Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
TenguBlade

Why I Main Battleships

67 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

2,596
[-KIA-]
Banned
9,382 posts
28,311 battles

Because whenever I'm not driving a BB, this garbage happens.

3b31PQ8.png

All of these matches were 100k+ damage except one where I did almost zero because 3 DDs and 3 BBs decided to gang up on me.

 

Buff torpedoes.  Buff CVs.  Buff fires and HE.  Nerf BB dispersion.  Remove Manual Secondaries.  Whatever it takes to drive the PEBKACs away from battleships, do it.  I'm sick of seeing the most important ships on the team doing the least to win.

Edited by TenguBlade
  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,242
[NDA]
Beta Testers
5,251 posts
8,893 battles

You cant really out right nerf BB dispersion though, then there will be to many cruiser's and not enough BB's to keep them in check.  That will not equal pleasant gameplay for carrier's either who are already suffering enough as is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,681 posts
8,111 battles

I feel your pain.

One remedy is to stay back and let the bbs to fight each other while you farm fiery credits :)

A reliable bb teammate is always helpful!

 mQyQ0lp.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,596
[-KIA-]
Banned
9,382 posts
28,311 battles

You cant really out right nerf BB dispersion though, then there will be to many cruiser's and not enough BB's to keep them in check.  That will not equal pleasant gameplay for carrier's either who are already suffering enough as is. 

Who says you can't?  Buff CVs if CAs start making their lives miserable.  It's not like the American CA line is easy for people to play anyways, those ships are a rarity at high-tier.  German and Soviet AA can compete in damage output, but their DF isn't as good (longer CD) and they get one less charge.  The British don't have DF period.  It's literally only the USN CAs that will truly ruin your day by sitting in the middle of the pack and providing AA escort.

 

Nowadays it's all Takaos and Atagos, with the odd British CL, German CA, or Russian CA sprinkled in.  I've seen exactly two USN CAs today: a Des Moines and a Pensacola.

Edited by TenguBlade

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
662
[FAE]
Members
2,626 posts
3,982 battles

Are you trying to say that you're tired of other BB drivers not doing enough to win when you're not playing them?  Or complaining that BB should be the most useful ships in the game bar none?   (Which I think is so incredibly biased and destructive for the game that sometimes I wonder why I even read these forums.) 

 

I don't want BBs really nerfed.  I played BBs too.  But all the buffs to other classes are really things that should be done.  I don't want to play world of BBs. 

Edited by BlailBlerg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,681 posts
8,111 battles

Des Moines and a Pensacola.

I'm not surprised.

WG made both New Orleans and Baltimore boarderline unplayable.

Even Mogami and Ibukies are struggling to find their niche.

But lack of DM Donskoi and Moskva? I'm surprised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,596
[-KIA-]
Banned
9,382 posts
28,311 battles

Are you trying to say that you're tired of other BB drivers not doing enough to win when you're not playing them?  Or complaining that BB should be the most useful ships in the game bar none?   (Which I think is so incredibly biased and destructive for the game that sometimes I wonder why I even read these forums.) 

 

I don't want BBs really nerfed.  I played BBs too.  But all the buffs to other classes are really things that should be done.  I don't want to play world of BBs. 

Take a look at my battleship numbers.  They're a pretty clear demonstration that BBs can already do a lot, even too much. I'm not even anything above a decent battleship player.

 

BBs could get DF, radar, stealth-fire, and torpedo batteries, and they'd still be as useless as they are today with the quality of players who pilot them.  I typically advocate for buffing other classes too instead of nerfing a "problem" class, but at this point nothing will force people to either play BBs smarter or walk away besides reducing the class's standing so badly that they become annoying or completely unplayable to the average potato.  I don't care if my own battleship standings suffer because of it, I actually enjoy playing the class for its tactical potential and not because I don't die in one hit like everyone else.

I'm not surprised.

WG made both New Orleans and Baltimore boarderline unplayable.

Even Mogami and Ibukies are struggling to find their niche.

But lack of DM Donskoi and Moskva? I'm surprised.

I did see a couple Soviet CAs.  I ran into both the smartest Donskoi and stupidest Moskva players I've ever seen on the same team in the same match.  The Moskva kept using HE so I exposed all 5 turrets and set him on fire with my 155s.  Then he got impatient, showed broadside, and I nuked him with 9 citadels.  The Donskoi captain used his team's Shimakaze to bait me out and ambushed me from behind; I never saw him before that.  Didn't have much HP left at that time, but either way it was a smart ploy, and one that's really tricky to do when you've got a cruiser that big, even with a stealth build.

 

Neither New Orleans or Baltimore is unplayable; far from it.  If anything I'd say their radar and better handling make them more fun to play than the Mogami: I was using her because I was trying to get the "200 hits in one battle" task for Honorable Service.  With how bad the torpedo arcs are on the IJN CAs past T5, you might as well not have them.  New Orleans handles well enough and has good enough stealth that I'm confident in heading into a point right behind my DD teammates and giving them radar and hydro utility: that's the build I ran in Ranked, and I carried it over to Randoms after it worked well.  155 Mogami is better against DDs gun-wise, but her turrets turn abysmally slow, and she has no such utility; New Orleans has enough AA to put a dent in same-tier air groups even without DF or a catapult fighter.

Edited by TenguBlade

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
5,082 posts
5,575 battles

Cruiser main reporting in. That's a pretty familiar sight right there. Cruisers are the least influential ship type at high tiers, plain and simple.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,681 posts
8,111 battles

Neither New Orleans or Baltimore is unplayable; far from it.

...but only for people who have a clue what they are doing.

USN cruisers are very unforgiving for average Joes.

Slow shell speed, fragility and lack of stealt(without a 15point commander)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,363
[HYD]
Members
7,105 posts
5,289 battles

USN cruisers are very unforgiving for average Joes.

 

Slow shell speed, fragility and lack of stealt(without a 15point commander)

 

They have the third best concealment (used to be second best before the RN CLs) at high tiers, so they're not too bad on stealth. It's just the Pensacola that has a stealth problem. 
Edited by Aduial

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
304 posts
4,008 battles

The OP only has six battles in the Mogami.  Naturally there's some statistical volatility, i.e., the low win rate despite reported good performance.

 

I'm the same with the Scharnhorst. I'm well above average in the damage, k/d, xp, wtr, but my win rate is only 47%. Why the discrepancy?  I only have 17 battles in her. It'll sort itself out with more battles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,596
[-KIA-]
Banned
9,382 posts
28,311 battles

The OP only has six battles in the Mogami.  Naturally there's some statistical volatility, i.e., the low win rate despite reported good performance.

 

I'm the same with the Scharnhorst. I'm well above average in the damage, k/d, xp, wtr, but my win rate is only 47%. Why the discrepancy?  I only have 17 battles in her. It'll sort itself out with more battles.

That was tonight only; granted, I didn't really set any context so that's my fault for misleading you.  I'll leave my average Mogami stats here (includes the 6 FUBARs from tonight):

Fl05otQ.png

Save for win rate, I've been doing much better than normal if anything.  You can look my profile up on Warships.Today if you want to double-check, my stats aren't hidden.

They have the third best concealment (used to be second best before the RN CLs) at high tiers, so they're not too bad on stealth. It's just the Pensacola that has a stealth problem. 

The problem is that third-best stealth while also not hitting as hard as the second-best or as rapidly as the best, along with not having torpedoes, results in fewer options to make use of that stealth with.  As utility-support units the USN CAs have no equal, but because of their guns the utility requires smart teammates to make use of it (unless you're a Des Moines in which case you can just murder everything yourself with your sheer volume of fire).  As ranged fire-support, they're not great because their HE is meh and their arcs are meh to bad.  As front-line combatants, they're arguably among the best CAs with which to 1v1 anything but a battleship, but those kinds of engagements rarely happen.

Edited by TenguBlade

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,363
[HYD]
Members
7,105 posts
5,289 battles

The problem is that third-best stealth while also not hitting as hard as the second-best or as rapidly as the best, along with not having torpedoes, results in fewer options to make use of that stealth with.  As utility-support units the USN CAs have no equal, but because of their guns the utility requires smart teammates to make use of it (unless you're a Des Moines in which case you can just murder everything yourself with your sheer volume of fire).  As ranged fire-support, they're not great because their HE is meh and their arcs are meh to bad.  As front-line combatants, they're arguably among the best CAs with which to 1v1 anything but a battleship, but those kinds of engagements rarely happen.

 

I agree. I wasn't necessarily saying that they were baanced; I just responded because he thought lack of stealth was a weakness of the USN line, when their concealment is comparable to IJN CAs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
304 posts
4,008 battles

The OP only has six battles in the Mogami.  Naturally there's some statistical volatility, i.e., the low win rate despite reported good performance.

 

That was tonight only; granted, I didn't really set any context so that's my fault for misleading you.  I'll leave my average Mogami stats here (includes the 6 FUBARs from tonight):

Fl05otQ.png

Save for win rate, I've been doing much better than normal if anything.  You can look my profile up on Warships.Today if you want to double-check, my stats aren't hidden.

 

Ah, I see now. 

 

I hear you in regards keeping a better grip on your own fate by driving a BB.  I'm a DD main, but I find my stats go down on weekends because the friendly team too often just plain falls apart around me faster than I can save them in my little boat.  But in the last couple weekends, I used more BBs and CAs, and I found that these brawnier ships were stronger levers for lifting the potato sack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
620 posts
6,152 battles

i dont get it, few weeks ago i had much higher average dmg and less winrate on a BB. Your teams were not good, deal with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,596
[-KIA-]
Banned
9,382 posts
28,311 battles

i dont get it, few weeks ago i had much higher average dmg and less winrate on a BB. Your teams were not good, deal with it.

Of course you don't, anyone whose narrative relies on the stereotype of "BBabbies" will pull the wool over their eyes and plug their ears whenever a battleship driver says something sensible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,113
[CHASE]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,973 posts
13,112 battles

Of course you don't, anyone whose narrative relies on the stereotype of "BBabbies" will pull the wool over their eyes and plug their ears whenever a battleship driver says something sensible.

 

No, BBabbies need to stop complaining because they don't have WASD hacks (even though maneuverability has been nerfed to crap), HE fire spam is fine and you can avoid it if you get good (because cruisers need to be good at killing their hard counters), and stealth fire is fair and balanced (even though there is no way to counter it in a BB)

-baDDies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,596
[-KIA-]
Banned
9,382 posts
28,311 battles

No, BBabbies need to stop complaining because they don't have WASD hacks (even though maneuverability has been nerfed to crap), HE fire spam is fine and you can avoid it if you get good (because cruisers need to be good at killing their hard counters), and stealth fire is fair and balanced (even though there is no way to counter it in a BB)

-baDDies

Eh, I'd say that right now things are fine for smart BB drivers, and too good for stupid ones.  I, for one, want battleships to be unforgiving of a mistake in return for having so low of an ability to make one (when it comes to dealing with anything but torpedoes) in the first place.  If WG wants CAs to be the general-purpose class, then BBs need to be made more difficult to play to drive the sheep away.

 

Torpedoes can be dodged on reaction in nearly everything, and in nearly everything that you can't do so with, you get boosted reaction times or a godlike TDS; the closest to an exception I can think of is the American line (guess which BBs also are regarded as the worst for their tier?).  HE spam is fine; BBs have the most tools of any class to counter sustained gunfire, one of which involves not staying still, but if you mismanage them woe to you when RNGesus makes the guy shooting at you light four fires.  Outside of the Zao's out-of-control 24% max fire chance I have no problem with HE as it is.  Stealth-fire can be avoided by, first and foremost, not being an idiot and sitting still, and secondly, not sitting there and taking it.  Find some way to break LoS, pull back to either lure the DD into teammates' spotting distances or get out of range (depending on how smart the DD is), and take some time to regenerate that fire damage.  Of course, I'm only counting DD invisi-fire here, since Zao is a legitimate balancing issue that is likely the primary reason for any stealth-fire rework we'll get.  Ibuki is somewhat of a problem too but her fire chance, HE alpha, and shell speed are lower so it's not as hard to deal with, and USN CAs' stealth-fire ability exists only on paper or against really stupid people because of their arcs.

whats the difference between a bbabbie and a bb driver?

Thank you for proving my point.

Edited by TenguBlade

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
180
[-AL-]
Members
717 posts

Of course you don't, anyone whose narrative relies on the stereotype of "BBabbies" will pull the wool over their eyes and plug their ears whenever a battleship driver says something sensible.

 

/pat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,971 posts
13,729 battles

Because whenever I'm not driving a BB, this garbage happens.

3b31PQ8.png

All of these matches were 100k+ damage except one where I did almost zero because 3 DDs and 3 BBs decided to gang up on me.

 

Buff torpedoes.  Buff CVs.  Buff fires and HE.  Nerf BB dispersion.  Remove Manual Secondaries.  Whatever it takes to drive the PEBKACs away from battleships, do it.  I'm sick of seeing the most important ships on the team doing the least to win.

 

The worst players in the game play battleships. Everyone knows it. No one wants to talk about it. And wargaming caters too it. For me, it means that I need to play long range HE cruisers or Russian dd's or successful stealth torping dd's for the win the majority of the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×