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

List of views, problems, and other miscellany on the RN Battleships

7 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Supertester
1,463 posts
16 battles

List of views, problems, and other miscellany on the RN Battleships:

 

-      It took me long enough, but I felt it worthwhile to write up this much on the RN BBs, and my general thoughts on them. It’s been about 2 months since their release, I really did take my time (well, part of that is me being a bit lazy). There is going to be quite a lot of mildly miffed language however, since WG really has not done that good of a job with them to me, and from the numerous forum threads and posts, I get the same impression from the community as a whole. Hence, while it is meant to be relatively neutral, my writing will imply that I am one of the disgusted of Tunbridge Wells. (I probably am to be honest, being a Man of Kent).

The changes described below are in my view, potentially what would make the line a better representative of the RN BBs historically, as well as fixing several gameplay issues that they have, being UP, OP, or just not satisfying. This thread is about the regular RN BB line, and not Nelson or Duke of York, which I sincerely hope doesn’t get through testing in any form as it is now. I can leave those for future threads.

 

 

 

Bellerophon (Billy Ruffian):

-      This ship sits on the fence between OP & Very good. She doesn’t really have any disadvantages, but can still be outperformed by the totally not tier 4 Albert. She has a long turret traverse, but her armour is reliable enough, the guns themselves are excellent, the seconadaries are not bad, the maneuverability is good, and the ship just doesn’t do much wrong.

 

-      However, to be on the safe side, I would suggest a nerf to the firing range, down to about 12.5 to 13.5km, forcing Bellerophon to get closer instead of staying at long range. The ¼ pen HE is also quite unnecessary at this tier, you have no problems slicing targets open with AP. Another option could be to reduce the ship to her nominal top speed of 21kn, and not a trials/overload speed of 22.5kn. No practical difference, but Bellerophon would be a bit more on par with other tier 3s if this was the case.

 

 

-      While the A-hull seems an accurate representation of HMS Bellerophon or one of her sisters. The B-hull is unnecessarily ahistorical. Bellerophon has the best AA at tier 3 for a BB, but this comes with an ahistorical upgrade if I am correct in my knowledge. The Single 40mm MGs mounted on the turret roofs shouldn’t be there, and were never there historically. For a ship that does nothing too badly, losing the AA goes some way to reducing how good the ship is, while also making it truer to history. In fact, the only BBs to use the single 40mm MGs was NelRod as originally built.

SkuGNb2.jpg

This is wrong. Boo.

 

-      Oh, and just a small note, it probably would be more appropriate that the description for Bellerophon says developed from the famous ‘HMS Dreadnought’ instead of ‘Dreadnought class’, because well, who calls it the Dreadnought class, class of one?

 

 

 

Orion (The Great Hunter):

-      Overpowered Orion is Overpowered, and there is no way around that. Despite having a 72s 180 turret traverse time and no good turning circle or rudder shift to make up for it, Orion has many, many good attributes to make up for it. Excellent HE that ruins all it touches. Very powerful AP for the tier, being quite adept at slicing open opponent BBs. Standard speed, good AA, again, the ship has no tangible disadvantages to take away from the awesome firepower.

 

-      Nerfing Orion could be done by decreasing the range from 16.7km to 14-5km or so, forcing Orions to get closer. Speed like Bellerophon can be cropped from 22kn to 21kn. ¼ HE pen can definitely be removed, it is really not necessary on this ship. The turret arc of the Q turret (amidships) can be made worse (explained below). Maybe this would be enough, though Orion would still be a dominant force on the seas. Rate of Fire is also another option, albeit one that I would think is best left until after other nerfs if it is needed.

 

-      Orion has no historical hull. However much she looks similar to herself (unlike the German BBs), Orion or any of her 3 sisters (Monarch, Conqueror & Thunderer) are not represented in game as they were at any point in their service careers. I understand that they would need an ahistorical hull to upgrade the AA on the ships if they had survived post Washington Naval Treaty, but this should only come into play with the B/C-hull.

 

-      Assuming the A-hull is to be a historical rendition of Orion the following should happen at least:

1.    Director on the main mast replaced with the usual spotting top, as seen with Bellerophon. That director looks silly perched up there anyway. With Hood and co, it is down by the conning tower.

2. The 120mm DP secondaries are removed completely. As are the 40mm MGs on the turret roofs. Both are additions you can use for a B-hull. If need be, make the current B-hull a C-hull for extra AA. In return, Orion only gets 1 or 2 76mm or 102mm AA guns. If Arkansas & the stock Myogi can manage with no AA, you can too. It’s not like those non-manual dropping tier 4 and 5 carriers can [edited] you as badly anymore.

HL539Fa.jpg

Left, Monarch in 1919, Right is Conqueror in 1918. Just to give some views of an A or B-hull. It would be safe to say that these ships looked quite imposing, as the first super-dreadnoughts.

 

3.  The ships boats and superstructure would be slightly edited, as the side view below shows. Note that the boats that would restrict the firing arcs of Q-turret. This would mean that Orion would have to expose more of her broadside to fire the turret, or alternatively keep 20% of her firepower out of the fight. Hopefully this ‘nerf’ would be carried through to the B/C-hull as well with a modernisation.

 

 

 

IfT4u85.png

Orion in WW1 condition. Probably 1915/6 if I had to guess. This illustrates nicely what an A-hull could look like. And also shows the ships boats which would reduce the arcs of Q-turret. Call it New York syndrome or something.

 

-      As for the rebuilt B/C-hull the ship:

1.    A rebuilt superstructure which moves the fore funnel further aft and incorporates the fire control director could be used. If not, leave the superstructure as is, though maybe still move the fore funnel aft of the mast, and move the director to the base of the superstructure.

2.    Keep the 102mm secondaries and AA suite, however, personally I would recommend some Oerlikons/ Quad Vickers 12.7mm on the turret roof in mounts as seen on QE/Warspite, not the 40mm MGs, which seem a bit unlikely to be mounted like that.

 

 

 

Iron Duke (Tin Duck):

-      The Duke is a decently balanced ship. A moderate upgrade on Orion, being more fleshed out in soft stats. Sees tier 7s, but the powerful HE can deal with them. She is quite strong, as she inherits the firepower of Orion, but with slightly better range, speed, HP etc.

 

-      I wouldn’t really suggest any changes to Iron Duke. The 72s turret traverse is quite annoying without a good turning circle or rudder shift, so maybe that could be improved for quality of life, but then New York becomes even more irrelevant. The speed could be better at 23kn, but that is more about consistency than anything else. Perhaps you could peg her range back to 16.3km as per Warspite.

 

 

-      As with Orion, Iron Duke gets no historical hull. This is not unprecedented (Hello Konig my old friend…), but it is annoying nonetheless. Especially if I want to feel like I am CinC at Jutland. While a stock tier 4 Iron Duke sister is a possible premium, the RN has enough premium potentials at any tier. So, assuming the A-hull is going to be the historical one;

1.    102mm DP secondaries removed. Who needs some silly DP guns in WW1 anyway?

2.    The single funnel as of current is replaced by the historical two funnel layout. This also means the two large cranes behind said single funnel have to push off.

3.    All the AA is taken off, and replaced with just 2 76mm AA guns. It is not like stock Konig & New York are that much better in practical terms. And the B-hull should be inexpensive anyway. Suffer comparatively little, you will. And if WG are right somehow and it makes the ship really annoying to play, despite it being about 2-3 games to unlock, you could just buff the values of the 76mm guns themselves. Other aspects of the ship are more likely to make the ship an unwelcome experience, like rudder shift, rather than the lack of credible AA.

4.      Those more modern fire directors would also have to hop it. Yes, that means you, director sitting on the spotting top. A large spotting top it is me lad, no more, no less.

skZ9ymM.jpg

 

Hmm, it is another one of these handy side on views. This one shows HMS Emperor of India, the only one of the 4 Iron Dukes to not have the sternwalk, as Iron Duke has in game. Either way, as with Orion, how a historically accurate Iron Duke A-hull could look. Pretty. Now where is the High Seas Fleet, I need to send 343mm blockade diplomacy.

 

-      Oh, and the rebuilt hull Iron Duke does have? Well it has a few problems. Like the Octuple pompoms on B & X turret roofs. Considering the 15” armed R class Battleships could only manage a quad pompom on the turret roof, Iron Duke should have no more than that too. Stick the Octuple pompoms somewhere in the superstructure if you want them so badly. The strait single funnel indicates that the ship has had her boilers rebuilt, and hence a speed of 23kn would be appropriate for a rebuilt ship. Konig has managed to boost herself to 24kn afterall, the rebuilt opposing flagship of Jutland can’t be left too far behind the other rebuilt flagship of Jutland.

CS5SQcO.jpg

A poor image, but I couldn’t be arsed to find a better one after 30 minutes of web surfing/trawling. HMS Resolution in 1942, showing that even with a larger twin 15” turret, a quad 40mm pompom was carried. Iron Duke in game is on the right, and that octuple pompom is precariously perched on the turret. It doesn’t look that stable. Scaffolding much.

 

Queen Elizabeth (Big Lizzie):

-      QE is probably the worst ship tier for tier in the line. She is not terrible per se, but aside from her very good AA power for tier 6, there is no reason to play her if you have a Warspite, unless you like the ship personally, or are an HE spamming spud taking advantage of the ¼ HE.

 

-      Most of why QE is worse than Warspite is that Warspite has faster turning turrets, combined with a very tight turning circle, while getting better secondaries. This makes Warspite a lot more flexible at dishing out damage, while QE gets fairly minor advantages in return. A bit more HP, a bit more range, slightly better turret angles.

 

-      Improvements to QE could include a better rudder shift time, from 14.3s to 12-13s, beating Warspite’s 14.2s. Another way would be to reduce the turret turn time from 72s for 180 degrees, to around 65s. Still worse than Warspite, but not massively worse so the ship is awkward and inflexible to play. Fairly minor things like this, but it gives QE more of a point without detracting from Warspite.

 

-      Queen Elizabeth is represented in her as rebuilt form, which does have a historical B-hull. A-hull is almost there, but should possess no 20mm Oerlikons, or fewer than 8 of them. However, I will express disappointment that there is no 1930s condition Queen Elizabeth. Not asking for a 1916 condition QE with just 4x 76mm AA guns, though it would be nice to go with Bayern’s A-hull. However, a post 1935 QE would have 4x 102mm AA guns, and 2 Octuple pompom mounts, sufficient enough for an A-hull, if Bayern is anything to go by. Said A-hull would require QE in a semi-modernised state, with trunked funnels and WW1 style bridge structure. It would be a weak AA suite, but oh well. If you want a bit more AA, you could use 1934 Barham, with the addition of 2x 4 12.7mm MGs, and a catapult. Or 1936 Malaya, which has 4x 2 102mm and 4x 4 12.7mm. There are options afterall.

S7Tr4wP.jpg

Queen Elizabeth, 1936. Sexy trunked funnels. The ships motto, ‘Semper Eadem’, “always the same” doesn’t exactly fit with the ships appearances, which changed drastically 3 times.

 

-      Of note is also that a late war condition QE is a possible C-hull. Giving up the catapult for 16 more dual Oerlikons. Worth it? Probably not, the increase in short range AA is not that good a trade. But it is something to mention as a possibility for those who are frequently abused by carriers and have PTSD of it.

 

 

King George V (KGV – You think of a better nickname then):

-      Alright, I’ll get the first one out of the way, the ship should be a tier 8 as it was originally intended to be in development. Some *virtually coughs* may disagree, but I have the feeling aside from the die-hard KGV T7 crowd, no one will mind too much. Tier 8 would basically benefit the ship  and line as a whole anyway.

 

-      Gameplay-wise, the ship is very split. When RNG rolls for you, the ship is an insane fire-starting monster with alright AP (it does the job, no more, no less). It can be considered OP in this respect, a beefed up Scharnhorst which is not as adept at brawling. On the other hand, if RNG decides that it is not your day, the ship is incredibly frustrating. Not especially reliable accuracy, and relying on the 41% fire chance is a double roll of the dice, and makes for a rage inducing experience at times. Very much unsatisfying.

 

Furthermore, the 25mm bow and deck make a well armoured BB incredibly vulnerable, and even more frustrating to play. A ship with so much potential given a 25s reload and alike, but sabotaged by RNG rolls and 25mm plating. In theory this makes a balanced tier 7, but it is unsatisfying to play at times, and feels very contradictory.

 

-      So what would I do? If the ship is to stay at tier 7 (which would annoy me to no ends), I would not mind seeing the deck armour buffed a bit to 32mm at least, and preferably more to resist incoming fire better at the expense of the silly-good concealment value. However, that is optional, and fits better as a tier 8 (I’ll get to it). The other thing would be giving the ship 2.0 sigma and better accuracy, but reducing the reload to 28-30s, making the ship more reliable, and less spray and pray. The reload is a big attraction, but from a personal view, I would like a more consistent ship. More battleship, less heavy cruiser.

 

-      If the ship is to be made tier 8 (Eat it T7 shitlords! – ahem, sorry) then the access to the concealment module and 32mm bow and deck armour would definitely help, however, the ship would also have to have it’s present tier 7 stats buffed up. The 18km range made something above 19km, the speed made 28.5kn and the anaemic stock values made more bearable. The catapult is to be sacrificed on the altar of better AA of a late war fit KGV or sister. The HP should be increased to circa 64,500HP, more in line with the displacement of a late war Howe or Anson. The regular KGV represents the class afterall, a la Lexington/Saratoga. The 2.0 sigma is put into the mix to make the ship a consistent force to contend with, so the ship can put out reliable hits like North Carolina. Rudder shift may also be an area for improvement to get that rear turret unmasked quicker. Say from 15s to 14s. But that is not necessary, and could just increase power creep.

Now about, the deck armour, this is a better change from this tier up. KGV being at this tier eliminates the 25mm problem (the replacement tier 7 should not be in the gimmicky concept that WG have for the tiers 7 to 10 currently), and pushing above the standard 32mm makes the deck resistant to 6” IFHE fire, and I feel that this advantage is worth sacrificing 1-2km of concealment for. I will justify this more later on in the post, but suffice to say, this should apply for tiers 7/8, 9 and 10 as well.

And Heck, if you T8 KGV doubters are still unconvinced, then we can throw in the RN HP repair as found on Lion & Conq. Would make logical sense *if* the ship was UP and only a tier down from Lion. But it shouldn’t come to that, given KGV has enough good attributes anyway to make her perform at tier 8. The tier 7 spot can be taken by a post QE design, sort of a midway between Hood and QE. It would fit better, and still be more realistic than Monarch, but that is getting ahead of myself.

 

-      Historically, the KGV we have now is not exactly accurate either. The A-hull should only have a single quadruple 40mm pompom. Not the 2 that you see in the bridge wings in game. And the B-hull is worse, as KGV/Duke of York has managed to transcend time and space and receive various AA upgrades without losing her catapult and previous AA.

There are plenty of combinations for accurate A and B-hulls keeping the catapult if you want a tier 7 KGV. Two of which are below:

King George V: 1941/1942

8x 2 134mm

5x 8 40mm pompoms

1x 4 40mm pompoms

18x 1 20mm Oerlikons

Duke of York: 1942

8x 2 134mm

6x 8 40mm pompoms

28x 20mm Oerlikons


As for a tier 8 KGV, WG had modelled a late war condition Duke of York in anticipation of this before their plans changed, so that can be revitalised if Anson or Howe are not to be used. There are also other ways a tier 8 KGV can be balanced, but they need not be mentioned yet. Alternatively, WG could use said old tier 8 KGV hull as an [edited] Duke of York T7 premium, which nobody really wants, and from the stats, is not getting a good reception.

 

dBlcxv2.jpg

Forza King George V! Well, Long live the King, glory to him etc. etc. – While I am looking for responses to this thread, I would prefer them not to get stuck in the quagmire that is the KGV tiering debate, and I know where I stand on that, and that is not changing. If you must, say what/why the ship should be where, or if it was, it would require, but I don’t want the historical arguments here, over whether the ship deserves to be tier 8, it would just get messy and I have no time to deal with... well, I described ‘them’ as ‘shitlords’ earlier, so you get the idea. :) That debate is null as far as this thread is concerned, I think it should be a tier 8, and I have focused my thread accordingly.

 

 

Monarch (Mongrel /Scrapheap Challenge /Fake abomination):

 

hLc53qX.jpg

An accurate depiction of Trainspite when he saw Monarch for the first time after it had shed the KGV clone skin it had when first making an appearance, 2017, colourised.

 

-      Well, I spend a lot of time talking about this thing, and I don’t necessarily enjoy it. In my view, it is the epitome of failure of the RN BB line. Mainly because it is completely fake, but also because I found it quite underwhelming gameplay-wise too. From KGV, there is a lot to look forward to in some aspects, 25s reload with 15” guns looks very nice on paper, but the only advantages over KGV I noticed were the overmatch abilities and the faster shell flight times, at expense of the HE fire chance. And WG have been lazy enough to copy paste a lot of the stats that ideally should improve with tier 8 over from KGV, the range, the HP, the maneuverability, and suffice to say, the lack of range is a significant annoyance at times, given I would consider 19km to be the benchmark, though other 22km to be excessive.

 

-      So, if the ship was to stay, which I sincerely hope it doesn’t (at least in this form), but I would suggest a few changes unless the ship was to wallow in mediocrity (It is distinctly meh – probably the weakest tier 8 BB), I would buff the deck armour at the expense of concealment as detailed above in the KGV section, and I would possibly give Monarch the super heal. This would be in addition to the range buff to 19.5km as with KGV above, the 28.5kn speed as above with KGV, possibly a better rudder shift too. As right now the only distinct advantages I see that Monarch has over KGV are the 32mm ends, short range AA and overmatch. Everything else is a lazy half arsed clone with tier 7.5 stats.

 

-      Alright, the historical part. Well, since the ship is fiction, it is going to be a load of writing on why Monarch is just wrong. (Wrong sir, wrong! You lose! Good day sir! – The standard response to when someone tries to say Monarch has a historical design)

This ship was announced after the rest of the RN BBs, presumably as it was a latecomer to the line and development schedule, enough to delay it behind the -rest, probably making the model for it. The Design which WG purport Monarch to be is Design 15C, a KGV preliminary from circa October 1935, which used 9x 15", 20x 4.5", 35,000t and was 225.6m long at the waterline. 

 

9AoNKwa.png

Design 15C, a KGV preliminary using 9x 15”/45 guns. Her secondaries and hull length are the main differences from the final KGV other than her armament. Credit where it is due to the shipbucketers who created this. I like using these side on views if you may have noticed by now, they be good visualisation.

 

Monarch on the other hand is a KGV hull, with 227.2m in length, with Nelson turrets strapped onto it. WG also decided to add a load of bofors in a very hopeful late war AA outfit, and added a lattice mast that no RN BB ever got. Quite contradictory given WG also say Monarch is from 1945, yet the later Vanguard has no lattice mast.

 

With the above, the only part of 15C that exists in Monarch is the 15"/45 Mk.II guns, which don't require any modelling effort, given it is just a data set. Everything else is made up by WG, and hence is just as fake as the other made up ships (around certain criteria) - Kurfurst, Roon, Hindenberg, Henri quatre & Conqueror. If not, more fake given it is a Frankenstein's monster of parts, rather than a ship designed around something like the aforementioned Germans and their turrets.

 

The best case scenario for Monarch is that it is an evolved version of Design 15C, which grew in length to KGV's size, and received the 5.25" secondaries in development, and then had a major refit in 1945. Which is awfully specific, given most if not all the other designs in game keep the original specifications of the design to an extent. Kii for example is 250m long in game, which was how long Kii was going to be. Lion in game is the correct length for the 1938 Design of Lion, despite being upgraded and lengthened in following designs. The secondaries don't have to be changed, given the 4.5" is a better AA weapon than the 5.25" in game. 15C would should keep them anyway, given the design was ditched before the 5.25" gun was adopted. And even this doesn't justify the lattice mast, inexplicably using Nelson style turrets instead of KGV/Lion ones, and the very optimistic AA build. Because in the end, trying to justify a lazy copy-paste hull with turrets that was created because WG did not want Nelson in the line is pointless. I suspect that WG chose the name Monarch in part because the ship is a fake, and therefore can get a 'fake' name (One not suitable for a KGV class, named after recent Monarchs, and traditional/recent Admiral names).

But basically, Monarch is a complete fake/fictional ship, a half-arsed effort based on a change of mind some time before the RN BBs were first announced, but significantly later than the initial start of development on them. I still wouldn’t be satisfied even with an accurate Design 15C because of where KGV is, but at least it would be relatively accurate as a design, and not add as much salt into the wound. In an ideal world, I would switch Monarch out to a tier 8 premium, or banish it to purgatory never to return.

*insert gif of triggered Trainspite here – don’t worry I already have one*

 

 

Lion (Sea Kitty):

-      Lion is a very good ship. Almost too good. Arguably too good. In my eyes, she is the pinnacle of the line. Good punch with AP and HE, great concealment, good maneuverability and an RN HP repair, with acceptable other aspects. So while I would like to see the ship untouched, it should probably be toned down a notch. The nerf to the HP repair forces the ship to play more passively so the cat can stay back and lick it’s wounds, which is a fancy way of saying letting the cooldown timer tick until the ship has enough HP to confidently stride forward and push again. It is not the change I would have made to the ship, since passive play is not something I would promote in this ship.

Lion is very flexible right now, a ship that can do a lot, hit hard, dodge reasonably well, swat planes, engage a cloaking device, and influence the game with her speed. I don’t want that to change, but the ship could take a better nerf than the HP repair cooldown. Like losing the ¼ HE pen, or the already mentioned trade off of deck armour for concealment. I would rate the concealment better than the deck armour, so it is an overall nerf, but one that should make the ships a bit more normalised in gameplay. A little less flexible, but not overly so, and they could still retain best in class concealment, while being more resistant to incoming fire from 152mm IFHE and 203mm HE.

 

-      The nerf WG applied to the ship, increasing the recharge time of the ‘super heal’ does make the ship less effective, but it also makes the ship play more passively as the ship hangs around waiting for the ability to push effectively again, which is surely not intended. I would recommend undoing this nerf, as I feel other aspects of the ship are more of a factor in making the ship overpowered. One option would be to completely remove the ahistorical 419mm gun option. This should reduce the potency of Lion’s guns a bit.

 

-      Historically wise, this is WG’s rendition of a modernised HMS Lion to the 1938 design standards, had she actually made it off the slipway. However, there are a few parts of the model that do not stand up to how a completed Lion would look. Mr3awsome goes over them in his thread about analysing the statistic cards for the RN BBs, including the Lion. The thread is below, and is a good read. Go on, you know you want to. Even if you have already seen it, as the emperor would say, do it.

EU: https://forum.worldofwarships.eu/topic/81328-a-detailed-look-at-the-released-british-bb-cards/

NA: https://forum.worldofwarships.com/topic/128013-a-detailed-look-at-the-released-british-bb-cards/

The short version, is that the placement of the AA is iffy, the choice of AA is also against RN practice, the speed is 0.5kn too low and contradicts WGs usual practice for paper ships, and the main fire control director is not on the aft superstructure, as the 1938 design would have had. Another thing to note is that the ship wouldn’t get 419mm guns. Simply renaming them to 406mm with improved stats would be more believable.

 

-      However, a bigger concern I have is the name of the ship. Lion, for Lion class battleship. However, since it is apparently impossible to have two ships of the same name in the game client, this tier 9 BB ‘Lion’ blocks out the far more famous HMS Lion, a WW1 era Battlecruiser, flagship of Admiral Beatty during the battles of Heligoland Bight, Dogger Bank & Jutland. The fighting cat, that used it’s claws to scratch at the Kaiser’s ships. This famous ship would never appear in game unless the name for the T9 is changed. Sure, her less famous sister Princess Royal could appear in lieu, but that is not an elegant option, given a real ship should take precedence over one that never touched water for a name. Imagine if WG used the names Iowa or North Carolina for the never completed South Dakota class from 1920, and used a less famous sister ship for the more historically significant class of ships. Now admittedly the sister ships of Iowa & N.Cal are quite famous in themselves, but hopefully the point is clear that it would be quite an unpopular move, against what WG have done most of the time thusfar (emphasis on the most - WG are inconsistent when it suits them).


The name Temeraire though is a suitable candidate for the tier 9 BB. Not only was the second ship of the Lion class BBs also laid down, the name doesn’t conflict with ships suitable to be represented in the game, as the lead ship Bellerophon represents the Bellerophon class Battleship Temeraire. And also the name has a nice ring to it. Evoking the spirit of Trafalgar, the fighting Temeraire should live again!

 

1OxtX3Y.jpg

A painting by Lionel Wyllie, depicting the wounded and listing HMS Lion in the firth of Forth in the shadow of the Forth Railway Bridge, after the battle of Dogger Bank. This grand veteran of the dreadnought era would never see representation in the game worthy of the famed ship she is if the current tier 9 Lion keeps her name. Turning a blind eye to the historical ships that have inspired this game perhaps?

 

Conqueror (Coloniser /Also something fake):

-      *sigh*. And we get to this one. It is half broken, half not, and could definitely be better balanced. I wasn’t as impressed by this ship as Lion, hence I don’t regard the ship as straight out OP, like Orion, but the ship has a ‘toxic’ gameplay at times which is very undesirable. HE spamming is rife in this line, but this ship is the pinnacle of it. It is not that the AP is bad, it is pretty good, but the HE just does so much more reliable damage. So for starters, I would kick out the ¼ HE pen, and consider removing the option for the 419mm guns altogether. The ship was designed by WG around the 457mm, and the 419s were grafted on during development, and the spam of 12 rifles of almost 50% fire chance outweighs the more finesse driven style of the 457s, even if they have an even more insane fire chance.

 

-      Without the 419s and the ¼ HE penetration, the ship should use the hard hitting 457mm AP more often, using the good accuracy inflict pain, without resorting to mindless HE spamming. This would hopefully fix the toxic gameplay of the ship, but I would also recommend making the ship more normalised. This means dropping the crazy good concealment by 0.5km to 1km, and buffing the 32mm deck so the ship is more resistant to 203mm HE and 152mm IFHE rounds. A more vulnerable tier 10 BB with 32mm deck armour can be saved for a BB line that suits it more. Like an RN BC line, which evolves into fast BBs, but can keep BC traits. Conqueror itself should be more tough in my opinion, more tough, more battleship, less heavy cruiser.

Just because the ship seems to be normalising in terms of player statistics doesn’t mean the ship doesn’t have problems and can be left alone, the ship creates problems in it’s gameplay, it is not exactly suitable to keep it that way.

 

-      When first teased, this ship was reported to be the BB design L2, a 1920 design for a ship armed with 8 457mm guns, with a heavily angled 381mm armour belt, trundling along at 25kn. Even accounting for refitted statistics for L2, it became apparent that the only part of L2 that existed in Conqueror was the 457mm guns, much like how the only part of the design Monarch wishes it could be is the 381mm guns. Indeed, upon release, the Conqueror was described as a ‘British Yamato’ and therefore the ship is more akin to what if the Royal Navy had built a new BB around older 457mm guns instead of 381mm ones that resulted in Vanguard. 18” armed Vanguard what if is therefore not a bad description of Conqueror, which uses a name for the 3rd Lion class BB, but it doesn’t take away from the ship being completely made up by WG. It does fit a little better progression wise than the existing tier 10 worthy designs, which is why I would not banish it from the game as I would with Monarch, but I would add an alternative tier 10 RN BB also unlockable from Lion into the mix.

 

Overall views and changes: (Or, how to not create a line that fires so much HE that the global climate becomes akin to Venus’)

 

So overall changes for the line. Not ship specific, but addressing the line itself. The ships often fire far too much HE ammunition because they have an excellent combination of a good fire chance, and ¼ pen on the HE rounds, meaning a lot more regular penetration damage. The German BBs got away with the ¼ pen on the HE because the HE is relatively poor in comparison to other BB HE without it, but the RN BBs already have a unique bonus in the high fire chance, so a combination of both pen and fire is unnecessary for a balanced ship, especially when the AP throughout the line is not bad at all. Therefore I would remove the ¼ HE pen from the entire line, and possibly revert the AP to normal fusing times to make the ships a bit better at slapping citadels into BBs, though the latter part is not necessary.

 

Furthermore, as a blow to cruisers, these BBs, especially from tier 7 to 10 can just engage a 10km cloaking device, which is not especially good given that if an RN BB happens to have AP loaded, it can outspot some cruisers, which is quite silly, given cruisers can have a hard enough time already just avoiding long range fire from BBs, let alone a BB disengaging it’s imported Romulan cloacking device to unleash hell at close range. Hence I would increase the concealment for the tiers 7 to 10 ships by at least 0.5km, and closer to 1-2km so they are on par with or slightly above the USN ships at the respective tier. Still an advantage, just not so harsh on crusiers. There are better ships to have this level of concealment, like BCs, which can find their own unique place, and are meant to make life hard for cruisers,

The nerf to concealment can be made up for by buffing the deck armour of the tier 8 to 10 (assuming KGV is tier 8, the tier 7 replacement already has the decent armour of QE), from 32mm to 35mm+ so the ships are not so fragile. Play them like Battleships, use that HP repair to be aggressive. There is no reason for the high tiers to have the gameplay they do when they can actually follow on from their previous tiers, and have their own style at the same time.

 

These ships are easy to balance, even the contentious KGV can be made to work with little trouble, but WG has made it hard and awkward by forcing gimmicks onto the ships when they were not needed. The radar, hydro and defensive AA may have been removed, but the less visible gimmicks remained, and that is simply not needed for a line that can provide it’s own quirks regardless. High fire chance, poor long range AA at the higher tiers, decent concealment, sturdy armour all set the line apart from other BBs, as well as consisting of famed British ships. Well, mostly. Yes Monarch, go back to the shadow zone, no one likes you (and those who do will be colonised if they reveal themselves).

 

 

List of recommended changes:

A list that cuts the explanation and wibble of my talking. For those that don’t like reading.

Spoiler

Overall line changes (unsure changes in italics):

-      ¼ HE pen nerfed to 1/6 HE pen.

-      AP mechanics reverted to normal fusing times.

-      32mm deck on tiers 8 to 10 made 35mm at least.

-      Concealment nerfed by at least 0.5km on the tiers 8 to 10.

 

Bellerophon:

-      Stock firing range nerfed from 13.7km to 11.7km.

-      Top firing range nerfed from 15.0km to 13.3km.

-      40mm AA mounts on the B-hull removed.

-      Top propulsion upgrade removed, stock one improved by 0.4kn to 20.7kn.

 

Orion:

-      New A-hull added, with historical appearance of 1916 and AA. Current A & B-hulls become B & C respectively.

-      The ships model for all hulls includes ships boats which restrict the firing arcs of Q (3) turret.

-      Reload increased to 32s from 30s.

-      Stock firing range nerfed from 15.2km to 14.0km.

-      Top firing range nerfed from 16.7km to 15.2km.

-      Top propulsion upgrade removed, stock one improved by 1.1kn to 21.0kn.

-      Half the number of 102mm DP mounts for the B & C-hulls.

 

Iron Duke:

-      New A-hull added, with historical appearance of 1916-8. Current A & B-hulls become B & C.

-      New A-hull has 2x 76mm AA, with buffed stats or defensive AA. Cost of B-hull is reduced to 2,000 XP.

-      Nerf top firing range to 16.3km from 16.8km.

-      C-hull has Octuple 40mm pompoms replaced by Quad 40mm pompoms on turret rooves.

-      Top propulsion upgrade buffed to 23kn, stock buffed to 21.2kn.

 

 

 

Queen Elizabeth:

-      New A-hull added, appearance of 1937. AA is 2x 8 40mm and 4x 1 102mm. Secondaries are 12x 152mm.

-      New C-hull added, appearance of 1944. Catapult removed, but 16x 2 20mm Oerlikons are added.

-      Buff turret traverse from 72s to 65s. (2.5degrees /s to 2.8).

-      Current A-hull loses all 20mm Oerlikons.

-      Buff rudder shift to 13s from 14.3s.

-      Stock propulsion module removed, upgraded becomes only option.

 

-      New tier 7 ship, probably a post QE design, midway between QE & Hood, called ‘Devastation’.

 

King George V:

-      Ship made tier 8. Appropriate bow/stern armour values and modules are added.

-      Top HP buffed to 64,300HP. from 60,500HP.

-      Sigma value buffed to 2.0 from 1.8.

-      Stock firing range increased from 16.5km to 17.9km.

-      Top firing range increased from 18.1km to 19.5km.

-      Change the penetration characteristics of the AP shells (Buff them. – the shells themselves in game have significantly worse pen than they did historically).

-      A-hull has catapult and AA as of KGV or DoY 1942. B-hull has no catapult and AA as of DoY 1945.

-      RN ‘super HP repair’ added.

-      Stock propulsion upgrade improved from 26.6kn to 28.0kn.

-      Top propulsion is improved from 28.0kn to 28.6kn.

-      Top rudder shift improved from 15s to 14s.

 

Monarch:

-      Ship removed. Possibly made into a tier 8 premium with accurate model.

 

Lion:

-      Ships name changed to ‘Temeraire’.

-      Remove option for 419mm guns.

-      Buff the reload time of the HP repair from 180s to 120s standard, 120s to 80s premium.

-      Top propulsion upgrade buffed to 30kn.

-      Replace 2 Dual 40mm mounts with 20mm Oerlikons forward of A turret.

-      Removal/replacement of 40mm Hazemeyer mounts.

-      Model corrected, main battery director moved aft.

 

Conqueror:

-      Remove the option for 419mm guns. Or nerf the dispersion/sigma significantly.

So, if you have made it through the wall of text, congratulations, how do you think I did? Good solutions, that WG should definitely include, utter trash being spouted by an arch-teapot (teaboo is a danger word for me. Same as a certain B-word), or do these ideas need some refining to make the RN BB line overall more enjoyable, fun or pleasant to be in the game? I am debating whether or not to start a poll for the more challenged by 7,000 word monologues, over what ideas are popular, but I will leave it for now, hopefully people can pick up the main points. If someone wants to post it on reddit or something, you can, because I can’t be arsed to.

For now, this suspiciously dapper black bear invites you to discuss. And who I am I to argue with him.

 

mh3X6rK.jpg

That there is quite a nice hat. I want one.

 

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Supertester
1,463 posts
16 battles

This post is claimed by me, for further details if I need to insert them. I probably will, I didn't detail the tier 7 replacement specifically.

And also about the citadel height of KGV, Lion, Conqueror and Nelson. And the armour thickness. Other things like that, which I can detail when I get the time to.

I'm expecting a more heated response on these forums than the EU ones, hence the delay in posting. 

Edited by Trainspite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,334 posts
2,687 battles

Nelson should be slotted into Tier 7 with Rodney replacing her as a premium.

 

Tier 7 KGV with HMS Mongrel at Tier 8 is pure WG memes.

 

Great post as always!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Supertester
1,463 posts
16 battles
5 hours ago, Admiral_Franz_von_Hipper said:

:cap_look::cap_wander:

Uh, no.

 

 

Spoiler

 

:Smile_hiding:

Image result for y tho

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,069
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
6,678 posts
10,011 battles

Nice post.

I've played from Iron Duke through to Conqueror (15 games mix of 457 and 420mm). I've also been enjoying the Nelson.

 

I generally believe that the 1/4 HE penetration should be removed from the entire line. It's variably useful and I believe that in combination with 343mm guns at T4-T5, getting up to 85mm of penetration and penetrating the belt armor of a bunch of T4-T6 cruisers is unbalanced. It's too easy to cruise-control the high fire damage and fire chance against battleships, HE alpha on destroyers, and why swap to AP when you may overpen or bounce on a cruiser when a HE citadel is still 5,900 (plus a fire). At higher tiers the 1/4 HE pen matters a bit less, though I will be sad not to get HE dev-strikes on lower tier cruisers with Nelson, when you have 9x 16in guns at T7 you should be making some dynamic ammunition choices. Going higher HE-citadels on Minotaur/Neptune are fairly niche but probably not good.

 

I think that with the 1/4 pen removed Iron Duke may settle down as good, but not outrageous. T5 simply needs to be better than average as a tier to deal with relentless T7 uptiering and only ever being +1 at best. The T5 battleship power level should be focused on Kongo-ID-Cesare, NY is simply an ongoing disaster. Cesare's been popular for a reason. I don't really mind either way on adding a more historic A-hull, if some prefer it I'd be happy for them but I'd FXP it anyway.

The Queen Elizabeth is a contradictory ship. Poor synergy - the HE is improved over Warspite but still not worth it, while with better fuses the AP is improved against soft targets so you should use...? The AP is still the main ammunition but it's weaker than Warspite's on top of the inferior traverse and ship handling. WG don't understand their own 'hierarchy of needs' - I've never had a game where I've not fired my main battery in a battleship, I've had plenty of games where I've never fired my AA.

The QE's AA is frustrating. It needs to balance the ship, but it's low value. You get 89 DPS at 5km in the DP mounts which is really good, second best DPS, better range than Bayern - it's just not worth speccing into. As secondaries the guns are poor on QE and get even worse on KGV and up. As AA guns the values also crash. AFT I don't think is worth it on RN BB - it definitely is on the good-AA Bayern-Gneis. MFCAA is also incredibly unworthwhile. To get the full value of your QE and KGV you'll need a skipper reset at T7 - cash grab.

King George V is strong, but I agree she's RNG dependent on fires. I didn't care for the playstyle which was very stealth/cruiser-esque. It's definitely true that the 25mm plating makes you feel very squishy, plus the large areas for overmatch by heavy AP are a problem. Sure, Colorado and Nagato have 25mm too, but Gneis is covered in 40mm and Colorado's 190m to KGV's 227m long - KGV is simply a large target. 

The ship is so vulnerable to any concentration of fire it's best to try and avoid it. This generates a very passive playstyle with tanking discouraged. People complain about battleships hanging back - don't make them super-vulnerable, but stealthy then! KGV will never be a brawler with her armor scheme, awful secondaries, awful rear turret angles, poor turret armor and poor AP alpha. She doesn't have to be quite like this.

Stuff Monarch.

The epitome of my issues with the line as being toxic for gameplay and forced to be passive is Lion. Is Lion strong? Yes, but she wants to stay at range where you can fade in/out and exploit the strong damage repair party. Get close and your poor HP (FdG has 25% more), poor TDS, poor turret angles (again) and poor secondaries make it a bad idea. WG then restore the relative HE power from Monarch.

Right now if you take an FDG you start with 84,300 and can do 2 repairs in the time Lion takes to do one - for effectively 107,900 HP . The Lion will get 95,060 as it waits for the second charge and only wins in the long run, so you really don't want to take spike damage. I agree that the change has made Lion more passive. I think a longer running but less HP/second repair with shorter cooldown might be in order.

Removing the 420, tweaking the 406, reducing stealth, improving accuracy a little and maybe seeing if rear turret angles can be improved might help.

Conqueror's unsung advantage over Lion is vastly better rear turret angles which do allow a bit more aggression, though she suffers with many of the same issues. I broadly agree.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×