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

USN BB Re-balance/Split

17 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

3,343
[WUDPS]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
5,894 posts
5,627 battles

I keep playing the standards more and more now. I wanted to get a good idea of what was really cooking in the current meta with them, and it became obvious: These slow boats are XP pinyatas.

EVERYONE seems to be faster, and has a better gimmick. CV's seem to be pretty rare so the "have good AA" thing is kinda [edited]. Whilst guns are accurate on Arizona, New Mexico seems like a teenager in heat...all over the place. 

So I put put put put along....I get to the battle...and it's over....my guns seem to have an oddly slow reload...and my secondaries might as well not be on the ship. 

SO THEN I PLAYED THE WARSPITE.

So here we have a boat with a stupid good rudder, very accurate main battery, and very good secondaries (Yeah I run a secondary build for the lolz).

USS Nevada - BB36 (ideal tech tree boat)

nevada1.jpg

So here we have a USN BB which essentially goes 21 knots (as WG will round up) at tier 5. This ship will have the dual 5 inch guns (which arguably should go out to 5km base...7 with a commander.) She would have a good rudder, decent armor and torpedo protection...a solid tier 5. 

Also with enough AA to club back the Hosho seal clubbers running about.

FYI - Texas as the same number of guns, goes about 20 knots, Nevada wouldn't power creep the premium. Also a good secondary focus would allow it to protect itself from DD's.

------

This is where this line would get very....interesting....

uss_pennsylvania_1945_by_lioness_nala_d5jzofk-fullview.jpg?token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.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.X-fWPMFU2XD4Diwx4MDtJd1IbNUp36M5ZeHa6IRBkyU

USS Pennsylvania BB-38 (ideal tech tree boat)

Still slow, a little more armor, she trades sigma of Arizona for pimp secondaries, and god tier AA. Good rudder shift as well...and just have yourself some fun.

BUT WAIT THERE'S MORE!

So you wanna play more standard?

9562a72f95a310c37b5aa7d576203510.png

USS  Idaho BB-42 (replace New Mexico as a re-searchable hull)

Oh lookie! Single secondary mounts, bofors guns!

I would literally remove the New Mexico from the game, and put this in it's place. Buff her secondary battery, give her better AA and a little more armor to compete. New Mexico was a great boat when the game dropped, now it's slow and doesn't really do much...just yolo and shot gun.

This is where I disagree with wargaming - California as tier 7...it's not a tier 7...it's a tier 6.

5b8800256177b37392619fa1f214b3b8.jpg

USS California BB - 44

Okay, so I watched Zoup's play of this boat...I don't get why she's a 7. Is it because of the pearl refit would make her OP? You get more armor, you're still slow, you have a good secondary battery...yet the manual secondaries really kicks in at 7. California as a 6 would be great to own, not obnoxiously OP, tanky, and with enough HP to fight through most of the match. She is not a 7 because of her Pearl Refit, she'll fight 9's that can run circles around her, lob 16 inch shells at her, and burn to death from high DPM spammer boats...it wont be fun to play unless her guns are stupid accurate and her secondaries can reach out and touch people.

[ img ]

USS Maryland BB-46 (Replace Colorado top hull)

The Colorado Class is hilariously flawed...the model isn't even accurate and it's dinosaur like. Good you got the rudder, but the model is flawed. No gun shields on the secondary battery. This game has evolved to the point where dual 5 inch mounts on a tier 7 should come standard. The cruisers get em as early as tier 5 I believe. Maryland should replace Colorado...or at least be a re-searchable hull. You can either get a baller rudder shift, or a hell of a secondary battery...that'd be novel and bring people back to the grind...something for god sakes...

[ img ]

USS West Virginia BB-48 (Prem)

Say it with me, I AM NOT A SOUTH DAKOTA CLASS BATTLESHIP. I DO NOT BELONG AT TIER 8.

By tier 8, you get the North Carolina...you get the Mass and Bama. West Virginia has no place as an 8. High HP pool allows you to stick in the fight longer...because lets be real...a slow moving BB is a prime target for high DPM boats. Her secondaries should be buffed to a little less than the Mass, and her battery should perform like Mass. She should be a slower Mass in all respects as that's what the builders goal was. 

  • Cool 4
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
699
[--V--]
Members
1,413 posts
13,603 battles

I like it.  Don't expect to see it,,, but still like it.

And you're right,,,, California at T7 will be a disaster.  I don't care what LWM or others say.  She's too slow, fires too slow, secondaries too weak,,, etc etc.  She'll end up a port queen you rarely ever see and wasted money from those players foolish enough to buy her at T7.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,037
[WOLF1]
Beta Testers
11,398 posts
15,799 battles

I would think that a US BB split or better yet an entire second line is very likely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,343
[WUDPS]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
5,894 posts
5,627 battles
17 minutes ago, SeaborneSumo said:

I like it.  Don't expect to see it,,, but still like it.

And you're right,,,, California at T7 will be a disaster.  I don't care what LWM or others say.  She's too slow, fires too slow, secondaries too weak,,, etc etc.  She'll end up a port queen you rarely ever see and wasted money from those players foolish enough to buy her at T7.

 

It's a tier 6 ship with secondary mounts and better AA. 

Unless it's got god tier main battery and a quick reload, it'll be a garbage boat. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
303
[WOLFC]
Members
488 posts
6,369 battles
15 minutes ago, Dr_Venture said:

It's a tier 6 ship with secondary mounts and better AA. 

Unless it's got god tier main battery and a quick reload, it'll be a garbage boat. 

If they do it right and give it the same secondaries as Mass, it'll be fun in Narai at least. In randoms against T9s, yeah, you're a pinata.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11,976
[ARGSY]
Members
20,061 posts
14,295 battles
1 hour ago, Dr_Venture said:

So I put put put put along....I get to the battle...and it's over....my guns seem to have an oddly slow reload...and my secondaries might as well not be on the ship. 

I loved the South Carolina (like a 12" Warspite, only slower), hated Wyoming, ADORED the New York, Meh the New Mex, and Colorado was great fun when I could actually shoot straight. Position is everything in these ships.

Stock North Carolina is just faster enough than Colorado that you sense a difference. NC with engines B is notably faster, and suddenly your world changes.

California is going to be... interesting. In the "interesting times" sense of the word. :Smile_trollface:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,847
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
24,800 posts
3,895 battles

The USN battleship line can split very early. If it were up to me, I'd split them between the faster, "relatively" lighter armored ones vs the slower, heavier armored ones. Basically, FBBs and Standards. Though the FBB line would still be rather slow at lower tiers, I'd still offer them an ahistorical speed upgrade to like 25 knots or so just to help accentuate the difference from the standards in the same tier

It can easily split at T3 or T4, though I don't know enough about the earlier designs to make calls for ships in those tiers, so I'll just start at--

Tier 5 in the line would be Nevada class at tier 5 (10x 14 inch guns, same as New York, just in 4 turrets instead of 5 & the All Or Nothing armor scheme)

Tennessee class (IE: California) at T6 as a contemporary to Pennsylvania/New Mexico

then at T7 is where we start to really diverge: Virginia, a paper boat, representing the "Lexington BC" variant. America's only real Hood-like Battlecruiser, lightly armored to facilitate the speed/size/tonnage limits.

Move North Carolina to the Fast line at Tier 8. South Dakota takes her place in the Standard line.

Iowa in the Fast line at T9. South Dakota 1920s design (A modern re-imagining, similar to Amagi being the IJN T8). Name is up in the air. Vermont, maybe?

Montana in the Fast line at T10. Ohio in the Standard line at T10. Alternatively, Montana stays in the slow line and we get a paper T10 in the Fast line who at least keeps Iowa's speed.

 

Of course there's places it could be changed but that's just about how I'd do it. The biggest point of contention when I brought this up in the past is "Lexington BC is too bad to be T7" but it was never built, so its parameters can be more easily adjusted, especially in the realms of protection, range, and gunnery characteristics which would be the historical design's weakpoints vs the likes of Colorado or Nagato.

Edited by KiyoSenkan
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,121
[CVA16]
Members
5,384 posts
16,169 battles
2 hours ago, Dr_Venture said:

FYI - Texas as the same number of guns, goes about 20 knots, Nevada wouldn't power creep the premium. Also a good secondary focus would allow it to protect itself from DD's.

How would this ship not eclipse the Texas/New York? Better secondaries, better gun layout, as good or better AA than Texas (which is slower than 21 kts in game). Haven't checked the armor/citadel but it is likely better there too.

That said, the current ships need a buff to keep up with the competition. I know, US ships are constrained by reality more than any other line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,847
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
24,800 posts
3,895 battles
17 minutes ago, Sabot_100 said:

How would this ship not eclipse the Texas/New York? Better secondaries, better gun layout, as good or better AA than Texas (which is slower than 21 kts in game). Haven't checked the armor/citadel but it is likely better there too.

That said, the current ships need a buff to keep up with the competition. I know, US ships are constrained by reality more than any other line.

It's better but not "better enough" to really make a difference. Just like Pennsylvania and Tennessee are "better" than New Mexico, but not enough to warrant a jump in tier. In the context of this game, they're different, not better.

Nevada vs New York in particular-- Secondaries are better, yeah. But that can be fiddled with, and often is RE: range and dispersion and other parameters like reload.

Nevada's Citadel protection is better, yeah., but Nevada has an All Or Nothing scheme. So she'll take fewer Citadels, but eat more HE damage on the extremities and eat more standard pens.

 

Everything is a trade-off, here. Nevada might be better objectively than New York, but not "better enough" to warrant a higher tier placement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,121
[CVA16]
Members
5,384 posts
16,169 battles
4 minutes ago, KiyoSenkan said:

Everything is a trade-off, here. Nevada might be better objectively than New York, but not "better enough" to warrant a higher tier placement.

Your right it is not worth a jump in tier but NY (and Texas)  would be considerably weaker (why play them at all?) than the Nevada without significant nerfs to Nevadas guns/accuracy. If nothing else, Nevada can bring 5 guns to bear in a bow/stern-in  gunfight vs 4 for NY and it looks to have better gun angles on the stern guns. The midship turret is bad enough that it makes them effectively 8-gun ships in most fights. The AA (Texas' selling feature) would be the same or better. Nevada actually has a long range AA. Neither NY or especially Texas have the secondaries to even concern an attacking DD. Nevada does.

Once again, not claiming Nevada would be OP, just that it makes the existing T5 US BBs even more obsolete. Stock Nevada would be the C-hull upgrade to the NY.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
549
[UN1]
Members
1,213 posts
3,638 battles
14 minutes ago, KiyoSenkan said:

It's better but not "better enough" to really make a difference. Just like Pennsylvania and Tennessee are "better" than New Mexico, but not enough to warrant a jump in tier. In the context of this game, they're different, not better.

Nevada vs New York in particular-- Secondaries are better, yeah. But that can be fiddled with, and often is RE: range and dispersion and other parameters like reload.

Nevada's Citadel protection is better, yeah., but Nevada has an All Or Nothing scheme. So she'll take fewer Citadels, but eat more HE damage on the extremities and eat more standard pens.

 

Everything is a trade-off, here. Nevada might be better objectively than New York, but not "better enough" to warrant a higher tier placement.

Uhh what? 

You're showing the picture of the major refit WW2 version of the Nevada. Even if we're talking about the WW1 version, were still talking about a ship with a thicker belt, 4" more armor on the turret faces, thicker deck armor, and superior firing angles to the New York. And the New York isn't exactly Russian-like in its armor profile. It had a lot of low armor surface area. Nevada would be a much better protected ship in every way. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,176
[HINON]
[HINON]
Members
7,910 posts
11,586 battles
1 hour ago, KiyoSenkan said:

then at T7 is where we start to really diverge: Virginia, a paper boat, representing the "Lexington BC" variant. America's only real Hood-like Battlecruiser, lightly armored to facilitate the speed/size/tonnage limits.

my god, i never thought of having the Lexington Battlecruisers be the T7 for the alt line, its perfect, it starts the 16" or higher gunned ships, just like Colorado, but its much faster, according to its Wiki, 33 knots, probably could be toned down, because id expect SoDak to be the T8 and its only 27 knots iirc, and maybe non premium versions of Georgia and Ohio at T9 and T10 respectively 

Edited by tcbaker777

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
446
[NMKJT]
Members
2,674 posts
7,469 battles
1 hour ago, KiyoSenkan said:

The USN battleship line can split very early. If it were up to me, I'd split them between the faster, "relatively" lighter armored ones vs the slower, heavier armored ones. Basically, FBBs and Standards. Though the FBB line would still be rather slow at lower tiers, I'd still offer them an ahistorical speed upgrade to like 25 knots or so just to help accentuate the difference from the standards in the same tier

Even being historical, you could put them to 23 knots. There were proposals for it (never followed through), and those stubby hulls wouldn't really be able to get more than 23 knots anyway.

If you want to indulge in the same fantasy that has Montana going 30, you could make them even faster I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
795
[IND8]
[IND8]
Members
925 posts
10,152 battles

I did a little proposal on this a while back. I have since been working on revising it, but I am still trying to get some information together. The abridged version looks like this:

Durability line

V New York, VI New Mexico, VII Colorado, VIII South Dakota (1920), IX "Tillman I", X Montana

Fast and maneuverable line

V Nevada, VI Pennsylvania, VII "Lexington class", VIII North Carolina, IX Iowa, X Kentucky (post-war redesign with quad turrets)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,847
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
24,800 posts
3,895 battles
1 hour ago, Sabot_100 said:

Your right it is not worth a jump in tier but NY (and Texas)  would be considerably weaker (why play them at all?) than the Nevada without significant nerfs to Nevadas guns/accuracy. If nothing else, Nevada can bring 5 guns to bear in a bow/stern-in  gunfight vs 4 for NY and it looks to have better gun angles on the stern guns. The midship turret is bad enough that it makes them effectively 8-gun ships in most fights. The AA (Texas' selling feature) would be the same or better. Nevada actually has a long range AA. Neither NY or especially Texas have the secondaries to even concern an attacking DD. Nevada does.

Once again, not claiming Nevada would be OP, just that it makes the existing T5 US BBs even more obsolete. Stock Nevada would be the C-hull upgrade to the NY.

I mean, this can be balanced through soft stats; things like gun handling, dispersion, reload, etc.

1 hour ago, Ranari said:

Uhh what? 

You're showing the picture of the major refit WW2 version of the Nevada. Even if we're talking about the WW1 version, were still talking about a ship with a thicker belt, 4" more armor on the turret faces, thicker deck armor, and superior firing angles to the New York. And the New York isn't exactly Russian-like in its armor profile. It had a lot of low armor surface area. Nevada would be a much better protected ship in every way. 

I didn't show any pictures, actually. I'm speaking in general terms, details to be filled in later. At most, all this and the above post tell me is "Maybe buff New York in the same patch".

1 hour ago, MnemonScarlet said:

Even being historical, you could put them to 23 knots. There were proposals for it (never followed through), and those stubby hulls wouldn't really be able to get more than 23 knots anyway.

If you want to indulge in the same fantasy that has Montana going 30, you could make them even faster I guess.

That works. I only tossed 25 out to get the concept across. And the line would be speeding up significantly at tier 7 anyway.

1 hour ago, tcbaker777 said:

my god, i never thought of having the Lexington Battlecruisers be the T7 for the alt line, its perfect, it starts the 16" or higher gunned ships, just like Colorado, but its much faster, according to its Wiki, 33 knots, probably could be toned down, because id expect SoDak to be the T8 and its only 27 knots iirc, and maybe non premium versions of Georgia and Ohio at T9 and T10 respectively 

I'd tone Lexington down to 30 knots, but I'd also consider bumping the T8 after it to 30 knots, which increases again with Iowa at 33 knots. In a setup like this, going back to Montana at 30 knots might not feel so good so we might also consider a paper design for T10 that can at least manage Iowa's 33, if not surpass it, and keep Montana in the "heavy" line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×