Actual fires and fire damage vs fires per minute stats

[Ramsalot]

I was playing around with fire starting ships because I had nothing better to do, and I noticed something.

If you search around you will find data that indicates that the best fire starting ships in game are Colbert and Smolensk, and it comes down to fires per minute.  Thunderer is way down the list when you look at data.

But when I personally play and compare these ships, real life experience shows that Thunderer will light more fires per game.  Colbert and Smolensk can’t maintain their continuous fire for the same duration Thunderer can.  For one these light cruisers have shorter range, and then during the game at least some of the time they have to go dark to disengage, or get behind cover, or set up in the smoke.  So I find ship like Thunderer have more ample opportunities to keep guns on target.  

Then there is the whole lighting fire after DCP use thing.  I find it easier to force DCP with Thunderer, as it is easier to light up multiple fires to force DCP, you can even light two fires at once, and the next volley is almost guaranteed to light perma fire.  On Colbert or Smolensk it’s more of a lottery.

Another thing I noticed, Colbert or Smolensk for vast majority of time focus on one ship at the time due to short range/cover/smoke, it is not common to focus on multiple targets in a short amount of time.  While Thunderer is free to go after another target the moment perma fire goes off.

Of course there is something to be said about usefulness of HE instead of AP on an accurate BB like Thunderer, but I was experimenting with fires, sometimes it’s nice to set the game on fire…

Edited September 23 by Ramsalot

[Itwastuesday]

The output of these light cruisers is a bit different. Less opportunistic. More about getting this one guy actually dead. Optimally, that is.

[Estaca_de_Bares]

2 hours ago, Ramsalot said:

[...]

Of course there is something to be said about usefulness of HE instead of AP on an accurate BB like Thunderer, but I was experimenting with fires, sometimes it’s nice to set the game on fire…

As @Itwastuesday already pointed out the difference in approach by Colbert/Smolensk compared to Thunderer, HE in the latter is actually pretty useful: support your DD in the initial stages more or less closely, score a salvo (usually just a couple of shells) on the red one and he's down by 5k HP or so, plus incapacitations and a fire more often than not. You've spooked him hard and forced him to use his DCP. French DDs in particular get the biggest jumpscare, for they are the least accustomed to BBs shooting at and hitting them.

Salute.

[Wulf_Ace]

3 hours ago, Ramsalot said:

I was playing around with fire starting ships because I had nothing better to do, and I noticed something.

If you search around you will find data that indicates that the best fire starting ships in game are Colbert and Smolensk, and it comes down to fires per minute.  Thunderer is way down the list when you look at data.

But when I personally play and compare these ships, real life experience shows that Thunderer will light more fires per game.  Colbert and Smolensk can’t maintain their continuous fire for the same duration Thunderer can.  For one these light cruisers have shorter range, and then during the game at least some of the time they have to go dark to disengage, or get behind cover, or set up in the smoke.  So I find ship like Thunderer have more ample opportunities to keep guns on target.  

Then there is the whole lighting fire after DCP use thing.  I find it easier to force DCP with Thunderer, as it is easier to light up multiple fires to force DCP, you can even light two fires at once, and the next volley is almost guaranteed to light perma fire.  On Colbert or Smolensk it’s more of a lottery.

Another thing I noticed, Colbert or Smolensk for vast majority of time focus on one ship at the time due to short range/cover/smoke, it is not common to focus on multiple targets in a short amount of time.  While Thunderer is free to go after another target the moment perma fire goes off.

Of course there is something to be said about usefulness of HE instead of AP on an accurate BB like Thunderer, but I was experimenting with fires, sometimes it’s nice to set the game on fire…

Comparing a BB with light cruisers, topic without point

[Wolfswetpaws]

6 hours ago, Ramsalot said:

I was playing around with fire starting ships because I had nothing better to do, and I noticed something.

If you search around you will find data that indicates that the best fire starting ships in game are Colbert and Smolensk, and it comes down to fires per minute.  Thunderer is way down the list when you look at data.

But when I personally play and compare these ships, real life experience shows that Thunderer will light more fires per game.  Colbert and Smolensk can’t maintain their continuous fire for the same duration Thunderer can.  For one these light cruisers have shorter range, and then during the game at least some of the time they have to go dark to disengage, or get behind cover, or set up in the smoke.  So I find ship like Thunderer have more ample opportunities to keep guns on target.  

Then there is the whole lighting fire after DCP use thing.  I find it easier to force DCP with Thunderer, as it is easier to light up multiple fires to force DCP, you can even light two fires at once, and the next volley is almost guaranteed to light perma fire.  On Colbert or Smolensk it’s more of a lottery.

Another thing I noticed, Colbert or Smolensk for vast majority of time focus on one ship at the time due to short range/cover/smoke, it is not common to focus on multiple targets in a short amount of time.  While Thunderer is free to go after another target the moment perma fire goes off.

Of course there is something to be said about usefulness of HE instead of AP on an accurate BB like Thunderer, but I was experimenting with fires, sometimes it’s nice to set the game on fire…

🙂👍

[Verytis]

A few large HE shells is more consistent than many small HE shells.

This is why BBs are more reliable when compared to CA/DD with similar fires per minute.

CLs overcome this by simply having much more FPM.

 

As for disengagements, this is why you don't always want to set 2 fires on a target. They'll DCP without hesitation. This in-turn forces you to follow up with new fires or otherwise letting their DCP cooldown go unpunished.

This is why I recommend setting 1 fire on multiple targets, instead of multiple fires on 1 target. Only aim for double fires if they're high priority or have no DCP.

[Aethervox]

20 hours ago, Ramsalot said:

Smolensk

I fluked out getting this & have only played it twice. First time I got deleted quickly. If I recall, most of the team did, too. A bogus pre-determined roflstomp WG MM barf.

In the second battle, a W, I saw what a Smolensk is capable of = multiple fire starting. Even nerfed this ship is dangerous to enemy ship survival.

Edited September 24 by Aethervox

[Itwastuesday]

9 hours ago, Verytis said:

This is why I recommend setting 1 fire on multiple targets, instead of multiple fires on 1 target. Only aim for double fires if they're high priority or have no DCP.

It's kinda true that single fires are permanent as long as there's a HE spammer in range. The flipside of this is that it doesn't do much to battleships. They aren't going to die to just a fire.