Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
AdmiralJeff76

Potential little KM BB buff without overdoing it.

23 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

564
[R-F]
Members
333 posts
11,970 battles

These ships are known for secondaries, and even though that isn't their best build that's a little of what my idea is about. Basically to give a little bump, bake either Aiming Systems Mod 1 or Secondary Battery Mod 2 into the ship so that they can functionally get both without compromising the other. This would make playing the ships feel a little more effective without buffing them in a super significant way. If it was my choice I'd embrace the secondaries and just add the traits of Secondary Battery Mod 2 to the ship. 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13,433
[WOLF3]
[WOLF3]
Members
32,147 posts
26,918 battles

No.

You want that specific capability, you build for it.

 

Here's a fun fact.

Tier VIII and below USN Battleships can't even slot ASM1.

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
564
[R-F]
Members
333 posts
11,970 battles
6 minutes ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

Here's a fun fact.

Tier VIII and below USN Battleships can't even slot ASM1

Almost like they are compensated for that by having above average accuracy and getting their special mod at tier 9 and 10. Your USN BB reference only gives credit to my idea, because they don't need to build for it and can take a secondary talent (Massachusetts comes to mind) or AA puffs without consequence. Thank you for giving a concrete proof of concept example of how my idea could work for the Germans. :) 

Edited by Ossiuum
  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,320
[MUDDX]
Banned
8,144 posts
23,987 battles

no ship should ever be buffed nor nerfed once added to the game. All ships that have been removed should be returned as they were when first added except the Kitikama. All buffs and nerfs to any ship presently in the game should be removed.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
564
[R-F]
Members
333 posts
11,970 battles
Just now, CAPTMUDDXX said:

no ship should ever be buffed nor nerfed once added to the game. All ships that have been removed should be returned as they were when first added except the Kitikama. All buffs and nerfs to any ship presently in the game should be removed

Go on... It's maybe not the most rediculous thing I've ever read but like this month is probably is

  • Cool 3
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,059
[WOLFG]
Members
13,388 posts
12,784 battles
20 minutes ago, Ossiuum said:

Almost like they are compensated for that by having above average accuracy and getting their special mod at tier 9 and 10. Your USN BB reference only gives credit to my idea, because they don't need to build for it and can take a secondary talent (Massachusetts comes to mind) or AA puffs without consequence. Thank you for giving a concrete proof of concept example of how my idea could work for the Germans. :) 

I have a New Mexico.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13,433
[WOLF3]
[WOLF3]
Members
32,147 posts
26,918 battles
25 minutes ago, Ossiuum said:

Almost like they are compensated for that by having above average accuracy and getting their special mod at tier 9 and 10. Your USN BB reference only gives credit to my idea, because they don't need to build for it and can take a secondary talent (Massachusetts comes to mind) or AA puffs without consequence. Thank you for giving a concrete proof of concept example of how my idea could work for the Germans. :) 

You still didn't grasp that the entire USN BB Line doesn't get access to ASM1.

It's nice for IX-X USN BBs.

But what about Tier VIII and below? :Smile_smile:

New Mexico?  LOLORADO?  NY / TX?  What good is APRM2 for them since they can't even access it? :Smile_Default:

 

A DD wants faster torpedoes.  Well buddy, there's TA for it.

A Benham wants faster reloading torpedoes.  Well buddy, there's TTM3.

Secondary Spec BB?  You need to take SBM1.

 

You want the capability, you pay for it.  It's why nobody takes you BB players seriously with all these crazy threads.

  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
709
[UN1]
Members
1,421 posts
4,684 battles

It's actually not all that bad of an idea.  The Russian BB line doesn't have access to GFCSM2. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
564
[R-F]
Members
333 posts
11,970 battles
1 minute ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

But what about Tier VIII and below? :Smile_smile:

New Mexico?  LOLORADO?  NY / TX?  What good is APRM2 for them since they can't even access it? 

That's fair, let's limit to mid tier and up for the sake of discussion and we'll just compare the main battery of battleships from Gneisenau and Colorado to GK and Montana. 

Colorado: more shells, bigger shells, higher damage per shell, more accurate. 

North Carolina: undisputed tier 8 best main battery up to release of Vlad and Lenin, now debatable. All without the slot 6 mod or ASM1. 

Iowa/Missouri vs FDG main battery: Extra shell, better shell, more accurate, better turret layout. 

Montana: Far more accurate, waaay better firing angles, armor scheme just as good if you aren't a potato.

Throwing the KM line 7% decreased max dispersion wouldn't bring their main battery anywhere close to the US. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
739 posts
7,780 battles

Think that secondaries as a whole need to be changed, very gimmicky as it is.

Also... New cruiser line with much secondary power would be fun...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13,433
[WOLF3]
[WOLF3]
Members
32,147 posts
26,918 battles
29 minutes ago, Ossiuum said:

That's fair, let's limit to mid tier and up for the sake of discussion and we'll just compare the main battery of battleships from Gneisenau and Colorado to GK and Montana. 

Colorado: more shells, bigger shells, higher damage per shell, more accurate. 

North Carolina: undisputed tier 8 best main battery up to release of Vlad and Lenin, now debatable. All without the slot 6 mod or ASM1. 

Iowa/Missouri vs FDG main battery: Extra shell, better shell, more accurate, better turret layout. 

Montana: Far more accurate, waaay better firing angles, armor scheme just as good if you aren't a potato.

Throwing the KM line 7% decreased max dispersion wouldn't bring their main battery anywhere close to the US. 

Gneisenau

30kt speed vs 21kts of Colorado.

50mm deck armor to help mitigate the raw HE spam damage.

Long range Secondaries Build:  7.2km for Colorado vs 7.63km of Gnesienau.

Gneisenau's 128mm Secondaries are VASTLY superior.  They also have artificially buffed HE Pen of 31mm by default, without IFHE.

Gneisenau has torpedoes

German BB Turtlebacks

Hilariously, Gneisenau has always had superior AA over "But muh national flavor is AA!" Colorado

 

North Carolina?  Undisputed?  Disagree.

Amagi has the best set of BB guns in Tier VIII because they are more accurate at range, i.e. less dispersion than North Carolina despite NC having 2.0 Sigma.

Anyways, North Carolina needs her gunnery because she doesn't have good Secondaries to fall back on.

 

Iowa gunnery > FDG in Tier IX.  I will completely agree on that.

HOWEVER...

FDG has German BB Turtlebacks

50mm deck armor

Superior Secondaries

105mm Secondaries were recently buffed to have higher HE Pen than they normally would.  FDG's 105mm have 25mm HE Pen while the larger 127mm guns on Iowa have a normal 20mm HE Pen.

But I'm not going to complain about the secondaries for Iowa because she is centered around her Main Battery.  The state of the secondaries are the simple fact of life.  Tech Tree USN BBs were never about Secondaries anyways.  Even if you did Sec.Spec on Iowa, the Secondaries are still way inferior to her peers.

Lastly, to help FDG a bit, WG not too long ago buffed the reload of her 406s an 420s (and only hers, GK's 406 / 420 guns didn't get the reload buffs).  With MBM3 the 406s reload at 22.9 seconds.  Not saying "MUSASHI BETTER WATCH OUT NOW!" but it helps FDG's situation better.

 

Montana, built around her Main Battery, as is typical for USN BBs.

GK however has:

50mm deck armor.

German BB Turtlebacks.

VASTLY SUPERIOR Secondaries.

She has the same high pen 128mm secondaries as Gneisenau, but she now has much longer range and there's of course, more of them.

GK also has German Hydro access.

Simply put, GK is the brawling specialist while Montana prefers intermediate to long.

And that's just the way it is.

 

All your complaints have been about Main Battery proficiency.  You should have played a BB Line like USN or IJN, because Germans are brawler specialists and their attributes are centered around that.

24 minutes ago, Sethanas said:

Think that secondaries as a whole need to be changed, very gimmicky as it is.

Also... New cruiser line with much secondary power would be fun...

I'm pretty sure Battleship players would love nothing more than a Cruiser that thinks it can hang in a brawl with their piddly Secondaries.

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,108
[FOXEH]
Banned
14,364 posts
21,597 battles
55 minutes ago, CAPTMUDDXX said:

no ship should ever be buffed nor nerfed once added to the game. All ships that have been removed should be returned as they were when first added except the Kitikama. All buffs and nerfs to any ship presently in the game should be removed.

Can you imagine the crying and the salty tears if that ever happened? Open water stealth firing back; IJN torps back; radar gone from tier 7 ships; the list is just endless.

1 hour ago, Ossiuum said:

they are compensated for that by having above average accuracy

Which compensation would be for their moon walk firing arcs, not anything else; German BBs are just fine as is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
564
[R-F]
Members
333 posts
11,970 battles
13 minutes ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

You should have played a BB Line like USN or IJN

See my wows-numbers page. I'm looking at this as objectively as possible as someone proficient at all or the BB lines. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,320
[MUDDX]
Banned
8,144 posts
23,987 battles
2 minutes ago, Umikami said:

Can you imagine the crying and the salty tears if that ever happened? Open water stealth firing back; IJN torps back; radar gone from tier 7 ships; the list is just endless.

I would shed no tear for nor hear any of that. All the senseless crap that has been done is just exactly that senseless crap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
564
[R-F]
Members
333 posts
11,970 battles
4 minutes ago, Umikami said:

Which compensation would be for their moon walk firing arcs,

High arcs and long shell travel time typically only have an adverse effect on players who aren't practiced in using them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13,433
[WOLF3]
[WOLF3]
Members
32,147 posts
26,918 battles
5 minutes ago, Ossiuum said:

See my wows-numbers page. I'm looking at this as objectively as possible as someone proficient at all or the BB lines. 

I've spent quite a bit of time in BBs also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,108
[FOXEH]
Banned
14,364 posts
21,597 battles
11 hours ago, Ossiuum said:

High arcs and long shell travel time typically only have an adverse effect on players who aren't practiced in using them. 

Nonsense and folderol; high arcs and long shell travel time only serve to give experienced players more time to maneuver out from under incoming shells. Your statement is both completely wrong [edited].

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,108
[FOXEH]
Banned
14,364 posts
21,597 battles
6 minutes ago, CAPTMUDDXX said:

I would shed no tear for nor hear any of that. All the senseless crap that has been done is just exactly that senseless crap.

Oh, I'd have no problems with it; but you can bet others would. I loves my DDs!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
564
[R-F]
Members
333 posts
11,970 battles
3 minutes ago, Umikami said:

Nonsense and folderol; high arcs and long shell travel time only serve to give experienced players more time to maneuver out from under incoming shells. Your statement is both completely wrong and mind-numbingly hilarious.

OK let me rephrase, good players can mitigate the negatives of long flight time of the USN BBs and it will typically only to a very minor degree effect them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
739 posts
7,780 battles
2 hours ago, Umikami said:

Nonsense and folderol; high arcs and long shell travel time only serve to give experienced players more time to maneuver out from under incoming shells. Your statement is both completely wrong and mind-numbingly hilarious.

Well... the higher arcs do give AP shells a bit of an advantage, plunging fire is strong, the Atlanta for example will actually pen a great many BBs with AP at range, also the higher arcs are extremely practical for island camping. Longer travel time tho isn't ever an advantage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,108
[FOXEH]
Banned
14,364 posts
21,597 battles
3 hours ago, Ossiuum said:

OK let me rephrase, good players can mitigate the negatives of long flight time of the USN BBs and it will typically only to a very minor degree effect them. 

If ship "A", firing at another ship 17 km away, has shells that take 10 seconds to get there and ship "B", firing at the same ship has shells that take 15 seconds to get there, all the experience in the world isn't going to mitigate the distanced the ship being fired at can travel in 5 extra seconds. And as the Captain in the ship being fired at gains a better understanding of the game, the difference between those two flight times just becomes more and more exaggerated. Because no matter how "GOOD" the player in ship "B" is, his shells take 5 more seconds to arrive, and that is a life saving amount of time for maneuvering. Minor degrees, mitigation, and any other foolio words you want to throw in, it's still nonsense and you're blowing smoke up other players rears with something that just isn't true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,108
[FOXEH]
Banned
14,364 posts
21,597 battles
36 minutes ago, Sethanas said:

Well... the higher arcs do give AP shells a bit of an advantage, plunging fire is strong, the Atlanta for example will actually pen a great many BBs with AP at range, also the higher arcs are extremely practical for island camping. Longer travel time tho isn't ever an advantage.

You're absolutely right, higher arcs DO make the hits you get more damaging, but only when they hit, and those same higher arcs make that much harder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
818 posts
6,287 battles
5 hours ago, Sethanas said:

Think that secondaries as a whole need to be changed, very gimmicky as it is.

Also... New cruiser line with much secondary power would be fun...

i have to agree with this, i can understand secondary guns being mediocre without investment but droping 14 point into them and all we get is a 5-11k meme gun that shoots fireworks is terrible.

either make secondary related skills/modules much stronger or start adding perks to those skills/modules like manual sec alowing us to switch between main and secondary guns controls  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×