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

T9 Cruiser Play

19 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
425 posts
6,467 battles

If anyone still plays any tech tree T9 cruisers do you feel like you have failed your team when you load in to a game and see that your offsetting ship is a super cruiser?

Edited by SmokinCAT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
201
[-TDF-]
Beta Testers
426 posts
3,482 battles

Last time I played tier 9 cruiser was the Buffalo. Nope never felt that way, I have 12 203mm broadside with SHS and improved pen angles that could make any cruiser who I caught out regret there life choices.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
212
[INR]
Members
671 posts
3,745 battles

As an IJN CA main, yes. All the time. Ibuki is a PoS, so it doesn't even have to be a super cruiser. Just... marginally better than Mogami. xD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,254
[SALVO]
Members
18,314 posts
18,908 battles
13 minutes ago, SmokinCAT said:

If anyone still plays any tech tree T9 cruisers do you feel like you have failed your team when you load in to a game and see that your offsetting ship is a super cruiser?

Just treat the "super cruisers" as battleships and proceed normally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
425 posts
6,467 battles
11 minutes ago, WuYixiang said:

As an IJN CA main, yes. All the time. Ibuki is a PoS, so it doesn't even have to be a super cruiser. Just... marginally better than Mogami. xD

Grinding seattle right now, not only is it garbage, the enemy team gets a free 30K extra hit points when going against a super cruiser.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
425 posts
6,467 battles
6 minutes ago, Crucis said:

Just treat the "super cruisers" as battleships and proceed normally.

Yeah, means enemy team health pool is much larger...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,201
[OPG]
Members
4,221 posts
6,054 battles

Not at all.  I think people freak out over the big scary base stats and seriously overestimate the capabilities of the large cruisers with out thinking things through logically.  Given we're talking about Tier 9, at least for now that means the Kronshtadt.  If we actually stop and think about it....

  • The Kronshtadt is worse than average against DDs after the DD AP pen changes 
  • The Kronshtadt can be easily hard countered by every non British cruiser at Tier 9
  • The Kronshtadt is worse at burning down BBs than traditional cruisers   

Granted it would be disingenuous to claim the Kronshtadt is with out strengths, it does have a far larger HP pool than normal cruisers and its AP alpha can be a game changer in certain situations, especially against broadside BBs, but the ship itself is just so easily countered by almost every ship it can face at its tier, I can't in good conscience claim the Kronshtadt is inherently better than normal cruisers.

*I stand by my assessment of the ship.  In terms of gameplay it's a Tier 6/7 BB that was made into a Tier 9 cruiser.  Sure, it might look scary if you think about it purely in terms of Tier 9 cruiser MM....but once you're actually in battle it's just a grossly over tiered BB. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
425 posts
6,467 battles
31 minutes ago, yashma said:

Not at all.  I think people freak out over the big scary base stats and seriously overestimate the capabilities of the large cruisers with out thinking things through logically.  Given we're talking about Tier 9, at least for now that means the Kronshtadt.  If we actually stop and think about it....

  • The Kronshtadt is worse than average against DDs after the DD AP pen changes 
  • The Kronshtadt can be easily hard countered by every non British cruiser at Tier 9
  • The Kronshtadt is worse at burning down BBs than traditional cruisers   

Granted it would be disingenuous to claim the Kronshtadt is with out strengths, it does have a far larger HP pool than normal cruisers and its AP alpha can be a game changer in certain situations, especially against broadside BBs, but the ship itself is just so easily countered by almost every ship it can face at its tier, I can't in good conscience claim the Kronshtadt is inherently better than normal cruisers.

*I stand by my assessment of the ship.  In terms of gameplay it's a Tier 6/7 BB that was made into a Tier 9 cruiser.  Sure, it might look scary if you think about it purely in terms of Tier 9 cruiser MM....but once you're actually in battle it's just a grossly over tiered BB. 

I would agree with most of that if it had T7 BB range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,254
[SALVO]
Members
18,314 posts
18,908 battles
54 minutes ago, SmokinCAT said:

Yeah, means enemy team health pool is much larger...

Well, of course.  But there's nothing you can do about that other than to just suck it up and burn them down.    With so many people running Stalingrads now, it's a sure thing that they're not all unicums.  So don't think that they're invincible ships.  They're sorta just smaller battleships.  And you can cit them with heavy cruiser guns, if you get their broadsides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,201
[OPG]
Members
4,221 posts
6,054 battles
3 minutes ago, SmokinCAT said:

I would agree with most of that if it had T7 BB range.

But it does...the Kronshtadt only has 18.19km base range, which is worse than the Nagato, Gneisenau, Colorado and Lyon.  Even if the Kronshtadt takes GFCSM it still has worse range Colorado.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,254
[SALVO]
Members
18,314 posts
18,908 battles
6 minutes ago, SmokinCAT said:

I would agree with most of that if it had T7 BB range.

What are you talking about?  The Kronstadt DOES pretty much have T7 BB range.  It just depends on which slot 6 upgrade module its mounting.  If it's mounting the RoF module, the range is pretty average for T7 BBs.  If the range module is mounted, then yes, the range is 21.1 which is longer than tier 7 BBs.  But frankly, I don't think that you should be all that afraid of most ships firing at you from 21 km, at least if you know they've fired on you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
425 posts
6,467 battles
11 minutes ago, Crucis said:

What are you talking about?  The Kronstadt DOES pretty much have T7 BB range.  It just depends on which slot 6 upgrade module its mounting.  If it's mounting the RoF module, the range is pretty average for T7 BBs.  If the range module is mounted, then yes, the range is 21.1 which is longer than tier 7 BBs.  But frankly, I don't think that you should be all that afraid of most ships firing at you from 21 km, at least if you know they've fired on you.

Guess most of the T9 tech tree cruisers have these unheard of ranges that I havent seen.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,254
[SALVO]
Members
18,314 posts
18,908 battles
22 minutes ago, SmokinCAT said:

Guess most of the T9 tech tree cruisers have these unheard of ranges that I havent seen.

 

The T9 CLs' gun ranges are kind of in the mid teens.  The CAs are mostly in the upper teens.  The Kronstadt is one of these new super cruisers with larger caliber guns, so it's no surprise that they can have gun ranges that are around 20 km, or more with the range enhancing upgrade in slot 6.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
574
[C-CA]
[C-CA]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,138 posts
4,361 battles

I think concern about the range gap is a tad overblown.  It's significant when compared to the CLs, but as has been established they're not really meant to take on ships like Kronstahdt at range so much as by drowning them in DPS when they get too close (plus Seattle sucks more that a Dyson ball vacuum).  When comparing them to the CAs though the gap falls to about 2km, maybe 3km at most. Honestly that's not that much. If a super-cruiser starts blasting you from 20km away that gives you PLENTY of time to dodge, and by the time the shells hit you they've lost enough energy that tanking a few on the belt is entirely possible.  Think of it this way: Do you give up hope when your Dallas loads into battle opposite a Graf Spee? Because that's basically the same situation save the fact that the Spee's on the slow side compared to her peers.

Honestly the more I fight these "super-cruisers", whether it be in a battleship or a same-tier cruiser, the more I come to the conclusion that you just need to avoid open-water fighting when they're around. They're kiting machines that have just enough agility to be infuriating to hit, and just enough speed that you can't run them down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
425 posts
6,467 battles
5 minutes ago, Landsraad said:

I think concern about the range gap is a tad overblown.  It's significant when compared to the CLs, but as has been established they're not really meant to take on ships like Kronstahdt at range so much as by drowning them in DPS when they get too close (plus Seattle sucks more that a Dyson ball vacuum).  When comparing them to the CAs though the gap falls to about 2km, maybe 3km at most. Honestly that's not that much. If a super-cruiser starts blasting you from 20km away that gives you PLENTY of time to dodge, and by the time the shells hit you they've lost enough energy that tanking a few on the belt is entirely possible.  Think of it this way: Do you give up hope when your Dallas loads into battle opposite a Graf Spee? Because that's basically the same situation save the fact that the Spee's on the slow side compared to her peers.

Honestly the more I fight these "super-cruisers", whether it be in a battleship or a same-tier cruiser, the more I come to the conclusion that you just need to avoid open-water fighting when they're around. They're kiting machines that have just enough agility to be infuriating to hit, and just enough speed that you can't run them down.

If they cant be compared than they don't need to occupy the same space in MM...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,201
[OPG]
Members
4,221 posts
6,054 battles
3 minutes ago, SmokinCAT said:

If they cant be compared than they don't need to occupy the same space in MM...

Not necessarily.  There are numerous cases of drastic variations in play style and capabilities between ships of the same in game class.  Try comparing a Khaba with a Shima, or a Conqueror with a Yamato, or a Moskva with a Minotaur for example.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
574
[C-CA]
[C-CA]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,138 posts
4,361 battles
6 minutes ago, yashma said:

Not necessarily.  There are numerous cases of drastic variations in play style and capabilities between ships of the same in game class.  Try comparing a Khaba with a Shima, or a Conqueror with a Yamato, or a Moskva with a Minotaur for example.  

Right. It seems like this whole discussion has forgotten the existence of Moskva and Henri IV. There are four things that set Kronstahdt, Alaska, etc. apart from simple heavy cruisers at their tier: Gun size (better alpha and range, worse RoF), HP pool (more survivable), size (easier to hit), and fire duration (fire bad). That's not really a lot in the grand scheme of things. Their armor is comparable to the point that there's less difference between Des Moines and Alaska than between Des Moines and Hindenburg, their speed is similar, and their secondaries and AA suites are similar if not identical in some cases. So they have a slightly different playstyle and different guns, so what? The difference between a Kronstahdt and a Dmitri Donskoi is just as big as the difference between a Baltimore and a Cleveland, maybe even less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
425 posts
6,467 battles
14 hours ago, Landsraad said:

Right. It seems like this whole discussion has forgotten the existence of Moskva and Henri IV. There are four things that set Kronstahdt, Alaska, etc. apart from simple heavy cruisers at their tier: Gun size (better alpha and range, worse RoF), HP pool (more survivable), size (easier to hit), and fire duration (fire bad). That's not really a lot in the grand scheme of things. Their armor is comparable to the point that there's less difference between Des Moines and Alaska than between Des Moines and Hindenburg, their speed is similar, and their secondaries and AA suites are similar if not identical in some cases. So they have a slightly different playstyle and different guns, so what? The difference between a Kronstahdt and a Dmitri Donskoi is just as big as the difference between a Baltimore and a Cleveland, maybe even less.

You are comparing T9 alaska to T10 DM, it would need compared to buffalo and seattle, not the T10s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
92
[BOTO]
Members
291 posts
8,202 battles
19 hours ago, SmokinCAT said:

If anyone still plays any tech tree T9 cruisers do you feel like you have failed your team when you load in to a game and see that your offsetting ship is a super cruiser?

Pretty much the only silver T9 cruiser I play fairly often is Buffalo, so I'm not bothered too much when the offsetting ship is one of the paper monstrosities, as I have more utility than they do.  Plus the fact that I have USN Super Heavy AP which I can pen pretty much anything with.

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.

×