Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
Xcalib3r

Clan wars BB

14 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

79
[UEFN]
Members
386 posts
11,570 battles

Is there any reason why Conqueror is the least recommended ship to bring to Clan wars?  Montana and Yamato seems to be the top pick by most clans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22,452
[HINON]
Supertester
18,916 posts
12,446 battles

Conqueror does a lot of damage, but most of that tends to be with HE, and HE and fire damage is very easily repaired. You need damage that sticks, and Montana and Yamato are simply better at that than Conqueror.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4
[UDEAD]
Beta Testers
28 posts
7,321 battles

The Conqueror goes down super fast when focused.  It eats AP damage like mad and HE hits hard too.

Also AP from any other BB will just nuke down a cruiser if it looked at the BB wrong.  Sure the HE hurts and the fire hurts but having the ability to just delete a cruiser when they are out of position is too good.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,582
[SALVO]
Members
16,618 posts
17,283 battles
1 hour ago, Lert said:

Conqueror does a lot of damage, but most of that tends to be with HE, and HE and fire damage is very easily repaired. You need damage that sticks, and Montana and Yamato are simply better at that than Conqueror.

I largely agree, Lert.  But I'd also say some other things.

With so many cruisers around, it's really great to have a BB that has a good, reliable alpha strike as well as good accuracy so that you can hammer enemy cruisers when you get the chance.  And the thing with the Conq is that its bread and butter is HE spamming, which has its uses.  But if you see a cruiser showing broadside that you can hammer and you have HE loaded, you're not really going to do much hammering unless it's a Minotaur, I suppose.  Oh, I suppose that you could run a Conqueror with AP all the time, but why would you?  Why wouldn't you just bring a more capable, accurate, and reliable AP slinging BB instead (unless the Conqueror is all you have, of course)?

In Clan Battles, I prefer playing either BBs or DDs.  I don't seem to click with cruisers in CBs.  And when I play a BB in clan battles, my BB of choice is my Montana because of her excellent accuracy and reliable, hard hitting guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,582
[SALVO]
Members
16,618 posts
17,283 battles
36 minutes ago, Kapitan_Wuff said:

Its accuracy is also pretty rubbish.

I think that the big reason her accuracy is weak is that it seems that weak accuracy is a balancing factor for HE spamming BBs.  If the RN BB line had been more traditional AP slingers, I expect that her accuracy would have been much better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,586
[E-E]
[E-E]
Members
15,590 posts
14,010 battles
18 minutes ago, Crucis said:

I largely agree, Lert.  But I'd also say some other things.

With so many cruisers around, it's really great to have a BB that has a good, reliable alpha strike as well as good accuracy so that you can hammer enemy cruisers when you get the chance.  And the thing with the Conq is that its bread and butter is HE spamming, which has its uses.  But if you see a cruiser showing broadside that you can hammer and you have HE loaded, you're not really going to do much hammering unless it's a Minotaur, I suppose.  Oh, I suppose that you could run a Conqueror with AP all the time, but why would you?  Why wouldn't you just bring a more capable, accurate, and reliable AP slinging BB instead (unless the Conqueror is all you have, of course)?

In Clan Battles, I prefer playing either BBs or DDs.  I don't seem to click with cruisers in CBs.  And when I play a BB in clan battles, my BB of choice is my Montana because of her excellent accuracy and reliable, hard hitting guns.

I got 2 posts in the "Conqueror Situation" thread that are exactly what you're talking about.

Any other BB from any other BB Line would have AP slotted, and would CRUSH the ships in these scenarios.

16 minutes ago, Crucis said:

I think that the big reason her accuracy is weak is that it seems that weak accuracy is a balancing factor for HE spamming BBs.  If the RN BB line had been more traditional AP slingers, I expect that her accuracy would have been much better.


The accuracy is much better with ASM1 loaded.  Without it, at max range we're talking 303m dispersion, by far the worst of all the Tier X BBs at that range.  When I first got Conqueror, I had her with ASM1 / Stealth - Survival Build.  Good performer.  Then I tried an AA-Stealth Build, meaning AAGM2 instead of ASM1, and the dispersion is maddening.  I haven't seen a BB have a Jekyl & Hyde accuracy performance with and without ASM1 like this in ages.  Went back to the original build, which is sad, because Conqueror has a foundation for some really good AA.

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway
Removed stuff talking about Ranked. Not related to CW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
79
[UEFN]
Members
386 posts
11,570 battles

In random battles, the conqueror can reliably take out 30~36K dmg on both Montana and Yamato broadside per AP salvo (within 15km), further out the brutal HE from conqueror can burn them down quickly, having all three Yamato, Montana, and Conqueror i found the accuracy of Conqueror is just as good and reliable as the Yamato, and all three have the aiming module on too.  Maybe it's the RNG doing it's thing but i found the Montana seems to have worst dispersion than the conqueror?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,582
[SALVO]
Members
16,618 posts
17,283 battles
25 minutes ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

 

Poor Lexington.  She's going to get massacred.  AGAIN.

Looking at those stats, I think that the Lexington's stats are artificially low.  Let me explain.  I'm not saying that the Lex is a good or bad CV.  What I am  saying is that the others are better, and that good CV players know this, which is why they stay away from playing the Lex in RkB's.  Thus, if true, this means that those who are playing the Lex in CBs are therefore weaker CV players, and thus accounts for even lower stats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,586
[E-E]
[E-E]
Members
15,590 posts
14,010 battles
2 hours ago, Crucis said:

Looking at those stats, I think that the Lexington's stats are artificially low.  Let me explain.  I'm not saying that the Lex is a good or bad CV.  What I am  saying is that the others are better, and that good CV players know this, which is why they stay away from playing the Lex in RkB's.  Thus, if true, this means that those who are playing the Lex in CBs are therefore weaker CV players, and thus accounts for even lower stats.

It's just a terrible CV.  By being now super-specialized against German BBs, she cannot contest the skies anymore.  Random, Ranked, doesn't matter.  If a CV cannot contest the skies, the CV will fail.  Look at Lexington's damage average... Competitive with her peers, yet her WR% is abhorrently lower regardless of form of PVP.  Again, regardless of server, so the thought of, "This is NA server so Lexington as a USN ship will get it's larger share of potatoes" doesn't apply.  Every server she sucks.

 

The only one that breaks this trend is Kaga.  Garbage fighters but "OMG Powerful" attack capability.  Every other CV that has a good reputation can contest the skies.  IJN CVs past Tier V.  Then you got Saipan in whatever spec, and of course, Enterprise and her endless fighter reserves.

 

The dregs of CVs, the USN CVs in Tier VI-IX, are interestingly mostly 1 fighter CVs that cannot contest the skies.  The inexplicable one is Essex with 2 fighters.  No matter what server you go, Essex just stinks.  But none of them hold a candle to the failure that is Lexington.

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51
[SCREW]
Members
109 posts
6,563 battles
On 4/11/2018 at 5:36 PM, Xcalib3r said:

In random battles, the conqueror can reliably take out 30~36K dmg on both Montana and Yamato broadside per AP salvo (within 15km), further out the brutal HE from conqueror can burn them down quickly, having all three Yamato, Montana, and Conqueror i found the accuracy of Conqueror is just as good and reliable as the Yamato, and all three have the aiming module on too.  Maybe it's the RNG doing it's thing but i found the Montana seems to have worst dispersion than the conqueror?

I wouldn't say the Montana has worse dispersion, but definitely a different pattern. It tends to shoot in a triangle pattern, putting one she'll high, one nearly on point, and one low, from each turret. And depending on your target, this can either work in your favor, or against you. Frankly, the Montana is the better choice simply because of how much broadside the conqueror must show in order to fire it's rear guns. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51
[SCREW]
Members
109 posts
6,563 battles
On 4/11/2018 at 3:17 PM, Lert said:

Conqueror does a lot of damage, but most of that tends to be with HE, and HE and fire damage is very easily repaired. You need damage that sticks, and Montana and Yamato are simply better at that than Conqueror.

But it's not that easily repaired. Maybe by another conqueror it is, but thats about it. It takes time to repair that damage, repair party has a long cool down, and there's a limited number you can have (up to 5 max) and it's not like each one repairs all the damage. Maybe from one fire, which only burned for 30 sec, but from one that got the full minute burn, or multiple fires, you aren't fixing that with one DRP. The conqueror still isn't a good choice for clan battles due to its inability to reliably hit with ap and squishy design, but it's he spam is hardly a reason not to use it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,509 posts
7,934 battles

Hey

I noticed nobody has mentioned the G. Kurfurst for clan battles but I have been finding it does decently on everything but dealing with torpedos from DD's is tough, with it's very large turning circle and sluggish ridder.  I haven't kept track of all of my games but the 23 games I did track were averaging about 91K average, 9 games above 100K ( a couple of 100K+ since then too) and a high of 195756.  It can get the job done in support of the team and should be considered.  It just requires the team to deal with those DD torps and use of Hydro and spotter aircraft also.

 

Pete

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.

×