Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
Igiby100

T9>T10?

36 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
103 posts
1,170 battles

I have been told many times that a T9 (or even lower) are better than the T10. Kitikaze, Fletcher, Iowa, FdG, and other come to mind. Is this true completely, partially, or not at all? If so, for what lines does it hold?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,100
[KWF]
Members
6,570 posts
7,187 battles

It mostly applies to DDs.

Fletcher is a more flexible platform than Gearing.

Kitakaze is an actual DD whereas Harugumo is more of a superlight cruiser.

Tashkent makes Khabarovsk look like a sidegrade (though this has changed a bit for the better)

Z-46 is a more maneuverable, stealthier  Z-52 that only gives up the gun layout and 1km of Hydro to do the same a tier lower.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
795 posts
10,278 battles

I think that those ships are not regarded as better ships overall (i.e. 1 v 1 vs. the tier 10), but better relatively speaking vs. other ships in it's own tier.

In other words the tier 9 is strong for a tier 9 and the tier 10 is meh for a tier 10, but the tier 9 is not a better ship in direct comparison to the tier 10.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,466
[-K-]
[-K-]
Members
5,935 posts
22,995 battles

There are few T10s that were hit by targeted nerfs that made them worse than the T9s in the same tree. Khabarovsk is probably the best example of this, having received a brutal series of range, maneuverability, and module HP nerfs near the beginning of the game that make it pretty much straight up worse than Tashkent (which in turn is worse than Udaloi, but that's a different issue). Henri IV is potentially another -- it got massive throttle nerfs that Saint Louis did not.

Most of the time when people say the T9 is better than the T10, though, they mean that the disadvantages of going up a tier -- higher concealment, lower maneuverability, and higher tier matchmaking -- do not outweigh the advantages that the higher-tier ship gains. Harugumo is often considered worse per tier than Kitakaze because its maneuverability is MUCH worse, making it extremely vulnerable to torpedoes and incoming fire. Kitakaze also used to be hugely OP for its tier (which is where most of that reputation comes from), but had its DPM and concealment nerfed about a year ago so it's mostly back in line. Gearing is straight up superior to Fletcher in both gun and torpedo power, but suffers from an erroneous and obsolete in-game hull model that makes it tall and easy to hit compared to nearly every other destroyer in its tier.

Some of the others on your list, though, don't really make sense. FdG is a piece of trash, with bad firing angles and a B turret that seems to be held together with duct tape and plywood most of the time. Iowa is largely seen as poor for its tier, though that's mostly thanks to the overpowered monstrosity that is Georgia.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,100
[KWF]
Members
6,570 posts
7,187 battles
4 minutes ago, Edgecase said:

There are few T10s that were hit by targeted nerfs that made them worse than the T9s in the same tree. Khabarovsk is probably the best example of this, having received a brutal series of range, maneuverability, and module HP nerfs near the beginning of the game that make it pretty much straight up worse than Tashkent (which in turn is worse than Udaloi, but that's a different issue).

Udaloi and Grozovoi have possibly gotten the largest number of buffs to have gone almost completely under the radar, courtesy of them being relatively unpopular.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,634
[ARS]
Beta Testers
6,702 posts
6,726 battles
20 minutes ago, Edgecase said:

Kitakaze also used to be hugely OP for its tier (which is where most of that reputation comes from), but had its DPM and concealment nerfed about a year ago so it's mostly back in line.

Kitakaze's DPM was never changed.  All the IJN 100mm guns have the same base reload of 3 seconds and they always have.  Kitakaze had its concealment nerfed and Jutland had its DPM nerfed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,466
[-K-]
[-K-]
Members
5,935 posts
22,995 battles
59 minutes ago, Helstrem said:

Kitakaze's DPM was never changed.  All the IJN 100mm guns have the same base reload of 3 seconds and they always have.  Kitakaze had its concealment nerfed and Jutland had its DPM nerfed.

You're right, it was just concealment on Kita.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
286 posts
5,886 battles

Yap. There won't be any CVs (a.k.a. sky cancer) in a pure T9 match, which is enough to prove T9 is better than T10. However, because there are many unavailable ships at T9 and a bunch of credit T9 ships suck a lot, you may sometimes find T9 games are P2W. 

  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,255
[WOLFC]
Members
2,599 posts
3 hours ago, Igiby100 said:

I have been told many times that a T9 (or even lower) are better than the T10. Kitikaze, Fletcher, Iowa, FdG, and other come to mind. Is this true completely, partially, or not at all? If so, for what lines does it hold?

Partially and then mostly with lines from more then 2 years ago.   Of late, WG has been making X ships that really shine & bring out the best in the line's capabilities - which is in theory what a X should be.   

Halland, Vermont, Colombo & Elbing   all fall into this place within their lines - the prelim numbers from the Dutch cruisers indicate this will continue.  I think the only reason we don't hear about this from the UK heavy cruisers is that line is so bad, hardly anybody wants to spend the time getting up to X.

 

Edited by Anonymous50

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,014
[WOLFG]
Members
34,350 posts
10,591 battles
3 hours ago, Igiby100 said:

I have been told many times that a T9 (or even lower) are better than the T10. Kitikaze, Fletcher, Iowa, FdG, and other come to mind. Is this true completely, partially, or not at all? If so, for what lines does it hold?

That depends on how closely your experience meshes with the ones saying it.

For example, I know a lot of people prefer Fletcher to Gearing. I am not one of them. I prefer Gearing's gun layout and torps, even if it gives up a bit of mobility.

FdG better than GK? Dunno where that would come from, GK has more guns, and better secondaries.

Basically, you will never get completely satisfactory answers, because it's all opinions, and not everyone will agree.

If you just play ships because somebody told you they're good, you'll encounter a lot of frustration, because they won't necessarily be good for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
224
[-AGW-]
Members
1,066 posts
18,324 battles

In some ways I prefer my nines over the top tier boats. Particularly in cruisers. Roon and Brindisi for example. Cheaper to run than their T10 counterparts while almost as effective with somewhat less punishing MM. T10 has its share of noobs, but the real hardcore players hang out there more frequently and it's a tough crowd to do well in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13,225
[WOLF3]
[WOLF3]
Members
31,700 posts
26,591 battles
3 hours ago, Igiby100 said:

I have been told many times that a T9 (or even lower) are better than the T10. Kitikaze, Fletcher, Iowa, FdG, and other come to mind. Is this true completely, partially, or not at all? If so, for what lines does it hold?

Only for the DDs and even then, it's because the Tier IX DDs are not just a bit weaker than the Tier Xs, it's that the IXs DDs have a better balance on speed and agility, size than their Tier X brethren do.

 

X Gearing has a better torpedo option than IX Fletcher.  Gearing can also present a sharp angle and still fire a lot of guns due to the dual gun turret mounts.  But Fletcher is more agile, I could do some serious torpedo beats with her when things are intense, while Gearing is a fat, sluggish pig.

IX Kitakaze's firepower pales compared to X Harugumo.  But Harugumo is big and sails like sh*t.  Her "Get up and Go" which is a big deal for a DD when torps are a sudden surprise, is bad.  I've seen too many Harugumos get blasted out of their smoke by a flood of torpedoes that they were too damn slow to get away and maneuver from.  Also, Kitakaze is stealthier than Harugumo.  Kitakaze rides the line between the concealment, agility of VIII Akizuki while still reaching for a good chunk of X Harugumo's firepower.

 

But Cruisers and Battleships?  The Xs are better, no doubt about it.

Montana has way more firepower and armor than Iowa, and still has a good 30kt speed.

GK has 12 guns compared to 8 of FDG.  GK also has the vaunted German 128mm dual purpose guns with their stupidly high HE Pen.

YAMATO >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Izumo

Des Moines >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Buffalo.

Worcester >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Seattle

Same with Hindenburg vs Roon, Henri IV vs Saint-Louis, etc.

 

Tech Tree Tier IX Destroyers are in IMO, one of the best spots of the game, a great set of compromises.  But their Cruiser and Battleship Tech Tree counterparts in the same tier?  Not quite so.  They are IMO, Pay Walls, a tax to be levied before getting to Tier X where their better halves are.

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,716
[S0L0]
[S0L0]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
5,186 posts
8,156 battles

FDG is better than the Grosser?   Holy shite why am I grinding this line?    I've stopped and started this grind since Bismarck so many times I've lost count.   Tell me it isn't true?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
513
[THICC]
Beta Testers
1,109 posts
7,280 battles
4 hours ago, Igiby100 said:

I have been told many times that a T9 (or even lower) are better than the T10. Kitikaze, Fletcher, Iowa, FdG, and other come to mind. Is this true completely, partially, or not at all? If so, for what lines does it hold?

Most tier Xs are better than their tier IX counterparts.  This attitude of IX being great is due to a few outliers and the plethora of excellent tier IX premiums and the fact that generally, tier IX gets much better matchmaking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,780
[CLUMP]
Members
2,051 posts
2,424 battles
1 hour ago, Impitoyable_5929_x said:

Yap. There won't be any CVs (a.k.a. sky cancer) in a pure T9 match, which is enough to prove T9 is better than T10. However, because there are many unavailable ships at T9 and a bunch of credit T9 ships suck a lot, you may sometimes find T9 games are P2W. 

 

Wargaming release odd number CV for ultimate salt mining yes  :Smile_trollface: There should be no escape from CVs glorious magnificence :fish_cute_2: 

  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,600 posts
2,011 battles
On 6/22/2021 at 2:00 PM, Impitoyable_5929_x said:

There won't be any CVs (a.k.a. sky cancer) in a pure T9 match,

Laughs in USS Kearsarge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
104 posts
1,486 battles

For destroyers, I find both boats and meta to be more enjoyable. I'm seriously considering setting my high-pts captains to the T9 DDs instead of 10. T9 can be better for credit and XP (since you can target T10s) and games have always been more enjoyable to me.

 

For anything not DD, I've no idea. The general consensus is indeed that most T9s are disappointing vs. T10 or 8. I have no idea why for destroyers it tends to be the opposite. But there we go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,014
[WOLFG]
Members
34,350 posts
10,591 battles
On 6/22/2021 at 5:38 PM, HazeGrayUnderway said:

  But Fletcher is more agile, I could do some serious torpedo beats with her when things are intense, while Gearing is a fat, sluggish pig..

I assume you mean comparatively. 3.3 second base rudder shift, and 640m turn radius, is hardly a sluggish pig.

Fletcher is fun, I do like my fat bottom girl a little better though.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13,225
[WOLF3]
[WOLF3]
Members
31,700 posts
26,591 battles
3 hours ago, Skpstr said:

I assume you mean comparatively. 3.3 second base rudder shift, and 640m turn radius, is hardly a sluggish pig.

Fletcher is fun, I do like my fat bottom girl a little better though.

 

The combination of a lot worse agility (by 80m worse turning circle radius) and a fat wide hull that made me hate Gearing so much.  I easily responded to a wave of torpedoes and comb them if needed with Fletcher, I felt very confident with her and for a good while, she was my good luck charm.  Gearing was bad at that.

 

But right now Gearing has without a doubt, the superior torpedo options between the two.  That is a big advantage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,091
[ARGSY]
Members
2,016 posts
6,268 battles
3 hours ago, black_hull4 said:

Laughs in USS Kearsarge

Like the Tone, I wouldn't think it's a hybrid that makes anywhere near the difference that a carrier would. Apparently its aircraft pack the Tiniest of Tims, which haven't done well lately it seems.

The Dutch cruiser line would be of more concern as they will spread between the 7-10 range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
244
[CHASE]
[CHASE]
Beta Testers
405 posts
12,139 battles
On 6/22/2021 at 6:01 PM, iRA6E said:

FDG is better than the Grosser?   Holy shite why am I grinding this line?    I've stopped and started this grind since Bismarck so many times I've lost count.   Tell me it isn't true?  

It's not. GK is definitely much better ship, simply because 12 guns is better than 8. The only thing GK is worse on is probably manuverability, but the advantage to FDG is tiny and not enough to offset better firepower. Protection is probably equal, with FDG smaller size and better handling offset by bigger health pool of GK. GK is much better pushing ship, since both have horrible forward firing arcs for the rear guns, but with GK you can go bow in and still have 6 guns to play with while in FDG you only have 4.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,952
[CNO]
Members
6,744 posts
20,202 battles
On 6/22/2021 at 1:55 PM, Igiby100 said:

I have been told many times that a T9 (or even lower) are better than the T10. Kitikaze, Fletcher, Iowa, FdG, and other come to mind. Is this true completely, partially, or not at all? If so, for what lines does it hold?

Given a wide assortment of asymmetric factors, a bottom tier ship can be better suited to a particular match than a top tier ship. 

For example, I can often recognize these asymmetric situations.  When I encounter them in my T8 (in a T10 match), I'm like "Cool....let's rock".  Which is why I seldom give much sympathy for those who whine about being bottom tier.  Geez...find your asymmetric advantage.  They are there.  Might not be enough to match the top tier ships...but if it's enough to outperform your counterpart...that can be the game changer.  And, as noted at first, sometimes a bottom tier ship can be better than a top tier ship (assuming equal captains)...given certain situations.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
243
[WOLF3]
Members
647 posts
12,380 battles
On 6/22/2021 at 10:55 AM, Igiby100 said:

I have been told many times that a T9 (or even lower) are better than the T10. Kitikaze, Fletcher, Iowa, FdG, and other come to mind. Is this true completely, partially, or not at all? If so, for what lines does it hold?

While it may be preference I can say that tier 9 is better IMO. Its cheaper, the ships are fully matured and powerful, and they sometimes have better characteristics vs their tier 10 counterparts with respect to agility, speed and detection.

 For instance the GK and Repub are downgrades in maneuverability and detection than their t9's and I get more flexibility out of the tier 9 ships. As a result, going up one tier is a poison pill sometimes. As far as gameplay goes, tier 9 has more variety from match making making it less inbred but still having a +1 max ceiling without the higher maintenance. Alot of tier 10s are awesome though, so I think you should look into tier 9 for yourself and decide what you think.

Im prob going to grab the minotaur and zao though. I loved both of those lines so darn much I should experience the top of the tree too.

Edited by Drifter_X

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
683
[NMKJT]
Members
3,324 posts
8,518 battles
On 6/22/2021 at 2:39 PM, Edgecase said:

FdG is a piece of trash, with bad firing angles and a B turret that seems to be held together with duct tape and plywood most of the time.

FdG has been buffed pretty substantially, regardless of opinions on it when it came out, it's not trash anymore. You can get under 23s reload on 27mm overmatch guns with decent speed along their entire range, that's pretty good. As for the turret, all German BB turrets are pretty bad, shooting them out is easy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,600 posts
2,011 battles
13 hours ago, Sumseaman said:

Apparently its aircraft pack the Tiniest of Tims, which haven't done well lately it seems.

They got nerfed? I'd think an Alaska HE shell strapped onto a booster rocket would still do a lot of damage. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×