Are battleships going to be obsolete ?

[Silviu_Lazarescu]

I am certain many of you have asked this question, giving the changes that we had in the last year and the ones to come . In the current state of the game -as a BB player mostly- i simply don't enjoy playing them anymore.

I do not know about other BB players , but lately I am getting a lot of overpenetrations and bounces and that for a ship with a reload time that varies from 20 - 30 s gets extremely frustrating . When I have a ship that's anywhere between 1- 10 km from me and showing broadside , it shouldn't be able to get away with it... and I am not talking just cruisers or destroyers , now I am also getting overpenetrations on battleships also , it is ridiculous.

To make matters worse , you have to pair this with the current desync a lot of you are experiencing there , the torpedo threat from destroyers and the carriers with their current state in the game. I can understand that each ship class should have a counter and I am fine with destroyers being just that against battleships. You make a mistake , you find yourself in a bad position , destroyer sinks you with torpedoes , no problem there, but i would like to be able do the same to a destroyer that's between 1-10 km from me and that made the mistake of getting detected. It definitely shouldn't matter what shell type I had loaded or how many of them actually hit. Destroyers are small fragile ships , giving the caliber of the guns battleships have , at a distance between 1-10 km , one shot should be more that enough to sink him.

There are also the carriers that hard counter battleships, and I say hard counter because of their current state in the game. Historically speaking the battleship era ended when Britain for the first time used carriers to sink italian ships in the mediterranean  sea, the japs and US adopted them after and by the end of WW2 battleships were just... history. Of course carriers -they way they are now in the game- affect any type of ship , it doesn't matter , you can combine AA with your teammates , dodge , etc. eventually if a carrier want expressly to sink you , it will, nothing you can do about that. To this you will have to add the supercruisers we have in the game (like Stalingrad, Alaska, PR, etc.) capable of citadelling battleships, along with the classical HE spammers Smolensk/Worchester and potentially new ones from an imaginary russian cruiser line.

Now we have a new kind of breed on the horizon , waiting to come out soon ... that will be submarines and i don't know how i feel about this as a BB player , if you add up all the mentioned above to this. I do not know how WG intends to insert them into the game , what will be the max no. of them per team , if the no. of team players will increase because of this , etc. I presume destroyers logically will get antisubmarine grenades , but i don't know what would be the mechanics behind that and how effective those will be. I just know that it will take a lot more coordination between team players in order for this to work , coordination that is already lacking greatly in random battles. I can see a DD screening working against submarines , but with the way this was actually done in WW2 , i just simply don't see it making into the game , it would take a ton of DDs perfectly coordinating between each other and the rest of the ship classes (if you are interested about submarine screening and the way it was done in reality , there's plenty of documentation out there ... and at least for me it was fascinating).

So, this brings me again to the question in the title...

I would appreciate your feedback about this. 

 

 

[Aduial]

Short Answer: No. 

Long answer: Still No. 

-BBs should not expect to dev-strike everything just because it was within 10km of them. BBs are not guaranteed to get punished to the same level when mis-positioned, and it is irreasonable to expect that BBs should be guaranteed to do the same to a DD or a CA/CL. BBs do enough damage as of now, imo. 

-Carriers do not counter BBs in-game. If anything, carriers make life easier for BBs in most cases because 1. They deal with DDs very effectively and 2. They keep stealthier ships spotted. If anything, pre-rework CVs were much scarier to deal with as a BB because of the alpha-strike + guaranteed DoT followup. 

-The addition of subs may make BBs harder to play, but honestly I haven't played them so I'll pass judgement for now. 

[Navalpride33]

Short answer... NO

Long answer... Heck NO~!

Using the Boogieman Smolensk as an argument.... Not a good idea.

[loco_max]

I believe that in the future we may have better BC, faster, well armored, more agile and potent. We are almost there, but I expect better ones. The Petropavlovsk which is the last VMF T10 CA, might be signaling a future trend. 

[Silviu_Lazarescu]

8 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said:

Short answer... NO

Long answer... Heck NO~!

Using the Boogieman Smolensk as an argument.... Not a good idea.

So you picked only was convenient to you out of the context , just for the sake of posting ... Very well then.

[DavyJonesLocker]

feels like they are already done. sucks to be killed by a dam fiji with a 43% on ranked. my fault i guess but im not gonna play a bb until its fixed

[Navalpride33]

15 minutes ago, Silviu_Lazarescu said:

So you picked only was convenient to you out of the context , just for the sake of posting ... Very well then.

No, I just summarize a very long winded post... Using the CLs as an argument for saying BBs are Obsolete is a distorted and well thought out preposterous proposition.

High tier BBs have complaining since 2017... Now every thing since 2017 has been catered to high tier BBs (either by nerfs to the other ship classes or buffs to the BB class).

So, WG since 2017 has listened to the BB drivers and made high tiers, BB Disneyland...

So why should WG further make BBs all powerful if power creep of the BB class (along with other factors to counter, except torps,) is the main problem to begin with?

[Silviu_Lazarescu]

1 hour ago, Navalpride33 said:

No, I just summarize a very long winded post... Using the CLs as an argument for saying BBs are Obsolete is a distorted and well thought out preposterous proposition.

High tier BBs have complaining since 2017... Now every thing since 2017 has been catered to high tier BBs (either by nerfs to the other ship classes or buffs to the BB class).

So, WG since 2017 has listened to the BB drivers and made high tiers, BB Disneyland...

So why should WG further make BBs all powerful if power creep of the BB class (along with other factors to counter, except torps,) is the main problem to begin with?

 I did not said is CLs that could render them so , I said they add more salt to the wound and that they just get away way too easy because of this very frequently mechanic that's called overpenetration, that occurs way more often that it used to. No CL/CA that is close to a BB showing broadside should get away with it . Period.

[Navalpride33]

5 minutes ago, Silviu_Lazarescu said:

that's called overpenetration, that occurs way more often that it used to. No CL/CA that is close to a BB showing broadside should get away with it . Period.

To fix over-pens... Its call a training room, its where players go to practice aiming... Over pens are not a WOWS issue, its the players lack of aiming abilities...

Its only going to get worse.... We're on path to resemble WOT.

 

[Silviu_Lazarescu]

16 hours ago, Navalpride33 said:

To fix over-pens... Its call a training room, its where players go to practice aiming... Over pens are not a WOWS issue, its the players lack of aiming abilities...

Its only going to get worse.... We're on path to resemble WOT.

 

You presumed with no proof whatsoever that i have a bad aim . I don't . No even at long ranges . Now, if you have a ship giving broadside 6-7 km away from you , you aim, all your shells land perfectly in the middle where the citadel is and get overpenetrations , you are telling me that the game is fine ?! You must be delusional... 

[Navalpride33]

3 minutes ago, Silviu_Lazarescu said:

You presumed with no proof whatsoever that i have a bad aim . I don't . No even at long ranges . Now, if you have a ship giving broadside 6-7 km away from you , you aim, all your shells land perfectly in the middle where the citadel is and get overpenetrations , you are telling me that the game is fine ?!

I'll just stop replying to your posts as you only have 2 neurons , just to say that you have a network of them . 

I have a folder full of PICs showing, it takes AP 6 shots or less to sink your Boogieman argument Smolensk (or ships like her).

BBs are the highest daily AVG (meaning they're hitting cruisers and BBs without any issues from over pens)...

Based on the numbers and facts... User aim fail on your part for the over pens...

[IfYouSeeKhaos]

36 minutes ago, Silviu_Lazarescu said:

Learn to read and put things into context . I did not said is CLs that could render them so , I said they add more salt to the wound and that they just get away way too easy because of this very frequently mechanic that's called overpenetration, that occurs way more often that it used to. No CL/CA that is close to a BB showing broadside should get away with it . Period.

Not all CL/CAs get away w/it & not all BB have that problem.

Your shells have an arming time...from the time they penetrate the armor...until they go off.

They also have a speed that determines how fast they travel through a ship.

Slower moving shells don't get through as far before arming & go off in the ship before over penning & faster moving shells need an angle against thinner ships (even if they are going right through the citadel) to have some meat to bite into before arming or they get over pens.

It's actually better for some most CLs to go broadside to certain BBs because of this.

You can check the stats for the shells speeds in your port but I'm not sure where the arming time stats are (assuming the wiki but again not sure)...I don't think they are available in game though but I think they are mostly standard w/only certain ships having variances but I might be wrong about that & there may be wide variances.

CAs are (generally) definitely easier to cit than CLs on a perfect broadside but the width of the cit area in the middle is the determining factor not the gun caliber that determines whether a ship is classified as a CA/CL.

BCs are generally thick enough to guarantee cits from BBs if the broadside is given but they can also return them fairly easy if you try to use all of your turrets at once on them & show the a broadside) when you do it.

As for DDs...they took the cits out of them years ago (& changed BB AP damage parameters against them) so they weren't an easy kill from BBs (w/out loading HE) so that BBs would have a counter that was hard to deal with in the rock/paper/scissors dynamic (CVs being the unbalancing factor of all of those dynamics of course but that's for another [10 million] threads).

So check out your shell speed & if it's over 800 try for a bit of an angle on those thinner ships & maybe you can be the results of a thread by a cruiser player complaining how he wasn't broadside but still got deleted.

BTW...overmatch is the mechanic where you can hit ships bow on & get cits due to the caliber of your shells being able to pen lightly armored ships through the bows. What armor thickness you can pen w/what caliber shells is also available somewhere but where again exactly I'm not sure.

Edit: Mastering these mechanics is how unicums are made...not that I ever have or ever will but the option exists if you're willing to put the study time in.

[Silviu_Lazarescu]

2 hours ago, IfYouSeeKhaos said:

Not all CL/CAs get away w/it & not all BB have that problem.

Your shells have an arming time...from the time they penetrate the armor...until they go off.

They also have a speed that determines how fast they travel through a ship.

Slower moving shells don't get through as far before arming & go off in the ship before over penning & faster moving shells need an angle against thinner ships (even if they are going right through the citadel) to have some meat to bite into before arming or they get over pens.

It's actually better for some most CLs to go broadside to certain BBs because of this.

You can check the stats for the shells speeds in your port but I'm not sure where the arming time stats are (assuming the wiki but again not sure)...I don't think they are available in game though but I think they are mostly standard w/only certain ships having variances but I might be wrong about that & there may be wide variances.

CAs are (generally) definitely easier to cit than CLs on a perfect broadside but the width of the cit area in the middle is the determining factor not the gun caliber that determines whether a ship is classified as a CA/CL.

BCs are generally thick enough to guarantee cits from BBs if the broadside is given but they can also return them fairly easy if you try to use all of your turrets at once on them & show the a broadside) when you do it.

As for DDs...they took the cits out of them years ago (& changed BB AP damage parameters against them) so they weren't an easy kill from BBs (w/out loading HE) so that BBs would have a counter that was hard to deal with in the rock/paper/scissors dynamic (CVs being the unbalancing factor of all of those dynamics of course but that's for another [10 million] threads).

So check out your shell speed & if it's over 800 try for a bit of an angle on those thinner ships & maybe you can be the results of a thread by a cruiser player complaining how he wasn't broadside but still got deleted.

BTW...overmatch is the mechanic where you can hit ships bow on & get cits due to the caliber of your shells being able to pen lightly armored ships through the bows. What armor thickness you can pen w/what caliber shells is also available somewhere but where again exactly I'm not sure.

Edit: Mastering these mechanics is how unicums are made...not that I ever have or ever will but the option exists if you're willing to put the study time in.

I understand and I am aware of these mechanics you talk about , the problem is that this has nothing to do with real physics and ballistics .

In the end, it's an arcade video game that has nothing to do with real ballistics , but in a real situation a cruiser taking just 1-2 shells from a battleship - presuming we would ever have any of them still functioning nowadays- angled or broadside will be more that enough to sink it.

"It's actually better for some most CLs to go broadside to certain BBs because of this." - if this is true, it tells you how badly this game is designed...

My thought is that if this overpenetration mechanism based on arming times and armor thickness exist for battleship shells , if would be fair for similar mechanic to exist for torpedoes for example , like bouncing from the torpedo belt if it hits from a certain angle or simply sometimes for the torpedo not to arm.

[IfYouSeeKhaos]

8 minutes ago, Silviu_Lazarescu said:

I understand and I am aware of these mechanics you talk about , the problem is that this has nothing to do with real physics and ballistics .

In the end, it's an arcade video game that has nothing to do with real ballistics , but in a real situation a cruiser taking just 1-2 shells from a battleship - presuming we would ever have any of them still functioning nowadays- angled or broadside will be more that enough to sink it.

"It's actually better for some most CLs to go broadside to certain BBs because of this." - if this is true, it tells you how badly this game is designed...

My thought is that if this overpenetration mechanism based on arming times and armor thickness exist for battleship shells , if would be fair for similar mechanic to exist for torpedoes for example , like hitting torpedo protection belt and not causing any damage / bounce from torpedo protection belt / or simply not arming sometimes.

Nothing in this game has anything to do w/real physics & ballistics.

Actually IRL you wanted to "cross the T" (IOW go broadside while the enemy was bow on) because shells tended to have a more lateral dispersion & being bow on gave better chances of multiple shells hitting you as opposed to only 1 if any when broadside.

You nailed it on the head w/"in the end...nothing to do w/ballistics" but your example of 2 shells being more than enough to sink a cruiser is not a guarantee at all.

During the Channel Dash a 20 year old (at the time) RN DD (either the Cambellton or the Cambeltown or something like that...forget exact name right now) took 5 shells (from less than 2km)...3 from Prince Eugene (granted only a cruiser...but also) & 2 from either the Gneisenau or the Sharnhorst (forget which right now but believe it was the Gneis) & not only didn't sink but was able to (albeit very slowly as the fresh water tanks were destroyed & it had to use sea water) make it back to port on it's own power.

Lots of loss of life to be sure but the ship held up.

Even IRL shell placement was a factor in "it will definitely kill it" scenarios.

BB shells were usually the size of a van but don't let the size of the in game icons fool you...DDs were generally about a football field in length so we're not talking about a yacht or something here...they had quite a bit of mass themselves & cruisers dwarfed them so they weren't generally easy pickings from just a couple or even a few shells either unless ammo stashes or other explosive materials were directly hit...& they were generally in well armored areas of the ships that of course wouldn't survive a direct hit from a BB shell but were not that easy to directly aim at IRL either.

Your definitely correct about torp armor belt & IRL some torps had a tendency to dud out & only poke holes w/out going off but this is a game & as hard as it is to get torp hits they need to have them all go off for game balance reasons instead of having certain types dud out just because some did IRL.

Nothing about this game has anything to do w/real life...only the ship models are IRL accurate.

The game runs on it's own set of mechanics & just knowing that will help you to learn what angles (as opposed to always broadside) are best against what ships...if you are willing to put the time in to learn them all anyway.

But generally speaking...if a shell is moving a kilometer (1000 meters)/second it's generally gonna be through any CL before it arms on a full broadside (unless you are at far enough range that it's plunging through the superstructure) so try to work the angles to figure out how to get it to go through enough of the ship to allow it to break through the armor & still arm inside. Again...it's a lot of study to learn it all but what the unicums have been able to figure out...that in most scenarios it's not RNG...it's about knowing which shell is best to use based on what ship & what angle the ship is in relation to you & sometimes waiting for it to maneuver into a better angle based on what ammo you have loaded instead of just firing because it's "broadside w/AP" or "bow on or angled w/HE". Not to mention there's much variances in how high or low each citadel is in each class.

The game has it's own physics & ballistics outside the parameters of IRL & BBs are meant to not be able to just erase any ship from any angle for balance purposes.

Also...the concept of " only shoot AP at broadside targets" has been power crept w/the proliferation of CLs that have emerged since the games original conception.

Sorry...it's been quite a ramble. Wish I could have given you specific in game examples to help clarify but I haven't personally studied it all myself.

[Aduial]

4 hours ago, Silviu_Lazarescu said:

I understand and I am aware of these mechanics you talk about , the problem is that this has nothing to do with real physics and ballistics .

In the end, it's an arcade video game that has nothing to do with real ballistics , but in a real situation a cruiser taking just 1-2 shells from a battleship - presuming we would ever have any of them still functioning nowadays- angled or broadside will be more that enough to sink it.

"It's actually better for some most CLs to go broadside to certain BBs because of this." - if this is true, it tells you how badly this game is designed...

My thought is that if this overpenetration mechanism based on arming times and armor thickness exist for battleship shells , if would be fair for similar mechanic to exist for torpedoes for example , like bouncing from the torpedo belt if it hits from a certain angle or simply sometimes for the torpedo not to arm.

Why is it a bad mechanic for CLs to have a way to mitigate damage? It just happens that they do it in a way that's different from other ships. 

Why do you think that torpedoes need the above change? Your suggestion is a strong nerf to torpedoes, but you haven't given a reason as to why this should happen.

When discussing game mechanics/balance (and especially if you're asking for huge changes to game mechanics), you need 1. good reasoning and 2. empirical data that supports your reasoning (i.e., simple anecdotes such as "I landed a poor salvo against a cruiser" are not sufficient evidence). Unfortunately, your posts show neither. 

[Ranari]

Hahaha definitely not.

Battleships have the best survivability and the highest damage potential of all the classes. In return they have the least impact on the outcome of the game. That latter part is probably what most people are currently experiencing given the recent increase in blowouts, but battleships have always been that way.

[Silviu_Lazarescu]

13 hours ago, Aduial said:

Why is it a bad mechanic for CLs to have a way to mitigate damage? It just happens that they do it in a way that's different from other ships. 

Why do you think that torpedoes need the above change? Your suggestion is a strong nerf to torpedoes, but you haven't given a reason as to why this should happen.

When discussing game mechanics/balance (and especially if you're asking for huge changes to game mechanics), you need 1. good reasoning and 2. empirical data that supports your reasoning (i.e., simple anecdotes such as "I landed a poor salvo against a cruiser" are not sufficient evidence). Unfortunately, your posts show neither. 

If you would have read some of my replies , you would have found out that i have already answered your questions.

You are saying that if a ship makes a mistake and gets caught close and showing broadside to a BB should have a chance to get away , basically mitigate the damage using the overpenetration mechanism from the game, and that would mostly imply for it to be a CL or DD. Fine, but if it gets that chance , BBs should also have a chance to mitigate torpedo damage for example (in the way i have described it in one of my replies from above) if it finds itself in a bad position . For a BB the main damage source is the guns, but if i get only overpens you get away way too easy out of that situation , but you instead as a CL or DD , devastate me with torpedoes , that no matter the situation always hit and do the maximum damage (that substracted from the torpedo protection belt). 

"i.e., simple anecdotes such as "I landed a poor salvo against a cruiser" are not sufficient evidence" -  you presume out of the blue , just like another person that replied here, that i have a bad aim . I don't . I assure you this is not the case . 

[Ozium]

not dead but less popular perhaps, depends on how they manage being hunted by subs  

[Admiral_Thrawn_1]

1 hour ago, Ozium said:

not dead but less popular perhaps, depends on how they manage being hunted by subs  

I think BBs like Gneisenau, Scharnhorst, Kii, Amagi, PE Friedrich, and other fast BBs and Battlecruisers will do fine against subs thanks to their speed possibly allowing them to stay a step or 2 ahead of subs if the capital ships stay at high speed.

Will be interesting to see how ships like the Yamato class fare with great torpedo protection and lower speed.

Now BBs like Colorado will be very much dead considering how Colorado already suffers because of it’s very slow speed and not good enough durability.  Of course if BBs get hedgehog depth charge systems mounted onto their decks it could prove helpful.

[Wolfswetpaws]

"Fear is the mind-killer ...."
"Dune" book series written by Frank Herbert
https://www.dunenovels.com/novels

[mrieder79]

I branched out to BBs because I needed a break from the rocket plane radar ratrace of DDs. BB is much easier once you get the hang of it. Far fewer hard counters than DDs. 

[LAnybody]

3 hours ago, Silviu_Lazarescu said:

If you would have read some of my replies , you would have found out that i have already answered your questions.

You are saying that if a ship makes a mistake and gets caught close and showing broadside to a BB should have a chance to get away , basically mitigate the damage using the overpenetration mechanism from the game, and that would mostly imply for it to be a CL or DD. Fine, but if it gets that chance , BBs should also have a chance to mitigate torpedo damage for example (in the way i have described it in one of my replies from above) if it finds itself in a bad position . For a BB the main damage source is the guns, but if i get only overpens you get away way too easy out of that situation , but you instead as a CL or DD , devastate me with torpedoes , that no matter the situation always hit and do the maximum damage (that substracted from the torpedo protection belt). 

"i.e., simple anecdotes such as "I landed a poor salvo against a cruiser" are not sufficient evidence" -  you presume out of the blue , just like another person that replied here, that i have a bad aim . I don't . I assure you this is not the case . 

As a BB, you already have two mechanisms to mitigate torpedo damage:

1. A torpedo belt, which offers SIGNIFICANT protection if you use it properly
2. Damage saturation, which allows you to tank more than one torpedo hit on certain sections.

These offer the exact same chance of damage mitigation that overpens do. In fact, it's far easier for a BB to use these than it is for a CL/DD/CA to use overpen to mitigate damage.

 

Moreover, the fact remains that most BB shells (both in-game and IRL) easily pass through sections of a CL or DD that have no critical parts, and WON'T detonate inside, which is BY DESIGN (both in-game and IRL).

BB shells are designed to penetrate heavy armor, and thus have a VERY long arming time. Hitting lightly armored (or no armor) targets is about as relevant to the shell's damage as passing through air. 

Note that your "overpen" still does a LOT of damage. 1000+ per hit. Given a typical CL has less than 40k health, and many lower tier ones have barely 30k, that's a lot. 

Moreover, you'll notice that overpens on CL/CAs don't happen much more often than they do on BBs.  Which occur for the exact same reason: You are hitting non-critical locations.

 

You have bad aim. It's that simple. Because if you had good aim, you'd be hitting the parts of the ship that matter. Just hitting the ship is irrelevant. You need to aim and hit SPECIFIC portions of the ship.  RNG is significant, so that seriously reduces the ability to hit multiple shells in the point where you aim. But in the long run, if you're having problems getting anything other than overpens, it's your aim. Sorry, but that's the 100% truth.  Because all the rest of us get reasonable results, if not consistent ones (which is the fault of RNG altering point of impact from point of aim). 

[HazeGrayUnderway]

Battleships are the most brain-dead, easy to survive ships in the game.  Because they end up surviving so well, despite the dispersion and RNG nature of their guns, they still end up being great damage dealers.

 

With CVs relentlessly hammering Destroyers...

With Rework CVs having lost their RTS CV-era alpha striking power...

With CVs no longer being able to double or triple cross drop with multiple Torpedo Bomber squads at the same time...

With the nerfing of Flood effects that hit at the same time as the CV Rework in February 2019...

With the IFHE Rework drastically nerfing Fire Chances if the trait is taken. Old IFHE didn't have much of a Fire Chance Penalty to it, now the HE spammer has to make a choice:  Extra HE Pen at the cost of worse Fire Setting chances.  In addition, this update greatly impacted Mid Tier CLs such as Helena, Atlanta, Flint, Schors, etc., making them even worse when dealing with High Tier BBs...

 

Edit:  The CV Rework with the Flood Nerf that accompanied it were two significant, indirect buffs to Battleship play.  Floods used to be such a significant danger.  If a Flood effect stuck and your DCP was on cooldown, you were going to lose a huge amount of HP.  It was often fatal.  A BB player had to be judicious on when to use their DCP consumable because if the threat of torpedoes hitting is high enough, it may be a better idea to eat the 2 Fires damage than risk getting hit by torps and get a Perma-Flood on you.  Floods are so nerfed now you can tank them like you would a single Fire.  A BB player can now be sloppy in DCP use and survive, whereas before the Flood Nerf, it was a fatal mistake.

 

The Flood Nerf was a big hit against DOT-Stacking RTS CVs and for DD players.

 

The CV Rework removed the Alpha Strike Damage of Carriers of the RTS era.  RTS Carriers were very significant danger to BBs, because getting Double or Triple Torpedo Bomber Cross dropped by 8-12 TBs at the same time meant eating a huge amount of damage.  That's impossible now with Rebork CVs.

 

There have been some big hits against the non-BB threats of a Battleship for a while now.

 

There has never been a better, easier time to play Battleships.  The future was always bright for Battleships.

[Silviu_Lazarescu]

18 hours ago, LAnybody said:

As a BB, you already have two mechanisms to mitigate torpedo damage:

1. A torpedo belt, which offers SIGNIFICANT protection if you use it properly
2. Damage saturation, which allows you to tank more than one torpedo hit on certain sections.

These offer the exact same chance of damage mitigation that overpens do. In fact, it's far easier for a BB to use these than it is for a CL/DD/CA to use overpen to mitigate damage.

 

Moreover, the fact remains that most BB shells (both in-game and IRL) easily pass through sections of a CL or DD that have no critical parts, and WON'T detonate inside, which is BY DESIGN (both in-game and IRL).

BB shells are designed to penetrate heavy armor, and thus have a VERY long arming time. Hitting lightly armored (or no armor) targets is about as relevant to the shell's damage as passing through air. 

Note that your "overpen" still does a LOT of damage. 1000+ per hit. Given a typical CL has less than 40k health, and many lower tier ones have barely 30k, that's a lot. 

Moreover, you'll notice that overpens on CL/CAs don't happen much more often than they do on BBs.  Which occur for the exact same reason: You are hitting non-critical locations.

 

You have bad aim. It's that simple. Because if you had good aim, you'd be hitting the parts of the ship that matter. Just hitting the ship is irrelevant. You need to aim and hit SPECIFIC portions of the ship.  RNG is significant, so that seriously reduces the ability to hit multiple shells in the point where you aim. But in the long run, if you're having problems getting anything other than overpens, it's your aim. Sorry, but that's the 100% truth.  Because all the rest of us get reasonable results, if not consistent ones (which is the fault of RNG altering point of impact from point of aim). 

" 

As a BB, you already have two mechanisms to mitigate torpedo damage:

1. A torpedo belt, which offers SIGNIFICANT protection if you use it properly
2. Damage saturation, which allows you to tank more than one torpedo hit on certain sections. "

An overpen is about 10% of my damage . Ships that have best torpedo belts like Yamato , Alabama, Kremlin, etc. take way more that 10% torpedo damage . So think about this again. You are wrong.

Damage saturation , it applies to all ships not only BBs and it's irrelevant to mention . Some fantasy mechanic anyway ... i don't know why we have this in the game anyway.

" Moreover, the fact remains that most BB shells (both in-game and IRL) easily pass through sections of a CL or DD that have no critical parts, and WON'T detonate inside, which is BY DESIGN (both in-game and IRL) "

You are wrong again , in almost all of the situations they arm , otherwise they would have simply used lower caliber guns, and if there's an exceptional situation when they  don't arm they will leave a whole big enough for the water to get in and sink the ship anyway.

As for my aim , it's a good one , but you didn't bothered to read my post and my replies to others . So please spare others the time and start reading before posting . The RNG factor paired with increased probability for overpens and desync simply makes playing battleships less enjoyable , it's getting worse day by day and it's not just me experiencing it , there are other battleships veteran players in the game that have noticed the same things i did . Perhaps you must be one of the more lucky ones that RNG favored.

In the past i was getting a lot of devastating strikes , if a ship made the mistake of showing broadside , that being a cruiser or a battleship , now i barely get one, so think twice before saying that others don't aim well. The game is somehow broken , it's overpen city in mostly all of the matches i play as BB. 

 

 

[imaginary_b]

1 hour ago, Silviu_Lazarescu said:

" ...So think about this again. You are wrong.
[person describes what overpen means] You are wrong again , in almost all of the situations they arm...
As for my aim , it's a good one , but you didn't bothered to read my post and my replies to others.
...playing battleships less enjoyable , it's getting worse day by day and it's not just me experiencing it...
The game is somehow broken , it's overpen city in mostly all of the matches i play as BB."

What are you looking for?
If you want an informed discussion, you must become open to ideas that didn't come from your own head.
If you want to convince other people that battleships are doomed, don't shout on the forum. Go play the game and argue with the very many people who are playing battleships and having fun.
If you just want affirmation that you're right, I'm happy to help. Then we can all move on.

Silviu_Lazarescu, everything that you said is completely true!