Krieger fingers the community - to get a read on some random questions - Kriegers rant

[kriegerfaust]

The first series of questions has to do with size, of weapons.  What is the best size for battleship main guns -0-0- for me its 16-inches i am a big fan of the Iowa line.  What is the best size for secondaries on cruisers and battleships we have 90MM-125MM-150MM in game, for me this is less clear i would love to see some 75MM and 175MM.  What's a good size for torpedoes 21-24 Inch are common but it could be fun to see large spreads of smaller torps.  now AA 20-40MM are the most common, 57-75MM exist as purpose-built AA 100-125-150MM Dual purpose exist as well i Would like to see larger caliber or maybe even more rare early caliber like the American 28MM.

1. How do people feel about the proliferation of larger caliber weapons, 17-18 inch +

2. How do people feel about the proliferation of torpedo ships battleships and cruisers with more and more torpedoes

3. How do people feel about super cruisers (cruisers with 10' and over guns)

4.  How do people feel about the proliferations of battleships and heavy cruisers with large numbers of guns or high rates of fire

In general do people feel that the game is suffering from power creep, that newer ships are stronger than older ships at the same battle rating.

Is there a gimic you feel is breaking the game, i feel giving every ship smoke cheapens that on the destroyer but i might just be an old man yelling at the children to get off his lawn.

[Beleaf]

Fingers the community ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

[Wolfswetpaws]

24 minutes ago, kriegerfaust said:

The first series of questions has to do with size, of weapons.  What is the best size for battleship main guns -0-0- for me its 16-inches i am a big fan of the Iowa line.  What is the best size for secondaries on cruisers and battleships we have 90MM-125MM-150MM in game, for me this is less clear i would love to see some 75MM and 175MM.  What's a good size for torpedoes 21-24 Inch are common but it could be fun to see large spreads of smaller torps.  now AA 20-40MM are the most common, 57-75MM exist as purpose-built AA 100-125-150MM Dual purpose exist as well i Would like to see larger caliber or maybe even more rare early caliber like the American 28MM.

1. How do people feel about the proliferation of larger caliber weapons, 17-18 inch +

2. How do people feel about the proliferation of torpedo ships battleships and cruisers with more and more torpedoes

3. How do people feel about super cruisers (cruisers with 10' and over guns)

4.  How do people feel about the proliferations of battleships and heavy cruisers with large numbers of guns or high rates of fire

In general do people feel that the game is suffering from power creep, that newer ships are stronger than older ships at the same battle rating.

Is there a gimic you feel is breaking the game, i feel giving every ship smoke cheapens that on the destroyer but i might just be an old man yelling at the children to get off his lawn.

1.  I like sailing ships equipped with 18+ inch main-guns.
2.  I like sailing them.
3.  I've already got some.  They're "verry nice".
 
4.  Please define "high rates of fire" and "large numbers of guns".

I don't feel that I'm suffering from "power creep".

Recently announced changes to CV's and other ships and certain in-game programming concern me more than "power creep".

    
 

[MysticalWar]

I'm worried about Sub's , Planes I can handle at most times. I hope Sub's in the rework will get some kind of nerf, Though Flamu never got to the sub part of it.

 

[Pugilistic]

The recent Playerbase Rework^TM appears to have caused a large turnover of players, many leaving and new players inbound. BBs are a suggested and popular entry ship type, so it is unsurprising that many recent changes should make them more comfortable and effective to play in order to bolster retention of new players. Thus we have seen the introduction of the best ASW (other than CVs), more overmatch, higher speeds, long range torpedoes, accuracy buff spotter plane, and faster reloads, not to mention conceal numbers creeping into the cruiser range. 

 

Edited December 28, 2023 by Pugilistic

[Nevermore135]

2 hours ago, kriegerfaust said:

The first series of questions has to do with size, of weapons.  What is the best size for battleship main guns -0-0- for me its 16-inches i am a big fan of the Iowa line.

When in comes to battleship gun size, the single biggest thing to consider is AP overmatch and how said overmatch compares to typical extremity armor thresholds found at different tiers.

At high tiers, the days where 16” guns are “standard” are long past, and 431mm+ and 460mm+ guns are fairly common and have significant advantages. The former can overmatch the 30mm plating common on tier X cruisers (CL decks, CA decks + upper belts) while the latter can overmatch 32mm BB extremity plating. In mid-tier Ranked (like the current tier VII Bronze season) 15 and 16” guns are effectively 460mm guns, being able to overmatch the 26mm (BB extremities) and 25mm (cruiser center decks, German/US CA/CC extremities) plating found at the tier.

2 hours ago, kriegerfaust said:

What is the best size for secondaries on cruisers and battleships we have 90MM-125MM-150MM in game, for me this is less clear i would love to see some 75MM and 175MM.

The German 105mm and 128mm secondaries, are, IMO, by far the best “common” secondary guns in the game due to the combination of high penetration (26 and 32mm respectively) and high ROF. German 150mm secondaries pen 38mm, which is great, but these larger guns’ overall performance is hampered by their lower ROF. The 127s found on some American battleships are decent secondary weapons, but their effectiveness against cruisers and battleships is held back by their mediocre 21mm penetration. IJN 100mm guns have excellent base penetration (30mm) but typically lack the dispersion to be truly effective weapons.

2 hours ago, kriegerfaust said:

1. How do people feel about the proliferation of larger caliber weapons, 17-18 inch +

It has made life much more difficult for cruiser players at high tiers. A few years back WG made an effort to increase cruiser survivability by standardizing hull plating values by cruiser type and tier, with tier X CLs getting 30mm decks and CAs getting 30mm decks and upper belts. Of course, the increase in survivability this would be expected to grant has largely been offset by the proliferation of 431mm+ guns at tier IX-XI.

2 hours ago, kriegerfaust said:

2. How do people feel about the proliferation of torpedo ships battleships and cruisers with more and more torpedoes

IMO, the only problems that really exist are certain cruiser lines that are too dependent on torpedo armament. The entire Pan-Asian CL line recently received much-needed gunnery buffs (range and ballistics), and the IJN CLs at high tiers are similarly over-specialized.

2 hours ago, kriegerfaust said:

3. How do people feel about super cruisers (cruisers with 10' and over guns)

I would argue this is the wrong criteria to use to define “super cruisers”/large cruisers. In regards to gun size, I would say 11” (which is coincidently also the smallest BB gun size found in WoWs) is a better cutoff to use. All the cruisers in the game with these guns also have longer fire burn times (60s with the sole exception of Graf Spee, which burns for 45s), and >254mm/10” is where AP overmatch begins to be meaningfully different from more common CA gun calibers.

https://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:Armor_thresholds#AP_overmatch

In regards to the majority of these ships, the aforementioned extended burn times (which cannot be mitigated by commander skills post rework) are a significant weakness, and I would say that outside a few over-tuned ships most are decently balanced in Randoms relative to most same-tier CAs. The ships that really stand out are Harlem and JdW, which are saddled with 60s burn times despite having smaller guns, and IMO are underpowered as a result.

2 hours ago, kriegerfaust said:

4.  How do people feel about the proliferations of battleships and heavy cruisers with large numbers of guns or high rates of fire

There has always been a “balance triangle” of sorts relating to size of guns, number of guns, and rate of fire. The ships with large numbers of guns are usually limited by either small caliber or low ROF. Higher ROF has always been used to balance ships with fewer barrels (German BBs, for example) or smaller guns (Scharnhorst being the classic example). Ships with both large numbers of guns and large calibers for their tier typically have longer reloads (Hizen and Kearsarge, for example).

2 hours ago, kriegerfaust said:

In general do people feel that the game is suffering from power creep, that newer ships are stronger than older ships at the same battle rating.

The aforementioned proliferation of 30mm overmatch at high tiers is the big example of power creep that comes to mind, and that’s not so much new ships power-creeping older ships as much as cruisers as a ship type as a whole being power-crept. There is also a general pattern of older premium ships being left behind and power-crept as the game ages, but that is in large part due the fallout from WG’s attempt to rebalance GC, particularly WG’s decision to “protect” older premiums from direct nerfs. As a result, the devs are reluctant to buff older premiums since the changes can’t be walked back if they are too much. Any changes that do happen are typically minor and long overdue by the time they occur.

Edited December 28, 2023 by Nevermore135

[kriegerfaust]

 "large numbers of guns"

Heavy cruiser with 10 or 12 guns

battleships with 12 - 14 - 15 - 16 guns

Not that they exist but that they are becoming more of the norm

when standard was more 8 or 9 0r 10 main guns

============================================

this could just be a legends or even a me thing, thanks for listening and responding

Edited December 28, 2023 by kriegerfaust

[Wolfswetpaws]

10 minutes ago, kriegerfaust said:

 "large numbers of guns"

Heavy cruiser with 10 or 12 guns

battleships with 12 - 14 - 15 - 16 guns

Not that they exist but that they are becoming more of the norm

when standard was more 8 or 9 0r 10 main guns

============================================

this could just be a legends or even a me thing, thanks for listening and responding

Thanks for answering my question(s).

[kriegerfaust]

I think the other question was how i came up with an increase with rate of fire, i think at the time i was thinking of the Austin a heavy cruiser with the fire rate of a light cruiser and extrapolating, also the higher tier European destroyers bother of which have a higher rate of fire to make up for fewer guns

How do people feel about super cruisers (cruisers with 10' and over guns), because all ships after a certain period were widely put into light or heavy cruiser, heavy cruisers being limited to eight inches i can think of anything other than a battleship or battlecruiser or costal battleships and monitors after WW1 that had cruiser in it that was over 9 inches so that why i set the limit at ten for normal cruisers, the only real ship that might buck the rule is the Graf Spee

[Nevermore135]

1 hour ago, kriegerfaust said:

I think the other question was how i came up with an increase with rate of fire, i think at the time i was thinking of the Austin a heavy cruiser with the fire rate of a light cruiser and extrapolating,

Austin is a 127mm-armed light cruiser which due to having SAP and a gimmicky reload booster actually has a low ROF for the caliber.

1 hour ago, kriegerfaust said:

How do people feel about super cruisers (cruisers with 10' and over guns), because all ships after a certain period were widely put into light or heavy cruiser, heavy cruisers being limited to eight inches i can think of anything other than a battleship or battlecruiser or costal battleships and monitors after WW1 that had cruiser in it that was over 9 inches so that why i set the limit at ten for normal cruisers, the only real ship that might buck the rule is the Graf Spee

The Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 limited cruisers to 10k tons and 8” guns among the signatories (the UK, US, Japan, France, and Italy). Germany wasn’t a signatory, instead being bound by the terms of the Treaty of Versailles signed at the end of WWI. Other nations that were not signatories to the aforementioned treaty also produced ships that didn’t neatly fit into the five signatories’ definitions of “light” and “heavy” cruiser established by the later London Naval Treaty. For example, the Soviet Kirov-class were armed with 180mm guns, and by virtue of having >155mm guns would be heavy cruisers according to some definitions. However, the Soviets considered 180mm (7.1”) to be a “light” cruiser gun caliber, opting for 220mm for many of their heavy cruiser designs.

When the Washington and London treaties were no longer relevant, the US constructed the Alaska-class CBs (large cruisers) armed with nine 12” guns. In addition to the Deuschlands, these were the sole historical instances of post-WWI cruisers mounting guns larger than 8”.

When talking about WoWs it makes more sense to define the “super”/large cruiser “category” via metrics that have a meaningful effect on gameplay. Cruiser guns of 9-10” behave for the most part just like 203mm guns, so 11”/283mm is a more logical gun size to consider the “entry” size for large cruisers for the reasons I mentioned above. The other major differing characteristics of these ships compared to “standard” heavy cruisers- longer fire burn times and (in most cases) increased dispersion - also tend to match up with 283mm+ guns.

Edited December 28, 2023 by Nevermore135

[Crokodone]

1 hour ago, Pugilistic said:

The recent Playerbase Rework^TM appears to have caused a large turnover of players, many leaving and new players inbound. BBs are a suggested and popular entry ship type, so it is unsurprising that many recent changes should make them more comfortable and effective to play in order to bolster retention of new players. Thus we have seen the introduction of the best ASW (other than CVs), more overmatch, higher speeds, long range torpedoes, accuracy buff spotter plane, and faster reloads, not to mention conceal numbers creeping into the cruiser range. 

 

Your forgetting current events. Half the players leaving are in boycott to Russia, which Dubious people insist was the case. WG is financially based in Cyprus. That and both sides of their staff and platerbase being killed in said current events is another factor. That can't be good for business.

[Pugilistic]

3 hours ago, kriegerfaust said:

What is the best size for secondaries on cruisers and battleships we have 90MM-125MM-150MM in game, for me this is less clear i would love to see some 75MM and 175MM. 

I dont think about this much since I believe that secondary builds are suboptimal, even for some ships that seem designed for them. 

[Pugilistic]

3 minutes ago, Crokodone said:

Your forgetting current events. Half the players leaving are in boycott to Russia, which Dubious people insist was the case. WG is financially based in Cyprus. That and both sides of their staff and platerbase being killed in said current events is another factor. That can't be good for business.

With respect to boycott of Russian affecting population, I dont see a discrete population drop on NA at the time this would have become an issue, and NA is what Im commenting about, if I wasnt clear. 

[Project45_Opytny]

1 hour ago, Nevermore135 said:

Austin is a 127mm-armed light cruiser which due to having SAP and a gimmicky reload booster actually has a low ROF for the caliber.

The Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 limited cruisers to 10k tons and 8” guns among the signatories (the UK, US, Japan, France, and Italy). Germany wasn’t a signatory, instead being bound by the terms of the Treaty of Versailles signed at the end of WWI. Other nations that were not signatories to the aforementioned treaty also produced ships that didn’t neatly fit into the five signatories’ definitions of “light” and “heavy” cruiser established by the later London Naval Treaty. For example, the Soviet Kirov-class were armed with 180mm guns, and by virtue of having >155mm guns would be heavy cruisers according to some definitions. However, the Soviets considered 180mm (7.1”) to be a “light” cruiser gun caliber, opting for 220mm for many of their heavy cruiser designs.

When the Washington and London treaties were no longer relevant, the US constructed the Alaska-class CBs (large cruisers) armed with nine 12” guns. In addition to the Deuschlands, these were the sole historical instances of post-WWI cruisers mounting guns larger than 8”.

When talking about WoWs it makes more sense to define the “super”/large cruiser “category” via metrics that have a meaningful effect on gameplay. Cruiser guns of 9-10” behave for the most part just like 203mm guns, so 11”/283mm is a more logical gun size to consider the “entry” size for large cruisers for the reasons I mentioned above. The other major differing characteristics of these ships compared to “standard” heavy cruisers- longer fire burn times and (in most cases) increased dispersion - also tend to match up with 283mm+ guns.

It's the umpteenth time I've seen users here talking about cruisers while seems to have no clue on the Treaty Regime (both the treaty terms themselves and their influences) that dictated naval contruction almost around the world.

Overmatch and HE penetration benefits start from exactly 9-inch (being able to overmatch 16mm plating of "superlight cruisers" and penetrate USN reinforced weather deck even without enhanced HE pen), and while Soviet 220mm calibre, despite also ignored Treaty terms, narrowly misses the two tippoints, Soviet naval guns in game are known for powerful penetration potential and flat, railgun ballistics while ships using this calibre (Moskva, Riga, Petropavlovsk, Tianjin) are all known to be extremely sturdy when correctly positioned as cruisers. So sometimes they are also included into "super-heavy cruisers".

[Nevermore135]

2 hours ago, Project45_Opytny said:

It's the umpteenth time I've seen users here talking about cruisers while seems to have no clue on the Treaty Regime (both the treaty terms themselves and their influences) that dictated naval contruction almost around the world.

?

Care to educate us then?

2 hours ago, Project45_Opytny said:

Overmatch and HE penetration benefits start from exactly 9-inch (being able to overmatch 16mm plating of "superlight cruisers" and penetrate USN reinforced weather deck even without enhanced HE pen),

Fair point, although I would argue this is a very limited subset of targets. I also tend to put much more emphasis on AP vs. HE performance, because a large amount of HE shells aimed amidships are going to strike and damage the superstructure anyways, and I typically don’t have issues farming bow and sterns either. Ships that don’t have easily farmed super structures (Izumo, for example) typically have the deck armor to resist the larger caliber HE anyways. The OP originally proposed a 10” cutoff or a “super cruiser” designation, which fails to overmatch 19mm (all tier VIII+ DD plating and some tier VI-VII upper belts, tier V BBs for Toulon and Graf Spee), while larger guns do not. I’ll admit to not having much experience playing “super-light” cruisers at high tiers which does bias my opinion, but my general experience is that I can largely treat 8-10” guns similarly when playing against them, taking into account national traits like enhanced pen angles, of course. Combine this with the big changes in DoT survivability of larger-gunned cruisers (and the poor tier VIII and IX Dutch TT ships) and my point was that if one wants to define a “supercruiser”/large cruiser “subtype,” ships like Henri IV, Castilla, Goliath, etc. are more similar to standard 8”-armed heavy cruisers than ships like Alaska, Agir, etc.

Of course, it’s quite possible that I am misunderstanding both the OP and yourself on what you are referring to as “supercruisers,” which is often thrown around in the NA community (along with “battlecruiser”) to define the subgroup of cruisers with BB caliber guns and BB-like extended DoT times like Stalingrad, Alaska, Agir, etc. If one instead uses the term to refer post-treaty or non-treaty compliant ships, the term becomes much more inclusive, including all cruisers with larger guns and even many 8”-armed ships like Baltimore and Des Moines. One could even argue the Mogamis and Zaras would qualify, as they were only reported to be treaty-complaint, being designed and build to exceed 10k tons.

Edited December 28, 2023 by Nevermore135

[MBT808]

5 hours ago, kriegerfaust said:

1. How do people feel about the proliferation of larger caliber weapons, 17-18 inch +

Its become a problem as many have pointed out over time. Its also being power crept further than 457mm guns with the introduction of even larger weapons that over match 32mm+ being introduced. We've started to see more ships with guns capable of overmatching 32mm, I suspect that either the game will die or we'll see these weapons become mainstays of newer ships and 457mm will be replaced. Nothing is being done to remedy this as an issue on WGs side of things, but that depends on whether or not they recognize the issue at all(remember, it took them years to even try the changes to CVs and Subs that we're now seeing).

5 hours ago, kriegerfaust said:

2. How do people feel about the proliferation of torpedo ships battleships and cruisers with more and more torpedoes

Not an issue really. Subs and their torps are the problem that are currently a problem. Torps on surface ships retain the level of inconsistency(with usually less than 2% accuracy on the vast majority of ships, even DDs, that have torps) that means their not an issue.

Its also worth pointing out that, for every ship with decent torps that gets introduced, ten ships with god awful, play style incompatible(all the RN BCs) or pointless torps(RU cruisers with 4km torps) are introduced.

5 hours ago, kriegerfaust said:

3. How do people feel about super cruisers (cruisers with 10' and over guns)

Honestly, their generally fine I'd say. I feel like they do need some help as far as cruiser skills go, cause the cruiser tech tree lacks any surviveability option other than last stand(sorta). Super Cruisers stat wise are generally fine with none of them over performing to the point that they are a problem. I wouldn't mind seeing more super cruisers at some point, like a german Panzerschiffe tech line.

5 hours ago, kriegerfaust said:

4.  How do people feel about the proliferations of battleships and heavy cruisers with large numbers of guns or high rates of fire

I think this is hard to talk about on a global scale. This is something that must be discussed more on a ship by ship basis. This is due to the sheer contrast of ships with the two features. Some ships with large numbers of guns are great(Pommern ranked) while others are absolute turds(Marlborough). Same goes for ships with high fire rates, Des moines is decent while Salem is decidedly mediocre(to avoid going off topic, her heal is nice in theory, but any citadel or torp damage severely reduce the zombie heal to being almost pointless. In general she almost never can use it to its greatest effect and her radar is effectively useless).

5 hours ago, kriegerfaust said:

In general do people feel that the game is suffering from power creep, that newer ships are stronger than older ships at the same battle rating.

Power creep is a problem in most games, WoWs is no exception to this. However, oddly some ships have weathered power creep better than others. Tirpitz is still a top tier ship in ranked for example despite the introduction of ships like Massachusetts and Atlantico. An excellent example of power creep is WV 44, just ask @Sailor_Moon.

Power creep is a topic I think that should be discussed separately as its fairly broad in terms of its impact on the various ship classes.

[Nevermore135]

13 minutes ago, MBT808 said:

Honestly, their generally fine I'd say. I feel like they do need some help as far as cruiser skills go, cause the cruiser tech tree lacks any surviveability option other than last stand(sorta). Super Cruisers stat wise are generally fine with none of them over performing to the point that they are a problem. I wouldn't mind seeing more super cruisers at some point, like a german Panzerschiffe tech line.

I’m of the opinion that WG nerfed CBs/“supercruisers” a bit too much when they removed BoS and FP. They may be objectively balanced with the longer burn times, but it can make playing them extremely frustrating with their comparative lack of tools to mitigate it. I’d like to see them all given the same 45s fire burn time as Graf Spee (which also just so happens to be halfway between that of “standard” cruisers and battleships).

I’d like to think a Panzerschiffe/CB line would be the obvious next German line, given that we now have such ships in other tech trees. A line of ships with a small number of accurate, large guns a la Schill and Siegfried would be more interesting than another sub line or a CL line, IMO.

Edited December 28, 2023 by Nevermore135

[MBT808]

29 minutes ago, Nevermore135 said:

I’d like to think a Panzerschiffe/CB line would be the obvious next German line, given that we now have such ships in other tech trees. A line of ships with a small number of accurate, large guns a la Schill and Siegfried would be more interesting than another sub line or a CL line, IMO.

Honestly, should've been the next line instead of the BS german CV line we got a couple years back. There is enough material for a full line all the way to tier X without drawing into fantasy(though WG could include a fantasy tier X if they wanted to ignore the O 42 design proposal).

A CL line could be done as well, its just IX and X that need some creative liberties.

Edited December 28, 2023 by MBT808

[Nevermore135]

7 minutes ago, MBT808 said:

Honestly, should've been the next line instead of the BS CV line we got. There is enough material for a full line all the way to tier X without drawing into fantasy(though WG could include a fantasy tier X if they wanted to ignore the O 42 design proposal).

I view the upcoming CV line, as well as the upcoming Commonwealth cruiser line, as being largely the result of being easy to model - either completely or largely reusing existing assets. I don’t really have an issue with either of them, although I find it interesting that WG decided to announce an upcoming CV rework (or re-rework?) just before a new CV line release.

I have my fingers crossed that Schill was partly intended as a testbed for a future tech tree release. The P-class (or at least one vaguely historically accurate) was always going to be awkward to place in a tech tree line.

[Andrewbassg]

Krieger fingers the community .....

 

Ya know.... this could be interpreted in a LOT more ways than just one.....and none of 'em being what U meant... 

 

6 hours ago, kriegerfaust said:

1. How do people feel about the proliferation of larger caliber weapons, 17-18 inch +

2. How do people feel about the proliferation of torpedo ships battleships and cruisers with more and more torpedoes

3. How do people feel about super cruisers (cruisers with 10' and over guns)

4.  How do people feel about the proliferations of battleships and heavy cruisers with large numbers of guns or high rates of fire

 

 

1. Not fond. As a cruiser main... not happy about it.

2.So and so. IRL most battleships stopped carrying torps after WW1, let alone being fitted with them while  constructed.  Not trying to be sanctimonious about it, coz could provide some interersting interactions buut..... having more then 6 km torps is quite braindead. Battleships are inherently more durable than cruisers  its just plain stupid to put torps on them.

3.Again so and so. They are not my cup of tea, but unless there are too many of em..... i can live with 'em. Sorta...

4. IF now and then....... not a problem. If generalised, its just plain stupid, lazy and uncreative on part of our host. The general guiding principle used to be: bigger guns, bigger reload. Which is fair, because being able to inflict pain, also its amount, should be inversely proportional with  its frequency. With the exception of SOME outliers.

As for power creep...it is quite clear that our host does not play its own game. And even if it does; lets say to some degree, his motivation is very different from ours, which is arguably inevitable ( I.e work vs fun) The problem is: he doesn't listen. Not only that, but is also convinced of the superiority of his pov. Which is completely false and actually laughable for arrogance reasons.

 

 

[Itwastuesday]

1, proliferation of 430+ cal guns doesn't really bother me. Below T10 it's normal for battleships to overmatch cruisers, you find guns capable of overmatching T9 cruisers as early as T6. If it was up to me, I'd beef up cruiser middle deck and belt to 32mm at t8+ (or so) to limit overmatching to stern/bow parts. At least for some heavy cruisers.

2, don't care about this all that much since it seems like they're not slapping torps on every new BB line. I'll say that I think torpedo focused cruisers remain a waste of space.

3, don't mind supercruisers either, though I don't find them very intresting. Losing Fire Prevention nerfed them so much.

4, you mean like Mecklenburg? Stupid and pointless ships for the battleship slot. Dunno what cruisers you could be referring to, the ships like Zao (12 guns) DM and Wooster (rof) are old.

 

Outside of sky/uw cancer, I don't think anything is breaking the game. Perhaps I don't like the superfast and stealthy battleship additions? Personal opinion on surface ship balance remains that gunboat destroyers got out of hand long ago and cruisers are universally useless junk.

[Project45_Opytny]

4 hours ago, Nevermore135 said:

?

Care to educate us then?

Fair point, although I would argue this is a very limited subset of targets. I also tend to put much more emphasis on AP vs. HE performance, because a large amount of HE shells aimed amidships are going to strike and damage the superstructure anyways, and I typically don’t have issues farming bow and sterns either. Ships that don’t have easily farmed super structures (Izumo, for example) typically have the deck armor to resist the larger caliber HE anyways. The OP originally proposed a 10” cutoff or a “super cruiser” designation, which fails to overmatch 19mm (all tier VIII+ DD plating and some tier VI-VII upper belts, tier V BBs for Toulon and Graf Spee), while larger guns do not. I’ll admit to not having much experience playing “super-light” cruisers at high tiers which does bias my opinion, but my general experience is that I can largely treat 8-10” guns similarly when playing against them, taking into account national traits like enhanced pen angles, of course. Combine this with the big changes in DoT survivability of larger-gunned cruisers (and the poor tier VIII and IX Dutch TT ships) and my point was that if one wants to define a “supercruiser”/large cruiser “subtype,” ships like Henri IV, Castilla, Goliath, etc. are more similar to standard 8”-armed heavy cruisers than ships like Alaska, Agir, etc.

Of course, it’s quite possible that I am misunderstanding both the OP and yourself on what you are referring to as “supercruisers,” which is often thrown around in the NA community (along with “battlecruiser”) to define the subgroup of cruisers with BB caliber guns and BB-like extended DoT times like Stalingrad, Alaska, Agir, etc. If one instead uses the term to refer post-treaty or non-treaty compliant ships, the term becomes much more inclusive, including all cruisers with larger guns and even many 8”-armed ships like Baltimore and Des Moines. One could even argue the Mogamis and Zaras would qualify, as they were only reported to be treaty-complaint, being designed and build to exceed 10k tons.

Well... the first remark is my responce towards some of the rather... amateurish expressions used by the OP based on a personal opinion that players of this naval-themed shooter should all have some basic grasp on naval history of the earlier half of 20th Century.

Tier 6~7 heavy cruisers, other than American ones and Yorck all have 16mm extremities plating AFAIK. And it may be argued that US battleships remain relatively popular till now while many "super-light" cruisers are considered particularly disgusting thanks to their high RoF, for a number, combined with smokescreen camping, and players won't complain ability to overmatch their hull plating (so the superlight cruisers can be punished even with angling) while retaining still acceptable RoF and cruiser accuracy.

My personal glossary names ships like Alaska as "large cruisers/cruiser killers", Annapolis, Conde etc. as "T11/supership cruisers", and ships with 220~254mm main guns and mostly retain many cruiser characteristics as "super-heavy cruisers". Cheshire remains a wall-riding one thanks to her origin as a turret swap.

[Ensign Cthulhu]

You might want to change the title of your post, as I don't care to be fingered by you or anyone else in this community and I think my wife would also object. 😛

[Asym]

10 hours ago, Crokodone said:

Your forgetting current events. Half the players leaving are in boycott to Russia, which Dubious people insist was the case. WG is financially based in Cyprus. That and both sides of their staff and platerbase being killed in said current events is another factor. That can't be good for business.

The "game" has an office in Cyprus.....  That does not mean that is where the "money" is in reality.  Once that is established and let's just assume it isn't in Cyprus, a great many of us "can't play this game...." anymore.  Not won't play this game.  There are rules and laws in effect that draw very clear lines in some places.  Right now, Cyprus is the only reason a great many of us are even here.....  

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them" (Einstein) and one of my favorites "Don't trouble trouble until trouble troubles you"...

[Admiral_Karasu]

Quote

1. How do people feel about the proliferation of larger caliber weapons, 17-18 inch +

2. How do people feel about the proliferation of torpedo ships battleships and cruisers with more and more torpedoes

3. How do people feel about super cruisers (cruisers with 10' and over guns)

4.  How do people feel about the proliferations of battleships and heavy cruisers with large numbers of guns or high rates of fire

1. I'm not sure if I would like to see 'proliferation' to take place, I'm a stickler for some historical accuracy. The gun size would/should depend on the ship size, and the maximum limit should have been the 18 inch guns as seen on the Musashi and Yamato. Nothing over that, in other words.

2. Well, the paradox here is that there are several BB's in the game which historically did have torpedoes but lack them in the game. Again, though, proliferation sounds dirty.

3. No issues there, as far as I can see. Depending on the tier, of course.

4. Fine for lower tiers, entirely appropriate. The rate of fire in this game is accelerated by about a factor of three. If they do it, I'm not sure should it be consistent, though, across all guns and ship types or should it rather be used to balance and even out the differences.