Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
_Dracarys

Is the conqueror a win win solution for all?

18 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

228
[TNG]
Members
813 posts
6,173 battles

Many people are outraged by the OP fire potential of the Conqueror. However, if we look at it from a different perspective, there is an argument that Conqueror is a win win solution for both the Conqueror captain and the ships that it shoots at.

 

  • Fact 1: HE and Fire damage can be healed back (90%)
  • Fact 2: Citadel hits cause devastating strikes or cannot be healed back (only 10%)

BBs that focus on AP performance is the bane of cruisers and other BBs, instantly nuking its victims out of existence. This is the source of frustration of many cruisers. On the other hand, firing HE will allow the victims of Conqueror to live longer. I'd rather burn and heal back my hp (Hello Dreadnought and Fireproof!) than getting cit-rekt.

 

In my opinion, Conqueror allows more sustained fun for both itself and its targets. Win Win!

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
136
[BBC]
Members
908 posts
12,243 battles

True. No more getting deleted is great ! Cruisers may even want more anti fire skills.

Edited by Rilak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,315
[CRMSN]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
5,373 posts
3,565 battles

 

Yes it allows the victim to heal more, but it also negates defensive measures from angling. 

 

So you may be able to heal more back, but you would also take more up front damage from your positioning being a mute point. 

 

So in my opinion, its worse because you cannot Angle againts the HE. and If you try to maneuver out you get smacked by the AP.  Its essentially be damned if you do and damned if you don't. 

 

The only thing that is truly effective in taking down a conquerer is coordinated focus fire in a short period of time.  Once you get past that buffer it melts fast. But that requires teamwork which isn't a constant factor in most games. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
269
[PT8TO]
Members
1,402 posts
12,911 battles

Unless anyone who who has a Conqueror on their teams say whatever you set on fire ill throw AP at.

So Conqueror sets the fires and  I deliver damage you cant heal back.

Eventually your dead  before you can heal back any fire damage.

Edited by GUNSTAR_THE_LEGEND

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
228
[TNG]
Members
813 posts
6,173 battles
Just now, Cobraclutch said:

 

Yes it allows the victim to heal more, but it also negates defensive measures from angling. 

 

So you may be able to heal more back, but you would also take more up front damage from your positioning being a mute point. 

 

So in my opinion, its worse because you cannot Angle againts the HE. and If you try to maneuver out you get smacked by the AP.  Its essentially be damned if you do and damned if you don't. 

 

The only thing that is truly effective in taking down a conquerer is coordinated focus fire in a short period of time.  Once you get past that buffer it melts fast. But that requires teamwork which isn't a constant factor in most games. 

 

Regarding your point on negating angling:

Angling is only really useful for BBs. CLs still get rekt even when you angle. And we all agree that bow tanking makes games boring. So why encourage angling at all anyways? It's nice that HE deals with this annoying tactic - like radar takes away smoke camping.

 

Second point about Conqueror's heal, you just need a good salvo from a scumbag DD, then the Conqueror is done. it does not require an entire team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
228
[TNG]
Members
813 posts
6,173 battles
Just now, Ace_04 said:

Conqueror AP is still plenty strong, no?

it's alright. give it a broadside target it will still hurt because it's got 12 guns. but an AP salvo from the monty will hurt much much more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,602
Members
17,842 posts
5,096 battles
7 minutes ago, _Dracarys said:

 

  • Fact 1: HE and Fire damage can be healed back (90%)
  • Fact 2: Citadel hits cause devastating strikes or cannot be healed back (only 10%)

 

 

This is true. However, there's a finite number of times you can heal back that damage. Once that's done, it's completely out of your hands, and even an unskilled player can ruin your day.

 

With AP, there's an unlimited amount of angling and maneuvering you can do to avoid it. An unskilled player could spend the whole match shooting at you exclusively, and never get a cit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,602
Members
17,842 posts
5,096 battles
4 minutes ago, _Dracarys said:

 

Angling is only really useful for BBs. CLs still get rekt even when you angle. And we all agree that bow tanking makes games boring. So why encourage angling at all anyways? 

 

I disagree. Compare the target area of a cruiser's citadel when broadside, and again when angled. Smaller target when angled. Also, cruiser belt armor can autobounce most BB rounds. 

 

Angling does encourage bow camping. But bow camping encourages flanking.

 

Why encourage angling? Because the effects of it add depth to the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42
[POI--]
Members
176 posts
1,989 battles

The guns being strong are not the reason for the CQ being OP. It's the guns being strong, and the armor being decent, and the citadel being underwater, and AA being decent, and the heal healing up to 40k damage four times in a match...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,579
[TASH]
Members
4,996 posts
7,925 battles
10 minutes ago, _Dracarys said:

it's alright. give it a broadside target it will still hurt because it's got 12 guns. but an AP salvo from the monty will hurt much much more.

Not really.  Conqueror's AP has better penetration and is only 500 alpha behind, on top of being more accurate due to the tighter dispersion cone.  Anyone using HE against a cruiser that isn't the Zao or a heavily-angled Moskva isn't playing BBs right.

Edited by ValkyrWarframe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,315
[CRMSN]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
5,373 posts
3,565 battles
13 minutes ago, _Dracarys said:

Regarding your point on negating angling:

Angling is only really useful for BBs. CLs still get rekt even when you angle. And we all agree that bow tanking makes games boring. So why encourage angling at all anyways? It's nice that HE deals with this annoying tactic - like radar takes away smoke camping.

 

Second point about Conqueror's heal, you just need a good salvo from a scumbag DD, then the Conqueror is done. it does not require an entire team.

 

I think that angling is extremely important with a CL / CA. You can bait out shots very easily by providing a target with a bow on profile and then waiting for the volley fire and moving in the opposite direction.  Some skip off your belt, others over pen. 

Its work's well with both HE and AP volleys, however with the conq being so good in HE power any shells that do land on target are devastating in damage and fire. One of the biggest complaints about Stealth firing is it allowed DD's to counter cruisers , because you could pepper them with HE and slowly work them down  with fires.  The conq does a similar type of situation in that any damage you do in return will just be rehealed to the extreme degree. Were as your heal and HP / armor are no match for him in a cruiser. You just healed up 10-15k from fires that you took from 2 volleys? Congrats, here is another volley of 10k HE damage and 2+ fires, negating anything your heal just did. 

 

AP tends to bounce and shatter a lot more then we think it does, proper maneuvering from a bow on position in a cruiser can negate AP volleys quite well. Were as a HE volley will do damage regardless. 

 

I can angle to a certain extent in my neptune against AP volleys from BB's.. Its not 100% reliable sure, but it works to a certain degree.  Against a conq HE volley? Instant citadel. 

 

What the conquerer does is force you into a battle of attrition you can't win, You can light equal amount of fires and do equal amounts of HE damage, and he will always come on top because of the heal.  

 

You need a good salvo from a DD? Yea and that is pretty much the way of taking down any higher tier BB for good.. Conq has amazing maneuvering, she can thread her way through a torp wall very well. Its a lot easier said than done. 

 

remember torpedo hit rates are in the single digits at higher tiers... Even if you take a Gearing who has a 10% hit rate(which is amazing, avg is 5-6) , that's a grand total of 5 torpedoes out of 50 torpedoes launched.  What you are describing is something that is more of a result of a Conquerer being a potato, than a DD being a stealth assassin. 

 

Torpedoes counters stupidity. They are extremely easy to avoid and counter, especially with the conq's awesome rudder shift and turning circle. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,602
Members
17,842 posts
5,096 battles
15 minutes ago, Rilak said:

True. No more getting deleted is great ! 

 

Where did you get the idea there would be no more cruiser deletions?

 

They're not nerfing AP on non-RN BBs, just adding a BB line that can also (with its 1/4 pen and increased damage) delete you with HE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
164 posts
6,503 battles
1 hour ago, ValkyrWarframe said:

Not really.  Conqueror's AP has better penetration and is only 500 alpha behind, on top of being more accurate due to the tighter dispersion cone.  Anyone using HE against a cruiser that isn't the Zao or a heavily-angled Moskva isn't playing BBs right.

 

As a brief note here, I'm almost certain Zao is vulnerable to being citadeled by the British HE of 400+mm. Minotaur and Neptune definitely are, as are Mogami and Chapayev. Many T7 and lower cruisers are also vulnerable, but just covering the T8+ ones, which really should not be getting hit like that. Ironically, unlike the higher tiers, Edinburgh (or fail divisioned Fijis) is only vulnerable to citadels from the 457 HE (which very few players are using because the 419s are utterly stupidly overpowered). Minotaur is actually even more vulnerable than Neptune, being citadeled by even Lion's 406mm HE, which Neptune avoids.

 

In all cases except for Zao, this is due to having their citadel armor making up part of the outer hull, and only having ~100mm of armor protection on said spot (Mino is 101, Neptune is 102. Fiji/Edinburgh have 114mm plates). Zao is something of a special case, as it has hull armor of 30mm, being like Hindenburg, Henri IV and Moskva in the citadel no longer directly making up part of the hull, but being behind a not terribly thick outer plate, but an extremely heavily angled plate of 65mm behind it - and that's the potential problem. Unlike the others, that 65mm plate is directly touching the hull plate, which I think is letting it at least occasionally be counted along with the outer plate, meaning due to how HE works it's looking at that mere 95mm of armor and thus causing citadels. This in particular really shouldn't be happening.

Edited by NozTheWhiteDawn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
582 posts
4,212 battles
1 hour ago, ValkyrWarframe said:

Not really.  Conqueror's AP has better penetration and is only 500 alpha behind, on top of being more accurate due to the tighter dispersion cone.  Anyone using HE against a cruiser that isn't the Zao or a heavily-angled Moskva isn't playing BBs right.

 

Conqueror isn't more accurate. If you're taking MBM3 over APRM2 on the Montana, then you're just playing a bad Conqueror. The higher accuracy with APRM2 is the only thing that the Montana has going for it.

 

It's not that the AP isn't effective in the Conqueror, it's that the HE is vastly better than any other HE in-game, which is also far friendlier to a ship with mediocre/poor accuracy like the Conqueror. It's much, much easier to fish for fires (forcing DCP, then stacking them) than it is to fish for Citadels. I'd only use AP for broadside shots against bow-tanking cruisers, or Minotaurs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,579
[TASH]
Members
4,996 posts
7,925 battles
10 minutes ago, vonluckner said:

Conqueror isn't more accurate. If you're taking MBM3 over APRM2 on the Montana, then you're just playing a bad Conqueror. The higher accuracy with APRM2 is the only thing that the Montana has going for it.

 

It's not that the AP isn't effective in the Conqueror, it's that the HE is vastly better than any other HE in-game, which is also far friendlier to a ship with mediocre/poor accuracy like the Conqueror. It's much, much easier to fish for fires (forcing DCP, then stacking them) than it is to fish for Citadels. I'd only use AP for broadside shots against bow-tanking cruisers, or Minotaurs.

You're right.  I was running the numbers with her ST range of 26-something km - I assumed the Conqueror's 1.8 sigma versus Montana's 1.9 would be balanced out by the lower dispersion/range ratio.  Now that it's down to 24.3, Montana does have a better dispersion/range ratio.  Still worth noting, however, that Conqueror's effective AP DPM is about as high as APRM2 Montana since they land similar amounts of hits at distance and the former can use MBM3 without a huge accuacy penalty (lower AP alpha is offset by higher rate of fire).  HE DPM between the two isn't even close to a contest.

 

I'd also argue Montana is also still valuable for her DCP, which isn't something the Conqueror can boast although she's much better at healing back DoT damage.  Putting DCPM1 on gives you 28 seconds of DCP active duration, and I've seen Monty drivers surprise more than one British BB driver with it.  Alternatively, if you build for auxiliary armament survivability your AA is much better in the long run than Conqueror because it'll take more hits to knock out 2 Bofors MKIIs than it will to knock out one Bofors STAAG.

Edited by ValkyrWarframe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27
[KSC]
Members
82 posts
9,582 battles
50 minutes ago, NozTheWhiteDawn said:

 

As a brief note here, I'm almost certain Zao is vulnerable to being citadeled by the British HE of 400+mm. Minotaur and Neptune definitely are, as are Mogami and Chapayev. Many T7 and lower cruisers are also vulnerable, but just covering the T8+ ones, which really should not be getting hit like that. Ironically, unlike the higher tiers, Edinburgh (or fail divisioned Fijis) is only vulnerable to citadels from the 457 HE (which very few players are using because the 419s are utterly stupidly overpowered). Minotaur is actually even more vulnerable than Neptune, being citadeled by even Lion's 406mm HE, which Neptune avoids.

 

In all cases except for Zao, this is due to having their citadel armor making up part of the outer hull, and only having ~100mm of armor protection on said spot (Mino is 101, Neptune is 102. Fiji/Edinburgh have 114mm plates). Zao is something of a special case, as it has hull armor of 30mm, being like Hindenburg, Henri IV and Moskva in the citadel no longer directly making up part of the hull, but being behind a not terribly thick outer plate, but an extremely heavily angled plate of 65mm behind it - and that's the potential problem. Unlike the others, that 65mm plate is directly touching the hull plate, which I think is letting it at least occasionally be counted along with the outer plate, meaning due to how HE works it's looking at that mere 95mm of armor and thus causing citadels. This in particular really shouldn't be happening.

I've gotten HE citadel hits on:

Ibuki

Kutuzov

Chapayev

Neptune

Minotaur

Few examples in the videos below. Deleting Royal Navy CL's with HE is very satisfying.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×