Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
S7CentNickel

Secondary King?

23 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

40
[WOLF9]
Members
331 posts

I've been playing a lot of the Bismark as a secondary build and thought it was the best but, I finally got AFT on my 13 point secondary build captain for my Massachusetts and I have change my mind.  It is far & away better than Bismark.  First game with the new captain, over 1 mil credits and 173k damage.  What a difference!

Massachusetts 1.JPG

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
702
[SOV]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
1,868 posts
8,476 battles

The new USN BBs have really good secondaries that are pretty superior to KM BBs, but they do lack the turtleback that prevents those massive citadel salvos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
975
[KAPPA]
Members
3,110 posts
8,239 battles

Sums up why I love my Georgia. :cap_haloween:

57 minutes ago, Brohk said:

The new USN BBs have really good secondaries that are pretty superior to KM BBs, but they do lack the turtleback that prevents those massive citadel salvos.

They also lack the improved penetration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
800
[WOLFC]
Members
1,655 posts
9,465 battles

Massachusetts and Georgia have more accurate secondaries than German battleships, but they lack penetration. The USN 127mm pens 21mm, 26mm with IFHE (which also halves the fire chance). German 105mm guns pen 26mm (32mm with IFHE), 128mm pens 32mm, and 150mm pens 38mm.

What this means is that while Massachusetts’ and Georgia’s secondaries are very effective against DDs and CLs, they are less effective against CAs and especially BBs than German secondaries, especially given that IFHE is not worth taking for secondaries post rework.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
885
[LWA]
Members
1,125 posts

Secondary king would be the Graf Zeppelin hands down.....yeah, I know its a CV

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
885
[LWA]
Members
1,125 posts
1 hour ago, MinkeWhale said:

Maybe Odin now?

Odin's secondary guns are manned by drunken monkeys

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39
[B-Z]
Members
123 posts
14,262 battles

Still GK. It gets 32mm pen for free, and is the second toughest hull in the game.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
647 posts
72 battles
8 hours ago, S7CentNickel said:

I've been playing a lot of the Bismark as a secondary build and thought it was the best but, I finally got AFT on my 13 point secondary build captain for my Massachusetts and I have change my mind.  It is far & away better than Bismark.  First game with the new captain, over 1 mil credits and 173k damage.  What a difference!

Massachusetts 1.JPG

If you think Mass is any good you should really save up for the Georgia, Moster secondary's and guns that can actually devastate ships.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
549
[UN1]
Members
1,215 posts
3,652 battles
11 hours ago, S7CentNickel said:

I've been playing a lot of the Bismark as a secondary build and thought it was the best but, I finally got AFT on my 13 point secondary build captain for my Massachusetts and I have change my mind.  It is far & away better than Bismark.  First game with the new captain, over 1 mil credits and 173k damage.  What a difference!

Massachusetts 1.JPG

You're still a few captain skills points away from a more proper secondary build, but the Massachusetts is a much superior secondary design compared to the Bismarck. In fact, the Bismarck is one of the poorest ships for running full secondary builds on because her rear 105mm turrets are bugged. The FdG fixes the firing angle issues the Bismarck has, but plays in a much harder tier for secondary builds.

The best platform goes to the GK though. Hands down. 

2 hours ago, Oldschool_Gaming_YT said:

If you think Mass is any good you should really save up for the Georgia, Moster secondary's and guns that can actually devastate ships.

 

 

 

They are the exact same secondaries lol. Exact same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
647 posts
72 battles
9 hours ago, Ranari said:

They are the exact same secondaries lol. Exact same.

Well I didnt say they were different, lol, I said it has monster secondary's (same as Mass) and Main guns that can devastate ships , so what your problem with that?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
468 posts
4,399 battles
9 hours ago, Ranari said:

You're still a few captain skills points away from a more proper secondary build, but the Massachusetts is a much superior secondary design compared to the Bismarck. In fact, the Bismarck is one of the poorest ships for running full secondary builds on because her rear 105mm turrets are bugged. The FdG fixes the firing angle issues the Bismarck has, but plays in a much harder tier for secondary builds.

The best platform goes to the GK though. Hands down. 

 

GK has potential but geting to use them is a diferent story, Simply put secondary guns dont have the range or burst damage potential to do anything in the current state of the game.

that being said every now and then this kind of things happens

secondary.jpg

secondary2.jpg

Edited by pepe_trueno

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
549
[UN1]
Members
1,215 posts
3,652 battles
13 hours ago, Oldschool_Gaming_YT said:

Well I didnt say they were different, lol, I said it has monster secondary's (same as Mass) and Main guns that can devastate ships , so what your problem with that?

 

That's not how you worded your sentence. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,497
[RKLES]
Members
12,551 posts
14,267 battles
On 6/27/2020 at 7:17 PM, Brohk said:

The new USN BBs have really good secondaries that are pretty superior to KM BBs, but they do lack the turtleback that prevents those massive citadel salvos.

Actually in terms of secondary firepower alone in 1 vs 1 brawl the Bismarck beats the Massachusetts. Found that out in 1 vs 1 Ranked Sprint after an opponent and I agree at match start not to use main guns as we were both curious to see which secondary gunned BB was stronger. Although the Massachusetts runs a good second to Bismarck on secondary guns I will certainly say that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
647 posts
72 battles
4 hours ago, Ranari said:

That's not how you worded your sentence. 

Ok "If you think Mass is any good you should really save up for the Georgia, Moster secondary's and guns that can actually devastate ships." Where did I say Georgia has better or different secondarys then Mass?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
549
[UN1]
Members
1,215 posts
3,652 battles
9 minutes ago, Oldschool_Gaming_YT said:

Ok "If you think Mass is any good you should really save up for the Georgia, Moster secondary's and guns that can actually devastate ships." Where did I say Georgia has better or different secondarys then Mass?

I misread you then. My apologies. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
506
[GGWP]
Beta Testers
1,661 posts
8,800 battles

Secondary speccing a spare captain for Jean Bart (with IFHE), then getting people to chase you while you keep them at right around 10km is pretty funny. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
506
[GGWP]
Beta Testers
1,661 posts
8,800 battles
4 hours ago, Admiral_Thrawn_1 said:

Actually in terms of secondary firepower alone in 1 vs 1 brawl the Bismarck beats the Massachusetts. Found that out in 1 vs 1 Ranked Sprint after an opponent and I agree at match start not to use main guns as we were both curious to see which secondary gunned BB was stronger. Although the Massachusetts runs a good second to Bismarck on secondary guns I will certainly say that.

I'm pretty sure the Mass's secondaries don't require certain ship angling and are quite a bit more accurate than the BMs though (somebody cotrect me if I'm wrong).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,497
[RKLES]
Members
12,551 posts
14,267 battles
3 minutes ago, Tigermaus said:

I'm pretty sure the Mass's secondaries don't require certain ship angling and are quite a bit more accurate than the BMs though (somebody cotrect me if I'm wrong).

The Ranked Sprint battle where we had Massachusetts and Bismarck Secondary gun each other to death was fought close ranged and perfectly side on to each other. Never saw so many shell marks on a warship prior to that or since then as we racked up several hundreds of hits on each other.

But as to your question I think all ships require to be pretty much perfectly broadside in order to reach 100% secondary gun effectiveness because of how secondary guns are typically mounted on warships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
506
[GGWP]
Beta Testers
1,661 posts
8,800 battles
11 minutes ago, Admiral_Thrawn_1 said:

The Ranked Sprint battle where we had Massachusetts and Bismarck Secondary gun each other to death was fought close ranged and perfectly side on to each other. Never saw so many shell marks on a warship prior to that or since then as we racked up several hundreds of hits on each other.

But as to your question I think all ships require to be pretty much perfectly broadside in order to reach 100% secondary gun effectiveness because of how secondary guns are typically mounted on warships.

I think Mouse had a chart up showing the Mass's not needing angling to bring eqaul numbers of secondaries to target. I'd have to find it though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,497
[RKLES]
Members
12,551 posts
14,267 battles
8 minutes ago, Tigermaus said:

I think Mouse had a chart up showing the Mass's not needing angling to bring eqaul numbers of secondaries to target. I'd have to find it though.

Well certainly you would have a good number of secondary guns brought to bear on target with Massachusetts’s secondary guns, but the fact remains that on most secondary gun ships you at minimum have to angle to get your secondary guns fully engaged if not fully broadside.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
506
[GGWP]
Beta Testers
1,661 posts
8,800 battles
5 minutes ago, Admiral_Thrawn_1 said:

Well certainly you would have a good number of secondary guns brought to bear on target with Massachusetts’s secondary guns, but the fact remains that on most secondary gun ships you at minimum have to angle to get your secondary guns fully engaged if not fully broadside.

Thats what I mean, I dont think you do with the Mass. Maybe @LittleWhiteMouse could shed a better light.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,052 posts
4,376 battles

If you want to talk secondaries, Grosser Kurfurst has been, and will always be, the best secondary platform in the game. The reason being is that she has the combination of a high rate of fire and good penetration that allows her to bust through the non-main belt armor plating of almost anything that she faces, that isn't a Russian or German Battleship ( her 150mm secondaries can punch through USN Battleship Deck armor, with 38mm of penetration ). Ohio is a close second, packing a much higher fire chance and greater accuracy, but losing massively on penetration. 

Still, we're waiting for the day when there are secondaries that encompass all three core traits of secondary guns: Accuracy, Range, and Rate of fire. When will it come, who knows. Where will we find it? It's probably gonna be German. Or Soviet, if Wargaming is feeling cheeky

:SerB:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×