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

Interesting suggestion for a Buffalo buff

17 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
1,158 posts
3,146 battles

I've heard a lot of people say Buffalo isn't as good as old Baltimore was (but I wouldn't know because I haven't played her), and I had a crazy idea. What if we gave Buffalo her torpedo launchers back? She apparently had some a long time ago but WG just put some sheet metal over them when they brought her back. A set of Mahan's torps (stock or upgraded) would be a nice addition. I can see why people wouldn't want this, since Buffalo would be the only high tier american cruiser with torps. I'm sure it's been suggested before but I wanted to see what people thought about this. 

buffalo.jpg.70a36161db2ea0100d148d110f489aa1.jpg

  • Cool 3
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
672
[KP]
Beta Testers
1,837 posts
11,180 battles

Bigger horns, and balls to use them

-1x-1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,509
[AHOY_]
Beta Testers
6,503 posts
3,435 battles
7 minutes ago, CarbonButtprint said:

I've heard a lot of people say Buffalo isn't as good as old Baltimore was (but I wouldn't know because I haven't played her), and I had a crazy idea. What if we gave Buffalo her torpedo launchers back? She apparently had some a long time ago but WG just put some sheet metal over them when they brought her back. A set of Mahan's torps (stock or upgraded) would be a nice addition. I can see why people wouldn't want this, since Buffalo would be the only high tier american cruiser with torps. I'm sure it's been suggested before but I wanted to see what people thought about this. 

buffalo.jpg.70a36161db2ea0100d148d110f489aa1.jpg

Won't happen because sooner or later Buffalo with torpedoes will be a Premium T9 ship they can sell for Coal and FXP.

It would probably be the same old Sims "sea mines", or slightly faster Mahan torpedoes. Would likely lose the ability to Hydro outright, being left with DFAA+Radar/Planes and the standard DCP+C-RP, and have an adjusted AA setup (slightly weaker, but redistributed auras/mounts, like Missouri vs Iowa).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,067
[ARGSY]
Members
6,477 posts
4,321 battles

Unserious suggestion:

 

Give her access to ONE 203mm atomic round per game. Effects:

1) Atomic round takes a full minute to load (safety interlocks etc.).

2) Target is destroyed instantly if struck by the round.

3) Everything within 5km of the round when it explodes takes 50% of remaining health as instantaneous damage and all four (or three as applicable) fires are lit.

4) EMP fries all radars in ships carrying it for the duration of the battle.

5) All ships lose 5% of their health per minute and 5% on quantitative captain skills as their crews sicken from radiation exposure.

Edited by Ensign_Cthulhu
  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,774 posts
8,328 battles
13 minutes ago, CarbonButtprint said:

I've heard a lot of people say Buffalo isn't as good as old Baltimore was (but I wouldn't know because I haven't played her), and I had a crazy idea. What if we gave Buffalo her torpedo launchers back? She apparently had some a long time ago but WG just put some sheet metal over them when they brought her back. A set of Mahan's torps (stock or upgraded) would be a nice addition. I can see why people wouldn't want this, since Buffalo would be the only high tier american cruiser with torps. I'm sure it's been suggested before but I wanted to see what people thought about this. 

buffalo.jpg.70a36161db2ea0100d148d110f489aa1.jpg

NO WAY IN LIVING ***************

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
697
[5D5]
Members
2,296 posts
14,427 battles

The ship hasn't been out like two months yet so I had some doubts if it needs a buff.

I took a look at WoWs Stats and the only 2 differences I noted between the ships is that players are averaging 7k more damage in Buffalo while losing  slightly more with her (49.79 vs 50.36). Everything else was very close.

If people are trying to play Buffalo like Baltimore that could be a user error. I tanked a lot of damage in Balti but Buffalo seems to be a more maneuverable boat so no reason to tank when you can dodge shells better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,742
[INTEL]
Members
8,604 posts
25,782 battles

She doesn't really need torps, though that is one possibility.

But that's not their biggest problem...

The buff that she, Baltimore, and all the US light cruisers need is at least another 1.5 kms of range. Yesterday got stuck on Okinawa in Helena and had to play open water cruiser. What a joke, the T7 light cruiser has less range than T4 Phoenix. Not til T8 do you get your range back, sorta, and Seattle is a hilarious 15.7 kms fully upgraded (never will I take that POS into Randoms). Consider that Fletcher has nearly the same range with AFT and with AFT Sims outranges Helena (huh?). Baltimore and Buffalo both have horribly gimped ranges. 

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,826
[ARRGG]
[ARRGG]
Members
5,770 posts
47 minutes ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

Unserious suggestion:

 

Give her access to ONE 203mm atomic round per game. Effects:

1) Atomic round takes a full minute to load (safety interlocks etc.).

2) Target is destroyed instantly if struck by the round.

3) Everything within 5km of the round when it explodes takes 50% of remaining health as instantaneous damage and all four (or three as applicable) fires are lit.

4) EMP fries all radars in ships carrying it for the duration of the battle.

5) All ships lose 5% of their health per minute and 5% on quantitative captain skills as their crews sicken from radiation exposure.

r8CDkOn.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,389
[RLGN]
Members
8,310 posts
17,372 battles
27 minutes ago, CLUCH_CARGO said:

r8CDkOn.gif

I don’t know...

Call the threat of its use a motivator not to cluster up behind some rock with a bunch of other lemmings, I mean ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,067
[ARGSY]
Members
6,477 posts
4,321 battles
40 minutes ago, CLUCH_CARGO said:

r8CDkOn.gif

I did say it was an unserious suggestion. Lighten up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,826
[ARRGG]
[ARRGG]
Members
5,770 posts
1 minute ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

I did say it was an unserious suggestion. Lighten up.

I know hence Sheldon's suggestion

Edited by CLUCH_CARGO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
404
[WOLF5]
Members
1,543 posts
2,154 battles

Buffalo doesn't need a buff. It's pretty strong as is. Almost OP. It has a lot of big guns that fire pretty quickly. It can throw a lot of firepower out. I stunk in the Baltimore, but I feel pretty comfortable in the Buffalo. The torps wouldn't do much. Even on IJN CAs the torps only have limited uses.

I do agree with the other poster that range could be better across the board for the USN CLs and CAs. It's a little short for sure. But with the shell velocity, good luck hitting anything beyond those ranges. I don't know why WG decided the USN must have terrible ballistics, but those require shorter ranges, and so become a serious handicap, especially at high tier. I agree, less than 16 km range at T8 is ridiculous. It's not a huge problem, but increasing the velocity of the shells, and so the ranges, on USN cruisers (and even DDs) would make them a lot more comfortable to play. I don't know how it would affect balance, but I doubt having a US ship that can be effective at 18km is game breaking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
316
[-WPG-]
Members
828 posts
3,406 battles
56 minutes ago, AJTP89 said:

Buffalo doesn't need a buff. It's pretty strong as is. Almost OP.

I don't hate the Buffalo like some, but it's definitely not "almost OP". Lowest winrate, lowest damage, lowest frags of all T9 cruisers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
149
[S0L0]
Beta Testers
501 posts
3,673 battles

Buffalo's torpedoes are an issue because the original WG model had them (I think someone data mined that they were same as Atlanta).  Norman Friedman's US Cruiser history includes a table on CA-B (Buffalo's design) that lists eight 21" torpedo tubes, but the line drawing on the next page doesn't show any torps, nor does the Spring Styles drawing show them.  IMO the USN Bureau of Ships would not have approved the torp launchers in the final design since they were removed from all other contemporary USN cruisers.

If you really want to buff the Buffalo, give her the planned belt armor -- 7.5 inches / 190mm.  All three CA designs were supposed to be immune to super heavy 8" shells and can be looked at as an interim step between Baltimore and the Alaskas.  Either way, the USN purposefully designed CA-B to be stronger than Baltimore -- more guns (12 to 9) and more armor (7.5 vs 6in belt).  The WG model only gave us the extra turret and a few MM on the deck armor.

s511-25.jpgIMG_1828.thumb.JPG.783b1581c26ce71abeba74761ccc44c3.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
919
[LEGIO]
Members
3,003 posts
5,412 battles
On 7/15/2018 at 8:22 PM, missile742 said:

Buffalo's torpedoes are an issue because the original WG model had them (I think someone data mined that they were same as Atlanta).  Norman Friedman's US Cruiser history includes a table on CA-B (Buffalo's design) that lists eight 21" torpedo tubes, but the line drawing on the next page doesn't show any torps, nor does the Spring Styles drawing show them.  IMO the USN Bureau of Ships would not have approved the torp launchers in the final design since they were removed from all other contemporary USN cruisers.

If you really want to buff the Buffalo, give her the planned belt armor -- 7.5 inches / 190mm.  All three CA designs were supposed to be immune to super heavy 8" shells and can be looked at as an interim step between Baltimore and the Alaskas.  Either way, the USN purposefully designed CA-B to be stronger than Baltimore -- more guns (12 to 9) and more armor (7.5 vs 6in belt).  The WG model only gave us the extra turret and a few MM on the deck armor.

s511-25.jpgIMG_1828.thumb.JPG.783b1581c26ce71abeba74761ccc44c3.JPG

Interesting. I wonder why the eventual Des Moines class reverted back to the 6" armor belt.

Giving the Buffalo 7.6" of belt armor might make it quite a bit more durable which would be helpful for such a larger and less maneuverable cruiser. Though I really think shaving a second off the reload time (so it would be 12 seconds standard) would be a good buff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,509
[AHOY_]
Beta Testers
6,503 posts
3,435 battles
On 7/15/2018 at 7:22 PM, missile742 said:

Buffalo's torpedoes are an issue because the original WG model had them (I think someone data mined that they were same as Atlanta).  Norman Friedman's US Cruiser history includes a table on CA-B (Buffalo's design) that lists eight 21" torpedo tubes, but the line drawing on the next page doesn't show any torps, nor does the Spring Styles drawing show them.  IMO the USN Bureau of Ships would not have approved the torp launchers in the final design since they were removed from all other contemporary USN cruisers.

WG used a slightly earlier version; a semi-final one that still had torpedoes. They said as much when they were quizzed on it some time back.

As for a buff, the armoring would be a bit nice, or a slight reload reduction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,827
[V_KNG]
Beta Testers
9,282 posts

Strange thing Buffalo. I just got her yesterday. I'd personally like a tad more speed. Everything else seems okay to me. Sure a buff on range is sometimes nice but then you have larger bloom when fired. You also have more dispersion at that greater range so just how effective would a klik or two be? Draws more reds on you and the dispersion increases. Not good, eh? 

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.

×