Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
FlorbFnarb

Brit BBs

57 posts in this topic

The Emerald is absolute trash too.  I mean, unplayably had.  When I mention this in chat, the advice people give amounts to "just don't be seen", which is of course impossible if you actually intend to fight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, FlorbFnarb said:

Sure, but you didn't say "at Tier 7", you just said "never played anything this bad". I'd have trouble believing there's a ship worse than the Kawachi.

ok re-read it, i thought it was implied that i was referring to tier 7 BB's, not all ships ingame

i shall issue a new statement

" the KGV is the weakest tier 7 BB in the game... never played anything quite this bad for a tier 7 BB"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Crossfader said:

ok re-read it, i thought it was implied that i was referring to tier 7 BB's, not all ships ingame

i shall issue a new statement

" the KGV is the weakest tier 7 BB in the game... never played anything quite this bad for a tier 7 BB"

lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, FlorbFnarb said:

The Emerald is absolute trash too.  I mean, unplayably had.  When I mention this in chat, the advice people give amounts to "just don't be seen", which is of course impossible if you actually intend to fight.

I forgot all about that turd. It is one of the few ships that I just straight up can not recommend playing. I tried a handful of battles in it and it crushed my fucking soul.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, How_Terrible said:

I forgot all about that turd. It is one of the few ships that I just straight up can not recommend playing. I tried a handful of battles in it and it crushed my fucking soul.

Yeah.  I mean, the guns seem okay, but it's insanely fragile.  In literally every match, a shot will take like 40% of my health.  It's pretty agile, but not enough to make every shot miss, and you literally can't ever get hit in it.  Because of that, the 6 km torps are almost useless: any time you're in the vicinity, every enemy will drop their current target and shoot at you.

I despise it, and although I usually give WG credit for running a fairly clean freemium game, there are some ships in this game I'm positive they intentionally made that bad just to make you buy gold and burn some free XP to skip them. There's no excuse for the Kawachi or Emerald otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Crossfader said:

ok re-read it, i thought it was implied that i was referring to tier 7 BB's, not all ships ingame

i shall issue a new statement

" the KGV is the weakest tier 7 BB in the game... never played anything quite this bad for a tier 7 BB"

I didn't like the King George V my first few outings with it, but now I just fire HE most of the time and don't mind it. Not great, but not the worst ship either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, FlorbFnarb said:

I despise it, and although I usually give WG credit for running a fairly clean freemium game, there are some ships in this game I'm positive they intentionally made that bad just to make you buy gold and burn some free XP to skip them. There's no excuse for the Kawachi or Emerald otherwise.

Just wait until you get to the Izumo.

1 minute ago, RollerCoaster47 said:

I didn't like the King George V my first few outings with it, but now I just fire HE most of the time and don't mind it. Not great, but not the worst ship either.

The biggest problem I've had with it is that I am to tempted to brawl. That ships just can't do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, How_Terrible said:

Just wait until you get to the Izumo.

Oh don't tell me that.  Everybody said the Jap BBs are the tits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, FlorbFnarb said:

Oh don't tell me that.  Everybody said the Jap BBs are the tits.

They are, for the most part. Every one for tier 5 - 10 are decent except for the Izumo. It is marginally playable, but its turret layout is awful, and the 9 --> 10 grind is long enough that it will make you want to kill your self.

 

In fact, with the exception of the Iowa and Missouri after their recent buffs, I'd say that tier 9 is not a great battleship tier. I can't comment on Lion since I haven't got to it yet. The FdG is pretty meh and might be the low point of the German BB line. the Izumo is very mediocre. So much so that I'd rather play the Amagi at tier 9/10 then the Izumo. The Iowa and Missouri are reasonably nice since they can flex around the map in ways that battleships just shouldn't be able to do. Over all I think the problem I have with the tier 9 BB's is that none of them really feel like they belong at that tier. Instead they all just sort of feel like they are actually tier 8.5. That is to say that for the most part they are more or less identical to their tier 8 brethren (expect for Izumo), but with slightly more HP and, maybe, bigger guns or more speed. Where as the jump from 9 to 10 (and also from 7 to 8 ) is much more pronounced. When you go from 9 to 10 and play your first battle in your new GK, Yammy, or Monty you just instantly know that you have gotten a bigger, better, and more badass ship then the one you had before. That is mostly missing from the tier 9 BB's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't say that about the KGV! I really want to play and enjoy it.

But worst at tier 7? I don't know how damning that is, as tier 7 have a relatively strong suite of battleships, including a couple who can vie for 'best tier for tier in the game' (Noteably, the Scharnhorst). I'm a huge fan of the Hood, the Nelson looks to be pretty damn special, the Gneisnau is a worse Scharnhorst, but that doesn't make it bad. The Nagato is solid, while the Colorado has... great guns.

Worse than the Colorado? Really? Shit. Much sadness.

Also re the Cleveland, I used to think the same about its low skill ceiling. But recent experiences have shown me the error of my ways. There's a whole lot of island play with the Cleveland that just isn't possible to poorer players. Even when they're trying to do it deliberately.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, How_Terrible said:

Cleveland ... is so idiot proof

Tell that to the Cleveland that broadsided three enemy BBs at under 8 km and got deleted 3 minutes into the game giving their Saipan free reign to park his Fighters over me ALL GAME bc our Ranger was AFK...

Zero fucking damage possible, we lost by having 0 points after 5 minutes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, bathoz said:

Don't say that about the KGV! I really want to play and enjoy it.

But worst at tier 7? I don't know how damning that is, as tier 7 have a relatively strong suite of battleships, including a couple who can vie for 'best tier for tier in the game' (Noteably, the Scharnhorst). I'm a huge fan of the Hood, the Nelson looks to be pretty damn special, the Gneisnau is a worse Scharnhorst, but that doesn't make it bad. The Nagato is solid, while the Colorado has... great guns.

Worse than the Colorado? Really? Shit. Much sadness.

Also re the Cleveland, I used to think the same about its low skill ceiling. But recent experiences have shown me the error of my ways. There's a whole lot of island play with the Cleveland that just isn't possible to poorer players. Even when they're trying to do it deliberately.

 

Colorado isn't as bad as people make it out to be. It used to, but the truely bad stock configuration does not exist in game anymore.

As for King George V, I can't see why it should be bad. It's not a no-brainer like Scharnhorst, but it should have exploitable qualities. High rate of fire, 10 guns, improved heal (not the insane one you get a tier later, but still a Warspite-heal instead of the regular one everyone else gets). Sure the caliber is comparatively low, but you have british HE and a 25s reload on 10 guns. This should be good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Madner Kami said:

Colorado isn't as bad as people make it out to be. It used to, but the truely bad stock configuration does not exist in game anymore.

As for King George V, I can't see why it should be bad. It's not a no-brainer like Scharnhorst, but it should have exploitable qualities. High rate of fire, 10 guns, improved heal (not the insane one you get a tier later, but still a Warspite-heal instead of the regular one everyone else gets). Sure the caliber is comparatively low, but you have british HE and a 25s reload on 10 guns. This should be good.

None of that makes up for how fragile it is. That fragility limits how aggressive you can be, and aggressiveness is how battles are won.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, How_Terrible said:

None of that makes up for how fragile it is. That fragility limits how aggressive you can be, and aggressiveness is how battles are won.

Not anywhere near the KGV, but I'm gonna bet that's very true.  You gotta be either agile enough to avoid getting hit or tough enough to take a hit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Madner Kami said:

Colorado isn't as bad as people make it out to be. It used to, but the truely bad stock configuration does not exist in game anymore.

As for King George V, I can't see why it should be bad. It's not a no-brainer like Scharnhorst, but it should have exploitable qualities. High rate of fire, 10 guns, improved heal (not the insane one you get a tier later, but still a Warspite-heal instead of the regular one everyone else gets). Sure the caliber is comparatively low, but you have british HE and a 25s reload on 10 guns. This should be good.

The KGV has weak bow armor. It can be over matched by all the other tier 7 BB guns. While on the other hand it's guns are too small to over match the bow armor on the other tier 7 BB's. While I don't have the KGV yet I think this is the reason why it's bad compared to the others. If it had a little thicker bow armor or larger guns I think it would do better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MntRunner said:

The KGV has weak bow armor. It can be over matched by all the other tier 7 BB guns. While on the other hand it's guns are too small to over match the bow armor on the other tier 7 BB's. While I don't have the KGV yet I think this is the reason why it's bad compared to the others. If it had a little thicker bow armor or larger guns I think it would do better.

That is objectively not true. All the T7 battleships have a 25mm bow-armor, only Gneisenau and Scharnhorst get a thicker strip on the waterline.

What the KGV offers in exchange for that "weak" bow armor is a way-below waterline citadel (even deeper than Colorado's) and easily one of, if not the thickest main armor belts (depending on how exactly the spaced armor from the torpedo bulges on Nagato and Colorado influence penetration effectiveness). I would suggest not to rely on the thinnest part of your armor to protect you, but to actually angle and bait shots into your main armor. At worst, guessing from the ingame armor-model, I see a vulnerability to plunging fire for this ship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Madner Kami said:

That is objectively not true. All the T7 battleships have a 25mm bow-armor, only Gneisenau and Scharnhorst get a thicker strip on the waterline.

What the KGV offers in exchange for that "weak" bow armor is a way-below waterline citadel (even deeper than Colorado's) and easily one of, if not the thickest main armor belts (depending on how exactly the spaced armor from the torpedo bulges on Nagato and Colorado influence penetration effectiveness). I would suggest not to rely on the thinnest part of your armor to protect you, but to actually angle and bait shots into your main armor. At worst, guessing from the ingame armor-model, I see a vulnerability to plunging fire for this ship.

You are probably right. I'm mostly going on memory form a video review I saw. Although the gun difference is true. KGV has 14" guns while the others have 16" guns. The 16" guns can over match 25mm bow armor, 14" can't.That is the main point I was trying to make. In a head to head slug fest the KGV will lose.

Here's what Flamu said about the KGV. " However the ship does not suck, it is simply extremely demanding of using the correct shell type. Only by constantly mixing in HE and AP do you allow this ship to truly shine, and shine it does.

Sounds like from Flamu that the ship has a really high skill floor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, MntRunner said:

The KGV has weak bow armor. It can be over matched by all the other tier 7 BB guns. While on the other hand it's guns are too small to over match the bow armor on the other tier 7 BB's. While I don't have the KGV yet I think this is the reason why it's bad compared to the others. If it had a little thicker bow armor or larger guns I think it would do better.

KGV has 25mm decks and side, which none of the other BB's at tier 7 have, heck even some cruisers have a thicker deck. Sure its broadside armor is good, but the turrets very very weak.

Fighting anything with 15inch + guns without taking damage is nearly impossible, since they overmatch NEARLY the entire ship. Not being able to tank even a bit, having god awful firing angles, bad AA (all the dps is very short range), shit AP and relying on fire RNG to do damage is not a great combo and a shit way to design a ship. I really hate what WG has done to the bristish BB line. Bastard child between a cruiser and a BB that only seems to get gud at tier 9.

11 hours ago, Madner Kami said:

That is objectively not true. All the T7 battleships have a 25mm bow-armor, only Gneisenau and Scharnhorst get a thicker strip on the waterline.

What the KGV offers in exchange for that "weak" bow armor is a way-below waterline citadel (even deeper than Colorado's) and easily one of, if not the thickest main armor belts (depending on how exactly the spaced armor from the torpedo bulges on Nagato and Colorado influence penetration effectiveness). I would suggest not to rely on the thinnest part of your armor to protect you, but to actually angle and bait shots into your main armor. At worst, guessing from the ingame armor-model, I see a vulnerability to plunging fire for this ship.

Strong belt with below the waterline citadel means its kinda pointless, at close range most guns at this tier will get through anyways (Scharn may not apply), not that it matters since they wont hit the citadel, since its so low. With 25mm all round they just need to hit you, sure you can bait shot on your side, but the upper part is also 25mm, so with dispersion they will most likely still get pens

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The KGV is pretty inconsistent but it's alright. You need to be aware of your shell type and mistakes will bite you hard. You're also totally screwed if you need to kite because the weak AP and the dispersion will troll you (making T9 a total chore). I also really struggled to get citadel penetrations on cruisers with it. I've had games where I had the broadsides of cruisers all game and either whiffed or the AP failed to have an impact. If I'd been in the Nelson I can virtually guarantee that I'd have obliterated them one after another. That lack of punch reduces your carry power a bit. The ship isn't a great solo ship as a result, especially since you see a lot of T9 carriers which can and will shit on you. I ended the grind with 61% WR and 81k avg. My average damage is in the same ballpark (within 5%) of my other T7s apart from Nelson (in which I've had blessed matchmaking so it's probably not representative yet). My WR is far lower than even my normal solo average (I played a lot solo in it). It's harder to do impactful damage in a ship that doesn't have the kind of punch to knock out opponents when they're making mistakes. 

I've played a couple of games in Monarch and the guns feel better than KGV. They're punchier and are more consistent. The HE is reliable as well which makes it kind of a nice all-rounder. It plays a lot like the North Carolina, only the AA isn't quite as strong and your range is weaker. I can't see it supplanting the NC in competitive, but it's alright.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, MntRunner said:

You are probably right. I'm mostly going on memory form a video review I saw. Although the gun difference is true. KGV has 14" guns while the others have 16" guns. The 16" guns can over match 25mm bow armor, 14" can't.That is the main point I was trying to make. In a head to head slug fest the KGV will lose.

Here's what Flamu said about the KGV. " However the ship does not suck, it is simply extremely demanding of using the correct shell type. Only by constantly mixing in HE and AP do you allow this ship to truly shine, and shine it does.

Sounds like from Flamu that the ship has a really high skill floor.

Was just about to type: "That's the beauty with british battleships, you do not need to overmatch armor. Just penetrate them at any angle with the superb HE and laugh your arse off about their attempts to tank high damage superpen-HE and almost assured fires right through their bow armor.".

10 hours ago, Crossfader said:

KGV has 25mm decks and side, which none of the other BB's at tier 7 have, heck even some cruisers have a thicker deck. Sure its broadside armor is good, but the turrets very very weak.

Fighting anything with 15inch + guns without taking damage is nearly impossible, since they overmatch NEARLY the entire ship. Not being able to tank even a bit, having god awful firing angles, bad AA (all the dps is very short range), shit AP and relying on fire RNG to do damage is not a great combo and a shit way to design a ship. I really hate what WG has done to the bristish BB line. Bastard child between a cruiser and a BB that only seems to get gud at tier 9.

Strong belt with below the waterline citadel means its kinda pointless, at close range most guns at this tier will get through anyways (Scharn may not apply), not that it matters since they wont hit the citadel, since its so low. With 25mm all round they just need to hit you, sure you can bait shot on your side, but the upper part is also 25mm, so with dispersion they will most likely still get pens

The turret armor is comparatively thin, I'll concede that, but otherwise I disagree. Other than Gneisenau and Scharnhorst, none of the T7 BBs have more than 25mm superstructure or upper deck armor. It stands to reason, that the KGV is actually better off than either Colorado or Nagato, due to the relatively low freeboard, which could lead to comparatively more overpenetrations right through the superstructure. On the other hand, the ship is relatively wide and a lot of the deck area is not covered by the superstructure, which is what leads me to believe that it might be vulnerable to plunging fire. Also, since the internal structure is not really explorable with the ingame armor viewer, I reserve judgement in this regard, since I do not know how much armor lies beyond the 25mm deck and upper armor.

pfpdqBz.jpg

M0dZfnn.jpg

zXD2iQg.jpg

I'd expect the ideal engagement range being more limited in both the upper and lower ranges for the reasons stated (too close and the thick belt will be useless, too far and the wide deck will be a problem), but it just doesn't look that bad.

5 hours ago, OnboardG1 said:

The KGV is pretty inconsistent but it's alright. You need to be aware of your shell type and mistakes will bite you hard. You're also totally screwed if you need to kite because the weak AP and the dispersion will troll you (making T9 a total chore). I also really struggled to get citadel penetrations on cruisers with it. I've had games where I had the broadsides of cruisers all game and either whiffed or the AP failed to have an impact. If I'd been in the Nelson I can virtually guarantee that I'd have obliterated them one after another. That lack of punch reduces your carry power a bit. The ship isn't a great solo ship as a result, especially since you see a lot of T9 carriers which can and will shit on you. I ended the grind with 61% WR and 81k avg. My average damage is in the same ballpark (within 5%) of my other T7s apart from Nelson (in which I've had blessed matchmaking so it's probably not representative yet). My WR is far lower than even my normal solo average (I played a lot solo in it). It's harder to do impactful damage in a ship that doesn't have the kind of punch to knock out opponents when they're making mistakes. 

I've played a couple of games in Monarch and the guns feel better than KGV. They're punchier and are more consistent. The HE is reliable as well which makes it kind of a nice all-rounder. It plays a lot like the North Carolina, only the AA isn't quite as strong and your range is weaker. I can't see it supplanting the NC in competitive, but it's alright.


Out of curiosity (I'l not play this line of ships for quite a while), have you tried not to rely on AP for citadelling cruisers? The HE gets the caliber/4-penetration-rule after all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can only really get away with that fighting T5 ships because the 14" guns can't penetrate the T6+ ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

rage sold KGV... i can stand the weak armor, bad AP, shit firing angle, shit AA that gets destroyed super fast, but what tilts me off the face of the earth is inaccurate guns. If i predict and lead the target perfectly, i dont want RNG to decide if i get to do damage. Right after selling it, i played a game in the Amagi, first salvo, 17km away i delete an Atlanta sailing in a strait line.... dam that felt good, actual guns with accuracy and good AP, amazing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Crossfader said:

rage sold KGV... i can stand the weak armor, bad AP, shit firing angle, shit AA that gets destroyed super fast, but what tilts me off the face of the earth is inaccurate guns. If i predict and lead the target perfectly, i dont want RNG to decide if i get to do damage. Right after selling it, i played a game in the Amagi, first salvo, 17km away i delete an Atlanta sailing in a strait line.... dam that felt good, actual guns with accuracy and good AP, amazing. 

  • The AA is shit already so who cares if it gets destroyed
  • You should be spamming HE in it, not relying on the AP except in very limited scenarios
  • I've had no problems with the accuracy

It's certainly not my most enjoyable grind, but I'm not having much for problems with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems incongruous to argue that the ship is garbage but you had a 61% winrate in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a pretty decent win rate in the Gneisenau but I really disliked it because I think the DE 15" rifles are wank. It's possible to find a ship frustrating but still be able to carry in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.