Jump to content
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
zoik99

Zao alternative.

31 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1
[DSDS]
Members
17 posts
869 battles

Hi now i have previously made this type of post before a couple of months back but now with the most updates and changes. The game has really shown that the Zao is now the LEAST effective tier X cruiser as it has no real "bonus" or advantage over any other cruiser. I'm not implying that they should make the ship completely better then the rest but they need to make a balance to the Zao. To even add this is a ship that has no historical accuracy which for me bothers me intensely since the rest of the Japanese line is accurate to an extent to history so having this ship that has no relevance to anything that existed is really just insulting. The real reason of this post granted did fall under the case that i find the Zao's stats are so low that every other tier X cruiser are so dominantly higher then the Zao that makes the ship almost useless to a team.

In terms i would either appreciate a revamp of the Zao's stats to make it balance or just remake the IJN Tier X cruiser to the blueprinted B-65 Battle Cruiser with altered stats obviously. 

Image result for b65 cruiser

Which quoting from another post which came from another site the ship with these known stats with them slightly altered even to make it balance.

Design work on the B-65s began in 1939. Preliminary plans for the new class were finished by September 1940, and they were far enough along that tests of the lower protection—the armor intended to counter any shell that fell short but still hit the ship (albeit underwater) and torpedoes—and main armament were conducted from 1940 to 1941.

These plans called for ships that bore a striking resemblance to the Yamato-class battleships, with the same "clipper bow, flush-deck construction, and a generally similar superstructure", albeit at a reduced size. Primary weapons were to be nine 310 mm (12.2 in)/50 caliber guns in three triple turrets and eight 610 mm (24 in) torpedo tubes firing the excellent Type 93 "Long Lance" torpedo. Secondary weapons included sixteen 100 mm (3.9 in)/65 caliber dual-purpose guns in dual mounts on either side of the superstructure, twelve paired Type 95 25 mm (1 in) anti-aircraft guns, and four 13.2mm Hotchkiss machine guns. The weight of the main battery turrets was to be around 1,000 long tons (1,100 short tons; 1,000 t), with 350 long tons (390 short tons; 360 t) of that devoted to armor; however, no plans of how this latter figure was to have been distributed has survived.

The cruisers were to be protected by 190 mm (7.5 in) belt armor sloped at 20° and 125 mm (4.9 in) deck armor. Four geared turbine sets would have generated about 42,500 shp each; for a total of about 167,674 shp, enough to power the ships through the water at 34 kn (39 mph; 63 km/h), faster than the "fundamental design requirement" of 33 kn (38 mph; 61 km/h).

In an attempt to counter the Alaska-class cruisers‍ ' 305 mm (12.0 in) guns, a proposal to increase both the main battery to six 356 mm (14 in) and armor protection to resist against the same was put forth. However, the increase in displacement (to almost 40,000 long tons (45,000 short tons; 41,000 t)) and reduction in performance this entailed meant that nothing came of the proposed changes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,054 posts
13,833 battles

Not sure I agree with your "least effective tier 10 cruiser" statement. The stats, sorted by damage dealt, do not support your statement.

Still, I agree new ships are always welcome and I for one appreciate the time you have taken to create your post. Great deal of information there.

Thankyou!

 

zao1.JPG

zao.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1
[DSDS]
Members
17 posts
869 battles

I understand with what those say. Yes in the right player the Zao is a good ship but so is any ship but from stats and no upgrades from camo or commander etc.. it is the worst ship compared to the other ships since it does not excel in a area at all. I do get that its torps are good but short ranged which with a ship that is not meant to get that close to other ships isn't effective same with its secondaries. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
370
[HELLS]
Members
1,702 posts
15,536 battles

IJN bad? The Allied navies (USN, Commonwealth, and RN) are a whole lot worse, because (and especially the USN) play against ships that never were, even at mid-tier (RU). Look at the stats.. quit complaining, you never had it so good!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1
[DSDS]
Members
17 posts
869 battles
3 minutes ago, GrandAdmiral_2016 said:

IJN bad? The Allied navies (USN, Commonwealth, and RN) are a whole lot worse, because (and especially the USN) play against ships that never were, even at mid-tier (RU). Look at the stats.. quit complaining, you never had it so good!

im not talking about the rest of the tier being bad im singling out just the Zao being under-powered compared to the rest of the Tier X cruisers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
332
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
1,341 posts
14,860 battles
17 minutes ago, zoik99 said:

im not talking about the rest of the tier being bad im singling out just the Zao being under-powered compared to the rest of the Tier X cruisers

Sorry, but I just disagree that the Zao is bad.  A few changes have made it a bit less effective then it used to be but there is the feeling when you catch the broadside cruiser with 12 AP rounds.


It is also much more forgiving then my Des Moines...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1
[DSDS]
Members
17 posts
869 battles
1 minute ago, Warped_1 said:

Sorry, but I just disagree that the Zao is bad.  A few changes have made it a bit less effective then it used to be but there is the feeling when you catch the broadside cruiser with 12 AP rounds.


It is also much more forgiving then my Des Moines...

the Zao will not come out on top of a broadside v broadside since its cit belt is the lowest and its armor is not very high either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
448 posts
7,474 battles
1 hour ago, zoik99 said:

 i find the Zao's stats are so low that every other tier X cruiser are so dominantly higher then the Zao that makes the ship almost useless to a team.

 

 

While I appreciate the research you put into your battlecruiser proposal, conventional wisdom and actual statistics confirm that the Zao is not underpowered and is doing just fine.

..

Edited by Dr_Powderfinger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1
[DSDS]
Members
17 posts
869 battles
5 minutes ago, Dr_Powderfinger said:

While I appreciate the research you put into your battlecruiser proposal, conventional wisdom and actual statistics confirm that the Zao is not underpowered and is doing just fine.

Other then what is said from WST the stats of the zao compared to every other tier X cruiser is lower. The only things the Zao actually wins in terms of stock stats are concealment and max dispersion. This is not somthing to be proud of since the second you fire anyway your spotted from 17km away and the dispersion at a actual combat range for the zao vs another cruiser would be ineffective since other ships have a higher max dispersion but also have a longer firing range which as obviously can tell the closer they get the having lower dispersion makes no real advantage. Yes the torps are strong but if you have to be within 8KM of a cruiser or BB to launch them you are most likely gonna get your citadel hit before you can even turn out/in again.

 

Edited by zoik99

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
448 posts
7,474 battles
Just now, zoik99 said:

Other then what is said from WST the stats of the zao compared to every other tier X cruiser is lower the only things the Zao actually wins in terms of stock stats are concealment and max dispersion. This is not somthing to be proud of since the second you fire anyway your spotted from 17km away and the dispersion at a actual combat range for the zao vs another cruiser would be ineffective since other ships have a higher max dispersion but also have a longer firing range which as obviously can tell the closer they get the having lower dispersion makes no real advantage. Yes the torps are strong but if you have to be within 8KM of a cruiser or BB to launch them you are most likely gonna get your citadel hit before you can even turn out/in again.

 

And yet the Zao still is performing well.

You are facing a hard sell here, there are dozens of ships in the game more in need of a buff than the Zao.

..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1
[DSDS]
Members
17 posts
869 battles
1 minute ago, Dr_Powderfinger said:

And yet the Zao still is performing well.

You are facing a hard sell here, there are dozens of ships in the game more in need of a buff than the Zao.

..

Then what other ships need a buff more then the Zao? since i am curious 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
331
[SPUDS]
[SPUDS]
Members
570 posts
3,350 battles

Looking at the zao, as a DD main, it does seem to be at a little bit of a disadvantage. The Moskva out-tanks it & outranges it, every cruiser has a higher fire rate, even the HIV with the 240mm guns. She has decent armour, but by no means is she a challenge for Moskva.


I would personally make a case for two simple changes:

atago's torpedo arcs (swap the front tubes around)

280mm Main battery, enforcing the Japanese way of "bigger gun = better gun"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,054 posts
13,833 battles
On ‎10‎/‎18‎/‎2017 at 3:44 PM, SgtSpud said:

Not sure I agree with your "least effective tier 10 cruiser" statement. The stats, sorted by damage dealt, do not support your statement.

Still, I agree new ships are always welcome and I for one appreciate the time you have taken to create your post. Great deal of information there.

Thankyou!

 

zao1.JPG

zao.JPG

Notice how Moskva's survival rate is worse than Zao?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24
[CYD]
Members
119 posts
2,547 battles

I agree that Zao seems to be competitive.  But, I’d LOVE to see the B65!!! It was one of my favorites in Navyfield. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
11 posts
3,769 battles

I think you are making a poor work at reading those stats. As they are shown they do not enforce anyone's statements. We should se curves, and create a comparison method. And as for those that state that USN and RN are in disadvantage due to them facing fiticious ships, well neither the ships of the aforemenioned navies existed as they do ingame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
115
[-I-]
Members
721 posts
8,214 battles

Zao's fine.  That said, the fact that you don't see any Zao's in clan battles outside of the rentals tells you all you need to know.  Hindenburg is the best all around CA with Moskva being the sturdier radar CA.  DM and Mino are too squishy.  Zao's DPM is low and her HP is the lowest.  Still a good ship in randoms.  She needs a fine touch and won't carry most games but she's dependable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[KNTAI]
Members
173 posts
4,917 battles
On 10/24/2017 at 10:09 AM, Chuck_Wiggles said:

Zao's fine.  That said, the fact that you don't see any Zao's in clan battles outside of the rentals tells you all you need to know.  Hindenburg is the best all around CA with Moskva being the sturdier radar CA.  DM and Mino are too squishy.  Zao's DPM is low and her HP is the lowest.  Still a good ship in randoms.  She needs a fine touch and won't carry most games but she's dependable. 

I disagree with the Des Moines. It was actually quite frequent to see them in clan battles, and she's pretty beefy if you angle well with her. Not to mention Des Moines is usually supposed to avoid being hit in the first place by taking cover.

But overall, the Zao is not meant to be played like a traditional T10 CA. You won't last in a slugging match and you're pretty much dead if any CA catches your broadside at close ranges. You have to shoot and scoot with her while using your stealth to disengage whenever necessary before striking again from an unexpected angle.

If anything, the Minotaur is worse than her. She's basically a DD with a citadel, and our clan learned the hard way just how ineffective she was in clan wars.

Edited by Cruiser_ChoukaiKaiNi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,143 posts
3,273 battles

There was a thread someone made about how Zao is Second Best at Everything. 

Which while leaving things go be desired, depending on the Match Up; Zao is 1st when it comes to it other qualities, while clearly Lacking in a certain area depending on match up. 

If there's 1 thing I'd change about Zao is giving it Ibuki's Torpedos as an option. The fast 8km Torpedoes is nice when you're crossing the T when I ships pushing you. But in a Broadside engagement having 10km torps to launch from stealth; although slower than the 8km ones. The option would be nice to have depending on playstyle. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
282
[CVA16]
Members
2,293 posts
9,867 battles
On 10/18/2017 at 3:44 PM, SgtSpud said:

Not sure I agree with your "least effective tier 10 cruiser" statement. The stats, sorted by damage dealt, do not support your statement.

Agree. Compared to other tiers, the ships are actually pretty evenly matched based on the stats. Less than a 2% range for win rate. Damage dealt is also fairly close (compared to other tiers of CAs).

Tier 9 has an even closer WR and damage spread (Baltimore kinda sucks for damage, only 74% of the max).

Tier 8 has a much bigger range. WR is over 4% (still pretty close) but damage for the New Orleans is only 54% of the Mikhail. If WG was to do some rebalancing at the top tiers, they should start at Tier 8.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9
[SWNG]
Beta Testers
83 posts
3,577 battles
On 10/19/2017 at 8:14 AM, GrandAdmiral_2016 said:

IJN bad? The Allied navies (USN, Commonwealth, and RN) are a whole lot worse, because (and especially the USN) play against ships that never were, even at mid-tier (RU). Look at the stats.. quit complaining, you never had it so good!

Probably the most intellectually correct argument in this entire thread. It is indeed frustrating to play actual real world warships that existed and were purpose designed to counter the actual real world threats of their time, to only be outgunned or overwhelmed by paper ship designs that never existed or fought a real battle.

 

The whole argument about Zao being a ship in need of a buff, why? If you have a proper specced Captain and the right modules, the Zao is a great ship. Seems people always want to buff something to forego the grind of another line. The Zao is a paper design vs real world designs of the Des Moines and MInotaur. If you're wanting to nerf paper ships, then nerfing should also be applied to the real world designs to counter their paper opponents. Stop complaining and just learn the specific nuances of each ship. Each class should have particular strengths and weaknesses assigned to them. The Des Moines has no torpedoes, but i has a great ROF and nice armor, making her a decent brawler against other cruisers and melts DDs. The Zao has a decent ROF, Type F3 torpedoes (which are nasty) and decent armor. Set people on fire, torp them in close in fights, but always keep turning to avoid being punched in the face.

 

As much as I find your Battle Cruiser design to be very appealing, we just don't need it to replace the Zao. Perhaps a premium offering. I for one would buy it, but I don't see it's advantages over the Zao.

 

PS, looking at  your profile explains much....you only have the IJN line of cruisers researched and a high game of 509 in your Zao. Try researching the other lines and you will see, Zao needs no buffing. Also, play a few dozen or so more battles in the Zao. You've only fought 4 so far, way too few to judge the merits of the Zao

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17
[FTWRK]
Members
55 posts
4,987 battles

One thing the stats don't tell you about the Zao is its lovely gun arcs.  I'm having very little trouble hitting maneuvering cruisers at 17 km, something which is a constant struggle in my DM.  I didn't think I'd like it more than the DM, which I researched first, but after playing a few dozen games in it, I really do.  For one, I'm doing a lot more damage per match and picking up Witherer achievements pretty regularly with her.  That fire damage really adds up.  They key for me was to stay near max range, set all the BBs on fire, and maneuver like mad to avoid taking hits.  If too many ships begin to target you, stealth away and reposition.  The Zao is a very good ship and certainly not in need of a buff -- all you need to do is recognize how to take advantage of what she does well and then change your playstyle accordingly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,329 posts
3,591 battles
On October 18, 2017 at 5:18 PM, zoik99 said:

Hi now i have previously made this type of post before a couple of months back but now with the most updates and changes. The game has really shown that the Zao is now the LEAST effective tier X cruiser as it has no real "bonus" or advantage over any other cruiser. I'm not implying that they should make the ship completely better then the rest but they need to make a balance to the Zao. To even add this is a ship that has no historical accuracy which for me bothers me intensely since the rest of the Japanese line is accurate to an extent to history so having this ship that has no relevance to anything that existed is really just insulting. The real reason of this post granted did fall under the case that i find the Zao's stats are so low that every other tier X cruiser are so dominantly higher then the Zao that makes the ship almost useless to a team.

In terms i would either appreciate a revamp of the Zao's stats to make it balance or just remake the IJN Tier X cruiser to the blueprinted B-65 Battle Cruiser with altered stats obviously. 

Image result for b65 cruiser

Which quoting from another post which came from another site the ship with these known stats with them slightly altered even to make it balance.

Design work on the B-65s began in 1939. Preliminary plans for the new class were finished by September 1940, and they were far enough along that tests of the lower protection—the armor intended to counter any shell that fell short but still hit the ship (albeit underwater) and torpedoes—and main armament were conducted from 1940 to 1941.

These plans called for ships that bore a striking resemblance to the Yamato-class battleships, with the same "clipper bow, flush-deck construction, and a generally similar superstructure", albeit at a reduced size. Primary weapons were to be nine 310 mm (12.2 in)/50 caliber guns in three triple turrets and eight 610 mm (24 in) torpedo tubes firing the excellent Type 93 "Long Lance" torpedo. Secondary weapons included sixteen 100 mm (3.9 in)/65 caliber dual-purpose guns in dual mounts on either side of the superstructure, twelve paired Type 95 25 mm (1 in) anti-aircraft guns, and four 13.2mm Hotchkiss machine guns. The weight of the main battery turrets was to be around 1,000 long tons (1,100 short tons; 1,000 t), with 350 long tons (390 short tons; 360 t) of that devoted to armor; however, no plans of how this latter figure was to have been distributed has survived.

The cruisers were to be protected by 190 mm (7.5 in) belt armor sloped at 20° and 125 mm (4.9 in) deck armor. Four geared turbine sets would have generated about 42,500 shp each; for a total of about 167,674 shp, enough to power the ships through the water at 34 kn (39 mph; 63 km/h), faster than the "fundamental design requirement" of 33 kn (38 mph; 61 km/h).

In an attempt to counter the Alaska-class cruisers‍ ' 305 mm (12.0 in) guns, a proposal to increase both the main battery to six 356 mm (14 in) and armor protection to resist against the same was put forth. However, the increase in displacement (to almost 40,000 long tons (45,000 short tons; 41,000 t)) and reduction in performance this entailed meant that nothing came of the proposed changes.

This alternative proposal is best used as an alternative line. Please expand this idea of yours and find suitable tier 6-9 and make a line proposal. I think this would be a great alternative line idea I am not fond over what they did to Stalingrad. Make a proposal so that it can gather support and so that this gem can be put in a regular tech tree and not in some high skill playing ground that most of us don't care for.  Dead serious go for it improve this and find the tier 6-9. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×