How should the American Heavy Cruiser Line be laid out?

[Madwolf05]

Currently it looks like this:

 

Tier 10: Des Moines

Tier 9: Baltimore

Tier 8: New Orleans

Tier 7: Pensacola

 

What should fill out the tree? I think it should look more something like this:

 

Tier 10: Des Moines - Needs to be buffed back up. There's a 20,000 average damage difference between her and the Zao at this point

Tier 9: Baltimore - Needs to be buffed. There's a 10,000 average damage difference between her and the Ibuki

Tier 8: Wichita Class - A New Orleans on the Brooklyn Class hull. The New Orleans is over 10,000 average damage behind the Mogami

Tier 7: New Orleans - This would make her only 7,000 average damage behind the Myoko

Tier 6: Northampton - The P'Cola is 3,000 average damage behind the Aoba. The Northampton would have 1 less canon, but be a bit better at surviving.

Tier 5: Pensacola - She would end up matched up against the Furutaka, which she currently out-damages. Not really sure she belongs here against her in her current state, but if the Furutaka gets buffed, then th P'Cola would fit in quite well here.

[Mechanicum]

This thread has come up several times before, so I'll recap some things...

I just got done with the Pensacola, and while she may be weak, but she's not THAT weak.  A properly handled and upgraded Pensacola can do a lot of damage, and if you know anything about armor angling you can really toy with the lesser cruisers.  Her problem is really when she goes up against tier 8 and 9  ships, where everyone takes advantage of her weak armor, and where people new to the Pensacola don't know how to handle her. If you're going to demote the Pensacola, fine, but she's at worst a strong tier 6, and may be OP at that tier.  To be fair, the problem is more the play style needed coming off the Cleveland, rather than the Pensacola being truly bad, even though she gets a lot of bad press.

Wichita is a one-off ship, so she'd be better as a premium.

Also, honestly, the true split should start at tier 6, with the Omaha going to both the light and heavy cruiser lines.

That leaves you with something like this...
T6 - Pensacola
T7 - Northampton
T8 - New Orleans
T9 - Baltimore

T10- Des Moines.
 

[Madwolf05]

I actually wanted to make it similar to yours, but the damage discrepancy is so bad for the American Cruisers vs IJN right now you almost have to demote some cruisers to fix the balance without buffing or nerfing anything.

[FallenZulu]

Actually I thought the Cleveland would make a better T8. Especially if it's a CBT Cleveland. It would also make the progression make sense as the play style of the Cleveland, Baltimore, and Des Moines are similar. 

[SailorDeadpool1XPOIXKita]

cleveland is a good ship while pen just weak compare to a cleveland

[Cuarzo]

cleveland is a good ship while pen just weak compare to a cleveland

 

Actually I thought the Cleveland would make a better T8. Especially if it's a CBT Cleveland. It would also make the progression make sense as the play style of the Cleveland, Baltimore, and Des Moines are similar. 

 

I think the OP refers to CA line (that is, 8'' cruisers). Cleveland (and brooklyn and some others) are CLs

[mr3awsome]

I would probably just swap Pensacola for Northampton. 

Anything more starts to cause more problems than its worth. 

[SystemRename_1000614738]

On the bottom of the ocean, where they'll be anyway.

 

"Hey guys, I have AA guns!"

 

*AA fires*

 

*cruiser spotted*

 

*incoming heavy artillery*

 

"I think I can see Titanic from here!"

[DukeRamulots]

The Brooklyn class would be fun to have. 5 triple 6 in turrets and armor of a CA instead of a CL? That's a Cleveland on steroids.

[Mechanicum]

The Brooklyn class would be fun to have. 5 triple 6 in turrets and armor of a CA instead of a CL? That's a Cleveland on steroids.

 

Actually, the Brooklyns came first, and the Cleveland was a development of THEM, with a better use of space, and better secondary guns.

[DukeRamulots]

 

Actually, the Brooklyns came first, and the Cleveland was a development of THEM, with a better use of space, and better secondary guns.

 

Yeah, I saw their service dates, but the Brooklyn is still a Cleveland on steroids. 

[Mechanicum]

Yeah, I saw their service dates, but the Brooklyn is still a Cleveland on steroids. 

 

Not really.

 

Ok, you get the extra turret, but it has god awful arcs of fire.  Turret 3 is below turret 2, and faces to the rear, so you can only really use it in broadside engagements, which is inherently DEATH to any CL, so for 80-90% of the time it's essentially useless.

 

On the other hand, the Cleveland carried six twin 5"/38 mounts (12 guns), while the Brooklyn only had eight 5"/25 single mounts (same as on the Pensacola).  The 5"/38 is just a better gun all around., and is a considerable boon for any cleveland facing a DD attack, or brawling with other cruisers.

 

In actuality, the light cruiser line should see Brooklyn at tier 6, Helena at 7, and Cleveland at 8.

[Madwolf05]

Helena is a St. Louis class.

[Mechanicum]

Helena is a St. Louis class.

 

I know that, but we already have a St. Louis class at tier 3, don't we? 

[DemonicTreerat]

 

Not really.

 

Ok, you get the extra turret, but it has god awful arcs of fire.  Turret 3 is below turret 2, and faces to the rear, so you can only really use it in broadside engagements, which is inherently DEATH to any CL, so for 80-90% of the time it's essentially useless.

 

On the other hand, the Cleveland carried six twin 5"/38 mounts (12 guns), while the Brooklyn only had eight 5"/25 single mounts (same as on the Pensacola).  The 5"/38 is just a better gun all around., and is a considerable boon for any cleveland facing a DD attack, or brawling with other cruisers.

 

In actuality, the light cruiser line should see Brooklyn at tier 6, Helena at 7, and Cleveland at 8.

 

Atago has the same arrangement of forward turrets  and does just fine. Sure you can't use #3 in a head-on engagement but if you approach on an angle you can still bring it into play and the same goes for running away. Just a matter of being willing to take a somewhat greater risk in exchange for greater rewards. As for the secondary guns, well given how poor the in-game gunners are at hitting the broadside of a battleship at 2 klicks I doubt it would make much difference.

 

Though I would bump the whole line down one and put a new ship as the USN tier 10. Alaska. Yes I know most people consider her a battlecruiser and thus a candidate for the battleship line. But first the USN battleship line is well filled out with capable ships. Second officially she and her sister Guam (along with 3 more that were canceled) were officially termed "large cruisers" and were built to counter (fake) Japanese commerce-raiding cruisers with 8 inch guns. Plus she originally was to have 10 inch guns, the 12inch guns being a case of updating a proven weapon to save development costs and time. Finally she would fit very nicely into the top spot for US cruisers, finally giving the line a ship fully competitive against its Japanese and German counterparts.

[Mechanicum]

 

Atago has the same arrangement of forward turrets  and does just fine. Sure you can't use #3 in a head-on engagement but if you approach on an angle you can still bring it into play and the same goes for running away. Just a matter of being willing to take a somewhat greater risk in exchange for greater rewards. As for the secondary guns, well given how poor the in-game gunners are at hitting the broadside of a battleship at 2 klicks I doubt it would make much difference.

 

Atago has better arcs of fire, since the turrets are 2 gun rather than 3 gun mounts.  This means a narrower turret, and allows for a slightly better arc.  This better arc also means better armor angling.

 

The secondaries don't just affect the anti-ship fire, but also the anti-air fire.  There is a reason the Cleveland has better AA ratings than any other cruiser right up to the Baltimore.

[mr3awsome]

Though I would bump the whole line down one and put a new ship as the USN tier 10. Alaska. 

That would cause more problems than its worth. 

[DemonicTreerat]

 

Atago has better arcs of fire, since the turrets are 2 gun rather than 3 gun mounts.  This means a narrower turret, and allows for a slightly better arc.  This better arc also means better armor angling.

 

The secondaries don't just affect the anti-ship fire, but also the anti-air fire.  There is a reason the Cleveland has better AA ratings than any other cruiser right up to the Baltimore.

 

True. Still would a fun ship to have. And I've not found armor angling to work all that well, at least not to the extent that others seem to prize it. Aside from how often HE has been the round of choice to be slung at my ships,and thus penetration a mostly moot point, I find it so rare to get into a 1-on-1 situation that if I move a ship to maximize defense against one opponent I also flatten a side against another. Personally I rather bring more firepower to beat the first target down faster to reduce the incoming damage than try for a fairly unreliable increase in protection that might backfire.

 

That would cause more problems than its worth. 

 

Sigh. If you're going to say no then don't just say "no, can't be done". Otherwise people have good reason to believe you don't have any actual reason and are just being a jerk because you don't want changes. And no being an Alpha tester, high-rank, etc doesn't qualify as "reason". I've seen plenty of so called "elites" who failed spectacularly at understanding a game because they got where they were through luck and the human tendency to blindly admire the person the herd reveres.

 

By the time tier ten is reached the 12" gun is pretty much obsolete as a battleship weapon, and its slower rate of fire would reduce their sustained damage to be on par with the other cruisers. The only gain from that would be extra range (which USN ships SHOULD have given that they had the best fire-control and range-finding system in the world at the time and could actually get a first-shot hit from beyond the horizon) and a higher initial damage. Another reason why the Alaska's should be cruisers is that their armor was well below battleship standards, with a maximum belt of 9 inches compared to the 30 year old South Carolina's 12 inches. Plus it had a comparable speed (33 knots) to heavy cruiers and most importantly her envisioned objective was exactly the same as any heavy cruisers. To be a fast-moving ship capable of independent operations (in this case hunting commerce raiders) that could fight against equal or smaller ships but only face larger vessels through numbers or hit-and-run tactics.

 

So have any actual reason why this couldn't be done, or are you just another person trying to preserve his preferred trees advantages by keeping his favorite whipping boy too weak to fight back on an equal footing?

[Neph]

Alaska could totally be a 'cruiser' using 12 inch guns: It's 12 inchers were more powerful than the Kongo's 14 inchers for example, due to advanced design and with substantially higher rate of fire.

 

You could easilly give it an increased rate of fire, and reliable armor against 8 inch guns (comparable to Kongo), but just be much more agile. It'd be quite strong vs the current Zao, and have a role if it's sufficiently agile.

[DukeRamulots]

Actually I thought the Cleveland would make a better T8. Especially if it's a CBT Cleveland. It would also make the progression make sense as the play style of the Cleveland, Baltimore, and Des Moines are similar. 

 

The Cleveland is the same generation as the Baltimore, it should be tier 8 in the current cruiser line but I think they nerfed and dropped it to 6 so we wouldn't have a CL after having CA's even though the St. Louis is a CA.

[crzyhawk]

 

True. Still would a fun ship to have. And I've not found armor angling to work all that well, at least not to the extent that others seem to prize it. Aside from how often HE has been the round of choice to be slung at my ships,and thus penetration a mostly moot point, I find it so rare to get into a 1-on-1 situation that if I move a ship to maximize defense against one opponent I also flatten a side against another. Personally I rather bring more firepower to beat the first target down faster to reduce the incoming damage than try for a fairly unreliable increase in protection that might backfire.

 

 

Sigh. If you're going to say no then don't just say "no, can't be done". Otherwise people have good reason to believe you don't have any actual reason and are just being a jerk because you don't want changes. And no being an Alpha tester, high-rank, etc doesn't qualify as "reason". I've seen plenty of so called "elites" who failed spectacularly at understanding a game because they got where they were through luck and the human tendency to blindly admire the person the herd reveres.

 

By the time tier ten is reached the 12" gun is pretty much obsolete as a battleship weapon, and its slower rate of fire would reduce their sustained damage to be on par with the other cruisers. The only gain from that would be extra range (which USN ships SHOULD have given that they had the best fire-control and range-finding system in the world at the time and could actually get a first-shot hit from beyond the horizon) and a higher initial damage. Another reason why the Alaska's should be cruisers is that their armor was well below battleship standards, with a maximum belt of 9 inches compared to the 30 year old South Carolina's 12 inches. Plus it had a comparable speed (33 knots) to heavy cruiers and most importantly her envisioned objective was exactly the same as any heavy cruisers. To be a fast-moving ship capable of independent operations (in this case hunting commerce raiders) that could fight against equal or smaller ships but only face larger vessels through numbers or hit-and-run tactics.

 

So have any actual reason why this couldn't be done, or are you just another person trying to preserve his preferred trees advantages by keeping his favorite whipping boy too weak to fight back on an equal footing?

 

mr3awesome is one of the more level-headed balance oriented people around.  He's definitely not trying to keep the USN down.  While I do disagree with him from time to time about power placement, mostly in regards to a few RN mid tier CLs, he's very knowledgeable about what he's talking about.

 

The problem with using Alaska as a T10 cruiser is balance.  those 12" hit like 14's, has armor that should be nearly impenetrable by 8" gunfire and has a fairly impressive rate of fire and range.  It SHOULD curb kick any 8" cruiser that it comes across (which it was designed to).  Frankly, Des Moines should curb every 8" cruiser it comes across too, but the meta towards USN gunfire keeps it in check.

 

The fact is, that the 8" cruiser was a bad idea IRL.  The ONLY thing it could do better than a 6-inch cruiser is kill other cruisers at long range, and frankly, it didn't do that worth a crap (as seen at Java Sea and Kommandorski Islands).  The British realized this early on, but the rest of the world were pretty slow learners in that regard.  You see that play out in game too, where the CL is more effective at everything other than citadel hits on other cruisers. 

[crzyhawk]

 

The Cleveland is the same generation as the Baltimore, it should be tier 8 in the current cruiser line but I think they nerfed and dropped it to 6 so we wouldn't have a CL after having CA's even though the St. Louis is a CA.

 

They didn't know what to do with T6 for the USN.  I think that Cleveland was originally a placeholder and Northampton was supposed to be the T6 USN heavy...but somehow that just never happened.  I saw that the Devs had said they were planning to move Cleveland to t8 in the USN CL line in May of 2015, but more recently I saw something that said they have no plans to do that right now.

 

The USN needs their CLs badly imo

[MrDeaf]

LOL... Pensacola in T5 would be seriously OP.

 

You would get 10x 203mm guns compared to Furutaka's 5x

And these 203mm guns on Pensacola can citadel Kongo and Wyoming.

[Mechanicum]

Yeah, pushing a Pensacola to tier 5 is not a good idea.  Needs to be AT LEAST tier 6, though honestly its "upgraded" version is a bit nasty at T6.

[Arzoo]

Tier 6 Pensacola wouldn't be any more unfair than the tier 7 Myoko is, frankly.