Jump to content
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
Avenge_December_7

Have the USN Standards Been Power-Crept?

51 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,118
[STW-M]
Members
3,337 posts
7,825 battles

Having played the high-tier USN BBs and then dropped back down to try out the tier 5 and 6s, it seems to me that the USN standard BBs (tier 7 and below) have fallen behind the times and the introduction of new lines.

Their speed proves a mighty weakness both strategically and tactically, making them hard to switch flanks, retreat, angle after firing their guns, or even dodge torpedoes.

Their armor grows less and less effective with every new line that ignores angling, like Pan-Asian destroyers and French cruisers (I'm aware that it's less so for them, but more a case of HE ignoring angling in general), or simply overmatches them, like Bayern and Queen Elizabeth.

The inaccuracy of their guns isn't compensated for by any noticeable increase in reload, penetration, damage, or even volume, and is an incredible liability when fighting maneuverable ships.

As for anti-air, the so-vaunted AA of the USN seems to be entirely absent on these ships with the exception of the premium Texas; heck, Colorado gets quite outmatched AA-wise by Gneisenau, despite AA being the so-called "national flavor" of the USN

  • New York and Texas never were held in too high of a regard, and these days it seems that literally any tier 5 BB outclasses them (though at least Texas has the benefit of good AA) and anything above simply stomps on them; heck, I'd say even some tier 4 BBs like Orion outclass them.
  • New Mexico and Arizona have been regarded as the high point of the USN standards, and I still think they can hold their own pretty well, but the new lines have meant that they aren't nearly as powerful as they used to be, their armor angling either overmatched or ignored and their torpedo belts only prolonging the inevitable; at least they can somewhat compete with tiers 7 and 8, if not much
  • Colorado made a comeback with the health buff and slow shedding of her reputation, but her slow speed, relative lack of firepower, and complete inability to compete with tier 8s and 9s (not that I ever expected it to do so) made sure that she never was among the top BBs of the tier.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,639
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
4,168 posts
660 battles

The Standards were power crept when they first went live. They were billed as 'brawlers' as a national flavor to justify their short range. Except all the Japanese equivalent had to do was run away. Japanese battleships comparatively always had better range, better rates of fire and better accuracy. Not only that, but they had a module that allowed them to make their already-better accuracy even better still. The Standards got access to the Plotting Room, but even with that they still had less range than the Japanese counterparts. Japanese also get better turret rotations and better secondary batteries. If I recall they also have more health. 

 

Back when these ships were added, Wargaming was still pretending to use historical resources for things like reload and turret traverse, and were pretending that rangefinder height above the waterline dictated range. None of that is true anymore and we have all sorts of crazy things done in the name of balance, but the Standards are still gimped because they're restrained by a 'balance' methodology that Wargaming abandoned a long time ago. 

 

One thing they could do to help would be to give Colorado the West Virginia's post-Pearl refit as it's final hull option. They could even give it good secondary performance like the Mass. Make it an actual brawler. But they won't do this.

 

Another weird thing I noticed. Why doesn't the Colorado have turtlebacks? The New Mexico and Pennsylvania (Arizona) do..

 

Colorado was literally just a repeat-Tennessee with 16" guns. Tennessee was a repeat-New Mexico with different machinery and better TDS. Their internal armor scheme should be the same. And yet Colorado doesn't have the turtlebacks that New Mexico and Pennsylvania (Arizona) do ingame.

 

All of the Standard-type had turtleback plating. They also had STS bulkheads, but the game ignores internal structure so...

 

 

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
-Members-
1,542 posts
26 battles

Thanks for voicing your concerns guys, I have made a note to pass this onto our team for future consideration! 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
177
[SPTR]
Members
2,293 posts
1,331 battles
31 minutes ago, WolfofWarship said:

Thanks for voicing your concerns guys, I have made a note to pass this onto our team for future consideration! 

I second this. Many of the other low tier ships have unhistorical speed buffs to make them more flexible. USN Standards do not. There's ole' Texas rocking 20.5 knots and 3(!) 4km secondaries per side. Give them better range and more speed as a minimum. It's painful driving Texas on maps like Ocean. Range? They need it because they're too slow to get in range and too squishy to get in close.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
339
[SVF]
Members
1,219 posts
1,708 battles
8 minutes ago, Prinz_Eugen_Kai_Ni said:

I second this. Many of the other low tier ships have unhistorical speed buffs to make them more flexible. USN Standards do not. There's ole' Texas rocking 20.5 knots and 3(!) 4km secondaries per side. Give them better range and more speed as a minimum. It's painful driving Texas on maps like Ocean. Range? They need it because they're too slow to get in range and too squishy to get in close.

Maybe lower the reloads by a couple seconds too.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
177
[SPTR]
Members
2,293 posts
1,331 battles
Just now, landcollector said:

Maybe lower the reloads by a couple seconds too.

Yes that too. Al the Higher tier BB's have 30 second reloads. Tex has 34 stock and cant get that lower without AR. Plz help WG...

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,639
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
4,168 posts
660 battles

The 1.5-1.7 round/minute estimate for US rates of fire was a very conservative blanket estimate. Actual rates of fire for US main batteries were much, much higher. According to the CNO, in 1938, a restriction of 24 seconds was placed on SPGPM for safety concerns. Gun crews were putting shots down range as fast as 2.5 SPGPM, according to FTP 185-1 (Reports on Gunnery Exercises, 1938-39) p.1.

 

2 rounds/minute would be fair. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
425
[HUNGS]
Members
1,707 posts
3,603 battles
14 hours ago, ramp4ge said:

All of the Standard-type had turtleback plating. They also had STS bulkheads, but the game ignores internal structure so...

 

 

The Tennessee and Colorado didn't have Turtleback, starting with the Tennessee, they were designed after the lessons of Jutland and began to focus on better deck armour because turtleback proved to be near useless at the ranges BBs were starting to fight at, hence why Tennessee had better elevation on their guns also

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
67
[SRBL]
Members
283 posts
On ‎6‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 7:43 PM, Psycodiver said:

The Tennessee and Colorado didn't have Turtleback, starting with the Tennessee, they were designed after the lessons of Jutland and began to focus on better deck armour because turtleback proved to be near useless at the ranges BBs were starting to fight at, hence why Tennessee had better elevation on their guns also

The Tennessee-class and Colorado-class had identical armor which is not the case with what is provided in-game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
425
[HUNGS]
Members
1,707 posts
3,603 battles
1 hour ago, Tom_Greg said:

The Tennessee-class and Colorado-class had identical armor which is not the case with what is provided in-game. 

Well of course because the Tennessee class isn't in the game

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,307
[WOLF3]
[WOLF3]
Members
21,327 posts
19,716 battles

New Mexico 356mm x12, reload 34.2 seconds.

Fuso 356mm x12, reload 28 seconds.  Better range, better accuracy also.  Not to mention Fuso could slot ASM1 to improve the dispersion a bit more.

:Smile_teethhappy:

In Tier VI, it was no surprise that in Ranked, Warspite & Fuso ran away with performance in general.

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
425
[HUNGS]
Members
1,707 posts
3,603 battles
1 hour ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

New Mexico 356mm x12, reload 34.2 seconds.

Fuso 356mm x12, reload 28 seconds.  Better range, better accuracy also.  Not to mention Fuso could slot ASM1 to improve the dispersion a bit more.

:Smile_teethhappy:

In Tier VI, it was no surprise that in Ranked, Warspite & Fuso ran away with performance in general.

If your playing the Fuso at the ranges that out range the NM, your doing it won't. I love the Fuso but she is a very soft ship. Now the Bayern is where it is at, that ship is a tank that can hit back

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
67
[SRBL]
Members
283 posts
3 hours ago, Psycodiver said:

Well of course because the Tennessee class isn't in the game

But the New Mexico is and all three have nearly identical armor. N.M -> Tenn. -> Colo. I provided a quote in the specific Colorado thread. 

Only difference is the Colorado Class had thicker belt armor. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
425
[HUNGS]
Members
1,707 posts
3,603 battles
6 hours ago, Tom_Greg said:

But the New Mexico is and all three have nearly identical armor. N.M -> Tenn. -> Colo. I provided a quote in the specific Colorado thread. 

Only difference is the Colorado Class had thicker belt armor. 

 

I know I was just referencing because the way you wrote it sounded like the Tenn was in game (which I wish she was in her post Pearl Harbor refit)

 

Colorado has the same 343mm belt and forward/aft bulk head as the NM, neither one is thicker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
67
[SRBL]
Members
283 posts
7 hours ago, Psycodiver said:

 

I know I was just referencing because the way you wrote it sounded like the Tenn was in game (which I wish she was in her post Pearl Harbor refit)

 

Colorado has the same 343mm belt and forward/aft bulk head as the NM, neither one is thicker

The Colorado-class had an increase to 410mm near the vitals, otherwise it was 360mm. The main scheme was pretty much a carry over from the preceding classes. Please see the provided reference quote in the other thread. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
250
[UN1]
Members
641 posts
2,339 battles

It's hard to say.  I don't want to cry foul with imbalance, but when you look at the statistics, it's pretty clear that US ships are consistently at a disadvantage.  Looking at NA stats and removing Premium ships:

T5 - New York is at the bottom in terms of win rate, average damage, AA, and experience gain.  Basically, it's the least competitive T5 BB.

T6 - The New Mexico is bottom in terms of win rate, average damage, experience gain, and middle of the pack for AA.  For T6, it actually looks like the Normadie is well ahead of the other T6 BBs.

T7 - The Colorado is bottom in terms of win rate, average damage, experience gain, and middle of the pack for AA.  It's T7 where it really shows the Colorado struggling more.

With that said, there is potential here that the American BBs T5-7 have been a little bit power-creeped.  You can see a consistent pattern across the NA, EU, and RU servers where the American warships are pretty low on the statistic totem pole in pretty much every category.  Now, someone has gotta be on the bottom, but when I see this across all servers, I think it's pretty safe to say something is wrong. 

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
250
[UN1]
Members
641 posts
2,339 battles
6 hours ago, Tom_Greg said:

The Colorado-class had an increase to 410mm near the vitals, otherwise it was 360mm. The main scheme was pretty much a carry over from the preceding classes. Please see the provided reference quote in the other thread. 

I just checked in game.  It doesn't appear that the USS Colorado has the 410mm armor plating modeled.  It also looks like its missing some deck armor as well.  It does, however, have the best TDS at 37% compared to the other T7 BBs, but we all know that really doesn't mean a whole lot.  Sometimes I think torpedoes and flooding damage is too powerful in this game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
463
[REVY]
Members
1,528 posts
9,621 battles

some of this goes all the way back to alpha.

WG does not model the STS. In the posts of old, everyone universally agreed the US BBs and CAs that had STS armor would have had significantly better protection then they currently possess.

 

Have they been power creeped though? Yes, more ships have come in. But I think what currently hurts the New York/Texas is the MM. Previously they would see Tier III and Tier IV. Now they are consistently being low-tiered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
67
[SRBL]
Members
283 posts
2 hours ago, Ranari said:

I just checked in game.  It doesn't appear that the USS Colorado has the 410mm armor plating modeled.  It also looks like its missing some deck armor as well.  It does, however, have the best TDS at 37% compared to the other T7 BBs, but we all know that really doesn't mean a whole lot.  Sometimes I think torpedoes and flooding damage is too powerful in this game.

If you look in the specific Colorado-class thread the Original Poster had some screenshots showing the armor layout. The Breyer book I mentioned is worth picking up used for anyone even remotely interested in Battleship/Battlecruiser evolution and the schematics alone are worth the price. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,307
[WOLF3]
[WOLF3]
Members
21,327 posts
19,716 battles
On 6/12/2018 at 12:15 PM, Psycodiver said:

If your playing the Fuso at the ranges that out range the NM, your doing it won't. I love the Fuso but she is a very soft ship. Now the Bayern is where it is at, that ship is a tank that can hit back

No, you try to play Sniper with a BB it's a losing proposition, even High Tier.  But the simple fact is that you get opportunities while closing range to the real fight.  You see some distant Cruiser, Battleship and you get that chance to lob shells and land hits.  Sometimes for a few overpens but sometimes some good penetrations and maybe even a citadel or two.  NM doesn't get that chance at all.

 

Both Fuso and NM are soft to me, though Fuso has the worse protection.  As long as Fuso plays "it's game" and not be a dumb scrub trying to brawl, she's quite fine.  Those faster shooting 356mm x12 guns on Fuso will take their toll on people eventually.

 

The only thing I hate about Fuso is her concealment.  Good Lord is it bad.  She has worse base detection range than Yamato, you know that?  No sneaking around with her.  I'm not even talking about how CSM1 can help Yamato, just base detection range, it's very bad!

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
196 posts
3,083 battles

They have A LOT of problems. Their armor is often questionable, they are more "historically limited" than other nations BB's, which receive buffs as needed regardless of history, their slow speed, while accurate, can be crippling, and one of their big strengths - good AAA - is useless without enemy CV's, and CV's in general are rare these days. 

They were NEVER very good, but the German line made them basically useless. The German ships are better in every way except for the quality of the main guns: they have better armor, better speed, better secondaries, and sometimes even comparable AAA. The British and French BB's also compete favorably against the US ones in many ways.

I have no problem accepting the slow speed - I'm willing to deal with that one solid point of historical accuracy - but other things should be looked at. The sometimes questionable armor, the dismal secondaries, the annoyingly long and probably not historically accurate main gun reload times, etc. Also, I wish the Texas and NY had scout planes, since that was accurate, but apparently modeling the catapult on a turret was not doable, at least in the past, but it would help those rather dismal tier 5 ships. This line needs all the help it can get.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
425
[HUNGS]
Members
1,707 posts
3,603 battles
2 hours ago, old_radagast said:

They have A LOT of problems. Their armor is often questionable, they are more "historically limited" than other nations BB's, which receive buffs as needed regardless of history, their slow speed, while accurate, can be crippling, and one of their big strengths - good AAA - is useless without enemy CV's, and CV's in general are rare these days. 

They were NEVER very good, but the German line made them basically useless. The German ships are better in every way except for the quality of the main guns: they have better armor, better speed, better secondaries, and sometimes even comparable AAA. The British and French BB's also compete favorably against the US ones in many ways.

I have no problem accepting the slow speed - I'm willing to deal with that one solid point of historical accuracy - but other things should be looked at. The sometimes questionable armor, the dismal secondaries, the annoyingly long and probably not historically accurate main gun reload times, etc. Also, I wish the Texas and NY had scout planes, since that was accurate, but apparently modeling the catapult on a turret was not doable, at least in the past, but it would help those rather dismal tier 5 ships. This line needs all the help it can get.

I have no problem making them work and I do about the same tier for tier of their equivalent battleships, sounds like a captain issue once again. Play a ship to it's strengths not it's weaknesses, I routinely watch USN BB captains trying to sail across the map at the beginning of the games and/or firing nothing but HE while sailing broadside because "that's how they did it in the real world". Why else do you think the RN BB line was designed the way it was, it caters to those fools

Edited by Psycodiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
196 posts
3,083 battles
20 hours ago, Psycodiver said:

I have no problem making them work and I do about the same tier for tier of their equivalent battleships, sounds like a captain issue once again. Play a ship to it's strengths not it's weaknesses, I routinely watch USN BB captains trying to sail across the map at the beginning of the games and/or firing nothing but HE while sailing broadside because "that's how they did it in the real world". Why else do you think the RN BB line was designed the way it was, it caters to those fools

So, you honestly think poor players only play US Standard battleships and that alone accounts for their dismal performance on all servers?

I covered the problems that series of ships suffers from, and you've instead tried to turn it into a personal attack while completely ignoring both the Standard BB's objectively poor performance as well as the issues others have mentioned. They are weak ships with significant problems - just because some people can "make them work" does not mean they are properly balanced since somewhere there is somebody who can make any ship work. Balancing around the outliers is not good game design, and the Standards generally poor showing on all servers is far more meaningful than what you or I specifically can do with them.

Edited by old_radagast

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
425
[HUNGS]
Members
1,707 posts
3,603 battles
29 minutes ago, old_radagast said:

So, you honestly think poor players only play US Standard battleships and that alone accounts for their dismal performance on all servers?

I covered the problems that series of ships suffers from, and you've instead tried to turn it into a personal attack while completely ignoring both the Standard BB's objectively poor performance as well as the issues others have mentioned. They are weak ships with significant problems - just because some people can "make them work" does not mean they are properly balanced since somewhere there is somebody who can make any ship work. Balancing around the outliers is not good game design, and the Standards generally poor showing on all servers is far more meaningful than what you or I specifically can do with them.

 

It's well known that most new players go down there USN line, so yes bad players, look at the weekly battle averages and USN ships are the most played except for when a new line is released. 

 

Other than speed their isn't any more issues then than any other line, just because you can't play them well doesn't mean their bad, it just means your can't play them well and there's nothing wrong with admitting that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
196 posts
3,083 battles
7 minutes ago, Psycodiver said:

 

It's well known that most new players go down there USN line, so yes bad players, look at the weekly battle averages and USN ships are the most played except for when a new line is released. 

Other thanspeed their isn't any more issues then than any other line, just because you can't play them well doesn't mean their bad, it just means your can't play them well and there's nothing wrong with admitting that

I do well enough in them - you can do better than subtle stat-shaming if you want to support your position. But if we're going to play that game, based on your stats, you are well above average player. That's great, but that also means you may not seen the weak points in these ships since you're one of those folks who could make almost any ship work. Balance around the outliers - either really good players, such as you, or really poor ones - isn't good balance in general.

You said it yourself - "other than their speed, their (sic) isn't any more issues than any other line." Yeah, that's the point. They have no particular strengths over the other lines, and they are noticeably slower. Their armor is decent, but not great, their guns hit hard but have mediocre range, their secondaries are awful, their AAA is great (in the games when it matters), and they are the slowest ships on the field aside from the Bogue. Together, that makes for a subpar line, as the stats reflect.

Maybe you don't believe me and you just want to keep trying to make this about personal stats, but given the SHIP stats, the US Standards are clearly somehow below par.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×