Napkin Analysis: Balance Changes 0.12.10

[torino2dc]

Just under a week ago, WG announced changes to the Austin, ZF-6, and the Pan-Asian Light Cruiser Tech Tree slated for updated 0.12.10. As I wasn't run out of town for the previous Napkin Analysis, I thought I would continue putting thoughts to paper, in part to understand the proposed changes myself, as well as to offer others a departure point for discussion. Like with the last balance changes, I welcome them, but I'm not entirely sure they will address the struggles of each ship in the way they're intended to. We shall see as we dive in. As always, I hope you enjoy.

___________________________________________________________________

Austin (T10)

Changes:

Main battery reload time reduced: 8 to 7.5s.
Main Battery Reload Booster consumable reload time reduced: 125 to 120s.

Like her namesake, the Tier 10 USN CLAA Austin is weird. From a statistical perspective, the fact that she is a steel ship skews her user-base to the more dedicated end of WoWS players. From a gameplay perspective, her damage output comes chiefly from Main Battery Reload Booster (MBRB) and Fletcher torpedoes, both of which can vary dramatically in effectiveness depending on positioning, game state, and matchmaking. 

Current performance:

• WR: Among T10 cruisers¹ she is currently 15th out of 31, right below Venezia and above Nevsky. If you sort for 10% of the player base, she is 11th out of 31.
• Frags: All players: 7th out of 31. Top 10%: also 7th out of 31.
• Damage: 26th out of 31. Top 10%: 24rd out of 31. 
• Plane Kills: 2nd out of 31. Top 10%: also 2nd out of 31.

To summarize, middle of the pack in terms of WR, pretty good in terms of frags, towards the bottom in terms of damage, and excellent against planes. Sounds about right. But again, bear in mind that the steel cost pre-filters the user-base towards the higher end of skill; i.e. if she were available to everyone she would likely drop lower in every category. 

Based on these admittedly very imprecise rankings, a buff seems at least defensible. The question then becomes: how to buff her?

The proposed approach will give her a 6.25% reload buff plus a 4% buff to the MBRB consumable cooldown. Will it help? A bit, I'm sure. But I don't think it addresses the fundamental issue with the ship, which is that its performance is quite matchmaking dependent while not being able to deal with its own class reliably. 

Below is my Argument Starter Kit 3000 rough sketch of how some T10 ships fit into this matrix. On the X axis, we have how Matchmaking Dependent the ship is, i.e. how dependent is its success on the overall team composition for a given match? On the Y axis is how well the ship specifically deals with its mirror in the matchmaker; i.e. does it have reliable advantages against the class that the matchmaker is forced to give the other team?

Spoiler

If you have any questions, comments, or concerns about the above matrix, please hesitate to reach out. 

 

For example, the Marceau and Mecklenburg stand out as examples of ships that have tools to deal with any kind the team composition, as well as having largely favorable matchups against their own class. On the other side of the coin is something like a Jinan that needs very specific matchmaking conditions to shine (lots of BBs, no radars, no torp botes etc. etc.), and largely has difficult matchups against other cruisers. 

Austin is middle of the road when it comes to being dependent on the matchmaker for success. Most DDs don't want to face her but she has trouble finding them by herself. BBs she can farm decently from island cover, though things are easier or harder depending on if lightly armored British and French BBs are plentiful. She has absolutely no trouble dealing with the aerial fun police. However, a smart sub knows Austin has roll-off depth charges and will just torture her from distance.

Unfortunately, it is the mirror matchup that is the most swing-tastic for Austin. Depending on matchmaking, Austin could have very favorable matchups against other cruisers or very much the opposite. If the other cruisers have...

• 229mm+ guns which overmatch Austin's 16mm bow and stern armor with AP; and/or
• 37mm+ upper belt / deck armor which is immune to Austin's 127mm SAP.  

...then Austin can see her game impact dramatically lessen. For T10 cruisers, the overmatch club includes Castilla, Gibraltar, Goliath, Gouden Leeuw, Henri IV, Marseille, Napoli, Puerto Rico, Sevastopol, Stalingrad, Yoshino, as well as upcoming Defense and Kommissar. The armor club is smaller, but annoyingly includes popular ships like Petropavlovsk and Moskva, in addition to the aforementioned Gouden Leeuw, Napoli, and Stalingrad. As the arms race between gun caliber and armor continues, I would expect these clubs to swell² in membership. 

Conclusion: About half the ships that Austin forces into the matchmaker have hard advantages against her that cannot really be mitigated with superior skill. The other half can be melted at the press of a button. That is the Austin conundrum, and I'm not convinced a slightly faster reload and slightly faster MBRB cooldown will make much of a difference in that regard; she will remain a feast-or-famine ship.

___________________________________________________________________

ZF-6 (T9)

Changes:

Main battery reload time reduced: 4 to 3.8s.
Main battery 180 degrees turn time reduced: 18 to 10s.

The ZF-6 is an interesting ship to consider. On paper, she should be one of the stronger DDs at Tier 9: competitive concealment, good consumable suite, good damage output with her AP and MBRB. In practice, many people struggle with her. My guess is that it is down to three factors:

• The High Explosive has an anemic alpha of 1450, which puts the HE DPM waaay at the bottom of the barrel when it comes to T9 destroyers. (ZF-6 without MBRB has Z-44 levels of HE DPM. With MBRB it climbs all the way to... wait for it... Z-46 levels of HE DPM. Truly nothing to write home about.) The AP, by contrast, has improved 60°-67.5° ricochet angles and much better alpha, making it the recommended default ammo for most situations.     
• The turret traverse until now has been an abysmal 10°/s (for reference, Fletcher has a 34°/s), meaning that the effective DPM in knife fights is often lower because the guns can't keep up. 
• The torpedoes have great alpha at 18.4k a pop, but only 8km range. The temptation to try to cosplay as a proper torpedo DD (and in so doing overextend oneself) can be perilous.  

What unifies these three features is that they require the player to think beyond their usual DD habits. You can use HE -- it has good penetration and is useful for starting perma-fires with MBRB, but it won't win many DD fights straight up. You can mess up other DDs, you just need to plan ahead, pre-turn the turrets, and catch them with AP + MBRB. You can be a torpedo boat, but only when the enemy vision control on your flank has been eliminated. For an inexperienced player who doesn't take the time to research the peculiarities of each ship and adjust their playstyle, it is easy to see how the ZF-6 might seem very underwhelming.

This hypothesis seems to be supported by the data.³ There seems to be a noticeable disparity⁴ in rankings between 'all players' and when filtering for 'Top 10%':

• WR: 24th of 26 for all players; Top 10%: 11th out of 26.
• Frags: 20th out of 26 for all players; Top 10%: 10th out of 26.
• Damage: 23rd out of 26 for all players; Top 17%: 10th out of 26.

The proposed buffs would buff the DPM by 5% and cut the turret traverse almost in half. Improving the reload by 5% doesn't save the HE DPM from being abysmal -- without MBRB the ZF-6 would still be outgunned by such noted artillery luminaries as Yugumo and Benham. Even with MBRB up, she barely reaches into the midfield of HE DPM -- e.g. she would still be 10k HE DPM short of Chung Mu -- and still miles away from the true monster gunboats. In other words, for players who haven't understood how ZF-6's ammo types work, this buff will do next to nothing. 

The turret traverse buff irks me in a different way. Not every ship should be easy to handle. Some ships should be clunky and force the player to think ahead. Especially given the fact that the AP can full-to-zero a DD within one MBRB charge, I think the glacial turret traverse is a fair balancing measure. It meant a player had to choose between dodging and keeping the guns hot. It privileged smart positioning, anticipating where the opponent would arrive and shooting them without having to much move the hull. It also meant that a smart opponent could anticipate the cruddy turret traverse and use it to their advantage.

Some of this flavor is now going to be sanded off, which makes me sad. I would contend we love our ships as much in spite of their flaws as we love them for their strengths. If every ship has excellent turret traverse and excellent firing angles and 360° rotating turrets and good rudder shift and good shell ballistics and good armor and good concealment... then in the end we lose the diversity that makes this game so endlessly fascinating. 

Conclusion: Buff that tries to help inexperienced players just ends up sanding off some of the ship's unique flavor.

Spoiler

I would have preferred a buff to the AP alpha to help point folks in the right direction. 

 

___________________________________________________________________

Tashkent '39  (T7)

Changes:

Torpedo reload time reduced: 100 to 93s.

I found the Tashkent '39 to be a very interesting addition to the game -- high HP, great speed, and silly torpedo output balanced by clunky concealment and poor gunpower. I consider her to be an excellent 'channel clogger', i.e. a ship that that can shut down a pushing lane for extended periods to buy time for the other flank to win. Unfortunately very few people have access to her, as she was offered once during the Marine Stock Exchange event in 0.12.3, and -- to my knowledge -- never again.

That would help explain why she has the lowest total battle number of any T7 DD on the NA server.⁵ And as with many ships that are rare and predominantly owned by dedicated WoWS players, her numbers are skewed quite high. Even taking rarity into account, why she needed a buff is beyond me. Perhaps WG is considering a wider release and knows from past experience that the ship is actually a tad weak given compared to similarly rare ships. Your guess is as good as mine.  

What does this buff mean in context? Well, one of the best danger-pylon-generators at Tier 7 just got better. Before the buff Tashkent's torpedo DPM was 81k without using TRB. That was about the same as one of the premier torpers at her tier, the Shiratsuyu (82k), except that the Russian torps have a fantastic 1.2km detect (vs. Shira a torp's 1.6km). Now the Tashkent will pull ahead (87k torp DPM) all while retaining the luxury of being able to run smoke and TRB simultaneously. На здоровье!   

Conclusion: Rare boat that was performing well gets ... a buff?! The developer tells us these buffs are based on "combat statistics as well as player feedback" -- for head-scratchers like these I would really love if they took a bit of time to provide more in-depth reasoning behind their decisions. 

___________________________________________________________________

The Pan Asian Light Cruisers

Changes (affect the entire line T5-T10):

Main battery reload time reduced: (Anywhere from 0.2s-0.5s, see Appendix A) ^x

Main battery firing range increased: +1.0km across the board

Main battery shell ballistics have been changed. The firing arcs will now be flatter. (Unclear if that is shell velocity, air drag, or both).

 

Before we dig into each ship individually, lets take a look at the line as a whole. Here is a breakdown⁶ of every ship's WR/Damage/Frags rank among cruisers of their own tier. Not gonna lie, the stats⁷ look pretty grim. 

Rather than diving into the individual problems that each cruiser in the tree has to face, I think it is important to address the line as a whole. I don't think these uniformly poor results are a coincidence. They are a systemic failure within the design of the tech tree. More often than not, they are putting players of all skill levels into situations they cannot master with the tools they are given.

As such, more radical solutions should be considered than just slightly better guns. This is a question of matchups, and how to give these ships a fighting chance against most opponents, not just their designated uber-victims (airplanes and pushing BBs). If the Vermont line can get completely reworked to the well-balanced ships they are today, then so can the Pan-Asian CLs. 

___________________________________________________________________

What ails the Pan-Asian Light Cruisers? To find out, I broke down the five intra-class matchups for each of the T5-T10 tech-tree ships within their matchmaking spread. You can read it in the appendix if you like, but it gets mighty repetitive. The same problems rear their ugly heads time and time again. They can be summarized thus:

Captain Pressure

From start to finish, a Pan-Asian CL captain is torn between skills they would like to take (torpedo skills, AA skills, Demo expert, IFHE, heavy HE, adrenalin rush) and skills they have to take just to survive (Concealment Expert, Superintendent, Survivability Expert, RPF).

Because the ships are so fragile, half or more of the captain skills are just spent keeping the ship hidden and afloat. This not only punishes under-leveled captains, but also tends to suppress all the fun alternative builds (full torpedo, full AA) that struggle to shine for lack of survivability.    

Possible solutions? More smokes would take pressure off Superintendent. Lower smoke cooldown plus more smokes could take pressure off Concealment Expert. Better armor or healing helps take pressure off Survivability Expert. 

Module Pressure

As with the captain skills, the fragility of the Pan-Asian light cruisers forces the player's hand when it comes to certain modules. In particular, Propulsion Mod. 1 and Concealment System Mod. 1 are practically mandatory in order to have somewhat consistent success.

Unlike captain skills, modules can be 'baked in' to insure the bonuses are permanent but not duplicated (e.g. Daring has built-in propulsion mod and therefore cannot mount it). This offers some interesting possibilities:

• Baked-in Propulsion Mod. 1 -- has been done before, but would be a de facto rudder shift buff.
• Baked-in Aiming Systems Mod. 1 -- helps dealing consistent gun damage without compromising a full torpedo- or AA-build.
• Baked-in Concealment Mod. 1 -- would take a lot of pressure off the captain, and allow the player to run Steering Gears Mod 3 or Torpedo Lookout System.
• Baked-in Torpedo Lookout System -- would help quite a bit in two of the line's worst matchups (Subs and Destroyers). 

Submarines

Anti-Aircraft light cruisers (CLAAs) already tend to have tough matchups against submarines⁸, but without an ounce of doubt the Pan-Asian line has the worst of it. If you could draw up an 'ideal cruiser for a sub to victimize' it would be hard to do much better than having all of the following:

• No hydro.
• Roll-off depth charges, suitable for close-quarters combat only.
• High periscope detection due to AA being a focus of the line.
• Absolutely no torpedo protection, low base HP.
• Doesn't want to be spotted, explodes when shot at by your allies.

It is such a hilariously one-sided interaction, no one thing could fix it. We could start by cutting the tie between AA-range and periscope detection. Baked-in Torpedo Lookout would help. A more radical solution would be to offer Submarine Surveillance as an optional consumable. 

Destroyers

This is the only matchup that would get noticeably better with the proposed buffs. Previously, the slow shell velocity and very high air drag meant that landing shots on a maneuvering DD was an exercise in frustration. While the line still lacks vision control tools like radar, as well as being vulnerable to torpedoes due to the lack of hydro, at the very least you should be able to hit a DD when it blunders into medium range. We will see just how good the ballistics get post-patch, but my suspicion is gunboat DDs with decent ballistics will still be able to do lots of damage to a Pan Asian CLs from range while having a relatively easy time dodging the return fire.

Regardless of gunnery, most DDs still have the upper hand in this matchup because the Pan-Asian CLs have such a niche consumable suite that is incredibly reliant on their three or four precious smokes. They are therefore extremely vulnerable to torpedoes, because even if the fish don't hit, they might still make the smoke unusable. At higher tiers the hydro- or radar-equipped DDs can turn a Pan Asian CL smoke against its user, which is just brutal. At the very least, an extra smoke from the start would help relieve the pressure of needing to make the most of every puff. Built-in Torpedo Lookout Mod would also make it less trivial for torpedo DDs to casually ruin the Pan Asian CL's smoke. 

Cruisers

Like with the Austin, the matchups between Pan Asian CLs and their mirrors can vary wildly from match to match. If any of the following are present in a match, the difficulty ramps up significantly:

• Radar. Very disruptive for a line that relies on smoke as its primary consumable.
• Overmatch AP: 203mm+ for the T5-T7; 229mm+ for the T8-T10.
• Armor: 25mm plate starts to represent an impenetrable obstacle if you're unable/unwilling to spend 4 precious points on IFHE.
• Smoke disruption tools: area denial torpedoes, Dutch air-strikes, long-range hydro. All can ruin a good smoke-camp.

The list of mirrors that lack all of these counter-tools is short, meaning Pan-Asian CLs are almost always at a disadvantage when they enter the matchmaker. A good start might be to increase the armor to 16mm for T5-T7 to and 19mm for the T8-10 to curb common heavy cruiser AP from dumpstering these ships from any angle.    

Conclusion

In their current state the Pan Asian CLs are fragile, both in their survivability and in their preferred play-style. The bulk of captain points and module choices has to go towards keeping them hidden and afloat. If they aren't allowed to exploit their smokes farming pushing BBs or deplaning unwise carriers their impact on the battle falls off rapidly. Submarines and Destroyers hold multiple advantages over them, as do most cruisers that mirror them in the matchmaker. In the proposed balance patch, only one of those deficits (hitting destroyers) is being somewhat addressed. I am unconvinced it will make much of a difference to their overall performance. Thank you for reading ❤️

 

___________________________________________________________________

Appendix A: Matchups

Below are all six tech-tree cruisers broken down by how they match up against the five classes within their matchmaking spread. Be warned, it is very repetitive. 

Chungking (T5)

Spoiler

Changes:

Base hull main battery reload time reduced: 10.5 to 9.9s.
Researchable hull main battery reload time reduced: 9.5 to 9s.
Researchable Gun Fire Control System main battery firing range increased: 12 to 13km. Stock module main battery firing range increased accordingly.
Main battery shell ballistics have been changed. The firing arcs will now be flatter.

To help visualize things, I will mark the hard advantages in green, the situationally relevant features in neutral, the hard disadvantages in red, and the captain skill/module investments in yellow. 

vs. DDs 

• -
• decent stealth for a cruiser (8.96km max requires Concealment Expert), smoke to cover ambushes, low smoke fire penalty (4.6km), short hull + good maneuverability (570m turning circle + 6.4s rudder shift) to dodge torps.
• no hydro, low salvo weight, mediocre accuracy (must run aiming systems), mediocre shell velocity + high air drag, awful turret traverse for a CL (7°/s), bad HE DPM compared to most T5-T7 gunbote DDs, 13mm armor cannot bounce most DD HE, DDs immune to deep-water torps, sluggish (no prop mod), not very fast (32.25kts base).

vs. Cruisers 

• decent stealth for a cruiser (8.96km max requires Concealment Expert), Pan-Asian smokes to create vision asymmetries, good torp alpha and decent torp angles for brawling.
• HE can pen all T4-T7 cruisers, short hull + good maneuverability to dodge.
• no hydro, low HP (22.6k), low salvo weight, almost-worst in tier DPM, 13mm armor is overmatched by 203mm+ AP, deck can be penned by 152mm HE, mediocre kiting angles.

vs. Battleships

• very good stealth to control engagement, Pan-Asian smokes to farm safely, 9.4km deepwater torps for lane control, arcs allow some island farming. 
• HE can pen all T4-T5 BBs extremities, short hull + good maneuverability to dodge, no armor + thin hull = sometimes AP overpens. 
• low HP (22.6k), low fire chance (9%) and shell volume, requires IFHE to pen T6+ BBs, only 3 smokes base (basically requires Superintendent), only 2x3 torps on 115s reload, mediocre kiting angles. deck can be overmatched by 380mm AP, can be HE citadeled by 280mm+ German/British BB HE.

vs. CVs

• good long range aura (5.8km) and decent long range damage (59.5dps), good AA dps under 2.5km, Pan-Asian smokes to hide, short hull + good maneuverability to dodge.
• Aerial concealment = long range aura (5.8km).
• low HP (22.6k), no DefAA, almost no torpedo protection (4%), mid-range AA only 2.5km,  sluggish (no prop mod).

vs. Submarines

• -
• short hull + good maneuverability to dodge.
• no hydro, roll-off depth charges, high periscope detection for having roll-offs (5.8km), almost no torpedo protection (4%), sluggish (no prop mod).

 

Rahmat (T6)

Spoiler

Changes:

Main battery reload time reduced: 7.5 to 7s.
Researchable Gun Fire Control System main battery firing range increased: 12.5 to 13.5km. Stock module main battery firing range increased accordingly.
Main battery shell ballistics have been changed. The firing arcs will now be flatter.

As before, hard advantages in green, the situationally relevant features in neutral, the hard disadvantages in red, and the captain skill/module investments in yellow. 

vs. DDs 

• High shell count per salvo (10 guns).
• decent stealth for a cruiser (8.96km max requires Concealment Expert), smoke to cover ambushes, low smoke fire penalty (4.26km), short hull + good maneuverability (580m turning circle + 6.5s rudder shift) to dodge torps.
• no hydro, bad turret traverse for DD guns (10°/s), very slow shell velocity + high air drag, 13mm armor cannot bounce most DD HE, DDs immune to deep-water torps, sluggish (must run prop mod), not very fast (32.3kts base).

vs. Cruisers 

• decent stealth for a cruiser (8.96km max requires Concealment Expert), Pan-Asian smokes to create vision asymmetries, good torp alpha and decent torp angles for brawling.
• HE can pen most T5-T6 cruisers, can run Heavy HE without penalty, short hull + good maneuverability to dodge.
• no hydro, low HP (23.6k base is asking for Survivability Expert), HE cannot pen 25mm armor without IFHE, some T8 cruisers completely immune even to IFHE, smoke often negated by radars at T8, 13mm armor is overmatched by 203mm+ AP, turrets only have 13mm armor, mediocre kiting angles.

vs. Battleships

• very good stealth to control engagement, Pan-Asian smokes to farm safely, 9.4km deepwater torps for lane control, high shell volume to start fires, high arcs allow island farming. 
• HE can pen all T5 BBs extremities, short hull + good maneuverability to dodge, no armor + skinny hull = sometimes AP overpens. 
• low HP (23.6k), requires IFHE to pen T6-7 BBs, cannot HE pen T8 BBs, only 3 smokes base (basically requires Superintendent), only 2x3 torps, mediocre kiting angles. deck can be overmatched by 380mm AP, can be HE citadeled by 356mm+ German/British BB HE.

vs. CVs

• Defensive AA (3 charges), good long range aura (5.8km), excellent AA dps under 3.5km, Pan-Asian smokes to hide, short hull + good maneuverability to dodge.
• Aerial concealment = long range aura (5.81km).
• low HP (23.6k), almost no torpedo protection (4%), 600m aerial-detection-to-AA-range cushion, sluggish (must run prop mod).

vs. Submarines

• -
• short hull + good maneuverability to dodge.
• no hydro, roll-off depth charges, high periscope detection for having roll-offs (5.8km), almost no torpedo protection (4%), sluggish (must run prop mod).

 

Chumphon (T7)

Spoiler

Changes:

Main battery reload time reduced 6.5s to 6.1s
Researchable Gun Fire Control System main battery firing range increased: 13.2 to 14.2km. Stock module main battery firing range increased accordingly.
Main battery shell ballistics have been changed. The firing arcs will now be flatter.

As before, hard advantages in green, the situationally relevant features in neutral, the hard disadvantages in red, and the captain skill/module investments in yellow. 

vs. DDs 

• High shell count per salvo (12 guns).
• decent stealth for a cruiser (9.28km max requires Concealment Expert), fast turret traverse (25°/s), low smoke fire penalty (4.38km), thin hull + decent maneuverability (610m turning circle + 7.2s rudder shift) to dodge torps.
• no hydro, very slow shell velocity + high air drag, 13mm armor cannot bounce DD HE, DDs immune to deep-water torps, sluggish (must run prop mod), not very fast (32.5kts base).

vs. Cruisers 

• decent stealth (9.28km max requires Concealment Expert), Pan-Asian smokes to create vision asymmetries.
• HE can pen most T5-T6 cruisers, can run Heavy HE without penalty, decent kiting angles, thin hull + decent maneuverability to dodge.
• no hydro, low HP (26.4k base is begging for Survivability Expert), cannot pen many T7 cruisers without IFHE, some T8-9 cruisers completely immune to IFHE, matchmaking full of radars, 13mm armor is overmatched by 203mm+ AP, turrets only have 32mm armor, bad forward torp angles for brawling, not very fast.

vs. Battleships

• decent stealth to control engagement, Pan-Asian smokes to farm safely, 4x2 10.5km deepwater torps plus TRB for lane control, high shell volume to start fires, high arcs allow island farming. 
• HE can pen all T5 BBs extremities, thin hull + decent maneuverability to dodge, no armor + skinny hull = sometimes AP overpens. 
• low HP means mistakes are punished heavily, requires IFHE to pen T6-7 BBs (and high tier BCs), cannot IFHE pen T8-9 BBs, only 3 smokes + 1 TRB base (basically requires Superintendent), only 5% fire chance per shell. can be HE citadeled by 356mm+ German/British BB HE.

vs. CVs

• Defensive AA (3 charges), good long range aura (5.8km) with decent DPS (129), decent midrange AA dps (168 at 3.5km), Pan-Asian smokes to hide, skinny hull + decent maneuverability to dodge.
• Aerial concealment = long range aura (5.81km).
• low HP, no torpedo protection (0.1%), sluggish (must run prop mod).

vs. Submarines

• -
• skinny hull + decent maneuverability to try to dodge.
• no hydro, roll-off depth charges, high periscope detection for having roll-offs (5.8km), no torpedo protection, sluggish (must run prop mod).

 

Harbin (T8)

Spoiler

Changes:

Main battery reload time reduced 5.5s to 5.2s
Researchable Gun Fire Control System main battery firing range increased: 13.5 to 14.5km. Stock module main battery firing range increased accordingly.
Main battery shell ballistics have been changed. The firing arcs will now be flatter.

As before, hard advantages in green, the situationally relevant features in neutral, the hard disadvantages in red, and the captain skill/module investments in yellow. 

vs. DDs 

• Decent shell count per salvo (10 guns), decent rate of fire.
• Repair party for chip damage, decent stealth for a cruiser (9.48km requires Concealment Expert + Concealment Mod. 1), decent smoke fire penalty (5.36km), thin hull + okay maneuverability (660m turning circle + 6.9s rudder shift) to dodge torps.
• no hydro, absurdly high air drag (0.37), 16mm armor cannot bounce DD HE, DDs immune to deep-water torps, sluggish (must run prop mod), not very fast (33.4kts base).

vs. Cruisers 

• decent stealth (9.48km max requires Concealment Expert + Concealment Mod. 1), Pan-Asian smokes to create vision asymmetries, access to repair party allows for trading against non-repair cruisers, good torp alpha and good forward torp angles for brawling.
• HE can pen extremities of all T6-T10 cruisers with IFHE, can run Heavy HE without penalty, thin hull + okay maneuverability to dodge.
• no hydro, low HP (26.5k base is begging for Survivability Expert), cannot pen most cruiser hulls without IFHE, matchmaking full of radars, 16mm armor is overmatched by 229mm+ AP, turrets only have 35mm armor, not very fast.

vs. Battleships

• decent stealth to control engagement, Pan-Asian smokes to farm safely, 4x3 11km deepwater torps plus TRB for lane control, good shell volume and decent fire chance (7% base), high arcs allow island farming. 
• Repair party for chip damage, thin hull + okay maneuverability to dodge, no armor + skinny hull = sometimes AP overpens. 
• low base HP = easily one-shot, requires IFHE to pen T6-7 BBs (and high tier BCs), cannot IFHE pen T8-10 BBs, only 3 smokes + 1 TRB base (basically requires Superintendent), can be HE citadeled by 406mm+ German/British BB HE, struggles to create separation (slow).

vs. CVs

• Defensive AA, decent long range aura (6km), good midrange AA damage (252dps at 3.5km), Pan-Asian smokes to hide, access to repair party, skinny hull + okay maneuverability to dodge.
• Aerial concealment = long range aura (6.01km).
• insufficient long range damage (84dps), low HP, no torpedo protection (4%), sluggish (must run prop mod), insufficient DefAA charges (3 base) to deal with T10 carriers (even with Superintendent).

vs. Submarines

• -
• skinny hull + okay maneuverability to try to dodge.
• no hydro, roll-off depth charges, high periscope detection for having roll-offs (6km), no torpedo protection, sluggish (must run prop mod).

 

Sejong (T9)

Spoiler

Changes:

Main battery reload time reduced 4.8s to 4.5s
Researchable Gun Fire Control System main battery firing range increased: 14 to 15 km. Stock module main battery firing range increased accordingly.
Main battery shell ballistics have been changed. The firing arcs will now be flatter.

As before, hard advantages in green, the situationally relevant features in neutral, the hard disadvantages in red, and the captain skill/module investments in yellow. 

vs. DDs 

• Good shell count per salvo (12 guns), good rate of fire (can take Main Battery Mod 3).
• Decent stealth for a cruiser (9.7km requires Concealment Expert + Concealment Mod. 1), decent smoke fire penalty (5.53km), thin hull + okay maneuverability (670m turning circle + 7.68s rudder shift) to dodge torps.
• no hydro, absurdly high air drag (0.35), 16mm armor cannot bounce DD HE, DDs immune to deep-water torps, sluggish (must run prop mod) , not very fast (33kts base).

vs. Cruisers 

• decent stealth (9.7km max requires Concealment Expert + Concealment Mod. 1), Pan-Asian smokes to create vision asymmetries, situationally high DPM (if you can pen), 4x4 torps for brawling.
• HE can pen extremities of most T6-T10 cruisers with IFHE, can run Heavy HE without penalty, thin hull + okay maneuverability to dodge.
• no hydro, low HP (29.8k base is begging for Survivability Expert), matchmaking full of radars, cannot pen most cruiser hulls without IFHE, 16mm armor is overmatched by 229mm+ AP, turrets only have 32mm armor, bad forward torp angles for brawling, not very fast.

vs. Battleships

• decent stealth to control engagement, Pan-Asian smokes to farm safely, 4x4 12km deepwater torps plus TRB for great lane control, high shell volume and good fire chance (9% base), high arcs allow island farming. 
• Can take Torpedo Tubes mod 2 for extra lane clogging, thin hull + okay maneuverability to dodge, no armor + skinny hull = sometimes AP overpens. 
• low base HP = easily one-shot, cannot IFHE pen T8-10 BBs, only 3 smokes + 2 TRBs base (basically requires Superintendent), can be HE citadeled by 406mm+ German/British BB HE, struggles to create separation (slow).

vs. CVs

• Defensive AA, large number of flak (10 puffs), decent long range aura (6km) with decent damage (175dps), good midrange AA range and damage (269dps at 4km), Pan-Asian smokes to hide, skinny hull + okay maneuverability to dodge.
• Can take Auxiliary Armaments Mod. 2 to specialize against planes, aerial concealment = long range aura (6km).
• low HP, no torpedo protection (4%), sluggish (must run prop mod), low number of DefAA charges (3 base) to shut down T10-T11 carriers (even with Superintendent can be iffy).

vs. Submarines

• -
• skinny hull + okay maneuverability shift to try to dodge.
• no hydro, roll-off depth charges, high periscope detection for having roll-offs (6km), no torpedo protection, sluggish (must run prop mod).

 

Jinan (T10)

Spoiler

Changes:

Main battery reload time reduced 3.2s to 3s
Main battery firing range increased: 14.5 to 15.5 km.
Main battery shell ballistics have been changed. The firing arcs will now be flatter.

Matchups

As before, hard advantages in green, the situationally relevant features in neutral, the hard disadvantages in red, and the captain skill/module investments in yellow. 

vs. DDs 

• Decent shell count per salvo (10 guns), high rate of fire (can take Main Battery Mod 3).
• Decent stealth for a cruiser (9.83km requires Concealment Expert + Concealment Mod. 1), decent smoke fire penalty (5.53km), thin hull + okay maneuverability (670m turning circle + 7.68s rudder shift) to dodge torps.
• no hydro, absurdly high air drag (0.35), 16mm armor cannot bounce DD HE, DDs immune to deep-water torps, sluggish (must run prop mod).

vs. Cruisers 

• decent stealth (9.83km max requires Concealment Expert + Concealment Mod. 1), Pan-Asian smokes to create vision asymmetries, situationally very high DPM (if you can pen), 4x5 torps for brawling.
• HE can pen extremities of most T6-T10 cruisers with IFHE, can run Heavy HE without penalty, thin hull + okay maneuverability to dodge.
• no hydro, low HP (30.7k base is begging for Survivability Expert), matchmaking full of radars, cannot pen most cruiser hulls without IFHE, 16mm armor is overmatched by 229mm+ AP, turrets only have 32mm armor.

vs. Battleships

• decent stealth to control engagement, Pan-Asian smokes to farm safely, 4x5 13.5km deepwater torps plus TRB for excellent lane control, high shell volume and good fire chance (9% base), high arcs allow island farming, fast enough to control distance (35kts base).
• Can take Torpedo Tubes mod 2 for extra lane clogging, thin hull + okay maneuverability to dodge, no armor + skinny hull = sometimes AP overpens. 
• low base HP = easily one-shot, cannot IFHE pen T8-10 BBs, only 3 smokes + 2 TRBs base (basically requires Superintendent), can be HE citadeled by 406mm+ German/British BB HE.

vs. CVs

• Defensive AA, good number of flak (8 puffs), decent long range aura (6km) with decent damage (199.5dps), good midrange AA range and great damage (402.5dps at 4km), Pan-Asian smokes to hide, skinny hull + okay maneuverability to dodge.
• Can take Auxiliary Armaments Mod. 2 to specialize against planes, aerial concealment = long range aura (6km).
• low HP, no torpedo protection (4%), sluggish (must run prop mod), low number of DefAA charges (3 base) to shut down T10-T11 carriers (even with Superintendent can be iffy).

vs. Submarines

• -
• skinny hull + okay maneuverability shift to try to dodge.
• no hydro, roll-off depth charges, high periscope detection for having roll-offs (6km), no torpedo protection, sluggish (must run prop mod).

___________________________________________________________________

Footnotes

¹ NA Server, random battles, all players, excluding Smolensk B because it messes up the data, https://na.wows-numbers.com/ship/3445536752,Austin/ accessed October 19th 2023.

² If we widen the search to all cruisers within the matchmaking range, the overmatch club includes: T8 Cherbourg, Congress, Schill; T9 Admiral Schröder, Ägir, Alaska, Azuma, Brest, Carnot, Drake, Johan de Witt, Kronshtadt, Mengchong, upcoming Michelangelo, and Siegfried; T11 Condé, Novosibirsk, and Piemonte. The armor club includes T8 Haarlem; T9 Admiral Schröder, Ägir, Johan de Witt, Mengchong, upcoming Michelangelo, Siegfried, and van Speijk; T11 only Piemonte as the Novosibirsk curiously only has 35mm upper belt armor.  

³ NA Server, random battles, source: https://na.wows-numbers.com/ship/3740153648,ZF-6/ accessed October 20th 2023.

⁴ This disparity could be explained by the fact that the top 10% of dockyard players is a much more exclusive club, with fewer games between them, than e.g. the top 10% of steel ship buyers. Unfortunately wows-numbers doesn't show us the number of battles for each of the player cohorts, only for the entire server population.

⁵ #1 in WR, Damage, and Frags among all players; 3rd, 2nd, and 3rd among Top 10%. NA Server, random battles, source: https://na.wows-numbers.com/ship/3752736208,Tashkent-39/ accessed October 20th 2023.

⁶ NA Server, random battles, source: bruh you really gonna make me list all those links, accessed October 20th 2023.

⁷ There's an argument to be made that not every ship can be amazing at everything; somebody gotta be at the bottom otherwise you just end of up with continual power creep. Ideally, however, the same ships wouldn't so consistently inhabit the lowest quintiles in Win Rate, Damage, Frags. Admittedly, these are all very vague averages that do little to pinpoint the exact problems the ships are having. The stats also measure over the entire lifespan of the game, meaning very old ships perform much more poorly than do new ones, and mid-stream buffs (e.g. Harbin's added heal) are not reflected clearly. 

⁸ Alert readers will ask themselves: why wasn't much mention made of the Austin's poor matchup against subs? Three factors:

• Austin has 5km hydro, which creates a no-go zone for periscoped submarines (they can't periscope up to shot-gunning range) as well as detecting torps at 3.5km;
• Hydro will proxy spot submerged subs at 2km, meaning depth-charges can be deployed more accurately (in the same scenario, a Pan-Asian CL is always guessing);
• The Austin's play style tends to favor lurking among islands for MBRB bursts and safe farming. PA CLs like to spend quite a bit of time out in open water to deploy their oodles of torpedoes on pushing BBs. By and large subs prefer the open water.

^x Running count of development changes being undone: 4 (Reload of Rahmat, Chumphon, Harbin, Sejong)

___________________________________________________________________

Wow, you have quite an appetite for WoWS analysis if you've made it this far. Let me know if you like the formatting, or would prefer if things were organized in a different way. o> 

___________________________________________________________________

[HogHammer]

WOW, and I don't mean World of Warships.  Heck of a job!

[Pugilistic]

A cursory reading, but will come back when I have more time. 

First, the matrix is interesting, will need some thought. 

Austin: seems odd to buff a ship whose WR isnt in the lower third of its cohort, but hey, damage. 

ZF-6: from the numbers you mentioned, seems to be at least relatively high skill floor so a buff is not surprising assuming that we have a greening of the playerbase. "Mongo not buy what Mongo friends tell him is bad." As you say, a shame to grind down the features of a ship's character. 

PA cruisers: the numbers arent surprising. Most people call them dogs, I actually like a number of these ships and do at least as well as my averages in them, but Im that masochist who likes light cruisers. I think a lot of the poor performance is the temptation for Joe Average to play this in open water, and not have ASW airstrike. John The Ruthless may top 80% solo when these things get buffed. 

Interesting, thanks!

Edited October 23, 2023 by Pugilistic

[BOBTHEBALL]

I think some key points that you mentioned are how people struggle with the entire line of Pan Asian CLs, they require very specific circumstances to really be in the zone. You need multiple BBs pushing into you with someone else spotting for you to unleash your amazing damage potential. You also need the map setup to be perfect as well, good islands to farm behind once your amazing smoke runs out.

Also on the topic of ZF-6 I truly think she IS one of the better tier 9 DDs, people just can't play her. When you give a player something with great conceal and amazing consistent DPM like a Kitakaze it's very easy to do well. But when you give someone a consumable to manage along with short range but hard hitting torpedoes you require actual thought to make it work. That's also why I think Z46 is the  better option for players of a lower skill level as you have the safe smoke, hydro combination with consistent DPM and longer range torpedoes.

Very well written tho, was a great thing to read!

[Pugilistic]

24 minutes ago, BOBTHEBALL said:

[Excerpted]

Also on the topic of ZF-6 I truly think she IS one of the better tier 9 DDs, people just can't play her.

I remember long ago a great Reddit essay by (I think) Dolphin Princess on RU DDs which said this about most of the line except Ognevoi, and marveled that they were getting buffs and more consumables. The build and play suggestions were great. 

[BOBTHEBALL]

3 minutes ago, Pugilistic said:

I remember long ago a great Reddit essay by (I think) Dolphin Princess on RU DDs which said this about most of the line except Ognevoi, and marveled that they were getting buffs and more consumables. The build and play suggestions were great. 

Don't get me started on DP, he's a "unicum" with some of the most dented and weird takes I have ever seen. It's quite disappointing tbh cause he could have done wonders teaching people about the RU DD line but he advocates for smoke instead of heal which is plain wrong.

[Pugilistic]

9 minutes ago, BOBTHEBALL said:

Don't get me started on DP, he's a "unicum" with some of the most dented and weird takes I have ever seen. It's quite disappointing tbh cause he could have done wonders teaching people about the RU DD line but he advocates for smoke instead of heal which is plain wrong.

I looked.

Good heavens: Super-Uni solo in all ship types played, and 65-80% in every RU DD (although that cant be filtered for Solo, only ~20% of his games are in Divisions) except for poor Kiev, only 60%, 137K avg damage. 

[BOBTHEBALL]

19 minutes ago, Pugilistic said:

I looked.

Good heavens: Super-Uni solo in all ship types played, and 65-80% in every RU DD (although that cant be filtered for Solo, only ~20% of his games are in Divisions) except for poor Kiev, only 60%, 137K avg damage. 

Like no doubt he is an amazing player. That doesn't mean that he's good to learn from, obviously what he does works for himself and that's great. At the end of the day you should be playing how you play best. But when you tell others to use something that is obviously not the best choice that's were I get a bit miffed and it's concerning at how he could misinform players.

[Verytis]

The ZF-6 DPM buff is questionable. Yes the thing has subpar HE. But when you catch things turning out to disengage, with AP and reload boost, it shreds them like no other DD. It is very dangerous to play against a decent ZF-6 player, when you're in most DDs.

Also WG really needs to stop buffing guns across the board. It doesn't solve the core issues of a ship.

[Hugh_Ruka]

another ZF-6 dockyard incoming ? other than that ? other than that I fail to see why they ship would need a buff ... P-A cruisers buff is a welcome one, especially the gun ranges ...

[GMMF]

Balance changes aren't related to whether the ship is going to be return for sale/obtainable via other means.

Edited October 24, 2023 by GMMF

[Pugilistic]

4 minutes ago, BOBTHEBALL said:

Like no doubt he is an amazing player. That doesn't mean that he's good to learn from, obviously what he does works for himself and that's great. At the end of the day you should be playing how you play best. But when you tell others to use something that is obviously not the best choice that's were I get a bit miffed and it's concerning at how he could misinform players.

Im wary of dogmatic assertions; at the same time, I realize that not all roads lead to Rome. In my case his suggestions helped me, I improved in RU DDs all the way from abysmal to mediocrity 😄 . Im continuing to look to adapt and improve, those recommendations are from the loong past. 

[BOBTHEBALL]

3 minutes ago, Pugilistic said:

Im wary of dogmatic assertions; at the same time, I realize that not all roads lead to Rome. In my case his suggestions helped me, I improved in RU DDs all the way from abysmal to mediocrity 😄 . Im continuing to look to adapt and improve, those recommendations are from the loong past. 

Good to see you improved! I love seeing peoples progress in this game. 

[Aragathor]

9 hours ago, Pugilistic said:

I remember long ago a great Reddit essay by (I think) Dolphin Princess on RU DDs which said this about most of the line except Ognevoi, and marveled that they were getting buffs and more consumables. The build and play suggestions were great. 

I remember the "DolphinPrincess guide to stop playing Grozovoi". It was the best way to have people stop playing the line, with choices set up for his level of play, and not the average level of play. Similar to what Yurra is spouting on Discord now.

And that's the issue with all of the unicums advising players, they ignore the fact that many average players don't have the semi-advanced knowledge needed, like ability to speed juke or angle well.

 

And now WG is coming in with popularity based buffs. And the CMs and their claqueurs on discord are stating how great the ships are, and not in a bad design spot.

Edited October 24, 2023 by Aragathor

[BOBTHEBALL]

1 hour ago, Aragathor said:

I remember the "DolphinPrincess guide to stop playing Grozovoi". It was the best way to have people stop playing the line, with choices set up for his level of play, and not the average level of play. Similar to what Yurra is spouting on Discord now.

And that's the issue with all of the unicums advising players, they ignore the fact that many average players don't have the semi-advanced knowledge needed, like ability to speed juke or angle well.

 

And now WG is coming in with popularity based buffs. And the CMs and their claqueurs on discord are stating how great their ships are, and not in bad design spot.

Don't get me started on the gameplay help channel it's just so sad to see what they're doing. It's why I started my thread on the discord to begin with because I just saw the actual lack of help going around. It's all "read the document" and no actual in-depth live helping. So sad such wasted potential.

[I_cant_Swim_]

@torino2dc. You really need to keep doing this. I'll bring some napkins.

[Aragathor]

32 minutes ago, BOBTHEBALL said:

Don't get me started on the gameplay help channel it's just so sad to see what they're doing. It's why I started my thread on the discord to begin with because I just saw the actual lack of help going around. It's all "read the document" and no actual in-depth live helping. So sad such wasted potential.

The problem with "Read the document" guy is he often hasn't played the ships in question, but believes he's the second coming of sliced bread.

How can you take a guy seriously who says:

Quote

dont confuse ships that are difficult to play with objectively weak ships

But who hasn't even played the ships in question on his main?

And then you look at the captain skill document and scratch your head. Especially since most builds they propose are good only for T9-10.

[BOBTHEBALL]

5 minutes ago, Aragathor said:

The problem with "Read the document" guy is he often hasn't played the ships in question, but believes he's the second coming of sliced bread.

How can you take a guy seriously who says:

But who hasn't even played the ships in question on his main?

And then you look at the captain skill document and scratch your head. Especially since most builds they propose are good only for T9-10.

Yeah I totally agree tbh

[Pugilistic]

6 hours ago, Aragathor said:

[Excerpted]

And then you look at the captain skill document and scratch your head. Especially since most builds they propose are good only for T9-10.

They occasionally make a reference for lower-tier ships or Premiums, but its basically "building your T6 captain for when you move it to the T10". 

[Aragathor]

5 hours ago, Pugilistic said:

They occasionally make a reference for lower-tier ships or Premiums, but its basically "building your T6 captain for when you move it to the T10". 

Which makes such builds pointless for many premiums. Especially general ones like the light cruiser build.

[Zaydin]

On 10/24/2023 at 4:19 AM, BOBTHEBALL said:

Don't get me started on the gameplay help channel it's just so sad to see what they're doing. It's why I started my thread on the discord to begin with because I just saw the actual lack of help going around. It's all "read the document" and no actual in-depth live helping. So sad such wasted potential.

Yurra is full of himself and if you have an opinion he doesn't agree with he insults you.

I mean, the 'guide' recommends top grade gunner on the San Martin. A CL with a concealment of 9.1km; getting that close to a target in a CL is a death sentence, even in one with a super heal like the San Martin. The excuses I kept hearing were 'well if you're hiding behind an island you can see ships through it and activate it'. My thought was "Okay, great. But there is an island in the way between you and your targets. What good is TGG if you can't shoot anything?"

[BOBTHEBALL]

7 hours ago, Zaydin said:

Yurra is full of himself and if you have an opinion he doesn't agree with he insults you.

I mean, the 'guide' recommends top grade gunner on the San Martin. A CL with a concealment of 9.1km; getting that close to a target in a CL is a death sentence, even in one with a super heal like the San Martin. The excuses I kept hearing were 'well if you're hiding behind an island you can see ships through it and activate it'. My thought was "Okay, great. But there is an island in the way between you and your targets. What good is TGG if you can't shoot anything?"

That was the one thread of yours I actually agreed with. Many of their builds are quite suspicious and I wouldn't recommend what they're advising. It was quite funny seeing you cook for once instead of get cooked.

[Yedwy]

I get the buffs but honestly they are not likely to get me playing those trashcans, I couldnt be bothered to regrind it to the end for RP...

[ArIskandir]

On 10/23/2023 at 2:27 PM, torino2dc said:

As always, I hope you enjoy.

I started reading without noticing who the OP was and was like ....Wow, this is really good stuff!!!  who wrote this? ... hmmm @torino2dc, now it all, makes sense 🙂. Great job pal!

[HogHammer]

1 minute ago, ArIskandir said:

I started reading without noticing who the OP was and was like ....Wow, this is really good stuff!!!  who wrote this? ... hmmm @torino2dc, now it all, makes sense 🙂. Great job pal!

This is the very reason why a forum structure is so important - not only in this game but in other games as well.