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

Should it be acceptable for any cruiser to have worse concealment than any BB of the same tier?

Should it be acceptable for any cruiser to have worse concealment than any BB of the same tier?  

89 members have voted

  1. 1. Should it be acceptable for any cruiser to have worse concealment than any BB of the same tier?

    • Yes
      21
    • No
      29
    • Depends on the cruiser
      39

23 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

4
[BLUMR]
Members
66 posts
6,415 battles

Now, I have coined this question in my head for some time, and I would like to know what the community’s views on this topic is.

Cruisers are generally “food” for battleships – but, it can go either way, given a skilled player is at the helm of the cruiser. Battleships are known for their alpha strike capabilities, being able to either one-shot, or serverely cripple cruisers with one salvo. Of course, this is all by-chance, and it is never consistent. Cruisers are known to be the “all-around” type of ship, to which they can both be beaten by any other class of ship, yet still have the potential to beat them back. Cruisers are rather squishy ships, and to which they almost-all of them have large, above-water citadels; complimented with weak bow and aft armour schemes.

Since a battleship has the potential to either one-shot or severely cripple a cruiser, as it gives broadside, even often when properly angled, is it acceptable that some battleships are able to out-spot cruisers? Or even, some cruisers have worse concealment ratings than battleships of the same tier. A cruiser often within its detection range of a battleship, is a dead cruiser. And if it tries to turn away, the cruiser is likely to take some serious punishment.

 

I will use T10 ships, as an example, since I primarily play T10:

Moskva’s lowest-possible detection range is 13.8 Km, and Hindenburg tops-out at 12.7 Km. Both cruisers have among the worst concealment for cruisers at T10.

Yamato’s lowest-possible detection range is 13.5 Km, Montana tops-out at 13.4, and Conqueror with 11.8 Km. All of which out-spot Moskva, and only Conqueror is able to out-spot Hindenburg.

Moskva has a large, squishy citadel, to which she is bound for dead, if she presents such a broadside to any T10 BB. Hindenburg has an armoured citadel, but she still can be punished hard; albeit, not as-easily as Moskva, and other T10 cruisers. However, both of these cruisers are able to out-DPM any T10 battleship, and given that you have a skilled player using them, they could single-handedly take a T10 BB out. Granted, that is a rare occurence, and it is very difficult to pull-off. That being said, cruisers have the potential to solo battleships, but battleships, more-often than not, have the ability to deal with cruisers. A low-skilled battleship captain can deal with a low-skilled cruiser captain, and a low-skilled battleship captain can still give a highly-skilled cruiser captain some trouble.

In my opinion, I see that it is not fair for a generally-superior type of ship to have the ability to out-spot cruisers of the same tier; as the majority of cruiser players are not skilled-enough to deal with battleships, and even the skilled ones still find low-skilled battleships to be troublesome. Cruisers may have the potential to deal with BB’s, but I do not believe that it is right for cruisers to have worse concealment than ships that can outright delete them; regardless of the tier.

However, I feel that this issue is better resolved by either universally buffing cruiser concealment, or by only buffing the concealment of cruisers that have worse concealment than BB’s. There are exceptions, of course. Cruisers that have concealment 10 Km or less should not receive this buff, as this would make a destroyer’s life increasingly difficult, making spotting a bigger task. If BB’s just had their concealment directly nerfed, I feel that this would just give players even more incentive to sit back, as well as the nerf would make BB’s less fun to play, overall. Some may disagree with me, but I would rather not have BB concealment be nerfed. I enjoy playing my fair-share of battleship, too. No one likes being spotted from outer space.

 

Now, again, my question: Should it be acceptable for any cruiser to have worse concealment than any BB of the same tier?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4
[BLUMR]
Members
66 posts
6,415 battles
7 minutes ago, mrieder79 said:

There are cruisers with better concealment than some DDs as well. 

Off the top of my head, I only know that Khaba can reach a concealment of 9.7 Km, which is equal to Zao, as well as being worse than Minotaur and Worcester. Though, to be fair, Khaba has some things going for it that allow it to disengage pretty easily. Please, let me know which destroyer’s have worse concealment than cruisers. I would like to know, as I am ignorant about destroyer statistics.

Edited by SpeedySpeedBoi
Forgot to add a word

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
412 posts
6,860 battles

What things factor into concealment theoretically? The profile of the ship, the amount and density of smoke? The height above surface ? The color ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
862
[SPTR]
Members
25,997 posts
11,469 battles

My rudder build Henri gets jumped on every now and then by stealth build Conquerors and montanas but thats ok because when I see them suddenly appear 12-14km away firing their cylinders at me I just press the AS or SD keys and they miss their shots the dodging is more pronounced with engine boost active.

I generally like the idea of stealth build BBs it encourages or makes them push up and fufile their supposed intended role.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4
[BLUMR]
Members
66 posts
6,415 battles
19 minutes ago, Visidious said:

What things factor into concealment theoretically? The profile of the ship, the amount and density of smoke? The height above surface ? The color ?

In reality, all of those things. In World of Warships, coding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
168
[ICBM]
Members
366 posts
5,492 battles
42 minutes ago, SpeedySpeedBoi said:

Off the top of my head, I only know that Khaba can reach a concealment of 9.7 Km, which is equal to Zao, as well as being worse than Minotaur and Worcester. Though, to be fair, Khaba has some things going for it that allow it to disengage pretty easily. Please, let me know which destroyer’s have worse concealment than cruisers. I would like to know, as I am ignorant about destroyer statistics.

Khab is the only one I know of. And, just so you know, disengaging from a minotaur at 8.9 km is not easy at all unless you are already angled away. You will  likely not live through the turn if you are going head-on. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4
[BLUMR]
Members
66 posts
6,415 battles
1 minute ago, mrieder79 said:

Khab is the only one I know of. And, just so you know, disengaging from a minotaur at 8.9 km is not easy at all unless you are already angled away. You will  likely not live through the turn if you are going head-on. 

Yeah, I would not doubt that it is difficult. As a Minotaur owner, I know how powerful she can be, at those close ranges. Haven’t been on the receiving end, as I don’t play destroyers. Though, if you know how to WASD and use the throttle, I imagine it would be tough for a Minotaur to land hits on a Khaba, even if the Khaba has to do a 180.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
606
[ARRGG]
Members
4,764 posts
7,709 battles

The spotting mechanics of ships at the moment is made worse  by the lag of being detected when firing your guns, in my Hindy I’m spotted by a DD that I don’t see and my incoming alert goes off ...3 BBS have just fired on me.. you think they would be visable buts it’s a full 5 seconds for that to happen and then there only visable for a short time

ive been in battles with BBS with low detection in my Hindenburg  hard to know what exactly there Detection is because of the many spotting variables and heat of battle but one thing for sure there not going visable when firing for some time, I’ll be zoomed in returning fire open Ocean and they disappear then I’ll see there guns fire but no ship.. luckily I use incoming fire alert cause without it.. it’s gonna hurt

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
358
[SYJ]
Members
1,010 posts
2,260 battles

So then by that logic cruisers shouldn't be able to citadel a battleship? Or maybe have less fire chance?

 

Every ship is different. Invest you skill points and upgrades into things you need. 

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4
[BLUMR]
Members
66 posts
6,415 battles
25 minutes ago, _1204_ said:

So then by that logic cruisers shouldn't be able to citadel a battleship? Or maybe have less fire chance?

 

Every ship is different. Invest you skill points and upgrades into things you need. 

Cruisers don’t delete battleships with their main guns. And while cruisers rarely ever citadel battleships, they only do so for small chunks of health. If a cruiser gets one citadel on a BB, that is roughly 5K or less damage for that one citadel. I just find it ridiculous that some ships of the [arguably] squishiest class have worse concealment than BB(s) of the same tier.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
693
[OPRAH]
Beta Testers
4,145 posts
13,520 battles

WG developers have their reasons and data for the concealment/detection mechanics to work the way they do and are not beholden to tell us those reasons.

Oh and this is a game not a simulator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32
[FF]
Members
160 posts
6,389 battles

The Moskva is almost as large as the Yamato. So if size is related to concealment the yes some cruisers will have worse concealment 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8
[SSN]
Members
40 posts
10,607 battles

The reality is... of course a BB, due to size, should generally be spotted before a cruiser.. in most instances. Weather, light, islands...etc, all add in to that reality.  That said, reality is not a key metric that has to be met in WOW. If you look to actual ship to ship battles from history, the misses far, far outweighed the hits. And at first, of course just being able to see each other was the primary spotting tool used. Guesses of speed, direction, etc... were all just that, best guesses.

What about "reality", which I think is the primary question here, it just can not apply in every instance in a game such as this. Or, since our radar is point to point, line of sight, we would never be able to see those ships hiding behind the huge islands ... getting ready to deliver pain to us as we sail by. I would like a more realistic touch, but I assume, to make the game entertaining and competitive, the developers have to make "outside of reality" decisions to just make things work.

I certainly have a lot more to learn in this game, and I too wonder why my Moskva is seen and shot at before my clan mates Montana in many, many matches when we are running close.  I guess the "reality" is... it is what it is, unless a better idea comes along. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
669
[CAFE]
Members
1,397 posts
10,859 battles

I think the concealment ranges are fine right now and the Moskva does not need another buff. I would go so far to say the Moskva was overbuffed...

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,010
[SALVO]
Members
17,707 posts
18,486 battles
4 hours ago, Visidious said:

What things factor into concealment theoretically? The profile of the ship, the amount and density of smoke? The height above surface ? The color ?

From a realistic standpoint, the only factor that should really matter is the height of the ship. 

Oh, I suppose at lower tiers, it should also include which ships used coal fired boilers rather than cleaner oil fired ones.  You might not be able to see those low profile WW1 era BBs at all that great a distance, but you sure could see their smoke at one heck of a distance.  There's no hiding that thick black coal smoke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,010
[SALVO]
Members
17,707 posts
18,486 battles

I think that it's a matter of realism versus game play.  From a realism perspective, cruisers should always have better concealment than same tier, same time frame battleships.  BBs would simply have taller masts and be spotted from a greater distance.  But from a game play perspective, where the devs are trying to encourage BB players to move in closer, the use of concealment to all them to close distances unspotted is understandable.

And let's also not forget that some of these "cruisers" are pretty damned large in their own right.  Some of these ships that get categorized as "cruisers" in game are closer to battlecruisers or so-called super-cruisers or "large cruisers", all of which start to border on smaller battleships in size (for their era).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
349
[WOLF2]
Members
1,592 posts
13,627 battles
3 hours ago, SpeedySpeedBoi said:

Cruisers don’t delete battleships with their main guns. And while cruisers rarely ever citadel battleships, they only do so for small chunks of health. If a cruiser gets one citadel on a BB, that is roughly 5K or less damage for that one citadel. I just find it ridiculous that some ships of the [arguably] squishiest class have worse concealment than BB(s) of the same tier.

I think you knew this before you posted, but WG has been experimenting with battlecruisers, super sized hulls and BB guns on cruisers for some time now

Since cruisers are the versatile swiss army knives and cover a lot of uses it only makes sense that there would be some overlap between classes

This also explains the separation now between light and heavy cruises - pick your poison 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4
[BLUMR]
Members
66 posts
6,415 battles
4 minutes ago, Commander_367 said:

I think you knew this before you posted, but WG has been experimenting with battlecruisers, super sized hulls and BB guns on cruisers for some time now

Since cruisers are the versatile swiss army knives and cover a lot of uses it only makes sense that there would be some overlap between classes

This also explains the separation now between light and heavy cruises - pick your poison 

 

Yeah, it makes sense that there is some overlap, when you put it that way. Still, though, large turning circles and or super-fragile broadsides on cruisers when most T10 BB’s have waterline citadels or some form of protection; isn’t that a bit overkill? Makes repositioning, something that cruisers ought to be able to do, if they quit firing, a difficult chore. They might as well just label them as battleships, if they don’t want to allow an easier way to do “cruiser” things.

Seems difficult to balance these battlecruisers, and I don’t even know if what I’m saying would be balanced. Maybe too good, in the hands of a skilled player. A lower skill-floor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
309
[CVA16]
Members
2,458 posts
10,153 battles

WOWS is not real life or a simulator BUT, IRL having your gun directors mounted high was an advantage. You could see farther than your foe. Your foe might spot the top of your superstructure or your smoke but would need to see your hull to get speed and direction info AND to spot the fall of shot. He might know you were there but could not reliably shoot at you (spotter planes could theoretically help). You however with that tall pagoda (IJN) mast could see the foes hull and start firing. In game, height is a detriment as it just hurts your concealment with no bonus to range (another WG balance/whim factor). I always assumed WG had a base formula for concealment  based on length and height but then applied a fudge-factor for balance/bias reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FBXGC]
Members
193 posts
1,796 battles
On 2018-08-19 at 7:33 AM, FratStar4Life said:

I think the concealment ranges are fine right now and the Moskva does not need another buff. I would go so far to say the Moskva was overbuffed...

*Full disclosure, I play the Moskva*

 

I feel like she is very playable in the current meta but I wouldn't say she was overbuffed in the least. The stats have her middle of the road or bottom of the list for t10 cruisers in all categories.  Even using W/R as the best catch all stat, she is exactly in the middle at just a smidge above 50%. Stalingrad, Worcester, Salem, and Henry are higher on the table in every category. 

 

Just to clarify, I am not advocating for a moskva buff. Merely reacting to the general impression I see on the boards of it being OP.  T10 Cruisers are in a decent place right now compared to the other classes. BB's and DD's have much larger discrepancies between the best and worse in class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
51 posts
655 battles
On 8/19/2018 at 7:45 AM, SpeedySpeedBoi said:

Now, I have coined this question in my head for some time, and I would like to know what the community’s views on this topic is.

Cruisers are generally “food” for battleships – but, it can go either way, given a skilled player is at the helm of the cruiser. Battleships are known for their alpha strike capabilities, being able to either one-shot, or serverely cripple cruisers with one salvo. Of course, this is all by-chance, and it is never consistent. Cruisers are known to be the “all-around” type of ship, to which they can both be beaten by any other class of ship, yet still have the potential to beat them back. Cruisers are rather squishy ships, and to which they almost-all of them have large, above-water citadels; complimented with weak bow and aft armour schemes.

Since a battleship has the potential to either one-shot or severely cripple a cruiser, as it gives broadside, even often when properly angled, is it acceptable that some battleships are able to out-spot cruisers? Or even, some cruisers have worse concealment ratings than battleships of the same tier. A cruiser often within its detection range of a battleship, is a dead cruiser. And if it tries to turn away, the cruiser is likely to take some serious punishment.

 

I will use T10 ships, as an example, since I primarily play T10:

Moskva’s lowest-possible detection range is 13.8 Km, and Hindenburg tops-out at 12.7 Km. Both cruisers have among the worst concealment for cruisers at T10.

Yamato’s lowest-possible detection range is 13.5 Km, Montana tops-out at 13.4, and Conqueror with 11.8 Km. All of which out-spot Moskva, and only Conqueror is able to out-spot Hindenburg.

Moskva has a large, squishy citadel, to which she is bound for dead, if she presents such a broadside to any T10 BB. Hindenburg has an armoured citadel, but she still can be punished hard; albeit, not as-easily as Moskva, and other T10 cruisers. However, both of these cruisers are able to out-DPM any T10 battleship, and given that you have a skilled player using them, they could single-handedly take a T10 BB out. Granted, that is a rare occurence, and it is very difficult to pull-off. That being said, cruisers have the potential to solo battleships, but battleships, more-often than not, have the ability to deal with cruisers. A low-skilled battleship captain can deal with a low-skilled cruiser captain, and a low-skilled battleship captain can still give a highly-skilled cruiser captain some trouble.

In my opinion, I see that it is not fair for a generally-superior type of ship to have the ability to out-spot cruisers of the same tier; as the majority of cruiser players are not skilled-enough to deal with battleships, and even the skilled ones still find low-skilled battleships to be troublesome. Cruisers may have the potential to deal with BB’s, but I do not believe that it is right for cruisers to have worse concealment than ships that can outright delete them; regardless of the tier.

However, I feel that this issue is better resolved by either universally buffing cruiser concealment, or by only buffing the concealment of cruisers that have worse concealment than BB’s. There are exceptions, of course. Cruisers that have concealment 10 Km or less should not receive this buff, as this would make a destroyer’s life increasingly difficult, making spotting a bigger task. If BB’s just had their concealment directly nerfed, I feel that this would just give players even more incentive to sit back, as well as the nerf would make BB’s less fun to play, overall. Some may disagree with me, but I would rather not have BB concealment be nerfed. I enjoy playing my fair-share of battleship, too. No one likes being spotted from outer space.

 

Now, again, my question: Should it be acceptable for any cruiser to have worse concealment than any BB of the same tier?

Moskva is a battle cruiser, which is basically a battleship without the armor so it's about the same size as a battleship and it's going to conceal about as well as a battleship.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
309
[CVA16]
Members
2,458 posts
10,153 battles
On 9/26/2018 at 3:22 AM, Trakks said:

Moskva is a battle cruiser, which is basically a battleship without the armor so it's about the same size as a battleship and it's going to conceal about as well as a battleship. 

Then there are the Stalingrad/Kronstadt "cruisers".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×