Emerald: is she bad?

[Sinboto]

I've been seeing conflicting thoughts on the new T5 RNCL, some say she is UP, some say she's fine, others say she's OP.

 

So what do you guys think, personally I think she's greatish, pretty good ship and did well in her myself. 

 

Made for curiosity reasons only. 

 

[DerKrampus]

From what I've seen, it depends on whether or not your enemies screw up.

[DoomStomper]

Not planning to touch any RN cruisers until the next full DD tree (most likely KM) is released, but I'll take some bacon-wrapped fried chicken, please. 

 

 

 

[Special_Kay]

I think she's crap which has been tempered with some rather game-changing smoke. The end result is a thing that is not under-powered. The issue I have is that we got a ship that couldn't stand on its own merits at T5, so instead of tiering it appropriately it was given smoke instead.

[SireneRacker]

We should consider the MM she has to go through. She will either face T4 ships or T7 ships. And the chances for T7 seem higher. And against Fijis, Myokos and Nagatos she doesn't stand a chance

[Mizzerys_Fate]

Last night I got a mostly tier 4 match. 98k damage 4 kills. Loss.

Next match mostly tier 7. 1 kill 23k damage win.

 

It is op vs tier 4 & 5.

Useless vs tier 6 & 7.

[Eisennagel]

 

 

In my opinion, she is fine for coop and practice, but I won't take her into pvp events.

[mofton]

Potential damage output:

Awful.

Emerald can fire a maximum broadside of 6 guns, and 48 RPM with some pretty bad firing arcs - 'X' can't fire dead astern, 'Y' can barely aim forward, and the shoulder guns are bad. 3 forward and 2/3 astern is your chase limit. That contrasts to Omaha and Konigsberg which throw out 72 or 69 RPM from 8 or 9 guns, with Omaha shooting 6 ahead. The AP-only means that cruisers can bow-tank you pretty well, you see mostly BB's with small/no superstructures and DD's can bounce the shells. All made worse with poor ballistic arcs, as the shells are very draggy and a very dispersed firing platform from the single mounts. Widely different launch angles.

The torpedo armament has numbers and single-launch, but fires slower than German fish and does not compensate. You rely on dumb, closing enemies.

 

Survivability:

Bad.

Although not as bad as Danae's huge one, Emerald's citadel is about 1/4 longer and just as high as Omaha's. What I think makes it really bad is that the citadel deck is only 25 mm, Omaha gets 37mm so far more bounces off the top. Emerald's lack of range also forces her to engage far closer in, where max dispersion of incoming shellfire is lower and the cruiser advantage is weakest. Her maneuverability although she retains speed well isn't great - her rudder shift is comparatively poor and her turning circle is poor too, though she's no faster than an Omaha or a Furutaka. The repair party does assist, but the propensity to take very rapid or citadel damage mitigates that. MM doesn't help with 5 BB/game the norm.

 

 

The pro's of ok concealment, good speed retention in a turn and the buggy smokescreen do not balance out inability to do damage and restrictive playstyle. WG took a ship with only 2/3 the firepower of her contemporaries, made it incredibly situational with AP, especially at T5 and voila, le Emerald.

[Cruiser_Atago]

Having played it a bit with the short time I had, I would quickly say that it's considerably harder to play against tier 7's; and it sees tier 7's quite a damn lot which doesn't help.

[Special_Kay]

Potential damage output:

Awful.

Emerald can fire a maximum broadside of 6 guns, and 48 RPM with some pretty bad firing arcs - 'X' can't fire dead astern, 'Y' can barely aim forward, and the shoulder guns are bad. 3 forward and 2/3 astern is your chase limit. That contrasts to Omaha and Konigsberg which throw out 72 or 69 RPM from 8 or 9 guns, with Omaha shooting 6 ahead. The AP-only means that cruisers can bow-tank you pretty well, you see mostly BB's with small/no superstructures and DD's can bounce the shells. All made worse with poor ballistic arcs, as the shells are very draggy and a very dispersed firing platform from the single mounts. Widely different launch angles.

The torpedo armament has numbers and single-launch, but fires slower than German fish and does not compensate. You rely on dumb, closing enemies.

 

Well, your facts are all true, and this may be a valid analysis of expected damage output. However, this is not an assessment of potential damage output. At ranges where citadel hits are not assured, 48 RPM against a target which cannot retaliate using shells which rarely over-penetrate leads to some startlingly high DPM compared to other tier five cruisers (not as much so at ranges where citadel hits are easier, because the excellent fuses offer no advantage over other navies' cruisers when most of the damage is from citadel penetrations). This is especially true when you plan your "stop, smoke and shoot" sessions so that your prey is angling against larger guns and is unable to deny you a large target profile. In addition, the torpedoes are not only effective against tactical errors, but they also excel in ambush. Yes, this only applies in a situation where your enemy is not content to maintain their position and so RN CL ambush tactics suffer from the same situational nature as IJN DD ambush tactics—it only works when your team is being pushed back. On top of that, this all only applies in situations where you are able to remain beneath notice.

 

I had eighteen matches in Emerald before I moved on to Leander, averaging 46k damage and much of that against non-battleship targets. My peak performance was just over 100k. The potential is there, it just requires situations which you cannot dictate at will. Of course with Superintendent, Smoke Generator II, and Jack of All Trades, I was able to hold stop/smoke/shoot sessions more frequently than your average Emerald.

[Kapitan_Wuff]

She isn't bad, but very fickle. She also isn't good or OP IMO. Despite hating playing her, I actually performed pretty well with her, you have to play her like she wants you can't force her to be like other t5 CLs. I have complaints with the RN CLs T2-4, but the emerald is when they start to turn around, and the Leander is when the line really breaks out.

[mofton]

 

Well, your facts are all true, and this may be a valid analysis of expected damage output. However, this is not an assessment of potential damage output. At ranges where citadel hits are not assured, 48 RPM against a target which cannot retaliate using shells which rarely over-penetrate leads to some startlingly high DPM compared to other tier five cruisers (not as much so at ranges where citadel hits are easier, because the excellent fuses offer no advantage over other navies' cruisers when most of the damage is from citadel penetrations). This is especially true when you plan your "stop, smoke and shoot" sessions so that your prey is angling against larger guns and is unable to deny you a large target profile. In addition, the torpedoes are not only effective against tactical errors, but they also excel in ambush. Yes, this only applies in a situation where your enemy is not content to maintain their position and so RN CL ambush tactics suffer from the same situational nature as IJN DD ambush tactics—it only works when your team is being pushed back. On top of that, this all only applies in situations where you are able to remain beneath notice.

 

I had eighteen matches in Emerald before I moved on to Leander, averaging 46k damage and much of that against non-battleship targets. My peak performance was just over 100k. The potential is there, it just requires situations which you cannot dictate at will. Of course with Superintendent, Smoke Generator II, and Jack of All Trades, I was able to hold stop/smoke/shoot sessions more frequently than your average Emerald.

Well, good points. But potential damage output is a bit of a rabbit hole. For all that AP-ing someone from within the protection of a smokescreen will improve it, the Emerald does have major disadvantages in potential as well:

 

1) Short range, especially against retreating targets means she'll be unable to do any damage for as long as say the ridiculously long ranged Konigsberg, or even the superior Furutaka

2) The AP shells, aside from the fusing, are no better than anyone else has from 0-60' where they pen, and 75-90' where they still autobounce. That's the majority of absolute angles, though as people spend most time angled towards/away it's not as bad as it looks like on face value it's still overall not amazing. Anyone bouncing off CA/CL or BB - especially those with small superstructures and multiple AP-proof gun turrets scattered along the deck - will take far less damage than HE+fire, even if the RN player is a good shot. I've done dozens of hits for poor damage on BB, and been totally bow tanked by cruisers, for all that I've done the odd 3k hit.

3) AP damage is slightly lower than Omaha (3,000 vs. 3,100) and significantly behind Koni's 3,900 (on top of 50% higher RPM) this compounds her weak output.

4) Shell penetration seems low compared to the others, despite decent velocity out of the gate. It's not just autobounce which must be overcome, the arc-y 6in must still penetrate according to a far more complex table than HE. Fires can start on non-penetrations even.

 

Anyone can torpedo ambush but Furutaka can gib idiots at range and Konigsberg's faster torps give less response time in an ambush. However you cut it 6km range and 11km+ detection is a gulf to cover, especially with passive, stand-off players.

 

JOAT's an interesting commander build, I was planning CE but with hydro, heal and smoke... hmm, hmm, brain churning! The majority of players won't have the luxury of a 15pt captain and I never went premium on smoke - it costs more than the ships' repair! Though I go premium smoke on Leander. I didn't do as well as you on dmg, but still did above average. I compare the ship I think mentally to Konigsberg which I did about the same as you did in Emerald with, without a 15pt captain.

[Special_Kay]

Well, good points. But potential damage output is a bit of a rabbit hole. For all that AP-ing someone from within the protection of a smokescreen will improve it, the Emerald does have major disadvantages in potential as well:

 

1) Short range, especially against retreating targets means she'll be unable to do any damage for as long as say the ridiculously long ranged Konigsberg, or even the superior Furutaka

2) The AP shells, aside from the fusing, are no better than anyone else has from 0-60' where they pen, and 75-90' where they still autobounce. That's the majority of absolute angles, though as people spend most time angled towards/away it's not as bad as it looks like on face value it's still overall not amazing. Anyone bouncing off CA/CL or BB - especially those with small superstructures and multiple AP-proof gun turrets scattered along the deck - will take far less damage than HE+fire, even if the RN player is a good shot. I've done dozens of hits for poor damage on BB, and been totally bow tanked by cruisers, for all that I've done the odd 3k hit.

3) AP damage is slightly lower than Omaha (3,000 vs. 3,100) and significantly behind Koni's 3,900 (on top of 50% higher RPM) this compounds her weak output.

4) Shell penetration seems low compared to the others, despite decent velocity out of the gate. It's not just autobounce which must be overcome, the arc-y 6in must still penetrate according to a far more complex table than HE. Fires can start on non-penetrations even.

 

Anyone can torpedo ambush but Furutaka can gib idiots at range and Konigsberg's faster torps give less response time in an ambush. However you cut it 6km range and 11km+ detection is a gulf to cover, especially with passive, stand-off players.

 

JOAT's an interesting commander build, I was planning CE but with hydro, heal and smoke... hmm, hmm, brain churning! The majority of players won't have the luxury of a 15pt captain and I never went premium on smoke - it costs more than the ships' repair! Though I go premium smoke on Leander. I didn't do as well as you on dmg, but still did above average. I compare the ship I think mentally to Konigsberg which I did about the same as you did in Emerald with, without a 15pt captain.

 

Yeah, I wouldn't call it the most powerful tier five cruiser by any stretch. The carry potential is very low, and anyone actively pursuing you has the upper hand unless they yield it to you through inferior tactical play.

[Ivlerlin]

I've only a few matches with the Emerald since unlocking her and she's not that bad. 

 

Sure there's great pains when the Ship is uptiered, but that's a difficulty all T5's face. It's a matter of learning to punch above your weight as well as avoiding T6 and T7's hammers of wrath. 

 

Emerald is an interesting ship, the first in the line to get smoke, CatFTR, and Spotter. 

Stock she's just a Danae with her 'P' turret split into 2 wing turrets. Allowing for a 'faster rotation' for a full broadside. The forward Wing Turrets also allow you to keep 3 guns on target when Bow-In and wiggling. 

 

I'm sure I'll get slammed for this but, after graduating through the Caledon and the Danae as painful as they were I'm comfortable without smoke. I've been running Spotter. 

The angles which the gun camera changes to are ideal for RN AP. From the higher view angle you can see roughly where on the deck your shots are landing and it has the added benefit of additional range as well with the slight heading changes your target is moving. 

I'm not saying it's better than smoke. But with the 6km Torps unless you're setting up Ambushes I'm of the opinion Spotter holds near similar value for the Emerald. 

For the ships further up the line with access to Radar and Smoke the consumable slot choice is between them. At the moment CatFTR is predominantly useless unless running an AA build, but why would you at such low a Teir and on a line that is the least powerful in the AA department; even the IJN fair better with the option of CatFTR + DF. 

 

TL;DR -- try the Spotter out. At least on Emerald, smokescreen is wonderful and all but it isn't the "be all, end all" for choices at T5. 

[MrDeaf]

It's balanced as a ship, but it's very frustrating to play.

 

The biggest problem is that T4/5 BBs don't have a lot of superstructure for you to shoot at.

[HazeGrayUnderway]

I am happy to see Emeralds on the enemy team.

 

I am sad to see Emeralds on my team.

[Aeries1]

Out of 76 total ships played, 34 being cruisers she is hands down the worst cruiser I have ever captain'd, maybe worst ever.  He guns are pathetically weak with horrible fire arcs with strong torps leaving you basically with a DD with a citadel.  I finally got enough free XP with Papa Papa flags using other ships to free XP the last 15k to get Leander.  This boat is a crime against the gaming community.  Give me pre-buff Karl, pre-buff Koni/Nurnberg, post nerf Omaha, or Cleveland any day.  My advice is to save free XP till you can start at Leander with this line. 

[BrentD15]

Yyyyyeeeaaaahhh, the Emerald isn't a fun ship to play if your team doesn't know what they're doing.

Especially when you're bottom-tier.

[Mahrs]

I voted for Bacon.  I am going to expand on my thoughts here.  First let me cover the problems with Emerald.

 

Seven.

Tier Seven.

Tier Seven Matches.

Tier Seven Match Making.

So Much Tier Seven Match Making.

 

Seriously.  Danae is not a bad ship at tier IV, at all.  She lives in a world of limited MM and it's OK, most of the time.  Emerald is not a significant step up from Danae.  Her guns are, functionally, just about the same.  Except instead of taking them against IV/V MM, she's now taking them to VII.  Her torpedoes are an upgrade in quantity...but, at 6km...remain an ambush weapon.  My experience with Emerald is that she requires a LOT of work and is hugely unforgiving.  All that said, take a look at my tier V cruisers:

	Furutaka	5	CA/CL	Japan	38	63.16%	33,606	1,156	1.7	0.9	0.5	47%	38%	11%	1,436
	Kirov	5	CA/CL	USSR	38	50.00%	32,465	843	1.9	0.9	0.8	53%	25%	19%	1,136
	Königsberg	5	CA/CL	Germany	32	59.38%	27,943	1,087	1.8	0.9	0.4	50%	27%	8%	1,084
	Emerald	5	CA/CL	UK	16	68.75%	34,337	1,362	2.2	1.3	0.6	44%	34%	10%	1,398

Yea! for Halloween bonuses.  Burned through her in half the games of her peers - with a better WR, damage dealt, frags per match, K/D and...well, yeah, she was the least survivable.  I did very, very badly (like 4-digit damage badly) in four of those 16 matches.  I had some where I put out.  Objectively, based on this data, I cannot say she is a bad ship.  She was, however, too much work to be enjoyable and I did not keep her.  I am grinding Leander now - the fragility is still there, but she feels punchier, more capable.  

[BGolightly]

I think Emerald would have been fine opposite Omaha and 6x1 Furutaka before the MM changes resulting in Tier 5s facing Tier 7 so frequently. Compared to the stronger Tier 5 cruisers (Kirov, Königsberg, and C-Hull Furutaka), she doesn't seem as good, and the matchmaking is uncomfortable right now on top of that.

[yacskn]

The citadel is the worst I've experienced in game.

It takes a single salvo from a BB and about 3 salvos from a CL to kill from broadside since practically evey shell is registered as a citadel penetration.

Lack of range exacerbates this problem by forcing you to close within the artillery sweet spot of most BBs and CAs.

 

The smoke screen is too short to be useful in most cases the game is played. If you're travelling at full speed and want to stay inside the circle when you release smoke you need to first slow down to below 13knots and then hit the button. At full speed the smoke range is barely 1.5 circles, anything under and it's just a single circle.

 

I also don't understand the thinking behind why all RN CLs only have the AP shell. I'd like to know that if anyone cares to tell me.

 

That said; so far British ships have been the most fun I've had in this game since the first time I started playing this game. The additions of smoke and repair diversifiess the tactical possibilities you can adopt and the (very) fragile citadel is a nice challenge.

In fact, I've maintained that all other types of ships in game should be vastly inferior to the BBs in terms of firepower and protection. That one should feel fear upon seeing a BB coming your way when in a cruiser or a destroyer, as per the case in historical settings.

So the current fragility of RN cruisers are successful in adapting my gameplay to a more realistic version and for that reason I would be against a buff to the citadels of these ships, but rather increase the range of the main guns.

 

Because getting in firing range is practically suicide with the Emerald right now and it severely limits my contribution to the team.

Better shell arc and/or slight improvements to the penetration values would also be good. Because these shells are terrible at penetrating anything but a full broadside in close-ish range.

 

So:

- Increase the firing range to 14.5-16km.

- Improve shelld characteristics, especially penetration values.

- Increase the active smoking time.

 

I belive these improvements would make the Emerald more competitive in it's current tier and would be more fun as well.

It gets frustrating really fast when you die with a single salvo game after game after game. Increase the gun range and it'll still be challenging and less frustrating.

 

[Jiggiwatt]

There are two issues I have with the Emerald, and one isn't part of the ship design.

1 - The smoke appears designed for use as an emergency escape measure, you need to immediately turn, pop smoke and run away. If you want to sit in the smoke, you need to be moving very slowly or be 100% still when you pop it and speed is often the only thing keeping me alive in the Emerald. The problem with popping smoke and running (as compared to sitting in it) is that the Emerald works best in ambush and the smoke is only hiding me from one direction at a time when I'm extremely close to the enemy team. I very often find that I'm still lit by other ships in the 10-12km range because I had to make careful use of terrain to get close enough to where I'm useful.

 

Suggestion - increase the active time for smoke generation by 3-4 seconds, allowing me just enough time to pop smoke and drop my speed so that I can survive temporarily if I run into trouble. The ability to invisi-fire from smoke is offset by how small that smoke window is going to be. I can hide, but not for long since you can just fire a salvo or two into the smoke and find me. 

2 - The Emerald works well in tier V, it can even hold it's own against tier VI if played intelligently. With the current MM setup where the Emerald is routinely encountering tier VII, it's completely outclassed unless I catch someone distracted and alone, within range for torpedoes. If it's a BB though, it's secondaries alone are going to take 50% of my health during the approach.

No real suggestion here, but I don't think anyone (except tier VII) is a fan of the current V-VII matchups.

[BrentD15]

The citadel is the worst I've experienced in game.

It takes a single salvo from a BB and about 3 salvos from a CL to kill from broadside since practically evey shell is registered as a citadel penetration.

Lack of range exacerbates this problem by forcing you to close within the artillery sweet spot of most BBs and CAs.

 

The smoke screen is too short to be useful in most cases the game is played. If you're travelling at full speed and want to stay inside the circle when you release smoke you need to first slow down to below 13knots and then hit the button. At full speed the smoke range is barely 1.5 circles, anything under and it's just a single circle.

 

I also don't understand the thinking behind why all RN CLs only have the AP shell. I'd like to know that if anyone cares to tell me.

 

That said; so far British ships have been the most fun I've had in this game since the first time I started playing this game. The additions of smoke and repair diversifiess the tactical possibilities you can adopt and the (very) fragile citadel is a nice challenge.

In fact, I've maintained that all other types of ships in game should be vastly inferior to the BBs in terms of firepower and protection. That one should feel fear upon seeing a BB coming your way when in a cruiser or a destroyer, as per the case in historical settings.

So the current fragility of RN cruisers are successful in adapting my gameplay to a more realistic version and for that reason I would be against a buff to the citadels of these ships, but rather increase the range of the main guns.

 

Because getting in firing range is practically suicide with the Emerald right now and it severely limits my contribution to the team.

Better shell arc and/or slight improvements to the penetration values would also be good. Because these shells are terrible at penetrating anything but a full broadside in close-ish range.

 

So:

- Increase the firing range to 14.5-16km.

- Improve shelld characteristics, especially penetration values.

- Increase the active smoking time.

 

I belive these improvements would make the Emerald more competitive in it's current tier and would be more fun as well.

It gets frustrating really fast when you die with a single salvo game after game after game. Increase the gun range and it'll still be challenging and less frustrating.

 

 

A range of 14km would be fine if the velocity didn't bleed so fast.

[yacskn]

 

A range of 14km would be fine if the velocity didn't bleed so fast.

 

Hence the second suggestion: "improve shell characteristics".

 

Even if it's with current shell arc it's still not as bad as the Königsberg and that has a range of 16km.

 

On a related note; has anyone realised that the shell velocity given in the game has no relation to both the shell arc and the penetration values?

The Leander has significantly slower shells than the Emerald yet it fires straighter and has a lot better penetration.

This goes for other ships as well.

Why write them there if you're going to disregard it and give it some imaginary physics anyway?

[mofton]

On a related note; has anyone realised that the shell velocity given in the game has no relation to both the shell arc and the penetration values?

 

The Leander has significantly slower shells than the Emerald yet it fires straighter and has a lot better penetration.

 

This goes for other ships as well.

 

Why write them there if you're going to disregard it and give it some imaginary physics anyway?

MV is absolutely a factor, but there are other hidden ones, including shell weight and aerodynamics.

 

Leander's shells are better designed and thus more streamlined (5 crh vs 4crh, where crh is a measure of 'pointiness' and higher number is better), so they retain velocity better. They're also about 10% heavier so they retain more energy.

 

Penetration is then decided by velocity at the time you hit - which at longer range favors Leander - and weight of shell - favors Leander - and then shell design - favors Leander.

 

 

It's fat tennis balls starting fast, vs. a javelin starting a bit slower - which goes further?