Jump to content
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
POTUS_MOGUL_45

why do US cruisers underperform

48 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
4 posts
470 battles

Just want to hear thoughts on why most US ships under perform in game and on the stats? I had a look at the stats and nearly all of them seem to perform worse than most of their counterparts. Take the Pensacola I heard it was nerfed but nearly all the people say it used to be much better and that wargamming shouldn't of touched it at all. They say it has awesome guns but I find you really cant use them because you have no armor and are spotted from the entire map and when you are maneuvering to avoid being hit which is all the time you cant shoot back because the guns rotate so awfully slow, its like a battleship stuck in a cruiser hull and without any of the benefits. And I have been looking at the rest of the tech tree and noticed a huge difference between the US ships and their counter parts strange armor layouts that are not accurate. Not only are the stats lower but on paper they just about come up short in almost every instance with few exceptions and all the other ships seem to have gimmicks that give them so much of a advantage. The US was supposed to be known for its radar and sonar, damage control, durability and there dd ships don't have any of that while other nations who are not known for it are loaded out with all these gimmicks. And to top it off most these ships with all these gimmicks were never built IDGI. Some players say its the bias of the Russian developers and that their jealousy of the real world power and technical might of the USA and our people is the reason for the unrealistic stats and unbalance. IDK  I like the game and really digged it but I am American and want to play US ships but they suck so bad it not really fun so I don't play hardly at all anymore. If I cant play US ships and enjoy it whats the point? Hey anyone see that game war thunder Naval? Its still in development but that sh&t looks amazballs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
580
[OPRAH]
[OPRAH]
Beta Testers
3,758 posts
12,378 battles

Because so many players don't learn how to use them! Clue 1. US CAs are not battering rams!

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
486
[-1]
Beta Testers
1,795 posts
18,670 battles

Qualities of player maybe ??? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
57 posts
2,637 battles
14 minutes ago, RipNuN2 said:

Paragraphs please.

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
102 posts
10,601 battles

usually US cruisers are ships that are hard to play, second is normal that the stats of the US cruisers are worse because it was the first line to enter for the US, so more battles can equal worse stats, third, the US cruiser lines becomes really good in high tiers, while at middle tiers they can be enjoyed.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
933
Members
4,441 posts
6,134 battles
22 minutes ago, KURT_WOLFF said:

Qualities of player maybe ??? 

Phoenix is a deadly ship but you usually do not see her played well. I agree with your opinion. 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,667
[TBW]
Members
6,311 posts
11,857 battles
53 minutes ago, POTUS_MOGUL_45 said:

all the other ships seem to have gimmicks

The US gimmick is great AA and that is why they under perform. I have never seen enough CVs in the game to make them a viable choice for an AA build, so they can never show their potential. If you do choose an AA build they become even less effective, until they finally get a match with 4 CVs. You then have to have a very stupid CV player fly over and attack you. In short, they need the perfect storm to do well.

Truthfully I though there was going to be a punch line because of the title. Something like. Why do the US cruisers all under perform? "the Captains all ran out of Viagra".

Edited by Sovereigndawg
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
107
[KNTI2]
[KNTI2]
Members
166 posts
8,132 battles

US does exceptionally well in the support department. Since there is rarely any CVs, they can't really stress their strength except radar. Damage wise, since it's the most played cruiser class, there is a lot of people who don't quite play them right and therefore drag the overall stats down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
258
[CVA16]
Members
2,164 posts
9,615 battles
6 minutes ago, Sovereigndawg said:

The US gimmick is great AA and that is why they under perform.

Very true. For example, other nations torps can be used every game. AA one game in 4? This goes up the whole line. The US line does get radar but so do a couple of others. As far as performing, the Dallas (against all predictions) and the Helena are doing pretty well. Cleveland is also hanging in there. The heavy cruiser line definitely seem meh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
813 posts
8,519 battles

Because people aren't very good at playing American ships.

You have the Worcester which is one of the most broken ships at high tiers with insane vision control and firepower and people somehow still think it's balanced.

Edited by AchievementsToYou

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
898
[LEGIO]
Members
2,956 posts
5,370 battles

AAA isn't a valid gimmick for WG to balance ships on. US cruisers have gotten substantially better with the revamp but some improvements would be great.

 

Erie - RIP old T1 ships that could see T2 and had both AP and HE.

Chester - Meh. It's a T2 cruiser, I think you have to expect them to be unimpressive.

St. Louis - Good. As close as you can get to one of the historical armored cruisers. AP shattering less would be nice but I suppose I should expect AP shells from the turn of the century to shatter a lot.

Phoenix - Meh. Are T4 cruisers even allowed to be decent?

Omaha - Bad. A floating citadel that everybody targets first and I'm not certain how to make it less bad. Maybe give it AP shells with the same Krupp rating the Stalinium shells on the lend-lease Murmansk has?

Dallas - Bad. Significantly worse than the old T6 Cleveland. Needs a rate of fire increase at the minimum.

Helena - Good, but could still use a rate of fire increase. There is no reason the guns on Dallas and Helena should fire slower than the higher performance Russian 6" guns.

Cleveland - Good. Not certain if anything should be changed. I still would like to see a universal buff to 5"/38 secondaries.

Seattle - Bad. A downgrade from Cleveland. Needs a rate of fire increase (5 or 5.5 second reload would be good) and faster turret traverse at the minimum. Pales in comparison to UK's Neptune.

Worcester - Good. No changes needed.

 

Pensacola - Good? Hard to balance due to impressive armament for T6. Crew dies of old age before the turrets can turn 180 degrees.

New Orleans - Good since the revamp.

Baltimore - Good since the revamp. I still think all T8 cruisers should have repair party though.

Buffalo - Okay? Could use a second shaved from its reload time. Maybe the additional armor the real CA-B design was supposed to have.

Des Moines - Good, although the fictional and paper T10 cruisers sometimes overshadow it in my opinion.

 

Edited by Lampshade_M1A2
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,582
[SALVO]
Members
16,618 posts
17,268 battles
44 minutes ago, RickPatton said:

+1

+2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,582
[SALVO]
Members
16,618 posts
17,268 battles
31 minutes ago, Sovereigndawg said:

The US gimmick is great AA and that is why they under perform. I have never seen enough CVs in the game to make them a viable choice for an AA build, so they can never show their potential. If you do choose an AA build they become even less effective, until they finally get a match with 4 CVs. You then have to have a very stupid CV player fly over and attack you. In short, they need the perfect storm to do well.

To me, the great AA thing should just be the way USN cruisers are and not thought of as their flavor or a gimmick.  IMO, the real national flavor should be gun accuracy, due to the USN's fire control radar, which would just be something baked in on higher tier USN cruisers, say tier 7+.  Of course, given how floaty USN shells can be good accuracy may not be worth as much as it'd be for ships with higher velocity shells.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,667
[TBW]
Members
6,311 posts
11,857 battles
2 minutes ago, Crucis said:

Of course, given how floaty USN shells can be good accuracy may not be worth as much as it'd be for ships with higher velocity shells.

I see your point, it would be all or nothing, at least with a little more dispersion they might hit more often at distance. Then they would suffer at closer range though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
4,731 posts
5,464 battles
1 hour ago, Lampshade_M1A2 said:

Dallas - Bad. Significantly worse than the old T6 Cleveland. Needs a rate of fire increase at the minimum.

People seriously need to stop comparing Dallas to the old T6 Cleveland. Nothing will compare well with T6 Cleveland. It was a full blown T8 cruiser shoe-horned into T6.

That said, Dallas is, to borrow from LWM's rating system, a mehbote. She's not the strongest T6 CL, but she's also not the weakest. She's average, middle of the pack performance wise(like the rest of the USN cruisers). Could she use some improvements? Sure, so could some other USN cruisers. But to label Dallas 'bad' because the comparison is to a ship that's rightfully two whole tiers higher(and much, much more modern and advanced from a design standpoint) is just downright unfair.

Edited by GhostSwordsman
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
449 posts
12,191 battles

The game takes in real life characteristics and employs them into the game, but the game doesn't take those factors into consideration.

The balloon shell arcs: The US deliberately chose to use less powder to propel the shells. This decreases wear on the guns and the ships would not need to be refit as often. If the US Navy didn't have to make that choice as in the game, then they would use more powder and the arcs would be flatter and the penetration more severe. The US Navy considered itself having superior fire control even before radar, so it took the trade off of higher arcs because it felt shells would still land on target.

The lack of torpedoes: US Navy considered the risk of detonation to those torpedoes not worth the risk on what they considered to be primary gun platforms. many of the earlier US cruisers had torpedoes in early service, but those were removed. If the US had quality torpedoes like the IJN they probably would have taken the risk as the IJN did. In this game the torpedoes don't blow up. If this were not a consideration then they would have torps as well.

Meanwhile Russian paper ships with 1950s designs and hypothetical weight to horsepower ratios can clearly outgun US ships at range, hence the need for US cruisers to hide behind islands and ambush.

The US made its navy in quantity of solid ships rather than just a few elite ships. Again conscious choice because more guns equal better chance of success. In this game ships come one per customer so that advantage is also cancelled out.

With all these "real life" stats brought to a game with no real life considerations it is small wonder that the ships themselves lack the utility of many other nation lines.

Edited by Prothall
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,582
[SALVO]
Members
16,618 posts
17,268 battles
21 minutes ago, Sovereigndawg said:

I see your point, it would be all or nothing, at least with a little more dispersion they might hit more often at distance. Then they would suffer at closer range though.

I'm not sure how much they'd really suffer at close range though.  After all these are cruisers with cruiser levels of accuracy.  So even with relatively weak dispersion for a cruiser, a cruiser at close range would still probably land nearly every shell pretty easily.

But yes, there is a certain upside to a little more dispersion when your shells are slow and floaty in that you end up blanketing the area you're aiming at, as opposed to having pin point accuracy, which is only useful of you personally aimed correctly and the enemy ship didn't just dodge your shells' intended aim point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
351
[NAVY]
Members
999 posts
3,720 battles

There is some truth for US cruisers from tier 1 - tier 5 not performing as well statistically as their counterparts, with the exception of the tier 3 St. Louis; however, this is not necessarily the case from tier 6 through tier 10. According to WoWs Stats and Numbers, https://na.wows-numbers.com/ships/  , leaving out premium ships, there are five US cruisers in the top 10 in win rate, four in average frags, three in average damage, and three in average experience. The new tier X USSR Stalingrad is throwing off the average, but if you look at 2-10, the numbers are not that far off from one another in terms of win rate, frags, damage, and experience. From tier 5 and up, the non-premium U.S. cruisers will usually lag behind to some degree in damage output because of the lack of torpedos compared to the other nations but that is not always the case.

From my experience, I wouldn't trade the Helena for any other tier 7 cruiser ATM even though I love the Fiji. I am a big fan of the tier 8 Cleveland as I've had some very good games in her on average, but have to concede that the Charles Martel or the Chapayev are better options. Going back down to tier 6, there are a number of players that have or are bad mouthing the Dallas, the replacement for the Cleveland after the US cruiser line split. While it is certainly no Cleveland, she is a very good light cruiser that performs just as well as the Budyonny and Leander. Going back up the tier ladder to 9, I don't have much experience playing those cruisers except on the public test servers and the same goes for tier 10 cruisers. On the PTS and according to WoWs Stats and Numbers, the US lags behind at again at tier 9, but at tier 10, the Worchester performs well.

A lot of the perception of US cruisers underperforming compared to those of other nations has to do with the guns and the playstyle of the USN light cruisers from tier 6-10. Those 152mm have "floaty" high arcs and not everyone learns how or gets used to how they work. The fact that the US 152 mm guns on the tier 6-10 light cruisers need DE and IFHE on the commander skills to maximize their potential and damage output is another drawback for certain players. Also, as I stated before, a lot of people miss the ability to use torps on tier 6-10 standard US light cruisers. However, if a player is willing to invest the time to learn how to use the guns, to play the US light cruisers to its strengths, and invest the commander skills, they are very competitive ships to que up in battle.

 

 

08-30-2018 WoWs Stats and Numbers, US cruisers 001.jpg

08-30-2018 WoWs Stats and Numbers, US cruisers 002.jpg

08-30-2018 WoWs Stats and Numbers, US cruisers 003.jpg

08-30-2018 WoWs Stats and Numbers, US cruisers 004.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,117 posts
4,727 battles
1 hour ago, Crucis said:

To me, the great AA thing should just be the way USN cruisers are and not thought of as their flavor or a gimmick.  IMO, the real national flavor should be gun accuracy, due to the USN's fire control radar, which would just be something baked in on higher tier USN cruisers, say tier 7+.  Of course, given how floaty USN shells can be good accuracy may not be worth as much as it'd be for ships with higher velocity shells.

I have to agree about the gun accuracy, the US was pretty much the only nation during the water that widely and effectively used radar-guided fire control at a level above that of other nations.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
258
[CVA16]
Members
2,164 posts
9,615 battles
3 hours ago, Lampshade_M1A2 said:

There is no reason the guns on Dallas and Helena should fire slower than the higher performance Russian 6" guns.

I can think of a reason.

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
898
[LEGIO]
Members
2,956 posts
5,370 battles
6 hours ago, GhostSwordsman said:

People seriously need to stop comparing Dallas to the old T6 Cleveland. Nothing will compare well with T6 Cleveland. It was a full blown T8 cruiser shoe-horned into T6.

That said, Dallas is, to borrow from LWM's rating system, a mehbote. She's not the strongest T6 CL, but she's also not the weakest. She's average, middle of the pack performance wise(like the rest of the USN cruisers). Could she use some improvements? Sure, so could some other USN cruisers. But to label Dallas 'bad' because the comparison is to a ship that's rightfully two whole tiers higher(and much, much more modern and advanced from a design standpoint) is just downright unfair.

The T6 Cleveland was pretty low in damage for its tier, a less capable ship only made matters worse.

What T6 cruiser is worse in your opinion?

Besides a ROF buff perhaps Dallas could be a bit more maneuverable owing to is smaller size.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
4,731 posts
5,464 battles
1 hour ago, Lampshade_M1A2 said:

The T6 Cleveland was pretty low in damage for its tier, a less capable ship only made matters worse.

What T6 cruiser is worse in your opinion?

Besides a ROF buff perhaps Dallas could be a bit more maneuverable owing to is smaller size.

Which is worse? Well, I haven't played every T6 cruiser, but it's likely Aoba. Poor Aoba was powercrept well before British cruisers were in the game. She has hardly anything going for her, and can't even hold the title of 'biggest cruiser guns at tier' anymore. I never see any being played, not even in operations.

For what it's worth, I think both Dallas and Helena would be better off with 1km more gun range than a RoF buff.

Edited by GhostSwordsman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,007
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
16,017 posts
11,538 battles
1 hour ago, GhostSwordsman said:

Which is worse? Well, I haven't played every T6 cruiser, but it's likely Aoba. Poor Aoba was powercrept well before British cruisers were in the game. She has hardly anything going for her, and can't even hold the title of 'biggest cruiser guns at tier' anymore. I never see any being played, not even in operations.

For what it's worth, I think both Dallas and Helena would be better off with 1km more gun range than a RoF buff.

Definitely Aoba.  They really need to replace her with a new T6, probably the proto Myoko.  Reduce Aoba's gun performance to that of Furutaka, and release her as a T5 premium.  I'd also say that Nurnburg (and Makarov) are worse than Dallas at T6.  I don't like Dallas, but I am not sure I can label her "bad".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
585
[ARRGG]
Members
4,672 posts
7,499 battles
11 hours ago, POTUS_MOGUL_45 said:

Just want to hear thoughts on why most US ships under perform in game and on the stats? I had a look at the stats and nearly all of them seem to perform worse than most of their counterparts. Take the Pensacola I heard it was nerfed but nearly all the people say it used to be much better and that wargamming shouldn't of touched it at all. They say it has awesome guns but I find you really cant use them because you have no armor and are spotted from the entire map and when you are maneuvering to avoid being hit which is all the time you cant shoot back because the guns rotate so awfully slow, its like a battleship stuck in a cruiser hull and without any of the benefits. And I have been looking at the rest of the tech tree and noticed a huge difference between the US ships and their counter parts strange armor layouts that are not accurate. Not only are the stats lower but on paper they just about come up short in almost every instance with few exceptions and all the other ships seem to have gimmicks that give them so much of a advantage. The US was supposed to be known for its radar and sonar, damage control, durability and there dd ships don't have any of that while other nations who are not known for it are loaded out with all these gimmicks. And to top it off most these ships with all these gimmicks were never built IDGI. Some players say its the bias of the Russian developers and that their jealousy of the real world power and technical might of the USA and our people is the reason for the unrealistic stats and unbalance. IDK  I like the game and really digged it but I am American and want to play US ships but they suck so bad it not really fun so I don't play hardly at all anymore. If I cant play US ships and enjoy it whats the point? Hey anyone see that game war thunder Naval? Its still in development but that sh&t looks amazballs.

Radar has upped the US Cruiser game

have grinded the German and Japanese Cruiser line and found that fun to do at the time

when I first joined I started grinding the US Cruiser line ,No Radar those days ... that was nice

..was so turned off by the slowwwww Pensacola  (possible Russian Bias) and the no Torp thingy .. I quit and never going back ... well maybe never times have changed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×