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

"Super"Cruisers - anyone else?

31 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

338
[RMRGD]
Members
452 posts
21,199 battles

Anyone else find the super cruisers just not very interesting.  I have Azuma/Alaska/Kronstandt and I don't play them very much.    I got a good chunk of games in each but I find them just not very fun.     They are not accurate enough to kill DDs (unless RNG favors you a bit)  Its easy to overpenn CAs but shatter on BBs.    I know broadsides are different but that is only if the chance comes up.   The HE seems weak .   Azuma HE setting fires isnt bad.   I rather play other ships for fire starters.  

Not saying they don't have a place, and I can see why some people enjoy them.    I just don't get a lot of excitement playing in the back with  slower guns.    Which is why I don''t play a lot of sniper BBs.    Anyone else feel the same way?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,187
[SYN]
Members
8,137 posts
12,792 battles

I don't play Azuma because she's weak and one-dimensional.

I don't play Kronshtadt because getting HE bombed by Midway for 10k damage and 2x 45s fires 3 times from a squadron is awful.

I don't play Alaska, much, simply because I don't much care for the ballistics.

 

It's not the type, it's the individual characteristics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,692
[KNMSU]
Members
6,865 posts
7,503 battles

I find the entire concept largely stupid. While I always felt from the start that battlecruisers belonged in their own sub-classification, they make more sense as battleships than cruisers (BCs were capital ships, cruisers aren't; BCs were in many ways the forerunners to the fast battleship; cruisers weren't, etc.). 

The problem here is that the decision-making associated with the placement of these vessels has absolutely zero to do with balance, and everything to do with farming them for maximum dollars. WG recognizes that a pretty healthy cut of the playerbase is obsessed with battlecruisers and will buy them regardless of the cost. Why "properly" place them as BBs in tiers 6/7/8 when you can reap absurd bucks at tier 9/10?

Edited by Battleship_Elisabeth
  • Cool 2
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
529
[TNP66]
Beta Testers
1,867 posts
4,436 battles

Kronstadt seems to be best for a more aggressive play style while the other two do best at a distance. Siegfried I am iffy on I will get Yoshino first I think 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,469
[KSC]
Clan Supertest Coordinator
4,625 posts
7,010 battles
4 minutes ago, mofton said:

I don't play Azuma because she's weak and one-dimensional.

I don't play Kronshtadt because getting HE bombed by Midway for 10k damage and 2x 45s fires 3 times from a squadron is awful.

I don't play Alaska, much, simply because I don't much care for the ballistics.

 

It's not the type, it's the individual characteristics.

I don't know, I think the general characteristics of CBs are inherently poorly suited to this game.  They're a cross between BBs and CAs and sort of get the worst of both worlds.  They don't have the overmatch and alpha to rival BBs, and they don't have the DPM or consistency to rival cruisers.  Even the Stalingrad, once you get past the hype, suffers from a lot of these problems, just not on the same scale. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,779
[PVE]
Members
10,010 posts
18,252 battles
12 minutes ago, deresistance said:

Anyone else find the super cruisers just not very interesting.  I have Azuma/Alaska/Kronstandt and I don't play them very much.    I got a good chunk of games in each but I find them just not very fun.     They are not accurate enough to kill DDs (unless RNG favors you a bit)  Its easy to overpenn CAs but shatter on BBs.    I know broadsides are different but that is only if the chance comes up.   The HE seems weak .   Azuma HE setting fires isnt bad.   I rather play other ships for fire starters.  

Not saying they don't have a place, and I can see why some people enjoy them.    I just don't get a lot of excitement playing in the back with  slower guns.    Which is why I don''t play a lot of sniper BBs.    Anyone else feel the same way?

I have Alaska and Kronshtadt. Passed on Azuma and Yoshino as it is clear they suck. As to the 2 I have...

  • Kronshtadt is a port queen for me. Guns are way too unreliable and wonky which for me = frustrating. They make the ship extremely unfun to play as proper aim and such is not rewarded so I seldom use it; just special events and missions is it. It has nothing but the guns going for it so basically it was a waste of 750K FXP. I hate the thing tbh.
  • Alaska. Now this one is a boss! Great ship and worth the 1 Million FXP. I play it all the time. Very accurate guns, useable/adequate HE, brutal AP (even vs BB), and is very tough and tanky when angled. Alaska is everything Kronshtadt wants to be and fails miserably at.

I was starting to warm up to the WIP Siegfried (based on streams and replays I have seen) but then saw WG took out the nerf bat and beat it senseless like they did PEF and will probably pass now.

Alaska seems to be the only one so far they have got right (IMO - YMMV).

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,495
[TNG-2]
Members
2,052 posts
4,386 battles

I have been trolling BBs big time with Yoshi and IFHE.  Getting 8-10k HE salvos on bow in Yammies or kremls is quite normal. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,113 posts
30 minutes ago, deresistance said:

Anyone else find the super cruisers just not very interesting. 

my problem with them is that they are not that efficient in burning the BBs, and that's sad....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,187
[SYN]
Members
8,137 posts
12,792 battles
1 minute ago, yashma said:

I don't know, I think the general characteristics of CBs are inherently poorly suited to this game.  They're a cross between BBs and CAs and sort of get the worst of both worlds.  They don't have the overmatch and alpha to rival BBs, and they don't have the DPM or consistency to rival cruisers.  Even the Stalingrad, once you get past the hype, suffers from a lot of these problems, just not on the same scale. 

I think there is a point that they lack the DPM of the cruiser while also lacking the overmatch of the battleship. Raw pen is some mitigation, as are the better autobounce angles that 2/4 get and pretty decent HE and HE pen on the other two.

They get some of the worst worlds, but some of the better ones -

  • They get 30% citadel damage repairable, rather than 10% on battleships
  • Fire duration at 45s is while worse than 30s cruisers, better than 60s battleships
  • The HP/displacement formula is a split again, more HP ton-for-ton than battleships, though less than cruisers
  • Access to radar/hydro/DFAA - depending on the ship - which battleships lack

Overall cruiser accuracy, better-than-cruiser alpha and some autobounce advantage can probably be balanced even if they lack the alpha/overmatch of battleships.

With the proposed changes to 16mm high tier CL plating they will gain quite a lot (though Siegfried will relatively lose out) and that's an interesting, though I think bad change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
206
[CHASE]
Beta Testers
339 posts
11,418 battles
12 minutes ago, mofton said:

Fire duration at 45s is while worse than 30s cruisers, better than 60s battleships

Their fire duration is 60s, same as BBs. Used to be 45s, but was balanced to 60s while Alaska was in testing and every large cruiser have had this value changed since then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,495
[TNG-2]
Members
2,052 posts
4,386 battles
43 minutes ago, loco_max said:

my problem with them is that they are not that efficient in burning the BBs, and that's sad....

Who cares about burning BBs when you sail in a Yoshi and get full pens on all HE salvos? 

Edited by Legio_X_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,113 posts
1 minute ago, Legio_X_ said:

Who cares about burning BBs when you sail in a Yoshi and get full pens on all HE salvos? 

true, but you may not frustrate the BB whiners, which is an extra pleasure....

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
89
[USMC-]
Members
210 posts
6,395 battles

I regret getting the Kronstadt. But it was just a coal purchase, not real money so no big deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
324
[NMKJT]
Members
2,267 posts
6,249 battles

I mostly like the supercruisers, but they are weird hybrids in playstyle that often get shafted by how a match will flow. It doesn't help that the only thing they're ever exposed to most of the time is the most high tier meta you can see (T10).

1 hour ago, Battleship_Elisabeth said:

I find the entire concept largely stupid. While I always felt from the start that battlecruisers belonged in their own sub-classification, they make more sense as battleships than cruisers (BCs were capital ships, cruisers aren't; BCs were in many ways the forerunners to the fast battleship; cruisers weren't, etc.). 

The problem here is that the decision-making associated with the placement of these vessels has absolutely zero to do with balance, and everything to do with farming them for maximum dollars. WG recognizes that a pretty healthy cut of the playerbase is obsessed with battlecruisers and will buy them regardless of the cost. Why "properly" place them as BBs in tiers 6/7/8 when you can reap absurd bucks at tier 9/10?

The original battlecruisers were a lot more that, out of the later supercruiser things only Kron even comes close to that relative concept. But WG will always try to max the money/time investment, so them being as high tier as possible was always a foregone conclusion imo.

1 hour ago, AdmiralThunder said:

I have Alaska and Kronshtadt. Passed on Azuma and Yoshino as it is clear they suck. As to the 2 I have...

  • Kronshtadt is a port queen for me. Guns are way too unreliable and wonky which for me = frustrating. They make the ship extremely unfun to play as proper aim and such is not rewarded so I seldom use it; just special events and missions is it. It has nothing but the guns going for it so basically it was a waste of 750K FXP. I hate the thing tbh.
  • Alaska. Now this one is a boss! Great ship and worth the 1 Million FXP. I play it all the time. Very accurate guns, useable/adequate HE, brutal AP (even vs BB), and is very tough and tanky when angled. Alaska is everything Kronshtadt wants to be and fails miserably at.

I was starting to warm up to the WIP Siegfried (based on streams and replays I have seen) but then saw WG took out the nerf bat and beat it senseless like they did PEF and will probably pass now.

Alaska seems to be the only one so far they have got right (IMO - YMMV).

In randoms I prefer Kron by far, since the bots sail at you and that lessens how bad Alaska's ballistics are. But when you're stuck in one of those stale campy matches where nothing happens, I'm willing to trade some accuracy for not being forced to just shoot HE by default. Kron can cit an NC from max range, which is pretty nice.

1 hour ago, yashma said:

I don't know, I think the general characteristics of CBs are inherently poorly suited to this game.  They're a cross between BBs and CAs and sort of get the worst of both worlds.  They don't have the overmatch and alpha to rival BBs, and they don't have the DPM or consistency to rival cruisers.  Even the Stalingrad, once you get past the hype, suffers from a lot of these problems, just not on the same scale. 

They mix really badly with the way the map design in this game shakes out imo, the whole 'cluster of islands around objectives and then long featureless open ocean everywhere else on a very limited map size' really doesn't do them any favors.

Edited by MnemonScarlet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,495
[TNG-2]
Members
2,052 posts
4,386 battles
5 minutes ago, MnemonScarlet said:

I mostly like the supercruisers, but they are weird hybrids in playstyle that often get shafted by how a match will flow. It doesn't help that the only thing they're ever exposed to most of the time is the most high tier meta you can see (T10).

The original battlecruisers were a lot more that, out of the later supercruiser things only Kron even comes close to that relative concept. But WG will always try to max the money/time investment, so them being as high tier as possible was always a foregone conclusion imo.

In randoms I prefer Kron by far, since the bots sail at you and that lessens how bad Alaska's ballistics are. But when you're stuck in one of those stale campy matches where nothing happens, I'm willing to trade some accuracy for not being forced to just shoot HE by default. Kron can cit an NC from max range, which is pretty nice.

Explain how Yoshi sucks? I enjoy her a lot. With insane range, tight dispersion, and HE+IFHE that can pen anything in the game. You can seriously rack up damage numbers on ships in game. The 20km torps are icing on the cake for controlling enemy pushes. I consider the Yoshi a direct counter to Yammies and Kremls. I have punished alot of those ships when they are sitting bow in somewhere. Sorry you cant bounce mu shells!

 

opps sorry quoted wrong person....

Edited by Legio_X_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
77
[MHG]
Members
292 posts
6,280 battles
1 hour ago, Legio_X_ said:

I have been trolling BBs big time with Yoshi and IFHE.  Getting 8-10k HE salvos on bow in Yammies or kremls is quite normal.

The fact you need IFHE on 300-310mm guns to make it work should tell you something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
324
[NMKJT]
Members
2,267 posts
6,249 battles
1 minute ago, Legio_X_ said:

Explain how Yoshi sucks? I enjoy her a lot. With insane range, tight dispersion, and HE+IFHE that can pen anything in the game. You can seriously rack up damage numbers on ships in game. The 20km torps are icing on the cake for controlling enemy pushes. I consider the Yoshi a direct counter to Yammies and Kremls. I have punished alot of those ships when they are sitting bow in somewhere. Sorry you cant bounce mu shells!

Where did I say that? I didn't mention it specifically for a reason, I don't have it yet. Mostly I'm talking about Alaska/Kron.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
77
[MHG]
Members
292 posts
6,280 battles

I love my Alaska and Kron has its moments. Azuma and Yoshino are both passes for me with the relatively low armor coupled with the max range play style. Don’t care for that much. Kron guns are wonky as hell a lot of the time so I don’t take her out much. Alaska is a blast to play though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,692
[KNMSU]
Members
6,865 posts
7,503 battles
15 minutes ago, MnemonScarlet said:

They mix really badly with the way the map design in this game shakes out imo, the whole 'cluster of islands around objectives and then long featureless open ocean everywhere else on a very limited map size' really doesn't do them any favors.

I totally agree with this. Battlecruisers were the ultimate scouts - the most modern versions (especially in WWI) could only be caught and killed by opposing BCs. Their entire purpose (other than co-opted roles like commerce raiding) was to serve as the heavyweight eyes of the fleet, directly supporting light cruisers to report on the enemy's position, as well as (optimistically) picking off stragglers, and deterring/denying opposing BCs from completing their own reconnaissance.

Pretty much none of that is valid in WoWs. The maps are too small and too campy for the kind of extended, running engagements that these ships were designed for. In snipe-fests, they get shot through the bow and deleted. As flankers, they get chased by battleships that are often just as fast as they are and overwhelmed. There isn't really "independent action" in this game - there aren't enough opportunities to properly utilize the advantages a BC might possess, and far too many times when their weaknesses are all too evident. 

Jacky Fisher would be appalled to watch Notser sitting in his Siegfried, stationary behind a rock, taking pot-shots. It's just incredibly stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
680
[CVLOV]
Beta Testers
3,640 posts
2,633 battles
1 hour ago, deresistance said:

Anyone else find the super cruisers just not very interesting.  I have Azuma/Alaska/Kronstandt and I don't play them very much.    I got a good chunk of games in each but I find them just not very fun.     They are not accurate enough to kill DDs (unless RNG favors you a bit)  Its easy to overpenn CAs but shatter on BBs.    I know broadsides are different but that is only if the chance comes up.   The HE seems weak .   Azuma HE setting fires isnt bad.   I rather play other ships for fire starters.  

Not saying they don't have a place, and I can see why some people enjoy them.    I just don't get a lot of excitement playing in the back with  slower guns.    Which is why I don''t play a lot of sniper BBs.    Anyone else feel the same way?

They burn too much, which means they are easy kill for HE spamming cruisers -- of course you get to citadel cruisers easier with this than say, most other cruisers... but so can you with a regular BB
They get owned by BBs easier than if you where to play another BB instead.  So you get owned by HE just the same and by BB almost just the same.
Why play these again?

If they really would be to hunt other cruisers as WG and other seem to maintain, then they would need HE resistance like nothing else.  It would really make super cruisers special and warrant them getting owned by BBs.  They would indeed be "in-between" in the food chain.
But no, instead they made them burn like BBs because reasons.

Agility/AA wise, it's not something outstanding.  They aren't bad either, but nothing special.
Concealment?  Meh.  You'd better play a Zao or something amongst those lines.

They have their moment, but they do not rub on me.  I'd rather play (or have) another CR/CL, or DD, or BB on my team instead.  Much more worthwhile.
IMHO the key to cementing their place in the X>Y>Z>X is to make them super resistant to Fires at the very least.  I'd even make them immune. 
If you're a HE spamming Cruiser -- you're f**ked. (Immune remember?)
If you're a light caliber AP cruiser? still fuc**d (Better armor than cruisers)
if you're a BB, DD, or CV?  you own the Super Cruisers.

That's how I would fix them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,495
[TNG-2]
Members
2,052 posts
4,386 battles
20 minutes ago, MnemonScarlet said:

Where did I say that? I didn't mention it specifically for a reason, I don't have it yet. Mostly I'm talking about Alaska/Kron.

Read my edit. I said i quoted wrong person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,469
[KSC]
Clan Supertest Coordinator
4,625 posts
7,010 battles
48 minutes ago, mofton said:

I think there is a point that they lack the DPM of the cruiser while also lacking the overmatch of the battleship. Raw pen is some mitigation, as are the better autobounce angles that 2/4 get and pretty decent HE and HE pen on the other two.

They get some of the worst worlds, but some of the better ones -

  • They get 30% citadel damage repairable, rather than 10% on battleships
  • Fire duration at 45s is while worse than 30s cruisers, better than 60s battleships
  • The HP/displacement formula is a split again, more HP ton-for-ton than battleships, though less than cruisers
  • Access to radar/hydro/DFAA - depending on the ship - which battleships lack

Overall cruiser accuracy, better-than-cruiser alpha and some autobounce advantage can probably be balanced even if they lack the alpha/overmatch of battleships.

With the proposed changes to 16mm high tier CL plating they will gain quite a lot (though Siegfried will relatively lose out) and that's an interesting, though I think bad change.

I'm still not entirely convinced.  They were all changed to get 60 second fire duration, they have significantly more vulnerable citadels than BBs on top of less HP, the radar is a saving grace but their ability to deal with DDs is considerably worse than equivalent cruisers, and at least some of them still get absolutely wrecked by CVs.

I'm not saying they're bad ships, some of them can be quite strong, but I don't think they're inherently advantaged in game.  They rely on their opponents making mistakes and in a lot of scenarios a proper BB or cruiser simply performs better. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,187
[SYN]
Members
8,137 posts
12,792 battles
45 minutes ago, axyarthur said:

Their fire duration is 60s, same as BBs. Used to be 45s, but was balanced to 60s while Alaska was in testing and every large cruiser have had this value changed since then.

My mistake, thanks for the reminder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,156
[SIM]
Members
4,239 posts
7,254 battles

Alaska is good, I hear that Stalingrad is a monster, but the other three range between mediocre to laughable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×