Battleships - why so afraid?

[Skramjet]

I am, quite clearly, an average to below average player.

Having said that, I really struggle to understand why battleships are so afraid to get into the thick of the fighting

You have lots of health, big guns that are better the closer they get, and a good amount of armor that is effective when moving forward.

The vast majority of BB players I see, as soon as they notice an enemy ship, they begin a long circle turning away from them.

I play BB's, and while I don't do particularly well, I do better when I get close. And it's more fun. The only problem is I'm usually the only one moving up, so I get focused. Can someone explain to me the tactical advantage of leaving your cruisers and DDs out to dry and firing your guns at max range? I'd rather play a support ship like a German Cruiser to do this.

Thanks

Skramjet

 

[Cuesta_Rey]

You often see people playing the game "not to lose". A sure way to lose a game is playing not to lose. I suppose there can be a fine line between good aggressive play and stupid aggressive play, but there are those who certainly play timid to an extent that it is a detriment to their team. 

[DasBootcamp]

The problem most BB players experience is a lack of support. That ship class is not meant to take the lead. It needs a solid screen from a DD and some need AA. Their goal is to kill cruisers and protect their screens. Those big guns have a long reload and the worst dispersion in the game. That thick armor does little against HE spam and their inability to charge into a torp wall is why a lot of people hang back. When you see actual teamwork, you will see DD's smoking off a BB on an island. A cruiser within 5km holding a flank and in an area to watch for bombers. Once the BB clears out some of the cruisers is when you can press forward.

 

All in all, BB's aren't some invincible gun platform, they need support too.

[Fog_Carrier_Kaga_]

As a primary BB player, the biggest reason I pretty much refuse to push up unless I'm divisioned with people to support me is that, while BB's do have fantastic guns and armor, they tend to move very sluggishly, which makes them easy prey for torpedoes and invisible destroyers. In addition, CV drivers can easily bait a BB into turning before landing a huge hit with a manual drop of torpedoes. Why would I want to die early while contributing nothing by leading an unsupported charge?

 

I really do think that you'll see a radical change whenever WG gets around to implementing clan wars or something similar, actually having a real push with BB's, backed up by CA's and DD's with air cover can tackle any threat, but since there's virtually no communication in a pub match it's really just a huge game of 'everyone for themselves'

[GravyDave1]

I am, quite clearly, an average to below average player.

Having said that, I really struggle to understand why battleships are so afraid to get into the thick of the fighting

You have lots of health, big guns that are better the closer they get, and a good amount of armor that is effective when moving forward.

The vast majority of BB players I see, as soon as they notice an enemy ship, they begin a long circle turning away from them.

I play BB's, and while I don't do particularly well, I do better when I get close. And it's more fun. The only problem is I'm usually the only one moving up, so I get focused. Can someone explain to me the tactical advantage of leaving your cruisers and DDs out to dry and firing your guns at max range? I'd rather play a support ship like a German Cruiser to do this.

Thanks

Skramjet

 

The issue I see a lot is this many come from WOT and try to play like that game. It does not work. From CV's to DD's I have seen many make this mistake. So it is not only BB's.

[Crucis]

I am, quite clearly, an average to below average player.

Having said that, I really struggle to understand why battleships are so afraid to get into the thick of the fighting

You have lots of health, big guns that are better the closer they get, and a good amount of armor that is effective when moving forward.

The vast majority of BB players I see, as soon as they notice an enemy ship, they begin a long circle turning away from them.

I play BB's, and while I don't do particularly well, I do better when I get close. And it's more fun FOR ME. The only problem is I'm usually the only one moving up, so I get focused. Can someone explain to me the tactical advantage of leaving your cruisers and DDs out to dry and firing your guns at max range? I'd rather play a support ship like a German Cruiser to do this.

Thanks

Skramjet

 

 

Let me fix that for you.

 

You're assuming that the only two options are moving in close and fighting at max range?  Is this the limit of your logic, only the two extremes?  I prefer fighting at mid range where accuracy is improved and the risk of being torpedoed is still fairly low.  And unlike you, I do not see the great appeal of moving to suicidal ranges.  You want to maximize your ability to do great damage and affect the outcome of battles, you need to survive and be productive as long as possible, which won't happen if you're constantly being suicidal and getting into knife fights where there's always a good chance of being torped by some DD or CA, or even a BB (Tirpitz).

 

 

[Dapper1]

Because we will immediately die between DD torps, Air Dropped Torps, and Cruiser Fires. I get nothing accomplished by dying first other then being a dead weight to my team. 

[LuckyStarFan]

Because if a battleship makes a mistake and finds themselves under fire from 4+ ships he probably cannot escape.  You have to pick your fights most carefully so a lot of folks just never push in.  There is of course a time to charge, but for many this is a long or unending learning process so they just sit back and snipe because that is all they know/get results with.

[LordCorellon]

I am, quite clearly, an average to below average player.

Having said that, I really struggle to understand why battleships are so afraid to get into the thick of the fighting

You have lots of health, big guns that are better the closer they get, and a good amount of armor that is effective when moving forward.

The vast majority of BB players I see, as soon as they notice an enemy ship, they begin a long circle turning away from them.

I play BB's, and while I don't do particularly well, I do better when I get close. And it's more fun. The only problem is I'm usually the only one moving up, so I get focused. Can someone explain to me the tactical advantage of leaving your cruisers and DDs out to dry and firing your guns at max range? I'd rather play a support ship like a German Cruiser to do this.

Thanks

Skramjet

 

 

I was told, a long time ago when I first started playing, the golden BB rule.

 

 

You are NOT Superman.

[TacticalOni]

for the record, I am usually trying to push in my BBs while the cruisers decide that the red guys are too scary and turn around and cry. 

 

 

[Xannari]

Battleships are the least self-sufficient class in the game and are heavily vulnerable to focus fire since they can't avoid shells well. On top of that, both DoT functions are improperly set up which makes them more threatening, and there's no guarantee that even a favored setup will yield a favorable result

[Skramjet]

 

Let me fix that for you.

 

You're assuming that the only two options are moving in close and fighting at max range?  Is this the limit of your logic, only the two extremes?  I prefer fighting at mid range where accuracy is improved and the risk of being torpedoed is still fairly low.  And unlike you, I do not see the great appeal of moving to suicidal ranges.  You want to maximize your ability to do great damage and affect the outcome of battles, you need to survive and be productive as long as possible, which won't happen if you're constantly being suicidal and getting into knife fights where there's always a good chance of being torped by some DD or CA, or even a BB (Tirpitz).

 

​Congrats, you've managed to insult me for absolutely no reason. No, not two extremes. I consider 13KM "aggressive". Compared to firing from 20KM out where you'll never hit anything. "Is this the limit of your logic, two extremes?" What benefit was there as to saying that? Obviously I'm not trying to get myself killed. But in the case that I have support, I tend to try and move up... capturing points is usually the goal of the game, is it not?

[JervisBay]

I am, quite clearly, an average to below average player.

Having said that, I really struggle to understand why battleships are so afraid to get into the thick of the fighting....

 

 

I play BBs a lot.....most of my fleet is comprised of battleships.

I play my game my way when in a BB......my intent is to support as much as possible and, in the same style as a boxer, I use my reach, and that is provided by the range of my guns.

Other than supporting I also aim to capture when possible.

I do not skirmish unless forced to do so as a defensive measure.

 

If the above methodology pisses people off, so be it. It's how I get my enjoyment and that is really all that I am playing WoWs for.

[Goldeneye54]

With me grinding down the Japanese BB line and having the Tirp I do try to close range sometimes (love my secondaries) but it really depends on the situation. How many DDs are there and where are they. What kind of CVs are in the game. Where is my team going. It's very easy to turn in and go at the enemy team but it's a lot harder to turn back and escape lol.

[RipNuN2]

It does bother me when I see many BB's at the start of the map start heading to the flanks at their slow top speed, so that when the enemy vanguard appears they are not close enough to effectively cover a cap or accurately punish ships with focus fire because they are near their max range.Whereas if they headed in closer at the start, they could move back if needed and if not, they could start the push rather than waiting another 5 minutes to get to that position once the enemy disposition is known.

[Skramjet]

The problem most BB players experience is a lack of support. That ship class is not meant to take the lead. It needs a solid screen from a DD and some need AA. Their goal is to kill cruisers and protect their screens. Those big guns have a long reload and the worst dispersion in the game. That thick armor does little against HE spam and their inability to charge into a torp wall is why a lot of people hang back. When you see actual teamwork, you will see DD's smoking off a BB on an island. A cruiser within 5km holding a flank and in an area to watch for bombers. Once the BB clears out some of the cruisers is when you can press forward.

 

All in all, BB's aren't some invincible gun platform, they need support too.

 

​I definitely see your point. But in high-tier gameplay, I tend to notice the DDs really pick it up. 90% of DDs I have seen are all too happy to go right into the cap circle, spot targets, and deal damage. When I'm in my BBs I don't charge alone unless there's a DD ahead of me. Cruisers tend to do their own thing, but in most games there really aren't too many Carriers. When there is a CV I definitely understand timid gameplay more. But thanks for your input. +1.

[Destroyer_HatsuzukiKai]

BB players being BB players

( look at mini-map )

[FratStar4Life]

Because the NA meta says we have to snipe 

 

[Skramjet]

BB players being BB players

( look at mini-map )

 

​Hope your DD got em anyway

[Crucis]

 

Let me fix that for you.

 

You're assuming that the only two options are moving in close and fighting at max range?  Is this the limit of your logic, only the two extremes?  I prefer fighting at mid range where accuracy is improved and the risk of being torpedoed is still fairly low.  And unlike you, I do not see the great appeal of moving to suicidal ranges.  You want to maximize your ability to do great damage and affect the outcome of battles, you need to survive and be productive as long as possible, which won't happen if you're constantly being suicidal and getting into knife fights where there's always a good chance of being torped by some DD or CA, or even a BB (Tirpitz).

 

​Congrats, you've managed to insult me for absolutely no reason. No, not two extremes. I consider 13KM "aggressive". Compared to firing from 20KM out where you'll never hit anything. "Is this the limit of your logic, two extremes?" What benefit was there as to saying that? Obviously I'm not trying to get myself killed. But in the case that I have support, I tend to try and move up... capturing points is usually the goal of the game, is it not?

 

 

13 km can be aggressive, but it's not "close".  "Close" is under 10km.  Close is getting close enough that you start thinking about whether your secondaries have enough range to hit the enemy.  Close is when you can see the whites of their eyes.  (OK, sorry for the Bunker Hill metaphor.)  13 km is moderate range.

 

And I love how you complain about being "insulted" when the very title of this thread is insulting, accusing other players of cowardice.  And you have the unmitigated GALL to call me out!  (face palm) 

 

As for not getting yourself killed, no I would NOT say that that's obvious from the tone of your initial post.  And capturing points is not the goal of the game.  Playing to the mission and winning is.  If that means capturing bases, fine.  If that means sinking enemy ships, also fine.  Playing to the mission is the surest path to victory.

 

 

[Skramjet]

 

 

13 km can be aggressive, but it's not "close".  "Close" is under 10km.  Close is getting close enough that you start thinking about whether your secondaries have enough range to hit the enemy.  Close is when you can see the whites of their eyes.  (OK, sorry for the Bunker Hill metaphor.)  13 km is moderate range.

 

And I love how you complain about being "insulted" when the very title of this thread is insulting, accusing other players of cowardice.  And you have the unmitigated GALL to call me out!  (face palm) 

 

As for not getting yourself killed, no I would NOT say that that's obvious from the tone of your initial post.  And capturing points is not the goal of the game.  Playing to the mission and winning is.  If that means capturing bases, fine.  If that means sinking enemy ships, also fine.  Playing to the mission is the surest path to victory.

 

 

 

 ​Generally capturing points is the way to win. Next time you win a game where the enemy has all 3/4 points for the majority of the game, I'd like to hear about it. Would make for an interesting replay to watch. Also, saying that someone should be more aggressive in a video games is not the same level of "insulting" as, essentially calling someone stupid.

[Crucis]

BB players being BB players

( look at mini-map )

 

 

They're probably there because they don't want to get to close to an enemy IJN DD.  And I can hardly blame them when they're all alone without any cruiser or DD support.

[butchSS49]

The problem most BB players experience is a lack of support. That ship class is not meant to take the lead. It needs a solid screen from a DD and some need AA. Their goal is to kill cruisers and protect their screens. Those big guns have a long reload and the worst dispersion in the game. That thick armor does little against HE spam and their inability to charge into a torp wall is why a lot of people hang back. When you see actual teamwork, you will see DD's smoking off a BB on an island. A cruiser within 5km holding a flank and in an area to watch for bombers. Once the BB clears out some of the cruisers is when you can press forward.

 

All in all, BB's aren't some invincible gun platform, they need support too.

 

Very well put and a RepPoint from me as well.  

[Crucis]

 

 

13 km can be aggressive, but it's not "close".  "Close" is under 10km.  Close is getting close enough that you start thinking about whether your secondaries have enough range to hit the enemy.  Close is when you can see the whites of their eyes.  (OK, sorry for the Bunker Hill metaphor.)  13 km is moderate range.

 

And I love how you complain about being "insulted" when the very title of this thread is insulting, accusing other players of cowardice.  And you have the unmitigated GALL to call me out!  (face palm) 

 

As for not getting yourself killed, no I would NOT say that that's obvious from the tone of your initial post.  And capturing points is not the goal of the game.  Playing to the mission and winning is.  If that means capturing bases, fine.  If that means sinking enemy ships, also fine.  Playing to the mission is the surest path to victory.

 

 

 

 ​Generally capturing points is the way to win. Next time you win a game where the enemy has all 3/4 points for the majority of the game, I'd like to hear about it. Would make for an interesting replay to watch. Also, saying that someone should be more aggressive in a video games is not the same level of "insulting" as, essentially calling someone stupid.

 

 

Try reading my post next time.  I said PLAY TO THE MISSION!!!  If you're on a domination mode map that will, by default, mean going after caps!!!

 

As for video games, you keep on playing your Nintendo, while I play computer games, kid.  And in my book, calling someone a COWARD, even by implication, is far worse than calling them stupid, which I did not do, even by implication ... though I'm beginning to think that maybe that assessment is true given your inability to see the difference in lacking basic logic and actual stupidity.  Or thinking that a claim of cowardice is less insulting than a claim of stupidity.

 

 

 

 

[Skramjet]

 

 

Try reading my post next time.  I said PLAY TO THE MISSION!!!  If you're on a domination mode map that will, by default, mean going after caps!!!

 

As for video games, you keep on playing your Nintendo, while I play computer games, kid.  And in my book, calling someone a COWARD, even by implication, is far worse than calling them stupid, which I did not do, even by implication ... though I'm beginning to think that maybe that assessment is true given your inability to see the difference in lacking basic logic and actual stupidity.  Or thinking that a claim of cowardice is less insulting than a claim of stupidity.

 

 

 

 

 

​I'm just not going to go into the gutter with you. I will clarify. VIDEO GAMES. And if you haven't noticed my post is phrased in a question.