: 23.6 m for Minotaur and 22.3 m for Neptune, so you could very well be correct.

-best

Edited December 11, 2023 by RedLimitFreeway