Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


Community Reputation

23 Neutral

About Seniorious

  • Rank
    Petty Officer
  • Insignia
  1. Tirpitz alone would be heftily burdensome to the Baltic fleet. Based off accounts with Bismarck, Hipper, and Scharnhorst, the secondaries on those German ships are about as fearsome as they are in this game. With the destroyers at most doing screening, It'd be at best the German fleet basically 'port sniping' from range. In the event they do get engaged, the German fleet would likely shift to 'Kiting' as we call in this game, a tactic Scharnhorst herself used against the RN at North Cape, both from the cruisers and DoY. In that scenario, Nurn and Koln would be fighting 'as designed' , utilizing their rear turrets while Tirpitz meatshields them. Frankly, the fight is just unfair period. From a paper view, it looks ballsy to send just Tirpitz and a small escort fleet. In reality, Tirpitz is a modern monster compared to that antiquated fleet; as much of a crapshoot as Kirishima vs Washington, only worse. Scharn and Gneise alone, with Hipper and a small fleet of Z-destroyers could've done that, even with their 11" guns. Marat and Oktober might get lucky hits, but chances are high it'll be a repeat of the Glorious, only it'll take a little bit longer because they have some semblance of armor. The Russian Navy is basically a joke.
  2. 100+ Main Gun hits Single Game

    I recommend Nurnberg/Konigsberg or Akizuki. Nurn has a 6s reload, and with a good position, Akizuki can easily net 400 hits.
  3. Germany still makes bad ships

    Germany made poor seaboats in general because they were designed operate in the less rough seas surrounding them. Eventually they learned that ships actually need to be able to sail everywhere....and added Atlantic bows to their ships. A bit late, and was only patch fix, but it helped. They were still pretty wet ships, but solid design. On the otherhand, the cruisers Nurn, Konigsberg, and Leipzig were decent designs. Germany operated on a fighting style of retreating fire, and those cruisers reflect it.
  4. Alaska Class Heavy Cruiser

    This means comparison to the Nelson, which costs 375,000 Free XP. If so, It'd be the only FXP cruiser in the game, and the first one at Tier 7. Now Nelson gets away with her 3x3 setup of 16" guns due to a number of factors; namely: Slow turrets, weak AA, and a massive citadel. She does have that heal though. So what happens with Alaska? Well, it basically has Wyoming guns upgraded to SHS shells and a faster reload. Additionally, as mentioned before, she averages 30,000 tons. A Wyoming displaces 27,000 max. Now TECHNICALLY, it's being debated on whether Alaska is an actual cruiser or Battlecruiser. The U.S built Alaska as a scale up to fill a gap between cruiser duty and BB duty, but didn't like the 'battlecruiser' name, so instead of CA or BC, they decided to go CB- "Large Cruiser" But by any measure, Alaska is a battlecruiser. Difference is, she wasn't built with the idea of being a BC, just a really large version of Baltimore. As mentioned prior, a Graf Spee is but 15,000 tons. It's not a pocket BB, it's not a battlecruiser. It's just a heavy cruiser with really large guns. Alaska is twice as heavy. Alaska has higher caliber guns. Those guns fire much heavier projectiles. Those guns will likely fire at 3RPM just like the Spee's. You're placing it against the Scharnhorst, which weighs an average of around 4-5,000 tons more which = more HP. Nelson..... put it this way. Nelson has 59,400hp. Scharnhorst has 56,300hp. Kongo, which has similar tonnage as the Alaska, has 54,100. So that's how that stacks up. WG assumes best performance so...Scharnhorst 20s reload, Alaska 20s reload. Alaska will have the best AA performance of all the T7 BBs. The guns are going to penetrate similar to the USN 356mm guns, but have NC-like arcs. She'll also have ultra weak armor. Now, she does have 230mm belt. That's much better than any cruiser ingame. But for a BB? Eh. Citadel size? Beyond me. Concealment? dunno. Firepower and AA wise, she'll be competitive. She can compete with KGV and Scharnhorst for AP performance. Biggest problem? The fact that too many people will go REEEEEEEEEEEEEE seeing Alaska being labeled a BB and set at Tier 7. Honestly, I'm against it too. Not purely because of their reasoning, but that I'd rather her be a cruiser, plain and simple. Her performance works either way. T7 BB? Works. T8 CA? works. T9-10 is too much of a stretch though, honestly. She can't compete with Moskva, or Kronstadt, or Stalingrad, not even Des memes. Even Henri IV and Hindenberg will do everything better. Alaska's performance won't make her enjoyable to play against Zao and Ibuki and such. That's what people are overlooking. They want that status of "Ohhh look muh Alaska T9-10 monster durr" but fail to realize she'd be an abomination to play at that tier. If WG can make Kronstadt an overweight cruiser at T9, then Alaska will work as an overweight cruiser for Tier 8.
  5. Alaska Class Heavy Cruiser

    Using it as a Comp to Baltimore means you can slot into Tier 8 instead, which means opening it up for usage as a Premium Ship. WG doesn't like fudging with reloads too much unless it's supremely necessary for balance or they lack the data otherwise. So Alaska will have a 20s reload like Scharnhorst. We already are getting that line split, as the CL-line from T6 Dallas through T10 Worcester. The heavy line starts at Pepsi in T6 with 8" guns, then NO at T7, Balti at T8, Buffalo Tier 9, Des Memes T10. So Alaska has no place as TTS. Your options are: Super nerfed T7 CA premium (shameful reproduction guaranteed), or nerfed T7 BB premium (think Scharnhorst with better guns and AA but with weak armor), tanky T8 CA premium(More HP and better guns than Hipper), or really [edited]weak T8 BB premium that can't fight actual T8 BBs, or a Tier 9 Free XP ship that really isn't likely since WG has an aversion to more than one T9 FXP ship at a time. Now take into account : Majority of the Alaska-class fanbase will scream bloody murder if it gets labeled as a BB, even if it got non-BB like characteristics. Majority of the Alaska-class fanbase is wrongly comparing it to Stalingrad and Kronstadt, who are labeled cruisers because they're nowhere near comparable to the T9 and T10 BBs they face. Frankly, if they aren't Alaska-class doubly can't compare. Secondly, the lower the MM, the less it gets powercreeped and can face weaker ships to bully. Thus, more enjoyable. I mean, I seriously doubt you want your Alaska to be constantly meeting Musashi, Yamato, and Montana or even Conqueror. They'll blow all three cruisers to bits with ease. At tier 8 you see them less, and you can also see the weaker T6 and T7 ships, which would be stuff like Cleveland, Pepsi, Myoko, Martel, Hipper, Baltimore. That said, T7 BB Premium a-la-Scharnhorst shoehorn, or T8 CA Premium. As a Tier 8 CA, it's getting auto-balanced by it's basic 20s reload. It's also basically just Baltimore-level AA. Longer turn radius. Slower rudder shift. Stronger guns. Much larger detection radius. Longer range. Most likely to have Spotter/Fighter plane, Defensive Fire/Hydro, and Heal. Why Heal over Radar? because it's entire purpose is tanking and being a bully, so heal lets it stay alive longer. A radar is redundant since Baltimore will exist at Tier 8.
  6. What should be done is restrict the IJN CVs to only one loadout just like the USN. It's awful that we are stuck with just one load, when the IJN get to choose strike-heavy or fighter-heavy and both still outweigh our options.
  7. T8 Premium New Jersey

    If I were to design a Tier 8 Iowa-class battleship (and I'm all for the New Jersey, I'd jump on that. Missouri eh, Iowa eh, NJ Hell yeah!), this is my idea of balance: B-Hull Iowa base 1.8 Sigma for one; because making the downtiered Iowa MORE accurate than the normal one makes sense....yeah no. Musashi loses Sigma, so does Iowa. 1.8 Sigma on Musash, 1.8 for NJ. You're getting better guns than Alabama and NC, trade off some accuracy. 20s Base rudder-shift Pre-buff Iowa citadel. Very minor concealment buff. A full stealth build Iowa hits 12.2km, NJ should hit 12km exact in full stealth. Want a gimmick? Give the New Jersey the Defensive Fire consumable instead of Catapult spotter/fighter. Boom. No radar cancer. Won't make it significantly better in non-cv matches (often), only serves to make it resilient to carrier strikes more so than her sisters. After all, she still sees T9-T10 matches. And in those matches, her DF won't save her from T10 CVs. Her lower accuracy and higher citadel will make her difficult to combat even her sisters. This is the deal: By giving her that citadel, but also the lower rudder shift and defensive fire, the goal is to make her survivable against attackers provided you make use of the rudder shift, concealment, and DF to protect against airstrikes and reduce chance of getting caught broadside. At the same time, you have strong guns that are still plenty powerful. To note: Texas, NY and Arizona have 1.8 sigmas. Colorado, Iowa, Missouri and Montana are 1.9. North Carolina has the only 2.0 sigma. What makes Arizona so deadly is that it's basically a New Mexico whose sigma was buffed from 1.5 to 1.8. Alabama has a 1.8 sigma. Personally, I believe that's fine for accuracy. I have a Texas, and I'm at the Iowa right now, fully upgraded. If you want, you can argue for 1.9 sigma. After all, at Tier 8, the New Jersey won't have access to Artillery Plotting Room Modification 2 (-11% maximum dispersion). That module makes a massive difference, as it transforms average accuracy on the Iowa/Miss into hellishly accurate snipers.
  8. Make Stalinium Great Again! and...

    800m/s is really good though? It's the shell ballistics that matter. After all, NC has a MV in the low 700m/s range. But ironically, shell flight times don't change much compared to other guns for most ranges. The balancing point is, Kirov at Tier 5 has 9x 180mm guns with the strongest AP around. The best range bar Konigsberg too. The armor is historically paper...what do you want them to do? All the cruisers at the tier are pure paper. Kirov never had lasers...from the start it was meme'd to infamy with youtubers, it had those ballistics. Molotov has the 180mm guns from Tier 9, but that's Tier 6. You could citadel cruisers yes....but battleships were a rare occurrence. Even Konigsberg, I've scored citadels on battleships in random places. It's completely unreliable, but occasionally happens. The point of Kirov, is to teach your angling. Against other cruisers...their AP will bounce. You have better range too. It has a high skill ceiling, after all. Even Cleveland is extremely powerful, you just have to work around the shell velocity. But it's a plus in that case, because you can derp shells over islands with impunity and start fires.
  9. Coming off Chappy, new to donskoi

    A smart move if you won't be able to retrain afterwards; BUT, the Donskoi's 180mm guns do benefit from IFHE still. She basically plays like Chapayev with even flatter gun arcs and better AP. Difference is, Donskoi can comfortably play from 18km away and range module is viable. Don't be afraid to HE spam their bow tanking ships from max range, because your guns hit reliably and with flat trajectory. At the same time....don't spend the whole match kiting around the skirts at max range like a Zao. You won't make use of Radar like that. The ability to HE spam from range is a ulitity so you won't feel useless on wide maps like Tears of the Cruisers and Okinawa. You should absolutely use your 12x 180mm guns to bear AP down on broadside cruisers. It'll hurt battleships too. Donskoi is a bridge of Chapa and Moskva. This is the area where you need to put more emphasis on AP....and then even more emphasis on AP on Moskva. The biggest mistake you can make on Moskva is to fire HE like any other cruiser and spam it. Nonono. Use the Donskoi and learn to trust your AP. Bonus is that without IFHE, you do have that better fire chance.
  10. Alaska Class Heavy Cruiser

    Except based on Khronstad's balancing factors, Stalingrad really won't be very OP. A good bote, yes. Considering it's a reward ship, and looking at Flint/Black vs their normal counterpart, it'll probably be strong. You're forgetting that they're being released differently. Alaska is going to be a Premium ship to be bought(and we all know, Alaska will be Mega Bucks for WG) or a strange techtree implement (Unlikely), or Free Xp (very unlikely and less favorable). As above. This is the deal : Alaska as BB in T7 : Weak relative armor, but punchier guns than Scharnhorst and more reliable accuracy. Still more BB-like in accuracy though. Alaska as CA in T7 : Strong armor, best-in-class guns, good AA. Rebalance factor: Long reload on the guns, sluggish maneuverability and high detection. Alaska as CA in T10 : Slow reload compared to Moskva and Henri IV. Even larger guns. Only average AA. Gun ballistics worse than both, gun penetration only comparable, reload. Still large target. Armor only average, and basically weak just like them. Implementation is wonky as there is no FXP T10, no other way to reward it for something without taking ages in an event (not profitable), WG doesn't want more T9 FXP ships. Making it a random branchoff at the T9 slot is bad and WG doesn't do that for those. CV's are split off the capital ship line because there are no lower end CVs. Alaska as a Tier 8 Premium? Not mentioned much. As a CA, will be compared to Hipper/Prinz Eugen, Chapayev, and Atago/Mogami. As a BB...no. lol. Infact....Alaska would be compared to Baltimore. Yes indeed, that glorious line split coming soon. Wouldn't that be fabulous, getting a line split AND the Alaska as Tier 8 Premium at the same time? Next thing is, dollar accessibility. Tier 7 is definitely cheaper than Tier 8 as far as premiums. Alaska would sell like hotcakes and populate matches just like Scharnhorst does. It's relatively cheap at an average of $40 instead of the $60 average at Tier 8, and gets that lovely T7 MM that sees more T5-T7 than it does T8-9. It would also see less battleships that would lol-penetrate extremities. So ask yourself, would you like a "nerfed" Alaska at Tier 7 that is actually enjoyable to play because it faces weaker ships and costs less money, or Tier 8 where it will see the T10 monsters while being weaker still, rarely seeing Tier 6? Or at Tier 10 in some weird [edited]implementation where it still won't be on par with Moskva and Henri IV, nor comparable to battleships and won't have the presence of Stalingrad while also most likely inaccessible to many people? Because frankly it's not about directly comparing Scharnhorst to Alaska, although it can be done. It's about comparing the concept. They're bullies of smaller weaker ships, with better armor and higher caliber weaponry than them, while also not quite up to par for their size to fight against real battleships. You could take Scharnhorst and move it to Tier 9 by simply increasing the accuracy to par with cruisers, and it'll function exactly the same. Still incapable of fighting off the battleships, in this case, Iowa, Yammy, Musashi etc, and still will pick on Cruisers because she has heavier armor and higher caliber guns.
  11. Do you want Aslaska or Kronshadt

    It'd truly be quite special, especially if given a smoke. Imagine that, an Atlanta you can't kill in two salvos because it not only has armor, but also a heal. It'd be hilarious to watch one of these fight another battleship.
  12. The Derpiest Warships of the Battleship Era

    Not like they looked like much of a world power in comparison when the U.S had the superior Essex-class CV and Iowa-class BB. Vanguard is literally a spiritual successor as Hood 2.0 and in all likelihood, has zero chance anyway. Even if the UK built a few more....the U.S has Iowa, Missouri, Wisconsin, and New Jersey plus heaps of carrier support and the advanced Gearing-class destroyers. Against other countries, well, no one actually had a decent navy. Russia's is an abomination. France.....we all know what happened with them. Italy is lol. Germany's was sunk. That's it for the major world powers. I guess after getting spanked by the Japanese, Russia gave up on trying in naval warfare. None of their designs are actually meaningfully advanced. One could imagine, if they had built the Project 66 and finished the Stalingrads, they might've been relevant. But they have a history of [edited] naval design and training. In all likelihood, they'd be flops anyway. Back to Vanguard, royal yacht? Check. Patriotism? Check. Although considering they scrapped their more meaningful and veteran battleships like KGV and DoY, or even Warspite, highly ironic.
  13. T8 Cleveland Revealed

    I recall seeing an argument and it was made that this was a completely stock Cleveland. If it wasn't, that would mean WG is actually nerfing the Cleveland from her current Tier 6 performance while also dragging her into T8. That's not happening. 10s Cleveland reload is the stock config, 8s is the upgraded currently. What we hope for is a historical 6s when upgraded. The HP is inside stock hull Cleveland, as is range. 22.5s turret traverse is also the stock guns, which have the 10s reload. Upgraded is 32.7s traverse. In essence, without knowing if the AA values changed or if the upgraded hull makes the world's difference, Cleveland was basically just given a Radar and a slap on the back. "You're ready for Tier 8 kid." Which I'm mostly OK with. I really believe Cleveland needs her 6-Second reload time though.
  14. Don't think your AP is worthless, if cruisers get too close and too anxious, they will eat citadels and you can out DPM them, as shown here. A De Grasse tried to rush me and showed a little too much of his side, and I was able to gun him down before he could finish me off. Needlessly to say, he and another were flabbergasted I was able to.
  15. I only cap smoke in certain situations, and I avoid leaving longer lines. Reason? Few ever push in to make use of my smoke for stealth, so better to not obstruct their spotting. I'll roll around in the cap horizontally and wait for or flush out the enemy DD, get off some volleys to scare it away, and smoke. If he fires, my teammates would keep it spotted and I get to rain fire. In either case, I force them to leave and provide myself with cover without blocking vision or losing the cap. The things I despise in caps is sitting completely still and smoking up the second we enter a cap. In my Akizuki I play slightly differently if I have a friendly DD. In that case, depending on situation, I might smoke up just outside the cap after we spot the DD and slap it a bit, so that way I'm low priority to engage but can still provide the same support to the other DD. After all, the enemy DD would have to be an idiot if he knows the Akizuki is on the edge, but he also needs to uproot the, say, Benson who is also in the cap. He can't spot or engage the Benson without incurring my wrath. He usually can't torp me anyway because my position has the Benson or some planes spotting for me. Yes, smoking in cap is SOMETIMES good, but if you're not spotted, and no one is contesting, and there are no planes, why do it? It's stupid. You block your vision needlessly, you waste a smoke needlessly, and you make it painfully obvious what general location you're at, so people can just drop into the smoke from outside the cap even.