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

How to Fix the RN Heavy CA's

25 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

56
[GGWP]
Members
105 posts
9,976 battles

First of all...
I have to start with saying that I wanted to enjoy this ship line.

They aren't good. They aren't bad. They are below average

They are fixable

I'm not going to tell you how to play these ships because i really don't know what they are supposed to do. :(
_______________________________________________________________________________________________

 

T8 Albemarle

This one is tough. I really want to like this ship. it has almost all the pieces to make a well rounded cruiser.
The armor is fine. I think that we should get the Stalingrad's and Moskva's out of our heads and remember that BB's counter CA's, CA's counter DD's, DD's counter BB's, and CV's counter everything. 
CA's shouldn't have anti BB armor and I think that this ship does a good job of holding the balance of tanky and squishy. 
You will be punished for showing broadside in this ship and that's how it should be. 

Now...
The guns. 

Seriously Wargaming, buff the guns. The AP pen is terrible, and HE alpha is lacking and the guns are the only thing the ship has going for it over something like the chappy or Baltimore.
We don't need more HE spam.  
My recommended fix is to buff the reload from 13 seconds to 11 seconds and increase the HE alpha from 3300 to 3700. The AP alpha needs a buff from 4500 to 4700. (Baltimore has same caliber 203 with 5000 AP alpha and 10 second reload.)
The AP pen is disgraceful. If you wont fix the AP pen fix the reload so I don't get 4k salvos with 8 pens on a broadside every 13 seconds. 


T9 Drake

Don't play this ship. Play the Buffalo. 
Its painful because it has so much potential and you want to do good but your 18 SECOND RELOAD stops any sort of DPM.

Its a Lion but a cruiser. 
Just sit in the back and spam HE. Cause that's what the game needs.

Not bad but meh. 
The armor is meh. 

It has the same "Really, how was that not a citadel!?" reaction factor that the Albemarle has.

So, here is how to fix her.

Having the bow at 25 mm is fair. 
But no *tanky* cruiser can have a 25mm side plate. Seriously. 

1. Buff the Upper belt (Auxiliary room armor) to 40mm. 

2. Buff reload to 13 seconds. 

Thats it.
Its not hard WG.  We all know you wont bother with the AP pen because you are too busy designing 8 Smolensk's, but this ship line was rushed, and is not balanced properly. Atleast fix the DPM.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

You cant push in with these T8 and T9 cruisers because you get blapped by any BB with over match of 25 mm. AKA if its T9+ good luck!

Buffing the armor on the side and reload will make this cruiser a contender in port, instead of a collector ship that looks nice but plays trash.

Im playing through the ships without free xp to get a fuller experience.

I'll do a post on Goliath when I reach her.

Edited by xKSNx
  • Cool 4
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,420
[FEM]
Members
2,103 posts
17,343 battles

This is just wrong on so many levels. Buffing an already solid t9 by reducing reload by 5 seconds is insane. Take reload mod and spotter plane you're fine. We'll see where the stats shake out but it sure seems like the ships are extremely "fine" which is a good thing. New lines shouldnt have to be better than previous lines. Hawkins on the other hand... That thing needs buffs

  • Cool 5
  • Confused 2
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,853
[BASIN]
[BASIN]
Members
4,351 posts
16,947 battles
4 minutes ago, Kebobstuzov said:

This is just wrong on so many levels. Buffing an already solid t9 by reducing reload by 5 seconds is insane. Take reload mod and spotter plane you're fine. We'll see where the stats shake out but it sure seems like the ships are extremely "fine" which is a good thing. New lines shouldnt have to be better than previous lines. Hawkins on the other hand... That thing needs buffs

Even the Italian heavy cruisers are better than the RN heavy cruisers.  I'm giving the RN  heavy cruisers a Hard Pass!

Edited by shadowsrmine
  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56
[GGWP]
Members
105 posts
9,976 battles

 

10 minutes ago, Kebobstuzov said:

This is just wrong on so many levels. Buffing an already solid t9 by reducing reload by 5 seconds is insane. Take reload mod and spotter plane you're fine. We'll see where the stats shake out but it sure seems like the ships are extremely "fine" which is a good thing. New lines shouldnt have to be better than previous lines. Hawkins on the other hand... That thing needs buffs

The reload needs a buff bro, and an opinion is an opinion :)

Thanks for your input though.


I do agree that if the Russian ships had been introduced after this line it wouldn't be much of a problem. But the average of what a ship should be at T10 went up man. 

Edited by xKSNx
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
277
[BOMBL]
Members
1,203 posts
15,199 battles

T9-10 need a reload buff. Similar cruisers like Zao and Hindi have much faster reloads. Moscva and Henry have larger guns and are faster reloading. The playstyle is sit at max range typically near bbs so you don’t get focused and light fires on bbs or ca. You don’t hunt dds with this line. 
t8 needs a minor reload buff. It’s very similar to Balti without the tankiness and AP but worse reload and squishy. 

AP is underwhelming but the HE is fantastic. 

honestly these are the worst ca line maybe the worst cruiser line in the game. Not fun to play and the effectiveness is difficult with reload. After I grind the Goliath I don’t know why I would reach for a RN CA. I’m disappointed. I really thought they would be better. 
 

 

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,763
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
8,816 posts
15,397 battles

I've played Hawkins through Albemarle, Hawkins and Albemarle are crap, Surrey and Devonshire are simply poor and boring.

My more fun oriented position would be:

1. Remove Albemarle from the game, a Neptune citadel ship with no smoke and atrocious firing angles will never be fun. The core design of the ship, sitting among relatively low citadels is really dumb.

2. Nerf the super-heal in exchange for RN CL style maneuverability. These things handle like barges with the tugs off on vacation. Awful rudders, awful turning, low base speed = rubbish, unenjoyable handling. Fix it. All the RN lines have good handling, DD and CL have the acceleration, BB generally have good handling (and very good for Conq leg mod, Thunderer and Vanguard) yet the CA... Trash tier. 

3. Reduce the alpha and fire chance, and 1/4 HE pen in exchange for higher ROF. This is more historic, treads less on the toes of the Japanese and is generally more fun. Shooting is fun, waiting a long time for pretty miserable results is not. The ballistics are never good, so higher RoF to adjust aim is a plus. London managed 6 RPM during some tests, the Japanese shell hoists were limited to pretty much 2 RPM on some ships yet... At least nod to history.

 

Anyway that is my appreciation. A low effort, lazy implementation line rife with avoidable errors. 

Edited by mofton
  • Cool 3
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,067
[SALVO]
Members
25,806 posts
28,077 battles

I have to admit that I'm not fond of overly high reload rates on 8" gunned CAs.  But remember that the guns on the Drake and Goliath are not 8" guns.  They're 9.2" guns.  So that should give them a somewhat higher reload.

I'll also say that I'm not overly fond of the RN CAs having great HE but meh AP.  I'd rather that their HE and AP were both good.  This isn't a complaint about HE spam.  It's more a case of my preferring cruisers to have both of their ammo types be reasonably good.  After all, it kind of stinks if you're in a situation where you really want to use AP but your AP blows.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
99
[OO7]
Beta Testers
476 posts
11,253 battles
7 hours ago, Kebobstuzov said:

This is just wrong on so many levels. Buffing an already solid t9 by reducing reload by 5 seconds is insane. Take reload mod and spotter plane you're fine. We'll see where the stats shake out but it sure seems like the ships are extremely "fine" which is a good thing. New lines shouldnt have to be better than previous lines. Hawkins on the other hand... That thing needs buffs

Most times when i read your post I agree with it. This time I can't these ships are terrible. They do nothing better than any other branch besides maybe causing fires. the AP is terrible. Worse than the short fuse AP of RN BB's. It feels like the AP of the light cruisers do better.  The reload time is stupid.  I guess I get the idea of the anti HE spam, but for real?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
277
[BOMBL]
Members
1,203 posts
15,199 battles
7 hours ago, Crucis said:

I have to admit that I'm not fond of overly high reload rates on 8" gunned CAs.  But remember that the guns on the Drake and Goliath are not 8" guns.  They're 9.2" guns.  So that should give them a somewhat higher reload.

 

Agree but Moscva and Henry have comparable large guns and significantly better reload. Henry HE and AP are fantastic. Moscva is a tank. I can’t close with the drake because it’s a lifetime to reload. I don’t think the 9/10 need 10 sec reload but 13.5-14.5 would be more reasonable. Or increase the range so we can take reload mod. The ships are simply max range he dragons with moderate COPD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,763
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
8,816 posts
15,397 battles
7 hours ago, Crucis said:

I'll also say that I'm not overly fond of the RN CAs having great HE but meh AP.  I'd rather that their HE and AP were both good.  This isn't a complaint about HE spam.  It's more a case of my preferring cruisers to have both of their ammo types be reasonably good.  After all, it kind of stinks if you're in a situation where you really want to use AP but your AP blows.

 

I would like better AP too, so far as I'm concerned it should be to an extent 'the point' of the Heavy Cruiser. The Light's can win the HE spam competition based on rate and volume of fire, the Heavies get usefully better AP for threatening other cruisers and 'upper belts'. 

Yorck when she had the terrible AP shell drag I thought was pretty sad. These RN CA aren't that bad, but they're not good. 

The 8in gun designed for Albemarle had a heavy AP shell at 131.5kg, but in game it uses the same 116kg shell of the older 8in guns. For comparison Baltimore has 150kg and the Ibuki 123kg.

 

For RoF it's all balance, but Drake toting 9.2in at 3.2 RPM while Alaska can throw 3 RPM with 12in guns doesn't reflect well, Alaska is too comparable (big, well protected, tanky but in different ways, bigger, slow firing guns) but seems a quantum leap in firepower and utility compared to 'bad at everything but having a super repair' Drake. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Guest
0 posts
1 minute ago, mofton said:

For RoF it's all balance, but Drake toting 9.2in at 3.2 RPM while Alaska can throw 3 RPM with 12in guns doesn't reflect well, Alaska is too comparable (big, well protected, tanky but in different ways, bigger, slow firing guns) but seems a quantum leap in firepower and utility compared to 'bad at everything but having a super repair' Drake. 

Alaska is a forced comparison, its like comparing Hood to Fiji. Both have the word cruiser in their designation. Of course, at t9 Alaska benefits from cruiser MM, which makes matters far worse. 

I compare the Brit CAs to their same tier equivalent CAs from other national tech trees, and they don't stand up well in comparison. Surrey vs Myoko, Albermarle vs Baltimore, Hipper and Mogami, Drake vs Ibuki, St Louis and so forth.

9 hours ago, xKSNx said:

BB's counter CA's, CA's counter DD's, DD's counter BB's, and CV's counter everything. 

you are missing out Super/large/battlecruisers and Light cruisers, but yeh, it gets confusing there. Cruiser designation in WOWS means jack of all trades, and the power/influence range of warships within Cruiser MM in WOWS, at same tier, is quite enormous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,763
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
8,816 posts
15,397 battles
13 minutes ago, LoveBote said:

Alaska is a forced comparison, its like comparing Hood to Fiji. Both have the word cruiser in their designation. Of course, at t9 Alaska benefits from cruiser MM, which makes matters far worse. 

I compare the Brit CAs to their same tier equivalent CAs from other national tech trees, and they don't stand up well in comparison. Surrey vs Myoko, Albermarle vs Baltimore, Hipper and Mogami, Drake vs Ibuki, St Louis and so forth.

Well yes, if you nerfed Fiji to 2.2 RPM it would be a forced comparison!

Drake's reload puts her in the realm of the 'large cruiser' but there she... 

I don't disagree on the other comparisons, the super repair rewards or holds up poor play, while the defence most effective defenses in this game are a) not getting shot, b) Killing the red ship quick, c) positioning and maneuvering. 

With generally poor firepower up the line (poor AP, poor ballistics, low ROF) your ability to leverage good play is significantly curtailed. 

Maybe with the IFHE rework and profusion of better plating across heavy cruisers the 'special deck armor' will be looked at, not that it's even special with 32mm Myoko vs 25mm Shitrey...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Guest
0 posts
1 minute ago, mofton said:

With generally poor firepower up the line (poor AP, poor ballistics, low ROF) your ability to leverage good play is significantly curtailed. 

 

this, of course is why I scratch my head when playing Albermarle. It has crap ballistics, slow reload, and yet is expected to to fight at long/max range as a HE spammer?

these have to be among the least influential (random battle swingometricstm) heavy cruisers  I have ever played.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,067
[SALVO]
Members
25,806 posts
28,077 battles
2 hours ago, wstugamd said:

Agree but Moscva and Henry have comparable large guns and significantly better reload. Henry HE and AP are fantastic. Moscva is a tank. I can’t close with the drake because it’s a lifetime to reload. I don’t think the 9/10 need 10 sec reload but 13.5-14.5 would be more reasonable. Or increase the range so we can take reload mod. The ships are simply max range he dragons with moderate COPD

Good points.  Also, unless you're closing on a DD, one doesn't usually want to be using HE at shorter ranges.  One is starting to think about using AP as the ranges shorten.

And frankly, unless WG is thinking about nerfing the reload rates of other high tier heavy cruisers, it seems really unfair that the British and Italian CAs have such garbage reloads.  And this also hurts because as you point out, it makes the decision over which slot 6 upgrade to mount, range or reload, rather painful.

 

2 hours ago, mofton said:

I would like better AP too, so far as I'm concerned it should be to an extent 'the point' of the Heavy Cruiser. The Light's can win the HE spam competition based on rate and volume of fire, the Heavies get usefully better AP for threatening other cruisers and 'upper belts'. 

Yorck when she had the terrible AP shell drag I thought was pretty sad. These RN CA aren't that bad, but they're not good. 

The 8in gun designed for Albemarle had a heavy AP shell at 131.5kg, but in game it uses the same 116kg shell of the older 8in guns. For comparison Baltimore has 150kg and the Ibuki 123kg.

 

For RoF it's all balance, but Drake toting 9.2in at 3.2 RPM while Alaska can throw 3 RPM with 12in guns doesn't reflect well, Alaska is too comparable (big, well protected, tanky but in different ways, bigger, slow firing guns) but seems a quantum leap in firepower and utility compared to 'bad at everything but having a super repair' Drake. 

I completely agree with your first paragraph.  

And at least with the Yorck, the AP would improve at shorter ranges.  But at longer ranges, it was really just an HE spammer.

I've said before that I suspect that the somewhat meh-ness of the RN and RM CA lines may be an effort on WG's part to reduce power creep with new tech tree lines.  And that would be a laudable goal.  But it seems to me that if true, they went really overboard with the RN and RM CA lines to the point that these two line are very mediocre.

Edited by Crucis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,420
[FEM]
Members
2,103 posts
17,343 battles
11 hours ago, xKSNx said:

 

The reload needs a buff bro, and an opinion is an opinion :)

Thanks for your input though.


I do agree that if the Russian ships had been introduced after this line it wouldn't be much of a problem. But the average of what a ship should be at T10 went up man. 

A reload buff might be in order once we see where it falls in line, but a 5s buff is insanity.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56
[GGWP]
Members
105 posts
9,976 battles
2 minutes ago, Kebobstuzov said:

A reload buff might be in order once we see where it falls in line, but a 5s buff is insanity.

You are one of the most active and experienced community members, so I understand where you are coming from. 

5 seconds may be a bit much on my end, but my point was mainly that it needed a buff, how much or little is up to the devs.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,763
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
8,816 posts
15,397 battles
2 hours ago, LoveBote said:

this, of course is why I scratch my head when playing Albermarle. It has crap ballistics, slow reload, and yet is expected to to fight at long/max range as a HE spammer?

these have to be among the least influential (random battle swingometricstm) heavy cruisers  I have ever played.

I think you're 'meant' to follow up friendly destroyers, blap a red DD with your HE alpha (which is good) and then use your repair to deal with being slapped sideways by the red team when you do so.

The problem with Albemarle is that you move up, you can probably only use your front guns, you get a shot at a DD, but not two given the reload, the ballistics aren't great, you miss, you turn out and your Neptune citadel gifts the red team a Dev strike. Repair value: 0. 

47 minutes ago, Crucis said:

I've said before that I suspect that the somewhat meh-ness of the RN and RM CA lines may be an effort on WG's part to reduce power creep with new tech tree lines.  And that would be a laudable goal.  But it seems to me that if true, they went really overboard with the RN and RM CA lines to the point that these two line are very mediocre.

Could well be, a separate but related issue to me is that they're both mediocre and worse, subjectively boring. 

A bit UP but at least situationally more enjoyable would be good. There are some fairly bad ships which can be quite fun. Trading something for better handling would be good for me for instance, same power level, a bit more sense of agency. You spend a lot of the game maneuvering, not much pressing 'super repair'. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,067
[SALVO]
Members
25,806 posts
28,077 battles
2 minutes ago, mofton said:

 

Could well be, a separate but related issue to me is that they're both mediocre and worse, subjectively boring. 

A bit UP but at least situationally more enjoyable would be good. There are some fairly bad ships which can be quite fun. Trading something for better handling would be good for me for instance, same power level, a bit more sense of agency. You spend a lot of the game maneuvering, not much pressing 'super repair'. 

In what way do you find the RN CAs boring?  Not being critical here (at least not yet).  I'm curious.  

My problem with the game is how faked up far too many ships and lines are to create these nonsense national flavors.  To me, ships are ships.  And the only national flavors should be the actual differences created by the original naval architects, not by game designers.  But whatever...

Anyways, as I've said, I wish that the RN CAs had both good AP and good HE, and that their reload was more reasonable.  These CA reloads that exceed 15 seconds are annoying as hell when you have other tier 10 CAs with reloads under 10 seconds.   I can't speak to anything else on the Goliath (for example) because I don't have her yet, and I don't intend on using FXP to jump straight to her, since there are some FXP premiums that are supposedly on the horizon.

I also don't like shortish range guns AND slow reloads on tier 10 CAs, because it makes the upgrade slot 6 decision vastly more difficult, which seems unfair because so few other tier 10 CAs have such a difficult decision on slot 6.  (This also applies to the Venezia.)

 

Side note, one of the funky things about the Venezia is that because she has SAP rather than HE, her captain skill points become rather less limited, because you don't have to worry about things like IFHE or DE.  Arguably, that makes choosing skills for the Venezia (and Brindisi) a lot more interesting, because on the flip side, it rather stinks to be trying to pick skills for a ship where you feel a pressing need to pick so many skills that there's no flexibility.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
277
[BOMBL]
Members
1,203 posts
15,199 battles
2 hours ago, Crucis said:

Good points.  Also, unless you're closing on a DD, one doesn't usually want to be using HE at shorter ranges.  One is starting to think about using AP as the ranges shorten.

And frankly, unless WG is thinking about nerfing the reload rates of other high tier heavy cruisers, it seems really unfair that the British and Italian CAs have such garbage reloads.  And this also hurts because as you point out, it makes the decision over which slot 6 upgrade to mount, range or reload, rather painful.

I agree on AP as the distance closes but even with EL it's 9 seconds to change ammo. Plus the line turns/accelerates like a super cruiser i.e. very sluggish. These CA have no business closing the distance. And the AP underperforms imo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56
[GGWP]
Members
105 posts
9,976 battles

I'm sad this is the only way to play this ship. Sit back and spam HE. Even kiting i ate 90k dmg.

It's still very playable though like Kebob mentioned. 

definitely better than the T8 in my op

unknown.png?width=1664&height=702unknown.png?width=1664&height=702

Edited by xKSNx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,763
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
8,816 posts
15,397 battles
6 hours ago, Crucis said:

In what way do you find the RN CAs boring?  Not being critical here (at least not yet).  I'm curious.  

My problem with the game is how faked up far too many ships and lines are to create these nonsense national flavors.  To me, ships are ships.  And the only national flavors should be the actual differences created by the original naval architects, not by game designers.  But whatever...

Anyways, as I've said, I wish that the RN CAs had both good AP and good HE, and that their reload was more reasonable.  These CA reloads that exceed 15 seconds are annoying as hell when you have other tier 10 CAs with reloads under 10 seconds.   I can't speak to anything else on the Goliath (for example) because I don't have her yet, and I don't intend on using FXP to jump straight to her, since there are some FXP premiums that are supposedly on the horizon.

 

Variety of things:

Sameyness -

I don't think the RN CA have enough of a defined difference from the German and Japanese cruisers, and I've played those lines a heck of a lot. The RN ships don't have to be so similar, and worse they just end up feeling worse in some areas. Historically there were some decent differences in design (if you're so inclined) to help separate them, higher ROF was an RN 8in trait, some of the guns were intended to be dual purpose, the RN typically built good seaboats, unlike some of the earlier IJN and USN examples. 

What do they get? One dimensional HE and repairs. 

Lack of mini-game and variety -

Done correctly World of Warships has great scope for games within games and engaging decision making. Some ships pose continuous questions: 'is revealing my position by firing worth it?' or 'should I use my consumable now?' or 'which ammunition choice should I use?', 'should I close, or open the range?'. 

RN CA's seemingly want to shoot HE 97% of the time, have no noteworthy consumables to think about, really, really don't want to close or brawl and generally might as well just shoot - you have the super repair after all - this is very bland. I've played each of the T5-T8 ships and I feel nothing interesting or exciting will happen if I play another hundred games in each, sometimes I'll HE spam and get good fire RNG and good RNG on shells heading my way, sometimes the reverse. Yawn.

Fun/win conditions - 

I think this games design leads itself to scenarios your ship wants to be in, or 'damn, that was great' moments. 

While with say Japanese cruisers a well aimed shot with the DD dispersion may feel like a real win, or loading up high damage German AP (or finally capturing someone with the long range hydro), or getting rewarded for taking a chance on your AP with the USN on someone who isn't as well angled as they thought...

The RN CA 'win condition' for when you're doing it right and should be rewarded is the rather dull 'take damage, but not so much you cant repair', oh and HE spam please.

Handling -

Gun, rudder, speed. Slow gun reload is in my view simply more boring than fast. Shooting every 13-14s instead of 10s when the results are less than exciting is quite simply 30% more boring. This boredom can run into frustration with the poor ballistics of many of the ships. 

Slow ships in my view are more boring than fast ones, simply more time spent on autopilot from A to B. Surrey and Hawkins are very slow, Devonshire is slow and has a 1.3kt slower speed than she should have. Surrey is a design which was planned to have a faster option. 

Less maneuverable ships (and many of the rudder shift times are dire - Hawkins has 9.2s vs 5.7s on the faster-moving Furutaka) generally are less dynamic and require playing safer. Want to take a risk and hang in a slightly exposed position? Not worth it. Want to risk snapping a shot with the rear turrets? The calculus becomes 'just don't'. Want to close in and fight at close range? Bad idea. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,067
[SALVO]
Members
25,806 posts
28,077 battles
51 minutes ago, mofton said:

Variety of things:

Sameyness -

I don't think the RN CA have enough of a defined difference from the German and Japanese cruisers, and I've played those lines a heck of a lot. The RN ships don't have to be so similar, and worse they just end up feeling worse in some areas. Historically there were some decent differences in design (if you're so inclined) to help separate them, higher ROF was an RN 8in trait, some of the guns were intended to be dual purpose, the RN typically built good seaboats, unlike some of the earlier IJN and USN examples. 

What do they get? One dimensional HE and repairs. 

Lack of mini-game and variety -

Done correctly World of Warships has great scope for games within games and engaging decision making. Some ships pose continuous questions: 'is revealing my position by firing worth it?' or 'should I use my consumable now?' or 'which ammunition choice should I use?', 'should I close, or open the range?'. 

RN CA's seemingly want to shoot HE 97% of the time, have no noteworthy consumables to think about, really, really don't want to close or brawl and generally might as well just shoot - you have the super repair after all - this is very bland. I've played each of the T5-T8 ships and I feel nothing interesting or exciting will happen if I play another hundred games in each, sometimes I'll HE spam and get good fire RNG and good RNG on shells heading my way, sometimes the reverse. Yawn.

Fun/win conditions - 

I think this games design leads itself to scenarios your ship wants to be in, or 'damn, that was great' moments. 

While with say Japanese cruisers a well aimed shot with the DD dispersion may feel like a real win, or loading up high damage German AP (or finally capturing someone with the long range hydro), or getting rewarded for taking a chance on your AP with the USN on someone who isn't as well angled as they thought...

The RN CA 'win condition' for when you're doing it right and should be rewarded is the rather dull 'take damage, but not so much you cant repair', oh and HE spam please.

Handling -

Gun, rudder, speed. Slow gun reload is in my view simply more boring than fast. Shooting every 13-14s instead of 10s when the results are less than exciting is quite simply 30% more boring. This boredom can run into frustration with the poor ballistics of many of the ships. 

Slow ships in my view are more boring than fast ones, simply more time spent on autopilot from A to B. Surrey and Hawkins are very slow, Devonshire is slow and has a 1.3kt slower speed than she should have. Surrey is a design which was planned to have a faster option. 

Less maneuverable ships (and many of the rudder shift times are dire - Hawkins has 9.2s vs 5.7s on the faster-moving Furutaka) generally are less dynamic and require playing safer. Want to take a risk and hang in a slightly exposed position? Not worth it. Want to risk snapping a shot with the rear turrets? The calculus becomes 'just don't'. Want to close in and fight at close range? Bad idea. 

Well, as others and myself have said before, I just don't see how reducing the reload and giving the RN CAs pretty good AP rounds would really risk making them OP.  So many other CA lines, and particularly the tier 10's CAs, already have far shorter reloads and good AP and HE, and yet manage to be decent enough but not OP CAs.  I don't really see where the risk is here, except perhaps for the super heal, I suppose.

 

EDIT: BTW, mofton, thanks for your well thought out and written reply.  I agree with most of what you've said here.  And coming from me, it'll probably seem odd with me calling your post verbose.  :Smile_veryhappy:   I think that overall, it comes down to the stats and characteristics of the RM and RN CAs.  They don't really look like they'd be much fun, and they seem to play exactly that way as well.    I mean, I mostly like the basic design of the RN CAs, i.e. a pretty basic heavy cruiser without a bunch of weird gimmicks.  The problem comes in when you realize that the AP is very meh and the reload rate is just too long for what you get.  If the HE and AP alpha were higher (and AP was good), the longer reload might be justifiable.  But right now, I don't see it.

 

Edited by Crucis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
445
[RGPLT]
Members
669 posts
17,755 battles

You dont understand them but your trying to fix them...

Good luck with that. If you dont understand them you cant fix them. Once you understand them you will realize they dont need to be fixed. Your just playing them wrong.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
254
[70]
Members
1,256 posts
7,210 battles

Albemarle: If WG is trying to make the Yorck seem OP, it's working.

Drake: 18 second reload on 3x3 9.2 inch guns? No, just NO. 15 seconds max or it's not a Tier 9 cruiser (at least, not with guns under 300mm or less than 12 8-inch-plus guns), period.

If it was 18 seconds on 4x3 9.2 inch at Tier 9 they'd have a plausible point, but as is, 15 seconds or they might as well not exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
127 posts
8,847 battles

Having read through this thread, having played some but not all of the ships mentioned and otherwise have played most of the rest of the WoW RN line; it seems to me that there is a pronounced anti-British bias on the part of the programmers.

Had the real RN been as lousy and flea bitten as depicted by the programmers in the game, Britannia would never have ruled the waves. All of the UK would have transitioned from speaking Spanish, to speaking French then German. But then the RN would not have been able to deliver supplies to Murmansk either. Just maybe, were any of the programmers to read what we write, they would consider that in the game, there are many who have been adherents of WoW for many years and are getting tired of all these later generations of poorly designed ships that don't match their historical equivalents. Especially when it come to the RN. We do buy ships, we do invest in this game and we would appreciate it if you were to listen to us occasionally. 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×