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

US Heavy Cruiser

401 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

2
[LWA]
Beta Testers
6 posts
6,274 battles

We need the Buffalo to be released!  Please Wargaming its been drawn up and we've waited too long.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,708
[HINON]
WoWS Wiki Editor, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
6,498 posts
3,751 battles

It is likely never to happen. At least on for a looong time. The next T10 USN cruiser is likely to be USS Worcester.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,418
[HINON]
Supertester
7,520 posts
7,578 battles
13 minutes ago, Doomlock said:

It is likely never to happen. At least on for a looong time. The next T10 USN cruiser is likely to be USS Worcester.

Gonna agree with this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
813
[SPTR]
Members
25,657 posts
10,829 battles

WG doesn't know how to handle a Buffalo, since we already have a 203mm armed T10 heavy cruiser in game already, lots of suggestion before say she should be a reward ship of some sort

 

Worcester looks pretty promising, an American Minotaur. /^_\\  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,479
[AHOY_]
Beta Testers
6,419 posts
3,413 battles
21 minutes ago, Doomlock said:

It is likely never to happen. At least on for a looong time. The next T10 USN cruiser is likely to be USS Worcester.

 

I disagree; on the grounds that Buffalo is better suited to being a T9. She's basically a Baltimore with 3 more guns and some short-range, self-defense torpedoes. Her RoF is too low to be adequate for T10 when compared to DM and Worcester.

 

If/when WG gets around to a US cruiser line-split, Cleveland goes to the CL line, while WG can just bump down all cruisers from Pensa to Baltimore down a tier, losing certain Module access, and a possible reversion to some of the minor buffs they got (such as Baltimore losing the RoF buff but it goes to the new Buffalo instead), with Buffalo slotting in nicely at T9.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14
[5IN]
Members
63 posts
13,682 battles

... I predict... 

USS Brooklyn at T6

USS Cleveland (moved to) T7

USS Fargo at T8

USS Worcester at T9

USS Alaska at T10

and the Buffalo a T8 premium 

 

and yes the Alaska is out of place but it's one of a couple of less good ways to get the Alaska into the game.... or maybe not 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,418
[HINON]
Supertester
7,520 posts
7,578 battles
2 minutes ago, TAM_OH said:

... I predict... 

USS Brooklyn at T6

USS Cleveland (moved to) T7

USS Fargo at T8

USS Worcester at T9

USS Alaska at T10

and the Buffalo a T8 premium 

 

and yes the Alaska is out of place but it's one of a couple of less good ways to get the Alaska into the game.... or maybe not 

Cleveland will be at tier 8.  Devs have even stated it a while back when asked about the line split.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14
[5IN]
Members
63 posts
13,682 battles
1 minute ago, renegadestatuz said:

Cleveland will be at tier 8.  Devs have even stated it a while back when asked about the line split.

 

yeah, I heard that too, but plans can change and If you force the Alaska in the CL line (err.... alternative line)  everything else moves down a tier.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,378
[HINON]
[HINON]
Members
4,964 posts
6,441 battles
16 minutes ago, TAM_OH said:

 

yeah, I heard that too, but plans can change and If you force the Alaska in the CL line (err.... alternative line)  everything else moves down a tier.  

Alaska would be in the Heavy cruiser cruiser line, it was FAR from being a Cl with.....12 inch guns i believe she carried? the only class of "battlecruisers" the USN made if i remember right, though they were  officially classed as "Large cruisers" and not "battlecruisers"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Alaska_(CB-1)

USS+Alaska+and+Missouri+at+NOBi.jpg

thats USS Missouri on the top and USS Alaska at the bottom, only a couple 100 feet or so, give or take, between their lengths from bow to stern

I imagine that she'll more than likely be a premium, either T8 or 9 with how much AA she sports, 12 5 inchers, 56 40mm Bofors, and 34 20mm Oerlikons 

Edited by tcbaker777

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14
[5IN]
Members
63 posts
13,682 battles
4 minutes ago, tcbaker777 said:

Alaska would be in the Heavy cruiser cruiser line, it was FAR from being a Cl with.....12 inch guns i believe she carried? the only class of "battlecruisers" the USN made if i remember right, though they were  officially classed as "Large cruisers" and not "battlecruisers"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Alaska_(CB-1)

All true, but the French, and Russian cruiser lines also have T10's with bigger guns than their T9's. Another Alaska option would be to offer it as a third T10 you get by completing both USN cruiser lines. Then the USS Worcester moves back to T10. I obviously have no idea what's going to happen with the USN cruiser split.... just guessing.... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LRM]
Members
2,549 posts
4,922 battles

The USN Cruiser split also needs to come with a buff to all the USN cruisers. Short ranged ships that are forced to hug islands is challenging, but with the way the armor is built, it is just not sustainable.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,708
[HINON]
WoWS Wiki Editor, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
6,498 posts
3,751 battles
9 minutes ago, YamatoA150 said:

 

I disagree; on the grounds that Buffalo is better suited to being a T9. She's basically a Baltimore with 3 more guns and some short-range, self-defense torpedoes. Her RoF is too low to be adequate for T10 when compared to DM and Worcester.

 

If/when WG gets around to a US cruiser line-split, Cleveland goes to the CL line, while WG can just bump down all cruisers from Pensa to Baltimore down a tier, losing certain Module access, and a possible reversion to some of the minor buffs they got (such as Baltimore losing the RoF buff but it goes to the new Buffalo instead), with Buffalo slotting in nicely at T9.

I wasn't fully remembering the characteristics of Buffalo, other than the fact that in the files she's T10, and has some type of torpedoes. That sounds reasonable.

 

4 minutes ago, TAM_OH said:

... I predict... 

USS Brooklyn at T6

USS Cleveland (moved to) T7

USS Fargo at T8

USS Worcester at T9

USS Alaska at T10

and the Buffalo a T8 premium 

 

and yes the Alaska is out of place but it's one of a couple of less good ways to get the Alaska into the game.... or maybe not 

 

I disagree with this for several reasons:

 

First off, Brooklyn. She would be ludicrously OP at T6. Think about this, picture Mogami, at T6. No? Well that is what Brooklyn is. She is a ship with 15 x 6"/47 cal guns. You might think about Cleveland's current guns, which are the same, however they are nerfed, heavily. The guns true stats are: ROF 10rpm. Reload: 6s. Rotation speed: 10° per second = 18s 180. With that knowledge, I put Brooklyn, with a late war refit, at T9, not T6.

 

Second off, T7. I will talk about Cleveland later. For T7 I will nominate the Juneau-class light cruisers, seen here: 

1420645541.jpg

They are a late war off shoot of the Atlanta-class with more modern AA and fire control. However that doesn't matter too much. "But Doomlock" I hear you say, "What about Atlanta and Flint? This looks just like them, why would anyone get Atlanta or Flint now?" Well I will tell you. The three will have different things that will make them all unique. Atlanta, will retain unlimited DFAA charges, radar, and the two extra turrets mounted on the sides giving a slight edge to firepower, and her torpedoes. Flint, obviously, will retain the smoke and unlimited DFAA that she has now, plus torpedoes. Juneau would not have the extra turrets, radar, smoke, unlimited DFAA, or torpedoes, but she will have amazing AA (In her final config she had 7 dual 3"/50 automatics), only made stronger by DFAA, small size and good maneuverability. 

 

Third off, Cleveland. Devs have already stated that Cleveland is a T8. She is needed from her true self with heavily nerfed guns and AA, plus she lost her split citadel. With her true guns and AA, she is an excellent T8 light cruiser.

 

Fourthly, T9. No, no no no. Worcester is not a T9. I already stated my T9 so I will not go over it. Worcester is already in the game files as a T10. So that is already set. Further more, let me remind you just what Worcester has. She has 12 x 6"/47s that are autoloading, and DP. They fire at 12 rpm, reload in 5s, have a 180 traverse speed of 7.2s, and can be used as AA guns. Couple that with Des Moines AA suite (change the 5"/38s for the 6"/47s) and you have an AA monster, with rapid fire HE and superheavy AP. Oh, did I forget to mention that, aside from Juneau, the 6" guns have superheavy shells? Well they do. 

 

And the final point, Alaska. Alaska, is not T10 cruiser material. She has guns more powerful than the guns on New Mexico, Arizona, Scharnhorst, and any other 14" gunned battleship. Alaska, is a battlecruiser, in everything but official name only. In fact there are official documents calling her a battlecruiser anyways. Alaska, the way I see it, is a T7 battleship (game terms), competing with Scharnhorst. She has, bigger and more powerful guns, higher speed, much better AA, and more range and accuracy. The downsides are that she has cruiser armor, not battleship armor and certainly not up to the standards of Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, is nearly the size of Iowa with the maneuverability to match, and has decent, but not Scharnhorst levels of secondaries. 

 

 

So, there is my take on the US cruiser line split. I do not know what they would do with the empty place at T6 where Cleveland was, but they'll figure something out.

 

 

Fair winds and following seas captains! :Smile_honoring:

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,025
[WUDPS]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
4,724 posts
4,523 battles

Alaska is gonna be a premium...probably for free XP. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,479
[AHOY_]
Beta Testers
6,419 posts
3,413 battles

Alaska is going to probably be a T7 or T8 Battlecruiser Premium, facing off against Scharnhorst and B-65 (IJN equivalent).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
507
[WOLFD]
[WOLFD]
Beta Testers
4,950 posts
1,487 battles
56 minutes ago, renegadestatuz said:

Gonna agree with this.

 

Worchester will not be T10. She'll struggle to hold up a T8 slot.

 

35 minutes ago, renegadestatuz said:

Cleveland will be at tier 8.  Devs have even stated it a while back when asked about the line split.

 

Pretty sure she won't make T8, i'm actually pegging Worchester for that slot now. Not sure what will happen to Cleveland. The truth is with those arcs anything over T6 is a tough sell these days for all the nerfs she's got.

 

 

Alaska will be a BB not a CA. As a cruiser she's a moskva but better in every way. HP, Armour, Firepower.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16
[SPUDS]
Members
147 posts
6,890 battles
1 hour ago, Doomlock said:

It is likely never to happen. At least on for a looong time. The next T10 USN cruiser is likely to be USS Worcester.

An American minotaur...yikes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
507
[WOLFD]
[WOLFD]
Beta Testers
4,950 posts
1,487 battles
3 minutes ago, JohnnyDebt said:

An American minotaur...yikes

 

She's not a US Minotaur. Minnie has 187.5 rpm with quite a bit more AAA and a pile of torpedoes, and smoke, and RN CL heal.

 

Worcester has 144rpm with none of the fancy do-dads. She''s not even really on par with Neptune. Aside from being matched in RoF Neptune also has better health, AAA, RNCL heal, Smoke, and a pile of torps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
394
[WOLF5]
Members
1,496 posts
2,061 battles
7 minutes ago, Carl said:

 

Worchester will not be T10. She'll struggle to hold up a T8 slot.

 

 

Pretty sure she won't make T8, i'm actually pegging Worchester for that slot now. Not sure what will happen to Cleveland. The truth is with those arcs anything over T6 is a tough sell these days for all the nerfs she's got.

 

 

Alaska will be a BB not a CA. As a cruiser she's a moskva but better in every way. HP, Armour, Firepower.

Ah, but remember, the Cleveland is heavily nerfed, and then nerfed again to fit into T6 and the CL to CA progression that WG has since stopped.

 

The Cleveland gets the historical ROF and traverse. The shell velocity gets brought down to its Beta velocity. It gets radar. The range gets increased. The AA is unnerfed. Maybe a concealment buff. T8 upgrades. The Chapeyev now has a very nasty competitor, especially if CVs are fixed, making AAA cruisers relevant.

The Brooklyn will be cool as well, not sure where they would fit her in, but 15 6" is awesome.

 

Alaska will be a premium BB. I would make a case for her a T8, radar and DF as well as heal. Fast firing 12" (like 15s reload), good concealment but armor only slighty better than a cruiser. That would be a ship I would like. However, I think Doomlock's theory of slotting her in at T7 will be more likely, making her a direct competitor to the Scharnhorst. I would like to see DF on her, AA escort was her purpose after all.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
507
[WOLFD]
[WOLFD]
Beta Testers
4,950 posts
1,487 battles
Quote

Ah, but remember, the Cleveland is heavily nerfed, and then nerfed again to fit into T6 and the CL to CA progression that WG has since stopped.

 

 

Yes i know, like i said, even unerfed anything over T6 is a tough sell. The problem is the cleavland has horrific arcs. It will allways have horrific arcs. And thats going to limit its ability to compete above T6.the Chapayev works because she has russian arcs and range. The Cleveland will never have that and it's going to hurt her, a lot.

 

There are 4 things that make a good cruiser that break down really into 3 final.

 

 

Effective rnage vs maneuvering stats determine weather it's even possible to deal damage whilst dodging around return fire. If it isn;t the ship won't work. If it is it then becomes a matter of EHP & DPM and how the two stack up in unison. The problem for all the US CL's is that their effective rnage due to arcs is bad enough they probably won't be able to dodge around incoming fire, and that will kill them at birth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,708
[HINON]
WoWS Wiki Editor, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
6,498 posts
3,751 battles
13 minutes ago, AJTP89 said:

The Cleveland gets the historical ROF and traverse. The shell velocity gets brought down to its Beta velocity. It gets radar. The range gets increased. The AA is unnerfed. Maybe a concealment buff. T8 upgrades. The Chapeyev now has a very nasty competitor, especially if CVs are fixed, making AAA cruisers relevant.

The Brooklyn will be cool as well, not sure where they would fit her in, but 15 6" is awesome.

 

Alaska will be a premium BB. I would make a case for her a T8, radar and DF as well as heal. Fast firing 12" (like 15s reload), good concealment but armor only slighty better than a cruiser. That would be a ship I would like. However, I think Doomlock's theory of slotting her in at T7 will be more likely, making her a direct competitor to the Scharnhorst. I would like to see DF on her, AA escort was her purpose after all.

To comment on a few things.

 

Cleveland's shell velocity is historically correct. That is in fact the listed velocities for HE, and superheavy AP. 

 

As I stated, my guess is Brooklyn with a late war refit with the dual mount 5"/38s would fit quite well at T9 I think. 

 

The ROF of the 12"/50 cal Mark 8 is 3rpm. 20s reload. Traverse speed is 5° per second, for a 36s 180.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,799
[SYN]
Alpha Tester, Beta Testers
30,523 posts
4,423 battles
41 minutes ago, Carl said:

 

Worchester will not be T10. She'll struggle to hold up a T8 slot.

 

 

Pretty sure she won't make T8, i'm actually pegging Worchester for that slot now. Not sure what will happen to Cleveland. The truth is with those arcs anything over T6 is a tough sell these days for all the nerfs she's got.

 

 

Alaska will be a BB not a CA. As a cruiser she's a moskva but better in every way. HP, Armour, Firepower.

Worcester will be tier 10 on her AA rating alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,708
[HINON]
WoWS Wiki Editor, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
6,498 posts
3,751 battles
51 minutes ago, Carl said:

Worchester will not be T10. She'll struggle to hold up a T8 slot.

 

Except that right now, in the files, she is T10. So, I guess WG think otherwise.

 

You can't put that type of ship at T8. Heck, with you saying struggle to hold 8 you are thinking T7? I think not. For one thing she has Des Moines level AA already, she is roughly the same size as Des Moines, she has guns that put any light cruiser to shame in the T8 spread, let alone T7.

 

9 minutes ago, IronWolfV said:

Worcester will be tier 10 on her AA rating alone.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,799
[SYN]
Alpha Tester, Beta Testers
30,523 posts
4,423 battles
4 minutes ago, Doomlock said:

 

Except that right now. In the files, she is T10. So, I guess WG think otherwise.

 

You can't put that type of ship at T8. Heck, with you saying struggle to hold 8 you are thinking T7? I think not. For one thing she has Des Moines level AA already, she is roughly the same size as Des Moines, she has guns that put any light cruiser to shame in the T8 spread, let alone T7.

 

 

FYI her 12 6 inch guns are DP guns. Meaning her 155mm guns will have the LONGEST ranged AA in the game. With modules flags and such with my Atl I can hit about 7.5km or so with 144 dps. What do you think the Worcester will do? Easily 8km or more and probably from 180-200 dps without breaking a sweat.

 

There is no way in hell they are slotting that at tier 7 or 8. Lowest possibly is tier 9.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
394
[WOLF5]
Members
1,496 posts
2,061 battles
18 minutes ago, Doomlock said:

To comment on a few things.

 

Cleveland's shell velocity is historically correct. That is in fact the listed velocities for HE, and superheavy AP. 

 

As I stated, my guess is Brooklyn with a late war refit with the dual mount 5"/38s would fit quite well at T9 I think. 

 

The ROF of the 12"/50 cal Mark 8 is 3rpm. 20s reload. Traverse speed is 5° per second, for a 36s 180.

H'm didn't know the Cleve's velocity was historical. Well, it has been faster, so restoring it to it's previous speed would be straitforward. I don't think anyone would argue that that speed is usable a T8.

 

I think you're right on with the Brooklyn. It would be very hard to fit it in anywhere else.

 

I know the 12" has a 20s reload, but maybe drop it down to give it a big firepower advantage over the Scharnhorst, because the armor won't be anywhere near as good. I don't think AA and a slightly bigger gun would be enough to counter the Scharnhorst's armor, torpedoes, and secondaries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,799
[SYN]
Alpha Tester, Beta Testers
30,523 posts
4,423 battles
47 minutes ago, Carl said:

 

She's not a US Minotaur. Minnie has 187.5 rpm with quite a bit more AAA and a pile of torpedoes, and smoke, and RN CL heal.

 

Worcester has 144rpm with none of the fancy do-dads. She''s not even really on par with Neptune. Aside from being matched in RoF Neptune also has better health, AAA, RNCL heal, Smoke, and a pile of torps.

Neptune has better AAA than Worcester?!

qY4Prfc.gif

Worcester has 155mm dual purpose guns. Will have more range and DPS than any other DP gun and some how magically Neptune will have better AAA?

j6NCIxl.gif

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×