Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
CoolBreeze66

British Cruisers Reposted On the Wiki 9/22

39 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

11
[5D]
Beta Testers
99 posts
26,676 battles

I have been watching the Warships Wiki over the course of the last few days having noted that the British Cruisers were at one time posted then removed.  Well they have been reposted to the wiki and it gets pretty interesting.  It seems the 8 9 and 10 do not have any main battery HE, only AP rated for 1500 damage on the 8 and 1600 Damage on the 9 and 10.  More than that, the velocity of each of the rounds has not changed as far as I can tell.  Usually, the rounds have an 841 muzzle velocity, but it slows for the 9 and 10 to 768.  The tier 5 is the only one with velocities over 900.  All I can say is the plot thickens as to the usefullness of a round travelling at 768 doing no more then 1600 damage for AP.  Any Thoughts from the Masses?

Edited by CoolBreeze66

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
684
[-GF-]
Beta Testers
1,306 posts
12,930 battles

We already know how WG loves to make the brits the worst nation in all their games.

Edited by Copperhead550
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39,285
[HINON]
Alpha Tester
27,732 posts
26,569 battles

Pre-release stats of a line still in balancing are not guaranteed to be accurate. Drawing conclusions from them is premature, at the best.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,148
[NDA]
Supertester
3,926 posts
2,681 battles

The simple fact that they were posted, then removed, then posted again (and wildly different) should speak volumes.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
286
[-B-Z-]
Alpha Tester
715 posts
4,225 battles

OP - all the stats are test values and not fully set for release. They actually pulled the British cruiser release to re-balance it so especially you can't judge them on the stats that were released. We will just have to exercise some patience and wait to see exactly what the stats are when they are ready.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,596
[-KIA-]
Banned
9,382 posts
28,311 battles

WG is testing various ideas with the British CL line before they come out.  Given that tech tree branch splits are in the works, and that a CA/CL one is very easy to pull off for several nations, it makes sense that they toy with the British CLs before release so see where they can slot future American and Japanese CL lines in the meta.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11
[5D]
Beta Testers
99 posts
26,676 battles

OK, I hear you but why repost on the wiki?  Usually the ships get posted on the wiki at or near release, so all I can surmise from the reposting is this is how they intend to work. Said another way, why not wait until the testing is complete before reposting the ships to the wiki.  I mean this is how they normally do it.  To do so is extremely premature, considering they were already removed.  I just think it is either someone jumping the gun, (pun intended) or a subtle statement from Wows on this is how they intend to be.  What we might see now is them being removed from the wiki once again until all the supertesting is done.  

 

More than that considering AP rounds from a tier 10 cruiser with damage at 1600 with AP as the only rounds she carriers, this is a test? Someone is actually thinking about doing this?  A test of what, one can only imagine. Where is the lord of balance on this one, sleeping? 

Edited by CoolBreeze66
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39,285
[HINON]
Alpha Tester
27,732 posts
26,569 battles

You're still jumping to conclusions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,169
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
9,312 posts
18,907 battles

I for one look forward to being bow-tanked by Destroyers in my eventual British Cruisers...

 

If it's not final I don't understand why release on the wiki, I thought it was sensible when they took it down. Leaks make people nervous, these are just official leaks if they're not final.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,439
[-K-]
WoWS Community Contributors, WoWS Community Contributors
2,783 posts
15,306 battles

OK, I hear you but why repost on the wiki? 

 

As ships are added into the game, several of the RU wiki editors will go ahead and create the pages for the various ships (even while the ship is in testing); most of it is automated anyway and it doesn't take much. Sometimes they are accessible, sometimes they are locked down.  Recently ships that are not yet released have all been tagged with a disclaimer (you'll see this on Edinburgh's page, for example) indicating that stats are still in flux and shouldn't be taken as gospel.

 

The ship pages were not taken down, but it is possible to mark them as not-for-public-viewing yet so that only editors and admins have access to them.  That's likely what occurred with the British cruisers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,143 posts
4,964 battles

WTB tier 1 Premium  Tog III. 

3x Tog II's on a LCT Mk.IV (tank landing craft).

 

Premium Tier 1, because 8 knts top speed and 3 single 17pdr guns... lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,169
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
9,312 posts
18,907 battles

Edit: Deleted information.

 

 

Putting incomplete information on the wiki is worse than just leaving it blank. As the wiki lacks the detail for things like damage as above (which is still unclear). Best solution would be to either take it down temporarily, or expand it to include details on shell normalization, autobounce and damage mechanics, especially as these RN changes throw most of the rulebook out of the window.

 

As changes go they seem pretty off the wall.

Edited by mofton
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
534
[WOLFD]
[WOLFD]
Beta Testers
5,072 posts
1,514 battles

 Usually, the rounds have an 841 muzzle velocity, but it slows for the 9 and 10 to 768.  The tier 5 is the only one with velocities over 900.  All I can say is the plot thickens as to the usefullness of a round travelling at 768 doing no more then 1600 damage for AP.  Any Thoughts from the Masses? 

 

These guns are firing the british version of the same shell the cleveland uses. 

 

That said one of the big changes to them that we've allready heard about is that they've changed the auto-bounce angle. The result is that they auto-bounce far less.And thats important bcause a lot of shells in this game if they didn't auto-bounce at certain angle would be able to lolpen cruisers from any angle. Every *2 gun in the game at 5km or less can do it for example, further for the higher tier 8". Without knowing what kind of krupp values these shells have and without me still  owning the cleavland it's hard to predict performance. but with high enough krupp values they could be very competitive.

 

 

HE was removed because otherwise no one would use the AP because the fire damage would be so high. Ships like the T9 and T10, (and to a degree even the T8), can set fires very, very, very rapidly. Basically HE only fails to outpace AP on average because fires are so RNG, get a high enough fires per second average value though and that goes away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,169
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
9,312 posts
18,907 battles

HE was removed because otherwise no one would use the AP because the fire damage would be so high. Ships like the T9 and T10, (and to a degree even the T8), can set fires very, very, very rapidly. Basically HE only fails to outpace AP on average because fires are so RNG, get a high enough fires per second average value though and that goes away.

 

Aside from the T9 and T10, none of the others were any better at starting fires than existing CL, in fact they were worse, especially T6-T8.

 

Emerald had 48 RPM and a 12% fire chance, compared to Omaha's 69 RPM and same fire chance.

Leander had 64 RPM and a 9% fire chance, compared to Cleveland's 90 RPM and 12% fire chance. Almost exactly half the fires per minute...

Fiji/Edinburgh had 96 RPM and a 9% fire chance, compared to Schors' 90 RPM and 12% fire chance. Fewer fires per minute again, oh and Cleveland arcs not Russian, so fewer hits.

 

Most of the above did less HE damage than the equivalent RU/USN 6in guns as well.

 

Rejigging the top tiers, which had 11% fire chance might have been an option, 144 and 150 RPM at 11% is a good fire starter on the top 2. On the other hand the other T10's are not bad at it either.

 

We'll have to see but changing the autobounce angle doesn't help if they're perfectly bow-on. Halving the citadel damage means any element of risk your opponent has showing broadside is significantly reduced and 1/2 of 1,500 is still less than 1/3 of 3,200 for a 'normal pen'. It's not explicitly said that these shells cant overpen, if they can they're doing 150 damage vs. 320. Meanwhile having no HE removes any shot-selection component of the game, which is currently a decent chunk of the 'skill'.

 

So your opponent has to make fewer choices on ship placement/angling, and you don't have to make any choices on aiming spot or ammunition type. Fun.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
534
[WOLFD]
[WOLFD]
Beta Testers
5,072 posts
1,514 battles

 

Aside from the T9 and T10, none of the others were any better at starting fires than existing CL, in fact they were worse, especially T6-T8.

 

Emerald had 48 RPM and a 12% fire chance, compared to Omaha's 69 RPM and same fire chance.

Leander had 64 RPM and a 9% fire chance, compared to Cleveland's 90 RPM and 12% fire chance. Almost exactly half the fires per minute...

Fiji/Edinburgh had 96 RPM and a 9% fire chance, compared to Schors' 90 RPM and 12% fire chance. Fewer fires per minute again, oh and Cleveland arcs not Russian, so fewer hits.

 

Most of the above did less HE damage than the equivalent RU/USN 6in guns as well.

 

Rejigging the top tiers, which had 11% fire chance might have been an option, 144 and 150 RPM at 11% is a good fire starter on the top 2. On the other hand the other T10's are not bad at it either.

 

We'll have to see but changing the autobounce angle doesn't help if they're perfectly bow-on. Halving the citadel damage means any element of risk your opponent has showing broadside is significantly reduced and 1/2 of 1,500 is still less than 1/3 of 3,200 for a 'normal pen'. It's not explicitly said that these shells cant overpen, if they can they're doing 150 damage vs. 320. Meanwhile having no HE removes any shot-selection component of the game, which is currently a decent chunk of the 'skill'.

 

So your opponent has to make fewer choices on ship placement/angling, and you don't have to make any choices on aiming spot or ammunition type. Fun.

 

Your missing the point. With the AP changes the AP is arguably going to be a lot more effective than the AP on other ships, but fire is a fixed % of the targets health per second per fire. It's quite probable therefore that the fire damage would have easily exceeded the AP damage despite the good AP characteristics, (this is allready largely true for 6" cruisers in general, which isn't to say their AP is worthless, but it's a lot less must use than 8" AP). The good AP characteristics however are going to make for some truly spectacular results vs other cruisers if the dispersion works out. These things will print Cits vs other cruisers.

Edited by Carl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
682
[SCRAP]
Beta Testers
1,690 posts
5,582 battles

 

These guns are firing the british version of the same shell the cleveland uses. 

 

That said one of the big changes to them that we've allready heard about is that they've changed the auto-bounce angle. The result is that they auto-bounce far less.And thats important bcause a lot of shells in this game if they didn't auto-bounce at certain angle would be able to lolpen cruisers from any angle. Every *2 gun in the game at 5km or less can do it for example, further for the higher tier 8". Without knowing what kind of krupp values these shells have and without me still  owning the cleavland it's hard to predict performance. but with high enough krupp values they could be very competitive.

 

 

HE was removed because otherwise no one would use the AP because the fire damage would be so high. Ships like the T9 and T10, (and to a degree even the T8), can set fires very, very, very rapidly. Basically HE only fails to outpace AP on average because fires are so RNG, get a high enough fires per second average value though and that goes away.

 

I think removing HE and giving RN cruisers only AP at the higher tiers will work with depleted uranium rounds with laser-guided warheads.

Or perhaps they can introduce some kind of new non-lethal round - such as one that deploys nets to foul propellers (yes, I'm being sarcastic)

Otherwise - no point advancing above T7

 

They need to figure out some form of realistically rebalancing the tree - such as moving each ship down one Tier so they are at least paired with ships of similar baseline capabilities.

Leander = Aoba/Cleveland/Nurnberg? No

Fiji = York/Pensacola/Myoko? Perhaps in a vodka-induced haze

It's a similar story for every Tier

End the line at Tier 8/9 - for now. Add fantasy ships that will work at that level at a later date.  It's been done before.

Edited by HMS_Formidable
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,169
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
9,312 posts
18,907 battles

Your missing the point. With the AP changes the AP is arguably going to be a lot more effective than the AP on other ships, but fire is a fixed % of the targets health per second per fire. It's quite probable therefore that the fire damage would have easily exceeded the AP damage despite the good AP characteristics, (this is allready largely true for 6" cruisers in general, which isn't to say their AP is worthless, but it's a lot less must use than 8" AP). The good AP characteristics however are going to make for some truly spectacular results vs other cruisers if the dispersion works out. These things will print Cits vs other cruisers.

 

I'm going to tread carefully as there are 'leaked' components to this and I don't want a locked thread but I don't think I missed the point. Your point I read as being that RN AP will do just as much damage as either regular (previous) AP or regular HE+fires. You said that the T8 was a firebug which I disagreed with too.

 

Given that the only thing we know from the WOWS wiki is that the AP damage has been cut down hugely, we would have to speculate that to account for times when:

You overpenetate with AP for half the previous AP damage

You just do less damage as a '33' from a 1,500 damage gun is far less than one from a 3,200 damage gun

You would have citadelled with AP for half the previous AP damage

You bounce AP but would have damaged with HE on angled targets

You would have set fires

 

These AP rounds are going to have to have some characteristic which takes them frankly outside the realm of AP as we know it to the point that calling it AP is misleading. Otherwise it's 96,000 AP DPM for Leander vs. 288,000 AP DPM for Cleveland which is frankly crazy. That's numbers as published on the wiki.

 

My overall highly speculative read on RN CL is that they undertiered the ships by approximately one in the planning, banking on the effect of smokescreens to be worth ~1 tier up. When they discovered that yet more smoke+HE spam was not what the game needed, they removed it. Then, faced with a line of CL purposefully overtiered they've reached into the gun stats to try and do something different. Balancing a line with one ammunition type in a game with key mechanics revolving around 2 of them (HE vs. AP and autobounce, overmatch, citadels, angling, fires/damage control) seems very difficult and I hope they can pull it off.

 

It's also worth noting that as the 5th Cruiser line released the design space to emphasize a 'national flavor', and bring something new to the table while remaining balanced and true-ish to history seems very slight, again I hope they can pull it off.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
682
[SCRAP]
Beta Testers
1,690 posts
5,582 battles

The point is, it really doesn't take any expertise whatsoever to see the RN cruisers as they now stand are over-tiered.

 

Thankfully we have people such as Mofton who can be bothered to present the stats.

 

But even a cursory look at the ship's statistics show they are out of their league.

 

WoWs clearly attempted to rely upon artificial mechanics such as smoke, radar, acoustics etc to boost these ships beyond their abilities.

 

That has now been removed.

 

Short of the depleted uranium AP ammunition fix - they really have no choice but to repair the tech tree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28
Beta Testers
281 posts
2,031 battles

From what I've read and seen it looks like the British Light Cruiser line is going to be a single line of Yubari variants, light cruisers with no appreciable armor, reasonable torpedoes (that are actually usable, just for variety), fast firing guns that tickle your enemies. and (originally) smoke to hide in. So now we have a line of over sized gunboat destroyers with citadels, and no smoke.

 

(sarcasm)Yes War Gaming, I want to play a super sized, Yubari. (/sarcasm)

 

I still say that the first test to chance these ships should be with normal ammo, less dispersion, fast turret turning and lightning fast rudder shifts.

 

If you're going to add what is basically just a giant destroyer without smoke, then make it a giant destroyer, without smoke.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
534
[WOLFD]
[WOLFD]
Beta Testers
5,072 posts
1,514 battles

 

Given that the only thing we know from the WOWS wiki is that the AP damage has been cut down hugely, we would have to speculate that to account for times when:

You overpenetate with AP for half the previous AP damage

You just do less damage as a '33' from a 1,500 damage gun is far less than one from a 3,200 damage gun

You would have citadelled with AP for half the previous AP damage

You bounce AP but would have damaged with HE on angled targets

You would have set fires

 

 

But thats the thing. That isn't all they'e getting. We know their getting better Auto-bounce angles. And thats way, way way more important than anything else.

 

Also i called the T8 a firebug with HE because she would be with HE. Outside of T10 the Cleveland, (which it would roughly have matched), is one of the top handful of firebugs in the entire game.

 

I'll need a bit of time to re-do the sums and re-calculate the numbers for you but i posted in another thread just a week or so ago about how thanks to the bounce angle changes a Leander will do quite well compared to a cleavland simply because she'll print citadels at any angle once people figure out where to aim.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,169
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
9,312 posts
18,907 battles

From what I've read and seen it looks like the British Light Cruiser line is going to be a single line of Yubari variants, light cruisers with no appreciable armor, reasonable torpedoes (that are actually usable, just for variety), fast firing guns that tickle your enemies. and (originally) smoke to hide in. So now we have a line of over sized gunboat destroyers with citadels, and no smoke.

The armor is kind of a mixed bag, before falling away entirely at T9 and T10, which also look like they have citadels about the same size as the British Empire in 1940.

 

Leander for instance with 100mm of citadel armor does get significantly more than Nurnburg's 50mm, if less than Cleveland's 127mm or Budyonny's 140mm. At T8 the Edinburgh with max 114mm does relatively well, compared to Hipper with 80mm, Chapayev with 100mm and only comes in behind Mogami and NOLA with 140/127mm.

 

Fiji competes with the Pensacola's huge citadel, and has a few mm over the Schors and Yorck. Not great, but few cruisers get decent armor overall. I'd describe the mid-tier Brits as not-terrible but would need to look at citadel sizes again as pure armor values are misleading.

But thats the thing. That isn't all they'e getting. We know their getting better Auto-bounce angles. And thats way, way way more important than anything else.

 

Also i called the T8 a firebug with HE because she would be with HE. Outside of T10 the Cleveland, (which it would roughly have matched), is one of the top handful of firebugs in the entire game.

 

I'll need a bit of time to re-do the sums and re-calculate the numbers for you but i posted in another thread just a week or so ago about how thanks to the bounce angle changes a Leander will do quite well compared to a cleavland simply because she'll print citadels at any angle once people figure out where to aim.

 

The T8 would be significantly less of a firebug than the Chapayev/Kutuzov, which isn't to say that she's not a firebug. However, if the RU cruisers are balanced firebugs with their superior ballistics, higher fire chance, longer range, and (for Kutuzov) smoke then Edinburgh should hardly be considered OP from fires. Having a base fire chance 3% lower than Cleveland while fighting up to T10's with their higher inherent fire resistance doesn't sound amazing.

 

I would be interested to see how it stacks up, fundamentally does half-damage AP with some stats tweaks keep up with either full damage AP or HE+Fire? I kind of doubt it but I'd be willing to be surprised, especially given the heavy damage from fires and the fact that a '33 HE is about equivalent to a '50 AP from these. There's still achieving a penetration with a 152mm gun against 127mm of Cleveland armor to deal with as well.

 

No matter how effective it ends up being it will be different, but removing the ammunition choice and fire chance removes a lot of the gameplay, where to shoot, when to shoot, how to angle, should I let a fire burn in case of torpedoes? Just pick an aim point and hold LMB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×