Why are the American Cruisers so bad?

[TheTitan0914]

Hello. I have noticed this for some time now, and it even shows it in this one guys google sheets spreadsheet (I dont know his name or account thing, but it is really helpful, so shout out to you!) https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1xzhR7W7PDX0bR2H_TxOe1ZS1G-ZneLajd6vg685gKFs/edit#gid=69516540     . Anyway, I have noticed that Japanese Cruisers are exceptionally better than American Cruisers. I mean, they do more damage, shorter reload time, more guns, larger range, AND THEY HAVE TORPEDO'S! I mean, I can understand giving them torpedos. But when their HE damage averages at 500 better, and AP at 80 better. There's a problem. I agree that the New Orleans has an advantage over the Mogami. But what about the Cleveland vs. the Aoba, or the Des Moines vs. Zao. These are 1000 damage differences between these ships. And for tiers 7-10 in the USN, the HE damage stays at 2800! It's ridiculous! War Gaming needs to buff the USN! It's even worse because they get torpedo's! The Japanese Cruisers are just too overpowered. I will have a poll down below about whether or not their should be a change put here. And if it gets enough votes for one side then I will write a letter or something to War Gaming to tell them to fix the American and Japanese Cruisers. Here is a link to a little spreadsheet I made, hope it helps a little! https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cW0Wawi7AvD9Eq4o6A_V_IC5mpEEutYHI0-VICFX6bU/edit?usp=sharing    . Thanks everyone for reading! Have a good day!

[Paint_Huffer]

I personally think it is the torpedo's that make the difference. For the cruisers that have them they make a great short range shotgun that you can pump into and enemy's face.

[Fog_Destroyer_Yukikaze]

Buff the USN cruisers...? Underpowered...? 

'The IJN cruisers and USN cruisers have completely different play styles, it's not a matter of just looking at stats. Play both, you'll quickly see that they're not supposed to be carbon copies of each other; and are much more balanced than you currently believe.

[Fog_Destroyer_Yukikaze]

I personally think it is the torpedo's that make the difference. For the cruisers that have them they make a great short range shotgun that you can pump into and enemy's face.

 

That is a valid point, but if you're an IJN cruise you should NOT be focusing on torping people, torpedoes should only be used if a target is silly enough to get close to an IJN cruiser or not turn when broadsiding one.

[Nachoo31]

Cleveland by playing experience is harder to be citadel by same tier.  Aoba is a citadel boat.   

 

 

[Rebelknight]

Having played both... after having tested all... I can't really see a dif... One side fits your play style.. one doesn't.. 

 

Please don't judge a ship... or nation, based on a spread sheet. Go play some games in the IJN Cruisers. It may shock you. You have played 0 games as the IJN.... so you really don't have much exp to go by other than what a spread sheet is telling you... 

[Sinboto]

Cleveland vs Aoba and the Aoba is overpowered, Did something happen since the last time I played at T6? 

 

[Mesrith]

Little-known fact:  The Des Moines actually has a really good AP round.  The terrible gun trajectory of the high-tier US cruisers prevents most people from using it effectively.

 

Bad gun trajectory that almost forces most players to spam HE, lack of torpedoes, and a strength (AA) that isn't very useful in the current low-carrier environment.  If they'd change the gun trajectory to something more useful beyond 12km I'd be interested in playing this line, which I haven't touched since beta.

[anonym_fq0mysJjF8X6]

I voted yes- no. Nerfing has been done to death. Yes on US side only in one thing, better XP for doing it's job, Air support, DD killer..

[Fog_Destroyer_Yukikaze]

I voted yes- no. Nerfing has been done to death. Yes on US side only in one thing, better XP for doing it's job, Air support, DD killer..

 

USN cruisers are great at melting planes, and as an IJN carrier player I know that too well 

Plane kills really need to be worth more XP.. If I'm going to lose all my planes I at least want the person that murdered them in cold blood to be rewarded, planes have so much destructive potential it isn't even funny

[Legendary_Typo]

They just have different playstyles. And saying the Aoba has better AP damage than the Cleveland, or New Orleans has better AP damage than the Mogami? That comparison makes no sense... You can't compare heavy cruiser guns with light cruiser guns on damage alone. Of course the Aoba and New Orleans have better AP.

[Sir_Godz]

USN only seems worse because CVs haven't been played that much lately. If there are lots of planes then they become very relevant. My IJN CCs can't fend off squat even with fighter up and defensive fire running.

I think AA has been nerfed heavily without WG announcing it.

The Aoba can't hold a candle to the Cleve. Between the painfully slow turret traverse and slow ROF and questionable accuracy it Just can't deal out DPM anywhere near close without a broadside target not changing direction. Buffing any one of those three would help make it competitive.

All the IJN have the junk traverse issue but I prefer to play them because I hate not having torps.

[byronicasian]

The slow shells and relatively recent fix of ricochet angles for the Superheavy 8" rounds on the upper tier USN CAs account for most of the damage difference. 

 

Floaty shells means its much harder to hit with precision, not to mention, far easier for the enemy to evade. Both Cleveland and DM to an extent have the ROF to at least mitigate the floaty arcs a bit. But not the Nawlins and the Baltimore. 

[Revenge1916]

from my experience it seems cruisers only purpose it to take hits to the citadel to make BB players feel good.

[pmgaudio]

hey, you they guy in the Cleveland that I got two citadels (one salvo) in my Aoba last night???

is that why this is here??

[Ujenele]

USN only seems worse because CVs haven't been played that much lately. If there are lots of planes then they become very relevant. My IJN CCs can't fend off squat even with fighter up and defensive fire running.

I think AA has been nerfed heavily without WG announcing it.

The Aoba can't hold a candle to the Cleve. Between the painfully slow turret traverse and slow ROF and questionable accuracy it Just can't deal out DPM anywhere near close without a broadside target not changing direction. Buffing any one of those three would help make it competitive.

All the IJN have the junk traverse issue but I prefer to play them because I hate not having torps.

 

Exactly, My Peni is a plane killing machine that is nearly useless in 8/10 ballts because there is no CVs.

So I voted NO, they dont need to be more like IJN CAs they just need matches that have a bigger roll for them to play. (AA screens)

How about my Peni can only get into battles that have a CVs in them. That would be great!

 

 

[Big_Spud]

The problem with American cruisers is that their major strong point, AA power, doesn't actually help them kill other ships and doesn't even help that much against planes anyways (the AA ability is what keeps you from getting hit and taking damage, and the IJN cruiser get that as well). With how few carriers there are now, you're basically stuck playing a Japanese cruiser with no torpedoes and terrible shell arcs, and the worldwide stats for them reflect this.

[TheTitan0914]

hey, you they guy in the Cleveland that I got two citadels (one salvo) in my Aoba last night???

is that why this is here??

 

It is possible. I think I used my Cleveland last night, but I think it was a Myogi that got me. Anyway, that's not the reason why I did this. I did this because over the past few weeks I've noticed that each Japanese Cruiser seemed a lot stronger than the American ones. But I guess I'm wrong.... 

[Merc85]

USN cruisers at mid tiers are just fine imo.  But at the high tiers (VIII+) the current meta at those tiers renders them almost useless compared to other nations' cruisers because their AA is useless in matches without CVs, of which there are very few at high tiers these days, and their gun arcs are terrible compared to both German and Japanese cruisers even ignoring the fact that those two nations also have torpedoes to use if they happen to need them or can use them.  So other nations high tier cruisers can both stand off and hit at distance fairly well with their lower arc guns as well as torpedo enemies if they happen to get in close - neither of which a USN cruiser can do.  Why in the heck would you ever play a NO or Baltimore if you rarely see a CV.  In the "old days" when CVs were plentiful at high tiers US cruisers were a huge help to their BBs/CVs with their great AA protection....but when WG changed things such that high tier CVs are rare, US cruisers really got a big nerf to their value to their team.

[Eisennagel]

 

 

I never played the Baltimore so I don't know how the AP shells fly like.  But their muzzle velocities are the same as the AP shells on the Cleveland.  However, the Baltimore's shell is much heavier, 152kg, compared to the Cleveland's AP, at 59kg.  The weight means a shorter flight and hang time over a lighter shell, so the shell should not be as  ballistically archy as the Cleveland's even though it won't as flat and fast like the Hipper's.  If this is not the case of observation then adjustment of the flight trajectory is needed.

[MrDeaf]

T7: paper thin armor, low HP pool, concealment as bad as BBs

T8: Worst HP pool in T8+ cruisers, not enough DPS

 

I haven't played Baltimore or Des Moines yet, so I can't say much about them, although I hear it's the shell trajectory.

 

 

The only REALLY bad thing about T7/8 is their survivability. It's just bad, either due to poor armor or lowest HP pool.

[Eris_Kallisti]

I prefer in all cases that ships and armaments be historically accurate for the specific vessel. I don't want a gamer balanced experience. If all ships are balanced in capability why even have vessels of different nationality and architecture. Think about your surface warfare tactics and try to exploit the strengths of your own vessel. Take a look at the Washington Naval Treaty, and try to understand how it influences naval architecture post 1922 to 1938. Balancing and limiting shipbuilding by the treaty made some creative workarounds in naval architecture of the period.

Good Day.

[MrDeaf]

I prefer in all cases that ships and armaments be historically accurate for the specific vessel. I don't want a gamer balanced experience. If all ships are balanced in capability why even have vessels of different nationality and architecture. Think about your surface warfare tactics and try to exploit the strengths of your own vessel. Take a look at the Washington Naval Treaty, and try to understand how it influences naval architecture post 1922 to 1938. Balancing and limiting shipbuilding by the treaty made some creative workarounds in naval architecture of the period.

Good Day.

 

because, this game has tiers, and many ships wouldn't fit inside of it well at all.

You would even have tiers that have nothing in them, because those countries didn't produce anything at all.

[56Bravo]

I declined to vote on either point in the poll as I cannot see exactly how you would learn anything of value having never played a single game in a Japanese cruiser.  My advice, stop looking for answers in other peoples accumulated statistics and see for yourself.  Simply looking at a spreadsheet only really tells you where the better players gravitate, not actually what ship is better than another.

 

As has been pointed out already both USN and IJN cruisers are different and as such a very basic nerf/buff would do nothing without players who know how to use the strengths of their respective ships.  It is worth your while to try out any ship you may have to deal with in game, if for no other reason than to find out what problems that ship has to overcome and use it against them.  

[Crucis]

T7: paper thin armor, low HP pool, concealment as bad as BBs

T8: Worst HP pool in T8+ cruisers, not enough DPS

 

I haven't played Baltimore or Des Moines yet, so I can't say much about them, although I hear it's the shell trajectory.

 

 

The only REALLY bad thing about T7/8 is their survivability. It's just bad, either due to poor armor or lowest HP pool.

 

 

Honestly, I don't think that the Pensacola really belongs at tier 7.  But because of the merged CA/CL lines, it's a little difficult to properly place her.  I suspect that when CAs and CLs are split into 2 different lines, the Pensacola should be lowered at least 1 tier.  As for the New Orleans, I don't know.  I suppose that it could be dropped to tier 7 and the Witchita class could be slid into tier 8, which would be historically accurate, since that's where it existed, i.e. the class between the NO's and the Baltimores.

 

 

But even with split CA and CL lines, I think that there needs to be some buffing of the USN cruisers, at least the heavy cruisers.  They're just inferior to the Japanese and German cruisers.  They lack any torpedoes but have better AAA, which is historically accurate.  But even when there are carriers in their battles, it seems to me that the value of their (better) AAA is somewhat dubious.  Is it giving the USN CA's enough XP to offset the firepower advantages that the Japanese and German CA's possess?   And even if it did (which I don't think that it does), this offset only matters when there are carriers in their battles.  And personally, I think that the game is a LOT better without carriers. 

 

So what could be done to enhance USN CA's offensively to make them better balanced with their Japanese and German counterparts?  Since they don't have torps, any enhancement would have to be in the area of their guns, in the form of more damaging HE and/or AP shells, or better shell flight trajectories, or better accuracy, or improved rates of fire, or some combination of these elements.  Right now, I have no real opinion as to what would be the best specific answer to this.  They just need to have their guns buffed in some way that enhances those cruisers' overall ability to match up better with their counterparts from other nations' navies.