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

Proposed Abruzzi Fix Patch

26 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

53
[M_S]
Members
344 posts
3,881 battles

As hearsay about the Italian cruisers is coming up and people are started getting more and more interested in them, it is time that we leave a good impression in people's minds about what they would be like. For a long time, Abruzzi has been at least slightly underpowered and definitely disliked by the general playerbase, and it is about time that we make it competent. Whether Abruzzi is actually underpowered is, of course, always to the viewer's discretion

Although I haven't taken the risk of buying an Abruzzi myself, previous posts from various sources alerted me to what people think are its flaws, mainly that it has no way of fighting BBs and that it cannot survive against BBs. I've isolated two problems with the Abruzzi: anemic HE performance and bad turret arcs. 

 

Personally, I do not see WG changing the shells themselves that often, but we can still improve them simply by improving the dispersion model. Unlike her cousins, the other Condottieri classes, Abruzzi actually had good dispersion. No, scratch that. Best cruiser dispersion in the world, with some 90 m over 17.5 km and better than in-game destroyers have. So, then, why are the Japanese so preferred in this treatment? Should the Italians get some of this too? Actually, scratch that. Give it better dispersion.

How does this help at all? It provides Abruzzi a good way to pin-point a section and set fires to that section, similar to how Yubari, Japanese CAs, and Mogami work. Yes, the Abruzzi would not be nearly as efficient as its same-tier Japanese counterpart, the Myoko, but at least it gives hope on setting a fire and an edge over other cruisers at long range. Yes, the ship would continue to refuse to set fires, especially with IFHE on, but when someone has damage-controlled, it can be pain.

 

Additional fixes to the guns themselves would involve buffing the HE damage in accordance of accounting for the below, and literally fixing the slightly broken AP damage.

On 4/25/2018 at 12:16 PM, Phoenix_jz said:

Except whereas most 152mm guns can take it and still have a decent fire chance (ex, Russian, American, French), the Italian 152mm gun has next to no fire chance if it takes the skill - this is because it had a smaller bursting charge in order to create large, more penetrate shrapnel. So the extra pen kind of makes sense in that regard as a line flavor.

 

As for the turret arcs, fix the X turret. I know it is going to be hard, possibly including remodels, but it is simply stupid. Having to turn your ship 47 degrees broadside? Seriously? Even Pensacola gets a degree of survivability because it could present a small profile while still having all four turrets on target, and then juking to dodge shots (I've personally done this a lot of times). With 47 degrees, it does not really matter what your rudder shift is, you are not going to have that Pensacola experience. It's not completely game-changing, but it helps.

 

In effect, I'm turning this ship into something like a tier VII with an effectiveness against battleships similar to Aoba (although with much higher DPM, much worse arcs and penetration) without IFHE, but potentially buffing it against cruisers and destroyers as well. Hopefully, these changes could be introduced throughout the incoming Italian CLs and make them a better experience to play.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,961
[DAKI]
Privateers, Members
8,634 posts
7,637 battles
27 minutes ago, tyinnow said:

Although I haven't taken the risk of buying an Abruzzi myself, previous posts from various sources alerted me to what people think are its flaws, mainly that it has no way of fighting BBs and that it cannot survive against BBs. I've isolated two problems with the Abruzzi: anemic HE performance and bad turret arcs. 

Abruzzi actually can fight BBs, it depends to a large degree on picking the right engagement and to keep an eye on the surroundings. Limit the amount of ships firing at you, use the spotter plane if needed and know where you eat overmatch citadels and where you don‘t. Maneuver accordingly.

D3634778-EF48-4447-B1D6-F2F01C58AD17.thumb.jpeg.501062674f7360db3358b8503b5a9480.jpeg

That‘s what it can look like when you do it right. Yes that Georgia fired at me, six or seven salvos. Took something like 7k damage in total.

Firing angles is only a half true complaint. To the rear they are actually good. Only forward will you struggle. But when you kite, you‘ll be fine.

Doesn‘t mean I‘d oppose a buff to the X-turret arcs. I‘d remove the lifeboats that block the arcs, like it happened with Stalingrad.

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
351
[RM-I]
[RM-I]
Members
853 posts
7,308 battles

I say leave it as is. If you play it right, it doesn’t have that many issues. Go dark when you have to, heal when you have to, and utilize 12km torps. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
33 posts
5,451 battles

Abruzzi is fine. You need time to get damage with this thing but it's 'tanky' as hell. It's the definitive WASD hacks ship. Even with it's anaemic AA you still do fine as long as it's not rocket planes. It's AP is under rated as well.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53
[M_S]
Members
344 posts
3,881 battles
9 hours ago, SireneRacker said:

Abruzzi actually can fight BBs, it depends to a large degree on picking the right engagement and to keep an eye on the surroundings. Limit the amount of ships firing at you, use the spotter plane if needed and know where you eat overmatch citadels and where you don‘t. Maneuver accordingly.

D3634778-EF48-4447-B1D6-F2F01C58AD17.thumb.jpeg.501062674f7360db3358b8503b5a9480.jpeg

 That‘s what it can look like when you do it right. Yes that Georgia fired at me, six or seven salvos. Took something like 7k damage in total.

Absolutely fair of a point. Abruzzi can survive with that 30mm plating, unless someone hits that weird little bit of citadel sticking above it... It is also interesting to see how you literally shot over the tallest of islands to hit him. Abruzzi's shell arcs are... literally American (no, seriously).

So, in conjunction with the short concealment, Abruzzi should be a close-in fighter... but then you are literally shooting at a Georgia at the edge of your firing range... I do not think you have proven anything other than you got rather lucky setting fires (ahem... arsonist).

Even if Abruzzi can fight BBs decently, it does not mean that it cannot receive buffs. Somehow, WG thought it a good idea to buff all Japanese CAs similarly, despite the fact that not all of them were underperforming.

Edited by tyinnow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,961
[DAKI]
Privateers, Members
8,634 posts
7,637 battles
39 minutes ago, tyinnow said:

So, in conjunction with the short concealment, Abruzzi should be a close-in fighter... but then you are literally shooting at a Georgia at the edge of your firing range... I do not think you have proven anything other than you got rather lucky setting fires (ahem... arsonist).

No, I wouldn‘t play her at close range at all. At close range I completely sacrifice my maneuverability and reaction time for questionable gains. Rather do I play her with a simple scheme. Approach a ship with my concealment, be in a kiting position, open up and kite away. If he shoots back, I can easily minimize the damage, if he doesn‘t, I can slow down and get a larger firing window.

This Georgia was no exception. I started a kite, he damconned early so I quickly returned to go for a second round which I extended using the spotter to ensure the kill. 

43 minutes ago, tyinnow said:

Even if Abruzzi can fight BBs decently, it does not mean that it cannot receive buffs. Somehow, WG thought it a good idea to buff all Japanese CAs similarly, despite the fact that not all of them were underperforming.

I did say that I would not oppose buffs to the X-turret. I repeat:

10 hours ago, SireneRacker said:

Doesn‘t mean I‘d oppose a buff to the X-turret arcs. I‘d remove the lifeboats that block the arcs, like it happened with Stalingrad.

 

  • Cool 1
  • Angry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53
[M_S]
Members
344 posts
3,881 battles
3 hours ago, SireneRacker said:

I did say that I would not oppose buffs to the X-turret. I repeat:

You are foully misinterpreting my words in bad faith. I've made it clear what I was talking about, not the least through repetition.

I understand that the dispersion buff might make it overpowered a bit, especially in the hands of the right player, but you have not argued against or for it. Wow.

3 hours ago, SireneRacker said:

No, I wouldn‘t play her at close range at all. At close range I completely sacrifice my maneuverability and reaction time for questionable gains. Rather do I play her with a simple scheme. Approach a ship with my concealment, be in a kiting position, open up and kite away. If he shoots back, I can easily minimize the damage, if he doesn‘t, I can slow down and get a larger firing window.

I know this would sound unfair, but let us actually compare Abruzzi firepower with something comparable: Helena. Yes, 1.5 times the guns in triple turrets, much more fire chance. Yes, 7/8 the reload, but the better shells can probably balance that. But what makes them at least somewhat comparable is that they have the same shell arcs. 

First of all, Helena's turret layout is much more suitable for kiting. All of its five turrets have respectable angles backwards, comparable to that on the Abruzzi. Secondly, the Abruzzi's rudder is unnoticeably better, although its 2.5 kts advantage in speed pushes it beyond Helena in this department. Thirdly, their armor schemes are comparable, with Helena having a lower citadel (by a lot) and Abruzzi having that nice 30mm plating. Lastly, Abruzzi merely has a 0.6 km edge in concealment.

All of these factors combined, is an increase in speed and concealment by a small bit each really worth the drop in firepower? 

Edited by tyinnow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,961
[DAKI]
Privateers, Members
8,634 posts
7,637 battles
7 hours ago, tyinnow said:

You are foully misinterpreting my words in bad faith. I've made it clear what I was talking about, not the least through repetition.

And part of what you were talking about were turret angles. Dispersion I could talk about, but then again you already named a good enough reason to not go down that path so I can save myself that time.

7 hours ago, tyinnow said:

the dispersion buff might make it overpowered a bit

 

As for the comparison with Helena, may I suggest that you left out a fair amount of factors?

8 hours ago, tyinnow said:

Yes, 1.5 times the guns in triple turrets, much more fire chance. Yes, 7/8 the reload, but the better shells can probably balance that. But what makes them at least somewhat comparable is that they have the same shell arcs. 

First of all, Helena's turret layout is much more suitable for kiting. All of its five turrets have respectable angles backwards, comparable to that on the Abruzzi.

A crucial factor is gun range, especially when facing ships of higher tiers. To my knowledge, Helena does not get access to the spotter plane consumable and thus has to make do with the range she gets, 14.6km. Abruzzi has slightly more, 15.1km, and on top of that can extend that to 18.1km using the spotter plane (my screenshot above proves that). Kiting a battleship at 14.6km or at 17.5km makes a vast difference in several ways. Does this completely offset her gunnery disadvantage? No, but it compensates to a good degree.

Also Abruzzi carries torpedoes as an auxilliary tool, which are versatile to use thanks to their range. Just keep throwing them out with that range and enjoy the occasional hit and the area denial.

8 hours ago, tyinnow said:

with Helena having a lower citadel

Helena suffers under what you can call the Cleveland syndrome, which is good and bad. It‘s good when showing broadside, because the citadel is then super trollish, but when you try and kite you do not have the armored surface areas to consistently bounce shells. Furthermore, the shape of the citadel increases the risk of a shell overmatching above your rear magazines and then penetrating the machinery bulkheads. 

You could take a picture of Abruzzi and Helena, both from 30° from the rear and then picture the ship in three colors:

- red: likely to citadel

- yellow: likely to deal normal penetration damage

- green: bounce or overpen

You‘ll find Abruzzi to be much more convenient in that regard.

8 hours ago, tyinnow said:

Abruzzi having that nice 30mm plating

And a heal. 

8 hours ago, tyinnow said:

All of these factors combined, is an increase in speed and concealment by a small bit each really worth the drop in firepower? 

Leaving aside that they both have rather different playstyles, I would still say yes. All the factors combined result in a ship that punishes you severly for mistakes, but that can reward you greatly in return. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53
[M_S]
Members
344 posts
3,881 battles
11 hours ago, SireneRacker said:

Kiting a battleship at 14.6km or at 17.5km makes a vast difference in several ways. Does this completely offset her gunnery disadvantage? No, but it compensates to a good degree.

Does it work? At 17.5 km your shells would land in 15.1 seconds, way beyond enough time for any battleship to simply dodge. I know because I see such things firing at max range in my Farragut, which does not quite amount to 15.1 seconds of travel time. The only thing that really makes up for this is its rapid reload, which Abruzzi does not have.

11 hours ago, SireneRacker said:

Helena suffers under what you can call the Cleveland syndrome, which is good and bad. It‘s good when showing broadside, because the citadel is then super trollish, but when you try and kite you do not have the armored surface areas to consistently bounce shells. Furthermore, the shape of the citadel increases the risk of a shell overmatching above your rear magazines and then penetrating the machinery bulkheads. 

Ah yes, if it is so good at showing broadside, why not simply run away, but show them a broadside when needed?

11 hours ago, SireneRacker said:

You could take a picture of Abruzzi and Helena, both from 30° from the rear and then picture the ship in three colors:

- red: likely to citadel

- yellow: likely to deal normal penetration damage

- green: bounce or overpen

You‘ll find Abruzzi to be much more convenient in that regard.

Picture? What picture?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,961
[DAKI]
Privateers, Members
8,634 posts
7,637 battles
6 minutes ago, tyinnow said:

Does it work? At 17.5 km your shells would land in 15.1 seconds, way beyond enough time for any battleship to simply dodge. I know because I see such things firing at max range in my Farragut, which does not quite amount to 15.1 seconds of travel time. The only thing that really makes up for this is its rapid reload, which Abruzzi does not have. 

I am not really struggling to land hits on BBs at those ranges.

7 minutes ago, tyinnow said:

Ah yes, if it is so good at showing broadside, why not simply run away, but show them a broadside when needed?

Because the citadel is trollish, but not idiot proof. These two are not the same. Trollish means that sometimes you only eat overpens, sometimes you'll get devstruck. Abruzzi is basically guaranteed to explode when showing side.

8 minutes ago, tyinnow said:

Picture? What picture?

A mental image. But I'll do one for you via OneNote if it helps.

image.thumb.png.0ee7f3cd3ce938df9e30f0141ac3b390.png

This is what I see, and what I would recommend people seeing when kiting. Knowing where they can tank the shells if needed, and where to avoid hits no matter what. And you can tell what the issue with Helena is. Her belt, the green section midships, does not cover enough area to consistently bounce shells hitting her side when kiting.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
467
[UFFA]
Members
1,654 posts
72 battles

I’ll preface this by saying I expect no changes. Absolutely none. Now on for the usual tilting at windmills.  No windmills or horses were harmed. However the musso was served with polenta and it was delicious.

Yorck had its 21cm rifles given a fake “upgrade” shell that halved the drag coefficient. Having the same shell have two different drag values is just silly for Aosta and Abruzzi. Please note not asking for a drastic Yorck change just aligned with Aosta.  Given the changes made for Izumo and Yorck something not so drastic is certainly allowable. The aerodynamically inefficient HE shell holds the record for longest range hit by a 152mm rifle. Yet to meet an anti-HE spam meta the Italian ships are shackled. RNBB HE shells are allowed massive splash damage aura yet Italian HE shells are not allowed the same. Boh  

Armor profile is worthy of a second look. Boise is much more meta friendly with its armor layout, allowing mainly overpens, and gets RN heal as a bonus. A solid belt for some form of angle tanking would be nice. 

If the boats blocking III turrets traverse could be removed it would be nice. Something Lesta mentioned for Stalingrad; not sure what came of it. Having ships boats viewable in port and removed in matches. Aosta is simply a better destroyer hunter due to less risk to bring eight rifles to bear and more efficient TTK versus risk imoo.

Otherwise back to a niche ship for operations. The work rate for same results as comparable ships for other nations is much less efficient imoo. That’s my main take away on all the Italian ships work rate for reward is not to scale. Cesare is blessed by enemies who can’t figure out to stay over 10km away. 

Edited by Sparviero
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
474
[-TDF-]
Beta Testers
901 posts
4,241 battles

Turret angles would be nice. A DPM buff would be welcome, a small one though. If Abruzzi gets buffed to much it will end up being the Henri of tier 7... Which it sort of is anyways except much better at killing DDs.

On ‎6‎/‎24‎/‎2019 at 9:58 AM, Sparviero said:

Armor profile is worthy of a second look. Boise is much more meta friendly with its armor layout, allowing mainly overpens, and gets RN heal as a bonus. A solid belt for some form of angle tanking would be nice. 

Boise's armor like Helena's is only good until people figure out the Citadel is towards the rear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53
[M_S]
Members
344 posts
3,881 battles
On 6/24/2019 at 8:58 AM, Sparviero said:

Having the same shell have two different drag values is just silly for Aosta and Abruzzi.

For the HE, it is not much of a problem because the drag values are the same. But it is silly to have 0.326 versus 0.333 respectively. Let's just unify it to 0.325 to make things simple for Abruzzi players. 

On the other hand, one is no longer going to be a 10-gun Helena with better armor anymore.

On 6/24/2019 at 8:58 AM, Sparviero said:

If the boats blocking III turrets traverse could be removed it would be nice. Something Lesta mentioned for Stalingrad; not sure what came of it. Having ships boats viewable in port and removed in matches. Aosta is simply a better destroyer hunter due to less risk to bring eight rifles to bear and more efficient TTK versus risk imoo.

I think we can all agree on that. I was also asking if we could increase the damage output (because apparent shrapnel) and the dispersion (because that was historically good as well)

On 6/23/2019 at 12:17 PM, SireneRacker said:

I am not really struggling to land hits on BBs at those ranges.

You're crazy. You have approximately the same hit rate in the Belfast as this ship despite firing on average at much further ranges.

Edited by tyinnow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,961
[DAKI]
Privateers, Members
8,634 posts
7,637 battles
1 hour ago, tyinnow said:

You're crazy. You have approximately the same hit rate in the Belfast as this ship despite firing on average at much further ranges.

Because my average firing range is around 13km. I can land at longer ranges with a decent consistency, but I'll obviously get as close as possible while trying to not get blown up. That's why I like Abruzzi as much as I do. She challenges me to do well, but when I do, I get instant feedback in the form of good games.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,261
[90TH]
[90TH]
Alpha Tester
7,738 posts
8,930 battles

Abruzzi is fine, possibly OP, provided you can afford a 14 pt commander, IFHE is required, and can run premium consumeables.

These are steep requirements for somebody new to the game, but for experienced players, fairly easy to obtain.

personally, I find the repair part consumeable makes Abruzzi very (too?) forgiving to play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,938 posts
10,179 battles

Hey

Abruzzi sucks; the guns do very little damage with AP unless your within death range, and the HE is about worthless.  It needs either a ROF increase or increase the HE damage to make it viable.  There are so many other cruisers that are so much better, consistent.   Too bad, since it looks good and handles decently but the guns let her down.  I don't think we will see any buffs; no wonder it so rarely gets played.

 

Pete

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,938 posts
10,179 battles

Hey

Abruzzi is a big POS; even with DFAA this is all it could shoot down and I was getting focused by the carrier.   I felt like I worked to get that; the HE sucks, the AP is garbage.  It feels more like a Tier 5 boat and this is a 11 point captain.

image.thumb.png.7ada9452de60f2393cbf8d43b2bfedb4.png

image.thumb.png.32a8598445b9ecf96b389fafa2f668fa.png

Edited by sasquatch_research

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,255 posts
10,135 battles
30 minutes ago, sasquatch_research said:

Hey

Abruzzi is a big POS; even with DFAA this is all it could shoot down and I was getting focused by the carrier.   I felt like I worked to get that; the HE sucks, the AP is garbage.  It feels more like a Tier 5 boat and this is a 11 point captain.

image.thumb.png.7ada9452de60f2393cbf8d43b2bfedb4.png

image.thumb.png.32a8598445b9ecf96b389fafa2f668fa.png

You want a 14 pt with CE and IFHE. It isnt that bad once you get a hang of it. Ive seen some compare it to a Henri at it's tier; where you kite long range. I play it a mix of both. I dive in for torp runs (remaining concealed) then kite out firing. 

 

abruzzi.jpg

edit: but yes it's AA is terrible. Terrible. Terrible.

Edited by Octavian_of_Roma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,938 posts
10,179 battles
1 minute ago, Octavian_of_Roma said:

You want a 14 pt with CE and IFHE. It isnt that bad once you get a hang of it. Ive seen some compare it to a Henri at it's tier; where you kite long range. I play it a mix of both. I dive in for torp runs (remaining concealed) then kite out firing. 

 

abruzzi.jpg

Hey

I have CE but the guns range prevents you from playing "Long Range"  but still the AA is garbage even with DFAA and sector selecting.  The torps are slow and rarely hit anything (area denial maybe, but only 3 per side).  It's the guns that are the issue, they do so little damage, if it was as good as you say, then you would see more of them.  As I said before; there are a vast number of ships that are far better at T7.  

 

Pete

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,255 posts
10,135 battles
1 minute ago, sasquatch_research said:

Hey

I have CE but the guns range prevents you from playing "Long Range"  but still the AA is garbage even with DFAA and sector selecting.  The torps are slow and rarely hit anything (area denial maybe, but only 3 per side).  It's the guns that are the issue, they do so little damage, if it was as good as you say, then you would see more of them.  As I said before; there are a vast number of ships that are far better at T7.  

 

Pete

You use the spotter plane for the "long range" kiting. 

I never said it was that good. Just once you get a hang of it, it isnt terrible; other than it's AA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,938 posts
10,179 battles
32 minutes ago, Octavian_of_Roma said:

You use the spotter plane for the "long range" kiting. 

I never said it was that good. Just once you get a hang of it, it isnt terrible; other than it's AA.

Hey

But there is much that could be done to it to make it at least usable.  I would either increase the DPM of the guns, or increase the HE fire chance, and give it a faster rudder to at least be able to dodge shells, last I would do something about the AA; I mean having DFAA active and using sector select and only shooting down 3 planes is DD pathetic.  

 

Pete

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,255 posts
10,135 battles
2 minutes ago, sasquatch_research said:

Hey

But there is much that could be done to it to make it at least usable.  I would either increase the DPM of the guns, or increase the HE fire chance, and give it a faster rudder to at least be able to dodge shells, last I would do something about the AA; I mean having DFAA active and using sector select and only shooting down 3 planes is DD pathetic.  

 

Pete

AA needs an improvement for sure, unless the national flavor for Italian cruisers is their AA sucks or something. Rudder shift seems fine. Id maybe try to increase the DPM, but with IFHE it isnt terrible again.

I was curious about your comment 

46 minutes ago, sasquatch_research said:

As I said before; there are a vast number of ships that are far better at T7.  

It sits comfortably mid-top among the rest of the T7 cruisers in nearly all categories, except AA (where it sits dead last).  Maybe a small DPM increase would be warranted. 

(There are still 7 tier 7 cruisers below the Indy, not shown in picture)

 

 

abruzzi2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,938 posts
10,179 battles
On ‎6‎/‎28‎/‎2019 at 7:49 PM, Octavian_of_Roma said:

AA needs an improvement for sure, unless the national flavor for Italian cruisers is their AA sucks or something. Rudder shift seems fine. Id maybe try to increase the DPM, but with IFHE it isnt terrible again.

I was curious about your comment 

It sits comfortably mid-top among the rest of the T7 cruisers in nearly all categories, except AA (where it sits dead last).  Maybe a small DPM increase would be warranted. 

(There are still 7 tier 7 cruisers below the Indy, not shown in picture)

 

 

abruzzi2.jpg

Hey

I would say ALL of the ships below the Abruzzi are better with maybe the exception of Indy, and Shchors.  Even Atlanta can be more of a threat as long as there is island cover for it.  The real telling story is the shear lack of games played in it considering how long it's been out.  Let's face it; it's simply not a popular boat because it's garbage.  Some people like Krasny Kreme and what does that say about the quality of the ship.

 

Pete

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,502
[BASIN]
[BASIN]
Members
2,923 posts
On 6/22/2019 at 2:05 AM, tyinnow said:

As hearsay about the Italian cruisers is coming up and people are started getting more and more interested in them, it is time that we leave a good impression in people's minds about what they would be like. For a long time, Abruzzi has been at least slightly underpowered and definitely disliked by the general playerbase, and it is about time that we make it competent. Whether Abruzzi is actually underpowered is, of course, always to the viewer's discretion

Although I haven't taken the risk of buying an Abruzzi myself, previous posts from various sources alerted me to what people think are its flaws, mainly that it has no way of fighting BBs and that it cannot survive against BBs. I've isolated two problems with the Abruzzi: anemic HE performance and bad turret arcs. 

 

Personally, I do not see WG changing the shells themselves that often, but we can still improve them simply by improving the dispersion model. Unlike her cousins, the other Condottieri classes, Abruzzi actually had good dispersion. No, scratch that. Best cruiser dispersion in the world, with some 90 m over 17.5 km and better than in-game destroyers have. So, then, why are the Japanese so preferred in this treatment? Should the Italians get some of this too? Actually, scratch that. Give it better dispersion.

How does this help at all? It provides Abruzzi a good way to pin-point a section and set fires to that section, similar to how Yubari, Japanese CAs, and Mogami work. Yes, the Abruzzi would not be nearly as efficient as its same-tier Japanese counterpart, the Myoko, but at least it gives hope on setting a fire and an edge over other cruisers at long range. Yes, the ship would continue to refuse to set fires, especially with IFHE on, but when someone has damage-controlled, it can be pain.

 

Additional fixes to the guns themselves would involve buffing the HE damage in accordance of accounting for the below, and literally fixing the slightly broken AP damage.

 

As for the turret arcs, fix the X turret. I know it is going to be hard, possibly including remodels, but it is simply stupid. Having to turn your ship 47 degrees broadside? Seriously? Even Pensacola gets a degree of survivability because it could present a small profile while still having all four turrets on target, and then juking to dodge shots (I've personally done this a lot of times). With 47 degrees, it does not really matter what your rudder shift is, you are not going to have that Pensacola experience. It's not completely game-changing, but it helps.

 

In effect, I'm turning this ship into something like a tier VII with an effectiveness against battleships similar to Aoba (although with much higher DPM, much worse arcs and penetration) without IFHE, but potentially buffing it against cruisers and destroyers as well. Hopefully, these changes could be introduced throughout the incoming Italian CLs and make them a better experience to play.



On 6/22/2019 at 2:42 AM, SireneRacker said:

Abruzzi actually can fight BBs, it depends to a large degree on picking the right engagement and to keep an eye on the surroundings. Limit the amount of ships firing at you, use the spotter plane if needed and know where you eat overmatch citadels and where you don‘t. Maneuver accordingly.

D3634778-EF48-4447-B1D6-F2F01C58AD17.thumb.jpeg.501062674f7360db3358b8503b5a9480.jpeg

That‘s what it can look like when you do it right. Yes that Georgia fired at me, six or seven salvos. Took something like 7k damage in total.

Firing angles is only a half true complaint. To the rear they are actually good. Only forward will you struggle. But when you kite, you‘ll be fine.

Doesn‘t mean I‘d oppose a buff to the X-turret arcs. I‘d remove the lifeboats that block the arcs, like it happened with Stalingrad.

 

:Smile_great: I listened to the people who Didn't Like Her  for too long got her for Tier Seven OP  Scenario's and I've never regretted it(tho true to tell only got a couple months ago)She's a nice ship and I like her far better than I ever did the Pepsi,I also agree  she's as good as the Helena just in different ways:Smile_medal::Smile_honoring:

 

 

Edited by shadowsrmine
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,255 posts
10,135 battles
5 hours ago, sasquatch_research said:

Hey

I would say ALL of the ships below the Abruzzi are better with maybe the exception of Indy, and Shchors.  Even Atlanta can be more of a threat as long as there is island cover for it.  The real telling story is the shear lack of games played in it considering how long it's been out.  Let's face it; it's simply not a popular boat because it's garbage.  Some people like Krasny Kreme and what does that say about the quality of the ship.

 

Pete

You seem to have difficulty separating people liking a boat vs how people perform in it. 

Im not going to respond anymore since this is clear. But the boat is alright, it isnt really as bad as you make it sound, but also isnt some OP boat. It's just mostly in the middle. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×