Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
mrieder79

Relative strength of T9 tech tree DDs vs Cruiser and BBs

17 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

467
[ICBM]
Members
820 posts
9,331 battles

It's interesting that in several DD lines, the T9 is as strong or arguably, stronger than the T10: Tash vs Khab, Kitakaze vs Harugumo, Fletcher vs Gearing,  Chung Mu vs Yuyang. 

However, in many BB and Cruiser lines, the leap from T9 to T10 is a huge power jump: Amagi vs Zao, Roon vs Hindenberg, Donskoi vs Moskva/Nevski, Iowa vs Monty, Izumo vs Yamato

Just an interesting observation, and I'm sure there are more examples out there; these are just the ones I could think of. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,252
[WOLF5]
Supertester
4,098 posts
4,081 battles

Iowa to Montana definitely isn't a huge upgrade. Same guns, similar armor. Iowa is faster, Montana has an extra turret. Monty's slightly better but Iowa is definitely up there for best T9 BB.

Donskoi and Moskva wasn't so much a power difference as a huge playstyle change, which is why they changed it. Nevski, well we'll see how it turns out.

But yeah, there are a couple where T9 is just why... Izumo used to be crap, is much better now but yeah, not comparable to Yamato. Amagi isn't bad at all though. Ibuki to Zao, yeah that's a gap. Mogami is pretty good though. Another I'd add is FDG. Neither Buffalo or Seattle are anywhere near their respective T10s. Roon has been meh for a bit, even more that Hindy recently got buffed. Neptune isn't Minotaur for sure.

And yes, a couple T9s are great. Kita, Fletcher. Chung Mu is more because WG clobbered YueYang. Same with Khaba.

But I think you can find similar gaps between many tiers. Colorado to North Carolina for example. Often coincides with a shift from proven war tested ships to post war or paper designs. T7 to T8 is a heck of a jump, helped by upgrade changes, but also corresponds for many nations to the transition from treaty era ships to unrestricted WWII designs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
783
[WOLFC]
Members
1,626 posts
9,465 battles

IMO, most tier IX cruisers have fairly mediocre performance because they gain access to Repair Party. This is a huge advantage over lower tier cruisers, and if their combat efficiency was increased, they would stomp all over their tier VII and VIII counterparts. They also gain access to either the range or reload module in slot 6, both of which are very useful for cruisers in particular.

40 minutes ago, mrieder79 said:

However, in many BB and Cruiser lines, the leap from T9 to T10 is a huge power jump: Amagi vs Zao, Roon vs Hindenberg, Donskoi vs Moskva/Nevski, Iowa vs Monty, Izumo vs Yamato

Also, Amagi is a tier VIII battleship. I think you mean Ibuki.

Edited by Nevermore135
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36
[5D7]
Members
141 posts
7,307 battles
25 minutes ago, Nevermore135 said:

IMO, most tier IX cruisers have fairly mediocre performance because they gain access to Repair Party. This is a huge advantage over lower tier cruisers, and if their combat efficiency was increased, they would stomp all over their tier VII and VIII counterparts. They also gain access to either the range or reload module in slot 6, both of which are very useful for cruisers in particular.

Also, Amagi is a tier VIII battleship. I think you mean Ibuki.

I feel the same about this, pretty much like being a T8 cruiser is among the toughest spots in game.
On the other hand though Zao is an upgrade from Ibuki its not THAT huge. Zao has great guns with an awful reload and turning speeds(not to mention the shorter range FCS). Also maneuverability is kind of a letdown if you happen to have an Atago.
Yamato is definitely a beast compared to Izumo.
For the Germans, I personally think that as far as tech tree ships the Gneisenau is by far their best BB in a tier by tier comparison. Its a ship that is very well armored, has secondaries that pack a serious punch, main guns are pretty solid, and is as fast as any cruiser in tier. From there on the design philosophy takes a 180 turn and it feels sort of a letdown.

Iowa vs Montana. Montana is pretty damn solid arty platform with those heavy 406 AP rounds, but the ability of Iowa to keep up with the engagement zones is a major perk to it. They have a sort of being on par situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
548
[UN1]
Members
1,211 posts
3,638 battles
1 hour ago, mrieder79 said:

It's interesting that in several DD lines, the T9 is as strong or arguably, stronger than the T10: Tash vs Khab, Kitakaze vs Harugumo, Fletcher vs Gearing,  Chung Mu vs Yuyang. 

However, in many BB and Cruiser lines, the leap from T9 to T10 is a huge power jump: Amagi vs Zao, Roon vs Hindenberg, Donskoi vs Moskva/Nevski, Iowa vs Monty, Izumo vs Yamato

Just an interesting observation, and I'm sure there are more examples out there; these are just the ones I could think of. 

The first three tech tree BB lines had T9 ships that were intentionally difficult and frustrating to play.

  • Montana is much easier, more reliable, and more comfortable ship to play than Iowa.  Iowa can be good in the hands of a good few, but she's got a pretty high skill floor even post-buff.
  • Yamato is also a much easier and more reliable platform to play than the Izumo.  That said, the Izumo is actually pretty strong now, but her wonky vertical dispersion can make her guns feel very unreliable.
  • Kurfurst pretty much resolves all the frustration with the German line and gives players a ship with great armor, reliable artillery, and amazing secondaries.  The FdG is now extremely strong in a full survival build, but that's antithetical to what players really want; secondaries.

The second three tech tree BB lines have much more comfortable T9 ships, but at the cost of having less-interesting-but-still-good T8 ships imho.

  • The Lion doesn't win any popularity awards, but she's actually a pretty darn good ship, and her statistics reflect that.
  • The Alsace was so good they made her original version a T10 ship.  Still, she's very strong and super fun to play, although the IFHE rework gutted her secondary performance.  I actually prefer Alsace to the Republique.
  • The Soyuz is a monster.  She has a reputation for having inconsistent gunnery (hello vertical dispersion), but she's got a T10 armor profile.  At T9.  The ship can take an absolutely brutal amount of punishment and keep on ticking.  This was my favorite ship of the Russian line. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
291 posts
9 battles
1 hour ago, mrieder79 said:

It's interesting that in several DD lines, the T9 is as strong or arguably, stronger than the T10: Tash vs Khab, Kitakaze vs Harugumo, Fletcher vs Gearing,  Chung Mu vs Yuyang. 

However, in many BB and Cruiser lines, the leap from T9 to T10 is a huge power jump: Amagi vs Zao, Roon vs Hindenberg, Donskoi vs Moskva/Nevski, Iowa vs Monty, Izumo vs Yamato

Just an interesting observation, and I'm sure there are more examples out there; these are just the ones I could think of. 

You're absolutely right, and it's one of the reasons why T10 DD's feel weaker than DD's at other tiers.  This causes a major problem when clan battles is usually at T10, which means that DD's really can't compete in terms of damage potential. 

T8 is the best tier for DD to cruiser balance imo, at that tier they are pretty well balanced to each other (which is why this is a much better tier for CB's).  T9 is also quite well balanced in terms of DD vs cruiser power.  I'm really unsure why T10 DD's don't have the power increase of other ship types, but I suspect they initially introduced Gearing and Shima, and then instead of balancing other T10 DD's against all ships, they balanced them against the already existing DD's.  That weakness has then persisted for the life time of the game!

Really they should do across the board buffs to T10 DD's, to bring them up to par with other ship types.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,595
[WOLF3]
Members
27,010 posts
23,803 battles

Tier IX DDs are in a pretty good spot.  IMO, there's a real sense in power and capability progression when you go from a Tier VIII to a IX DD.  I still remember feeling that going from Benson to Fletcher.  Even in a Tier X game, a bunch of these IX DDs still demand respect.  Hell, Kitakaze doesn't eat the Full BB AP Pens that Tier X Harugumo does.

Tier IX BBs are behind them but quality can be uneven.

But Tier IX Normal Cruisers suck pretty bad in general for their tier.  I have never felt a jump in power and capability going from Tier VIII->IX Cruisers.  Most of these Cruisers are really Tier 8.5 ships.

 

Another perspective is a Tier IX DD when it gets to be Top Tier.

Kitakaze, Jutland, Fletcher, whatever against Tier VII DDs is straight up murder on the high seas.  You will find no greater disparity in capabilities in this game than you would between Tier VII DDs against Tier IX DDs.  It actually makes Colorado vs Musashi look fair compared to what VII DDs have to deal with against IX DDs.

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,634
[SIDE]
Members
4,662 posts
1 hour ago, Moggytwo said:

it's one of the reasons why T10 DD's feel weaker than DD's at other tiers. 

 I'm really unsure why T10 DD's don't have the power increase of other ship types, 

Really they should do across the board buffs to T10 DD's, to bring them up to par with other ship types.

Wanted to comment only on these three lines.

T10 DD ranks have always had several beasts. Daring, Halland and Kleber now. Z52, YY and Groz a while back. Gearing, Khab and Shima a long time ago. In their respective "eras", if you will, each of them was an absolute scourge. I played them in their heyday. That's why they get nerfed after a little while.

The power increase isn't the same from 9-10 across all types or nations. I imagine there are myriad balancing considerations that go into their design and we've seen hundreds of examples were individual ships see minute or major adjustments over time. Maybe a mod will pipe up and explain in some detail.

This is an irrational solution based on bias and perception to a problem that might not really exist. Every ship has strengths and weaknesses. It's not perfect and doesn't suit everyone equally but that doesn't matter. What matters is keeping all these variables interacting within marginal parameters so the game works such as it does. Arbitrary buffs to an entire type would surely unbalance not only the members of the type but their interactions with every other type. I prefer the current more measured approach.

 

Edited by thebigblue
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
420
[AAA]
Members
447 posts
14,998 battles
16 minutes ago, thebigblue said:

Wanted to comment only on these three lines.

T10 DD ranks have always had several beasts. Daring, Halland and Kleber now. Z52, YY and Groz a while back. Gearing, Khab and Shima a long time ago. In their respective "eras", if you will, each of them was an absolute scourge. That's why they get nerfed after a little while.

The power increase isn't the same from 9-10 across all types or nations. I imagine there are myriad balancing considerations that go into their design and we've seen hundreds of examples were individual ships see minute or major adjustments over time. Maybe a mod will pipe up and explain in some detail.

This is an irrational solution based on bias and perception to a problem that might not really exist. Every ship has strengths and weaknesses. It's not perfect and doesn't suit everyone equally but that doesn't matter. What matters is keeping all these variables interacting within marginal parameters so the game works such as it does. Arbitrary buffs to an entire type would surely unbalance not only the members of the type but their interactions with every other type. I prefer the current more measured approach.

 

Hahahahaaaa. Oh, you're a hoot. Get this comedy act booked now.

Of course you're anti-DD. You're pro-CV. You're in every CV thread attacking people who have legit CV issues.

No problems with DDs.

No problems with CVs.

Sure.

Let me ask you some questions since you refuse to volunteer information. How many battles do you have in total? How many in a DD? How many in reworked CVs? Please break that down by CV. What's your WR in CVs, DDs and at T10 altogether? I'm assuming the answers to all are lots and with very impressive WRs across the board, but you just don't want clans trying to recruit you all day, right?

Looking forward to your response.

Edited by Lt_Newcastle
  • Confused 1
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
291 posts
9 battles
6 minutes ago, thebigblue said:

Daring, Halland and Kleber now. Z52, YY and Groz a while back. Gearing, Khab and Shima a long time ago. In their respective "eras", if you will, each of them was an absolute scourge. That's why they get nerfed after a little while.

They were/are strong - for T10 DD's.  My point was that generally ships get balanced against their own type, since they are matched up against the same type and tier in any battle.  This makes comparisons between ship types more difficult.  It's my opinion though that the relative strengths of T10 DD's are less than that of the other classes and always have been, while at tiers 8 and 9 they are much stronger.

Your impact on the overall battle is simply less in your T10 DD than a T9 DD would be while top tier.  A good example of this is CB's - if DD's were properly balanced against cruisers at T10, then you should see roughly equal numbers of the two types of ships, but quite clearly this isn't the case, and T10 DD's are almost nowhere to be found in CB's.  They can't come close to competing in damage, and they can't even compete in capping viability (one of their key strengths).  Now that we have CV's in CB's, destroyers are even less important since CV's are able to spot almost as well (and better in some ways).

Compare this to the tier 8 CB season, DD's and cruisers were equally viable, and there were a good mix of balanced teams, mostly cruiser teams, and mostly DD teams.  Having plenty of destroyers made for a much more mobile and dynamic season, and is the primary reason why this was the best season yet.

Once again, it's important to attempt to compare overall power levels of ship types, rather than comparing ships within their own type, which is the natural trap to fall into since it's so much easier to quantify.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,634
[SIDE]
Members
4,662 posts
10 hours ago, Moggytwo said:

They were/are strong - for T10 DD's.  My point was that generally ships get balanced against their own type, since they are matched up against the same type and tier in any battle.  This makes comparisons between ship types more difficult.  It's my opinion though that the relative strengths of T10 DD's are less than that of the other classes and always have been, while at tiers 8 and 9 they are much stronger.

Your impact on the overall battle is simply less in your T10 DD than a T9 DD would be while top tier.  A good example of this is CB's - if DD's were properly balanced against cruisers at T10, then you should see roughly equal numbers of the two types of ships, but quite clearly this isn't the case, and T10 DD's are almost nowhere to be found in CB's.  They can't come close to competing in damage, and they can't even compete in capping viability (one of their key strengths).  Now that we have CV's in CB's, destroyers are even less important since CV's are able to spot almost as well (and better in some ways).

Compare this to the tier 8 CB season, DD's and cruisers were equally viable, and there were a good mix of balanced teams, mostly cruiser teams, and mostly DD teams.  Having plenty of destroyers made for a much more mobile and dynamic season, and is the primary reason why this was the best season yet.

Once again, it's important to attempt to compare overall power levels of ship types, rather than comparing ships within their own type, which is the natural trap to fall into since it's so much easier to quantify.

We don't have much to disagree on it seems. 

I'm sure there is great consideration given to  maintain distinction as much as some parity in balance of strength and weakness across ships of same type and tier. Balancing each them as peers and then also against other types and then against other tiers... Difficult? To say the least. Yet they must do so. I'll defer to HazeGray's excellent reply on strength of T9 DD vs T7-8 ships.

At tier 8 DD begin to see a lot of radar from cruisers and even DD in their MM bracket of 8-9-10. Some of that radar is 10-12km. Meanwhile many DD lack torpedos with range exceeding 10 or 12km and inexperienced players often find themselves exposed and very vulnerable. Add to that the long cycle times for torpedos and lack of heals on many DD and it becomes a very unforgiving environment. This is particularly true in CB where DPM and range matter a lot and DD can't offer much of either. Their smoke, concealment and speed is still critical for spotting, screening, capping and denial but that can be done by just 1 or 2. I agree that CV in CB do a better job spotting but their weapon system cycle times are even longer, can be shot down and cannot cap at all. Therefore they do not replace DD but compete against and/or augment them.

Good points. T8 CB was more dynamic. The overall lethality at that tier is dialed back a lot (except for the borderline OP Akizuki). There were more DD because the reduced radar relative to T10 made old school yolo ninja boating fashionable again and who doesn't like to do that, right? In my opinion the T8 cruiser are far less powerful,  survivable and offer less utility than either T9 or T10.

I agree. It's important. Also, very difficult given all the variables. That's why Im in favor of specific buffs to specific ships where it's warranted. I just prefer a more precise and measured approach to an across the board buff to ROF or fire chance which some need but others don't. Not that you were proposing such generalist buffs.

Great points man.

Edited by thebigblue
Phone spell check sucks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,357
[BFBTW]
Members
4,181 posts
9,556 battles
4 hours ago, mrieder79 said:

It's interesting that in several DD lines, the T9 is as strong or arguably, stronger than the T10: Tash vs Khab, Kitakaze vs Harugumo, Fletcher vs Gearing,  Chung Mu vs Yuyang. 

However, in many BB and Cruiser lines, the leap from T9 to T10 is a huge power jump: Amagi vs Zao, Roon vs Hindenberg, Donskoi vs Moskva/Nevski, Iowa vs Monty, Izumo vs Yamato

Just an interesting observation, and I'm sure there are more examples out there; these are just the ones I could think of. 

Most of these are not really great examples.

Both Ibuki and Izumo have been buffed to be really strong. Roon/Donskoi are both pretty good.

The Tashkent/Kita are mainly strong relative to the TX because they do not take full pens and the YY got a needless nerfbat.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,357
[BFBTW]
Members
4,181 posts
9,556 battles
7 minutes ago, thebigblue said:

Good points. T8 CB was more dynamic. The overall lethality at that tier is dialed back a lot (except for the borderline OP Akizuki). There were more DD because the reduced radar relative to T10 made old school yolo ninja boating fashionable again and who doesn't like to do that, right? In my opinion the T8 cruiser are far less powerful,  survivable and offer less utility than either T9 or T10.

At high levels in the tier 8 season, most teams ran 5 destroyers and battleships rammed each game.

Destroyers at T8 are considerably stronger than cruisers at that tier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
281
[XXX]
Members
520 posts
923 battles
3 hours ago, Ranari said:

The Lion doesn't win any popularity awards, but she's actually a pretty darn good ship, and her statistics reflect that.

See I got the Lion on my EU account and, by far, she is probably the WORST tier 9 battleship. Her guns are massively wonky and fire all over the place. I've had a salvo at near point blank range where half the shots went in to the water and half the shots hit the superstructure...and I was aiming above the water line, since the German BB buffs she now has the WORST dispersion pattern of any Battleship. The Conq makes up for this by getting 3 extra guns which seem to even things out. Plus remember they raised her citadel by a decent margin meaning she eats Yamato shells hard, I've regularly citadelled Lions from the oddest angles in the Yamato. Plus she's 32mm all over protection which means HE shells just devour her even with the improved heal. 

Personally the Lion had one thing going for it, its underwater citadel, when that went, it dropped below the FdG in terms of playability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,634
[SIDE]
Members
4,662 posts
14 minutes ago, enderland07 said:

At high levels in the tier 8 season, most teams ran 5 destroyers and battleships rammed each game.

Destroyers at T8 are considerably stronger than cruisers at that tier.

We ran 3 DD, radar cruisers and a few BB. We aren't in the top bracket but we did alright and had some great times. When I was tapped for DD I preferred Lightning and Kidd for very different reasons but also ran Aki for a change of pace. I wish I had a Loyang. Alas, much of my time was in cruisers anyway.

I agree. Loyang or Aki vs New Orleans or Albemarle? Lol! On the other hand, the French, Japanese and German are pretty good...

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
548
[UN1]
Members
1,211 posts
3,638 battles
6 hours ago, Yandere_Roon said:

See I got the Lion on my EU account and, by far, she is probably the WORST tier 9 battleship. Her guns are massively wonky and fire all over the place. I've had a salvo at near point blank range where half the shots went in to the water and half the shots hit the superstructure...and I was aiming above the water line, since the German BB buffs she now has the WORST dispersion pattern of any Battleship. The Conq makes up for this by getting 3 extra guns which seem to even things out. Plus remember they raised her citadel by a decent margin meaning she eats Yamato shells hard, I've regularly citadelled Lions from the oddest angles in the Yamato. Plus she's 32mm all over protection which means HE shells just devour her even with the improved heal. 

Personally the Lion had one thing going for it, its underwater citadel, when that went, it dropped below the FdG in terms of playability.

British dispersion is built for HE, which spreads it across a wider horizontal area to start more fires.  It comes at the cost of some AP reliability, which is somewhat made up for with the Lion having very good penetration, but ultimately what you're describing happens to most of the T9 battleships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
467
[ICBM]
Members
820 posts
9,331 battles
9 hours ago, enderland07 said:

Most of these are not really great examples.

Both Ibuki and Izumo have been buffed to be really strong. Roon/Donskoi are both pretty good.

The Tashkent/Kita are mainly strong relative to the TX because they do not take full pens and the YY got a needless nerfbat.

 

Nobody ever says that they'd rather play Ibuki than Zao, but  Tash vs Khab? Pretty much everyone agrees the Tash is a better ship. Same with Nevski and Donskoi. Nobody says Donskoi is more fun/better, but it is common to hear people prefer fletcher over Gearing. My point was that with cruisers and BBs, the 9 to 10 jump is a clear upgrade, but in many DD lines the jump is often more of a side-grade, with a change in playstyle, or trade-offs that don't offer a clear advantage. As you pointed out in the Pan-Asian and RU lines, this is because of heavy-handed nerfing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×