Add Roma to the list of insta deletable

[WW2_Iron_Duke]

Heard something about the German bb's being weak or instart delete blessed by cv ap bombers.I have the Roma and it's even worse.At least the German bb's have half decent aa the Roma not so much. Was targeted by a cv,he sent 2 DB sqds at me he only needed to send 1, and I was insta deleted from full hp and my crap aa didn't even shoot 1 plane down.

[AJTP89]

Why would the Romans have good AA? Planes weren't a thing in their time.

[Raven114]

Now you realize the problem every WW2 Captain had when facing a CV. Learn how to deal with it. This is a war Game, Tactics!!!!!!

[Battlecruiser_Siegfried]

5 minutes ago, Raven114 said:

Now you realize the problem every WW2 Captain had when facing a CV. Learn how to deal with it. This is a war Game, Tactics!!!!!!

What tactics? The planes fly over, drop bombs, and you lose 40,000 hp. Is the Roma captain supposed to try to keep up with a cruiser the entire match and hope he doesn't get chosen to be the victim of the 'Finger of God'...? Roma's AA is freaking stupid.

[Terrible_Turtle]

I'm quite happy that WG isn't releasing more citadel-immune battleships. The German BBs were fine, and then they released the RN BBs. Not to mention, the citadels for the USN BBs were lowered significantly. People should be rewarded for good angling and punished for poor angling. 

[Raven114]

5 minutes ago, Cruiser_Fiume said:

What tactics? The planes fly over, drop bombs, and you lose 40,000 hp. Is the Roma captain supposed to try to keep up with a cruiser the entire match and hope he doesn't get chosen to be the victim of the 'Finger of God'...? Roma's AA is freaking stupid.

It's got a higher win rate than Grober Kurfurst, or Conqueror

[Ramsalot]

2 minutes ago, Raven114 said:

It's got a higher win rate than Grober Kurfurst, or Conqueror

Every time I read Grober it grosses me out

[Neighbor_Kid]

Its not a bad ship.. overall yea it's AA sucks, and the guns are not that accurate, but when she does connect.. it hurts.. and it hurts bad for the receiver. The armor on the ship is fine, it tanks better than the NC and almost as good as T10 ships. Its citadel is yes a weak point, but if you angle properly it will never get hit unless you get lolpenned by the yammy. 

[Seadog_Supreme]

Often forgotten is that the Germans have some AA, just not as good as plane-melting Americans. Even though my Hindenburg was sunk by sky cancer last night, she shot down 10 planes. But then in North Carolina, she shot down 28 planes and lived. It's not a WW2 game without air attacks. Roma has a good win rate, but AA ability is one of those balancing factors. A bad AA battleship should run with some good AA buddies in a match with CVs.

[ValkyrWarframe]

[Admiral_Franz_von_Hipper]

Those are AP bombs, they are supposed to delete battleships with thinner deck armour like Roma. IRL, Roma sank because of a guided AP bomb.

[Carrier_Lexington]

Think of that, a battleship that can't fend off anything that could possibly hurt it by itself!

[Phoenix_jz]

20 minutes ago, Admiral_Franz_von_Hipper said:

Those are AP bombs, they are supposed to delete battleships with thinner deck armour like Roma. IRL, Roma sank because of a guided AP bomb.

Although, ironically, that's because it hit the magazines, which had more protection than Iowa's did even. Had it hit the thinner machinery deck armor, it would've overpenned like it did on most targets it hit.

[mofton]

Well, so far I've been nuked by AP DB's twice in French Cruisers and once in German Battleships (or any battleships).

Working as intended I guess... I always thought cruisers had too few one-click delete threats out there!

[Fishrokk]

24 minutes ago, Phoenix_jz said:

Although, ironically, that's because it hit the magazines, which had more protection than Iowa's did even. Had it hit the thinner machinery deck armor, it would've overpenned like it did on most targets it hit.

This brings up a question that's been bugging me for a while now.

Shouldn't an AP bomb overpen automatically cause a flood?  I mean, if it's going all the way through without detonating, and the stuff on the other side of all the way through is the ocean, shouldn't some of it begin filling your ship?

[Battlecruiser_Siegfried]

20 minutes ago, mofton said:

Well, so far I've been nuked by AP DB's twice in French Cruisers and once in German Battleships (or any battleships).

Working as intended I guess... I always thought cruisers had too few one-click delete threats out there!

Given how mindless dive-bombing is compared to lining up torpedo drops, it's somewhat ironic that they've been given this immensely overpowered ability.

[Phoenix_jz]

16 minutes ago, Fishrokk said:

This brings up a question that's been bugging me for a while now.

Shouldn't an AP bomb overpen automatically cause a flood?  I mean, if it's going all the way through without detonating, and the stuff on the other side of all the way through is the ocean, shouldn't some of it begin filling your ship?

Technically yes, but only torpedoes can cause floods now. There were experiments with shells and the like causing flooding in alpha.

 

T'was not pretty.

[Palladia]

20 minutes ago, Fishrokk said:

This brings up a question that's been bugging me for a while now.

Shouldn't an AP bomb overpen automatically cause a flood?  I mean, if it's going all the way through without detonating, and the stuff on the other side of all the way through is the ocean, shouldn't some of it begin filling your ship?

I mean...speaking literally,  yeah.  But as much as I am a CV player,  I don't think I should be rewarded for overpens from my AP bombs.  I mean that would help make them more effective against targets with little armor but...that's supposed to be the tradeoff for AP bombs.  Certain targets take a boatload of damage, others get to giggle as the bombs gently caress them.

[AdmiralThunder]

Every time I get taken out by a CV and start thinking they are too OP and the like I stop and think what it would be like if they truly were as good in game as they were back then. As strong as CV's are in the game they aren't as strong as real life and AA is way better than it was then too. So It doesn't look so bad to me then and I get over it LOL. 

OP sorry about your sinking. This isn't a dig at you or anything.

[Dr_Venture]

It's a ship with bad AA, kinda reinforces my desire to be a cruiser captain. 

[Battlecruiser_Siegfried]

6 minutes ago, AdmiralThunder said:

Every time I get taken out by a CV and start thinking they are too OP and the like I stop and think what it would be like if they truly were as good in game as they were back then. As strong as CV's are in the game they aren't as strong as real life and AA is way better than it was then too. So It doesn't look so bad to me then and I get over it LOL. 

OP sorry about your sinking. This isn't a dig at you or anything.

This is a bad way to view carriers, however. Let's look at some real-life facts:

• IRL, carriers could not safely operate without many (if not dozens) of escorting ships. They - almost as a rule - could not run off an "hide in a proverbial corner" by themselves to unleash devastation.
• IRL, carriers did not automatically know where the enemy fleet was. They also could not coordinate DB/TB strikes once the aircraft were launched, and the range of plane-to-plane radio communication was extremely limited. Basically, this meant that once the birds were in the air, they were responsible for finding/making their attacks on their own.
• IRL, carriers were far more vulnerable than they are in game. A single shell-hit to the deck; a single bomb blast, could disable or completely destroy a CV. 
• IRL, concentrated AA was more of a deterrent than it is in game. When you're talking about big sinkings of ships like Roma and Yamato, it's important to remember that these vessels were basically unescorted/unprotected when they were destroyed (although Roma's loss to a totally new weapon's system might have been unavoidable regardless). When Prince of Wales and Repulse were lost, they were A) in early-war low AA fits, and B) had only a few destroyers in company.
• IRL, torpedo bombers did not line up neat little unavoidable rows of torpedoes. Now, it could be argued that individual torpedoes were more deadly in real life than those in-game, but flooding in WoWs is a match-ender if you don't have a repair up. 

Honestly, all things being equal, I think carriers in WoWs are actually stronger than they were in the real world.

[CBSDracster]

2 hours ago, AJTP89 said:

Why would the Romans have good AA? Planes weren't a thing in their time.

A mosaic was found in the ruins of Pompeii showing the proposed 1945 AA upgrade for a Trireme.

[AdmiralThunder]

5 minutes ago, Cruiser_Fiume said:

This is a bad way to view carriers, however. Let's look at some real-life facts:

• IRL, carriers could not safely operate without many (if not dozens) of escorting ships. They - almost as a rule - could not run off an "hide in a proverbial corner" by themselves to unleash devastation.
• IRL, carriers did not automatically know where the enemy fleet was. They also could not coordinate DB/TB strikes once the aircraft were launched, and the range of plane-to-plane radio communication was extremely limited. Basically, this meant that once the birds were in the air, they were responsible for finding/making their attacks on their own.
• IRL, carriers were far more vulnerable than they are in game. A single shell-hit to the deck; a single bomb blast, could disable or completely destroy a CV. 
• IRL, concentrated AA was more of a deterrent than it is in game. When you're talking about big sinkings of ships like Roma and Yamato, it's important to remember that these vessels were basically unescorted/unprotected when they were destroyed (although Roma's loss to a totally new weapon's system might have been unavoidable regardless). When Prince of Wales and Repulse were lost, they were A) in early-war low AA fits, and B) had only a few destroyers in company.
• IRL, torpedo bombers did not line up neat little unavoidable rows of torpedoes. Now, it could be argued that individual torpedoes were more deadly in real life than those in-game, but flooding in WoWs is a match-ender if you don't have a repair up. 

Honestly, all things being equal, I think carriers in WoWs are actually stronger than they were in the real world.

Carriers in WW2 by the end of it were the most powerful ships on the water. AA was nowhere near as effective IRL as it is in game sorry. Not complaining about AA or anything either just to be clear.

We will agree to disagree I guess.

[VTAdmiral]

2 hours ago, Cruiser_Fiume said:

What tactics? The planes fly over, drop bombs, and you lose 40,000 hp. Is the Roma captain supposed to try to keep up with a cruiser the entire match and hope he doesn't get chosen to be the victim of the 'Finger of God'...? Roma's AA is freaking stupid.

Yeah I suppose it would be hard to keep up with cruisers if you bow-on reverse tank all match.

 

The tactic is to use that 30+ knot speed and sub-cruiser concealment to keep up with and support cruisers.

[Battlecruiser_Siegfried]

Just now, AdmiralThunder said:

Carriers in WW2 by the end of it were the most powerful ships on the water. AA was nowhere near as effective IRL as it is in game sorry. Not complaining about AA or anything either just to be clear.

We will agree to disagree I guess.

Massed carriers were the most powerful ships. I think we tend to underrate the fact that, by the end of the war, you're talking about battle groups with dozens of flattops coordinating strikes. And coordinated AA was extremely effective at breaking up attacks.

Now, fast forward 15 years when you've got missile-armed jet aircraft making strikes from dozens of miles away, and yes, the carrier had evolved into this untouchable paragon of seagoing power. But at the end of WWII? The power of an *individual* carrier wasn't all that great.