Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
ryuukei8569

so instead of nerfing BBs and DD's, how about you address the core problems with Cruisers and CV's

38 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

611
[SYN]
Members
2,861 posts
10,456 battles

We all know CV's and cruisers have popularity issues going on, and that in general, BB's and DD's are more popular. Well, nerfing Bb's and DD's isnt the answer, because of one major issue. Popularity does not necessarily always mean OP. Yes right now BB's and DD's are the most influential ships in a match, overall anyway. But there is more to their popularity than just that. IE, generally US cruisers are the most popular cruisers on the NA server (I'll explain in a bit why that is really bad for the Cruiser population as a whole). BB's are generally popular due to famous ships near the top, ie, Bismarck, Iowa, and Yamato. DD's are popular, well because honestly, they are the most fun to play. OK little bit of my own opinion on that one, but what DD's do offer is the greatest variety of play between the DD lines. We have a knife fighter line that is also able to torpedo decently, a run and gun line with an OP T10, and a torpedo spammer line (that does need some buffs at the top). Well what about cruisers. Well they don't have either of these. Cruisers didn't really get as much fame and, well to be honest, their playstyle variety stinks. All the cruisers currently in the game play some flavor of shell spammer with some better than others, and well, that's it.

 

IJN - Spams HE
RU - spams HE from long range
KM - Spams HE or AP form Range
USN - Tries to Spam HE but generally sucks at everything.

Now as mentioned before, USN cruisers do have high popularity on the NA server, and for one, this is really bad for the cruiser population as a whole, because this means, people tend to judge all cruiser off of what they see with their first line. Well USN cruisers suck hard, so its only natural for a lot of people to assume all cruiser suck. So whether wargaming wanted to or not, US cruisers, at least here on NA, tend to be the flagships for all cruisers. Which is why it is critical that they be fixed. But the other issue cruisers have, is the playstyle variety really needs work, with a healthy dose of survivability buffs.

 

Now suggested buffs/changes

 

Defensive fire change.
To be honest, only USN cruisers deserve the full powered version. Non US cruisers should either have Defensive fire stripped off altogether or nerfed. Suggested nerf for non US defensive fire, either reduced the active time so its for self defense only, or nerf the multipliers or nerf the panic ability. But as a replacement, other consumables can be granted.

 

USN - Drastic

Line needs a reorganization. Either drop New Orleans altogether and replace with Wichita and severely buff Baltimore, or downtier both Baltimore and New Orleans and slot Buffalo in its place. I don't care which is done, but it needs to be done. Either way NO needs to GTFO out of T8. Plus USN cruisers need a major survivability buff. Historically US cruisers have survived having their bows blown off and still made it into port. These things weren't delicate little flowers, yet in game they are. So to show USN damage control, reduce the cooldown on DCP for US cruisers, and starting at T7, they get a repair party, one charge for T7 and 8, two for T9 and three for T10. Plus repair party itself needs to be retooled, 40% healing capacity for all citadel hits, 60% repair capacity for HE and AP hits and the usual 100% repair for Flooding and fire. If Baltimore is to stay in place then it needs to have at least 65% the firepower of DM, but ideally 75%, which means a reload time of no longer than 9.2 seconds, ideally 8 seconds. But personally i like the idea of high survivability for US cruisers so i think replacing baltimore with a torpedo less Buffalo is the better choice. Plus there is also the issue of USN cruisers needing to reclaim their AA superiority and Wichita and Baltimore in their existing positions will have a hard time doing that. Ideally buffalo should have about 60% the DPM of DM, so a 13 second reload. Baltimore gets pushed down to T8, should do fine with its existing reload as long as it gets the enhanced DCP and Repair party I suggested for other US cruisers. For T7, Pensacola is fine where its at, but it needs to have its visibility cut way down, or it can be replaced with NO, don't really care either way.

 

KM - not as drastic buffs as USN but still needed.

Personally I think KM cruisers ought to reflect their BB's somewhat, in that they have good toughness for their type, but I don't want it to be the same type as the USN. where as USN cruisers rely on good Damage control for their survivability, what KM cruisers need, from T7 and up, same bow and stern armor thickness as equal tier BB's. So Yorck gets 25mm bow and stern, Hipper, Roon and Hindenburg get 32 mm bow and sterns, making them impossible to citadel through the front with most BB's. Also buff Hippers RoF to 5 RPM instead of the 4.6 it is now. Buff Cruiser hydro only, not BB hydro, to make up for weakened defensive fire.

 

IJN - Not so much outright buffs but need a major flavor change.

Honestly the IJN line is one of the lines I am more disappointed in than anything else, because these things are not real IJN cruisers, so what i am suggesting may sound a bit crazy. Real IJN cruiser where very centered around the idea of good torpedoes, and the ingame ones need to reflect this, so IJN cruiser form T8 to 10, give them access to long range torpedoes. Mogami should have the option of 10 and 15 k torpedoes, while Ibuki and Zao gets access to the 8 k, 12 k and 20 k torpedoes. (I'll address changes the the torpedoes themselves in a bit). Mogami, for cripes sake make her 155 turret rotation decent, her real life turret rotation was 5-6 degrees per second, not the miserable 3.5 degrees per second she has now. Also dont kill me for this suggestion, but IJN cruisers aren't really that bad off right now, so in exchange for the really good torpedo loadouts, I will suggest an HE nerf, largely for historical reasoning, since IJN HE was no where near as powerful as it is in-game. But Ibuki needs real improvement over Mogami which is a major issue for the ship, so give Ibuki improved RoF. As for Zao, restore her HP since that was a dumb nerf, but reduce her muzzle velocity because it is way too high to be realistic, and it was the real cause of her OPness anyway, and historically navies did do this for guns with excessive muzzle velocity. Or if you refuse to reduce the muzzle velocity, then greatly increase dispersion, since excessive muzzle velocity often led to bad dispersion. decrease reload to 12 seconds if needed to account for reduced HE power and reduced muzzle velocity/increased dispersion. As a replacement for the weakened defensive fire, give access to torpedo reload consumable and possibly engine boost consumable.

 

RU - Eh, core gameplay can remain the same.

I don't really have any suggestion for RU cruiser changes since under these changes they remain the only super firespammers plus right now RU cruisers are strong enough as is. If anyone has any suggestions for changes to this line, I am all ears.

 

On another note, IJN torpedo changes.

For long range torps, get rid of the increased detection. Set their detection to be only 1-1.5 k at most (yes screw the straight line drivers they deserve punishment), but have the long range torps go 10 knots slower than the mid ranged torpedoes, that way so using the long range torps is generally unproductive against wary targets, but still highly punishing against a straight line idiot driver. They don't need to be visible from space. Also for the love of god get rid of plane permaspotting torps. Plus its a realistic weakness for using long range settings on torps, not this highly unrealistic having a huge spotting distance despite the torpedo moving slower. Preferably, I want IJN torps tops to have no more than 1.2 k spotting distances, but ideally 1 k. (yes I am a masochistic bastard.) USN torpedoes also should be reduced a little in spotting distances too.

 

BB changes - not too much class wide, but changes to encourage less sniping.

Nerfing the froward and aft deck sections to 28 mm is not a bad idea, but nerfng the whole damn bow will only cause further camping, but if only the deck sections of the bow and stern is changed to 28 mm, this wont force out long range sniping, but it will make long range sniping riskier. But do lower citadels on Iowa and Montana for this, because the biggest problem with that nerf is it didn't affect all BB's evenly. It hit some BB's really hard while leaving others largely unscathed, which would have led to an inter BB balance disaster. And the last thing the game needs right now is another type of ship having a balance disaster where one already exists with the CV's.

 

Roll back CV/BB rudder shift nerfs, but only with proposed IJN torpedo buffs. With the IJN torpdo buffs, the nerfed rudder shifts and turning circles of high tier BB's/CV's will no longer be necessary (this is why I want no more than 1-1.2 k spotting distances on torps.) Because too be honest, the rudder shift nerf on BB's a while back did little to change their ability to dodge torps, it only changed their ability to dodge shellfire. The rule still largely applies even now, if you wait until the torps are spotted before dodging them (except for the currently comically large spotting distances on IJN long range torps), your generally dead anyway. Also possibly boost maneuverability for cruisers too.

 

Nerf TDS on Amagi and Yamato. Actually screw it, TDS calculations in general is just asinine in how they are done. Ship like Myogi have a better TDS than T9 BB's which is just absurd. So the entire method wargaming has at calculating TDS is off. But in general TDS shouldn't be stronger than 40%. Montana's TDS is really the only one that can stay where its at at 39%. But Yamato and Amagi's TDS is just over the top. But especially if Yamato gets close to her historic turning circle (which is quite small), she should definitely have a very major nerf to her TDS.
 

AA changes
In general I thin instead of relegating AA escort to cruisers, instead of leaving it to certain ship types, the job of AA escort should instead go to certain nations. So for USN, buff AA on Montana and a minor buff for Iowa, North Carolina can remain unchanged. Buff Colorado with West Virginia or Maryland top hull and buff New Mexico AA. Nerf German AA, nerf Japanese 25 mm guns.

 

CV fixes.

Already been mentioned in may other post with many decent suggestions, such as Destroyer_Kiyoshimo's CV rework thread http://forum.worldofwarships.com/index.php?/topic/85230-kiyoshimos-aircraft-loadout-air-to-air-combat-rework/ but its worth re mentioning here, IJN CV's are generally fine but USN CV's are desperately in need of a fix, so get on it already, we have waited long enough. And CV's need to be made more accessible to the average player so we get more of them at mid and high tier. Because part of the reason for the DD/BB overpopulation is not enough CV's present to have an effect on their numbers. In fact, aside from Cruisers lacking playstyle variety, i would attribute one of the biggest reasons for DD/BB overpopulation being the lack of CV's. so seriously fix this $hit.

 

In Conclusion.

Currently the meta is driven by BB's and DD's being fun and or comfortable to play, while Cruiser are neither and lack variety on top of that. This means the problem is with the cruiser and the cruisers are the ones broken and in need of a fix, not a random hate nerf against BB's and DD's. Also CV's need fixing too, but cruisers really need the variety improvements, and lets face it, throwing a Nerf at the BB's and DD's when its the cruisers than need buffs and fixes will only hurt the general game population, while improving cruiser gameplay quality can only help the games population. So we all need to send wargaming a message, Buff and fix cruisers, not nerf BB/DD. Also buff and fix IJN DD's, US CV's and to a lesser degree US BB's, as they have inferiority issues too.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31
[CHASE]
Beta Testers
172 posts
1,945 battles

Please don't remove DF from USN DDs ? 

 

 

Please...?

 

USN DD's are gun-boats, not AA boats... why should they have DF? USN CA's should have DF seeing as how U.S.N. needs something to differentiate themselves from KM, RU, and IJN Cruisers... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,109
[CRZ13]
Members
1,912 posts
8,727 battles

Oh, man, I can't wait for trolls everyone to see another cookie-cutter "omg usn underpowered because history" thread.

Edited by Fog_Carrier_Shoukaku

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,150 posts
9,100 battles

Is that the same person who keeps on saying there is a Russian bias from WG? Cuz I can clearly see where the bias is in these suggestions. I like the idea with consumables though not as you described. Say, give USN Defensive AA Fire, but remove all others, like hydroacoustic search and float plane, keep KM's hydro but remove AA since Hindenburg AA is too much and so on

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,212
[GLHF]
Beta Testers
4,968 posts
15,562 battles

AA changes

 

In general I thin instead of relegating AA escort to cruisers, instead of leaving it to certain ship types, the job of AA escort should instead go to certain nations. So for USN, buff AA on Montana and a minor buff for Iowa, North Carolina can remain unchanged. Buff Colorado with West Virginia or Maryland top hull and buff New Mexico AA. Nerf German AA, nerf Japanese 25 mm guns.

 

What, no, BBs dont need a buff on AAs, need a nerf, play with team (AA job its a cruiser job). 
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,593
[CRMSN]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
6,021 posts
4,739 battles

 

USN DD's are gun-boats, not AA boats... why should they have DF? USN CA's should have DF seeing as how U.S.N. needs something to differentiate themselves from KM, RU, and IJN Cruisers... 

 

You could not be farther off from the truth.  And is quite disheartning to hear that you are completely ignoring one of the major roles Destroyers played in the pacific (Hint, it wasn't attacking surface ship with their guns!)

 

USN DD are multi purpose attack vessels. That can do any role given. 

 

The USN Destroyers were the front line AA Pickets throughout the pacific theater... 

 

Right off the wiki page - The long-range Fletcher-class ships performed every task asked of a destroyer, from anti-submarine warfare and anti-aircraft warfare to surface action.[5] They could cover the vast distances required by fleet actions in the Pacific. 

 

 

To add to this, here is a picture of the anti aircraft radar pickets around Okinawa during 1945. 

 

Here is a hint, they ain't cruisers! 

 

4vbyZBh.jpg

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
7,130 posts
7,306 battles

 

BB changes - not too much class wide, but changes to encourage less sniping.

Nerfing the froward and aft deck sections to 28 mm is not a bad idea, but nerfng the whole damn bow will only cause further camping, but if only the deck sections of the bow and stern is changed to 28 mm, this wont force out long range sniping, but it will make long range sniping riskier. But do lower citadels on Iowa and Montana for this, because the biggest problem with that nerf is it didn't affect all BB's evenly. It hit some BB's really hard while leaving others largely unscathed, which would have led to an inter BB balance disaster. And the last thing the game needs right now is another type of ship having a balance disaster where one already exists with the CV's.

 Having no Battleship being immune to 15" AP rounds (which is where that comes it to) while there are cruisers which bows are good enough to do so was clearly a very bad idea.

 

Fact is, people don't want to play like suicide rush Russians, and they shouldn't be forced to do it.

 

Sidenote, I'd be game for removal of DF off of all non US Cruisers (the exception being the P.E.)

 

Edited by Sakuzhi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,593
[CRMSN]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
6,021 posts
4,739 battles

 

USN DD's are gun-boats, not AA boats... why should they have DF? USN CA's should have DF seeing as how U.S.N. needs something to differentiate themselves from KM, RU, and IJN Cruisers... 

 

This is USS Laffey. Each line represents a kamikaze attack.

 

But you are saying they gun boats right? If anything, USN DD have more of a claim as being more AA eccentric then USN cruisers. 

 

PEWnow5.jpg

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
11,026 posts
30,665 battles

"Restrict AA to certain nations only" is stupid and asinine. What if you don't have any ships of that nation? Guess you're boned.

 

Nothing can be balanced properly until CVs are fixed, as AA contributes to a ships' power, but AA is basically impossible to balance thanks to how "all or nothing" it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31
[CHASE]
Beta Testers
172 posts
1,945 battles

 

You could not be farther off from the truth.  And is quite disheartning to hear that you are completely ignoring one of the major roles Destroyers played in the pacific (Hint, it wasn't attacking surface ship with their guns!)

 

USN DD are multi purpose attack vessels. That can do any role given. 

 

The USN Destroyers were the front line AA Pickets throughout the pacific theater... 

 

Right off the wiki page - The long-range Fletcher-class ships performed every task asked of a destroyer, from anti-submarine warfare and anti-aircraft warfare to surface action.[5] They could cover the vast distances required by fleet actions in the Pacific. 

 

 

To add to this, here is a picture of the anti aircraft radar pickets around Okinawa during 1945. 

 

Here is a hint, they ain't cruisers! 

 

4vbyZBh.jpg

 

I was talking about in-game, not in real life... I already knew that USN DD's were multi-purpose boats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
7,130 posts
7,306 battles

"Restrict AA to certain nations only" is stupid and asinine. What if you don't have any ships of that nation? Guess you're boned.

 

Nothing can be balanced properly until CVs are fixed, as AA contributes to a ships' power, but AA is basically impossible to balance thanks to how "all or nothing" it is.

 

Guess you're boned if/when a CV is in the game.

 

Oh, wait that's like not very often. And it's very fair to CV drivers to have Games of Cruiser/CV DF-Spam, or DDs right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
201 posts
1,250 battles

I agree with OP that cruisers being weak and having op HE are the major issue. Also yeah, usn cruisers are the most worthless of them all, as they do not have ANYTHING going for em. AA? nerfed to hell and back, Torps? lawl, no torps for you! guns? they all suck. at least the IJN are manuverable and have torps

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
611
[SYN]
Members
2,861 posts
10,456 battles

Please don't remove DF from USN DDs ? 

 

 

Please...?

 

Actually as far as i am concerned USN DD's should keep Defensive fire. As I mentioned, It's a better idea to have certain nations ships being AA escorts rather than it being concentrated in one type. That way, US DD's play AA escort for other DD's. US BB's can play AA escort to other BB's (though through raw AA DPS rather than defensive fire) while US CA's are still the final say in AA escort.

 

 

What, no, BBs dont need a buff on AAs, need a nerf, play with team (AA job its a cruiser job). 

 

Apparently you didn't listen. AA buff on USN BB's only, but nerf on non USN BB's.

 

Is that the same person who keeps on saying there is a Russian bias from WG? Cuz I can clearly see where the bias is in these suggestions. I like the idea with consumables though not as you described. Say, give USN Defensive AA Fire, but remove all others, like hydroacoustic search and float plane, keep KM's hydro but remove AA since Hindenburg AA is too much and so on

 

Dude, server stats back it up, US cruisers are performing the worst while Generally RU cruisers perform quite well. Most RU cruisers perform around the 51-53% in terms of winrate, which shows, while they aren't Roflstomping OP, they don't exactly need buffs and as such they can afford to stay where they are at. Other cruiser lines need more adjusting than RU cruisers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,593
[CRMSN]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
6,021 posts
4,739 battles

 

Actually as far as i am concerned USN DD's should keep Defensive fire. As I mentioned, It's a better idea to have certain nations ships being AA escorts rather than it being concentrated in one type. That way, US DD's play AA escort for other DD's. US BB's can play AA escort to other BB's (though through raw AA DPS rather than defensive fire) while US CA's are still the final say in AA escort.

 

 

 

Which is correct.

 

The efficiency of USN CA/CL/CB's was best when shooting down non suicide aircraft. Followed by the CV's and DDs. 

 

The best efficiency is downing suicide aircraft was BB's, and then CV's. Followed by CA/CL/CB's and then DD's.

 

It interesting to note that DD's have the most non suicide kills via AA. Followed by CA/CL/CB's and CV's.

 

Even though USN CA's were the best at shooting down non suicide aircraft. They were never in the right place at the right time. That was always on the DD's which is represented in the graph below. 

 

 

Table IV

 

Suicide Non-suicide
Type of ship Number of
ship-plane
actions
Planes shot down Number of
ship-plane
actions
Planes shot down
BB 37 7.9 (21%) 65 2.4 (4%)
CV, CVL 88 9.8 (11%) 85 8.5 (10%)
CB, CA, CL 47 3.8 (8%) 113 11.9 (11%)
DD 92 2.5 (3%) 266 17.2 (6%)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
7,130 posts
7,306 battles

 

The efficiency of USN CA/CL/CB's was best when shooting down non suicide aircraft. Followed by the CV's and DDs. 

 

The best efficiency is downing suicide aircraft was BB's, and then CV's. Followed by CA/CL/CB's and then DD's.

 

It interesting to note that DD's have the most non suicide kills via AA. Followed by CA/CL/CB's and CV's.

 

Even though USN CA's were the best at shooting down non suicide aircraft. They were never in the right place at the right time. That was always on the DD's which is represented in the graph below. 

 

 Reason for that is pretty obvious, the size of the AA Cannons was far more influencing of the ability to take down a Suicide-attack than a non-suicide attack. 

 

And the BB/CVs have the most large-caliber AA 

 

Edited by Sakuzhi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,212
[GLHF]
Beta Testers
4,968 posts
15,562 battles

Apparently you didn't listen. AA buff on USN BB's only, but nerf on non USN BB's.

 

UNS bbs with right cap skills have alread TOO powerfull AAs for his tiers at tier 8/9/10. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
999
[4HIM]
[4HIM]
Beta Testers
2,285 posts
19,660 battles

 

You could not be farther off from the truth.  And is quite disheartning to hear that you are completely ignoring one of the major roles Destroyers played in the pacific (Hint, it wasn't attacking surface ship with their guns!)

 

USN DD are multi purpose attack vessels. That can do any role given. 

 

The USN Destroyers were the front line AA Pickets throughout the pacific theater... 

 

Right off the wiki page - The long-range Fletcher-class ships performed every task asked of a destroyer, from anti-submarine warfare and anti-aircraft warfare to surface action.[5] They could cover the vast distances required by fleet actions in the Pacific. 

 

 

To add to this, here is a picture of the anti aircraft radar pickets around Okinawa during 1945. 

 

Here is a hint, they ain't cruisers! 

 

4vbyZBh.jpg

 

Your not understanding the data here.  The radar picket DDs were to detect incoming Kamakazies, get in some shots, but were essentially cannon fodder to give warning to the larger (more valuable ships)  The DDs were not AA ships, they had very small impact actually stopping the Kamakazies, they were the "bait" for the inexperienced pilots to attack instead of more valuable targets.
Edited by Morpheous

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,593
[CRMSN]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
6,021 posts
4,739 battles

 

Your not understanding the data here.  The radar picket DDs were to detect incoming Kamakazies, get a some shots in but were essentially cannon fodder to give warning to the larger (more valuable ships)  The DDs were not AA ships, they had very small impact actually stopping the Kamakazies, they were the "bait" for the inexperienced pilots to attack instead of more valuable targets.

 

Except you are wrong. 

 

DD's bore the brunt of the kamikaze attacks more then any other ships. You are correct in stating that they aren't as good as other ships for AA. But this is the nature of the beast. Even though they weren't the best at killing kamikaze's or non kamikaze planes, they were the ones that bore the most kamikaze and non kamikaze engagements. They weren't good AA boats because they had sheer firepower, they were great AA boats because they served as distractions and diverted the attention away from capital or larger ships.

 

"Suicide planes tended to concentrate on smaller ships in the Okinawa actions. Eighty-six percent of the suicide planes aimed at DD's or smaller ships, as compared to 61 percent in the Philippines. This may have been partly due to opportunity and also to the fact that the enemy concentrated much effort on radar picket ships. The comparative AA. success (percentage of suicide planes which failed to hit ship targets) of various types of ships was comparable with the results in the Philippines, except that the over-all average was higher in Okinawa, 77 percent, as compared to 68.4 percent in the Philippines."

I am not 

Edited by Cobraclutch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,593
[CRMSN]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
6,021 posts
4,739 battles

 Reason for that is pretty obvious, the size of the AA Cannons was far more influencing of the ability to take down a Suicide-attack than a non-suicide attack. 

 

And the BB/CVs have the most large-caliber AA 

 

 

Correct, in order to stop a kamikaze you needed large caliber shells.

 

Orwelian or Bofors were not good at causing the plane to disintegrate.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
999
[4HIM]
[4HIM]
Beta Testers
2,285 posts
19,660 battles

 

Except you are wrong. 

 

DD's bore the brunt of the kamikaze attacks more then any other ships. 

 

"Suicide planes tended to concentrate on smaller ships in the Okinawa actions. Eighty-six percent of the suicide planes aimed at DD's or smaller ships, as compared to 61 percent in the Philippines. This may have been partly due to opportunity and also to the fact that the enemy concentrated much effort on radar picket ships. The comparative AA. success (percentage of suicide planes which failed to hit ship targets) of various types of ships was comparable with the results in the Philippines, except that the over-all average was higher in Okinawa, 77 percent, as compared to 68.4 percent in the Philippines."

 

Sorry YOUR wrong, its a nice quote but doesn't prove my point wrong.  You need to read what I said, the DDs were put out on purpose to detect and were attacked because of the inexperienced Japanese pilots, who could barely fly their planes at this stage of the war.  Your quote if you read it correctly actually reinforces my post.  Why did they concentrate on smaller ships?  Because they were the first ones they ran into.  This response to put the DDs in "harms way" was a calculated strategy by US Pac Command to try and keep suicide planes away from the CVs which they had already lost 3-4 sunk or damaged.   DD AA isn't good compared to a dedicated AA CL or a BB, really no comparison at all actually.  So give it a rest.. pulling a random quote to try and prove your point vs about 30 years of military reading on my part will not cut it.  If you look at DD losses this time, it was very high, therefore their AA really wasn't up to the task.  Remember these pilots, were not that good of flyers, there were more misses than hits, its just that the hits were very devestating against the very light armored (ahem) DDs, were things like fires etc were particularily devastating.
Edited by Morpheous
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
7,307 posts
3,304 battles

 Having no Battleship being immune to 15" AP rounds (which is where that comes it to) while there are cruisers which bows are good enough to do so was clearly a very bad idea.

 

Fact is, people don't want to play like suicide rush Russians, and they shouldn't be forced to do it.

 

Sidenote, I'd be game for removal of DF off of all non US Cruisers (the exception being the P.E.)

 

Actually, no cruise can bounce 16in guns in game and only the Des Moines 27mm bow can bounce any shell under 386mm. All other CAs have 25mm bows. Which any gun over 357mm can pen (16in is 406mm and 15in is 381mm)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
11,026 posts
30,665 battles

Guess you're boned if/when a CV is in the game.

 

Oh, wait that's like not very often. And it's very fair to CV drivers to have Games of Cruiser/CV DF-Spam, or DDs right?

 

CVs look like they're doing fine.

 

Seems fair to me.

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.

×