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

WG please - Fix Monarch

24 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

2,465
Member
4,700 posts
8,752 battles

This is copied from WG's official wiki

https://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:Monarch

 

Quote

This ship shares its name with an Orion-class battleship Monarch that was built in 1910 and sunk as a target in 1925. The 15 inch (381mm) gun designs for the King George V were rejected by the Admiralty due to the desire to remain within the terms of the Second London Naval Treaty signed in 1936 and prevent a costly arms race between major naval powers. While these designs were preferred by the Admiralty, the Royal Navy needed new modern Battleships quickly, and couldn't afford to wait until April 1937 to lay down the first new ships. This deadline for Japan and Italy agreeing to the treaty would have allowed the Royal Navy to invoke the escalator cause

In World of Warships, Monarch is a very loose interpretation of Design 15C of 1935, one of the designs that was put forward alongside those that would later develop into the King George V-class battleships. It is arguable that Monarch doesn't represent design 15C at all due to the numerous major historical inaccuracies and differences from the actual design.

Historical Inaccuracies

  • Monarch actually uses the exact same hull as the King George V-class Duke of York, sharing the same dimensions, with differences to the mast, aircraft catapult and anti aircraft armament.
  • The preliminary designs with 15-inch guns (such as 15C) had a length of 225.6m, while Monarch in game has the same length as King George V at 227.2m, as she shares the same hull.
  • The 15-inch gun preliminary designs for the King George V had twenty (20) 4.5-inch (114mm) secondaries rather than the sixteen (16) 5.25-inch (134mm) secondaries. It is possible that had the design been approved, it may have switched to 5.25-inch secondaries during development.
  • All the preliminaries for King George V used the flat style of turret as found on King George V while Monarch uses the more rounded turret style that the previous Nelson class used.
  • No British battleship ever received the lattice masts that Monarch carries; even the later Vanguard (completed in 1946), despite Monarch supposedly being in a hypothetical 1945 configuration.
  • As the hull is a near copy of the King George V hull, the citadel volume encompassing the magazines, handling rooms, and machinery spaces should all have distinct heights, compared to the uniform citadel roof deck as modeled in-game.
  • British armor thicknesses are actually 0.98 times their nominal thickness, due to using 40 lb/sq ft as the approximate weight of steel (actual weight is 40.8 lb/sq ft). Consequently, the nominal 15 inch (381mm) belt would have actually been 14.7 inch (374 mm) thick. The effective quality of the armour is also not taken into account.

So the ship has questionable modelling (especially the domed turret roof) and questionable protection. I don't know who wrote this, but it's WG's official wiki.

I'm lobbying for the merger of KGV and Monarch. KGV will be T8, and Monarch will be the Hull B of KGV. Call me mad, but with the exact same hull................................ lol

T7 will be a Nelson preliminary design. There were a lot of them.

Edited by Paladinum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
685
[SALT]
Member
2,030 posts
10,542 battles
1 hour ago, Paladinum said:

T7 will be a Nelson preliminary design. There were a lot of them.

0b8c6d1e4f.png

they sure are

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,157
[-CAT-]
Member
2,291 posts
11,299 battles
2 hours ago, Paladinum said:

T7 will be a Nelson preliminary design. There were a lot of them.

So many designs to choose from ranging from G, H, I, J, K, L, M, and N. Guns ranging from 381mm (15 in) to 406 (16 in). Only N3 carries 357 mm (18 in), but that didn't stop WG from creating "Alternate History (Bayard)" and edit ship weapon, armor, etc.
Pick your poison.

 

all_2.jpg

Edited by S0und_Theif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
183
[-BRO-]
Member
511 posts
11,958 battles

I'm a little confused. What exactly is wrong with monarch (other than being a paper ship)?  Also what's wrong with KGV?

I've not had trouble with either of these ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
1,427 posts
6,004 battles
19 minutes ago, Sparcie said:

I'm a little confused. What exactly is wrong with monarch (other than being a paper ship)?  Also what's wrong with KGV?

I've not had trouble with either of these ships.

As far as I am concerned, Monarch has been underperforming (at least claimed by some players) due to short main battery range, poor disperison and high vulnerablity to DPM HE-spam. Also, the original poster argues that the in-game model of Monarch is more likely a KGV-class battleship that has swapped her 10 356-mm barrels with triple 381-mm turrents that has been proposed during the primilinary stage (with some questionable details like lattice mast and curved turrents) , rather than an accurate representation of Design 15C.

Edited by Project45_Opytny
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,465
Member
4,700 posts
8,752 battles
26 minutes ago, Sparcie said:

I'm a little confused. What exactly is wrong with monarch (other than being a paper ship)?  Also what's wrong with KGV?

KGV-class stomped Scharnhorst and dueled Bismarck IRL. Let's put one at the same tier with the ship they stomped, lower tier than the ship they successfully wrecked, and then make the reload OP.

Dude of Yokes is balanced thanks to several facts: no Spotter to increase range and standard reload time.

It's not "the issue with Monarch", it's KGV that is OP.

 

8 hours ago, S0und_Theif said:

Pick your poison.

Anything that has no turret in the middle of the ship and at least 1 at the rear. I have that image too.

 

9 minutes ago, Project45_Opytny said:

Also, the original poster argues that

It's on WG's OFFICIAL wiki. That's the best part.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
183
[-BRO-]
Member
511 posts
11,958 battles

Ah ok, I was gonna say that neither ship is really weak even with their drawbacks.
 

I'd say the reason that KGV is Tier 7 is because her guns are 14" and the over-match mechanic implications this would have for her. 15" guns on the current T8's sometimes have issues with penetration etc, I can't imagine 14" guns being very competitive in many instances. Yes I know that IRL the 14" guns performed similarly to the 15"s but that wouldn't happen in game.

We know that what ever happened IRL doesn't really have much weight in this game, so I dunno. I don't think that what happened was relevant anyway. Prince of Wales was forced to retreat when faced with Bismarck after Hood was sunk, largely due to technical issues, but also two ships versus one. When Bismarck was sunk it was badly crippled in terms of maneuvering and outgunned by two BBs, not really a fair comparison of how the ships perform 1v1 in either case.

By tonnage Bismarck and the other T8's are actually a bit larger than KGV and Monarch, which is part of the reason that KGV and Monarch have smaller HP pools (that's partly based on the tonnage of the ships). The largest (by weight) RN ship was actually Hood, and she was sunk by Bismarck.

The battle between Duke of York and Scharnhorst could have ended very differently. Again Scharnhorst was attacked by multiple ships including cruisers and destroyers who contributed greatly to her demise. As it was she very nearly got away, had luck been on the side of Scharnhorst she may very well have sailed to fight another day and may have damaged DoY although it's unlikely she'd have sunk her.

So I dunno about moving KGV to T8, if she's too powerful might be better to nerf her instead, although I've never noticed her being OP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,465
Member
4,700 posts
8,752 battles
4 hours ago, Sparcie said:

I'd say the reason that KGV is Tier 7 is because her guns are 14" and the over-match mechanic implications this would have for her.

Overmatch? What overmatch when the ship's HE shells have 1/4 HE pen and highest fire chance in all BB guns that are not RN? Higher than US 406 and even Yamato/Musashi 460, except Republique which is 75 mm bigger and Kreml which is 101 mm bigger? The AP are also short-fused, meaning the penetration at longer range is simply bad. Combine that with the unholy reload.

 

4 hours ago, Sparcie said:

By tonnage Bismarck and the other T8's are actually a bit larger than KGV and Monarch, which is part of the reason that KGV and Monarch have smaller HP pools (that's partly based on the tonnage of the ships). The largest (by weight) RN ship was actually Hood, and she was sunk by Bismarck.

KGV-class also has one of the best protection schemes of all WW2 BBs.  

The thing is, in WG's official wiki, Monarch has the same protection with a T7, Duke of York. Same HP. Monarch even suffers against other T8 BBs, let alone the ships she would face: T10 BBs.

Lion and Conq have much smaller HP pool than other T9/10 BBs. Why the T7 has standard HP pool?

 

Actually yes, Monarch has a lot of issues, and the ship's entire existence in the game is 100% questionable.

Edited by Paladinum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,190
[FORCE]
Member
2,329 posts
12,150 battles
13 hours ago, Paladinum said:

I'm lobbying for the merger of KGV and Monarch. KGV will be T8, and Monarch will be the Hull B of KGV. Call me mad, but with the exact same hull................................ lol

T7 will be a Nelson preliminary design. There were a lot of them.

I think a better option would be to give 2 options for her guns like Lion & Conqueror (356mm as stock, and 381mm as optional).

I'd say Rodney should be the new T7 with Nelson's slightly downgraded stats (weaker AA, or only normal heal).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,157
[-CAT-]
Member
2,291 posts
11,299 battles
6 hours ago, Sir_Feather said:

I'd say Rodney should be the new T7 with Nelson's slightly downgraded stats (weaker AA, or only normal heal).

Rodney, however, was overdue for an overhaul in the US, when her country called her back to "Sink the Bismarck". I would like to see her as a branch tech tree where all the guns are forward facing at T7. And her hull B is her overhauled version, making her weak AA into an effective AA. Leading to G3 battlecruiser branch and/or N3 battleship branch (armed with 406 mm) then to T10 with 4 turrets. 2 front, 2 middle, no rear, making her the French of Britain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,465
Member
4,700 posts
8,752 battles
14 minutes ago, S0und_Theif said:

 I would like to see her as a branch tech tree where all the guns are forward facing at T7. And her hull B is her overhauled version, making her weak AA into an effective AA.

You always aim for new tech tree lines, don't you? 

I like it.

 

15 minutes ago, S0und_Theif said:

to T10 with 4 turrets. 2 front, 2 middle, no rear,

But not this. This is simply too weird.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,465
Member
4,700 posts
8,752 battles

Start by fixing Monarch's arched turret roof. It's supposed to be flat, like KGV, not Nelson.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
183
[-BRO-]
Member
511 posts
11,958 battles
8 hours ago, Paladinum said:

Overmatch? What overmatch when the ship's HE shells have 1/4 HE pen and highest fire chance in all BB guns that are not RN? Higher than US 406 and even Yamato/Musashi 460, except Republique which is 75 mm bigger and Kreml which is 101 mm bigger? The AP are also short-fused, meaning the penetration at longer range is simply bad. Combine that with the unholy reload.

 

KGV-class also has one of the best protection schemes of all WW2 BBs.  

The thing is, in WG's official wiki, Monarch has the same protection with a T7, Duke of York. Same HP. Monarch even suffers against other T8 BBs, let alone the ships she would face: T10 BBs.

Lion and Conq have much smaller HP pool than other T9/10 BBs. Why the T7 has standard HP pool?

 

Actually yes, Monarch has a lot of issues, and the ship's entire existence in the game is 100% questionable.

You seem angry that Monarch exists in game, what on earth motivates that? There are many paper ships in game that have more issues than her. I suppose if you're going to have a paper ship N3 or G3 could have been there if you really hate Monarch that much. No need to mess with KGV to do that

HE shell wise that applies to the entire line, so move all of them up a tier then based on that logic. Yeah no. If they really are over powered nerf them a bit, not make sledge-hammer changes. People use the HE partly because the AP is fairly poor on both ships in one way or another, maybe make that less bad. The 14" guns are meant to have good penetration after all.

I wonder how accurate that statement about her protection is considering the other BB's that were around, Does KGV really have armour comparable to Iowa, Vanguard or Yamato? You gotta be careful about statements like that, often they are set within the historical context of when the ship was launched. You notice that especially with statements like "Hood was the biggest Battleship in the world" which were true for a time, but the ship was eclipsed in size and power within its service life.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say there, it has both one of the best protection (IRL in theory)  but also bad since Monarch and KGV share basically the same protection scheme. Because of this KGV would suffer in the same way at T8. It's not really relevant, but it would be interesting to know how the protection varies between IRL and in game. But needless to say that because of the damage model you can't expect protection schemes in game to work out the same way as they would IRL.

The tech tree placement of RN ships in T7 and 8 was always going to be a problem. The candidates don't really fit any of the places very well for one reason or another. This has been discussed before.



 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,465
Member
4,700 posts
8,752 battles
13 minutes ago, Sparcie said:

You seem angry that Monarch exists in game, what on earth motivates that?

I have problem with KGV with her current specs - too strong for T7. The reload is unacceptable. Start there.

RN tech tree ships in this game have several problems. But let's just focus on KGV - Monarch.

KGV has 25s reload. No other ship with the same gun size has that kind of reload. Even her historical sister has 29,5s. And that ship is balanced. My gameplay stats in KGV is still one of the best BB stats, even though I sold the ship more than a year ago - maybe more than a year and a half.

And since WG can put a ship with the exact same protection as the ship one tier higher... Well, that's just questionable. It seems very lazy of WG to do such a thing. Also Monarch has 1 less gun. The only advantage Monarch has over KGV is the access to Upgrade slot 5 (and slightly better AA, but since WG hate CVs... that doesn't matter).

The Monarch page in WG's official wiki has one the longest "Historical Accuracies" sections I know.

 

26 minutes ago, Sparcie said:

The candidates don't really fit any of the places very well for one reason or another.

There are designs that would fit if they dig deep enough. 

 

What's funny is the fact that the entire RN BB line (T7 and up) has unbalanced firepower, but WG keep on nerfing their survivability. And they do that questionably by buffing Repair Party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,190
[FORCE]
Member
2,329 posts
12,150 battles
21 minutes ago, Paladinum said:

What's funny is the fact that the entire RN BB line (T7 and up) has unbalanced firepower, but WG keep on nerfing their survivability. And they do that questionably by buffing Repair Party.

This is because there are more complaints about them being citadel-proof. Sure they used to only take full pens even when they gave flat broadsides, but the full pens were as hurtful as citadel pens because heal won't help at all against that type of damage. And the buff on heal for Lion & Conqueror barely makes any difference because any opportunist opponents will put these two in the same category with Azuma & Yoshino (>40k permanent damage if you get their broadsides).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,465
Member
4,700 posts
8,752 battles
1 minute ago, Sir_Feather said:

This is because there are more complaints about them being citadel-proof. Sure they used to only take full pens even when they gave flat broadsides, but the full pens were as hurtful as citadel pens because heal won't help at all against that type of damage. And the buff on heal for Lion & Conqueror barely makes any difference because any opportunist opponents will put these two in the same category with Azuma & Yoshino (>40k permanent damage if you get their broadsides).

They can keep their Deadpool heal and abyssal citadel. Nerf their firepower (fire chance).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
183
[-BRO-]
Member
511 posts
11,958 battles
20 minutes ago, Paladinum said:

I have problem with KGV with her current specs - too strong for T7. The reload is unacceptable. Start there.

RN tech tree ships in this game have several problems. But let's just focus on KGV - Monarch.

KGV has 25s reload. No other ship with the same gun size has that kind of reload. Even her historical sister has 29,5s. And that ship is balanced. My gameplay stats in KGV is still one of the best BB stats, even though I sold the ship more than a year ago - maybe more than a year and a half.

And since WG can put a ship with the exact same protection as the ship one tier higher... Well, that's just questionable. It seems very lazy of WG to do such a thing. Also Monarch has 1 less gun. The only advantage Monarch has over KGV is the access to Upgrade slot 5 (and slightly better AA, but since WG hate CVs... that doesn't matter).

The Monarch page in WG's official wiki has one the longest "Historical Accuracies" sections I know.

 

There are designs that would fit if they dig deep enough. 

 

What's funny is the fact that the entire RN BB line (T7 and up) has unbalanced firepower, but WG keep on nerfing their survivability. And they do that questionably by buffing Repair Party.

So now you hate KGV? If the stats show she's over performing, then ok they should nerf it, but global stats, not just one person. I have reasonable stats in the FDG from before it was buffed and I'd never argue that thing is OP.  I have poor stats in Nagato and I'd never argue that it's bad. Moving KGV to T8 isn't a good idea. Because it's similar it would likely have similar or the same issues as Monarch and would perform poorly. Perhaps replace Monarch with another paper ship and nerf KGV if it deserves it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,465
Member
4,700 posts
8,752 battles
17 minutes ago, Sparcie said:

So now you hate KGV?

I have below average stats for most of my WoWS "career" and I can see if a ship is overperforming. And yes, KGV is overperforming.

 

There is a good side to RN BB's ridiculous fire chance: they are hard counters to Russian BBs.

Edited by Paladinum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,190
[FORCE]
Member
2,329 posts
12,150 battles
7 minutes ago, Paladinum said:

They can keep their Deadpool heal and abyssal citadel. Nerf their firepower (fire chance).

I'd say lower KGV's fire chance to Monarch's level (which is quite low for a RN BB), and nerf the reload to 28-30 secs (no way her sister has worse reload by a stretch despite having the exactly same guns).

I'm not sure about nerfing Monarch's firepower because hers is more balanced than both KGV & Lion. Maybe reload nerf would make sense because she has more & a little bigger guns than Bismarck. I would suggest to nerf her reload to 28 secs, but maybe improve her max dispersion since her max dispersion per metre is worse than Bismarck.

Lion & Conqueror may remain intact since their tiers are fire fiesta.

5 minutes ago, Sparcie said:

So now you hate KGV? If the stats show she's over performing, then ok they should nerf it, but global stats, not just one person. I have reasonable stats in the FDG from before it was buffed and I'd never argue that thing is OP.  I have poor stats in Nagato and I'd never argue that it's bad. Moving KGV to T8 isn't a good idea. Because it's similar it would likely have similar or the same issues as Monarch and would perform poorly. Perhaps replace Monarch with another paper ship and nerf KGV if it deserves it.

KGV was undeniably strong during the last Ranked Sprint. And is one out of 2 T7 BBs that can still contribute the team when heavily uptiered (the other one is Scharnhorst using Azuma's play style).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,465
Member
4,700 posts
8,752 battles
9 minutes ago, Sir_Feather said:

I'm not sure about nerfing Monarch's firepower because hers is more balanced than both KGV & Lion.

I wouldn't do anything about Monarch. Maybe a main gun range buff, and nothing else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
183
[-BRO-]
Member
511 posts
11,958 battles

I always thought Lyon was a better HE spammer than KGV. Solo burned down an Alsace with her once. Honestly most of the T7 BBs can contribute in a T8-9 battle depending on how you play them.  Just some have an easier time than others.

I had a look at KGVs stats to see how strong it is comparatively. It's a pretty close match to Lyon, which doesn't surprise me. Sinop still out-performs them both, with Gneisenau, Nagato and Colorado having significantly worse results. Premiums show Nelson being better, but most of the rest being similar or slightly worse than KGV. Yeah KGV is towards the top, but not by much of a margin.

So yeah stat wise KGV isn't really out performing many T7's by a large margin (at least according to https://asia.wows-numbers.com/ships/). Only Nagato, Colorado and Gneisenau really under perform by a large margin compared to her. If KGV is over performing then so are Nelson, Sinop, Lyon, Ashitaka, and Scharnhorst. Nerf all of them if you like. Especially Sinop.

I'd argue most of the difference in stats is due to the skill floor of the relevant ships.

I could go on, but I've had my entertainment now.
Nerf KGV if you want, let me know when you get it done, I'll keep an eye out on the patch notes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
641
[BLESS]
Member
1,203 posts
10,723 battles
20 hours ago, Sparcie said:

I had a look at KGVs stats to see how strong it is comparatively. It's a pretty close match to Lyon, which doesn't surprise me. Sinop still out-performs them both, with Gneisenau, Nagato and Colorado having significantly worse results. Premiums show Nelson being better, but most of the rest being similar or slightly worse than KGV. Yeah KGV is towards the top, but not by much of a margin.

So yeah stat wise KGV isn't really out performing many T7's by a large margin (at least according to https://asia.wows-numbers.com/ships/). Only Nagato, Colorado and Gneisenau really under perform by a large margin compared to her. If KGV is over performing then so are Nelson, Sinop, Lyon, Ashitaka, and Scharnhorst. Nerf all of them if you like. Especially Sinop.

I'd argue most of the difference in stats is due to the skill floor of the relevant ships.

I'd say you can factor in that skill floor, since Premiums tend to do better than tech tree ships, by just looking at tech tree models. Sinop is OP, everyone knows this: a vulnerable citadel is not a sufficient balance mechanic as it is too easy to bow tank successfully in most maps. I'm sure nerfs are inbound. KGV overperforms, in both WR and damage. Last patch there was a citadel change to make it slightly less braindead to play, so I think WG is aware of the issue and working on it. I'm surprised Lyon does so well, my own performance in that ship lags Nagato significantly, but I'm maybe trying to rely too heavily on AP and actually trying to place my shots... though to be fair my Nagato performance is "Admiral Yamamoto will track you down and kill you, your family, and your dog." level, so probably not representative~

@Paladinum

Interesting comment you made about DoY being balanced relative to KGV being OP due to small differences in consumables and reload. I have DOY but not KGV, lackluster results so far. Surprised that the small changes make such a difference.

(DoY: citadelling cruisers with HE has it's moments, but the guns are too RNG reliant to be enjoyable and the reload is painful. I find it a very limited ship to play. Can't brawl, can't snipe, can't hit DDs ... it's all middle distance, hope-a-cruiser-makes-itself-an-easy-target type playstyle. In case it's not plainly obvious by now, I don't play BBs all that often, but when I do I like them to have large caliber, citadel-accurate AP - so N. Cal, Nagato, Colo, and Amagi. Heck even Warspite. I've never been good with shotguns.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,465
Member
4,700 posts
8,752 battles
31 minutes ago, Rina_Pon said:

Interesting comment you made about DoY being balanced relative to KGV being OP due to small differences in consumables and reload. I have DOY but not KGV, lackluster results so far. Surprised that the small changes make such a difference.

Not a "small" difference when that difference makes the ship fit the meta - more range is always good. KGV has as much as 5 seconds faster reload, which makes the RPM/DPM one the highest out of ALL BBs in the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,702
[TLS]
Member
4,074 posts
20,268 battles

I clearly remember my DoY: Garbage considering the idiotic grind to get it. I believe I remembered my KGV time was okay. I skipped Monarch after all the feedback returned was that it was a garbage grind. Conqueror and Lion are basically good for prolonged games because of their ability to slowly chip health off over time. The flip side is they are poor at dealing quick direct damage.

Share this post


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

×