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

Dev Blog: US CL Update

67 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

227
[NGA-B]
Members
1,187 posts
7,584 battles

Whelp, the dev blog just announced a new change to the light cruiser sub-branch. For the Cleveland the radar consumable no longer shares a slot with the sonar consumable, instead it has been moved to the same slot as the spotting aircraft. Likewise, in the case of the Seattle (tier IX) and Worcester (tier X) the radar consumable now has it's own slot. Effectively, this means US CLs have access to sonar, def AA, and radar, making them very effective support ships. I'm personally liking this change, though I'm hoping for a bit more tweaking before they are released, namely in the form of HP, range, and shell velocity. Come on wargaming, let's make US 6"-guns great again. Like back in beta.

Edited by JediMasterDraco
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
91
[VVV]
Beta Testers
799 posts
5,155 battles

It's a neat spin on them for sure. But I'm more interested in their balance and how long they can live. I really don't want play like the DM, when you may end up getting crap range on them all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,562
[E-E]
[E-E]
Members
15,543 posts
13,992 battles

Source below for those that want to see it for themselves.

Basically they're making Tier VIII-X USN CLs consumables focused, which the current USN CAs of those tiers already do.  I regularly sport Radar+Hydro Baltimore and Des Moines, so it's nice to see this possible also for the upcoming CLs.  However, what makes the CLs more attractive is they maintain access to Defensive Fire+Radar+Hydro at the same time.  Currently even with Des Moines, I had to drop Defensive Fire to have Hydro.  Tier VIII-X USN CLs are geared for guys that look to try to help the team win around the caps with consumables.

 

IMO, Worcester looks REALLY good in that regard.  The nice thing is they do not outright replace the CAs as the better choice as the CAs are still better in certain things.

 

Worcester:

+ Minotaur levels of AA range, as well as Defensive Fire access no matter what.

+ Superior stealth than DM, VERY HANDY for Radar.  If your DD detects a Worcester, you are well in range of her Radar.

+ Fast shooting guns.

+ Now superior levels of consumables access.

- Lack of 27mm bow that Baltimore and Des Moines have.

- 152mm guns heavily tempt the player to adopt IFHE, which may be restrictive in other crucial areas of this consumables focused ship.

 

Des Moines:

+ Ever reliable 203mm Autoloaders with SHS AP shells on super quick reloads.

+ IFHE?  203s don't need stinkin' IFHE!  Spend those 4 points on something else you desperately need!

+ 27mm bow, bounce up to 380mm AP.

- CL split power creeps Des Moines' consumables.  However, that doesn't mean they're all the sudden terrible.

- Worcester AA outstrips DM's own powerful AA, but as with the last point, they're still going to be strong in their own right.

 

At least in the late parts of the USN CL / CA split, there's better dynamics, choices in play.  The non-consumables focused USN CLs below Cleveland have zero appeal.

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,062 posts
4,736 battles
8 minutes ago, JediMasterDraco said:

Whelp, the dev blog just announced a new change to the light cruiser sub-branch. For the Cleveland the radar consumable no longer shares a slot with the sonar consumable, instead it has been moved to the same slot as the spotting aircraft. Likewise, in the case of the Seattle (tier IX) and Worcester (tier X) the radar consumable now has it's own slot. Effectively, this means US CLs have access to sonar, def AA, and radar, making them very effective support ships. I'm personally liking this change, though I'm hoping for a bit more tweaking before they are released, namely in the form of HP, range, and shell velocity. Come on wargaming, let's make US 6"-guns great again. Like back in beta.

Good change.  If you are going to keep them that close to the action there needs to be some reward for having to stick your neck out.  I was hoping they did this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
140
[S0L0]
Beta Testers
477 posts
3,535 battles
56 minutes ago, JediMasterDraco said:

Whelp, the dev blog just announced a new change to the light cruiser sub-branch. For the Cleveland the radar consumable no longer shares a slot with the sonar consumable, instead it has been moved to the same slot as the spotting aircraft. Likewise, in the case of the Seattle (tier IX) and Worcester (tier X) the radar consumable now has it's own slot. Effectively, this means US CLs have access to sonar, def AA, and radar, making them very effective support ships. I'm personally liking this change, though I'm hoping for a bit more tweaking before they are released, namely in the form of HP, range, and shell velocity. Come on wargaming, let's make US 6"-guns great again. Like back in beta.

Would love to see some hard specs on Cleve 6” gun performance from Alpha/Closed Beta to see the actual differences, namely shell velocity, drag coefficients or a tangible example of how shell arcs were nerfed.  I started playing at the end of closed beta (just barely earned my Ark B) and didnt play the original tier 8 Cleve.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
227
[NGA-B]
Members
1,187 posts
7,584 battles
1 hour ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

At least in the late parts of the USN CL / CA split, there's better dynamics, choices in play.  The non-consumables focused USN CLs below Cleveland have zero appeal.

Eh, from my experience, tier VII is currently a sweet spot and Helena is a rather famous ship so I'm picking her up (though Dallas sits squarely in the meh category).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
593 posts
4,875 battles
40 minutes ago, missile742 said:

Would love to see some hard specs on Cleve 6” gun performance from Alpha/Closed Beta to see the actual differences, namely shell velocity, drag coefficients or a tangible example of how shell arcs were nerfed.  I started playing at the end of closed beta (just barely earned my Ark B) and didnt play the original tier 8 Cleve.  

I remember Cleveland befor the nerf and her shells where definitely not floaty like that are now. Eaither they they change the velocity greatly when they nerfed her or the drag coefficient. I think WG has said in the past they don’t like changing muzzle velocity because those are mostly historically accurate but drag is most definitely something they can and do change. I would really love if WG went in and made her shells less floaty by adjusting the drag coefficient. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
525
[KP]
Members
1,990 posts
18,359 battles
5 minutes ago, starksrevenge said:

I remember Cleveland befor the nerf and her shells where definitely not floaty like that are now. Eaither they they change the velocity greatly when they nerfed her or the drag coefficient. I think WG has said in the past they don’t like changing muzzle velocity because those are mostly historically accurate but drag is most definitely something they can and do change. I would really love if WG went in and made her shells less floaty by adjusting the drag coefficient. 

Agree 100% the rounds of the 5/38 for instance were boat tailed so they in theory would lose less velocity over certain distances than other rounds but as the floaty arcs can attest this was never taken into account. I even posted the range tables last year that show they only need minimal elevation for the ranges played in the game also not replicated in game. I'm gonna dig up the 6 inch tables but I think it will just be ignored like the 5inch so at the end of the day what's the point? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
265
[PVE]
Members
1,222 posts
4,732 battles

This is interesting news and does make these ships very useful across a broad spectrum. I agree about the guns I watched @Notser's Cleveland video and have to say was less than impressed with her guns performance at T8 God knows she's been a pesky thorn at T6 but she needs a bit more at T8 or she'll be deleted fast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,562
[E-E]
[E-E]
Members
15,543 posts
13,992 battles
1 hour ago, JediMasterDraco said:

Eh, from my experience, tier VII is currently a sweet spot and Helena is a rather famous ship so I'm picking her up (though Dallas sits squarely in the meh category).

It's just those USN 152mm Cleveland Parachuting Shells will be a bad thing, whereas other Cruisers will have an easier time applying damage.  Those shells permeate the new CL Split.

 

The Tier VIII-X USN CLs will still have those sh*t Cleveland Parachuting Shells, but at least they got stealth, powerful AA, Radar + Hydro + Defensive Fire access.  The previous CLs just don't have any of that.  Better off with the old Tier VII Pensacola.

 

Unless those 152mm Cleveland Guns that permeate the split are changed to be something like Mogami 155mm or RU CL shell flight characteristics, these new USN CLs won't be known for damage.  I had a post not too long ago showcasing just how bad those Cleveland shells are inflight.

 

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,067
[WOLF3]
Members
5,866 posts
2,191 battles
1 hour ago, missile742 said:

Would love to see some hard specs on Cleve 6” gun performance from Alpha/Closed Beta to see the actual differences, namely shell velocity, drag coefficients or a tangible example of how shell arcs were nerfed.  I started playing at the end of closed beta (just barely earned my Ark B) and didnt play the original tier 8 Cleve.  

Word from those who were there is that Beaver's guns have never been nerfed.  Same guns, and IMO will continue to be same guns.  So look for improvements elsewhere.

Like this change.  Very good!  Thanks, Devs.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,067
[WOLF3]
Members
5,866 posts
2,191 battles
1 hour ago, IronMike11B4O said:

Agree 100% the rounds of the 5/38 for instance were boat tailed so they in theory would lose less velocity over certain distances than other rounds but as the floaty arcs can attest this was never taken into account. I even posted the range tables last year that show they only need minimal elevation for the ranges played in the game also not replicated in game. I'm gonna dig up the 6 inch tables but I think it will just be ignored like the 5inch so at the end of the day what's the point? 

I'd like to see them.  My limited research shows that what we have in-game now is pretty historical.  If anything, the flight time appears lower than historical.

(That said, USN 5" secondaries have definitely been [edited].)

 

Edited by iDuckman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
593 posts
4,875 battles
10 minutes ago, iDuckman said:

Word from those who were there is that Beaver's guns have never been nerfed.  Same guns, and IMO will continue to be same guns.  So look for improvements elsewhere.

Like this change.  Very good!  Thanks, Devs.

 

 

Cleveland shell arc was most definitely nerfed way back when. I distinctly remember that I stopped playing her when her shells became so floaty the velocity may not have changed but I’ll bet her shell drag did. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,067
[WOLF3]
Members
5,866 posts
2,191 battles

I don't have any data to contest you, though I will suggest that it might have been a global change. Anyway, I don't expect that WG will touch the ballistics.  If they did they'd have to change all the other CLs as they use essentially the same guns.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
232
[CMFRT]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
693 posts
1,687 battles
2 minutes ago, starksrevenge said:

Cleveland shell arc was most definitely nerfed way back when. I distinctly remember that I stopped playing her when her shells became so floaty the velocity may not have changed but I’ll bet her shell drag did. 

Go back through the patch notes you wont find this mysterious change that everyone keeps referencing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
593 posts
4,875 battles
3 minutes ago, iDuckman said:

I don't have any data to contest you, though I will suggest that it might have been a global change. Anyway, I don't expect that WG will touch the ballistics.  If they did they'd have to change all the other CLs as they use essentially the same guns.

 

What would be bad about that?  Right now my biggest problem with tier 8 Cleveland is her range. 14.6km is anemic at tier 8. So let’s say you bump it up to like 15.5km or 16km then your  problem is at that range your shells are so floaty that a stock hull Iowa can doge your shells. Look I’m not saying they should be Russian lazer guns they just need to be a little better than they are now so that they can function a little more comfortably at a 16km range. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,067
[WOLF3]
Members
5,866 posts
2,191 battles

I agree.  I'd like to see a range and ballistics buff.  I just don't expect it to happen.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
525
[KP]
Members
1,990 posts
18,359 battles
44 minutes ago, iDuckman said:

I'd like to see them.  My limited research shows that what we have in-game now is pretty historical.  If anything, the flight time appears lower than historical.

(That said, USN 5" secondaries have definitely been [edited].)

 

It's not the ToF that's botched it's the fact that shell velocity at 9km is only 10 meters per second slower than when it left the muzzle meaning it doesn't require stratosphere eleveation I'd I remember right it was only like 18 degrees which in the grand scheme of artillery is minimal elevation. Slow yes but relatively flat a lot flatter than what's in game.

Edited by IronMike11B4O

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
2,708 posts
3,444 battles
15 hours ago, IronMike11B4O said:

Agree 100% the rounds of the 5/38 for instance were boat tailed so they in theory would lose less velocity over certain distances than other rounds but as the floaty arcs can attest this was never taken into account. I even posted the range tables last year that show they only need minimal elevation for the ranges played in the game also not replicated in game. I'm gonna dig up the 6 inch tables but I think it will just be ignored like the 5inch so at the end of the day what's the point? 

The Cleveland's AoF seems to match the IRL tables.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
367
[XBRTC]
Members
1,197 posts
7,135 battles

 

23 hours ago, IronMike11B4O said:

It's not the ToF that's botched it's the fact that shell velocity at 9km is only 10 meters per second slower than when it left the muzzle meaning it doesn't require stratosphere eleveation I'd I remember right it was only like 18 degrees which in the grand scheme of artillery is minimal elevation. Slow yes but relatively flat a lot flatter than what's in game.

 

I would really like to get some actual numbers from WG on how the ballistics calculations are done for these things.

In the real world, the only time you'd see rainbow arcs from the 6"/47 is if you were doing NGFS and the target was in defilade. Any kind of direct-fire, you'd be using much less elevation, and seeing a fairly flat trajectory with an accompanying reduction in TOF.

It might be time to dig out some of my old Naval Weapon Systems textbooks for data and formulae, and actually figure some of this stuff out with hard numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
85
[SS238]
[SS238]
Members
125 posts
22,399 battles

What happened to the idea of putting torpedoes on at least some of the US Cruisers. Many of the US Cruisers were designed to have torps, but these were removed when the decision was made to avoid surface engagements and use aircraft strikes to deal with enemy surface forces.  With the torps removed, more AA could be mounted and the main mission of the CA/CL was changed to protect the carrier task force from enemy aircraft.

Here in WOWs, there should be an option for having enhanced AA or Torps. Right now the US line is really over matched against all other cruiser lines because of the lack of torps.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
593 posts
4,875 battles
14 minutes ago, mushmouthmorton said:

What happened to the idea of putting torpedoes on at least some of the US Cruisers. Many of the US Cruisers were designed to have torps, but these were removed when the decision was made to avoid surface engagements and use aircraft strikes to deal with enemy surface forces.  With the torps removed, more AA could be mounted and the main mission of the CA/CL was changed to protect the carrier task force from enemy aircraft.

Here in WOWs, there should be an option for having enhanced AA or Torps. Right now the US line is really over matched against all other cruiser lines because of the lack of torps.

I really don’t think they need torps Cleveland just needs a little help with ballistics and range then she would be good to go in my opinion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
85
[NBB]
Members
484 posts
2,298 battles

Well I'm sorry your shell arcs are [edited] but that's how it has to be. Of course cl captains want flat shell arcs so they can shred bb's at 15 km whilst dodging all the bb's bullets. Wouldn't that be neat? But something has to counter cl's and WG wants it to be bb's. There is already a strategy of cruisers burning bb's down from 10-11 km while dodging all bb shells. In fact, I would like to see less floaty bb shells so we can hit cl's at 11 km. They can zigzag twice while the shells are falling on them. I'm talking about 2-ton 16" shells here, which should have a tiny fraction of the drag coefficient of 5" or 6" or 8" shells. I call [edited]. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
367
[XBRTC]
Members
1,197 posts
7,135 battles
2 minutes ago, 44_percenter said:

Well I'm sorry your shell arcs are [edited] but that's how it has to be. Of course cl captains want flat shell arcs so they can shred bb's at 15 km whilst dodging all the bb's bullets. Wouldn't that be neat? But something has to counter cl's and WG wants it to be bb's. There is already a strategy of cruisers burning bb's down from 10-11 km while dodging all bb shells. In fact, I would like to see less floaty bb shells so we can hit cl's at 11 km. They can zigzag twice while the shells are falling on them. I'm talking about 2-ton 16" shells here, which should have a tiny fraction of the drag coefficient of 5" or 6" or 8" shells. I call [edited]. 

 

You need to learn more about ballistics for at least a couple of reasons.

First off, you've got some strange ideas about how drag coefficients work. Second--and likely most importantly--you shouldn't have any trouble deleting a cruiser at 11k.

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
85
[NBB]
Members
484 posts
2,298 battles
14 minutes ago, LT_Rusty_SWO said:

 

You need to learn more about ballistics for at least a couple of reasons.

First off, you've got some strange ideas about how drag coefficients work. Second--and likely most importantly--you shouldn't have any trouble deleting a cruiser at 11k.

I've probably forgotten more about ballistics than you'll ever know. I know what drag coefficients do in physics, but the game may be different. You try sinking or even damaging a Hipper at 11 km, then we'll talk. Noob.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×