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

Do Cruisers need a range nerf?

18 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,015
[USA-N]
Members
785 posts
9,238 battles

I note that the new Russian cruisers have very long range. I can't say I am a fan of this. I wonder about the range of many cruisers. The Smolensk, for example, has over 19km range, basically the same as a Kremlin.

Many super cruisers also have BB range, and many can use spotter planes (Zao). It is only really the RN cruisers who suffer from medium range restrictions.

The problem I have with this is that it encourages stand off play, and damage farming by cruisers. In most games with super cruisers, it is becoming tedious to wait for the DDs and BBs to advance, while the radar ships sit back and seek to farm BB damage from long range.

The thing is, the game would be a lot more dynamic if cruisers were forced to close range, like the RN line. I find the RN cruisers to be lots of fun, and highly skilled players (not me) can shine in them. They are deadly to DDs, but mostly because they are close to them, not for other reasons.

What do other folks think? Does the game suffer with extended cruiser range? Would it be better if the max cruiser range were 18km, with the majority between 14 and 16km?

  • Cool 2
  • Funny 3
  • Confused 5
  • Boring 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
794
[HINON]
[HINON]
Members
2,217 posts
21,439 battles

No, the majority of cruisers with excessive range are glass cannons.  Distance "is" their thing.  British cruisers have their smoke and funky AP. That said, the radar cruisers are generally "not" the cruisers that hang back at range.  They generally do not have the range to do so AND they seem to be a bit tankier in the process.  Those are the "island hugging" ships people generally complain about.

Honestly, I think cruisers are in a great place right now.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,077 posts
15,941 battles
4 minutes ago, Warped_1 said:

No, the majority of cruisers with excessive range are glass cannons.  Distance "is" their thing.  British cruisers have their smoke and funky AP. That said, the radar cruisers are generally "not" the cruisers that hang back at range.  They generally do not have the range to do so AND they seem to be a bit tankier in the process.  Those are the "island hugging" ships people generally complain about.

Honestly, I think cruisers are in a great place right now.

I agree with most of what you wrote. 

Another thing to add is that most long range cruisers have large firing arcs and horrible accuracy at that range. This is specially true with Smolensk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
461
[WOLFG]
Members
867 posts

It always cracks me up when they say 'Smolensk has 19K range.'  Most people don't even spec for that range.  The reason is you can't hit anything from that range and if you manage that you're just throwing pancakes.  

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12
[NKOTD]
Members
18 posts
7,372 battles

Some cruisers may have too much range but we should look at them on a case-by-case basis. Maybe Smolensk is one of them. The Nevsky seems to be one of them (still in testing, this could change). Cruisers are generally fragile, so many of them require distance to just stay afloat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,846
[GWG]
[GWG]
Supertester
26,431 posts
14,165 battles
6 minutes ago, STINKWEED_ said:

I agree with most of what you wrote. 

Another thing to add is that most long range cruisers have large firing arcs and horrible accuracy at that range. This is specially true with Smolensk.

The Smolensk is still pretty accurate around 16 Km which is what I get.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,913
[NH]
Members
1,769 posts
5 minutes ago, Captain_Rawhide said:

It always cracks me up when they say 'Smolensk has 19K range.'  Most people don't even spec for that range.  The reason is you can't hit anything from that range and if you manage that you're just throwing pancakes.  

 

1 minute ago, BrushWolf said:

The Smolensk is still pretty accurate around 16 Km which is what I get.

 

People saying Smolensk has a hard time using 19km have not played a max range Colbert or the EU DDs. Play those for a while then come back the Smolensk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,486
[CAST]
Members
4,996 posts
3,513 battles

First off, Smolensk only gets 19km range if it has both AFT *and* the slot 6 range mod. Her shells are also horribly floaty at those ranges and pretty much no one tries to play her at that range. Most builds typically have either AFT or the range mod, but not both.

Second, unless you want to give cruisers battleship plating, then maybe it's a good idea to let them have decent range on their guns. They are already rather squishy as is.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,386
Members
1,058 posts
7,478 battles

No, but BBs need an accuracy nerf. They are all far too accurate at range. They have the highest survivability attributes, the highest effective burst damage in the game, AND the longest range. They are currently Low Risk:High reward which is antithesis to balance and they have been this way for years. BBs and CVs have been the root cause of pretty much every balance issue this game has seen.

  • Cool 6
  • Boring 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,871
[USCC2]
Members
6,060 posts
34 minutes ago, Varknyn12 said:

No, but BBs need an accuracy nerf. They are all far too accurate at range. They have the highest survivability attributes, the highest effective burst damage in the game, AND the longest range. They are currently Low Risk:High reward which is antithesis to balance and they have been this way for years. BBs and CVs have been the root cause of pretty much every balance issue this game has seen.

In principle this is a good idea.

WG know those BBs that should stand off, provide mid support, or get in and brawl - they should ensure a brawler isn't rewarded for sitting on the back line. Same with any ship type really.

 

Edited by _WaveRider_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,565
Members
4,458 posts
19,476 battles

I'm in agreement as long as BB range matches Cruiser range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
469 posts
4,399 battles

to be honest many ships t7 and above could use a range reduction in their main guns,  Most of  the stagnant gameplay in mid to high tier games have a lot to do with how easy is to find enemy targets and trash them from long range, BBs are afraid of HE spammers hidding somewhere 18km around, Cruisers are afraid of BBs AP coming from 20km+  and DDs fear ships that can keeping them spoted from far away

 

all in all the hability to hit or spot targets from long range should be nerfed, either that  or WG needs to start adding ways to encourage close range combat that could go from making secondary guns actualy usefull to adding or reworking upgrades say:

concealment upgrade replaced with radar jamming upgrade: when spoted only the ship doing the spoting can see you, the rest will only see the icon on the minimap, +15% to the detection radius

 

new upgrade for tier 2 slot: -15% to the detection radius15% reduction to  main guns and torpedo range 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
357
[WOLF4]
[WOLF4]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
826 posts
12,651 battles

Oh wow, talk about déjà vu ,

 

 

You two wouldn't happen to be related would you?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
140
[WW2]
Members
354 posts
6,885 battles
1 hour ago, Captain_Rawhide said:

It always cracks me up when they say 'Smolensk has 19K range.'  Most people don't even spec for that range.  The reason is you can't hit anything from that range and if you manage that you're just throwing pancakes.  

Exactly. I have mine at 16k. It's to easy to dodge anything further than that and a waste of 4 Capitan points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
528
[GRAVE]
Members
1,271 posts
18,801 battles
2 hours ago, SidTheBlade said:

The Smolensk, for example, has over 19km range,

only if you take range mod and AFT, and you realistically only need one or the other, not both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
987
[A-I-M]
Members
3,013 posts
22,098 battles
2 hours ago, SidTheBlade said:

I note that the new Russian cruisers have very long range. I can't say I am a fan of this. I wonder about the range of many cruisers. The Smolensk, for example, has over 19km range, basically the same as a Kremlin.

Many super cruisers also have BB range, and many can use spotter planes (Zao). It is only really the RN cruisers who suffer from medium range restrictions.

The problem I have with this is that it encourages stand off play, and damage farming by cruisers. In most games with super cruisers, it is becoming tedious to wait for the DDs and BBs to advance, while the radar ships sit back and seek to farm BB damage from long range.

The thing is, the game would be a lot more dynamic if cruisers were forced to close range, like the RN line. I find the RN cruisers to be lots of fun, and highly skilled players (not me) can shine in them. They are deadly to DDs, but mostly because they are close to them, not for other reasons.

What do other folks think? Does the game suffer with extended cruiser range? Would it be better if the max cruiser range were 18km, with the majority between 14 and 16km?

Pre-dreadnought battleships in line ahead formation steaming at ...

Turn sometimes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,103
[SOV]
Members
4,621 posts

The range is ok untill you get to Russian laser guns. In DM you dont miss at 18 km.  Roon is deadly at 17 km

 

Its onlt us lights that have this problem.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×