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

RN Battleships

30 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

27
[CEWL]
Members
104 posts
7,188 battles

Ok, so if any of you have watched the Zerra channel as well as stuntman9630, you will see that they are on the way. Now in my opinion they have a lot of promise. HOWEVER, their HP pool is ridiculously low. Armor isn't anything super special. Now if they give these ships something similar to the RN cruiser heal, or the Warspite heal, maybe then....but still, its like an entire line of Colorados, under HP'd and shanked at their tiers. now all these stats could change, and honestly they really need to. So far only ships in this line that have my attention are the Nelson and KGV. 

thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,940
[ASHIP]
Members
5,454 posts
12,933 battles

They really don't. Conq looks pretty attractive with it's turret angles, small size and amazing rudder shift.

What it sounds like is you are stuck in thinking that a BB needs lots of health, but the only damage that sticks is citadel damage. I don't know about you, but I don't really take my whole health bars in citadels. Usually able to pump out repairs, and the value of those does not change because you have less HP. They also don't need to be released as better than their counterparts

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
621 posts
7,383 battles

From what i have heard of Conquerer's dispersion numbers (smallest dispersion with the longest range), maneuverability and guns i like what i see so far. 

 

I maintained for months that the Montana has been the best all round T10 BB in the game, even though as you say it was "Under HP'ed" and "shanked" when it came to its hilariously inconsistent citadel compared to every other ship in the game. 

 

I will happily deal with a entire line of Montana's if that is what the RN Battleships are in your version of lacking HP and being "shanked" in their tier. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
991
[HELLS]
Members
2,971 posts
40,589 battles

The Royal Navy invented the modern dreadnought and superdreadnought battleships, and they built the first true fast battleship in HMS Hood, twenty years before anyone else. It stands to reason that the two earliest classes, built before anyone else even built a single dreadnought (USN excepted-they were right on track and made mistakes of their own), have some weaknesses. From the WWI KGV (13.5 inch gun ships) class on, that disappeared. All RN ships have alway had one true strength, and that is fast and accurate gunnery. That fetish with rate of fire got them into trouble at Jutland due to bad cordite handling practices in the Grand Fleet, but the ships themselves were, for the most part, soundly designed. The battlecruisers did not have weak armor, they had a commander who insisted on rapid fire, to the point where gunnery officers circumvented magazine and cordite handling regulations and created an open powder train from the turrets to the magazines. Any hit on the turret which penetrated the roof would create a flash down the turret trunk and handling passages to the magazines because the flash doors had been removed. No wonder they blew up! Those who followed the RN lead learned from the design mistakes made in early RN BBs, which gave them some leeway to improve their own designs. These BBs, built later had some advantage over those earlier ones of the RN, but not much. The USN learned quickly enough that the Nevadas were well-built in all aspects except speed. That said, no other navy, including Germany, could match the RN's gunnery. Give them their rate of fire and they will be OK

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,677 posts
3,060 battles

Well, the British BBs will not be like the Colorado because they'll be faster. I do see a problem with the Colorado because I think it needs more hit points rather than a better heal but maybe it will work out with the British ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,662
[CALM]
Beta Testers
6,838 posts
6,088 battles

T8 and onwards gain extremely buffed rudder shift and reasonable turning; completely opposite their actual historically poor rudder shift and titanic turning.

 

The entire line currently gets a 60% Repair Party, and is rumored to also be getting Warspite's 60% total repair (modifiers AND 60% non-citadel repair) and Cruiser-style Damage Control.  Their traverse is also extremely buffed to 45s instead of the 72s limit they would have had otherwise; since they historically traversed quite poorly compared to all the other rival navies at only 2 deg/s.  Instead they're using NelRod's 4 deg/s traverse, which is the 45s traverse given to the entire line.

 

If anything, the line is looking to be much closer to what battleships in general should have maneuvered and handled like prior to the CBT nerfs to maneuverability and durability (cruiser-style DC to the BB-style DC varied by Nationality).  Only with a slight loss in pinpoint accuracy (lower sigma) while retaining a narrower cone than the IJN (lower dispersion).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
323 posts
5,699 battles

I think the heal will compensate fully for any shortcomings in hit points. Their armor will probably be fine tho everything is currently a work in progress. It will be interesting to see how British battleships will do in terms of dispersion, penetration and bounce angles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,299
[VCRUZ]
Members
4,049 posts
9,180 battles

What ive seen so far from the RN BBs is ok, it seems to be a similar playstyle to IJN BBs, decent speed and accurated guns but a little more tanky. Wich is ok since IJN took many RN design as base for their own BBs early on. They might gain a special heal as their gimmick, but nothing too OP, and Wg can trade that better heal for less HP. But IMO good positioning and angling are the best tool for surviving on a BB. 

 

And IMO HP pool is not hte worst problem of Colorado, IMO the worst speed by far for its tier and the rainbow shell arcs are Colorados biggest problems. The slow speed makes Colorado a easy target and the shell arcs makes hard to hit enemys at long ranges and you dont have enough speed to get closer. In a tier were you have those amazing Nagatos guns and the high speed of the germans twins and Hood Colorado feels like a T6 BB up on T7. It feels out of place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
86 posts
10,120 battles

Something to consider, is that given the leaked name for the Tier 9 BB (Lion), there won't be a Lion Battlecruiser  when they get around to releasing them (be it as a branch of BB's, a separate tree, or as individual premiums). So anyone that wants to see Battlecruiser Lion in the game better get agitating to change the Tier 9 name now, before it's too late.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,299
[VCRUZ]
Members
4,049 posts
9,180 battles
On 2017-6-18 at 1:15 PM, Brave_Sir_Robin_1 said:

Something to consider, is that given the leaked name for the Tier 9 BB (Lion), there won't be a Lion Battlecruiser  when they get around to releasing them (be it as a branch of BB's, a separate tree, or as individual premiums). So anyone that wants to see Battlecruiser Lion in the game better get agitating to change the Tier 9 name now, before it's too late.

The T9 Lion will be a project of a Lion class of battleships. They were supposed to be a larger King George V class. If im not wrong, one started to be built but the construction was stopped due to WW2 and was never completed. If it were the Lion battlecruiser it would be a t5 or t6 ship.

 

But i hope someday WG makes a second line of BBs, the first one of battleships (more tank and slow) and the second one of battlecruisers(faster but less tank). They could also do that to german and IJN too, since they also had lots battlecruisers built and designs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,921
Alpha Tester, Alpha Tester
11,461 posts
1,963 battles
On 6/18/2017 at 5:15 PM, Brave_Sir_Robin_1 said:

Something to consider, is that given the leaked name for the Tier 9 BB (Lion), there won't be a Lion Battlecruiser  when they get around to releasing them (be it as a branch of BB's, a separate tree, or as individual premiums). So anyone that wants to see Battlecruiser Lion in the game better get agitating to change the Tier 9 name now, before it's too late.

Or they will just name the tier IV battle-cruiser Princess Royal

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,058
[ARS]
Beta Testers
8,507 posts
10,048 battles
On 6/15/2017 at 9:26 AM, GrandAdmiral_2016 said:

It stands to reason that the two earliest classes, built before anyone else even built a single dreadnought (USN excepted-they were right on track and made mistakes of their own), have some weaknesses. 

IJN as well.  Satsuma was designed to have an all 12" gun armament, but gun availability blocked that from happening so she was completed as a predreadnought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
160
[INK3S]
Beta Testers
1,817 posts
6,780 battles
Just now, KnightFandragon said:

Any ST have some gameplay? 

They might but they can't provide it unless approved by WG. They have an agreement that prevents unnecessary and harmful leaking of info.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,003 posts
1,451 battles
Just now, Dictonary said:

They might but they can't provide it unless approved by WG. They have an agreement that prevents unnecessary and harmful leaking of info.

So its not that far along then, no fun.  Im always interested in seeing some new BB gameplay.  Im interested in the British BBs.  I kinda wish the KGV was the T7 though haha..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
350
[GROGS]
Beta Testers
1,197 posts
16,102 battles
On 7/5/2017 at 0:09 AM, KnightFandragon said:

Any ST have some gameplay? 

ask again in a month

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,299
[VCRUZ]
Members
4,049 posts
9,180 battles

The main problem with Colorado is not the HP pool. IMO is the super slow speed, wich makes Colorado a easy target, and the bad shell arcs, hard to hit at long ranges makes Colorado a bad ship. Colorado feels like a t6 BB up in t7 IMO. 

 

HP is good but not everything. If they are fast (speed and rudder) and with good guns they will play similar to the IJN line. Fast ships with good guns. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17,584
[WOLF5]
Members
38,622 posts
31,263 battles

You can see Conqueror's heal at play in this clip, from the view of a Des Moines player opposite her.

https://clips.twitch.tv/DistinctMistyWatercressAMPEnergyCherry

At 7:34 Conqueror was at 3k health.
At 7:20 it's at 25k

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,728
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
17,538 posts
12,810 battles
On 7/4/2017 at 11:21 AM, mr3awsome said:

Or they will just name the tier IV battle-cruiser Princess Royal

It may be more likely that they use Queen Mary as the tree ship and PR as the premium.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,921
Alpha Tester, Alpha Tester
11,461 posts
1,963 battles
1 hour ago, crzyhawk said:

It may be more likely that they use Queen Mary as the tree ship and PR as the premium.

Given that Orion is the tier IV regular, it would make more sense if Princess Royal was the regular, as are from the same programme.

Same as how the 1911 King George V class aren't in the regular line and could be a premium later. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
682
[SCRAP]
Beta Testers
1,690 posts
5,592 battles

One thing is obvious from this tree:

We will be getting the "R" Class (which came after Queen Elisabeth) - as the Russian Arkangelsk.

I guess it makes sense, as otherwise you'd be getting four RN ships armed with 4x2 15in all clustered in that mid-tier arena.

 

These were the slower, better armoured (for the time) 'brawler' versions of Queen Elisabeth, whereas the QE's introduced the larger 'fast battleship' concept.

 

?format=750w

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58
[BTH]
Members
180 posts
9,691 battles

New supertest info says that the RN BBs from tier 8-10 will now get Defensive Fire. Because if there's one thing the game needed, it's more changes making CVs even more unplayable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
682
[SCRAP]
Beta Testers
1,690 posts
5,592 battles
8 hours ago, thelastholdout said:

New supertest info says that the RN BBs from tier 8-10 will now get Defensive Fire. Because if there's one thing the game needed, it's more changes making CVs even more unplayable.

Errr... yeah

Because late war RN was known for it's AA ability.

It's not as if the RN had superior AA ability early war, but was later outstripped by USN production or anything...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58
[BTH]
Members
180 posts
9,691 battles
On 7/20/2017 at 3:59 AM, HMS_Formidable said:

Errr... yeah

Because late war RN was known for it's AA ability.

It's not as if the RN had superior AA ability early war, but was later outstripped by USN production or anything...

 

Regardless of historical accuracy/inaccuracy, it's lovely to know that WG just absolutely hates carrier players and wants to frustrate them even more before they even attempt to make things better.

They've made only token gestures to balance CV gameplay. The balance between USN and IJN is still a total mess, AA is too strong across the board, and they've jumped the difficulty curve on carrier gameplay by removing manual drops from tier 4-5, meaning no one can even start to learn manual drops until their planes are getting swatted out of the sky and their hangars emptied by tier 8 AA.

The "interface overhaul" a couple of months ago was actually worse than the original interface, and now they're going to add BBs with defensive fire to the mix, because why not just make CVs completely not fun to use at all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×