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

Watch out, Rouge Buffalo on the Loose (New T9 USN CA):

53 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

525
[WOLFD]
[WOLFD]
Beta Testers
5,062 posts
1,501 battles

Will comment after i've hit post and had time to flash up GM3D. and compare to current stats for her.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
256
[RTXN]
Beta Testers
911 posts

Dammit - looks like they took the torps off.

Plated over the openings under the aft superstructure where they used to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,606
[AHOY_]
Beta Testers
6,757 posts
3,906 battles
Just now, jmanII said:

Dammit - looks like they took the torps off.

It's the stock hull. The torps could come back on the top hull, though I doubt it. If they did intend to keep the torpedoes, the torpedoes should have been on the stock hull, but removed on the top hull.

More than likely, we'll get torpedo Buffalo as a T9 FXP Premium, where the addition of torpedoes and some other gimmick (maybe VMF-style radar rather than USN-style radar?) would be sufficient to sell her.

Also, it's not Red. Why is Buffalo not red!? I was baited with the prospect of a special Rouge Buffalo!!! :cap_viking:

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
525
[WOLFD]
[WOLFD]
Beta Testers
5,062 posts
1,501 battles

Torps aside and some lower stats in tier dependent area's this just looks like a stock version of the existing Buffalo. Again unless they buff her top hull reload above the 15 seconds of her "old" form she's going nowhere fast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
307
[SVF]
Members
1,127 posts
1,521 battles
Quote

Hit points – 42500. Plating - 25 mm. Armor belt – 152 mm. Torpedo damage reduction – 4%.

Main battery - 4х3 203 mm. Firing range – 14.1 km. Maximum HE shell damage – 2800. Chance to cause fire – 14%. Maximum AP shell damage - 5000. Reload time - 15 s. 180 degree turn time - 30 s. Maximum dispersion - 131 m. HE initial velocity - 823 m/s. AP initial velocity - 762 m/s. Sigma value – 2.0.

Maximum speed - 33 kt. Turning circle radius - 800 m. Rudder shift time – 15.7 s. Surface detectability – 13.1 km. Air detectability – 10.0 km. Detectability after firing main guns in smoke – 7.6 km.

*Hmms, compares to current stock T9 Baltimore*

Buffalo has ~5.1k more HP, 2mm less bow/stern plating so say hello to getting lolpenned by 15 in guns, ~300m less max range.  AP damage is 5k straight out the gate and has 762 m/s velocity which suggests she get SHS in stock form; interesting.  Roughly 0.5 knots faster, but has 70m larger turning circle.  RST is crap, being a full 5.5s worse than stock Baltimore.  Surface detection is 500m worse and air detection is 900m worse.  400m worse smoke firing detection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,346
[KNMSU]
Members
5,153 posts
5,415 battles

Baltimore plus a turret. The light cruiser line looks a lot more interesting than its heavy cruiser companion. 

I'm also really not digging the lowered quarterdeck. The U.S. was big into flush-decked cruiser designs by the end there - not sure this would ever have been built looking like it does. 

Edited by Battlecruiser_Lutzow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
525
[WOLFD]
[WOLFD]
Beta Testers
5,062 posts
1,501 battles
Just now, landcollector said:

*Hmms, compares to current stock T9 Baltimore*

Buffalo has ~5.1k more HP, 2mm less bow/stern plating so say hello to getting lolpenned by 15 in guns, ~300m less max range.  AP damage is 5k straight out the gate and has 762 m/s velocity which suggests she get SHS in stock form; interesting.  Roughly 0.5 knots faster, but has 70m larger turning circle.  RST is crap, being a full 5.5s worse than stock Baltimore.  Surface detection is 500m worse and air detection is 900m worse.  400m worse smoke firing detection.

 

Good catch on the turning circle, i missed that. Yeah that is gonna turn her into a completely worthless pile of crud whatever else they do to her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,205
[YORHA]
Members
3,971 posts
6,876 battles

RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!

 

Screen-Shot-2016-07-06-at-2.20.43-PM-e14

 

Perhaps you meant Rogue?

  • Funny 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,205
[YORHA]
Members
3,971 posts
6,876 battles
1 minute ago, Nukelavee45 said:

a Red Bison?

Rouge Buffalo.

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,475
[HINON]
Supertester
7,655 posts
8,050 battles
16 minutes ago, Carl said:

Torps aside and some lower stats in tier dependent area's this just looks like a stock version of the existing Buffalo. Again unless they buff her top hull reload above the 15 seconds of her "old" form she's going nowhere fast.

I mean, it does say right in the post that this is stock hull. And all tree ships posted on the dev blog are always on stock version. And I wouldn’t be surprised if they just kept the stats from the existing Buffalo.

Edited by renegadestatuz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,671
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
7,447 posts
11,433 battles

Given stock, not much of interest here - though at least it's a 'new' ship:

  • 2.0 sigma instead of the 2.05 of current T9's (and the stat change for new T8 Baltimore keeps it, well copy/pasted...)
  • Extremity armor reduction - I've never known that change from a stock to a top hull - on the other hand I think USN CA had it buffed after they released so maybe Buffalo missed it so this is a mistake - either way...
  • 4 RPM on 12 guns is less firepower than current Baltimore, but if the top hull is 6 RPM it's more = knowing stock stats is meaningless
  • You lose 700m of turning radius and 0.5km of stealth c.f. Baltimore, yay?
  • No torps? Because stock, or because losing them from a line which will lack them from T6-T10 is fairly sensible?

 

What's more annoying than no stat release at all? A mob-handed stock stat release full of what seem to be mistakes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
82
[FACT]
[FACT]
Members
540 posts
7,164 battles
22 minutes ago, JCC45 said:

RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!

 

Screen-Shot-2016-07-06-at-2.20.43-PM-e14

 

Perhaps you meant Rogue?

It did occur to me Rouge/Rogue. Maybe too much Vin Rouge de Collapso?

Bison are not true Buffalo. They are Blanc de Noir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,497
Beta Testers
6,868 posts
4,189 battles

This is very unimpressive. I know it's stock, but some things don't change with new hulls.

The turning circle is not good, the accuracy is not good, not as sneaky, not as armored.

So what is the improvement compared to the current Baltimore? Another rear turret.  It's almost like whoever slapped stats on this thing has never played a high tier USN CA.   Giant high citadels mean you want to expose even less side than most cruisers.  I would guess the rear turret on my Des Moines has fired less than 10% of the total shells.

But Hindenburg you say. Yes, battleship Hindenburg with it's turtleback and relatively troll citadel can get away with it.  If this has a Baltimore style citadel it's a bad ship, if it has a Des Moines style citadel it's straight garbage.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
201
[70]
Members
1,070 posts
5,195 battles

This design looks to me to be about the same level as how Kirov's ROF is above 2, as in less than 30 seconds reload.

Applied bovine scatology.

 

They could easily have just slapped Brooklyn in as "MOAR FIREPOWAH"...  so where is the Brooklyn on the tree anyhow?

Edited by Guardian54

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
200
[S0L0]
Beta Testers
619 posts
4,429 battles

Just for reference here's CA-B design stats from Friedman's history.  

How does WG determine belt and plating values?  7.6in belt equates to ~ 190mm.

IMG_1828.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,092
[NLIST]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,933 posts
10,549 battles

This actually looks worse than current Baltimore. Worse armor(cant auto bounce 15 inch shells), worse reload, slightly worse accuracy, worse range, and you only put out 6 more shells a minute if you're sailing broadside, when bow in you have far worse dpm than current Baltimore. Don't takey Baltimore weegee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,606
[AHOY_]
Beta Testers
6,757 posts
3,906 battles

It's really interesting how far the meta has changed since Buffalo first was tested. Buffalo's old stats had a 690m turning radius, from the time when maneuverability across the board was higher (especially BBs ;_;).

A few other changes at a glance:

  • Armoring is the same currently, 25 - 152mm
  • Gun/Shell performance is the same between T9 stock Buffalo and T10 Buffalo, including the old 4 RPM
    • It's possible T9 Buffalo will inherit Baltimore's gun upgrades, including the 10s reload on an gun upgrade module (she appears to already have the AP ShS).
  • Concealment got .2km better. Formerly, it was 13.3km surface and 10.2km air.
  • Speed is now 0.4 kn slower. Formerly, it was 33.4 kn.
    • Maybe a top hull would regain that 0.4 kn speed?
  • Gun range got worse (but this is new stock vs old top hull). Current stock is 14.1km. Old T10 "top" hull was 15.7km.
    • I feel it's safe to assume that a top hull or FCS upgrade might bring it back to 15.7km range.
    • Currently, the stock FCS is 0.3km worse than stock Baltimore's, if the stats I'm looking at are current. Baltimore can upgrade to a max of 15.8km, up from 14.4km base.
  • New stock armor is 42500, old T10 armor was 48600. I'm not sure as to the values used for HP calculations, and there's also a tier difference to take into account, so I'm just assuming the new top hull HP is between the two.
  • Rudder shift on stock is currently worse; 15.7s vs 11.2s
    • Likely to be upgraded back to 11.2s on a top hull, just like Iowa's top hull.

 

Edited by YamatoA150

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
525
[WOLFD]
[WOLFD]
Beta Testers
5,062 posts
1,501 battles
3 minutes ago, ReddNekk said:

On a tier 9 CA? WG, surely you jest! :cap_wander:

 

Short range is somthing of a USN CA thing, the problem is upto NO at least it's pair with above average mobility. Baltimore, Buffalo and Des Memes however stink compared to their maximum ranges. Though baltimore is possibly bugged, or at least behaving very weirdly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
5,299 posts
6,051 battles
1 hour ago, Guardian54 said:

This design looks to me to be about the same level as how Kirov's ROF is above 2, as in less than 30 seconds reload.

Applied bovine scatology.

 

They could easily have just slapped Brooklyn in as "MOAR FIREPOWAH"...  so where is the Brooklyn on the tree anyhow?

The Brooklyn class is the T7 in the CL line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,649
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
7,522 posts
2,090 battles
2 hours ago, KaptainKaybe said:

Is the 25mm plating a typo? New Baltimore at tier 8 and Des Moines at tier 10 have 27mm.

No, because as I've been saying in all of these threads, these are just copy-pastes of existing (stock) ships at different tiers with minor health adjustments. Buffalo has been in the game.files for ages, but was not used - so naturally she never got the 27mm extremity buff that Baltimore and DM got.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,159
[DRACS]
Members
4,330 posts
3 minutes ago, Phoenix_jz said:

No, because as I've been saying in all of these threads, these are just copy-pastes of existing (stock) ships at different tiers with minor health adjustments. Buffalo has been in the game.files for ages, but was not used - so naturally she never got the 27mm extremity buff that Baltimore and DM got.

Makes sense. Probably means that they'll notice this and up her to 27mm during testing to match the others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,522
[SYN]
Members
4,921 posts
11,844 battles

Fifteen second reload for 14.1 kilometer range, and 762m/s AP MV...?  For a Tier IX cruiser?

Am I reading this right?

Yeah, I get that's stock, but that is very unimpressive.

Edited by Kuckoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×