Jump to content
CompanionCav

Armor weaknesses in upcoming RN BBs

Recommended Posts

*Based solely on current test build armor stats from GM3D

 

1. six-incher IFHE vulnerability

RN BBs T7~10 are uniformly "painted" in 32mm armor value. Nelson is something of an exception b/c it has 25mm bow and stern common to T7.

Currently, only T8+ BBs draped in such a way in 32mm are Amagi and Izumo (which is why they take unholy damages consistently from Kutuzov et al.). All other BBs in T8~T10 range have at least some part of their hull armored in plates thicker than 32mm and thus comparatively more resistant to IFHE showers. i.e. NC has 37mm deck, Yamato has a mix of 50mm and 57mm areas, etc.

 

2. Citadel issues

Nelson's citadel sits over waterline; we all know how horrible this is. Citadel spans from the front barbette to just short of aftcastle.

T8~T10 thankfully has citadels submerged somewhat deep under the waterline. However, citadel roof for the machinery spaces is only 19mm, prone to overmatching. I suspect these BBs being extra vulnerable to USN arcing shells.

 

I'm looking forward to further tweaks to the line before release.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Flamu calls the Conqueror the Megazao. It's apparently hilariously good at HE spam. I'm now in a quandry though because I have 375k free xp saved for the RN BB line and the Nelson is 375k free xp. I want that ship a LOT. The choices are hard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nelson seems a funny little thing at a tier with good MM. But I already have the Missi which satisfies all my Credit needs ever.

But the Conq WILL get nerfed if they release it in the current configuration. It is WAY too easy to play it well, I'd say even easier than Yamato because of the stealth and the good maneuverability. The HE means that potatoes get away with brainless HE only spam.

On top of this everyone got a really good special Captain for it. Consequently the average damage numbers will skyrocket.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I really want Nelson too. Must have all the RN ships.

My quandary is slightly different: these line skipping missions are sweet and all and all, but I kinda want to play the tier 3/4. They look decent fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, bathoz said:

Yeah, I really want Nelson too. Must have all the RN ships.

My quandary is slightly different: these line skipping missions are sweet and all and all, but I kinda want to play the tier 3/4. They look decent fun.

Can't you get the 3/4 via the current blueprint missions once they are released?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh sure. But I know I'll be jumping straight into the Iron Duke and grinding. Whereas tier 3/4 will be "let's see what that's like" playing later.

I like the idea of unlocking the tier 3 with a mission, but beyond that takes away what the game actually is. The "grind" is the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Devs might have overcompensated for the weakness in toughness they chose to give - weak peripheral armor and low HP pool are more than made up for with great concealment (Good Lord, why? DEVS VULT?), Superheal, and excellent guns.

As it currently stands, T9 and T10 are quintessential battlecruisers. T7 and T8 are not far behind. Those who enjoyed the chain of ships from Kongo to Amagi will love Conqueror more than Yamato.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, OnboardG1 said:

Sorry I'm a little behind the times. What are blueprint missions?

Weekly set of missions / grinds for the Bellephoron, Orion, iron duke. Once you complete each week's mission requirements then you get issued a blueprint flag for the ship.

Once the ships go live, then you get the ship in your port if you have the flag.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A rant on Conqueror design decisions:

In retrospect, Conqueror has gone through extreme changes to arrive at current hideous state.

When I first started this thread, Conqueror had Fuso level of Christmas tree concealment and 419mm triple wasn't even hinted at. 457mm twin was nothing special but it seemed decent and accurate enough to work.

In the whole, the initial package - Huge potential HP, weak peripheral armor, absolutely horrible concealment, fast speed, and radar - provided in theory two very distinct playstyles that a player has to alternate between as the match progresses.

First is medium range attrition fighter that fights in medium ranges and then retreats to long range to cut spotting and heal. Second is frontline "island dweller" utilizing shell arcs and radar. Player skill would lie in deciding what style to use and how to transition between the distinct styles smoothly.

But then, radar (albeit understandably) had to go - maybe because of public outcry, maybe the theory didn't quite work out in practice. This is fine, finding what works is what tests are for. However, for the next design choice, WG went ahead and mixed all the choice strengths of T10 cruisers - good concealment, high firechance both per salvo and per minute, tough citadel in close combat situation, enhanced ricochet angle, quick fuse, superheal - into a BB when the community is fearing BB powercreep into other class's territories.

The fact that WG was even willing to sacrifice relevance of the would-be signature gun, the 457mm, to do this, is very mind boggling. This also runs counter to WG's supposed policy of not giving two very different main batteries to ships after they regretted their Mogami gun decision.

Share this post


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

The fact that WG was even willing to sacrifice relevance of the would-be signature gun, the 457mm, to do this, is very mind boggling. This also runs counter to WG's supposed policy of not giving two very different main batteries to ships after they regretted their Mogami gun decision.

I rather welcome them changing their stance on that particular issue. Giving the players choices is good in general.

The problem that the 155 Mogami presented wasn't a problem of choice, it was first and foremost an issue of balancing and, argueabley, an issue of game-design. In terms of balance, the 155s didn't have any disadvantages compared to the 203s, while the 203s were worse in several key areas. In terms of game-design, there is the inherent issue of high volume of fire (high amount of guns or rate of fire) beating high alpha and, generally, high fire chance and even high accuracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...