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

Maybe secondaries aren't completely worthless

14 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

368
[DOG]
Members
1,383 posts
16,233 battles

Below was in an Amagi.  I haven't played it in months, and just got around to putting upgrades back on it and reallocating the 15 commander skill points.  I had zeroed them out during the skill rework, and just got around to it.  Full secondary build, just because I'm bloody minded, and refuse to listen to reason.  Below comes out to a 33.5% hit rate for secondaries.  Killed the Atlanta with 8 secondary hits, and the rest were on the Pommern.  Granted, it's a big target, and most were fired from 4-8 km, since he was desperately trying to torp me.  But that's still a decent hit ratio.  Of course, I'm sure it would be a lot lower vs a DD.

 

image.thumb.png.026ef25b74089c01e45452327608c90b.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
368
[DOG]
Members
1,383 posts
16,233 battles

Next game.  Still in Amagi.  Hit ratio with secondaries 32.7% this time.  About the same.  Again, though, fairly close range.  The DD kill was nothing but secondaries, but it was under 5 km, and he wasn't moving fast, since I dodged his torps and rushed his smoke.  Moral of the story, I think, is that you can still use secondaries, but you have to get closer than you used to.  No more popping fast moving DD's at 10-12 km.

 

image.thumb.png.6c93a2ad8250c98a245000fe04e872ab.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
155
[_CIA_]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
404 posts
3,610 battles

I still run my Bismark as a secondary build.  In a battle earlier this morning the secondaries went 133 of 558 and 21k damage.  It's possible.  But nothing like before the commander skill screw up.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,438
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester
29,211 posts
15,770 battles

They are still good in short to medium range situations. Where they became mostly useless was in long range use. I would like to see the dispersion reduction bump up to 40 - 45%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
155
[_CIA_]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
404 posts
3,610 battles
3 minutes ago, BrushWolf said:

They are still good in short to medium range situations. Where they became mostly useless was in long range use. I would like to see the dispersion reduction bump up to 40 - 45%.

At least for the German line.  They were introduced as med range brawlers, so their main gun dispersion wasn't an issue.  Now....not so much.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,229
[WDS]
[WDS]
Members
5,422 posts
15,698 battles
22 minutes ago, BrushWolf said:

They are still good in short to medium range situations. Where they became mostly useless was in long range use. I would like to see the dispersion reduction bump up to 40 - 45%.

Would that actually do anything though 5% more . Or is it 35% now . 

Edited by clammboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,438
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester
29,211 posts
15,770 battles
Just now, clammboy said:

Would that actually do anything though 5% more . 

It would increase the hit rate for all ranges but not enough to tell at long range. The reason to go in small steps is to avoid the over done nerfs and buffs cycle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,229
[WDS]
[WDS]
Members
5,422 posts
15,698 battles
1 minute ago, BrushWolf said:

It would increase the hit rate for all ranges but not enough to tell at long range. The reason to go in small steps is to avoid the over done nerfs and buffs cycle.

Yes right I guess that’s smart . 

Edited by clammboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
368
[DOG]
Members
1,383 posts
16,233 battles
48 minutes ago, BrushWolf said:

They are still good in short to medium range situations. Where they became mostly useless was in long range use. I would like to see the dispersion reduction bump up to 40 - 45%.

Yeah, that seems to be the case.  Of course, WG gave all (most?) secondaries a range buff to "compensate" for Manual Control getting nerfed.  But that range buff is completely useless if you can't hit anything beyond 1/2 - 2/3 of the max range anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,438
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester
29,211 posts
15,770 battles
1 minute ago, zubalkabir said:

Yeah, that seems to be the case.  Of course, WG gave all (most?) secondaries a range buff to "compensate" for Manual Control getting nerfed.  But that range buff is completely useless if you can't hit anything beyond 1/2 - 2/3 of the max range anyway.

Yeah but it is still enough to make any DD that pops up consider staying in the fire or to retreat and from what I have seen they retreat most of the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,039
Members
34,409 posts
10,768 battles
21 minutes ago, zubalkabir said:

Yeah, that seems to be the case.  Of course, WG gave all (most?) secondaries a range buff to "compensate" for Manual Control getting nerfed.  But that range buff is completely useless if you can't hit anything beyond 1/2 - 2/3 of the max range anyway.

Agreed. Amagi (and Nagato) are a cheaper secondary build than they were previously, because you don't need the AFT equivalent, which was crucial before.

Apparently, they have the same base accuracy as Massachusetts. I always found them (pre-rework anyway) to be dangerous. None of this gradually increasing damage starting at 11km out, it was nothing, nothing, then at 7.6km, fire would rain down and start taking the hapless DD or CL apart rapidly. Those 140mm guns are nasty lol.

Edited by Skpstr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12,714
[PSP]
[PSP]
Members
19,325 posts
1 hour ago, BrushWolf said:

They are still good in short to medium range situations. Where they became mostly useless was in long range use. I would like to see the dispersion reduction bump up to 40 - 45%.

I'm sure that this was in response to the continued complaining by the "DD Mafia" about the damage done to their ships. The constant nerfing of dispersion, detection, damage, and re-arming time for CVs goes along these lines too. Ironically, unless a DD is actually dumb enough to get detected and then stay within the secondary range of a battleship, the greatest threat to DDs was and is other DDs.

It's also ironic (to me at least) how many here think that I'm a CV-main and 'apologist' when the Gearing is my most-played ship. What usually sinks me? Those new radar/gunboat DDs. I can still beat a Shimakaze in a gunfight though.

image.png.c7e9942e49d697b487447a32e755d177.png

Edited by Snargfargle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,438
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester
29,211 posts
15,770 battles
2 minutes ago, Snargfargle said:

I'm sure that this was in response to the continued complaining by the "DD Mafia" about the damage done to their ships. The constant nerfing of dispersion, detection, damage, and re-arming time for CVs goes along these lines too. Ironically, unless a DD is actually dumb enough to get detected and then stay within the secondary range of a battleship, the greatest threat to DDs was and is other DDs.

It's also ironic (to me at least) how many here think that I'm a CV-main and 'apologist' when the Gearing is my most-played ships. What usually sinks me? Those new radar/gunboat DDs. I can still beat a Shimakaze in a gunfight though.

image.png.c7e9942e49d697b487447a32e755d177.png

They were deadly at long range before so there was data to back up the DD's complaining.

That there is no data to back up the anti-CV people's complaints shows with no real changes to CV's and their planes since we hit 9.0. For some reason those people do not want to employ the things that reduce damage from CV's and then complain that their AA was useless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12,714
[PSP]
[PSP]
Members
19,325 posts
4 minutes ago, BrushWolf said:

 For some reason those people do not want to employ the things that reduce damage from CV's

I really like what Ahskance has been doing here recently showing both the offensive and defensive aspects of CV-surface ship interactions.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×