Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Grand_Viceroy_Zhou_Ziyu

Queen Elizabeth Mini-Review

6 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
2,120 posts
4,735 battles

The ship is an OK battleship for Tier 6, with its biggest advantage in the 15-inch guns that can overmatch, a trait that it shares with the Warspite. It has a 2.0 sigma according to statistics sites but certainly doesn't feel like it. Sometimes the shells are spot on and you get those beautiful citadels, but in a lot of battles the RNG just trolls you over and over again. Guns are somewhat inconsistent and I'm not sure if the Warspite is any different. Pitiful range for the main guns at 17.1km, and I'm still not that good with the spotter plane, which I wish would not alter the view. For some reason it has a larger turning circle than the Warspite and its supposedly better AA hasn't done me many favors either, not that plane kills even matter that much these days due to the low presence of CVs. She struggles in most Tier 7 and Tier 8 matches, but I can get good results when up-tiered from time to time, such as a 97k match+Confederate today on Trap. She can really be a maddening ship to play, but I'm currently at 82 battles with her and averaging 55.7k damage with 2.1 K/D. The strange thing is, my Warspite at 64 battles has only 1.7 K/D and averaging 49k in damage. She had a rough start, and as a result her win rate is only 46% compared to QE's 53-55%. 64 battles in the Warspite with these stats, am I hopeless changing things around statistically?

   Durability wise QE eats citadels like a (censored) and gets set on fire almost as easily as an IJN BB, but sometimes she can troll enemy AP shells when angled. Overall I wouldn't say she is a 'bad' ship, but it's the current matchmaker for Tiers 5 and 6 that make playing her, and almost any other Tier 5 or 6 ship, a pain in the [edited]. I don't know if I'd prefer her over the New Mexico, but those 15" guns can do things the 14" cannot.

Edited by Zionas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29
[S_B]
Members
415 posts
10,532 battles

I prefer the New Mexico to the QE and only need 1 slow azz Tier 6 BB. Plus New Mexico has far better gun range. I tried her in about 25 random battles fully upgraded then sold it.

Two thumbs down.

Edited by dust340man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,120 posts
4,735 battles

Sometimes what really upsets me is when a well-aimed salvo results in overpens or outright misses, with all the shells hitting the water.

 

If Tennessee becomes the T7 on the second US BB line, I think they should give her 'special' 14" shells that can overmatch, basically 15". Also, they could give her a 2.0 sigma, but New Mexico's sigma should be buffed to 1.8 from 1.5.

Edited by Zionas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,080
[PVE]
[PVE]
Members
5,440 posts
10,186 battles
7 hours ago, Zionas said:

The ship is an OK battleship for Tier 6, with its biggest advantage in the 15-inch guns that can overmatch, a trait that it shares with the Warspite. It has a 2.0 sigma according to statistics sites but certainly doesn't feel like it. Sometimes the shells are spot on and you get those beautiful citadels, but in a lot of battles the RNG just trolls you over and over again. Guns are somewhat inconsistent and I'm not sure if the Warspite is any different. Pitiful range for the main guns at 17.1km, and I'm still not that good with the spotter plane, which I wish would not alter the view. For some reason it has a larger turning circle than the Warspite and its supposedly better AA hasn't done me many favors either, not that plane kills even matter that much these days due to the low presence of CVs. She struggles in most Tier 7 and Tier 8 matches, but I can get good results when up-tiered from time to time, such as a 97k match+Confederate today on Trap. She can really be a maddening ship to play, but I'm currently at 82 battles with her and averaging 55.7k damage with 2.1 K/D. The strange thing is, my Warspite at 64 battles has only 1.7 K/D and averaging 49k in damage. She had a rough start, and as a result her win rate is only 46% compared to QE's 53-55%. 64 battles in the Warspite with these stats, am I hopeless changing things around statistically?

   Durability wise QE eats citadels like a (censored) and gets set on fire almost as easily as an IJN BB, but sometimes she can troll enemy AP shells when angled. Overall I wouldn't say she is a 'bad' ship, but it's the current matchmaker for Tiers 5 and 6 that make playing her, and almost any other Tier 5 or 6 ship, a pain in the [edited]. I don't know if I'd prefer her over the New Mexico, but those 15" guns can do things the 14" cannot.

I have Warspite and played the QE. Warspite is vastly superior. IT is actually pretty decent for a T6 BB whereas QE is just horribad. At Conqueror now but QE left a bad taste (or smell? LOL) that will never go away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,080
[PVE]
[PVE]
Members
5,440 posts
10,186 battles
15 hours ago, Zionas said:

Are Warspite and QE's AP shells different?

Stat wise no. Same shell designation/info and damage. However, for me the performance from the AP on QE was really awful yet on Warspite it just seems leaps and bounds better? Warspite is also more accurate for me by a lot (not sure what the stats are as far as sigma and such between them).

Comparing my stats I do better in Warspite than I did QE but it isn't as much as I thought.  Abut 3300 more damage on average p/ game and a slightly better kill p/ game average. Surprisingly I have a better MBH% in QE at 35% vs 34% in Warspite which blows me away as QE was just so bad and I never feel I am not hitting in Warspite??? My best game in Warspite however is almost double that of QE (161,930 vs 88,000). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×