Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
Hanger_18

USN cruiser split ideas/discussion

210 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Beta Testers
2,121 posts
3,620 battles

since eventually we're going to see a split in the US CA lines, lets play around with the idea for a bit. heres 2 different ideas for the split. (feel free to make your own)

 

The first one is a simple split, it features the Alaska and Buffalo at t10, the lines are differentiated in armor and main battery guns, one fields larger caliber artillery, and heavier armor, while the other focuses more on AA and spitting as many shells as possible. and yes we can argue about where Alaska can go all day long, personally id rather see her as a t7 BB because thats the best MM bracket in the game IMHO,but ill take her how i can get her. but WG can play around with numbers pretty easily so i dont see a reason they cant fit her into t10, since she trades off strengths and weaknesses of the Moskva, in the end WG will be the deciding factor.

 

the second split is a bit more complicated, i attempted (keyword) to fit a CL line in as well. before you start looking i probably got carried away with the pepsi where she is, probably best she becomes a t6 prem.

 

ive stayed true to WGs insistence of gun progression (8"-12", 6"-8") , as well as trying to utilize models that are already finished.

 

  Overall i think i've moved some ships that were  are struggling in more favorable tier brackets, as well as moving some back to where they were performance wise in CBT. the overall power level of the existing line into the buffalo is a bit more powerful now as well, moving the DM down to replace the struggling Baltimore certainly helps the grind, and the buffalo should just be all around better than our current DM with an additional triple turret. mid tiers should feel less like beating your head against the wall.

Capture2.PNG

Capture.PNG

edited for boldness

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,246
[PVE]
Members
9,741 posts
7,472 battles

Alaska as a T10 cruiser is a ridiculously overpowered idea. Alaska has the armor of Dunkerque and guns like a T5-T6 BB. Yes, they were an improved 12" (305mm) gun, but were as punchy as a 14" (356mm) gun. Alaska should be a T6 BB with T6 AA or a T7 BB with historical-ish AA.

 

There are a few other US CL/CA split threads and I believe Worchester was the consensus T10 IIRC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,710
[HINON]
Modder, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
6,498 posts
3,751 battles

Um...no. DM is way too powerful to be a T9. Buffalo is not a straight upgrade. You'd go from 9 autoloading 8 inch guns, to 12 non auto loading. 

 

Alaska is not fit to be a T10 cruiser either, she's a cruiser killer, and built as such. 

 

Brooklyn and St Louis are not different enough to warrant a tier difference. Plus they'd be nerfed just like Cleveland is to be at those tiers. Also really? A 10 x 8 inch gunned cruiser at T5? Really?

 

I like some of your places, but most of the ships you have put in spots are simply too powerful.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,799
[SYN]
Alpha Tester, Beta Testers
30,523 posts
4,500 battles

Yeah....no just no. Pensacola...tier 5? Brooklyn tier 6? Just no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,418
[HINON]
[HINON]
Members
5,071 posts
6,780 battles
2 minutes ago, IronWolfV said:

Yeah....no just no. Pensacola...tier 5? Brooklyn tier 6? Just no.

yeah, as much as i WANT to see Brooklyn/St.Louis class, but not at that low of a tier, they have 15 guns for crying out loud, its basically USS Mogami, in laymens terms

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,640 posts
7,476 battles
3 minutes ago, IronWolfV said:

Yeah....no just no. Pensacola...tier 5? Brooklyn tier 6? Just no.

Admit it, we all want to see T5 Pensacolas dev strike all other cruisers at her tier, repeatedly without mercy.

I'd buy that premium.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,418
[HINON]
[HINON]
Members
5,071 posts
6,780 battles
Just now, Akeno017 said:

Admit it, we all want to see T5 Pensacolas dev strike all other cruisers at her tier, repeatedly without mercy.

I'd buy that premium.

Pensacola's revenge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
2,121 posts
3,620 battles
6 minutes ago, Kizarvexis said:

Alaska as a T10 cruiser is a ridiculously overpowered idea. Alaska has the armor of Dunkerque and guns like a T5-T6 BB. Yes, they were an improved 12" (305mm) gun, but were as punchy as a 14" (356mm) gun. Alaska should be a T6 BB with T6 AA or a T7 BB with historical-ish AA.

 

There are a few other US CL/CA split threads and I believe Worchester was the consensus T10 IIRC.

WG made the Cleveland fit into t6...so i dont really see it as an issue, as i said i could care less which of those spaces she gets slotted for. i would be even happier with her at t7 because it'll give her the best MM bracket as well as giving WG an excuse to give her dispersion like the scharnhorst.

but she trades fairly evenly to the moskva, trades alpha for reload speed, armor for torp protection, 

6 minutes ago, Doomlock said:

Um...no. DM is way too powerful to be a T9. Buffalo is not a straight upgrade. You'd go from 9 autoloading 8 inch guns, to 12 non auto loading. 

 

Alaska is not fit to be a T10 cruiser either, she's a cruiser killer, and built as such. 

 

Brooklyn and St Louis are not different enough to warrant a tier difference. Plus they'd be nerfed just like Cleveland is to be at those tiers. Also really? A 10 x 8 inch gunned cruiser at T5? Really?

 

I like some of your places, but most of the ships you have put in spots are simply too powerful.

its not like she goes there with current stats...and the buffalo according to ship comrade is most likely rocking the same mounts as the DM... so yes they would be auto loading.

 

and the moskva is???

 

you can always swap the st. louis out for the cleveland, but then youd have the same argument a tier high. you literally start running out of ships to use. read OP for later bit :Smile_hiding:

 

mid tier stuff is generally a nasty spot for cruisers currently, so powerful as they may be in comparison to what we have, what we have is also under performing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
2,121 posts
3,620 battles
12 minutes ago, IronWolfV said:

Yeah....no just no. Pensacola...tier 5? Brooklyn tier 6? Just no.

read OP about pepsi , i cant change the image, unless i go to paint and re upload. im not going to paint.... please dont make me go to paint.

brooklyn at t6 is more acceptable than the Cleveland at t6... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Supertester
1,464 posts
16 battles

Oh look. A thread. Activate forum procedure number 26B. 'Where one posts his idea for a tech tree in a related thread where the initial idea differs significantly from one's own.'

 

KrBRv7M.jpg

 

- Premiums could be:

Spoiler

VII: Chicago/Houston/Salt Lake City

VIII: Fargo, Helena, San Francisco

 

- Yes, I am fine with N'hampton and NO at their respective tiers. No, stop trying to convince me otherwise. 

- Pepsi/Omaha Design at tier 6 seems quite a decent ship given appropriate stats. I would definitely play. 

- The idea for Alaska being a cruiser can go lie down in a ditch. It should be a classed as BB in game, not ideal, but better than cruiser.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
247
[NUWES]
Members
1,658 posts
5,576 battles

I actually love this topic. :) I'm a big fan of US cruisers. On the upper chart, Des Moines is a CA not a CL. It's on the wrong branch as is Buffalo. Also, it is actually more powerful than Buffalo. Buffalo was just a 4 turret Baltimore with some short range torps. It was one of the paper studies for Alaska as I recall. 

Subtypes of a larger class usually don't warrant an uptier. St. Louis is really just a Brooklyn with upgraded secondaries and improved AA. Fargo is just Cleveland with the number of funnels reduced (looks like Des Moines) and a smaller superstructure for better fields of AA fire. That doesn't justify T9. They might be able to get Worcester to T10, but I suspect it is really a T9. It is a better armored Minotaur without smoke. Juneau could work on its own tier above Brooklyn if they make the dual-mount secondaries actually do something useful, which I doubt at T7 and in a CL. 

The CA line on the top looks good but I don't think they will make another model for T9 just to use Oregaon City. It's to Baltimore as Fargo is to Cleveland. It's mostly a cosmetic rearrangement gamewise so I doubt they'll make a new model rather than just sticking with Baltimore at T9. I also doubt they will put Alaska in as a T10 CA. CA-wise it's T11 or 11+. Everyone jokes that Moskva is a battlecruiser, but Alaska is a true BC even though they officially called it a "large cruiser." Plenty of sources at the time (including official USN sources) referred to it as a battlecruiser. It is a lot more durable than any cruiser in the game and it has BB firepower. It's more like a T6-T7 BB. I do think there is an even chance though that Wichita will appear as the new T8 CA. My bet is it won't though but will instead appear as a T8 premium along with the new trees. 

I think the CL line will look like - Brooklyn (T7) - Cleveland (T8) - Worcester (T9) and I suspect it will end there unless there is a paper follow-on design to Worcester that is noticeably better. 

The CA line will depend on whether they put Wichita in as a tier T8 like in WoWs Tactics. That would move the others down one and may or may not remove Pensacola. Des Moines will remain T10, Baltimore will remain T9 though. I pretty much guarantee it. The big question is what do they do with T6. That's the big sticking point to me. I personally believe we will see a paper design (one of the pre-Brooklyn designs) there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,066
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
16,178 posts
11,693 battles
3 minutes ago, Trainspite said:

Oh look. A thread. Activate forum procedure number 26B. 'Where one posts his idea for a tech tree in a related thread where the initial idea differs significantly from one's own.'

 

KrBRv7M.jpg

 

- Premiums could be:

  Reveal hidden contents

VII: Chicago/Houston/Salt Lake City

VIII: Fargo, Helena, San Francisco

 

- Yes, I am fine with N'hampton and NO at their respective tiers. No, stop trying to convince me otherwise. 

- Pepsi/Omaha Design at tier 6 seems quite a decent ship given appropriate stats. I would definitely play. 

- The idea for Alaska being a cruiser can go lie down in a ditch. It should be a classed as BB in game, not ideal, but better than cruiser.

lol no

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
247
[NUWES]
Members
1,658 posts
5,576 battles
5 minutes ago, Trainspite said:

Oh look. A thread. Activate forum procedure number 26B. 'Where one posts his idea for a tech tree in a related thread where the initial idea differs significantly from one's own.'

 

KrBRv7M.jpg

 

- Premiums could be:

  Hide contents

VII: Chicago/Houston/Salt Lake City

VIII: Fargo, Helena, San Francisco

 

- Yes, I am fine with N'hampton and NO at their respective tiers. No, stop trying to convince me otherwise. 

- Pepsi/Omaha Design at tier 6 seems quite a decent ship given appropriate stats. I would definitely play. 

- The idea for Alaska being a cruiser can go lie down in a ditch. It should be a classed as BB in game, not ideal, but better than cruiser.

I think this tree is much more likely although I think NO will remain at T8 and Wichita will be a premium T8. Do you happen to have specs/pics of the Providence and Pittsburgh designs that you can post by any chance? I would love to see them. 

Edited by Tzarevitch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
505
[HEROS]
Supertester
1,453 posts
5,522 battles
1 minute ago, Tzarevitch said:

I actually love this topic. :) I'm a big fan of US cruisers. On the upper chart, Des Moines is a CA not a CL. It's on the wrong branch as is Buffalo. Also, it is actually more powerful than Buffalo. Buffalo was just a 4 turret Baltimore with some short range torps. It was one of the paper studies for Alaska as I recall. 

Subtypes of a larger class usually don't warrant an uptier. St. Louis is really just a Brooklyn with upgraded secondaries and improved AA. Fargo is just Cleveland with the number of funnels reduced (looks like Des Moines) and a smaller superstructure for better fields of AA fire. That doesn't justify T9. They might be able to get Worcester to T10, but I suspect it is really a T9. It is a better armored Minotaur without smoke. Juneau could work on its own tier above Brooklyn if they make the dual-mount secondaries actually do something useful, which I doubt at T7 and in a CL. 

The CA line on the top looks good but I don't think they will make another model for T9 just to use Oregaon City. It's to Baltimore as Fargo is to Cleveland. It's mostly a cosmetic rearrangement gamewise so I doubt they'll make a new model rather than just sticking with Baltimore at T9. I also doubt they will put Alaska in as a T10 CA. CA-wise it's T11 or 11+. Everyone jokes that Moskva is a battlecruiser, but Alaska is a true BC even though they officially called it a "large cruiser." Plenty of sources at the time (including official USN sources) referred to it as a battlecruiser. It is a lot more durable than any cruiser in the game and it has BB firepower. It's more like a T6-T7 BB. I do think there is an even chance though that Wichita will appear as the new T8 CA. My bet is it won't though but will instead appear as a T8 premium along with the new trees. 

I think the CL line will look like - Brooklyn (T7) - Cleveland (T8) - Worcester (T9) and I suspect it will end there unless there is a paper follow-on design to Worcester that is noticeably better. 

The CA line will depend on whether they put Wichita in as a tier T8 like in WoWs Tactics. That would move the others down one and may or may not remove Pensacola. Des Moines will remain T10, Baltimore will remain T9 though. I pretty much guarantee it. The big question is what do they do with T6. That's the big sticking point to me. I personally believe we will see a paper design (one of the pre-Brooklyn designs) there. 

 

I think there are enough examples in WoWs of "basically a reskin of the previous tier" to make this work.  See: Hatsuharu -> Shiratsuyu, Mogami -> Ibuki, Fubuki -> Akatsuki, Kagerou -> Yuugumo, Furutaka (C Hull) -> Aoba, and so on.

The other thing is, that a simple tweak to how AA works in WoWs would make both St. Louis and Fargo worthwhile upgrades:  The inclusion of AA Firing Arcs.  That is after all, the entire premise of those changes to those ships.

 

The hardest part is taking a Brooklyn/St. Louis and shoving it at a lower tier than Cleveland without massive nerfs.  You have basically the same 6"/47 caliber gun barrel and mount, but in a turret with slower shell hoists but only a marginal drop in ROF.  They traverse a little slower, and have less armor, but there are 15 of them and the ship's armor is nearly identical in thickness and arrangement to Cleveland (thanks to Brooklyn being the mother to all future USN Cruiser hulls through the 1980's).  That's a hard ship to balance in it's "historically" accurate loadout.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,799
[SYN]
Alpha Tester, Beta Testers
30,523 posts
4,500 battles
11 minutes ago, Hanger_18 said:

read OP about pepsi , i cant change the image, unless i go to paint and re upload. im not going to paint.... please dont make me go to paint.

brooklyn at t6 is more acceptable than the Cleveland at t6... 

How? Sure the secondaries and AA are way less but you have 3 more main guns at tier 6.

 

So basically you have an American Mogami at tier 6. WG didn't even want Mogami at tier 7, what makes you think you're getting an American version at tier 6.

 

The operative answer is: you're not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
2,121 posts
3,620 battles
1 minute ago, Tzarevitch said:

I actually love this topic. :) I'm a big fan of US cruisers. On the upper chart, Des Moines is a CA not a CL. It's on the wrong branch as is Buffalo. Also, it is actually more powerful than Buffalo. Buffalo was just a 4 turret Baltimore with some short range torps. It was one of the paper studies for Alaska as I recall. 

Subtypes of a larger class usually don't warrant an uptier. St. Louis is really just a Brooklyn with upgraded secondaries and improved AA. Fargo is just Cleveland with the number of funnels reduced (looks like Des Moines) and a smaller superstructure for better fields of AA fire. That doesn't justify T9. They might be able to get Worcester to T10, but I suspect it is really a T9. It is a better armored Minotaur without smoke. Juneau could work on its own tier above Brooklyn if they make the dual-mount secondaries actually do something useful, which I doubt at T7 and in a CL. 

The CA line on the top looks good but I don't think they will make another model for T9 just to use Oregaon City. It's to Baltimore as Fargo is to Cleveland. It's mostly a cosmetic rearrangement gamewise so I doubt they'll make a new model rather than just sticking with Baltimore at T9. I also doubt they will put Alaska in as a T10 CA. CA-wise it's T11 or 11+. Everyone jokes that Moskva is a battlecruiser, but Alaska is a true BC even though they officially called it a "large cruiser." Plenty of sources at the time (including official USN sources) referred to it as a battlecruiser. It is a lot more durable than any cruiser in the game and it has BB firepower. It's more like a T6-T7 BB. I do think there is an even chance though that Wichita will appear as the new T8 CA. My bet is it won't though but will instead appear as a T8 premium along with the new trees. 

I think the CL line will look like - Brooklyn (T7) - Cleveland (T8) - Worcester (T9) and I suspect it will end there unless there is a paper follow-on design to Worcester that is noticeably better. 

The CA line will depend on whether they put Wichita in as a tier T8 like in WoWs Tactics. That would move the others down one and may or may not remove Pensacola. Des Moines will remain T10, Baltimore will remain T9 though. I pretty much guarantee it. The big question is what do they do with T6. That's the big sticking point to me. I personally believe we will see a paper design (one of the pre-Brooklyn designs) there. 

no debating the DM is not a CL, not trying to make that argument anywhere.

im using ship comrades numbers for the buff, so while the hull may be a Baltimore, 4 triple turrets with auto loading 203mm guns is nasty.

i would agree about sub types, the only place i struggled with that is Brooklyn and st. louis, which while not ideal, cant be fixed, because you cant use the Cleveland, because then you move the argument up a tier. the fargo should be fine at t8, as in CBT the Cleveland very well was at t8 performance wise. ive used the newer sub types simply because then they can buff the AA, for ships that would have already fit into the tier.

Alaska is take or leave, WG can do some crazy stuff with numbers.

wichita could very well be a premium.

the main issue is that WG will not deviate from caliber progression anymore. so the Worcester isnt easy to put in anywhere. i had to find the biggest shoe horn in the house to get it there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
505
[HEROS]
Supertester
1,453 posts
5,522 battles
3 minutes ago, IronWolfV said:

How? Sure the secondaries and AA are way less but you have 3 more main guns at tier 6.

 

So basically you have an American Mogami at tier 6. WG didn't even want Mogami at tier 7, what makes you think you're getting an American version at tier 6.

 

The operative answer is: you're not.

 

Man, I hate to agree, and as much as I'd LIKE to see Brooklyn at T6, I know we wont see her there any more than we'll see the USN Cruiser line become more relevant than today.  Brooklyn's problem is that the 5"/25's are so nerfed into worthlessness for both secondaries AND AA that she'd not fit very well at T7 much like Pepsicola is a huge downgrade in AA performance from Cleveland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Supertester
1,464 posts
16 battles
1 hour ago, crzyhawk said:

lol no

 

I seem to summon you every single time. Then again I feel the same way about most of your counter suggestions. It evens out I guess.

 

1 hour ago, Tzarevitch said:

I think this one is much more likely although I think NO will remain at T8 and Wichita will be a premium T8. Do you happen to have specs/pics of the Providence and Pittsburgh designs that you can post by any chance? I would love to see them. 

 

WoWs Blitz has NO at tier 7, but I feel that is more doing the best of what they have, given Pepsi at 6 and NO at 7 is better than Cleve at 6. However if WG want to get it 'right' with the USN CLs/CAs on PC, then Wichita could be a premium, or a replacement tier 8 CA until NO is revitalised with a second CA branch. 

 

'Providence' - The name I have settled on for what this ship could be in game. A decent close range ship to me. Loses a turret compared to Cleveland, but has torpedoes as an element from Omaha, and provides a relatively smooth progression. 9x 6", 4x 5" are around the only stats I know for it, since I am a gleaner and will take ideas and designs as I will. I would expect some stats to carry over from Cleve (range), but some to be better (turret traverse, concealment), as compensation for losing aspects like HP, AA and overall firepower.

hb3g8Xn.jpg

 

'Pittsuburgh' - As above, own name, this time for a Pepsi-preliminary that combines aspects of Omaha with Pensacola. 7x 8" guns, 36kn. Rest of the stats are on the image. I would imagine around an 11s reload as an intermediary between Pepsi and Omaha. I think she would be quite fun to play, USN 8" AP, being nimble and quick. Maybe I should prepare a more detailed proposal since I like the design that much.

s584157.jpg

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,409
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
7,258 posts
2,029 battles

Cleveland is a lot more capable than Brooklyn, not only being heavier (more HP), but better armed (Both have 120 rpm broadsides, but whereas Cleveland has 60rpm in the fore and aft arcs, Brooklyn has only 48. Cleveland also has much more capable AA and secondaries (not that the latter matters for much), and the citadel should be more compact. She's probably best suited for tier VII, which also means the extra modules that comes into play at tier VIII will ensure Cleveland's the better ship. I agree with @Trainspite as far as CLs go; The 1936 Scheme 8 is well suited to tier VI, Brooklyn and Cleveland I've already stated, while Worcester is best suited to tier IX.

 

CA's are a bit more complicated, I won't even dare bring up Alaska, but as of now DM is the best performing tier X CA, although for some reason she does very poorly on NA. Lower tiers I'll comment on later.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
2,121 posts
3,620 battles
9 minutes ago, IronWolfV said:

How? Sure the secondaries and AA are way less but you have 3 more main guns at tier 6.

 

So basically you have an American Mogami at tier 6. WG didn't even want Mogami at tier 7, what makes you think you're getting an American version at tier 6.

 

The operative answer is: you're not.

the same way the cleveland is there now, you nerf it.

turret rotation,reload speed,make the mounts fragile, give it some wonky shot distribution.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,799
[SYN]
Alpha Tester, Beta Testers
30,523 posts
4,500 battles
Just now, UrPeaceKeeper said:

 

Man, I hate to agree, and as much as I'd LIKE to see Brooklyn at T6, I know we wont see her there any more than we'll see the USN Cruiser line become more relevant than today.  Brooklyn's problem is that the 5"/25's are so nerfed into worthlessness for both secondaries AND AA that she'd not fit very well at T7 much like Pepsicola is a huge downgrade in AA performance from Cleveland.

Yeap. That's the issue. The 25s in this game are garbage and the current current Cleveland is a shadow of what she should be.  The bigger problem is, there is really no built design for the USN at tier 6. Which is why I have advocated for this design. Granted a bit newer than the Cleveland, but much more acceptable in firepower:

s511-36.jpg

Only has 8 6 inch guns, but they are DP guns. But wouldn't be OP imho.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
247
[NUWES]
Members
1,658 posts
5,576 battles
1 minute ago, UrPeaceKeeper said:

 

I think there are enough examples in WoWs of "basically a reskin of the previous tier" to make this work.  See: Hatsuharu -> Shiratsuyu, Mogami -> Ibuki, Fubuki -> Akatsuki, Kagerou -> Yuugumo, Furutaka (C Hull) -> Aoba, and so on.

The other thing is, that a simple tweak to how AA works in WoWs would make both St. Louis and Fargo worthwhile upgrades:  The inclusion of AA Firing Arcs.  That is after all, the entire premise of those changes to those ships.

 

The hardest part is taking a Brooklyn/St. Louis and shoving it at a lower tier than Cleveland without massive nerfs.  You have basically the same 6"/47 caliber gun barrel and mount, but in a turret with slower shell hoists but only a marginal drop in ROF.  They traverse a little slower, and have less armor, but there are 15 of them and the ship's armor is nearly identical in thickness and arrangement to Cleveland (thanks to Brooklyn being the mother to all future USN Cruiser hulls through the 1980's).  That's a hard ship to balance in it's "historically" accurate loadout.

Brooklyn isn't that hard to balance at T7 vs. Cleveland at T8. The poorer gun layout and older design will do some of it and the standard T7-T8 tier difference will do the rest. I suspect that it will be similar to Cleveland (At T8) but with somewhat worse AA, worse torp defense, and slightly slower ROF (all were historically true). If there is a bow armor difference between T7 and T8 that will happen as well. The C turret on Brooklyn is also very poorly placed which hampers volume of fire even further. Cruisers spend a lot of time maneuvering for survival at higher tiers, rear-firing C turrets like Brooklyn has spend a lot of time out of arc. I learned this long ago with Myoko. I suspect Brooklyn's turret traverse will also be a bit slower than Cleveland at T8. Also Brooklyn at T7 almost certainly won't have a radar while Cleveland at T8 will. 

Reskins do happen, but you usually don't have a complete reskin a tier higher. There usually is something more that is accounting for the tier differential. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
2,121 posts
3,620 battles
5 minutes ago, UrPeaceKeeper said:

 

Man, I hate to agree, and as much as I'd LIKE to see Brooklyn at T6, I know we wont see her there any more than we'll see the USN Cruiser line become more relevant than today.  Brooklyn's problem is that the 5"/25's are so nerfed into worthlessness for both secondaries AND AA that she'd not fit very well at T7 much like Pepsicola is a huge downgrade in AA performance from Cleveland.

if your not creating a new line the fix would be to just move the cleveland to t8, drop the NO and pepsi.

make no mistake the Cleveland was an animal in CBT. the nerf bat was pretty harsh to get her balanced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,799
[SYN]
Alpha Tester, Beta Testers
30,523 posts
4,500 battles
2 minutes ago, Hanger_18 said:

the same way the cleveland is there now, you nerf it.

turret rotation,reload speed,make the mounts fragile.

 

You can nerf it till the cows come home you still have to deal with 15 6 inch guns that can use IEHE at tier 6. WG won't do it. They didn't like Mogamo with 15 155s at tier 7 BEFORE IEHE(biggest reason she got moved to tier 8 and flipped with Myoko). What makes you think that WG is going to come back 2 years later with 15 6 inch guns and stick it 1 tier lower?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
247
[NUWES]
Members
1,658 posts
5,576 battles
5 minutes ago, Trainspite said:

 

I seem to summon you every single time. Then again I feel the same way about most of your counter suggestions. It evens out I guess.

 

 

WoWs Blitz has NO at tier 7, but I feel that is more doing the best of what they have, given Pepsi at 6 and NO at 7 is better than Cleve at 6. However if WG want to get it 'right' with the USN CLs/CAs on PC, then Wichita could be a premium, or a replacement tier 8 CA until NO is revitalised with a second CA branch. 

 

'Providence' - The name I have settled on for what this ship could be in game. A decent close range ship to me. Loses a turret compared to Cleveland, but has torpedoes as an element from Omaha, and provides a relatively smooth progression. 9x 6", 4x 5" are around the only stats I know for it, since I am a gleaner and will take ideas and designs as I will. I would expect some stats to carry over from Cleve (range), but some to be better (turret traverse, concealment), as compensation for losing aspects like HP, AA and overall firepower.

hb3g8Xn.jpg

 

'Pittsuburgh' - As above, own name, this time for a Pepsi-preliminary that combines aspects of Omaha with Pensacola. 7x 8" guns, 36kn. Rest of the stats are on the image. I would imagine around an 11s reload as an intermediary between Pepsi and Omaha. I think she would be quite fun to play, USN 8" AP, being nimble and quick. Maybe I should prepare a more detailed proposal since I like the design that much.

s584157.jpg

I think those actually work quite well, and provide smooth transitions into the later classes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×