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

re: Proposed changes to HMS Hood

26 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

914
[ARS]
Beta Testers
2,617 posts
2,491 battles

I say "changes" rather than "buffs" because I don't believe it is a buff.  I believe it is, overall, a nerf to Hood.  Yes, sigma being 1.9 instead of 1.8 is nice as it is slightly better than it was, though still lower than the 2.0 of the other Tier VII eight gun BBs, and that would be fine given all the other things Hood has going for her, but.....

Nerfing her AP shells is just uncalled for.  The fuse timer changing from .015 to .033 seconds will not significantly assist in getting citadels on BBs as, due to her AP shell's low krupp value, she has mediocre penetration and simply cannot penetrate most BB citadels other than at close range...where the .015 second fuse timer wasn't a issue anyways.

Yes, the recent change to BB caliber AP interactions with DDs was an indirect nerf to Hood, but now losing the superior AP performance against cruisers for essentially no gain in performance against BBs is a direct nerf.  If it is intended to be a buff the krupp value of her AP shells needs to be increased to at least match the krupp value of the AP shells fired by Warspite.

The fuse timer change by itself is a nerf, even with the .1 sigma buff.

  • Cool 5
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,056
[DRACS]
Members
4,123 posts

Yup. And I'm hoping Wargaming will catch on about this before these changes go live. Her short fuse is the very best aspect of this ship. Unless they buff the Krupp so that it is halfway between that of Warspite and Vanguard (being tier 7 and all), this change will kill this ship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
914
[ARS]
Beta Testers
2,617 posts
2,491 battles

I love getting down votes without the down voter explaining why.

Actually, no, I don't.

  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
453
[TF-62]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,416 posts
4,038 battles
3 minutes ago, Helstrem said:

I love getting down votes without the down voter explaining why.

Actually, no, I don't.

People will always look for an easy out to vent their feelings while staying safe from rebuttal. 

I'm 50/50 about the buffs, since the change to DD/AP interactions, I wasn't going to get the damage I got on DDs anyway, so I'll try the change as it is now, 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
914
[ARS]
Beta Testers
2,617 posts
2,491 battles
Just now, Sledgehammer427 said:

I'm 50/50 about the buffs, since the change to DD/AP interactions, I wasn't going to get the damage I got on DDs anyway, so I'll try the change as it is now, 

Certainly I see that aspect of it, but I just don't see the gain without increasing her AP krupp value.  At short range, the only place she can penetrate BB citadels, barring quasi BBs like Dunkerque, the fuse timer doesn't matter.  I've gotten massive citadel hits on Nagatos, Nelsons and Colorados with her existing .015 second fuses.  I don't have a problem with the concept, just that they need to go all the way with it and give her a decent krupp rating so that she can penetrate the armor to get the citadels that a .015 second fuse would deny her otherwise all we're doing is reducing her ability to get penetrations on cruisers and BB upperworks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,131
[90TH]
[90TH]
Alpha Tester
6,023 posts
7,968 battles

I am uncertain about these changes to Hood. I have had few serious problems with her, but then, that goes for nearly all the ships mentioned in the devblog post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,493 posts
7,351 battles

Well, from the other thread, I'm sure you guys already know my stance is:  I think it's a net buff due to the sigma change, with the fuse change being a neutral.

That being said, like many aspects of the mechanics it's hard to know what's actually affecting what.  In the case of Hood low pen, low velocity, improved autobounce, and short fuses all come together to make a really odd package.  For example, is it really the short fuses that give more normal pens versus cruisers?  I've never seen Hood's shells overpen a citadel, but then again I've never seen North Carolina overpen a cruiser citadel either.   Slow, or even normal, velocity seems to be enough to prevent that scenario... looking at you Roma!

For cruiser plating it's a very different story.  The highest cruiser plating value Hood will see is 27mm on the German and USN CAs.  In order to arm shells need at least 1/10th their diameter in armor, which in Hood's case is 38mm.  The angle required for a 27mm cruiser comes out to about 45 degrees.  This is even more when you're shooting at lower tier cruisers.  Once the angles are that steep it's unlikely any shell will overpen, unless you hit the bow from behind (or vice versa).

On the other hand, the benefits from a slightly longer fuse are marginal at best.  More citadels versus the likes of Nagato's front citadel armor, or anything else with a raised turtleback.  Which admittedly is not a large portion of the roster.  I suppose it'll help versus the trolly french spaced armor eating all your shells too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
434
[VVV]
Members
2,475 posts

I tend to think that Hood's superior autobounce angles (which are being retained) are more important than the short fuse when it comes to nuking cruisers. And remember, when a cruiser thinks he's angled enough to bounce you it means that the shell will stay inside his hull longer so that the longer fuse won't matter and you'll still cit him.

That said I'd prefer if Hood just got a muzzle velocity buff to the correct 752m/s while leaving the fuse alone. That would make her a bit more able to pen the citadels of BBs without sacrificing even slightly in the ability to nuke cruisers. I'd also consider a slight reload buff.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,287
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
16,905 posts
12,189 battles
4 hours ago, Helstrem said:

I love getting down votes without the down voter explaining why.

Actually, no, I don't.

It's because people don't understand how penetration works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,287
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
16,905 posts
12,189 battles
3 hours ago, Kenjister said:

Well, from the other thread, I'm sure you guys already know my stance is:  I think it's a net buff due to the sigma change, with the fuse change being a neutral.

That being said, like many aspects of the mechanics it's hard to know what's actually affecting what.  In the case of Hood low pen, low velocity, improved autobounce, and short fuses all come together to make a really odd package.  For example, is it really the short fuses that give more normal pens versus cruisers?  I've never seen Hood's shells overpen a citadel, but then again I've never seen North Carolina overpen a cruiser citadel either.   Slow, or even normal, velocity seems to be enough to prevent that scenario... looking at you Roma!

For cruiser plating it's a very different story.  The highest cruiser plating value Hood will see is 27mm on the German and USN CAs.  In order to arm shells need at least 1/10th their diameter in armor, which in Hood's case is 38mm.  The angle required for a 27mm cruiser comes out to about 45 degrees.  This is even more when you're shooting at lower tier cruisers.  Once the angles are that steep it's unlikely any shell will overpen, unless you hit the bow from behind (or vice versa).

On the other hand, the benefits from a slightly longer fuse are marginal at best.  More citadels versus the likes of Nagato's front citadel armor, or anything else with a raised turtleback.  Which admittedly is not a large portion of the roster.  I suppose it'll help versus the trolly french spaced armor eating all your shells too. 

The problem is that the longer fuses will turn pens into overpens.  The short fuses are very consistent performers, even when shooting at battleships.  You simply use cruiser tactics and aim above the belt and shoot for pens.  The problem is, BB drivers are too stupid to adapt like cruiser drivers have and they keep shooting at waterlines.  You have to treat Hood like a very large cruiser, and when you do, she'll reward you with consistent games if not big alpha strikes.  It's no surprise to me at all why as a cruiser main, Hood is my best T7 BB.

Edited by crzyhawk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,493 posts
7,351 battles
2 hours ago, crzyhawk said:

The problem is that the longer fuses will turn pens into overpens.  

This is what I'm trying to address.  Hood's short fuses are not a factor when shooting upper belts and plating.
I did some testing in training rooms using Roma.  I'm sure you would agree that Roma has a major issue with overpens due to her high penetration and shell velocity.  At 1km, versus a flat broadside Fuso (152mm upper belt) Roma got a full set of 9 pens.  Against a Bismarck (160mm) at 1.2km, I got the same results.  Against an Iowa (25mm) at 1km,  I had to add a significant angle.  It seems like I was wrong earlier too, according to the AP calculator, both Roma and Hood require 64mm of armor to set off their fuses, which would be upwards of a 67 degree angle for 25mm plate and a 65 degree angle for 27.  However once I reached that angle Roma had no trouble getting full pens.  


As far as cruisers though, it might have a small effect on Hood being able to get full pens.  At 75 degree +  angles there shouldn't be a change because you won't be overpenning the length of the ship.  Neither should there be a change below 65 degrees, because Hood's shells do not currently arm on cruiser plating unless it's above that angle anyways.  That leaves a small window where Hood may lose some performance against cruisers.

Now of course, I'm sorta confused by all this information myself.  I love the Hood, and I'm sure I've gotten pens against cruiser plating at less than 65 degrees.  But the API doesn't lie, and 64mm seems to be the arming value.  My theory is that it's the barbettes.  They're armored enough to set of fuses and almost impossible to not hit given the shotgun nature of BBs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,520
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
7,237 posts
11,044 battles

Against destroyers it makes no difference, you're just more accurate.

Against thinly plated cruisers at 10km it increases shell travel distance from impact to detonation from about 8 to 17m. Given cruisers are typically more than 17m wide and will typically be hit at some angle that doesn't seem a major issue. Against light superstructures your major problem is arming the shells. Against cruisers which are angling it should make next to no difference.

Against battleships with set-back citadel spaces, the reduction in shell speed through any outer belt will matter significantly, if the short fuse only allows 3-5m of travel and detonates the shell before the citadel it will not be an advantage compared to the longer fused shell traveling 6-10m and making it into the citadel.

 

Overall, I expect it to make relatively little difference to the number of overpenetrations (or to citadels due to penetration shortcomings) - the controlling factors there are more target width and arming the shell fuses. The accuracy buff is pure positive.

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,600
[SIM]
Members
3,046 posts
4,851 battles

I completely agree, OP. Hopefully someone at Wargaming is paying attention here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
417
[ARP3]
Members
494 posts
11,103 battles

So instead of superstructure now you'll aim at upper belt.

Hood is still trash, the guns are so far apart they create their own bounce angles at close ranges (knife fight).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
370
[TF_34]
[TF_34]
Beta Testers
1,240 posts
4,137 battles

Thanks for the heads up, Hel. Where was this at, and how did I miss it.

Agree completely. A change like this will seriously compromise her.  

 

And...*gasp* is WG nerfing a PREMIUM??  Standing by for the crapstorm and legal threats...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
221
[-WTP-]
[-WTP-]
Members
739 posts
6,256 battles

It's looking like it will remain an OPs queen. I guess the accuracy buff is a good thing but I'm ultimately annoyed they don't just give it 2.0 sigma and AP that can do AP things already. It has 8 15" guns at T7 we're nowhere near overpowered territory here. Besides at the end of the day it's yet another disappointing gimmick boat and they have yet to address how the silly AA gimmick will play out with the update.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,287
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
16,905 posts
12,189 battles
7 hours ago, mofton said:

Against destroyers it makes no difference, you're just more accurate.

Against thinly plated cruisers at 10km it increases shell travel distance from impact to detonation from about 8 to 17m. Given cruisers are typically more than 17m wide and will typically be hit at some angle that doesn't seem a major issue. Against light superstructures your major problem is arming the shells. Against cruisers which are angling it should make next to no difference.

Against battleships with set-back citadel spaces, the reduction in shell speed through any outer belt will matter significantly, if the short fuse only allows 3-5m of travel and detonates the shell before the citadel it will not be an advantage compared to the longer fused shell traveling 6-10m and making it into the citadel.

 

Overall, I expect it to make relatively little difference to the number of overpenetrations (or to citadels due to penetration shortcomings) - the controlling factors there are more target width and arming the shell fuses. The accuracy buff is pure positive.

 

Right now Hood makes her living on superstrutures and upper belt pens on battleships.  Taking away some of those superstructure pens for very rare citadel hits on a small handful of ships is a bad trade.  Turning cruiser pens into overpens is a bad trade.  Just give Hood the sigma buff and leave the rest alone.  For all BB drivers complain about the Hood's guns, it seems there are plenty of defenders who do not want this change, which you admit is likely to have at best very little positive impact anyway.  We're just disagreeing on the negative impact.

Edited by crzyhawk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
617
[STAR]
Members
2,955 posts
8,064 battles

Well, while OP do have a point. There are also many times that Hood fail to get  a citadel on a cruiser or a BB because the shells detonate too early, before they can reach the citadel and a shoot that was supposed to be a cit becomes just a pen. 

 

IMO both are good changes. You might see a little more overpens, but you might see more citadels too. Not a bad trade IMO. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
617
[STAR]
Members
2,955 posts
8,064 battles
15 hours ago, Helstrem said:

I love getting down votes without the down voter explaining why.

Does it need to be any more expecific than a "no"? Whoever downvoted you doesnt agree with what you posted, doesnt need to be more specific than that. 

10 hours ago, crzyhawk said:

The problem is, BB drivers are too stupid to adapt like cruiser drivers have and they keep shooting at waterlines.  

Please, dont generalize like this... We have good and bad BB players, you are just putting them all in the same basket. Its the same if i say that all cruiser players are idiots that sail in a straight line flat boradside and get deleted... while we do have those players, we have lots of them that know how to play. We cant generalize them like that...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,520
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
7,237 posts
11,044 battles
2 hours ago, crzyhawk said:

Right now Hood makes her living on superstrutures and upper belt pens on battleships.  Taking away some of those superstructure pens for very rare citadel hits on a small handful of ships is a bad trade.  Turning cruiser pens into overpens is a bad trade.  Just give Hood the sigma buff and leave the rest alone.  For all BB drivers complain about the Hood's guns, it seems there are plenty of defenders who do not want this change, which you admit is likely to have at best very little positive impact anyway.  We're just disagreeing on the negative impact.

Hood does still overpenetrate upper belts and superstructures in particular, all mechanics combined I find her fairly niche at offering improvements there. It's certainly going to increase some overpens at some short ranges and at some angles, sometimes. That might be more than it increases her citadel rate on battleships. I think it's going to be minor either way, while the sigma buff is just nice.

Better a hit and an overpen than a clean miss.

WG at least do say they'll take a look in response to a reddit thread, my concern would be that they're basing the logic on the bad, but not outlandishly bad pen of Vanguard rather than Hood:

KO0mJfW.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,056
[DRACS]
Members
4,123 posts
1 hour ago, Xlap said:

Well, while OP do have a point. There are also many times that Hood fail to get  a citadel on a cruiser or a BB because the shells detonate too early, before they can reach the citadel and a shoot that was supposed to be a cit becomes just a pen. 

 

IMO both are good changes. You might see a little more overpens, but you might see more citadels too. Not a bad trade IMO. 

BB shells, even low fuse, travel way deep enough to pen cruisers before it detonates. Although someone makes a good point in that longer fuses could be favorable should that cruiser be bow on. So vs cruisers, short fuse is better for dev striking broadsiding cruisers, whereas longer fuse would be better if a cruiser is bow on and the shell needs to travel a bit through the nose before hitting the citadel. Note: It is indeed possible to overpen citadels according to tests made a couple of years ago. I do not know if that has changed at all.

Against BBs, I've found the low fuse shells absolutely invaluable to landing loads of regular pens in superstructures. Make no mistake ... she might still overpen if the enemy ship is showing broadside, but against sharply angled targets where the relative angled armor of the superstructure could arm the fuse, being able to blow up right away rather than waiting longer means the difference between pens and overpens. Not to mention the ability to land regular pens by shooting at angled nose armor. In fact, it's the reason why RN cruisers work the way they do. Their AP doesn't overpen.

That's what we're concerned about. Hood is losing her ability to do consistent *reliable* damage against BBs, and she doesn't appear to be getting a penetration buff to compensate by making her more likely to land citadel hits. So being unable to both citadel AND get reliable full pens is a big big problem.

So don't get me wrong. I'm not one of those who hates change in general. I can adapt. Problem is for Hood to comfortably adapt to regular BB fuse timers, she NEEDS a penetration buff to remain competitive. Without it, she's simply worse.

The slightly boosted accuracy is nice. But will it compensate for the lack of short fuse with no krupp buff? Not so sure. Guess we'll find out. Or maybe we'll get lucky and WG will either reverse the fuse timer changes or increase her krupp values. Otherwise, it might end up being a direct relative nerf ... on a premium ship.

Edited by KaptainKaybe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,520
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
7,237 posts
11,044 battles
9 minutes ago, KaptainKaybe said:

Against BBs, I've found the low fuse shells absolutely invaluable to landing loads of regular pens in superstructures. Make no mistake ... she might still overpen if the enemy ship is showing broadside, but against sharply angled targets where the relative angled armor of the superstructure could arm the fuse, being able to blow up right away rather than waiting longer means the difference between pens and overpens.

That's pretty niche. If you're hitting superstructures at a shallow enough angle to arm the fuses you should have a decent chunk of superstructure length to go through.

The 16mm superstructure of T7 or 19mm of T8 battleships does need a lot of angle to arm - 73° for 19mm. At those angles you just have a lot of superstructure length to go through. It may help against some combination of narrow/small superstructures more, or if you hit the faces rather than side of the superstructure - but those are already annoying shots.

For instance:

dilbSgzg.png

Bismarck for scale is 36m wide at the beam. Fuso is about 27m. Red is incoming trajectory, orange is internal within the superstructure.

A 0.033s normal fused version of Hood's shell, at even 5km and not losing any speed at all on penetration (it shouldn't lose more than a few percent on light plate) should travel 20.2m before exploding, the short fuses would detonate it after 9.1m.

Against most ships you have more than enough width of target. Against Fuso you're far better off going for the 152mm casemate which is pretty chunky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,056
[DRACS]
Members
4,123 posts
31 minutes ago, mofton said:

Hood does still overpenetrate upper belts and superstructures in particular, all mechanics combined I find her fairly niche at offering improvements there. It's certainly going to increase some overpens at some short ranges and at some angles, sometimes. That might be more than it increases her citadel rate on battleships. I think it's going to be minor either way, while the sigma buff is just nice.

Better a hit and an overpen than a clean miss.

WG at least do say they'll take a look in response to a reddit thread, my concern would be that they're basing the logic on the bad, but not outlandishly bad pen of Vanguard rather than Hood:

KO0mJfW.png

Uhm ... Vanguard pen is actually pretty good. It's roughly on par with Bismarck's due her noticeably higher shell velocity compared to other RN 15 inch guns.

Glad to see S_O got wind of our concern!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,432
[OO7]
[OO7]
Members
3,763 posts
10,309 battles
17 hours ago, Helstrem said:

I love getting down votes without the down voter explaining why.

Actually, no, I don't.

I dislike people complaining about it as it seems more stupid that what they are actually complain about. 

Therefore, I have down voted the above comment. 

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×