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

Upgrade the secondary range and RoF for U.S. cruisers

49 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,557
[WOLF2]
Beta Testers
3,880 posts
5,259 battles

US cruisers don't mount torpedoes.  IRL this was because it was viewed as a way to improve cruiser survivability.  Unfortunately in WoWs, since torpedo mounts don't detonate, it only leaves U.S. cruisers with one less tool in their toolbox versus their opponents.

How about as an alternative, buffing the range and RoF of U.S. cruiser secondaries as a substitute for torps.  Maybe even taking 5"/38 mounts up to the range and RoF of Massachusetts (but without the built in accuracy upgrade.)   This would be a nice little bit of flavor for U.S. cruisers, that would create a theme within the line but wouldn't actually affect balance much.

How about it?

  • Cool 9
  • Boring 1
  • Bad 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,211
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
6,827 posts
10,390 battles

I think on Worcester in particular.

  • Funny 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,102
[DAKI]
WoWS Wiki Editor
7,335 posts
6,609 battles
2 minutes ago, TheDreadnought said:

a theme within the line

They already have a theme. For one half it is having drastically improved autobounce angles, for the others it's having more consumables than you have fingers to activate them.

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17
[-TOG-]
Members
30 posts
1,247 battles

LOL - so we can hear BB mains lament how cruisers are even more overpowered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
60
[RUSHB]
Members
91 posts
8,477 battles

They don't need this buff, the AP is already so strong, they have a long lasting radar, and basically OP levels of AA. This boost is not needed.

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1
  • Bad 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
392
[INTEL]
Members
812 posts
8,362 battles
8 minutes ago, dzilla77 said:

LOL - so we can hear BB mains lament how cruisers are even more overpowered.

You think the DDmafia wouldn't jump right in as well?

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
149
[2CUTE]
Beta Testers
1,731 posts
2,617 battles

USN Cruisers in general are DPS Masters, as exemplified by the Tier 10s Des Moines and Worcester. So why should they get a secondary buff if their primary armament makes up more than needed (not to mention relatively long radar durations) for their lack of torpedoes?

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
149
[2CUTE]
Beta Testers
1,731 posts
2,617 battles
1 minute ago, RipNuN2 said:

Why do they need a buff?

They don’t. In the right hands, an USN Cruiser can prove to be an utter nightmare with or without secondaries. Just the endless stream of HE shells.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,545
[OO7]
Alpha Tester
6,753 posts
3,490 battles
4 minutes ago, SireneRacker said:

They already have a theme. For one half it is having drastically improved autobounce angles, for the others it's having more consumables than you have fingers to activate them.

Autobounce is just not all that great of a benefit when you face qualty competition, and is mostly limited to dealing with other Cruisers.

While the line does get above average AA, it's nothing to write home about once BBs catch up around Tiers 6 and 7. And speccing for AA leaves you inferior against every other ship in the game as long as the rare CV isn't present. Then again the CV can still avoid you, or dev strike you at a high cost. And that's only with DF.

The US Cruisers, especially the CAs, operate on a razor thin margin of error and positioning. There needs to be some useful reward to either give them a bigger margin to work within, or adjust so that they aren't penalized so badly for improving the areas that make up their flavor.

These ships could really stand to have an "A rated" ship instead of a bunch of C and bellow ships.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
183
[CAST]
Members
1,216 posts
7,414 battles

The high rate of fire of USN cruisers means you don't need secondaries.  Just turn the guns and blap any DDs that appear in the secondaries range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
269
[SHOOT]
Beta Testers
1,718 posts
8,150 battles
41 minutes ago, RedRushian said:

They don't need this buff, the AP is already so strong, they have a long lasting radar, and basically OP levels of AA. This boost is not needed.

Those improved autobounce angles is restricted to the +t8 203mm supwr heavyweight shell; The rest are normal ap rounds.

The op has a point and they are well justified. An alternative wpd be to increase the rof of CL main battery, and increas the rod od all 5/38 derivative mounts.

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,557
[WOLF2]
Beta Testers
3,880 posts
5,259 battles
10 minutes ago, Murcc said:

The high rate of fire of USN cruisers means you don't need secondaries.  Just turn the guns and blap any DDs that appear in the secondaries range.

Des Moines/Worcester does not equal all US cruisers.  Baltimore is still at what, a 9/10 sec reload?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
488
[LUCK]
Members
1,320 posts
19,724 battles
56 minutes ago, mofton said:

I think on Worcester in particular.

I am assuming this is in jest.

Worcester doesn't have secondaries as I recall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
381
[DAY]
Members
1,186 posts
11,774 battles
32 minutes ago, Dictonary said:

They don’t. In the right hands, an USN Cruiser can prove to be an utter nightmare with or without secondaries. Just the endless stream of HE shells.

unfortunately USN ROF isn't a thing until tier10

tier 6 to 9 USN cruisers could use this buff imo(especially buffalo, that ship needs serious help) 

the two tier10s are fine on the other hand

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
488
[LUCK]
Members
1,320 posts
19,724 battles
1 hour ago, TheDreadnought said:

US cruisers don't mount torpedoes.  IRL this was because it was viewed as a way to improve cruiser survivability.  Unfortunately in WoWs, since torpedo mounts don't detonate, it only leaves U.S. cruisers with one less tool in their toolbox versus their opponents.

How about as an alternative, buffing the range and RoF of U.S. cruiser secondaries as a substitute for torps.  Maybe even taking 5"/38 mounts up to the range and RoF of Massachusetts (but without the built in accuracy upgrade.)   This would be a nice little bit of flavor for U.S. cruisers, that would create a theme within the line but wouldn't actually affect balance much.

How about it?

Sure. I've always been in favor of this. I did a secondary build on the old Cleve once during a free commander respec period. Though it was limited at T6 you could see the potential for hunting DDs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
149
[2CUTE]
Beta Testers
1,731 posts
2,617 battles
3 minutes ago, jason199506 said:

unfortunately USN ROF isn't a thing until tier10

tier 6 to 9 USN cruisers could use this buff imo(especially buffalo, that ship needs serious help) 

the two tier10s are fine on the other hand

 

Then a plain old buff to the rate of reload would work better than a secondary buff.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,156 posts
3,146 battles
10 minutes ago, jason199506 said:

tier 6 to 9 USN cruisers could use this buff imo(especially buffalo, that ship needs serious help) 

Buffalo should get Baltimore's 10 second reload. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,545
[OO7]
Alpha Tester
6,753 posts
3,490 battles
5 minutes ago, Dictonary said:

Then a plain old buff to the rate of reload would work better than a secondary buff.

That's what I would advocate for, but WarGaming has routinely shot this down, despite the CAs having the worst DPM of other CAs at Tiers 6-9, and the CLs are a mixed bag as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,545
[OO7]
Alpha Tester
6,753 posts
3,490 battles
Just now, CarbonButtprint said:

Buffalo should get Baltimore's 10 second reload. 

Or just replace her with something that makes way more sense for proper line progression.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,156 posts
3,146 battles
1 minute ago, Madwolf05 said:

Or just replace her with something that makes way more sense for proper line progression.

They won't replace buffalo, since she's a very recent addition. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,826
[ARRGG]
[ARRGG]
Members
5,770 posts

Oh  boy The mafia will soon become involved and any CA/L Improvements will be Denied as "One more Nerf to DD's.

The BB's of organized and favored Ships will mount a Protest of Epic Proportions that WG will have to respond to.

Let's Face Facts the CA/L's will never have a fair shake just more upside down views in battles. 

The Player base Loves an easy killed CA/L. Heaven forbid A CA/L gets to actually defend itself like they did in RL.

CA/L's Are the sheep lead to slaughter. The point Pintas of WoWs.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,557
[WOLF2]
Beta Testers
3,880 posts
5,259 battles
11 minutes ago, Madwolf05 said:

That's what I would advocate for, but WarGaming has routinely shot this down, despite the CAs having the worst DPM of other CAs at Tiers 6-9, and the CLs are a mixed bag as well.

This idea isn't about giving a significant buff to U.S. cruisers.  It's just about adding a nice little bit of flavor that wouldn't change much in the overall balance scheme.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
183
[CAST]
Members
1,216 posts
7,414 battles
29 minutes ago, TheDreadnought said:

Des Moines/Worcester does not equal all US cruisers.  Baltimore is still at what, a 9/10 sec reload?

Yes.  I guess I have to concede that one.  I was only thinking of the T10s and the CL line that have faster reloads.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×