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

USS Rochester in testing

35 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,041
[TOG]
Members
4,613 posts
29,196 battles

 

 

T8 premie USS Rochester/Oregon class cruiser. A successor to the Baltimore class. A real  life ship. It has the consumable suite for all occasions w/o having to choose which one.  9.0 km radar range vs 9.5 km detection. I'd call it stealth radar.  No heal though. That's going to make it problematic if uptiered.

In testing so specs are subject to change.

  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,848
[WOLFC]
Members
3,407 posts
12,113 battles
28 minutes ago, Bill_Halsey said:

9.0 km radar range vs 9.5 km detection. I'd call it stealth radar.

Ehhh… at tier VIII Baltimore has 10km radar with 9.9km detection, and Cleveland has 9km radar with 9.3km detection.

Rochester has the same radar/concealment as Wichita; trading speed, maneuverability, and DPM for 4000 extra HP. Her big draw is the ability to mount a full USN light cruiser consumable package (which is ironic considering Wichita is based on a CL hull), albeit with fewer charges than her peers.

I’m not really sure she distinguishes herself enough from other USN cruisers at tier VIII, especially with Congress in the works. IMO, WG would have been better served putting her at tier IX with standard USN CA radar and a heal. With Alaska gone there is a market space for a tier IX American cruiser, and she would be better contrasted against Buffalo than the other 9-gun CAs at tier VIII.

Edited by Nevermore135
  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,504
[WOLF9]
Wiki Lead, Privateers
16,634 posts
4,774 battles
40 minutes ago, Nevermore135 said:

Ehhh… at tier VIII Baltimore has 10km radar with 9.9km detection, and Cleveland has 9km radar with 9.3km detection.

Baltimore radar has been, or shortly will be, nerfed. Gee, I wonder why?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,848
[WOLFC]
Members
3,407 posts
12,113 battles
16 minutes ago, iDuckman said:

Baltimore radar has been, or shortly will be, nerfed. Gee, I wonder why?

 

Baltimore’s radar duration was nerfed by 3s for the same reason that Cleveland received the same nerf a couple patches back: under the new system there is a 2-pt skill that increases radar duration by 10%, which for ships with 30s radar just happens to be… 3s.

I think Baltimore’s radar range of 10km is unlikely to change. A 0.1km stealth radar window is negligible overall, and WG seems attached to the idea of having standard radar ranges for tech tree ships (10km for USN CAs and RN CLs, 9km for USN CLs, and 12km for Soviet cruisers). Even the premiums of these nations that have modified radar consumables are typically given versions with one of these range parameters.

Edited by Nevermore135

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
841
[USN]
Members
1,757 posts
22,029 battles

Rochester looks like a pretty decent T8 premium, and finally a US premium heavy cruiser with SHS (Congress excluded.) Although there are two problems.

1: Why play this when Baltimore is actually better? Not really Rochester's problem, its just that Baltimore is probably among the best T8 cruisers out there right now, but being slightly worse than Balti basically means its still maybe 5th or 6rh best.

2: The Orgeon City Class (that Rochester is a part of) makes more sense as the T9 tech tree ship to act as the in-between for Balti and DM. Just forcing the option of DFAA or hydro, 10km radar,  nerf stealth to 10.2km max, and buff reload to 9.5sec plus sixth slot and heal and she could work as a T9 ship, and regulates Buffalo to T9 premium status for coal ala Moskva. Not saying Buffalo is a bad ship (its actually among the better tech tree T9s, just requires a functioning brain and map awareness) but it seems odd to go from nimble 9gun cruiser to clumsy 12gun cruiser back to nimble 9 gun cruiser.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
841
[USN]
Members
1,757 posts
22,029 battles
1 hour ago, Nevermore135 said:

which is ironic considering Wichita is based on a CL hull),

I'm pretty sure every US cruiser built from the Brooklyn class to the Ticonderogas used the same hull as the Brooklyns just with different armor depending on if it was a heavy or light cruiser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13,503
[WOLF3]
[WOLF3]
Members
32,262 posts
27,029 battles

SeaRaptor had a thread on this thing not long ago.  I'll past my reply on it as it still is pertinent on my feelings about Rochester.

On 7/24/2021 at 10:04 AM, HazeGrayUnderway said:

Rochester doesn't look enticing to me.  9km Radar is poor for Radar work, you have to commit and go deeper into the cap, which brings a lot more risk.

 

If she had been giving stats like how Post-Buffs Tier IX Baltimore before the US Cruiser Split (Radar + Repair Party + 10 seconds base reload, 8.8 with MBM3), put her in Tier IX, then it would have been an easy "SELL" for me.  Rochester?  No.  I didn't even like Wichita.  I don't even like the current Tier VIII Baltimore, she's a pale shadow of her Pre-US Cruiser Split self.

 

WG also screwed up Rochester's camo scheme.  She was commissioned in 1946 and the USN was doing away with the WWII-era paint jobs.  Every image I see of the historical USS Rochester had her in the Cold War era plain 'ol gray schemes.  Here she is in 1956.

USS_Rochester_(CA-124)_at_anchor_1956.jp

So WG even screwed that up.

Commissioned from 1946 thru 1961.  The Age of the Gun Navy died, and so went Rochester.  She would not get a "rebirth" like some Baltimore and Cleveland-class Cruisers did to become Guided Missile Cruisers.  Even the Des Moines and Worcester-classes didn't serve that long, especially the latter.  Worcester-class service was so short, they saw what the ocean looked like and it was time to take them out of service.

Here's another image of her in 1947 (source).  She was commissioned in 1946.  Again, WG keeps screwing up the paint schemes with fake sh*t.

0412429.jpg

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
152
[HWIN]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
140 posts
8,701 battles
40 minutes ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

SeaRaptor had a thread on this thing not long ago.  I'll past my reply on it as it still is pertinent on my feelings about Rochester.

 

Here's another image of her in 1947 (source).  She was commissioned in 1946.  Again, WG keeps screwing up the paint schemes with fake sh*t.

0412429.jpg

I suspect it’s not a screw up and more intentional in order to have a somewhat appealing perma camo. A dazzle pattern is more interesting design than a simply solid grey à la Hood, even if it’s not accurate, and I can’t really complain, since I agree with them on that.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,097
[SHOOT]
[SHOOT]
Beta Testers
4,421 posts
13,106 battles
4 hours ago, Bill_Halsey said:

  9.0 km radar range vs 9.5 km detection. I'd call it stealth radar.  

If it's not stealth radar it's not stealth radar. This is called false information. Only Chapayev has a true stealth radar at t8.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,848
[WOLFC]
Members
3,407 posts
12,113 battles
24 minutes ago, Crokodone said:

If it's not stealth radar it's not stealth radar. This is called false information. Only Chapayev has a true stealth radar at t8.

Edinburgh: 10km radar, 9.2km detection

Ochakov: 10km radar, 9.05km detection

Baltimore: 10km radar, 9.9km detection (for what’s it’s worth)

Tallinn: 12km radar, 11.4km detection

Edited by Nevermore135

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,097
[SHOOT]
[SHOOT]
Beta Testers
4,421 posts
13,106 battles
9 minutes ago, Nevermore135 said:

Edinburgh: 10km radar, 9.2km detection

Ochakov: 10km radar, 9.05km detection

Baltimore: 10km radar, 9.9km detection (for what’s it’s worth)

Tallinn: 12km radar, 11.4km detection

Ty for proving how hard Bill_Halsey lied to the public. Of those listed only Talin and comes fit the Edinburgh fit the bill until you realize Talinn got a 12s radar and Erinburgh is a floating Satchel Charge.

Meanwhile, 100ms isn't stealth radar by an long shot. It's crossed simply by sailing a few seconds in either direction.

  • Meh 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,848
[WOLFC]
Members
3,407 posts
12,113 battles
5 minutes ago, Crokodone said:

Ty for proving how hard Bill_Halsey lied to the public. Of those listed only Talin and comes fit the Edinburgh fit the bill until you realize Talinn got a 12s radar and Erinburgh is a floating Satchel Charge.

Nah, I was just pointing out that there are four tier VIII cruisers that have stealth radar. To claim otherwise is to give false information.

Edited by Nevermore135
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,848
[WOLFC]
Members
3,407 posts
12,113 battles
3 hours ago, tfcas119 said:

I'm pretty sure every US cruiser built from the Brooklyn class to the Ticonderogas used the same hull as the Brooklyns just with different armor depending on if it was a heavy or light cruiser

The Brooklyn class did serve as the base hull form from which subsequent ship classes were derived. What makes Wichita stand out is that she was originally intended to be the last ship of the New Orleans-class, but the decision was made to design her on a heavily modified version of the Brooklyn hull rather than an evolution of the NO design. She was a departure from the design lineage of the preceding USN CAs - Northampton -> Portland -> New Orleans. Of course, the Brooklyn design itself also drew heavily from the New Orleans class, but that’s not surprising considering the the last CLs the US built were the Omahas, which were laid down between 1918 and 1920.

To my knowledge, the Cleveland’s were largely derived from the Brooklyns, and the Baltimore hulls were designed in large part by combining features from the Cleveland design as well as USS Wichita. The USN was designing and laying down so many cruisers in the mid-30s to early 40s that it’s no surprise that they rapidly applied the lessons they were learning with each design and the lines started to become blurred.

Edited by Nevermore135

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13,503
[WOLF3]
[WOLF3]
Members
32,262 posts
27,029 battles
4 hours ago, ThemasterTanker1 said:

I suspect it’s not a screw up and more intentional in order to have a somewhat appealing perma camo. A dazzle pattern is more interesting design than a simply solid grey à la Hood, even if it’s not accurate, and I can’t really complain, since I agree with them on that.

I still disagree on it as it makes it fake a.f.  WG will even screw up paint schemes the ships had even in WWII.  Like West Virginia'41 using the wrong camo for the period she is fitted at.  WV'41 with the way she is geared up in the game, should have Arizona's paint scheme.  Instead, WG gave WV'41 the paint scheme she has at 1944 with the refit.

W._Virginia_1941_wows_main.thumb.jpg.378

West Virginia and Tennessee below in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor.

1920px-Photograph_of_the_damage_done_to_

West Virginia below in 1944.

1920px-USS_West_Virginia_BB-48.jpg

 

Let's use Cleveland also.

Cleveland in 1942.

1920px-USS_Cleveland_(CL-55)_underway_at

Cleveland before the game went Live.

World-of-Warships-Cleveland-Blues.jpg&f=

Cleveland today, below.  The f--k is this s***?

am10926.jpeg

 

So not only do we have fake paint schemes, we also have the wrong ones due to incompetence.

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,041
[TOG]
Members
4,613 posts
29,196 battles
1 hour ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

I still disagree on it as it makes it fake a.f.  WG will even screw up paint schemes the ships had even in WWII.  Like West Virginia'41 using the wrong camo for the period she is fitted at.  WV'41 with the way she is geared up in the game, should have Arizona's paint scheme.  Instead, WG gave WV'41 the paint scheme she has at 1944 with the refit.

I've made my peace that this game only has a passing reference to history.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
508
[GOCRY]
Members
1,038 posts

In a game with Frosty Fir Tree, Back to School, any of the Halloween camos, the Beach camo that Atlanta has, the crazy American Eagle camo that Wooster and Cleveland have, and the Gothic camo that Bismarck has, you’re going to complain that Rochester’s camo is a few years off?  I mean, you’re entitled to your opinion, but you’re way worked up over this…

  • Cool 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13,503
[WOLF3]
[WOLF3]
Members
32,262 posts
27,029 battles
4 hours ago, Bill_Halsey said:

I've made my peace that this game only has a passing reference to history.

What's even funnier with the West Virginia'41 example is they gave the late war refit WeeVee Camo to her.  So what happens when an actual West Virginia'44 comes out? :Smile_teethhappy:

 

Not only is this all fake, it's also done incompetently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
394
[--K--]
Supertester
1,624 posts
16,389 battles

I just want a premium US heavy cruiser at T6 for operations. Almost said T7 too but remembered Indianapolis exists, I just don't have her yet. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,041
[TOG]
Members
4,613 posts
29,196 battles
2 hours ago, GandalfTehGray said:

I just want a premium US heavy cruiser at T6 for operations. Almost said T7 too but remembered Indianapolis exists, I just don't have her yet. 

Also Boise

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,848
[WOLFC]
Members
3,407 posts
12,113 battles
5 hours ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

What's even funnier with the West Virginia'41 example is they gave the late war refit WeeVee Camo to her.  So what happens when an actual West Virginia'44 comes out? :Smile_teethhappy:

Nothing, because WV’44 is likely never coming. With Colorado at tier VII, she would have to be a tier VIII unless WG did something interesting to balance her at tier VII. But at tier VIII we already have Kansas (which has 12 of the Colorado’s 16”/45 guns) and Constellation (which has CO’s 8 gun armament with high accuracy). This combined with the fact that so many players complained about Kansas’ speed (and WV’44 would be even slower), I just can’t see it happening. This is all of course assuming WG even had any intention of adding the ship in the first place and didn’t just say that to placate those that were upset with WV’41.

1 hour ago, Bill_Halsey said:

Also Boise

Boise is a Brooklyn-class light cruiser armed with 152mm guns.

4 hours ago, GandalfTehGray said:

I just want a premium US heavy cruiser at T6 for operations. Almost said T7 too but remembered Indianapolis exists, I just don't have her yet. 

I’ve been waiting for years for WG to add USS Houston. We’re missing a Northampton-class and she would fit at tier VI. In fact, the class is really the only historical option for a USN cruiser at the tier, with Pensacola already in the game at tier VI and Indianapolis at tier VII.

Edited by Nevermore135

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
650 posts
90 battles
20 hours ago, Bill_Halsey said:

 

 

T8 premie USS Rochester/Oregon class cruiser. A successor to the Baltimore class. A real  life ship. It has the consumable suite for all occasions w/o having to choose which one.  9.0 km radar range vs 9.5 km detection. I'd call it stealth radar.  No heal though. That's going to make it problematic if uptiered.

In testing so specs are subject to change.

Poor ship, I burned it down in my atago

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,285
[X-PN]
Members
2,123 posts
13,645 battles
4 hours ago, GandalfTehGray said:

I just want a premium US heavy cruiser at T6 for operations. Almost said T7 too but remembered Indianapolis exists, I just don't have her yet. 

Indy is trash for Narai.  Actually most CAs are inferior to CLs for that op. Just look at the difference just a gun change makes for Yorck vs. Weimar....even with the 150s being nerfed a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,097
[SHOOT]
[SHOOT]
Beta Testers
4,421 posts
13,106 battles
 

Nah, I was just pointing out that there are four tier VIII cruisers that have stealth radar. To claim otherwise is to give false information.

It's not stealth radar when the distance doesn't permit stealth: aka Baltimore. Also Rochester's detection range is ~500m beyond her radar range so ty for learning English.

Meanwhile 100m is literally a DD boat length, and 12s is only enough from one shot from Talinn or it's allies if they're guns are in the right direction. 

Furthermore, Edinburg isn't really a radar cruiser when it's primary and optimum load out is smoke due to its vulnerability. The only true stealth radar candidate is still Chapayev.

That's not false information, its factual information because it's real world information. Not something off of a spreadsheet like the post above.

  • Meh 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,848
[WOLFC]
Members
3,407 posts
12,113 battles
3 hours ago, Crokodone said:

It's not stealth radar when the distance doesn't permit stealth: aka Baltimore. Also Rochester's detection range is ~500m beyond her radar range so ty for learning English.

I never claimed Rochester could stealth radar. There is nothing wrong with my grasp of the English language, and perhaps you should take some time to calm down before posting so you don’t resort to personal attacks against those that disagree with you.

3 hours ago, Crokodone said:

It's not stealth radar when the distance doesn't permit stealth: aka Baltimore.

Her concealment exceeds her detection range, which the definition that the vast majority of the people who post on this forum will think of when someone uses the term “stealth radar.” The fact that the window is so poor vastly decreases it’s threat level, however, as I have acknowledged in this thread:

22 hours ago, Nevermore135 said:

Baltimore: 10km radar, 9.9km detection (for what’s it’s worth)

So this is a largely pedantic point. I agree with you that it’s doesn’t really matter given the narrow width of the envelope.

Moving on:

3 hours ago, Crokodone said:

12s is only enough from one shot from Talinn or it's allies if they're guns are in the right direction. 

This is more or less correct. Tallinn can get off two shots if specced for radar duration and the guns are pointed in the general direction of the target when the consumable is triggered, which is honestly not that difficult if you have good map awareness in most cases. The new Soviet CA radar in general is terrible for team play. But none of this changes the fact that she can light targets up from 600m beyond her detection range. That is stealth radar by any common explanation of the term used on this forum.

3 hours ago, Crokodone said:

Furthermore, Edinburg isn't really a radar cruiser when it's primary and optimum load out is smoke due to its vulnerability.

Edinburgh and Minotaur are extremely deadly radar cruisers in the hands of experienced players. The fact that most players choose to run the more forgiving smoke does not in any way invalidate their effectiveness as radar cruisers or mean that they are not able stealth radar DDs.

23 hours ago, Crokodone said:

If it's not stealth radar it's not stealth radar. This is called false information. Only Chapayev has a true stealth radar at t8.

^You entered this thread accusing another player of spreading false information. Keep in mind you didn’t even define what you consider “stealth radar” to be at this point. You backed up this assertion with what would be widely considered false information and followed it up by explicitly accusing the OP of lying:

22 hours ago, Crokodone said:

Ty for proving how hard Bill_Halsey lied to the public

Despite the fact that the OP did provide the radar and concealment ranges in his post, so while you or I may not agree with his interpretation of “stealth radar” (something we are in agreement on, btw), the information provided allows any reader capable of critical thought (i.e. anyone posting on these forums) to draw their own conclusions. His exact words:

On 7/25/2021 at 11:12 AM, Bill_Halsey said:

9.0 km radar range vs 9.5 km detection. I'd call it stealth radar.

The implicit acknowledgement being that it is not true stealth radar, but he considers it close enough for his purposes.

Basically, you came into this thread acting like a… let’s go with “jerk,” and continued this in subsequent posts. I’m bemused that you seem to lack the basic self awareness to realize this when I tried to subtly point it out to you by quoting your own words back at you:

22 hours ago, Nevermore135 said:
22 hours ago, Crokodone said:

Ty for proving how hard Bill_Halsey lied to the public. Of those listed only Talin and comes fit the Edinburgh fit the bill until you realize Talinn got a 12s radar and Erinburgh is a floating Satchel Charge.

Nah, I was just pointing out that there are four tier VIII cruisers that have stealth radar. To claim otherwise is to give false information.

 

Edited by Nevermore135
  • Cool 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13,503
[WOLF3]
[WOLF3]
Members
32,262 posts
27,029 battles
8 hours ago, Bill_Halsey said:

Also Boise

Indianapolis is also terrible in Narai.  Hell, if one has to INSIST on taking specifically a USN Heavy Cruiser to Narai, New Orleans is vastly superior to Indianapolis.  Otherwise, for USN Cruisers in that Operation, Atlanta, Helena, Boise / Nueve di Julio, Flint are infinitely better than Indianapolis.

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×