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

USN BB

47 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Beta Testers
19 posts
3,637 battles

Can we get a USN BB secondary range buff yet?

 

5" twin mounts should go further than 9.1.

 

Even with a range buff to say, 10.6, they still suck at dealing damage.

 

Make it so WG

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
1,306 posts
9,373 battles

No, the 5inch Dps, are not as effective in the antiship role as other countries like Germany and the 128mm or 150mm guns. Btw why go secondary build on USN anyway the turrets for secondaries still would have terrible armor 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
19 posts
3,637 battles
6 minutes ago, Fog_Heavy_Cruiser_Takao said:

No, the 5inch Dps, are not as effective in the antiship role as other countries like Germany and the 128mm or 150mm guns. Btw why go secondary build on USN anyway the turrets for secondaries still would have terrible armor 

I do it because it kills destroyers. I just need another 1km to bring it in line with the other tier X BBs. 

 

Also the whole drive forward to an island, park bow on, and reverse with concealment build playstyle is extremely boring to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,248 posts
737 battles

Eh, I'd rather not. USN BBs at high tiers are quite competitive right now barring the problem that is the Lion and Conqueror (which are poorly balanced on WG's part), and I can stand the current ahistorical nerfed fire rate of the 5"/38 secondaries.

2 hours ago, Havoc said:

I do it because it kills destroyers. I just need another 1km to bring it in line with the other tier X BBs. 

 

Also the whole drive forward to an island, park bow on, and reverse with concealment build playstyle is extremely boring to me.

Bow on reversing is not really the most optimal way to play high tier USN BBs. You have good speed and good concealment, so that should actually be an incentive to maneuver from position to position.

Edited by DeliciousFart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
19 posts
3,637 battles

What I'm saying is, it wouldn't break anything to give them another 1km. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
16,046 posts
14,433 battles

... I'd disagree with USN BB secondaries buff.

 

1.  Tier VIII+ (Alabama, Iowa / Missouri, Montana) had their citadels lowered.

2.  USN BBs have decent concealment range

3.  USN BBs easily incorporate good AA without bothering the function of their main battery.  This is most especially true for Tier VIII+.  NC, Iowa, etc. can attain high AA but their guns are still the same.  For Tier IX+, they can incorporate AAGM2 for Slot 2 while Slot 3 takes APRM2 for improved main battery dispersion.  If an IJN, German BB player wants to have improved dispersion, they cannot slot AAGM2 nor SBM2.  It's because Slot 2 is a set of hard choices for the IJN & German BB player while for USN, it's pretty much a given.  It is because at Tier IX+, APRM2 is in that Slot 3 and that is a game changer.

4.  USN BB 16"'/45 and 16"/50 shells are very strong and some of the most reliable BB shells in the game this side of Yamato's mighty 460mm shells.

 

USN BB Line has received a tremendous amount of buffing in 2016-2017 and further buffs is unwarranted.

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway
  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,266
[SEP]
Members
3,722 posts
14,917 battles
8 minutes ago, Havoc said:

What I'm saying is, it wouldn't break anything to give them another 1km. 

 Is it needed though?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,543
[PSP]
Members
6,225 posts
8,853 battles

I have my North Carolina fitted out with all of the 2ndary modules and commander skills. With the 2ndary flag it reaches out to 7.6 km. This isn't nearly as far as a German BB but I believe that the US secondaries, especially with directed fire, are still pretty good. However, this is mainly for emergencies and AA support. The NC just isn't a brawler like the Bismarck or Tirpitz.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
1,306 posts
9,373 battles
59 minutes ago, Havoc said:

I do it because it kills destroyers. I just need another 1km to bring it in line with the other tier X BBs. 

 

Also the whole drive forward to an island, park bow on, and reverse with concealment build playstyle is extremely boring to me.

I can agree with you on the stealth bb play style. It is absolutely revolting to me

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
872
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
3,437 posts
8,085 battles
21 minutes ago, KaptainKaybe said:

Balance. It can't be good at everything. USN BBs trade secondary gun power for disgusting anti-air values.

 

This,  WG needs to fix carriers which, while maintaining AA supremacy, needs some nerfing. It's one thing for USN to be good at AA, it's another it's another that my stock hull Iowa between the captain and upgrades just shreds any planes that get near it with I think somewhere in the area of a 40-60^ chance per second against same tier, maybe -1. A USN BB can basically in a match with a CV run off on it's own with no additional AA cover and be fine, maybe even more than. And they weren't built to brawl or engage DD's in game. Germany was. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,683 posts
7,756 battles
1 hour ago, Fog_Heavy_Cruiser_Takao said:

No, the 5inch Dps, are not as effective in the antiship role as other countries like Germany and the 128mm or 150mm guns. Btw why go secondary build on USN anyway the turrets for secondaries still would have terrible armor 

In terms of range, the 5”/38 should have similar range to the Bismarck’s secondaries (7.5 km as opposed to 5km) since the real guns had similar range. They would still do crummy damage, they would just start firing earlier. 

 

Outside the USN and IJN, secondary ranges typically scale between ships and lines. The short range on USN 5”/38s is just a relic of an older version of the game where secondaries were not meant to be effective weapons. The game's theory and goals changed. 

34 minutes ago, KaptainKaybe said:

Balance. It can't be good at everything. USN BBs trade secondary gun power for disgusting anti-air values.

USN AA values are only good compared to the IJN (and IJN ships tend to be missed given LOTS of guns compared to their war-end configurations). USN heavy AA ranges also tend to be short when compared to other nation's guns that had similar range IRL — its another relic of the era when USN and IJN ships were designed, as compared to the newer, better rounded line. 

 

Improving range would not put USN secondaries on par with other nations, since they still typically break against tier 8+ ships (and often against lower tiered BBs) — It would just help the guns start firing sooner. 

 

Also, the 5”/51 should have the same range as the 5”/38, instead of the shorter range it now has. The 5”/25 should have slightly longer range, but not on par with the 5”/38. 

 

A full secondary build build is a bit silly on a USN BB, because there are other 4-point skills which are better IMO, but AFT and BFT make sense in most USN builds.

 

Keep in mind that we are talking about a line which underperforms at all tiers. The tech tree USN ships are consistently the worst performing BBs in the game, but historically the USN had great dual-purpose guns, and their range is nerfed as compared to other guns in game, so it would make sense to unnerf them as part of rehabilitating the line. 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,510
[NSF]
Beta Testers
4,994 posts
5,887 battles

Literally the only buff I would advocate for would be bumping the rate of fire from 10 to 12. Most other secondary guns in the game get the absolute most optimistic rate of fire quoted for the mounts, while the 5"/38's (on the CRUISERS and CARRIERS as well), are firing at anywhere from 33% to 50% slower than they could manage consistently in real life.

 

Now, obviously you don't want and Iowa trucking around with 20 or even 15 RPM spewing from 10 guns per side, but I feel like 12 RPM would be a fine compromise. Certainly better than the current 10 RPM, which is just awful when paired with the terrible shell arcs, terrible fire chance, low range, and low shell damage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
699
[OO7]
Members
2,092 posts
8,135 battles
1 hour ago, Havoc said:

What I'm saying is, it wouldn't break anything to give them another 1km. 

Wouldn’t break anything not to either

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
633
[WOLF1]
[WOLF1]
Members
2,827 posts
1,327 battles
1 hour ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

... I'd disagree with USN BB secondaries buff.

 

1.  Tier VIII+ (Alabama, Iowa / Missouri, Montana) had their citadels lowered.

2.  USN BBs have decent concealment range

3.  USN BBs easily incorporate good AA without bothering the function of their main battery.  This is most especially true for Tier VIII+.  NC, Iowa, etc. can attain high AA but their guns are still the same.  For Tier IX+, they can incorporate AAGM2 for Slot 2 while Slot 3 takes APRM2 for improved main battery dispersion.  If an IJN, German BB player wants to have improved dispersion, they cannot slot AAGM2 nor SBM2.  It's because Slot 2 is a set of hard choices for the IJN & German BB player while for USN, it's pretty much a given.  It is because at Tier IX+, APRM2 is in that Slot 3 and that is a game changer.

4.  USN BB 16"'/45 and 16"/50 shells are very strong and some of the most reliable BB shells in the game this side of Yamato's mighty 460mm shells.

 

USN BB Line has received a tremendous amount of buffing in 2016-2017 and further buffs is unwarranted.

I'm not disputing you, Haze, but I see so much of the time USA BBs are said to be trash, or 'not good enough'.  But, if someone asks for a buff, oh, well, they just got buffed, they're fine.

 

Perception is funny, isn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,248 posts
737 battles
2 hours ago, Havoc said:

What I'm saying is, it wouldn't break anything to give them another 1km. 

But they don't need it. They're perfectly competitive right now, with the excellent AP Mark 8 that rewards good aim and positioning. There's no need to make them easier to use or lower the skill floor.

 

In fact, right now high tier American BBs have some of the highest skill floors amongst battleships, and the excessive citadel weakness has been fixed to make the ships more accessible.

Edited by DeliciousFart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,683 posts
7,756 battles
16 minutes ago, FireAndHEspam said:

Wouldn’t break anything not to either

By the stats, they are already broken, putting in bad damage and bad win rates. Both the older lines are victims of power creep, but the USN is worse off.

 

Buffing secondary range and ROF would be a relatively predictable way to boost the line a bit. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,683 posts
7,756 battles
2 hours ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

... I'd disagree with USN BB secondaries buff.

 

1.  Tier VIII+ (Alabama, Iowa / Missouri, Montana) had their citadels lowered.

2.  USN BBs have decent concealment range

3.  USN BBs easily incorporate good AA without bothering the function of their main battery.  This is most especially true for Tier VIII+.  NC, Iowa, etc. can attain high AA but their guns are still the same.  For Tier IX+, they can incorporate AAGM2 for Slot 2 while Slot 3 takes APRM2 for improved main battery dispersion.  If an IJN, German BB player wants to have improved dispersion, they cannot slot AAGM2 nor SBM2.  It's because Slot 2 is a set of hard choices for the IJN & German BB player while for USN, it's pretty much a given.  It is because at Tier IX+, APRM2 is in that Slot 3 and that is a game changer.

4.  USN BB 16"'/45 and 16"/50 shells are very strong and some of the most reliable BB shells in the game this side of Yamato's mighty 460mm shells.

 

USN BB Line has received a tremendous amount of buffing in 2016-2017 and further buffs is unwarranted.

Yet it it still consistently the worst performing BB line.

 

Tier 10 — Worst win rate and damage. 

Tier 9 — Worst damage, and second worst win rate (marginally better than the Izumo). 

Tier 8 — Worst win rate and damage. 

Tier 7 — Worst win rate and damage. 

Tier 6 — 3rd worst damage, roughly tied for worst win rate with Bayern and Queen Elizabeth (tier 6 is competitive overall though, with no clear winners and losers). 

Tier 5 — Worst win rate and damage. 

Tier 4 — 2nd worst win rate and damage, with Myogi being notably worse. 

Tier 3 — 3rd Worst win rate and 2nd worst damage (overall not bad). 

 

With a few exceptions the two newer lines are in the top spots. There is definitely room for improvement, and the USN line is still universally underperforming. 

 

Secondaries and DP gun’s make sense for improvement, because the USN cruisers also need improvement, and they would also be effected, and because USN DP and secondary guns are dramatically nerfed in a number of ways as compared to other nation's guns. Such improvements would have gone against the old design of the game, but the ranges and rates of fire would be in line with the 4 newer lines. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
468
[WAIFU]
Beta Testers
2,111 posts
3,565 battles
17 minutes ago, inktomi19d said:

Yet it it still consistently the worst performing BB line.

 

Tier 10 — Worst win rate and damage. 

Tier 9 — Worst damage, and second worst win rate (marginally better than the Izumo). 

Tier 8 — Worst win rate and damage. 

Tier 7 — Worst win rate and damage. 

Tier 6 — 3rd worst damage, roughly tied for worst win rate with Bayern and Queen Elizabeth (tier 6 is competitive overall though, with no clear winners and losers). 

Tier 5 — Worst win rate and damage. 

Tier 4 — 2nd worst win rate and damage, with Myogi being notably worse. 

Tier 3 — 3rd Worst win rate and 2nd worst damage (overall not bad). 

 

With a few exceptions the two newer lines are in the top spots. There is definitely room for improvement, and the USN line is still universally underperforming. 

 

Secondaries and DP gun’s make sense for improvement, because the USN cruisers also need improvement, and they would also be effected, and because USN DP and secondary guns are dramatically nerfed in a number of ways as compared to other nation's guns. Such improvements would have gone against the old design of the game, but the ranges and rates of fire would be in line with the 4 newer lines. 

just a thought here...but what if BBs wernt the only ships in the game, and that they actually need to be balanced against other classes as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,248 posts
737 battles
26 minutes ago, inktomi19d said:

Yet it it still consistently the worst performing BB line.

 

Tier 10 — Worst win rate and damage. 

Tier 9 — Worst damage, and second worst win rate (marginally better than the Izumo). 

Tier 8 — Worst win rate and damage. 

Tier 7 — Worst win rate and damage. 

Tier 6 — 3rd worst damage, roughly tied for worst win rate with Bayern and Queen Elizabeth (tier 6 is competitive overall though, with no clear winners and losers). 

Tier 5 — Worst win rate and damage. 

Tier 4 — 2nd worst win rate and damage, with Myogi being notably worse. 

Tier 3 — 3rd Worst win rate and 2nd worst damage (overall not bad). 

 

With a few exceptions the two newer lines are in the top spots. There is definitely room for improvement, and the USN line is still universally underperforming. 

 

Secondaries and DP gun’s make sense for improvement, because the USN cruisers also need improvement, and they would also be effected, and because USN DP and secondary guns are dramatically nerfed in a number of ways as compared to other nation's guns. Such improvements would have gone against the old design of the game, but the ranges and rates of fire would be in line with the 4 newer lines. 

Are you looking at the performance statistics for the last 2 weeks? Are you also looking at statistics across all 4 servers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
16,046 posts
14,433 battles
3 hours ago, mavfin87 said:

I'm not disputing you, Haze, but I see so much of the time USA BBs are said to be trash, or 'not good enough'.  But, if someone asks for a buff, oh, well, they just got buffed, they're fine.

 

Perception is funny, isn't it?

 

Things had changed a lot for USN BBs, they were big problems at launch, IMO.  Now, it's different.

 

At launch, when it was only USN vs IJN BBs, and Tirpitz thrown in a month after launch, it was indeed USN BBs were garbage.  Since launch lots and lots of things have happened to USN BBs.

===

- Colorado got buffed.  Sure, she has issues still, but people do not understand the pain of Pre-Buff Colorado, Stock, in the original +/-3 MM window.  That's right.  Pre-Buff Colorado was facing Pre-Nerf Midway, Yamato, Pre-IJN DD / Torpedo Nerf Shimakaze, etc.

 

- NC received lots of tweaks, among them sigma in 2016.  And a serious nod of respect to Amagi.  Since launch, she had been doing amazingly well as a Tier VIII BB.  Today, she is still competing with the best for her tier.  There has never been a time Amagi was s--t, there has never been a time people people seriously asked for Amagi buffs.  NC needed lots of tweaking post-launch.

 

- Secondaries range increase for Tier IX+ USN BBs (believe it or not, this was around mid-2016).

 

- Citadels lowering of Alabama (pre-release) and Tier IX+ USN BBs.  Iowa-class, Montana were getting embarrassing number of citadel strikes on them.  3, 4, 5, 6 citadel strikes, that kind of stuff.  This alone has been one of the single largest buffs to any given ships in the game since launch.  It was a game changer for these ships.  IMO, Alabama with her superior handling and Montana gained the most from this.  I feel absolutely safe in Montana, unless Yamato wants to give a "460 hello."

===

I'm sure I'm missing more, but these are the ones that jump immediately to my mind.

 

Tier III-IV are okay.

Tier V-VI are rough now because of MM but that is not a problem unique to USN BBs, MM screws everyone in those 2 tiers. 

Tier VII is rough around the edges but doable because of the most accurate USN BB guns until you get to Tier IX+.

Tier VIII+ the ride gets much better.

 

IMO, USN BBs are on the "meh" side for Tech Tree BBs until you get to Tier VIII.

 

IMO, USN BB gunnery in Tier VIII+ suits the meta of High Tier far more than the German BBs.  You can see lots of German BB players complain they can't take the same Scharnhorst, Gneisenau, Bismarck style of play and apply it with FDG & GK at Tier IX, X respectively.  The German BB player actually has to drastically change his game, maybe even build style that he has used for most of the tiers to suit Tier IX-X.  You don't hear those complaints from NC, Alabama, Iowa / Missouri, Montana.  Not anymore, not with the citadels lowered especially.

 

No line has received as much attention post-launch / post-release as USN BBs.  As you go higher in the tiers, they follow the meta just fine.  It is IMO, one of the safest, most reliable lines in the game, period.

 

P.S. - You get to easily incorporate great AA in your build and not screw up your build in doing so.  Tier VII+, this is a reality.  No other BB line can say that.  A German BB has to give up his fabulous secondaries for good AA.  An IJN BB has to give up their secondaries or main battery accuracy for good AA.  A USN BB gets to have it for free, and as a consequence, feel much safer when a CV is around.  The USN BB is one of the later targets a CV considers.  Until the USN BB's AA is jacked up from focus fire, IJN & German BBs are prime targets for a CV.  When something like Kaga, Shokaku, Enterprise, Taiho, Hakuryu are looking for food, be thankful your USN BB is not first on the Hit List.

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
16,046 posts
14,433 battles
55 minutes ago, inktomi19d said:

Yet it it still consistently the worst performing BB line.

 

Tier 10 — Worst win rate and damage. 

Tier 9 — Worst damage, and second worst win rate (marginally better than the Izumo). 

Tier 8 — Worst win rate and damage. 

Tier 7 — Worst win rate and damage. 

Tier 6 — 3rd worst damage, roughly tied for worst win rate with Bayern and Queen Elizabeth (tier 6 is competitive overall though, with no clear winners and losers). 

Tier 5 — Worst win rate and damage. 

Tier 4 — 2nd worst win rate and damage, with Myogi being notably worse. 

Tier 3 — 3rd Worst win rate and 2nd worst damage (overall not bad). 

 

With a few exceptions the two newer lines are in the top spots. There is definitely room for improvement, and the USN line is still universally underperforming. 

 

Secondaries and DP gun’s make sense for improvement, because the USN cruisers also need improvement, and they would also be effected, and because USN DP and secondary guns are dramatically nerfed in a number of ways as compared to other nation's guns. Such improvements would have gone against the old design of the game, but the ranges and rates of fire would be in line with the 4 newer lines. 

 

Mid tier (V-VI) are rough spots for all the BBs there.  That said, my personal experience, I've worked up USN (my first BB line), IJN (my 2nd BB line), German (3rd BB line) to Tier X.  I jumped around for RN BBs, but own Tier III-V, Warspite at VI, VII-X.  I got the VII-IX RN BBs later, Conqueror was a "Day 1 FXP" ship.

 

Excluding the new RN BBs which I'm still trying, the more experience I've gained with my BBs, the more I lean towards them.  I have very jacked up early matches when I worked up my first BB line, USN, but after more time playing them, I like them far more.  IJN would be pretty dang close... Their blend of gunnery and speed (until IX) is quite good, and would still be good for me if I put more time in them.

 

IOW, USN BBs to me are in a very good spot.

 

Personally, from me to you, you have ample time in BBs, especially USN and tons of time with NC.  I actually encourage you to try Iowa and Montana.  You know how the meta is at Tier VIII-X matches from your time with NC.  Iowa and Montana are quite good for their tiers and your guns are freakin' fabulous.  You can actually hit stuff at range with power and certainty.  Montana's sides are much more secure than what you have to be paranoid about with NC.  The point is this line caps off very well, whereas German BB players get an identity crisis when they leave Bismarck.

 

Now, USN Cruisers, that's a totally different matter.  Tier VII-IX are awful but IMO, IX is a very delicate act.  Despite some absolutely abysmal Damage Average by Baltimore, she is maintaining a 50% Win Rate.  Baltimore IMO is on the edge, and with one slight, wrong tweak will make her OPAF.  VII-VIII are black holes for USN Cruisers.  The USN Cruiser Line Split and the uncorking of Cleveland's true potential can't come soon enough.

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,248 posts
737 battles

To me there are only 3 USN BBs that truly uncompetitive and need help, the South Carolina, New York, and the Colorado. I think all the others are in a good place right now.

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.

×