Jump to content
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
KDEstroy_2

What do you think of the Marblehead?

35 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
5 posts
51 battles

It's basically premium Omaha with 0.3 seconds shorter reload time, which allows the Marblehead to fire off an extra three shells per minute. Its torpedoes also have a longer range and reload faster than the Omaha.

However, it also comes with a couple of drawbacks, the most noticeable of which is its pathetic excuse for AA guns. The catapult fighter is the ship's only reliable defense against aircraft. Its torpedoes are so weak, a single hit doesn't do enough damage to sink a tier 2 destroyer.

Despite its shortcomings, I really like this ship, mostly due to the insane rate of fire and high fire chance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
493
[LOU1]
Members
3,023 posts
8,125 battles

i have always liked the longer range torpedoes.  that fire chance and ROF allowed me to burn higher tiers down pretty regularly.  She was my go to ship for quite a while until I got more attached to the French line and the Perth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
896
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
2,253 posts
8,581 battles

Worse Murmansk?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,350
[SWFSH]
[SWFSH]
Beta Testers
2,453 posts
5,612 battles

I think it's a tier V premium ship outclassed and less interesting than other tier V premium ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
1,959 posts

Anything Marblehead can do, Murmansk can do better. The enemy is doing something wrong if they can get hit by a Marblehead's torpedo. And don't count on its catapult fighter to do anything. A single biplane is no match for a squadron of Hellcats or Zeroes. It's still a blast to play in co-op and I was lucky to get it for free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
599
[ARRGG]
Members
4,731 posts
7,569 battles
31 minutes ago, pikohan said:

Worse Murmansk?

Murmansk is good,have 2600 games in Murmansk it’s just a tad better than Marblehead or Omaha it’s sisters

it must be played right, Murmansks like Marblehead strength is avoiding enemy shot at ranges of 10k+ it has the best rudder shift of any Cruiser in game any tier, but it is fradgile .. run the speed flag on this ship

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,243
[PVE]
Members
5,600 posts
18,189 battles

None of the Omaha class ships up tiers very well. They are punished brutally. I love them, but only in co-op. The Marblehead is the weakest of the three ships IMHO but still a joy to play if you are a cruiser fan. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,788
[SALVO]
Members
17,043 posts
17,674 battles
1 hour ago, KDEstroy_2 said:

It's basically premium Omaha with 0.3 seconds shorter reload time, which allows the Marblehead to fire off an extra three shells per minute. Its torpedoes also have a longer range and reload faster than the Omaha.

However, it also comes with a couple of drawbacks, the most noticeable of which is its pathetic excuse for AA guns. The catapult fighter is the ship's only reliable defense against aircraft. Its torpedoes are so weak, a single hit doesn't do enough damage to sink a tier 2 destroyer.

Despite its shortcomings, I really like this ship, mostly due to the insane rate of fire and high fire chance.

Actually, I thought that the torp range was the same as for the Omaha.  I just exited the game, so I can't check.  The Marblehead's torps are rather weak and slow but with a fast reload.  They're not useless though, and you should launch them if you have a chance because you never know when you might get a hit or two, particularly if you're trying to brawl a BB.

Another small thing that the Marblehead has over the Omaha and even the Murmansk is one more gun per broadside, which is nice, considering it has less gun range (13.9 km) than either the Omaha (15.2 km) or the Murmansk (14.4, IIRC).  Makes it just a little better when you are in range, and particularly when you're trying to gun down DDs.

I like the Marblehead as well, I just wish that it wasn't quite as weak compared to the Omaha or Murmansk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
896
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
2,253 posts
8,581 battles
7 minutes ago, HMCS_Devilfish said:

Murmansk is good,have 2600 games in Murmansk it’s just a tad better than Marblehead or Omaha it’s sisters

it must be played right, Murmansks like Marblehead strength is avoiding enemy shot at ranges of 10k+ it has the best rudder shift of any Cruiser in game any tier, but it is fradgile .. run the speed flag on this ship

 

I used to play my Marblehead a lot before T4 got preferred MM, but it's kind of crappy to play right now all things considered. If it just got the extra km of range that the Murmansk has it would go a long way to making it a bit more competitive, but I've been saying that for years and WG has only buffed things tangental to that :Smile_sceptic:

Edited by pikohan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
676
[-VT3-]
Members
1,625 posts
3,364 battles

It suffers from a number of issues.

1) It's an Omaha clone.  Omaha is a ship that has been power creeped to an extreme degree.  When you have ships like the Konig, Konigsberg, Furutaka, etc in play, it's difficult to justify spending any more time than is necessary in the Omaha, Marblehead or even the Murmansk.

2) Murmansk is a straight-up better ship in every way.  If you MUST play an Omaha clone, Murmansk is the way to go.

3) It's a tier 5.  If you enjoy being bottom-tier for around 80% of your matches, paired against vastly superior tier-7 ships, then by all means, have at it.  But, I wouldn't recommend it.

 

Basically, it's almost impossible to recommend.  I suppose if you don't have any Russian captains, and you REALLY REALLY love the Omaha above all other ships... go for it?  I guess?  But for most people, the ship class as a whole is one that they were happy to grind through as soon as possible, sell and leave behind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
599
[ARRGG]
Members
4,731 posts
7,569 battles
3 minutes ago, pikohan said:

 

I used to play my Marblehead a lot before T4 got preferred MM, but it's kind of crappy to play right now all things considered. If it just got the extra km of range that the Murmansk has it would go a long way to making it a bit more competitive, but I've been saying that for years and WG has only buffed things tangental to that :Smile_sceptic:

Unfortunately Wows is not in the habit of buffing older ships they would rather have you buy new  .. sad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
236
[ICOP]
[ICOP]
Members
721 posts
11,930 battles

When I bought it the Marblehead could occasionally be top-tier in a battle. These days it is generally up-tiered, often to a T7 match, where it struggles, being a target of choice for pretty much anything and everything. As others have said, Murmansk is the better of the two ships. I have both, enjoy playing both, but it can be frustrating dealing with ships that have much better range and damage potential. At least they gave it a small buff last year.

Respects,

Am

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,788
[SALVO]
Members
17,043 posts
17,674 battles
5 minutes ago, DerKrampus said:

It suffers from a number of issues.

1) It's an Omaha clone.  Omaha is a ship that has been power creeped to an extreme degree.  When you have ships like the Konig, Konigsberg, Furutaka, etc in play, it's difficult to justify spending any more time than is necessary in the Omaha, Marblehead or even the Murmansk.

2) Murmansk is a straight-up better ship in every way.  If you MUST play an Omaha clone, Murmansk is the way to go.

3) It's a tier 5.  If you enjoy being bottom-tier for around 80% of your matches, paired against vastly superior tier-7 ships, then by all means, have at it.  But, I wouldn't recommend it.

 

Basically, it's almost impossible to recommend.  I suppose if you don't have any Russian captains, and you REALLY REALLY love the Omaha above all other ships... go for it?  I guess?  But for most people, the ship class as a whole is one that they were happy to grind through as soon as possible, sell and leave behind.

One of the things that stinks about the Marblehead vs the Murmansk is that the shorter ranged Marblehead doesn't get a spotter plane while the longer ranged Murmansk does.  Jeez.  And even with the 13.9 km range on the Marblehead, let's not forget that it used to be something like just under 13 km before getting buffed.  And at 13.9 km it's still in need of a buff, IMO.  But at least it's not complete and total cannon fodder.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
389
Members
2,378 posts
7,672 battles

Not worth it. If you really want a Omaha, just play Omaha and save your money or wait for Murmansk. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
676
[-VT3-]
Members
1,625 posts
3,364 battles

You know, I'm going to take it one step farther, and offer an alternative ship.

I just took a look through the premium shop, and I have to say..  If you're into fast cruisers that can do extremely well, provided you can manage their vulnerability?  Good god man, get a Molotov.

 

Molotov is a tier-VI Soviet cruiser, with a top speed of 36 knots.  It pushes 40, if you fly the speed flag.  It's supremely fragile, but it's armed with 180mm guns, taken directly off of the tier-IX Dimitri Donskoi.  They have super-flat arcs, long range, a spotter plan for even LONGER range, excellent HE, and devastating AP.  

 

Yes, she'd a bit of a glass cannon, but even that's an improvement over the glass popgun that is the Marblehead.  The Molotov punishes all mistakes mercilessly; including your own. lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,788
[SALVO]
Members
17,043 posts
17,674 battles
8 minutes ago, Xlap said:

Not worth it. If you really want a Omaha, just play Omaha and save your money or wait for Murmansk. 

Much as I like the Marblehead, this is a big reason why I'm not the greatest fan of premiums  being clones of existing ship classes, just because someone wants to see the name of a favorite ship in the damned game.  Like the Missouri or the Musashi.  Or the Eugen, or a number of others.  That said, in a lot of cases, it's not like WG has a lot of choice in the matter.  Some nations don't have a lot of other ship classes that they built.  Some nations WG has had to create fictional ships just to fill out the tree.

I'm not even sure if there's a cruiser class out there that would make for a respectable tier 5.  Hey, there may be something floating around in a USN archive.  I don't know.  But it's not like the USN was  building a lot of new stuff in the 1920's, which is about the time frame for tier 5 cruisers.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,788
[SALVO]
Members
17,043 posts
17,674 battles
5 minutes ago, DerKrampus said:

You know, I'm going to take it one step farther, and offer an alternative ship.

I just took a look through the premium shop, and I have to say..  If you're into fast cruisers that can do extremely well, provided you can manage their vulnerability?  Good god man, get a Molotov.

 

Molotov is a tier-VI Soviet cruiser, with a top speed of 36 knots.  It pushes 40, if you fly the speed flag.  It's supremely fragile, but it's armed with 180mm guns, taken directly off of the tier-IX Dimitri Donskoi.  They have super-flat arcs, long range, a spotter plan for even LONGER range, excellent HE, and devastating AP.  

 

Yes, she'd a bit of a glass cannon, but even that's an improvement over the glass popgun that is the Marblehead.  The Molotov punishes all mistakes mercilessly; including your own. lol

LOL, what cruiser at tier 6 isn't a glass cannon (with the singular exception of the Graf Spee which was enormous by cruiser standards of the time she was built).

As for tier 6 premium cruisers, there's actually a wide variety of pretty good ones.  Molotov, De Grasse, Duca D'aosta to name 3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,378
[RLGN]
Members
8,243 posts
17,255 battles
1 hour ago, pikohan said:

Worse Murmansk?

 

1 hour ago, Wolcott said:

Anything Marblehead can do, Murmansk can do better. And don't count on its catapult fighter to do anything. A single biplane is no match for a squadron of Hellcats or Zeroes.

 

57 minutes ago, HMCS_Devilfish said:

Murmansk is good,have 2600 games in Murmansk it’s just a tad better than Marblehead or Omaha it’s sisters

it must be played right, Murmansks like Marblehead strength is avoiding enemy shot at ranges of 10k+ it has the best rudder shift of any Cruiser in game any tier, but it is fradgile .. run the speed flag on this ship

 

52 minutes ago, Taylor3006 said:

None of the Omaha class ships up tiers very well. They are punished brutally. I love them, but only in co-op. The Marblehead is the weakest of the three ships IMHO but still a joy to play if you are a cruiser fan. 

I like both Marblehead and Murmansk.

51 minutes ago, Crucis said:

Actually, I thought that the torp range was the same as for the Omaha.  I just exited the game, so I can't check.  The Marblehead's torps are rather weak and slow but with a fast reload.  They're not useless though, and you should launch them if you have a chance because you never know when you might get a hit or two, particularly if you're trying to brawl a BB.

Another small thing that the Marblehead has over the Omaha and even the Murmansk is one more gun per broadside, which is nice, considering it has less gun range (13.9 km) than either the Omaha (15.2 km) or the Murmansk (14.4, IIRC).  Makes it just a little better when you are in range, and particularly when you're trying to gun down DDs.

I like the Marblehead as well, I just wish that it wasn't quite as weak compared to the Omaha or Murmansk.

Surprised plenty of enemies with the torpedoes.

Gunning down destroyers is what I aim to do with Marblehead, (and Murmansk, for that matter,) up close, especially if you've managed to position behind cover against bigger ships, the two are absolutely brutal destroyer killers.

49 minutes ago, DerKrampus said:

It suffers from a number of issues.

1) It's an Omaha clone.  Omaha is a ship that has been power creeped to an extreme degree.  When you have ships like the Konig, Konigsberg, Furutaka, etc in play, it's difficult to justify spending any more time than is necessary in the Omaha, Marblehead or even the Murmansk.

2) Murmansk is a straight-up better ship in every way.  If you MUST play an Omaha clone, Murmansk is the way to go.

3) It's a tier 5.  If you enjoy being bottom-tier for around 80% of your matches, paired against vastly superior tier-7 ships, then by all means, have at it.  But, I wouldn't recommend it.

Basically, it's almost impossible to recommend.  I suppose if you don't have any Russian captains, and you REALLY REALLY love the Omaha above all other ships... go for it?  I guess?  But for most people, the ship class as a whole is one that they were happy to grind through as soon as possible, sell and leave behind.

USS Marblehead has one thing going for it Murmansk does not...

HISTORY.

Marblehead experienced what is surely an epic journey home after the the disasterous Battle of the Java Sea.

To paraphrase a couple of lines from a movie I like; "That ship making it home was a miracle." "No; that's American Seamanship!"

USS Milwalkee/Soviet Cruiser Murmansk during World War 2? They surely served with honor; but don't have any particularly notable history like USS Marblehead does.

Yes; that is irrelevant to the game; but to me it means a lot.

More directly; I use both ships like destroyer leaders; getting in close to support Green DDs, then pulling back to kite and annoy things that are bigger. Given the chance; I'll stalk bigger targets, ambush them from cover, and generally annoy Reds as much as possible.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,128 posts
4,750 battles

She's had better days when MM was more in her favor, but now that Tier 5 gets shafted so hard by MM it's pretty pointless to play most Tier 5 ships. This is not to say that any of the Omaha class ships up-tier that well, because they're just so fragile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,788
[SALVO]
Members
17,043 posts
17,674 battles
2 hours ago, Estimated_Prophet said:

 

Marblehead experienced what is surely an epic journey home after the the disasterous Battle of the Java Sea.

To paraphrase a couple of lines from a movie I like; "That ship making it home was a miracle." "No; that's American Seamanship!"

USS Milwalkee/Soviet Cruiser Murmansk during World War 2? They surely served with honor; but don't have any particularly notable history like USS Marblehead does.

Yes; that is irrelevant to the game; but to me it means a lot.

More directly; I use both ships like destroyer leaders; getting in close to support Green DDs, then pulling back to kite and annoy things that are bigger. Given the chance; I'll stalk bigger targets, ambush them from cover, and generally annoy Reds as much as possible.

Actually, it's not entirely irrelevant to the game.  In-game, yes, of course.  But I think that when there's a class with multiple ships to choose from, the devs seem to favor the ships that had some history.

I could use the Enterprise as an example.  But to be fair, IIRC, all of the Yorktowns saw a lot of action and any one of them would have been solid choice from a history perspective.

The Texas has the benefit of being the last remaining dreadnought era BB still in existence.  The Belfast and the Blys are also both museum ships.  The Arizona has history on her side, though it's more of a tragic history.  And so on.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,353
[PVE]
[PVE]
Members
5,806 posts
10,590 battles

I grabbed Marblehead a while back when I repurchased Omaha. Been using both to grind XP and train a Capt for the upcoming US Cruiser split. The Capt will go into the T6 Dallas when they arrive.

I actually prefer Omaha to Marblehead. Omaha has much better gun range, can mount dual torpedo launchers (if you stick with B Hull which I do), and it has slightly better concealment. The faster reloading, longer range, torps on Marblehead are nice but you only get 1 3 torp launcher, they are extremely S-L-O-W, and they do very little damage (6233). I find Omaha's dual launcher, shorter range, faster, and higher damage (11733) torps much more useful even if it is almost 2X's longer to reload.

I like Marblehead don't get me wrong. I like Omaha too. Of the 2 I think Omaha is the better ship.Have not played Murmansk but from what I see in the stats it does seem to be the best of the 3 (4 if you count Marblehead Lima).

Guess I would say...

  1. Murmansk
  2. Omaha
  3. Marblehead/Marblehead Lima

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,378
[RLGN]
Members
8,243 posts
17,255 battles
4 minutes ago, AdmiralThunder said:

I like Marblehead don't get me wrong. I like Omaha too. Of the 2 I think Omaha is the better ship.Have not played Murmansk but from what I see in the stats it does seem to be the best of the 3 (4 if you count Marblehead Lima).

Guess I would say...

  1. Murmansk
  2. Omaha
  3. Marblehead/Marblehead Lima

 

2 hours ago, Crucis said:

Actually, it's not entirely irrelevant to the game.  In-game, yes, of course.  But I think that when there's a class with multiple ships to choose from, the devs seem to favor the ships that had some history.

Well, even with what’s said about Omaha, I didn’t keep it because I have Marblehead and Murmansk?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
599
[ARRGG]
Members
4,731 posts
7,569 battles
6 hours ago, Crucis said:

One of the things that stinks about the Marblehead vs the Murmansk is that the shorter ranged Marblehead doesn't get a spotter plane while the longer ranged Murmansk does.  Jeez.  And even with the 13.9 km range on the Marblehead, let's not forget that it used to be something like just under 13 km before getting buffed.  And at 13.9 km it's still in need of a buff, IMO.  But at least it's not complete and total cannon fodder.

 

The Murmansk with spotter plane shoots just over 17 k and if you fly fire flags and Captain skills with the best fire chance possible any ship camping in this range is in trouble ,moving targets are hard to hit with it though, it’s to bad Marblehead doesn’t have that option as the AA on these ships uptiered is not great

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
347
[ZIPPO]
Members
1,556 posts
3,539 battles
7 hours ago, DerKrampus said:

You know, I'm going to take it one step farther, and offer an alternative ship.

I just took a look through the premium shop, and I have to say..  If you're into fast cruisers that can do extremely well, provided you can manage their vulnerability?  Good god man, get a Molotov.

 

Molotov is a tier-VI Soviet cruiser, with a top speed of 36 knots.  It pushes 40, if you fly the speed flag.  It's supremely fragile, but it's armed with 180mm guns, taken directly off of the tier-IX Dimitri Donskoi.  They have super-flat arcs, long range, a spotter plan for even LONGER range, excellent HE, and devastating AP.  

 

Yes, she'd a bit of a glass cannon, but even that's an improvement over the glass popgun that is the Marblehead.  The Molotov punishes all mistakes mercilessly; including your own. lol

Glass canon is a understatement, I murdered a full health one in a Farragut with AP at less than 10km, so many citadels so quickly. But yes it's guns are really good but it's armor is sooooo bad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×