Jump to content

red_crested_ibis

Members
  • Content Сount

    143
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    5397
  • Clan

    [KAPPA]

Community Reputation

72 Good

1 Follower

About red_crested_ibis

Recent Profile Visitors

348 profile views
  1. red_crested_ibis

    Which U.S. Cruisers for a PvE Main?

    I would imagine a Northampton in its original state with weak AA but with the short range torps. Perhaps a bit worse sigma or something to balance it. A good T6 light cruiser would be a super Omaha of some sort, to have gameplay variation from the Dallas. That's just my opinion. -- @CommodorePerryIPA One thing that I don't think that has been mentioned is the improved bounce angles. The US heavy cruisers can penetrate at shallower angles of attack in comparison to other heavy cruisers - so that, instead of having to have the shot hit at an angle greater than 30 degrees to the side of the hull so it won't autobounce, you only need to be more than 22.5 degrees off in a US heavy cruiser. It makes the US AP very flexible, as you can attack otherwise bow on enemies somewhat successfully.
  2. red_crested_ibis

    Which U.S. Cruisers for a PvE Main?

    I would actually disagree on Pensacola - she has more health, a smaller tactical diameter, and a faster rudder shift naturally in comparison to Dallas. And, while they may say they're the same, Dallas feels like she has relatively terrible acceleration - at the very least, it's worse than old Cleveland. Though, comparing Dallas to old Cleveland is just reminiscing on what once was the best. Either way, Pensacola should be far more survivable when you dodge. Oftentimes it's best to bait the AI to fire when you're bow on, show enough broadside to let off a shot and then move back to dodging. This is where you have to take advantage of the longer range and control your engagement. The AI can be fairly predictable, so once the AI is spotted, you can stay at range and open up so long as they are targeting someone with lower health. And Pensa does have the capability of hitting a few battleship cits at close range (well, Ichikuzi at least) but that would be a last ditch option. Oh, and Pensa's secondaries do seem to be slightly better, for those slightly loltastic situations in operations when you need to I will concede that Dallas can be more flexible at reacting to situations, especially to someone new. I played through to T9 before the buffs to the old cruiser line, so that colors a lot of my opinion. I find Pensa is in a good spot, though a slight turret rotation buff would be great. She's not a ship that you should ever dive into and get into a knife fight, as that's where she is disappointing (unless you can get an instant cit in). Doesn't help that the faster, more maneuverable, longer-ranged high-velocity gunned, torpedo carrying Omaha feels superior to the Dallas, which isn't even a paper ship. - @CommodorePerryIPA I'd suggest just going through Phoenix/Omaha and finding whether or not you like that playstyle first. If you do enjoy it, then Duca d'Aosta might be a good ship for you, as Duca is the closest thing to a T6 Omaha that there is in the game. Do be sure to take advantage of your narrow beam, as Omaha is the thinnest and fastest US cruiser. It's possible to bait shots (PvE is harder as the AI isn't always out for your squishy broadside) and then dodge it bow on as you're too narrow to hit easily. Pensa is useful for more of the operations as her AP is really tremendous against all of the lower tier cruisers you face if you take the steps to get on their broadside. If you take routes in operations that puts you bow on (going east in Aegis vs going north, for example) then Dallas might be better as the HE spam is better. Pensa you have to go out of your way and plan out routes and she can be amazing. Dallas is easier to use. After that, New Orleans is certainly better than when I had her, though I do miss when you could get her detection so low at T8. She is certainly capable at T7 in operations, but here are where the roles are reversed, as Helena is superior as her firepower increased dramatically. These are easy to decide if you like the ship, as there is a premium cruiser variation of each - Indy with radar and Boise with heal. As mentioned above, Atlanta is also great if you really want to fill the skies with fire, but she is also the squishiest. As an aside, US torpedoes on cruisers are all self-defense, and should not be used as offensive unless you get Marblehead. Even then, I'd really hesitate, as Marblehead's torps are preeeetty terrible. - I haven't played much of Cleveland, but in the T8 Op, Baltimore was the superior ship, mostly due to the Pensa advantage of better penetration and longer range. Combine this with AA that is roughly the same, and being just a bit tankier, and Balti is good for that. Again, Cleve and the previous cruisers have good DoT with their HE spam, though I would caution against making your decision on that. US cruiser HE spam is based on IFHE, which is getting nerfed, so US light cruisers from Dallas on up will perform noticeably worse than US heavy cruisers in comparison to what was before (not saying they will be worse. Just more balanced). Seattle I haven't gotten to yet, but by now you will know whether you prefer the high RoF or the stronger pen/alpha strike. This is emphasized by the new T9 Buffalo, which is a bigger, fatter version of the old T9 Balti crossed with Northampton but with 12 guns and same alpha and lower RoF than the old ship. I have not played much at all, but she feels clunky in comparison to old Balti. I can't really judge her on the merits. Des Moines is amazing in coop, but you have to have the premium camo to make it playable. Worcester is likely just as good. I may be terrible at Des Moines in PvP, but coop she is amazing. - Now, another ship you can get is Alaska which is fabulous at T9 coop as you are basically awesome and just have to watch your cit. Else, you are golden with strong guns, great reload, great AA, and good accuracy (Best amongst the large cruisers). If you like the Pensa playstyle, Alaska is the ultimate expression of alpha over dps. tl;dr Like Omaha -> Duca d'Aosta Like high dps/lighting fires/flexibility -> Light Cruiser Line Like alpha/citting same/lower lever cruisers/more health - > Heavy Cruiser Line Really Love dps/knife fighting -> Atlanta Really Love alpha/health/armor -> Alaska - Honorable Mention: Nurnburg and her predecessor are very flexible as their rear two turrets can rotate 360 degrees, which can make it very easy to fight as your guns almost always stay on target. If you don't care for 4x3 torps, there is a hull option to trade it for more AA, and its AA is fairly competitive in said form. She's my personal #3 choice for T6 ops after Pensa and Aoba.
  3. Just a nice fun spin in coop. Preference being Yudachi if she counts, Z-39 if she doesn't.
  4. red_crested_ibis

    Should Large cruisers get their own tech tree line?

    The same could be said of every single 8" gun cruiser, as they were all built to counter existing cruisers, at least in the 1920s - that's what they were built to do. Does that make them battlecruisers as well, or is there another quality (displacement, etc). The 8" gun was chosen due to an arbitrarily defined limit in the Washington Naval Treaty - cruisers at that time still used 9.2" and 10" guns as it stood. So stating large guns is arbitrary, but if you're referring to guns greater than 8", then yes, they do not comply with the treaty. Battlecruisers are ships with battleship sized guns. The 12" gun is not a modern battleship gun by the mid 1940s (the exception, the Scharnhorst class, was kept at 11" due to political concerns that Britain would object and as the 15" gun was not ready. The ships were to be upgunned when possible), so it certainly doesn't quack like a duck. She doesn't walk like a duck, as she uses a single cruiser rudder and an Essex class powerplant, so she walks like a carrier or a cruiser. And she looks more like an oversized Baltimore class with a midship hanger bastardized from the Portland class than an Iowa class, if you compare the lines. Agreed. But I'm just making the point - the Deutschland class is obviously not a battlecruiser. What of the P Class? Basically identical to the Deutschland save for being faster and ~20k tons. Is she a battlecruiser at that point? They didn't have impact, but you seem to be basing your cruiser gun caliber size based on the treaty definitions, not in comparison to contemporaneous vessels. And there is one that is similar to the 8" Alaska design. Buffalo (though Buffalo is of a different design series and smaller in tonnage). But even the largest of the design studies for Alaska 8" guns were nearly as large as the Alaska in game. Does that mean that she isn't designed to hunt cruisers in the battlecruiser role? Or is the arbitrarily defined 8" gun the key here. And if it is, is anything larger than 8" no longer a cruiser gun, even if no contemporaneous vessels used such a thing? For that matter, @Hanger_18 are you including the proposed 3x3 9.2" British CB in your proposal? If I may quote Friedman again (mostly to avoid quoting Wikipedia, even if that is easier...) Baltimore Std Displacement: 13,600, Design displacement: 14,970 Des Moines Design Displacement: 19,930 (he does not provide standard displacement) Both of these are not built to treaty displacement, but are well in excess of such displacement. The armor coverage is still less comprehensive on cruisers than destroyers. And, with the exception of her triple bottom and taller armor coverage up to the second deck, Alaska's armor scheme is virtually identical to the smaller cruisers. Fair enough here. I wouldn't mind quicker firing batleships, but your best bet may be for further German battlecruisers - they were the one nation to buck the trend and had their battlecruisers use a smaller caliber of gun to retain number of barrels (vs the UK/JP/US trend of ensuring caliber was the same and sacrificing number of barrels). Alaska should actually be the least maneuverable American ship at high tier due to her cruiser construction - the single rudder is inherited from Baltimore, and gave her an abysmal tactical diameter. I would honestly argue that Iowa is more of the stereotypical battlecruiser to Montana's battleship. She maintains battleship guns, with the best possible protection that could be had at her speed. (And built on battleship angles, and with significant torpedo protection, etc). She isn't close to Montana's size, though, being just as off of Montana's size, roughly, as she is off of Alaska. Still, she meets 2 of 3 qualities of the American definition I mentioned above (battleship guns, best armor practicable, comparable size), while Alaska meets none of them. That's excluding the "same torpedo armament" quality that no longer applies to battleships at the time (unless you take no torpedoes to be a qualifier).
  5. red_crested_ibis

    Should Large cruisers get their own tech tree line?

    Is Alaska to be defined by ships built 25 years prior to her, or in comparison to ships built in the same time period? I would define Alaska against her contemporaries - the Iowa is her contemporaneous battleship counterpart, the Baltimore and Cleveland being cruiser counterparts. And different ships over time can fill the same roles - the battlecruisers themselves replaced previous armored cruisers as well. Or, well, let's look at the General Board's definition of battlecruiser derived from the 1906 conference, defined them as ships which would be the same size as battleships, with the same battery and torpedo outfit and the best possible protection. (US Cruisers, Friedman, pg 62). She did not use the same armament as her contemporaries (or, for that matter, any WW1 battlecruiser still in service). She did have the same torpedo outfit (none), but did not have the best possible protection - her torpedo protection was much worse than against contemporary capital ships, being nearly identical to cruiser protection schemes save for a third skin. Her armored protection angles show their cruiser origins, only being rated for 30 Degrees off center, rather than 45 degrees of capital ships. Lastly, she is very noticeably smaller than treaty battleships; the only contemporary might be the Scharnhorst class, whose own weapons were treaty limited as well. My biggest question is what is the defining line? Is the Deutschland class a battlecruiser? What of the P Class never-builts, which would have been twice the size, faster, but not nearly as capable? Are those battlecruisers? What of that proposed conversion for the OTL US light cruisers (as they were known before the treaty mandated their renaming). Would equipping them with 10" guns for a cruiser hunter killer role qualify them as such, or is still a function of size? Would Buffalo be a battlecruiser she is based on a large displacement design scheme with 12 8" guns, which was one of the options in the Alaska class design scheme for cruiser killer? Etc, etc. Heck, Baltimore and Des Moines have armor of the same maximum thickness of the Renown class. Doesn't make them a battlecruiser, even though the latter, especially, was designed to fight and kill Japanese cruisers in nightime battles, but entered into a world without a role, just like Alaska. What battleships or battlecruisers are in the cruiser tree/considered cruisers? The only one I know of is Mikasa which is treated as a cruiser when flexed in a T3 battle Or are you again referring to the large cruisers? It seems a bit out of place to be putting warships, instead of with their contemporaries and warships they were built to fight alongside, with other warships designed decades prior. It's the same issue that Cleveland had - because of WOWS progression, they were stuck at T6 and the ship, even though it was nerfed far beyond what it should have been considering the age and abilities of the system, was still the best T6 cruiser at the time. Sticking the Alaska down at T6/T7 would create the same issue - a warship with the abilities of a midwar cruiser being forced to be nerfed heavily to give warships designed decades prior a chance of competing. Should cruisers only be limited to ships of 8" gun caliber size and below a some arbitrary tonnage limit?
  6. red_crested_ibis

    Which one?Atlanta or Enterprise?

    OP I will have to disagree with my cosmic horror clanmate, with one huge caveat. Atlanta is a very fun ship, and is very unique, with only a few comparable ships with similar playstyle (And all of those higher tier than her). Her guns are very floaty, but if you are comfortable with US DD shells, you'll be comfortable with them. Her citadel is very hit-able, but it's not the worst. She's small and nimble enough that you can dodge shots, but you really don't want to. Her torpedoes are only good for ambushes, so don't expect to use them much at all. She is also ~amazing~ at Narai and great for grinding. As others have said, her weakness is a high skill floor, as she depends on damage over time and fires. Her captain needs some serious investment (and to be honest, I have a dedicated Atlanta captain, myself). Her health is relatively low, and she needs to be handled with care or she will be punished. And, on top of that, she still is one of the weakest T7 premiums in general. People hate her, but she's a ship whose reputation is better than her performance. However, one thing I'd caution against: IFHE is going through some changes, and these may impact Atlanta, as a lot of her damage with IFHE is derived from hits. You can play without, but you have to be a lot more selective about your targets in general and will have to depend more on fires. If this is a concern, I'd caution against getting her, as her effectiveness may be reduced even more. - As for Enterprise, Shoggy answered most of her good points. And Enterprise has been good to her since she got it, so overall, I see why she is very fond of the aircraft carrier. - As for which to get: I see you mostly play coop of some sort and very rarely venture into random. As such, my advice would be this: Do you want to primarily use her in coop and in scenarios? If so, get Atlanta. (But mind the IFHE change caveat) Do you want to try her for random and have a very good CV to learn carrier play? Get Enterprise.
  7. red_crested_ibis

    Should Large cruisers get their own tech tree line?

    Well, now we're mixing up the large cruisers and battlecruisers, as there are different design philosophies and details that separate the two types of ship (not to mention the difference in definitions between various navies at hand) It'd also be like saying that Graf Spee and Scharnhorst, not to mention Friedrich would need to be in the same MM if that occurred. Heck, if we're lumping large cruisers and battlecruisers in the same category, how would putting Spee and Friedricheven work? Are these two ships to be counted as effectively equal and equivalent in role with no effective difference between. And, if Spee does not count as a large cruiser, for the purposes of matchmaking and the narrow definitions of the game's code (it certainly was not a large cruiser in real life), then you need to actually define what makes a large cruiser - is it just gun caliber larger than an arbitrarily defined number? Etc It'd be the comparison to the T6 Lexington and T7 Lexington ideas, where the 1916 battlecruiser would fit in at T6 and the 1919 at T7 opposite of Hood. If Spee (or my proposals listed below) is considered equivalent to these two in terms of matchmaking, how For that matter, why don't you separate light cruisers and heavy cruisers into separate matchmaking categories? The playstyle is different enough between the two, and the roles are so, that there could be a case there. Not that I think that such a thing should occur, myself, just pointing out that there are better defined categories that could receive their own MM. Easily plenty. You have an easy progression for a large cruiser line - the first ship could diverge from New Orleans, as T7, say as a Northampton or similar class with an alternate 10" gun that would replace the 3x3 8" with 3x2 10" as was originally proposed when the Deutschland class was discovered. This could also exist at T6 as well, depending on performance (as, well, Spee already exists at T6, and 6 10" guns could function there). Then you'd graduate to the next ship at T7 or T8 being one of the smaller Alaska proposals with 3x2 12" guns on a 19k ton hull. Then, if you need the T8, you could have one of the intermediate proposals in place (one with 4 twin, or perhaps 1 triple 2 twin or 2 triple 1 twin) to fit. Then have Guam be the tech tree T9, and then have Samoa be a tech tree TX (it doesn't even have to be the CA2D, but it can be). So, you'd have: T6 - Northampton class with a second gun you could purchase to upgrade to 3x2 10" guns. This works as this proposal was in response to the Deutschland class, allowing for the ahistorical matchup that never occurred. T7 - Small hull Alaska design study with 3x2 twin 12" guns. Glass cannony. This might resemble the "convertible" cruiser design proposed. T8 - Larger hull Alaska design study with anywhere between 6 and 8 guns in any particular arrangement. Still not quite Alaska size, but could get most of its AA and striking power. T9 - Guam. OTL TX - Samoa - This could be anywhere from CA2B to CA2D, as you've already said.
  8. red_crested_ibis

    ST, Poltava & Puerto Rico

    One thing... Puerto Rico is supposed to be the CA-2D project brought to life. If that's the case, one hidden stat for this armor that we haven't seen that is its immune zone. CA-2D was designed to be immune to its own guns from 18-26km OTL. So that should translate (Based on Navweap penetrations and some rounding, not strict interpolation) to belt armor of 13" (330mm) and deck armor of 4.25" (108mm) equivalent. That deck armor could be spread across multiple decks. But if that is the case, combined with 5"/54 guns (no idea why these were used except to make further Montana comparisons) and the weaker accuracy, and this ship has potential to be much more of a brawler than Alaska. This trend could continue with an uptiered Hawaii at TX sometime down the line (maybe... 6 months or a year, WG? Don't need to oversaturate) which is an Alaska but emphasizes the accuracy and standoff behvaior more, and possibly Guam as a tech tree variant (well, hopefully). That leaves Philippines and Samoa as other alternates using the OTL names. Perhaps Samoa as the tech tree T8 and Philippines as the tech tree TX?
  9. red_crested_ibis

    Why do people like the North Carolina?

    I can't really say anything that the others haven't said, except to concur that she is a very good ship (and I think she's better looking than the Iowa myself). She'd be perfect if she got a moderate secondary boost (nothing like Mass though) or better torpedo defense. That's where she's lacking, so you do not want to brawl with torpedo bearing vessels. All-in-all, she's a great ship with some good, if difficult shells that are pretty consistent overall. If anything, she's a jack of all trades ship. Don't try and snipe at long range, and don't over-commit. If anything, try idling about at 3/4 speed unless you have to go full - that'll keep you in a similar range as the Standard BBs and you won't be able to overextend. And she has the best nickname. If you want to put on a show, go sail on the Showboat. (At least she doesn't have the problem of Omaha, AKA Oww My A** Hurts Always)
  10. More to the point, looking at the top 5% stats, Atlanta is second to last, only beating New Orleans in win rate (excluding old Pensa from pre change and a couple of the Myoko clones). In damage, she only beats Indianapolis. In frags, she's slightly better. She's effectively tied with Algerie and Myoko, while beating Yorck, Indianapolis, and New Orleans. She also has some of the worst survivability on average, only beating out New Orleans and Indianapolis. So, to put it plainly, she has performance issues at the highest tier that puts her effectively in the same scenario as the heavy cruisers - who, while having their upsides, are completely outmatched by the 6" cruisers. But, in the process, WG is nerfing a ship which is performing at the same levels at the highest levels as the very ships they are buffing. That's the biggest issue, I feel. Note: To be frank, Atlanta is my favorite ship (and the ship I've done best with), so I do have skin in the game. I also recognize that Atlanta is a common premium and that the averages mentioned may be weighted by years of meta changes. However, for the entire ship population in its matchmaking spread, Atlanta is the cruiser with the second highest number of games of existing cruisers (2nd after Omaha). NA server, at least. In its matchmaking spread, it also has one of the lowest win rates - it only beats Pensacola, New Orleans, Buffalo, Prinz Eugen, Indianapolis, a bunch of Myoko clones, and poor Emerald. It has a lower win rate than Omaha of all ships. - So, in the end, I will stand by the opinion of Atlanta being in need of a general buff, more than anything. At the very least, though, she needs not this nerf, especially when every other ship she is statistically tied with at the highest levels of competition are getting buffs - and when she's near the bottom of her entire matchmaking spread at that.
  11. It is much preferable, in general. I was more saying that the AP is only competitive against other T7 light cruisers at long range. The AP otherwise is terrible. And I'd rather be at closer range, myself. At close range, having improved penetration angles could help against those cruisers and larger that are trying to angle.
  12. Agreed. Atlanta is a great ship for coop, with IFHE and range. That's what I've used her a lot more for, myself. Don't have to worry about conceal as much there. Even so, that HE pen nerf is accompanied by her AP, which is pretty much the worst in her tier by a lot, when compared to cruisers. I haven't compared to DD, but the only time that she's able to compete is when firing at max range, which still nets you a 15 second flight time, which in competitive it's hard to work with. In operations, it's far better. To make the AP at least slightly attractive, you would have to give her the penetration angles you see on the high tier UK cruisers. Then you could get away, at times, with raining AP for damage instead, though you'd still be dealing with atrocious penetration of the 5"/38 (for a cruiser). That might actually make a point between the two different ammo types. - But your other point does make sense. You can see they didn't address destroyer guns at all (to my knowledge - I could be wrong), even though there are numerous lines that will lose efficiency due to this. So this might be something else that they have planned, so in the interim small-caliber weapons will suffer. That'd be good. The Italian ships need some attention with their HE (assuming they aren't just going to have that replaced with SAP. That might be why they weren't addressed.
  13. red_crested_ibis

    ST: Inertia Fuse for HE Shells and Plating changes

    Oh dear. This isn't good at all, especially for others with 5" main guns. And since the armor buff is going to T6 & T7 BBs, it seems like my Atlanta is going to get much, much less efficient in performance even in operations (which is what I tend to use her more for, anyway). That'd be a massive drop to performance compared to other ships. Granted, I still think she'd be ok (vs D'Aosta and Abruzzi, at least), but this will be incredibly concerning.
  14. red_crested_ibis

    Remember the 'Mericans - 27th - 3rd

    Originally intended to be Atlanta but random went terribly and as such, have a Zona in Coop.
  15. red_crested_ibis

    Operation Aegis' beginning need to be changed

    Frankly, I think the best result is if one BB and a cruiser (preferably a heavy, Pensa/Aoba/Molly if they're good) head north to strike the second wave, while the other four members (the faster BB, the other cruisers/destroyers) head east, in the general route your map shows. That allows for the first wave to be attacked by the light cruisers which works better as that wave often has a preponderance of DDs, while the second wave is taken care of the heavies that can reliably cit from range and while angled. Then, when the third wave comes down, you should by that point have the second wave mostly mopped up, and both sides can attack the third wave from the flanks. At that point, the western group moves to engage Kongou/Itchy, while the Eastern group moves to engage the Fusou and friends.
×