Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
lesliechan

Do u all believe cruiser fire more damage than battleship!

63 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Member
3 posts
926 battles

After update, i feel normally cruiser reload time is faster than bb reload time. But i realise y the cruiser fire much more damage then before....Now who playing bb sure lose game, reload times slow...Anyone come across this feeling when u playing bb at the games...........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
1,126 posts

what make cruiser annoying is 'fire'

it's super painful to see my beloved BB burn down to death while that CA keep spam HE on me and keep wagging their butt left and right evade all my shell.

 

and excuse me!! Who the hell think of 'fire preventing' skill type??? is 100% crap!

 

-7% risk of fire??? 

-5% risk of fire???

what the hell is that for???

it's all CRAP! not even worth looking at.  I try both skill and it won't help at all, not even one in a million!!!

 

have you ever play RPG game?

so call ability or skill should be worth it, like -50% chance of poison, berserk, confuse, blind, ....etc....

in this game is SHOULD be -50% risk of fire, or -50% fire extinguishing or something like that to be call worth it.

 

I know that fire is only mean for CL/CA to up against BB, if so then DON'T bother thinking of fire preventing skill (because it won't help at all)

-7%, -5% of fire...... delete this crappy skill/upgrade of out of this game and thinking other skill/upgrade that more useful

 

Edited by PGM991

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[AE]
Member
200 posts
9,481 battles

Its just a copy of what WG did with WoT (World of Tanks). Mediums in that game totally own the Main Battle Tanks. Totally unrealistic. Makes a lot of people not want to play Heavies. Same in this game.

 

The discrepancy between what cruisers vs battleships were like in real life as compared to WOWS is just to ensure that not everybody plays BB only. In WW2 a cruiser, or even battle-cruiser lasted all of 1-10 minutes before cruiser died. A thin skinned cruiser just cannot survive against an armoured BB with hundreds of water tight rooms. As far as "Survivability" as per game, most tier V cruisers should be one or two shottable as per real life - in WW2 cruisers were a disaster. One bomb or torp could easily kill a cruiser with the loss of all hands. Countless British and German cruisers died easily, because they are the worst of both worlds - a big target with no protection.

Just remember that if that was case in game then people would ONLY play BBs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
9 posts
103 battles

Its just a copy of what WG did with WoT (World of Tanks). Mediums in that game totally own the Main Battle Tanks. Totally unrealistic. Makes a lot of people not want to play Heavies. Same in this game.

Has someone been playing some AW?:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
760 posts
6,922 battles

Its just a copy of what WG did with WoT (World of Tanks). Mediums in that game totally own the Main Battle Tanks. Totally unrealistic. Makes a lot of people not want to play Heavies. Same in this game.

 

The discrepancy between what cruisers vs battleships were like in real life as compared to WOWS is just to ensure that not everybody plays BB only. In WW2 a cruiser, or even battle-cruiser lasted all of 1-10 minutes before cruiser died. A thin skinned cruiser just cannot survive against an armoured BB with hundreds of water tight rooms. As far as "Survivability" as per game, most tier V cruisers should be one or two shottable as per real life - in WW2 cruisers were a disaster. One bomb or torp could easily kill a cruiser with the loss of all hands. Countless British and German cruisers died easily, because they are the worst of both worlds - a big target with no protection.

Just remember that if that was case in game then people would ONLY play BBs

 

*Cough*  Battleships sunk by 1 hit

USS Arizona, 1 bomb was all it took

HMS Hood, 1 shot to the magazine

IJN Mutsu (single unknown explosion)

 

While Battleships HMS Barham and HMS Royal Oak were hit by 3 torpedoes and sunk (in game it takes more than 3 to sink them)

 

Meanwhile, Cruisers were tougher than you think

 

USS Mineapolis had her bow blown off by a torpedo and still survived

USS New Orleans and Pensacola also took heavy Torpedo damage and survived

USS San Francisco survived a point blank engagement with the Battleship Kirishima and other accompanying cruisers/Destroyers

KM Prinz Eugen survived the mudaFracken Bikini Aotoll nuclear bomb tests

 

 

My point being, I politely disagree that cruisers were 1 shottable...

 

Edited by Blitzkreig95

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,422 posts
38 battles

After update, i feel normally cruiser reload time is faster than bb reload time. But i realise y the cruiser fire much more damage then before....Now who playing bb sure lose game, reload times slow...Anyone come across this feeling when u playing bb at the games...........

 

just stay away from their range of fire then citadel them from a far :child:

with all the torp and smoke and fire and stuff

right now BB is '' stay away from the fight'' or you could become a hero and die with repair cost higher then the money you get lol

ppl might said you a coward and blame you because of your BB =w= though

Edited by CrimsonGabri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Already in Alpha Testers
300 posts
938 battles

I have been totally wrecked by one salvo from a BB when piloting a CA more times than I can remember. All it takes is one good salvo of AP from a BB and it is game over for the CA. If the BB is shooting HE then you can relax a bit but if they hit, they are still going to hurt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
65 posts
2,362 battles

hmm OP your gripe seems conjunctive- 

 

You're actually griping about 2 seperate things:

 

1) That CA's are overpowered (specifically, damage dealing with HE against BB's)

2) That CA's are overpowered (specifically, manoeuvrability in the ability to avoid taking damage)

 

As a Des Moines driver- I'll take a shot at respectfully addressing these.


CA's have no defense. They are essentially a big destroyer- that over time stacks up lots of damage, just can't do big crit hits to BB's. We can clean up other CA/CL's and DD with AP, but we're wasting our time against BB's. Our only option with BB's is HE. That means setting them completely on fire and keeping it up. 

CA's are also quite visible, as in we can't hide like a DD. We can be spotted by ship and aircraft at great ranges- so we can't rely on stealth to hide us- especially on open maps.

CA's also have a dual role- we are expected to provide AAA cover to CVs and BB's and we are also expected to counter enemy DD's and CA/CL's.

Choosing either role, tells your team a lot about what is happening on your opposing team eg. the CV is unprotected

 

Our only defense is mix of speed and manoeuvring. These two things dont mix. The more you turn, the more you slow down, the slower you are the easier the target you are. If you don't turn, you'll be fast, but your path is easily predicted- when you can be 1 shot by a BB this is bad.

If we're up against a fleet bb (ie. one that can move fast), we find it hard to be accurate at range as they can usually see our high arc and avoid it. Like BB's we need to get to the 10km mark to reliably hit the target- which brings us dangerously close to the point where we can't avoid incoming fire easily due to low trajectory and short warning of incoming fire).

 

Your concerns are quite valid: an experienced CA driver will make it incredibly hard for you to hit them. They'll stay far enough away to be hard to hit, but close enough to keep the HE damage up on you. They'll be fast and moving, but not so much that come to a complete stop. They are aware of the situation and use the terrain to their advantage. In short, they keep you on fire while presenting the smallest possible target.

 

They require respect and different thinking to counter. 

 

My advice is this: instead of complaining that they're OP, play one- get to understand the pro's and con's. You'll soon figure out what their weaknesses are and know how to combat them and neutralise the threat. A BB driver who knows how to counter a CA is truly dangerous. I would also recommend play a DD, so you don't drive close to icebergs and get torped at 2.2km range as you come out the other side. Your gripe as easily could be translated to DD's as it is with CA's.

Edited by Osi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
8 posts

what make cruiser annoying is 'fire'

it's super painful to see my beloved BB burn down to death while that CA keep spam HE on me and keep wagging their butt left and right evade all my shell.

 

and excuse me!! Who the hell think of 'fire preventing' skill type??? is 100% crap!

 

-7% risk of fire??? 

-5% risk of fire???

what the hell is that for???

it's all CRAP! not even worth looking at.  I try both skill and it won't help at all, not even one in a million!!!

 

have you ever play RPG game?

so call ability or skill should be worth it, like -50% chance of poison, berserk, confuse, blind, ....etc....

in this game is SHOULD be -50% risk of fire, or -50% fire extinguishing or something like that to be call worth it.

 

I know that fire is only mean for CL/CA to up against BB, if so then DON'T bother thinking of fire preventing skill (because it won't help at all)

-7%, -5% of fire...... delete this crappy skill/upgrade of out of this game and thinking other skill/upgrade that more useful

 

 

No more annoying than being one-shotted by a BB from across the map.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[AE]
Member
200 posts
9,481 battles

Hood was a "Battle-cruiser" not BB. All ships can be one-shotted of course. A magazine hit and its all over (unlike WOWS) where multiple "Citadel" hits are usually required.

Just played a game where in my Kongo I fired 88 rounds in 13 minutes. 10 hits. 0 penetrations. 12000 damage. Immediately repaired by enemy. And before you comment, my WoT experience has ensured that my deflection shooting is second to none. Its just the spread of rounds at 20km.

I was along side a New York BB. Aoba cruiser got to within 8 miles just after both of us had fired main guns at enemy heavies.

The Aoba set me on fire and destroyed me before I was able to reload - ie sub 30 seconds. Went on to destroy the New York 1 minute later with fire and Torps. Neither of us landed a shot. Neither. Not just me.

Two BB destroyed in less than 3 minutes by a CA. Fire is WAY too much of a problem in the game. Its that simple. I understand its purpose - to make the other 2 types of surface engagement ships viable.

26k games in WoT. Not AW. WoT does the same. MBTs are dead meat against mediums. Why a heavy WITH EXACTLY THE SAME GUN takes 4 extra seconds to reload over the med is simply a game balancer. Problem is the game is brutally unbalanced. I do play cruisers, and find attacking BBs relatively easy. The BBs are simply underpowered. Too long reload. The secondary guns on BB have half the range of the CA guns, despite being same calibre..... Simply game balancing. A CA with 6 inch guns vs a BB with 12 inch AND 6  inch guns should die. Its just annoying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
66 posts
11,485 battles

Op's stats are like only 87 battles ? And he has only 51 battles on his new york. 

He hasn't even get into contact with the other half of the ships in the game.

 

At lower tiers cruisers are decently strong, but at higher tiers BB are the ones who are ripping hp gauges off others.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Already in Alpha Testers
300 posts
938 battles

Hood was a "Battle-cruiser" not BB. All ships can be one-shotted of course. A magazine hit and its all over (unlike WOWS) where multiple "Citadel" hits are usually required.

Just played a game where in my Kongo I fired 88 rounds in 13 minutes. 10 hits. 0 penetrations. 12000 damage. Immediately repaired by enemy. And before you comment, my WoT experience has ensured that my deflection shooting is second to none. Its just the spread of rounds at 20km.

I was along side a New York BB. Aoba cruiser got to within 8 miles just after both of us had fired main guns at enemy heavies.

The Aoba set me on fire and destroyed me before I was able to reload - ie sub 30 seconds. Went on to destroy the New York 1 minute later with fire and Torps. Neither of us landed a shot. Neither. Not just me.

Two BB destroyed in less than 3 minutes by a CA. Fire is WAY too much of a problem in the game. Its that simple. I understand its purpose - to make the other 2 types of surface engagement ships viable.

26k games in WoT. Not AW. WoT does the same. MBTs are dead meat against mediums. Why a heavy WITH EXACTLY THE SAME GUN takes 4 extra seconds to reload over the med is simply a game balancer. Problem is the game is brutally unbalanced. I do play cruisers, and find attacking BBs relatively easy. The BBs are simply underpowered. Too long reload. The secondary guns on BB have half the range of the CA guns, despite being same calibre..... Simply game balancing. A CA with 6 inch guns vs a BB with 12 inch AND 6  inch guns should die. Its just annoying.

 

Maybe you should have been directing your fire at the Aoba rather than the enemy BB? Last time I checked the Aoba does not have damage repair party nor would 10 hits of AP on a CA result in no penetrations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
406 posts
6,287 battles

 

Maybe you should have been directing your fire at the Aoba rather than the enemy BB? Last time I checked the Aoba does not have damage repair party nor would 10 hits of AP on a CA result in no penetrations.

 

Yeah it happens - perfectly aimed shots get RNG'd to hell, and then the laser accurate torps from the enemy nail you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
32 posts
2,644 battles

After update, i feel normally cruiser reload time is faster than bb reload time. But i realise y the cruiser fire much more damage then before....Now who playing bb sure lose game, reload times slow...Anyone come across this feeling when u playing bb at the games...........

 

nope

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
2,150 posts
486 battles

CAs reach their peaks against BBs in some respects at tiers 5-6. At those tiers they can, and will, simply present a bow-on aspect to a BB and it won't hit them due to the appalling dispersion those BBs get (especially tier 4-5).

 

I've watched any number of times as a tier 5 CL, especially the USN/Murmansk, sits bow on at a BB, EVEN ENTIRELY STATIONARY, and the BBs won't hit at the range the CL can hit them because dispersion bollocks. As a New York, the CLs can run away from you, too. At set you on fire repeatedly, because apparently you're soaked in naptha.

 

I've even seen CLs spend most of a battle doing nothing other than sitting bow on, slowly going ahead or astern, and remaining un-hit. It's a laughable exploit of an awful game mechanic (dispersion and the way it works regardless of target behaviour).

 

In my opinion the dispersion of guns should, in part, be a function of THE SPEED OF THE TARGET. Why? Because the reality was that such was the case (which is why shore bombardment, or shelling ships that are compromised in their navigation, was a disaster for the target; see Mers-El-Kebir for a great example).

 

Entirely tired of watching that particular gamey load of nonsense.

 

If you're playing USN mid-tier BBs, the fact is a CL/CA that is well played frankly has a lot of advantages. You need luck or the CL/CA to make a mistake (and even then luck). In short, if the CL/CA knows how to game the mechanics so you can't hit/can't citadel, you're in trouble. Get used to it. Which is why you really want your OWN CA/CLs to keep you company, to deal with enemy CA/CLs, DDs and planes. Good luck getting that to happen on a server where lots of players can't communicate even if they want to.

 

At higher tiers it's somewhat mitigated by BBs being somewhat more accurate BUT, far more importantly, they get set on fire less easily (your chance of catching on fire is ALSO a function of your tier, yet another vital things the devs don't bother to advertise) AND are considerably more mobile.

 

USN BBs up to and including the New York are the price you pay for New Mex and then North Carolina and above. Unless the buff has done miracles, the Colorado is probably still better named the Colobaddo; that thing was awful in beta.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SGC]
Super Tester
1,459 posts
6,803 battles

In my opinion the dispersion of guns should, in part, be a function of THE SPEED OF THE TARGET. Why? Because the reality was that such was the case (which is why shore bombardment, or shelling ships that are compromised in their navigation, was a disaster for the target; see Mers-El-Kebir for a great example).

 

So I'm guessing the Khabarovsk will never be hit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
1,634 posts
4,639 battles

Cruisers don't do more damage than battleships. A well-played battleship will still destroy a cruiser. Even if you don't manage to get hit in a broadside, now you've got a lot of exposed deck area fore or aft, and remember that the citadel of the ship is still in the same location.

 

In my opinion the dispersion of guns should, in part, be a function of THE SPEED OF THE TARGET. Why? Because the reality was that such was the case (which is why shore bombardment, or shelling ships that are compromised in their navigation, was a disaster for the target; see Mers-El-Kebir for a great example).

 

So you don't want battleships to be able to hit destroyers then.

 

If you're playing USN mid-tier BBs, the fact is a CL/CA that is well played frankly has a lot of advantages. You need luck or the CL/CA to make a mistake (and even then luck). In short, if the CL/CA knows how to game the mechanics so you can't hit/can't citadel, you're in trouble. Get used to it. Which is why you really want your OWN CA/CLs to keep you company, to deal with enemy CA/CLs, DDs and planes. Good luck getting that to happen on a server where lots of players can't communicate even if they want to.

 

At higher tiers it's somewhat mitigated by BBs being somewhat more accurate BUT, far more importantly, they get set on fire less easily (your chance of catching on fire is ALSO a function of your tier, yet another vital things the devs don't bother to advertise) AND are considerably more mobile.

 

USN BBs up to and including the New York are the price you pay for New Mex and then North Carolina and above. Unless the buff has done miracles, the Colorado is probably still better named the Colobaddo; that thing was awful in beta.

 

The main reason why players don't like it is because of the Cleveland and Mogami. 155s who reload every 6-7 seconds and give meaning to the word "death by fire is the purest death". However, remember that they are getting nerfed in a future patch.

 

Cruisers can kill battleships. However, be aware of just how fine a line that we walk when doing so.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
19 posts
1,783 battles

Heck, you want cruisers to fire AP at battleships instead? If you are finding it hard to deal with CAs in BBs, then you are probably doing it wrong. If you are dealing with multiple CA's in a BB, then you are definitely doing it wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SIF]
Senior Moderator
2,562 posts

A ships gun accuracy is based on a ships speed. Slow speeds means the ship will rock more due to wave action, fast speeds means the ship will pitch, NGS (Naval Gunfire Support) is done at 15 knots (some ships will be slower) allowing the bulk of the ship to keep her steady during the firing, allowing more rounds to be fired more accurately on the target.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
2,150 posts
486 battles

So you don't want battleships to be able to hit destroyers then.

 

No, but I do have a forlorn hope one day you'll read what I write and draw the correct conclusion(s), or at least not patently absurd ones.

 

I proposed that the target's speed should affect dispersion/accuracy IN PART. Note the "in part" bit. 

 

How about if a target is doing 0-10kts you get a 20% reduction on accuracy, otherwise target's speed has no effect at all?

 

That's a simple enough proposition, it has the benefit of making those playing games with mechanics easier to hit, and doesn't make hitting someone moving rapidly any more difficult than it is now.

 

So, no, I don't want DDs to be impossible to hit. That would clearly be stupid unless everyone's going to play DDs and the only way to hit other people is with torps. How exactly that would help BBs (or anyone other than DDs for that matter) escapes me.

 

I sometimes wonder if you come up with these bizarre ideas, allegedly based on what I've written, out of perversity or if it's something more obvious and simple than that.

Edited by Steeltrap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
1,634 posts
4,639 battles

No, but I do have a forlorn hope one day YOU'll actually write something worth talking about, or at least not patently absurd ones.

Edited by Haku

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
2,150 posts
486 battles

No, but I do have a forlorn hope one day YOU'll actually write something worth talking about, or at least not patently absurd ones.

 

I note you didn't bother to address anything I in fact DID write, and what you did write was clearly nonsense (your suggestion I want BBs never to hit DDs). On that basis I don't think I'll rely on your assessment of what's worthwhile or absurd, lol.

 

Besides, were I to humour you for a moment, what's "absurd" about suggesting a ship not moving ought to be demonstrably easier to hit through amending the dispersion of guns firing at it? It is at least based on the reality of the weapons systems of the time, much as I cringe at using the term 'reality' in connection with the game. It also potentially addresses (to a degree) something that's cognitively jarring in the game.

 

 

Edited by Steeltrap

Share this post


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

×