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

Proposal: USN light cruisers (T6+) should have ricochet angles of USN heavy cruisers

43 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
352 posts
1,803 battles

I've been observing the characteristics and gameplay previews of the upcoming American light cruisers from tier 6 and above, and one thing that strikes me is how situational these ships are. In particular, they seem to be chiefly effective against destroyers, and even then they can only reliably damage them at well under 10 km due to the rather long shell travel time. The other advantage they wield over other cruisers is the ability to equip hydroacoustic search and defensive AA simultaneously and even then that is only applicable at tier 8 or above. Again, I find this rather situation.

On the other hand, the gunnery of these ships are markedly inferior to other light cruisers in the same tier and category. Their practical HE DPM is hampered by the low muzzle velocity and rather lightweight HC shells compared to Soviet light cruisers and Mogami. Furthermore, the utility of American light cruiser AP currently compares very poorly to other light cruisers as well bad due to mediocre Krupp and normal ricochet angles (autobounces at 60 degrees, never bounces at 45 degrees). Other light cruisers have either considerably better shell velocity (Mogami and Soviet light cruisers) or considerably better ricochet angles and shorter arming time (British light cruisers, autobounces at 75 degrees, never bounces at 60 degrees). These ships are then at a marked disadvantage when dueling light cruisers and in particular are incredibly weak in close quarters combat against any vessel that isn't a destroyer. They also lack the torpedoes that other cruiser lines have access to.

What I think may be a way to make American light cruisers a bit more well-rounded is to give their AP the ricochet angles that American heavy cruisers have, namely autobounce at 67.5 degrees and never bounce at 60 degrees. Furthermore, note that this is still somewhat inferior to British light cruiser ricochet angles, which again only autobounces at 75 degrees and never bounces at 60 degrees; it also still doesn't have British light cruisers' shorter arming time and thinner fusing threshold. Nevertheless, I feel that this change can make American light cruisers a bit more well-rounded and not overwhelmingly situational. This should make the AP more usable, while other light cruiser AP still has advantages in some areas. In any case, the 6" AP Mk.35 shells are considered Superheavy Shells, just like the 8" AP Mk.21 shells. I've prepared a table below to better show what I'm proposing.

  Never bounce Autobounce
Standard ricochet angles 45 60
American heavy cruiser 60 67.5
British light cruiser 60 75
Edited by icyplanetnhc
  • Cool 4
  • Boring 3
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
92
[PNG]
[PNG]
Beta Testers
225 posts
8,217 battles

British light cruiser AP have special autobounce because they don't have HE. They are also more fragile than US light cruisers, so they get smoke.

RU light cruiser have higher velocity guns, but US light cruisers will have better concealment, more maneuverable, and more utility. 

On the whole, I think they are balanced, giving US light cruiser special AP shells would make them a bit too powerful. 

Plus, with IFHE, you would rarely shoot AP anyway.

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
449
[-AA-]
Members
1,729 posts
6,657 battles

Watched Notsers video on the Cleveland and she looked pretty okay, when you turned down Notsers complaining. 

Looking forward to the new line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,093
[DAKI]
WoWS Wiki Editor
7,328 posts
6,609 battles
29 minutes ago, icyplanetnhc said:

Furthermore, note that this is still somewhat inferior to British light cruiser ricochet angles, which again only autobounces at 75 degrees and never bounces at 60 degrees; it also still doesn't have British light cruisers' shorter arming time and thinner fusing threshold.

Because for example the current Cleveland has access to a shell that will never bounce or overpenetrate, it's called HE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,584
[5BS]
Members
4,766 posts
21 minutes ago, axyarthur said:

British light cruiser AP have special autobounce because they don't have HE. They are also more fragile than US light cruisers, so they get smoke.

 

And have heal (and an insane heal at T8+) and have MUCH lower detection radii (at T10 the Mino can outspot destroyers under certain conditions).

22 minutes ago, axyarthur said:

RU light cruiser have higher velocity guns, but US light cruisers will have better concealment, more maneuverable, and more utility. 

They also have Torps to deal with 'oh crap' moments (where a USN Cruiser is basically screwed) and better quality shells in regard to Alpha.

23 minutes ago, axyarthur said:

On the whole, I think they are balanced, giving US light cruiser special AP shells would make them a bit too powerful. 

At the moment the USN Light cruisers have VERY gimped range, so making them super deadly in that range is not a bad thing; aside from the bad shell travel time, they have no ability to dictate range and no way to mitigate damage that will INEVITABLY follow: RU cruisers can stay at range, and RN can hide in smoke AND heal.

I still content that the USN CL's and CA's need something else, be it a heal, a range buff, or all get 27mm bows straight down to T6 so that they can be dedicated chargers. But the lack of torps, range, shell flight time, and heal, and smoke makes them very gimped in the current stand-offish meta.

  • Cool 5
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
352 posts
1,803 battles
8 minutes ago, SireneRacker said:

Because for example the current Cleveland has access to a shell that will never bounce or overpenetrate, it's called HE.

Yes, I'm well aware of that. Regardless, if we were to compare the gunnery of the tier 8 Cleveland against the Chapayev or Mogami, both of which have HE, you will see that the latter two have marked advantages in shell flight time; both have HE shells that reach to 10 km about 1.5 seconds before Cleveland's, and at 15 km that difference increases to about 3-4 seconds. Both also have superior AP penetration. This has a noticeable effect on practical DPM. From my observation, whatever advantages in concealment or consumables the tier 8 Cleveland has doesn't quite offset the differences in gunnery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,093
[DAKI]
WoWS Wiki Editor
7,328 posts
6,609 battles
40 minutes ago, icyplanetnhc said:

From my observation, whatever advantages in concealment or consumables the tier 8 Cleveland has doesn't quite offset the differences in gunnery.

Meanwhile people have actually tested these ships, or in some cases just tried them out for the fun of it (like I did), and considering that I have not yet read anything about special bouncing angles I can safely assume that the T8 Cleveland performs just fine. Anything beyond those assumptions would get me into trouble, so I’ll leave it at that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,517
[NSF]
Beta Testers
4,996 posts
5,967 battles

Most of the videos I've seen of the tier 8 Cleveland came to the end conclusion that she can technically work, but is otherwise meh and underwhelming compared to her competition. And I already know for a fact that the shell velocity at tier 6 is already pathetic, especially when brought into tier 8 games. Adding rate of fire and concealment helps a little, but its still going to need to be dangerously close to exercise anywhere near to its full potential. I don't know if improved autobounce is the answer, but it sure looks like it needs something.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
620
[TF57]
Members
1,264 posts
3,934 battles

Why should WG bother?

People will flock to play them, regardless, "cos Murica"

  • Funny 1
  • Bad 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
352 posts
1,803 battles
6 hours ago, SireneRacker said:

Meanwhile people have actually tested these ships, or in some cases just tried them out for the fun of it (like I did), and considering that I have not yet read anything about special bouncing angles I can safely assume that the T8 Cleveland performs just fine. Anything beyond those assumptions would get me into trouble, so I’ll leave it at that.

I'm curious if you can elaborate regarding the T8 Cleveland. To my understanding, unless you're under supertester NDA, CCs who have access to the new light cruisers can share their opinion on how the ships play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,850
[WOLF3]
[WOLF3]
Members
16,177 posts
14,605 battles

Calling for buffs before the USN CL Line is even out...

 

RN CLs got their special shells because they were robbed of HE.

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
919
[LEGIO]
Members
2,995 posts
5,408 battles

Considering how badly this game penalizes guns with higher trajectories I think it would be a good idea and serve to make AP more viable for a line that will otherwise all too often have to resort to spamming HE endlessly.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
352 posts
1,803 battles
16 minutes ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

Calling for buffs before the USN CL Line is even out...

 

RN CLs got their special shells because they were robbed of HE.

The gunnery of the light cruiser line isn't exactly a secret; the ballistics are currently identical to the current tier 6 Cleveland, except that at higher tiers you gain turret traverse speed and some additional range. The question then is whether or not the advantages that the higher tier light cruisers have in consumables or other soft stats are enough to make up for the marked difference in the ballistics.

Edited by icyplanetnhc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,850
[WOLF3]
[WOLF3]
Members
16,177 posts
14,605 battles
1 hour ago, icyplanetnhc said:

The gunnery of the light cruiser line isn't exactly a secret; the ballistics are currently identical to the current tier 6 Cleveland, except that at higher tiers you gain turret traverse speed and some additional range. The question then is whether or not the advantages that the higher tier light cruisers have in consumables or other soft stats are enough to make up for the marked difference in the ballistics.

These USN CLs also tend to be gravitate towards respectable concealment also.

 

The strengths of this line being put into concealment, and for the Tier VIII-X ones, outstanding consumables access.  Namely Defensive Fire without dropping anything else, and eventually having Radar *and* Hydro, where other Cruiser Lines have to give up something else. 

Mino has to give up Smoke for Hydro + Radar Combo.

Atlanta, Indianapolis, VIII NOLA, Baltimore, Des Moines, Chapayev, D.Donskoi, Moskva have to give up Defensive Fire to get the Hydro + Radar Combo

 

Those are very strong concessions.  I personally run my Des Moines with Hydro + Radar, and believe me, there are times I really miss that Defensive Fire, especially when you got a savvy enough CV that realizes I don't have it.  These new high tier USN CLs won't have to make the concession.  Not only do they keep the Hydro + Radar, they got + Defensive Fire on top of all that.

 

As for Utility > Firepower, High Tier USN CAs are like that already.  The CL side is even more specialized for that.  It has to be emphasized how powerful the combination of stealth, hydro, radar, and on top of this, defensive fire around caps can be.  All in one ship!

 

What I believe is going to happen with those consumables oriented USN CLs?  Due to the floaty shells, they may not have the high Damage Averages.  But they will have the WR%, XPs to show for it as they contest the caps and keep the CV aircraft at bay, while being a nightmare for DDs.

 

Another thing is that since these USN CLs are traditional HE+AP slinging ships, they're likely going to be having IFHE anyways.

 

And watch out for Cleveland, Seattle, and Worcester in Divisions that include at least 1 DD.

 

The line doesn't need buffs right now.  They look very strong, at least High Tier ones, in ways to affect the DD & Cap Meta.  The Tier VI-VII CLs I am not so sure about.  There's nothing special to them, unlike the VIII-X ones.

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
352 posts
1,803 battles
10 minutes ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

These USN CLs also tend to be gravitate towards respectable concealment also.

 

The strengths of this line being put into concealment, and for the Tier VIII-X ones, outstanding consumables access.  Namely Defensive Fire without dropping anything else, and eventually having Radar *and* Hydro, where other Cruiser Lines have to give up something else. 

Mino has to give up Smoke for Hydro + Radar Combo.

Atlanta, Indianapolis, VIII NOLA, Baltimore, Des Moines, Chapayev, D.Donskoi, Moskva have to give up Defensive Fire to get the Hydro + Radar Combo

 

Those are very strong concessions.  I personally run my Des Moines with Hydro + Radar, and believe me, there are times I really miss that Defensive Fire, especially when you got a savvy enough CV that realizes I don't have it.  These new high tier USN CLs won't have to make the concession.  Not only do they keep the Hydro + Radar, they got + Defensive Fire on top of all that.

 

As for Utility > Firepower, High Tier USN CAs are like that already.  The CL side is even more specialized for that.  It has to be emphasized how powerful the combination of stealth, hydro, radar, and on top of this, defensive fire around caps can be.  All in one ship!

 

What I believe is going to happen with those consumables oriented USN CLs?  Due to the floaty shells, they may not have the high Damage Averages.  But they will have the WR%, XPs to show for it as they contest the caps and keep the CV aircraft at bay, while being a nightmare for DDs.

 

Another thing is that since these USN CLs are traditional HE+AP slinging ships, they're likely going to be having IFHE anyways.

 

And watch out for Cleveland, Seattle, and Worcester in Divisions that include at least 1 DD.

 

The line doesn't need buffs right now.  They look very strong, at least High Tier ones, in ways to affect the DD & Cap Meta.  The Tier VI-VII CLs I am not so sure about.  There's nothing special to them, unlike the VIII-X ones.

Well, I'll try to compare T8 Cleveland with the 155 mm Mogami and the Chapayev.

When compared to the Mogami, assuming that both vessels go for a full stealth build, the difference in concealment is less than 0.2 km (9.14 km vs. 9.29 km) , so I would classify that difference as negligible. The Cleveland is able to equip defensive AA, hydroacoustic search, and radar, while Mogami is only able to equip either defensive AA or hydroacoustic search while also equipping catapult fighter. The Mogami on the other hand currently has much better gunnery, which means that while on paper their DPM are similar (HE DPM of 234k and 244k for Mogami and Cleveland respectively), Mogami is able to apply that damage considerably more effectively (Mogami HE shell reaches 15 km over 3 seconds before Cleveland's). I find non-German hydro on cruisers to be short-ranged and situation, so when comparing the two ships, you're essentially trading radar for damage output (and 10 km torpedoes, which can be quite useful). Here, I think this is at least a worthwhile tradeoff, but I find that the lack of effective damage output hurts the Cleveland's versatility and make it far too team-reliant to an even greater extent than Des Moines.

When compared to the Chapayev, the concealment difference becomes more pronounced as there is now a roughly 1 km difference. On the other hand, Chapayev is able to have a longer range but shorter duration radar that enables it to "stealth" radar enemies, though Cleveland is still able to simultaneously equip hydroacoustic search. The Chapayev's ballistics is even better than the Mogami's and Chapayev's HE shells reach 15 km more than 4 seconds before Cleveland's. There's a greater difference in theoretical DPM (196k vs 244k for Chapayev and Cleveland respectively) but not nearly enough to offset the difference in ballistics. The Chapayev also has considerably better range than Cleveland and can apply damage at that range better (it takes 12.69 seconds for Chapayev shells to reach 17.3 km, while it takes 15.2 seconds for Cleveland shells to reach 15.6 km). Again, I consider the short range hydro on both cruisers (and Chapayev's short range torpedoes) to be too situational to have an effective difference. So when comparing the two ships, you're essentially trading concealment for gunnery, and I think that given the range of Chapayev's radar, the Cleveland does not compare favorably.

This is just my observation based on the preliminary stats, as well as my experience playing dozens of Chapayev and Mogami matches in the past few public test servers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,205
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
6,816 posts
10,374 battles

I don't really know how much this would help.

At a 61' angle where you're just outside of normal autobounce but inside some proposed improvements the US 6in seems to simply lack sheer penetration.

A 150mm plate on say a DM has an effective thickness at that angle (unless my math is out) of 309mm. Cleveland can pen a maximum of 275mm at a minimum range of 1.2km.

Even thinner plates at those angles become pretty difficult, 100mm say becomes 206mm effective, so at the minimum angle to have an advantage from better autobounce you're looking at needing to be <5k - and that's 1 degree of advantage. DM by contrast can pen a 61' 100mm plate at about 14km.

Against plating in the 50mm-60mm range you do get an advantage at some ranges and angles.

 

Overall the RN CL AP does a lot of damage to the 32/25mm sections of ships which mostly rely on autobounce, and to the superstructures which can be penetrated rather than overpenetrated thanks to the shorter fuses.

If you give the USN CL improved autobounce angles against cruisers they lack the penetration to exploit it, and against battleships they'll be able mostly to penetrate the 32mm sections which they can penetrate with their HE while setting fires at the same time. The AP does do more damage - 3,200 to 2,200 - but even HE shatters can start fires and fires are significant. At ranges close enough to hit hard you're unlikely to be hitting some of the squishier decks too. Is doing a bit more AP damage some of the time worth the trade in fire chance? Maybe in a desperate close-range brawl, but otherwise probably not.

 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,850
[WOLF3]
[WOLF3]
Members
16,177 posts
14,605 battles
3 hours ago, icyplanetnhc said:

Well, I'll try to compare T8 Cleveland with the 155 mm Mogami and the Chapayev.

When compared to the Mogami, assuming that both vessels go for a full stealth build, the difference in concealment is less than 0.2 km (9.14 km vs. 9.29 km) , so I would classify that difference as negligible. The Cleveland is able to equip defensive AA, hydroacoustic search, and radar, while Mogami is only able to equip either defensive AA or hydroacoustic search while also equipping catapult fighter. The Mogami on the other hand currently has much better gunnery, which means that while on paper their DPM are similar (HE DPM of 234k and 244k for Mogami and Cleveland respectively), Mogami is able to apply that damage considerably more effectively (Mogami HE shell reaches 15 km over 3 seconds before Cleveland's). I find non-German hydro on cruisers to be short-ranged and situation, so when comparing the two ships, you're essentially trading radar for damage output (and 10 km torpedoes, which can be quite useful). Here, I think this is at least a worthwhile tradeoff, but I find that the lack of effective damage output hurts the Cleveland's versatility and make it far too team-reliant to an even greater extent than Des Moines.

When compared to the Chapayev, the concealment difference becomes more pronounced as there is now a roughly 1 km difference. On the other hand, Chapayev is able to have a longer range but shorter duration radar that enables it to "stealth" radar enemies, though Cleveland is still able to simultaneously equip hydroacoustic search. The Chapayev's ballistics is even better than the Mogami's and Chapayev's HE shells reach 15 km more than 4 seconds before Cleveland's. There's a greater difference in theoretical DPM (196k vs 244k for Chapayev and Cleveland respectively) but not nearly enough to offset the difference in ballistics. The Chapayev also has considerably better range than Cleveland and can apply damage at that range better (it takes 12.69 seconds for Chapayev shells to reach 17.3 km, while it takes 15.2 seconds for Cleveland shells to reach 15.6 km). Again, I consider the short range hydro on both cruisers (and Chapayev's short range torpedoes) to be too situational to have an effective difference. So when comparing the two ships, you're essentially trading concealment for gunnery, and I think that given the range of Chapayev's radar, the Cleveland does not compare favorably.

This is just my observation based on the preliminary stats, as well as my experience playing dozens of Chapayev and Mogami matches in the past few public test servers.

If you don't find Hydro useful on Cruisers than you don't play the caps the way that some of us do :cap_cool:

 

You know, I was actually in process of going into a long analysis of why they don't need the extra firepower help, especially Cleveland as an example compared to Mogami & Chapayev.  But I'll say these 2 things.

 

1.  It is absolutely clear that WG is intending these USN CLs, namely the Tier VIII-X ones, to be focused on Utility.  Stealth and an outrageous Consumables access that no other ship line matches.  Not even the USN CAs get consumables access like the USN CLs of High Tier do.

 

2.  You are looking at Radar USN Cruisers completely wrong.  What you want are IJN, Russian Cruisers.  Hell, even the French Cruisers are exactly what you are looking for:  Ranged performance.

Radar USN Cruisers are not like that.  You want these USN Cruisers to fit another Cruiser Line's set of ideals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
771
[DRACS]
Members
3,504 posts

The high tier USN light cruisers do need a buff, but improved AP auto bounce is not it. 152mm USN AP simply does not have enough penetration to make it worth using most of the time, unlike the the 203s.

I had proposed giving them German style quarter HE pen so that they don't have to invest in IFHE and can spend those 4 points elsewhere (notably AFT for AA support), but some felt it was too strong. Personally, I hate that IFHE is essentially a skill tax that USN light cruisers will HAVE to take at high tiers to be even remotely effective against battleships, and hence why I don't believe Worcester will ever be as strong as DM. A single extra consumable is absolutely not worth all the tradeoffs, IMO. As it stands, I see no reason to level up this line beyond the Cleveland I already own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
354 posts
5 battles

What do you know, wargaming is putting the USN cruisers nearly back into the state they were before the buffs the 7/8/9 recieved. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,093
[DAKI]
WoWS Wiki Editor
7,328 posts
6,609 battles
7 hours ago, icyplanetnhc said:

I'm curious if you can elaborate regarding the T8 Cleveland. To my understanding, unless you're under supertester NDA, CCs who have access to the new light cruisers can share their opinion on how the ships play.

Wiki Editors are under a Supertester NDA, but listed as CCs. We are a mix of both :Smile-_tongue:

So sorry, can‘t really talk about the T8 Cleveland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
92
[PNG]
[PNG]
Beta Testers
225 posts
8,217 battles
5 hours ago, icyplanetnhc said:

Well, I'll try to compare T8 Cleveland with the 155 mm Mogami and the Chapayev.

When compared to the Mogami, assuming that both vessels go for a full stealth build, the difference in concealment is less than 0.2 km (9.14 km vs. 9.29 km) , so I would classify that difference as negligible. The Cleveland is able to equip defensive AA, hydroacoustic search, and radar, while Mogami is only able to equip either defensive AA or hydroacoustic search while also equipping catapult fighter. The Mogami on the other hand currently has much better gunnery, which means that while on paper their DPM are similar (HE DPM of 234k and 244k for Mogami and Cleveland respectively), Mogami is able to apply that damage considerably more effectively (Mogami HE shell reaches 15 km over 3 seconds before Cleveland's). I find non-German hydro on cruisers to be short-ranged and situation, so when comparing the two ships, you're essentially trading radar for damage output (and 10 km torpedoes, which can be quite useful). Here, I think this is at least a worthwhile tradeoff, but I find that the lack of effective damage output hurts the Cleveland's versatility and make it far too team-reliant to an even greater extent than Des Moines.

When compared to the Chapayev, the concealment difference becomes more pronounced as there is now a roughly 1 km difference. On the other hand, Chapayev is able to have a longer range but shorter duration radar that enables it to "stealth" radar enemies, though Cleveland is still able to simultaneously equip hydroacoustic search. The Chapayev's ballistics is even better than the Mogami's and Chapayev's HE shells reach 15 km more than 4 seconds before Cleveland's. There's a greater difference in theoretical DPM (196k vs 244k for Chapayev and Cleveland respectively) but not nearly enough to offset the difference in ballistics. The Chapayev also has considerably better range than Cleveland and can apply damage at that range better (it takes 12.69 seconds for Chapayev shells to reach 17.3 km, while it takes 15.2 seconds for Cleveland shells to reach 15.6 km). Again, I consider the short range hydro on both cruisers (and Chapayev's short range torpedoes) to be too situational to have an effective difference. So when comparing the two ships, you're essentially trading concealment for gunnery, and I think that given the range of Chapayev's radar, the Cleveland does not compare favorably.

This is just my observation based on the preliminary stats, as well as my experience playing dozens of Chapayev and Mogami matches in the past few public test servers.

This comparison assumes the ships are in a open water fight, without cover and without spotting help from team mates. Such analysis in a vacuum is not helpful to performance of ships that is played in a team setting and on maps with islands.

Granted, in the situations you described, the Chappy and Mogami have the gunnery advantage over the Cleveland. But if you place a Cleveland behind an island next to a cap, with other ships in support, can you imagine how difficult it would be for enemy team to dig it out? The Cleveland will create a AA zone that is difficult for CVs to get through, can radar opposing DDs trying to cap, and can spot torpedoes with its hydro. While doing all of that, it can still shoot at enemy ships with perfect (well, mostly) immunity.

The way the US cruisers have been designed by WG have always been a team utility class. While they do not have the individual stats that other nations cruisers have, they bring tools that are extremely useful if used correctly in a team setting. The new CL line brings this characteristic to an extreme. Individually, a Worcester in a random match might not be consistently successful, but if you can find a division with a DD or a UK CL, the presence of a teammate would magnify the power of the Worcester significantly. I wager the new CLs would find ample use in competitive play as well, if the right map or team composition can be chosen. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
459
[BOTES]
Members
1,919 posts
6,658 battles

Learn to aim. Seriously. You can't just give up on anything at longer ranges. Aiming is a necessary skill for DM, high tier RN CL, USN DD, and now USN CL. It isn't impossible and any argument predated on such a flawed assertion is moot.

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,158 posts
6,943 battles
2 hours ago, KaptainKaybe said:

The high tier USN light cruisers do need a buff, but improved AP auto bounce is not it. 152mm USN AP simply does not have enough penetration to make it worth using most of the time, unlike the the 203s.

I had proposed giving them German style quarter HE pen so that they don't have to invest in IFHE and can spend those 4 points elsewhere (notably AFT for AA support), but some felt it was too strong. Personally, I hate that IFHE is essentially a skill tax that USN light cruisers will HAVE to take at high tiers to be even remotely effective against battleships, and hence why I don't believe Worcester will ever be as strong as DM. A single extra consumable is absolutely not worth all the tradeoffs, IMO. As it stands, I see no reason to level up this line beyond the Cleveland I already own.

i dont like IFHE as a skill.(especially for 4 points)  it is basically a tax on all cruisers that need the extra pen to do reliable damage.(yes, you can live without it, but the difference is notable)  BBs only take if they are a secondary build(not all secondary builds have it), which is a meh build in the current meta(tho fun), and DDs don't really need to take it either(outside of the aki)  remove the skill and put something else in its place, and bake in the pen into all of the light cruisers and aki or perhaps do it by caliber of guns in general below a certain size. 

 

i know i am going to be annoyed having to respec my RU cruiser captain when i no longer need to have IFHE to pen targets.  hopefully, when the time comes(a long ways away) i can do it freely.  otherwise i may just hold off playing that line until i can respec.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
352 posts
1,803 battles
8 hours ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

If you don't find Hydro useful on Cruisers than you don't play the caps the way that some of us do :cap_cool:

 

You know, I was actually in process of going into a long analysis of why they don't need the extra firepower help, especially Cleveland as an example compared to Mogami & Chapayev.  But I'll say these 2 things.

 

1.  It is absolutely clear that WG is intending these USN CLs, namely the Tier VIII-X ones, to be focused on Utility.  Stealth and an outrageous Consumables access that no other ship line matches.  Not even the USN CAs get consumables access like the USN CLs of High Tier do.

 

2.  You are looking at Radar USN Cruisers completely wrong.  What you want are IJN, Russian Cruisers.  Hell, even the French Cruisers are exactly what you are looking for:  Ranged performance.

Radar USN Cruisers are not like that.  You want these USN Cruisers to fit another Cruiser Line's set of ideals.

 

Regarding the argument of utility and consumables, a USN CL will be weighed the same as a USN CA. You then will have to compare Cleveland to Baltimore, Seattle to Buffalo, and Worcester to Des Moines. The gunnery of the Baltimore considerably outstrips the Cleveland, with faster HE shells that don't require IFHE and far superior AP performance. As far as I can tell, the only advantage of the Cleveland is modestly better concealment (~0.5 km advantage) and the ability to equip defensive AA and hydro simultaneously, for all the emphasis placed on consumable access. While the firepower of the Cleveland does not compare favorably to Mogami or Chapayev, the difference is even greater compared to Baltimore, and all that for the ability to equip DFAA and hydro simultaneously. In my opinion that is too big of a tradeoff. USN CAs are already quite dependent on divisions and maps for good performance, and USN CLs will be even more situational than that, to paraphrase one of the videos I saw on the Worcester.

Furthermore, giving USN CLs better ricochet angles wouldn't be particularly helpful for ranged performance; I believe the main benefit is in close quarters combat. These CLs don't have torpedoes to fall back on, so their guns on their only tools in such an engagement.

 

11 hours ago, mofton said:

If you give the USN CL improved autobounce angles against cruisers they lack the penetration to exploit it, and against battleships they'll be able mostly to penetrate the 32mm sections which they can penetrate with their HE while setting fires at the same time. The AP does do more damage - 3,200 to 2,200 - but even HE shatters can start fires and fires are significant. At ranges close enough to hit hard you're unlikely to be hitting some of the squishier decks too. Is doing a bit more AP damage some of the time worth the trade in fire chance? Maybe in a desperate close-range brawl, but otherwise probably not.

 

 

It's true that the benefit of improved ricochet angles on USN CLs would primarily be in close-quarters combat especially against other cruisers, but I think that's a fairly substantial boon given that these ships don't have torpedoes to fall back on.

Edited by icyplanetnhc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×