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

Discussion about Range

34 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

4,941
[SALVO]
Members
9,013 posts
6,716 battles

Doing my T8 grind and as consequence of my hastiness, I've been using a lot of ships without the range upgrade. In many of them I've found no problem using the stock range, and I'm getting convinced I would be better without it. Not only in terms of economy of resources, but as well as performance related. The way I play most ships is usually around the edge of my concealment, I rarely take long range shots as I find them to be unreliable and most of the time the potential damage isn't worth revealing my ship position. Of course this doesn't apply to some sniper ships or some DD gunboats that need the extra range to operate safely. 

Let's take as example my Bismarck, I have it set for full stealth, my usual engagement range starts around 12-13 km, from there I can choose to push forward to brawl or kite away. Since dispersion is bad, I rarely bother to take shots over 18 km but for some juicy opportunity broadside, my preferred play would be to creep closer before re engaging. I think about 90-95% of the damage I deliver is ranged under 18 km.

Other example is my Lightning, her concealment is amazing and her gun's ballistics are horrible. The extra range is not needed to engage DDs, and in fact I prefer the extra bloom "concealment" I get from the shorter range, as for example is much easier to gun down targets while preserving my own concealment. The stock range I find is good enough to actively gunboat most BBs and even cruisers with low RoF, longer range would be overkill on BBs and ineffective on cruisers due to the extra shell flight time. 

As a rule of thumb, I find I rarely need long ranges in ships with a good balance of concealment and mobility. Long range fire is rarely as effective or decisive as mid or short range so it is basically the last option when there's no better course of action. Avoiding the Range upgrade  can shorten up my grind up to 10% and save some cash, I find it worth considering.

Edited by ArIskandir
  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,564
[SGSS]
Members
6,269 posts
5 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

Doing my T8 grind and as consequence of my hastiness, I've been using a lot of ships without the range upgrade. In many of them I've found no problem using the stock range, and I'm getting convinced I would be better without it. Not only in terms of economy of resources, but as well as performance related. The way I play most ships is usually around the edge of my concealment, I rarely take long range shots as I find them to be unreliable and most of the time the potential damage isn't worth revealing my ship position. Of course this doesn't apply to some sniper ships or some DD gunboats that need the extra range to operate safely. 

Let's take as example my Bismarck, I have it set for full stealth, my usual engagement range starts around 12-13 km, from there I can choose to push forward to brawl or kite away. Since dispersion is bad, I rarely bother to take shots over 18 km but for some juicy opportunity broadside, my preferred play would be to creep closer before re engaging. I think about 90-95% of the damage I deliver is ranged under 18 km.

Other example is my Lightning, her concealment is amazing and her gun's ballistics are horrible. The extra range is not needed to engage DDs, and in fact I prefer the extra bloom "concealment" I get from the shorter range, as for example is much easier to gun down targets while preserving my own concealment. The stock range I find is good enough to actively gunboat most BBs and even cruisers with low RoF, longer range would be overkill on BBs and ineffective on cruisers due to the extra shell flight time. 

As a rule of thumb, I find I rarely need long ranges in ships with a good balance of concealment and mobility. Long range fire is rarely as effective or decisive as mid or short range so it is basically the last option when there's no better course of action. Avoiding the Range mod  can shorten up my grind up to 10% and save some cash, I find it worth considering.

If you can figure out how to shoot then go short range and take something else.

Des I finally fig how to shot af 16 + but most battles take place short range anyway.

I finally learned how tp dpdge flak so that 4 points can go somewhere else.

If its working dont change.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,064
[TIMT]
Members
1,780 posts
25 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

Other example is my Lightning, her concealment is amazing and her gun's ballistics are horrible. The extra range is not needed to engage DDs, and in fact I prefer the extra bloom "concealment" I get from the shorter range, as for example is much easier to gun down targets while preserving my own concealment. The stock range I find is good enough to actively gunboat most BBs and even cruisers with low RoF, longer range would be overkill on BBs and ineffective on cruisers due to the extra shell flight time. 

Lightning and especially Jutland I played with stock range, specifically for the smaller gun bloom, it is just so much easier to go dark quickly after firing. Downside was that the shorter range meant I had to farm secondary spec'ed BBs from within their secondary range and thus rely entirely on smoke or islands, but now secondary range has increased anyway (though they don't really hit anymore). For DDs in general the question how much range you want is interesting. Obviously the BB farmers with great ballistics want to have the great range as it is important for dodging and ultimately survival. But I run my Marceau and Smaland with normal range and have good results (Smaland I play mostly in ranked tho), while on ships like Kiev and Tashkent range was the first thing to get upgraded.

Des Moines is a weird case for me, I can definitely farm beyond the 15.6km standard range but the larger gun bloom makes it much harder to use certain positions and requires more map awareness. I would not go as far and say that the low range is actually a plus for DM, as there some situations where I could definitely need it (16.5km would be ideal in my mind), but I am slowly changing my mind.

With BBs there is always the option of using spotter plane (for most at least) which can make up for lower range. I would argue that while range is often not necessary, it is always a nice to have and great for potshots across the map. However, I do get your point on shooting only at closer ranges, NC for example has way more range than I could ever realistically use with any consistency.

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
375
[WOLF1]
Members
1,151 posts
2,228 battles
38 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

Doing my T8 grind and as consequence of my hastiness, I've been using a lot of ships without the range upgrade. In many of them I've found no problem using the stock range, and I'm getting convinced I would be better without it. Not only in terms of economy of resources, but as well as performance related. The way I play most ships is usually around the edge of my concealment, I rarely take long range shots as I find them to be unreliable and most of the time the potential damage isn't worth revealing my ship position. Of course this doesn't apply to some sniper ships or some DD gunboats that need the extra range to operate safely. 

Let's take as example my Bismarck, I have it set for full stealth, my usual engagement range starts around 12-13 km, from there I can choose to push forward to brawl or kite away. Since dispersion is bad, I rarely bother to take shots over 18 km but for some juicy opportunity broadside, my preferred play would be to creep closer before re engaging. I think about 90-95% of the damage I deliver is ranged under 18 km.

Other example is my Lightning, her concealment is amazing and her gun's ballistics are horrible. The extra range is not needed to engage DDs, and in fact I prefer the extra bloom "concealment" I get from the shorter range, as for example is much easier to gun down targets while preserving my own concealment. The stock range I find is good enough to actively gunboat most BBs and even cruisers with low RoF, longer range would be overkill on BBs and ineffective on cruisers due to the extra shell flight time. 

As a rule of thumb, I find I rarely need long ranges in ships with a good balance of concealment and mobility. Long range fire is rarely as effective or decisive as mid or short range so it is basically the last option when there's no better course of action. Avoiding the Range mod  can shorten up my grind up to 10% and save some cash, I find it worth considering.

Especially after moving up to the benson and having it at 6.4 km concealment (upgrade only, not capt skill yet) instead of previous 7.5 concealment has allowed me to get closer to DDs and hit with my floaty shells more often

Edited by Boomer625

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,100
[KWF]
Members
6,572 posts
7,191 battles

I disagree with regards to Lightning. Having the RN smokes at your disposal almost every time you need them means you can spend most of your time there. The extra range is helpful for picking a position where someone is bowtanking and slowly reversing, giving you some extra time to plink at them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,179
[WOLF5]
Supertester
5,233 posts
4,348 battles

I usually do upgrade the stock range on most ships, you need some range if you don't just want to outright die. But I almost never take the range mod. Most of it is I can't hit squat at those kinds of ranges, especially in a USN cruiser or DD. Fletcher for example you can't hit anything at max range and it blooms your detection out that much further. BBs same thing, I don't have the ROF to range in at 20km, I have the armor and HP to get in a bit closer.

And to be honest in almost every ship if you're playing so far back you need the range mod you're probably playing it wrong anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,941
[SALVO]
Members
9,013 posts
6,716 battles
3 minutes ago, warheart1992 said:

I disagree with regards to Lightning. Having the RN smokes at your disposal almost every time you need them means you can spend most of your time there. The extra range is helpful for picking a position where someone is bowtanking and slowly reversing, giving you some extra time to plink at them.

I'm not really having too much trouble with Lightning short range, the boat is small and very nimble, I don't have too much trouble dodging between 10-11 km. I wouldn't engage a Chappy for example at that range, but something like an Alaska is fairly comfortable to farm, I'm starting to lose any respect for Alaskas, they are particularly easy to dodge. BBs are so easy to troll, usually I time the farming with their volleys, you get a good 20-25 sec of free fire, smoke just before their shot is ready to piss them up, keep farming on your smoke time, rinse and repeat. There's really so few opportunities I found myself thinking "gosh, wish I had some more range".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,311
[-BUI-]
Members
2,706 posts
7,103 battles
1 hour ago, ArIskandir said:

Doing my T8 grind and as consequence of my hastiness, I've been using a lot of ships without the range upgrade. In many of them I've found no problem using the stock range, and I'm getting convinced I would be better without it. Not only in terms of economy of resources, but as well as performance related. The way I play most ships is usually around the edge of my concealment, I rarely take long range shots as I find them to be unreliable and most of the time the potential damage isn't worth revealing my ship position. Of course this doesn't apply to some sniper ships or some DD gunboats that need the extra range to operate safely. 

Let's take as example my Bismarck, I have it set for full stealth, my usual engagement range starts around 12-13 km, from there I can choose to push forward to brawl or kite away. Since dispersion is bad, I rarely bother to take shots over 18 km but for some juicy opportunity broadside, my preferred play would be to creep closer before re engaging. I think about 90-95% of the damage I deliver is ranged under 18 km.

Other example is my Lightning, her concealment is amazing and her gun's ballistics are horrible. The extra range is not needed to engage DDs, and in fact I prefer the extra bloom "concealment" I get from the shorter range, as for example is much easier to gun down targets while preserving my own concealment. The stock range I find is good enough to actively gunboat most BBs and even cruisers with low RoF, longer range would be overkill on BBs and ineffective on cruisers due to the extra shell flight time. 

As a rule of thumb, I find I rarely need long ranges in ships with a good balance of concealment and mobility. Long range fire is rarely as effective or decisive as mid or short range so it is basically the last option when there's no better course of action. Avoiding the Range upgrade  can shorten up my grind up to 10% and save some cash, I find it worth considering.

I also do this, having more range is not always a good thing, sometimes having a smaller bloom is best.

Edited by Zenn3k
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,083
[HC]
[HC]
Beta Testers
3,682 posts
13,377 battles
1 hour ago, ArIskandir said:

Doing my T8 grind and as consequence of my hastiness, I've been using a lot of ships without the range upgrade. In many of them I've found no problem using the stock range, and I'm getting convinced I would be better without it. Not only in terms of economy of resources, but as well as performance related. The way I play most ships is usually around the edge of my concealment, I rarely take long range shots as I find them to be unreliable and most of the time the potential damage isn't worth revealing my ship position. Of course this doesn't apply to some sniper ships or some DD gunboats that need the extra range to operate safely. 

Let's take as example my Bismarck, I have it set for full stealth, my usual engagement range starts around 12-13 km, from there I can choose to push forward to brawl or kite away. Since dispersion is bad, I rarely bother to take shots over 18 km but for some juicy opportunity broadside, my preferred play would be to creep closer before re engaging. I think about 90-95% of the damage I deliver is ranged under 18 km.

Other example is my Lightning, her concealment is amazing and her gun's ballistics are horrible. The extra range is not needed to engage DDs, and in fact I prefer the extra bloom "concealment" I get from the shorter range, as for example is much easier to gun down targets while preserving my own concealment. The stock range I find is good enough to actively gunboat most BBs and even cruisers with low RoF, longer range would be overkill on BBs and ineffective on cruisers due to the extra shell flight time. 

As a rule of thumb, I find I rarely need long ranges in ships with a good balance of concealment and mobility. Long range fire is rarely as effective or decisive as mid or short range so it is basically the last option when there's no better course of action. Avoiding the Range upgrade  can shorten up my grind up to 10% and save some cash, I find it worth considering.

Depends on the ship, how and where you're grinding.

If you're keeping the ship, you'll end up with the XP for it eventually anyway, and it will end up as an elite ship.

If you play Co-Op, you want to be trading fire with the bots ASAP (before a DD smokes up your line of sight and blocks your line of fire), so you're trading needing a little more XP for the grind v/s getting a little more XP per match.

If your grinding your ships in Randoms and can play them the way you want to, then you might as well save the credits and XP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,941
[SALVO]
Members
9,013 posts
6,716 battles
1 minute ago, SgtBeltfed said:

Depends on the ship, how and where you're grinding.

If you're keeping the ship, you'll end up with the XP for it eventually anyway, and it will end up as an elite ship.

If you play Co-Op, you want to be trading fire with the bots ASAP (before a DD smokes up your line of sight and blocks your line of fire), so you're trading needing a little more XP for the grind v/s getting a little more XP per match.

If your grinding your ships in Randoms and can play them the way you want to, then you might as well save the credits and XP.

Totally agree Range is always useful in Coop. My opinion is restricted to PvP modes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
220
[B_Y_F]
Members
711 posts
16,301 battles

I strongly suggest you try out the new T8 Italian BB V. VENETO if you don't like range. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,941
[SALVO]
Members
9,013 posts
6,716 battles
4 minutes ago, sapient007 said:

I strongly suggest you try out the new T8 Italian BB V. VENETO if you don't like range. 

I will as soon as they fall "out of fashion". Too many ITA BBs in queue atm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,466
[-K-]
[-K-]
Members
5,935 posts
23,008 battles

Stealthy DDs avoid range so you have less bloom after a gunfight with another DD. Gun DDs take range for more pewpew obviously.

Cruisers and BBs, get the range if you care to pay for it. More options is better, and the bloom difference almost never matters for these ships. There's also a tiny bonus to vertical dispersion for having more max range.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
240
[WHS]
Members
254 posts
4,080 battles
2 hours ago, ArIskandir said:

I prefer the extra bloom "concealment"

This is actually an interesting point, and it's actually a result of WG trying to eliminate any sort of invis-firing.

It used to be that the bloom after firing was a fixed amount, and some ships had the option of extending the gun range beyond their bloom so that they can remain undetected in the open while firing, albeit within a very small window at the edge of their firing distance.

The advantage was largely inconsequential, and it was used mostly to punish noob BBs out of position, since the invisi-firing window was such that the shells would travel a long time to get there and thus easily dodgeable. Of course, the brainlets were having none of it, so eventually, to eliminate any kind of invisi-firing, WG decided to match firing bloom to maximum gun range.

The reduced range can be both blessing and a curse. Blessing when it's easier to LoS other ships just by the virtue of them being too far away to detect you while firing, and you can LoS the target by simply moving behind an island. But there are some positions where extended range would've helped keep fire on target, and afford a more flexible deployment position.

Everything considered, there's no reason to not upgrade. The ships with longer firing range need the upgrade, and they usually come with the faster shells to compensate for it. Keeping people out of your gun's bloom isn't always reliable, and you'd be better served by getting into good position so that no matter the distance to enemy you're well concealed while firing.

The playstyle that you mention is akin to the battleships staying on the edge of the map to keep deadeye active. You're giving up everything else to hold onto that slight advantage that may or may not be worth it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37
[HAI]
Members
88 posts
6,881 battles

I almost never take range upgrades on DDs.  Most don't need it.  Most of their guns (especially 127 mm and 120 mm) are too floaty out to that range and the extra gun bloom isn't worth it.  It can be good on some of the 130mm DD's with better flatter arcs.  Certainly good on larger ship classes too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
995
[4HIM]
Beta Testers
2,280 posts
16,495 battles
3 hours ago, ArIskandir said:

Doing my T8 grind and as consequence of my hastiness, I've been using a lot of ships without the range upgrade. In many of them I've found no problem using the stock range, and I'm getting convinced I would be better without it. Not only in terms of economy of resources, but as well as performance related. The way I play most ships is usually around the edge of my concealment, I rarely take long range shots as I find them to be unreliable and most of the time the potential damage isn't worth revealing my ship position. Of course this doesn't apply to some sniper ships or some DD gunboats that need the extra range to operate safely. 

Let's take as example my Bismarck, I have it set for full stealth, my usual engagement range starts around 12-13 km, from there I can choose to push forward to brawl or kite away. Since dispersion is bad, I rarely bother to take shots over 18 km but for some juicy opportunity broadside, my preferred play would be to creep closer before re engaging. I think about 90-95% of the damage I deliver is ranged under 18 km.

Other example is my Lightning, her concealment is amazing and her gun's ballistics are horrible. The extra range is not needed to engage DDs, and in fact I prefer the extra bloom "concealment" I get from the shorter range, as for example is much easier to gun down targets while preserving my own concealment. The stock range I find is good enough to actively gunboat most BBs and even cruisers with low RoF, longer range would be overkill on BBs and ineffective on cruisers due to the extra shell flight time. 

As a rule of thumb, I find I rarely need long ranges in ships with a good balance of concealment and mobility. Long range fire is rarely as effective or decisive as mid or short range so it is basically the last option when there's no better course of action. Avoiding the Range upgrade  can shorten up my grind up to 10% and save some cash, I find it worth considering.

Good points and not hardly every talked about.  I regrind a lot of lines and saving XP is a huge motivator.  But I found that in case of range I can do without it torp ships, and even up to tier 8 Pan Europe.  I may try this on some BBs, haven't done so yet because I usually I find I want MORE range. (looking at you Italians)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,321
[-TRM-]
[-TRM-]
Members
3,916 posts

You will find that most of the time I don't take range increases in DD's

Adding that module can turn some floaty rounds into plantetary voyages that are not acceptable in battle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,824
[PVE]
Members
8,822 posts
25,144 battles
2 hours ago, ArIskandir said:

I'm not really having too much trouble with Lightning short range, the boat is small and very nimble, I don't have too much trouble dodging between 10-11 km. I wouldn't engage a Chappy for example at that range, but something like an Alaska is fairly comfortable to farm, I'm starting to lose any respect for Alaskas, they are particularly easy to dodge. BBs are so easy to troll, usually I time the farming with their volleys, you get a good 20-25 sec of free fire, smoke just before their shot is ready to piss them up, keep farming on your smoke time, rinse and repeat. There's really so few opportunities I found myself thinking "gosh, wish I had some more range".

I'm used to Atlanta floaty shells (after over 1k games in it) that I can hit & lead ships pretty well (especially if I single fire as they maneuver) at most DDs extended ranges...but still don't take it on torp boats because torp upgrades trump gun upgrades on them.

There's at least 1 person in the forums (way back in the day before commander skill rework) that said he didn't use AFT on his Atlanta since the stealth firing went away...so at least 1 person wasn't happy w/the range "buff' Atlanta got...I made a suggestion to Hapa that they should make it an optional module where you can choose between the 11.1 & 13.3 but it never got a response...probably due to all the backlash they were getting that prompted the "buff" in the 1st place. 

It does take awhile to get used to floaty shells at long ranges but when you do you miss the range on ships that don't have it & there's that target that's faster than you & pulling away when you almost had him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13,228
[WOLF3]
[WOLF3]
Members
31,710 posts
26,602 battles

Battleship gun ranges tend to be very good to begin with.  Bismarck, "Teh Brawlah" has a stock gun range of 19.2km, which is more than fine for the overwhelming vast majority of a match.  If that's not enough, she has Spotting Aircraft.

 

But a few such as Russian Battleships have some very painful gun ranges without upgrades, even for High Tier.  VII Sinop has 15.7km max gun range without range module.  That's not acceptable.  Next tier Vladivostok has 16.3km.  For a Tier VIII that is no bueno.  IX Sovetsky Soyuz has 17.6km... There's going to be issues with that if not remedied.  None of these have Spotting Aircraft even for a temporary band aid.

VI New Mexico has terrible 14.6km gun range without range module, but this can be fixed:  She has Spotting Aircraft access.  She has Slot 3 access and can equip APRM1, taking her gun range to a slightly more serviceable 16.9km without range module.

But USN BBs get great range starting Tier VIII, Kansas has 20km and North Carolina has 21.1km, both at stock configuration.

 

The real issue for range, however, is for Cruisers.  With shorter and shorter gun ranges, the Cruiser has to get in dangerous engagements where they're easy pickings.  You don't have Battleship armor, HP, and standard repair party to survive long with short gun ranges.

VIII Mogami without range module is only 14.2km gun range with no Spotting Aircraft access.  You'll die horribly.

IX Ibuki has 15km, which is IMO, suicide range.  However, she does have Spotting Aircraft for a temporary boost.

VI Devonshire has a laughable 12.7km max gun range without range module.  No Spotting Aircraft.  This thing can see Tier VIII games.  "Press F to pay respects."

 

Range increase for DDs?  Hit or miss, depends.  RU DDs need the range as they have tended to be "Run & Gun" DDs, while the ones that tend to be sneaker and play closer, extra gun range isn't a big deal.  If anything, a bunch of those guys don't want the extra gun bloom with longer gun ranges on their stealthier DDs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,941
[SALVO]
Members
9,013 posts
6,716 battles
16 minutes ago, IfYouSeeKhaos said:

I'm used to Atlanta floaty shells (after over 1k games in it) that I can hit & lead ships pretty well (especially if I single fire as they maneuver) at most DDs extended ranges...but still don't take it on torp boats because torp upgrades trump gun upgrades on them.

There's at least 1 person in the forums (way back in the day before commander skill rework) that said he didn't use AFT on his Atlanta since the stealth firing went away...so at least 1 person wasn't happy w/the range "buff' Atlanta got...I made a suggestion to Hapa that they should make it an optional module where you can choose between the 11.1 & 13.3 but it never got a response...probably due to all the backlash they were getting that prompted the "buff" in the 1st place. 

It does take awhile to get used to floaty shells at long ranges but when you do you miss the range on ships that don't have it & there's that target that's faster than you & pulling away when you almost had him.

I don't have Atlanta, but I wouldn't say she doesn't need the extra range. As a cruiser, extra range gives you more flexibility tho I find situations when it is convenient to have a shorter bloom, as firing from some forward positions/islands. There are exceptions obviously, but I find many fast BBs could do fine without the extra range as do concealment centered DDs or nimble DDs with horribad ballistics. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,021
[WOLFG]
Members
34,370 posts
10,591 battles
3 hours ago, AJTP89 said:

And to be honest in almost every ship if you're playing so far back you need the range mod you're probably playing it wrong anyway.

Sometimes though, your choice is close in where you can hit something, and die, or do nothing. In those cases, a little more range can let you do something. Plus, it's not necessarily that you are playing too far back, but the ships you can see to hit are.

I'd rather have the range and not need it, than miss out on shots because I don't have it.

Like the OP with Bismarck though, I didn't bother with upgraded range with any KM BBs, because they can barely hit anything at stock range lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13,228
[WOLF3]
[WOLF3]
Members
31,710 posts
26,602 battles

@Skpstr Extra range gives the player engagement options.  The smaller the range a ship has, particularly with Battleships & Cruisers, then engagement options get more and more limited.  If the range is short enough, the options not only are limited, but they put you in ever increasingly dangerous situations.  I like to point out in my earlier reply to this thread of VI Devonshire having 12.7km max gun range as a Cruiser.  She has next to no engagement options but to get into ranges where lots of players will find it easier to hit her.

 

12.7km max range Cruiser with Battleships in the area?  That's a layup for the Battleships!

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
718
[CAST]
[CAST]
Members
2,784 posts
11,412 battles
4 hours ago, ArIskandir said:

Doing my T8 grind and as consequence of my hastiness, I've been using a lot of ships without the range upgrade. In many of them I've found no problem using the stock range, and I'm getting convinced I would be better without it. Not only in terms of economy of resources, but as well as performance related. The way I play most ships is usually around the edge of my concealment, I rarely take long range shots as I find them to be unreliable and most of the time the potential damage isn't worth revealing my ship position. Of course this doesn't apply to some sniper ships or some DD gunboats that need the extra range to operate safely. 

My mid range play style is such that I often don't need the range upgrade on most BBs, and often skip it if I'm just grinding through to the next ship.  It does save time and resources.  In DDs I often skip it to avoid the gun bloom detection.  In cruisers, I pretty much max out my gun ranges to stay as far away as possible in some games.

 

2 hours ago, sapient007 said:

I strongly suggest you try out the new T8 Italian BB V. VENETO if you don't like range. 

Yep.  Grinding that one now.  Horrid gun range, but I feel the dispersion at a longer range would make the already bad dispersion so bad it would be unplayable.  The only saving grace is the spotting plane.  It does give more range, but doesn't seem to affect the dispersion as much for some reason.  I can land multiple shots on a target near max spotting range, but miss everything at 12km due to dispersion using normal targeting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,021
[WOLFG]
Members
34,370 posts
10,591 battles
11 minutes ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

@Skpstr Extra range gives the player engagement options.  The smaller the range a ship has, particularly with Battleships & Cruisers, then engagement options get more and more limited.  If the range is short enough, the options not only are limited, but they put you in ever increasingly dangerous situations.  I like to point out in my earlier reply to this thread of VI Devonshire having 12.7km max gun range as a Cruiser.  She has next to no engagement options but to get into ranges where lots of players will find it easier to hit her.

 

12.7km max range Cruiser with Battleships in the area?  That's a layup for the Battleships!

Lol to be fair, the upgraded 14km range is ok when top tier, but in a T8 match?....

Same with D'Aosta, you roll the dice every time you hit Battle lol.

It's a big reason why I'm not bothering with the RM BBs. At least with the Russian BBs, qwhen you do get into range, you're a force of nature.

I do typically forgo the range upgrade on T9/10 BBs though, preferring the quicker reload. Most of those have enough range for me anyway, I'm good with anything over 20-21km.

Edited by Skpstr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,941
[SALVO]
Members
9,013 posts
6,716 battles
10 minutes ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

But a few such as Russian Battleships have some very painful gun ranges without upgrades, even for High Tier. 

Totally agree here, Russian short range coupled with horrible concealment and relative clumsiness requiere every bit of possible range.

13 minutes ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

VI New Mexico has terrible 14.6km gun range without range module, but this can be fixed:  She has Spotting Aircraft access.  She has Slot 3 access and can equip APRM1, taking her gun range to a slightly more serviceable 16.9km without range module.

But USN BBs get great range starting Tier VIII, Kansas has 20km and North Carolina has 21.1km, both at stock configuration.

USN Battlesloths need all that range in order to have some flexibility, playing anything dynamically with them is just not realistic. They are possibly my first option for mandatory Range upgrade, the stock range is very workable but having more range allows you to participate in some actions you wouldn't otherwise.

19 minutes ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

The real issue for range, however, is for Cruisers.  With shorter and shorter gun ranges, the Cruiser has to get in dangerous engagements where they're easy pickings.  You don't have Battleship armor, HP, and standard repair party to survive long with short gun ranges.

VIII Mogami without range module is only 14.2km gun range with no Spotting Aircraft access.  You'll die horribly.

IX Ibuki has 15km, which is IMO, suicide range.  However, she does have Spotting Aircraft for a temporary boost.

VI Devonshire has a laughable 12.7km max gun range without range module.  No Spotting Aircraft.  This thing can see Tier VIII games.  "Press F to pay respects."

Indeed for most cruisers range is life, for all it means more flexibility. Some odd ships like Devonshire I found to be very workable with that range, you just need some terrain to work with.

bdJaK7q.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×