Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
Guardian54

Seattle Vs Cleveland: NOT A Tier Better

35 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

175
[70]
Members
959 posts
3,691 battles

Let's compare Seattle and Cleveland (I'm assuming the upgrade modules match my Buffalo), assuming full modification loadouts.

FIREPOWER: PURE DOWNGRADE

"Same ROF, MUCH WORSE Turret Rotation (18 seconds to 22.5)"

This is a clear invitation to take "-15% turret turn time for +5% reload time" in slot 2 to try and fail to compensate, and/or fill slot 6 with "ROF all the way, to hell with turret rotation" in slot which kills your ability to brawl, to easily switch targets, or perhaps to achieve such basic tasks as keeping guns on target during a hard turn (for comparison, Fiji with 25 second turret time cannot keep guns on target in a hard turn, Seattle has 22.5 base and the higher ROF makes that traverse time go up 13%, which is about enough to start losing track of targets in a hard turn at mid or close ranges (Fiji turns faster which results in losing track of targets at ANY range in a hard turn) and given the huge thin citadel...

Oh, and Seattle has the same range a tier higher (and the B hull magically decreases the range FOR WHATEVER REASON). If you're telling us to use Slot 6 on gun range to compensate for longer battle ranges... the DPS doesn't change at all from the Tier 8! (Which reminds me, Ibuki is power-creeped well beyond oblivion, 4.5 ROF would be quite reasonable for Ibuki with its fewer guns than Zao and paper armor, among other buffs!)

EDIT: Was just informed the turret arcs are grossly inferior to Cleveland, making this a clear DOWNGRADE instead of NEUTRAL even with stacked equipment.

EDIT 2: I assumed the top hull range drop is a bug, not a feature. If it's a feature, well...

DURABILITY: GROSS DOWNGRADE

36900 to 43600 HP, not the worst...

Seattle is a huge target compared to Cleveland, and the plating is the same 25mm.

ENORMOUS CITADEL IN ARMOR VIEWER LOLWUT?

EDIT 2: I have just been informed the Seattle belt is thinner than Cleveland's. I have confirmed with in-game armour viewer that Seattle has 102mm belt over about twice the length and height of Cleveland's 127mm belt's above-water portion. So it is not only a larger target but will always be penned by 8-inch or larger fire unless at autobounce (45+ degrees for non-USN 8" and 60+ for USN 8") up to something like 14km where the shell plunging angle is what makes the armour usable at high but not quite autobounce angles.

AGILITY/CAMO: PURE DOWNGRADE

660m -> 750m turn radius, MUCH slower. 7.2 -> 8.7 seconds rudder shift.

10.7 -> 12.2 base detection by sea (I have no camo on my Cleveland and picked IFHE for 10th point, so can compare base number with Seattle)

32.5 knots -> 33 knots. Much improvement, such wow!

 

CONCLUSION: In almost any scenario, replacing a Seattle with a Cleveland is likely no significant loss (Edit 2: a great gain) for the team. This is contrary to, say, replacing any Tier 9 battleship with a Tier 8 of the same line.

WG, it's ONE extra mod slot you get from going from Tier 8 to 9, and that's spent on trying (and failing) to make firepower fully equal to the Cleveland, and takes up mod slot 2 as well...

And would someone explain to me why the devs seem to think that building a dual-purpose turret is useful when it's TOO SLOW TO TRACK AIRCRAFT? 22.5 second turn time for 180 degrees is NOT "dual-purpose", not even CLOSE! And the USN designers would have known this! Do we have to chalk it up to another "Russian experts" issue?

 

What Seattle needs to go from GARBAGE to MEHBOTE:

Reload from 6.5 to 5.5 seconds, turret traverse from 22.5 to 18 seconds, Armour belt from 102mm to 127mm or more, and absolutely not less than Cleveland max range (EDIT: and gun arcs) before modifications. It would serve as a sensible stepping stone to Worcester's 4.6 second reload with that, despite the terribad quality of life in other regards compared to Cleveland.

To make Seattle a GUDBOTE?

Any two of the following (starting from 5.5 second reload, 18 second turret traverse and 127mm belt as described above): 5 second reload (Worcester has same gun count and 4.6 second reload, in comically faster turrets) OR

7.5-second rudder shift AND <730m turn radius

OR 11.5 km base detection

 

Another way to make Seattle GUDBOTE?

Replace it with a Fargo i.e. slightly modified Cleveland that's more agile (built to be more stable, particularly when heeling in turns), has slightly more historical max displacement (a bit more HP, magnified by the "built to be more resilient" fact) with the reload buttered down to 6 seconds from 6.5. THAT would be a worthy Tier 9, and the current Seattle can become a premium instead, as a never-built design study should be when a suitable Real Ship is available.

Then put Seattle at Tier 7 with current stats as a premium. That would be a Gudbote despite being a huge pinata even at Tier 7.

Edited by Guardian54
  • Cool 3
  • Funny 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
87 posts
3,879 battles

The Seattle also has some of the worst gun angles of any cruiser and the guns are wider apart in the turrets, resulting in wonky dispersion at close range

Edited by neworleanssaintsfan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
595
[HYDRO]
Members
1,299 posts
3,653 battles

But how are you gonna spend Free XP otherwise  to bypass the stinker? :Smile_amazed:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
250
[APOC_]
Members
908 posts
6,061 battles

Another T9 paywall joins the sad ranks of the Ibuki , FdG, and Izumo. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
87 posts
3,879 battles

Also, the saint Louis is pretty much a Charles martel clone. People don't care though because it has better range and the quality of life doesn't plummet like with seattle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34
[ASRN]
Beta Testers
224 posts
1,959 battles

And I was actually pushing myself to get xp on my Cleveland to actually give the Seattle a spin or two.  That's just perfect.  Another fakebote to waste your time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
17 posts
5,591 battles

I was a proficient Cleveland captain.

This boat sucks...

 

Terrible firing angles and giant citadel.

I'd take a Cleveland over this anyday... they should have just given a Cleveland 5000 more hp. A heal. And the option for faster ROF or trollish concealment.

Edited by Disco_Tek
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
175
[70]
Members
959 posts
3,691 battles
10 minutes ago, Disco_Tek said:

I'd take a Cleveland over this anyday... that should have just given a Cleveland 5000 more hp. A heal. And the option for faster ROF or trollish concealment.

I think you're looking for this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fargo-class_cruiser

If it was in the game instead, it would go far (inb4 infracted for terribad pun)

14696 tons max to Cleveland's 14358 tons on Wikipedia, and engineered for greater stability with turrets sitting about a foot lower. The "engineered for stability" bit should suffice to justify higher HP.

 

Everything else would be the same except maybe buttering up ROF to 6 second reload, but even that would be FAR superior to the abomination we have right now.

Edited by Guardian54
  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
17 posts
5,591 battles
10 minutes ago, Guardian54 said:

I think you're looking for this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fargo-class_cruiser

If it was in the game instead, it would go far (inb4 infracted for terribad pun)

14696 tons max to Cleveland's 14358 tons on Wikipedia, and engineered for greater stability with turrets sitting about a foot lower. The "engineered for stability" bit should suffice to justify higher HP.

Wasn't there talk of that being a premium?

 

This thing is terribad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,117 posts
4,727 battles

Even before these ships went live the Youtubers generally agreed that Seattle is a downgrade from the Cleveland. It gains nothing but a heal, and as you've mentioned it's worse in like every other category. I think Dallas and this thing will be the free EXP magnets for the line, with Helena, Cleveland, and Worcester the ones people will actually play and probably keep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Supertester
1,459 posts
16 battles
44 minutes ago, neworleanssaintsfan said:

Also, the saint Louis is pretty much a Charles martel clone. People don't care though because it has better range and the quality of life doesn't plummet like with seattle.

Then again, Martel is more a budget tier 9 than San Luwee the T9 FXP wall. 

 

As for Seattle, at least it is a real design, and not the fake thing that Dallas is. Personally, I would have just used Worcester at tier 9 with a worse reload, in the vein of 5-6s. Cleveland and Helena are the peaks of the line anyway. (They are released now, so I think I can say that).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
175
[70]
Members
959 posts
3,691 battles
2 hours ago, Trainspite said:

As for Seattle, at least it is a real design, and not the fake thing that Dallas is. Personally, I would have just used Worcester at tier 9 with a worse reload, in the vein of 5-6s. Cleveland and Helena are the peaks of the line anyway. (They are released now, so I think I can say that).

You reminded me. Fargo with 6 sec reload and better agility than Cleveland (safer when heeling in turns) would be more than adequate for Tier 9, and the Seattle can GTFO to premium-land as a paper draft.

Actual steel over paper in tech lines so long as they work!

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
400
[VVV]
Members
2,396 posts
1 hour ago, Guardian54 said:

You reminded me. Fargo with 6 sec reload and better agility than Cleveland (safer when heeling in turns) would be more than adequate for Tier 9, and the Seattle can GTFO to premium-land as a paper draft.

Actual steel over paper in tech lines so long as they work!

Fargo could also justifiably have been given things like a slight concealment buff over Cleveland on account of the more compact superstructure (which also means slightly less ship to hit).

I suppose they were looking to avoid the Ibuki situation where the T9 is a repeat of the T8 except with the T9 perks (heal, upgrade slot, better radar) added. The problem is that instead they made the T9 straight-up worse than the T8 aside from the fact that it has those T9 perks. Worse armor, bigger citadel, horrific firing angles, even inexplicably slower turret traverse. In exchange you get...slightly better AA and nothing else. Take away the T9 perks and Seattle would be a subpar T8 CL.

So I guess we're left with three options: FXP past her to Worcester, suffer through a particularly bad grind or stop grinding at Cleveland. And in that last case come back later if she gets buffed into not sucking. But given how long it took Hipper to get that much-needed reload buff that could be a long wait.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,117 posts
4,727 battles

There's yet another option: Just stay at Cleveland for those not used to high tier gameplay. I mean, stay at Helena.

Edited by Grand_Viceroy_Zhou_Ziyu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
175
[70]
Members
959 posts
3,691 battles
6 hours ago, Grand_Viceroy_Zhou_Ziyu said:

There's yet another option: Just stay at Cleveland for those not used to high tier gameplay. I mean, stay at Helena.

I hope you aren't just dismissing complaints. That way lies balancing disasters like the 268V4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
107 posts
1,345 battles

I have no idea why they didn't pick the Fargo for the T9 CL, it was literally a upgraded Cleveland. But WG instead decided to dig up some paper ship from the dumpster while ignoring ships that were actually built. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
400
[VVV]
Members
2,396 posts

Oh and regarding Seattle's firing angles...there's no reason for them to be this bad based on the actual blueprint:

s511-38.jpg

That sure looks like she should be capable of bringing all 4 turrets to bear at a 30° angle either forward or aft. What possible purpose the devs had for giving the aft turrets a crappy 40° forward arc and the forward ones a downright horrific 51° aft arc, I can't even begin to imagine.

Fixing those arcs and speeding up the turret traverse would at least help a little. But I still think Seattle should also get at least another half-second shaved off her stock reload to work better at T9. That would also make her much more of an intermediate step between Cleveland and Worcester.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
175
[70]
Members
959 posts
3,691 battles
4 hours ago, Lord_Magus said:

Oh and regarding Seattle's firing angles...there's no reason for them to be this bad based on the actual blueprint:

s511-38.jpg

That sure looks like she should be capable of bringing all 4 turrets to bear at a 30° angle either forward or aft. What possible purpose the devs had for giving the aft turrets a crappy 40° forward arc and the forward ones a downright horrific 51° aft arc, I can't even begin to imagine.

Fixing those arcs and speeding up the turret traverse would at least help a little. But I still think Seattle should also get at least another half-second shaved off her stock reload to work better at T9. That would also make her much more of an intermediate step between Cleveland and Worcester.

Um... while I'm all for better gun arcs, that schematic actually makes WG make sense.

Try using an image/photo editor, crop out a turret, and turn it. It looks like absolutely not better than 35 degrees off bow for X turret, and 40 for Y, due to the side guns being far from turret centerline. Front turrets are also not better than 40 degrees abaft (MAYBE 35 for turret B, or 2 for American lingo)

 

From the draft, Seattle is firmly a Tier 7 premium, with how bad it is compared to Cleveland as of right now in hard stats and OMGWTFHUEG citadel. Get a smaller citadel and maybe it can be a Tier 8 premium.

As said before, Fargo should take its rightful place the Tier 9 CL with massaged quality of life (e.g. better turning, somewhat more HP, slightly better stealth) and 6 second base reload.

 

Then again I'm that deranged lunatic who seriously thinks the Ibuki needs at least 4.5 base ROF to be competitive, that Buffalo needs the same ROF as Baltimore (10 sec instead of 13 sec base reload) to work as smooth DPS progression to the DM, and that Nagato -> Tosa/Amagi -> Kii -> Yamato/Number 13 would make two coherent high-speed "alternatives" for IJN battleships (9 18-inch vs 8 for 27 vs 30 knots and heavier vs lighter armour/HP, basically battleship vs battlecruiser) like JP2 vs Ferdi in WoT and the T-54 leading to two Tier 10s...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47
[WOLF9]
Members
243 posts
3,727 battles

Maybe I'm reading that draft wrong, but it appears that both the B and X turrets have a 150-degree traverse arc noted on them.  If that is the case then the firing angles should be 30-degrees for both, not whatever garbage Seattle has now.  If I have misread the draft, please ignore me :)  

I did unlock and purchase Seattle, but from the sounds of it I am better off leaving her as port decor in hopes that she'll get a little love.  A fix for the B Hull firing range, at the very least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34
[ASRN]
Beta Testers
224 posts
1,959 battles

Welp, I finally unlocked Seattle last night.  It was serviceable for me in co-op. However, the turret angles definitely need some love.  I can deal with the slow traverse, but having to go full broadside just to get max firepower is less than ideal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
400
[VVV]
Members
2,396 posts
23 hours ago, Guardian54 said:

Um... while I'm all for better gun arcs, that schematic actually makes WG make sense.

Try using an image/photo editor, crop out a turret, and turn it. It looks like absolutely not better than 35 degrees off bow for X turret, and 40 for Y, due to the side guns being far from turret centerline. Front turrets are also not better than 40 degrees abaft (MAYBE 35 for turret B, or 2 for American lingo)

The draft specifically labels the turrets as turning 150° off centerline, which equates to 30° forward for the X & Y turrets, 30° aft for the A & B.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
175
[70]
Members
959 posts
3,691 battles
18 minutes ago, Lord_Magus said:

The draft specifically labels the turrets as turning 150° off centerline, which equates to 30° forward for the X & Y turrets, 30° aft for the A & B.

Strange, cause just eyeballing the outermost guns and how far off the center they are seem to suggest that would either clip the superstructure or at least do blast damage...

 

But if you way so, then there's even less excuse for how awful Sea Cattle (led to the slaughter and full of bullsh**) is.

Edited by Guardian54

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,012
[PNP]
Members
4,314 posts
13,313 battles

just another example of Wargamings complete incompetence when making a line that progresses properly with upgraded ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17
[STEM]
Beta Testers
83 posts
711 battles

seattle is trash and once again I am given another reason not to hand wargaming any money. "incentivizing" spending by adding paywalls in the grind line is scumbag behavior. Absolutely disgusting business decisions. Disappointing because I came back to this company interested in investing my time and money again and once again they have insulted my intelligence. Trying to pass this filth off as a tier 9. It's a tier 7 with extra bells at best but I know their game, money hungry losers want to try and coerce me into spending money instead of earning it properly. As expected of russian mexico.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×