How do you feel about battleships with smaller the average guns for their tier

[kriegerfaust]

I know ships like the Scharnhorst are loved but ships like Odin and Brandenburg are not loved so much in general how are ships that have smaller guns perceived.  I know ships like the Brandenburg and Anhalt have more guns and ships like the Roma and Odin have a greater rate of fire but is that enough for most players.  Which do people prefer heavier shells or more of them do you love the 17-18-20-inch shells, or do you want more shells even if they do less damage. 

The American 16' is perfect with no flaws, do not fact check but what would you like more shells or bigger shells.  Me i like them both as long as i have good firing arcs which is why i do not like a lot of the French designs.  Am i in the minority for liking ships like the Rhode Island and Florida or are there other fans for battleships with smaller guns.  Would you like to see more fast battleships with smaller guns or more super cruisers with oversized battleship guns, me more - more - more i like all ship even those not in the meta.  

[Wulf_Ace]

I am more happy with that then all those overmatching BBs

[Wrath_of_Deadguy]

Depends on the ship; there are too many variables that go into gun performance to judge whether or not they're going to be satisfying to play with until you've actually done so.

Strasbourg's guns, for example, feel pathetically anemic... while Scharnhorst's, which are even smaller for T7, feel adequate- I play the latter pretty often, but the former only leaves port for snowflakes. Jean Bart B doesn't have any trouble with her 380mm guns at T9, and I still consider pulling her out of that crate one of my best strokes of luck in this game... but Izumo, with flatly average-for-tier 410mm guns, feels like she's lobbing spitballs, and I couldn't strip and park her fast enough once I finished grinding her.

How good the rest of the ship they're mounted on is also plays a big role, I think. You could have the best, most consistent guns in the world, but if they're stuffed in a garbage scow with restricted firing angles, they're going to feel bad no matter how much fun the performance stats say you should be having. Good guns aren't fun if the rest of the package isn't there- conversely, a really good hull with really good firing arcs (and maybe a gimmick or two) can do a great deal to mitigate an underwhelming main battery.

I'd have to say I prefer ships that let me fight the reds instead of making me fight my own ship. Everything else is just flavor.

[Nevermore135]

6 hours ago, kriegerfaust said:

I know ships like the Scharnhorst are loved but ships like Odin and Brandenburg are not loved so much in general how are ships that have smaller guns perceived.  I know ships like the Brandenburg and Anhalt have more guns and ships like the Roma and Odin have a greater rate of fire but is that enough for most players.  Which do people prefer heavier shells or more of them do you love the 17-18-20-inch shells, or do you want more shells even if they do less damage. 

Anhalt’s major flaw is that the German 14” (350mm) gun is a strong contender for the worst 13-14” gun in the game. The AP shell performance is simply pretty terrible, especially at tier VIII.

Roma does not have small or fast firing guns. She is armed with 9 15” guns with 30s reload, which is pretty average at tier VIII. Her reload only seems fast compared to tech tree Italian BBs, which were given garbage reloads because the devs gave them SAP (the merits of which on BB guns are a whole other topic). The issue most have with Roma’s guns (in addition to Italian dispersion) is that they have such high velocity that they deal a lot of overpens against flat targets at closer ranges.

The thing that really hurts BBs with smaller guns (less than or equal to 14”) at higher tiers (VII+) is the abundance of 25mm plating that the guns cannot overmatch. 25mm is the standard extremity plating for high tier cruisers, and mid tier BBs are similarly immune to overmatch with their 26mm plating.

This wasn’t always as big of a deal, but a few years back WG made changes to cruiser plating alongside the IFHE nerf that greatly reduced the effectiveness of these guns against a lot of ships in their MM bracket. Mid-tier cruisers (tier VI-VII) had their amidships deck armor standardized at 25mm and most CAs received 25mm upper belts. Scharnhorst is a great ship to look at to see the effects of this change. Prior to these armor buffs she was considered quite strong among tier VII BBs, but the loss of the ability to overmatch so much of the armor of mid-tier cruisers (which her small-caliber, short-fuse AP excelled against) means she is a pale shadow of what she once was.

Brandenburg and Odin suffer the same issues (their 12” guns have effectively the same overmatch as Scharnhorst’s 11” guns, but are a tier higher in even less friendly MM - no tier V cruisers) in addition to some other poor balancing decisions made by the devs. Both ships have artificially low HP pools that severely affect their survivability (which is usually a strength of German BBs). This is especially noticeable with Brandenburg, which despite being based on a Bismarck hull has more than 10k less HP. Odin also has a needlessly long reload - 23s vs. Scharnhorst’s 20s, and even though her guns are larger they are actually worse for her tier. The skill rework nerfed Odin even further, with the overall reduction in the accuracy (and thus efficiency) of secondary builds. The big thing she had going for her before the changes was that her maximum secondary range and minimum concealment are similar, which made her stand out vs. other German BBs. Now not only is the long-range performance of her secondaries (along with every other BB) reduced, but the German CCs do the same thing better.

IMO, both German ships could use ~8-10% more HP. In addition, Odin needs an offensive buff of some sort, such as shaving 3 seconds off her main battery reload. Alternatively, buffing her secondary dispersion up to German CC/German CV/MA levels would give her a niche, as not only is she better protected than her battlecruiser peers, but she doesn’t need to take IFHE to get her 128mm secondaries to pen the 32mm plating of high tier BBs.

 

Edited January 12 by Nevermore135

[Leo_Apollo11]

Hi all,

IIRC the Scharnhorst or Gneisenau captain famously said before WWII that things will go horribly wrong once they face the real enemy battleship with real battleship guns...

 

Leo "Apollo11"

[Nevermore135]

1 hour ago, Leo_Apollo11 said:

Hi all,

IIRC the Scharnhorst or Gneisenau captain famously said before WWII that things will go horribly wrong once they face the real enemy battleship with real battleship guns...

 

Leo "Apollo11"

The Scharnhorsts were designed and built as a response to the French building Dunkerque, replacing the planned class of D-class Panzerschiffe (the first of which did have its keel laid). The 11” guns were only intended as a stop-gap measure - it was always the plan for the ships to mount 15” guns, but German industry wasn’t able to produce the weapons at the time. Of course, a certain individual decided to start the planned war a few years early, so the planned guns were never installed (although the order had been given to start the work on Gneisenau even if it didn’t get far before being cancelled).

Edited January 12 by Nevermore135

[Leo_Apollo11]

Hi all,

4 minutes ago, Nevermore135 said:

The Scharnhorsts were designed and built as a response to the French building Dunkerque, replacing the planned class of D-class Panzerschiffe (the first of which did have its keel laid). The 11” guns were only intended as a stop-gap measure - it was always the plan for the ships to mount 15” guns, but German industry wasn’t able to produce the weapons at the time. Of course, a certain individual decided to start the planned war a few years early, so the planned guns were never installed (although the order had been given to start the work on Gneisenau even if it didn’t get far before being cancelled).

 

Yep... I know my history... 🙂

And the German Admiral/Captain was aware that it was disaster waiting to happen... I will try to find exact quote...

 

Leo "Apollo11"

[Wolfswetpaws]

18 hours ago, kriegerfaust said:

How do you feel about battleships with smaller the average guns for their tier
I know ships like the Scharnhorst are loved but ships like Odin and Brandenburg are not loved so much in general how are ships that have smaller guns perceived.  I know ships like the Brandenburg and Anhalt have more guns and ships like the Roma and Odin have a greater rate of fire but is that enough for most players.  Which do people prefer heavier shells or more of them do you love the 17-18-20-inch shells, or do you want more shells even if they do less damage. 

The American 16' is perfect with no flaws, do not fact check but what would you like more shells or bigger shells.  Me i like them both as long as i have good firing arcs which is why i do not like a lot of the French designs.  Am i in the minority for liking ships like the Rhode Island and Florida or are there other fans for battleships with smaller guns.  Would you like to see more fast battleships with smaller guns or more super cruisers with oversized battleship guns, me more - more - more i like all ship even those not in the meta.  

"Only accurate rifles are interesting." - Colonel Townsend Whelen

[Wolfswetpaws]

17 hours ago, Wrath_of_Deadguy said:

I'd have to say I prefer ships that let me fight the reds instead of making me fight my own ship. Everything else is just flavor.

👍

[GandalfTehGray]

It depends on what I'm playing, standard coop small guns tend to perform poorly at higher tiers as you aren't fast enough to get the angles you need and can't overmatch. 

Ops and Asymmetric I love the smaller, faster firing guns because I will get more opportunities to shoot broadside cruisers and battleships. 

[Aethervox]

Likely, less hurt (feelings, that is) 😁

[Lord_Slayer]

I think alot depends on the modeling of the armor and the shell involved.

Example, while the British did have larger guns in WW1 then their German contemporaries, German's had a superior shell.

I'd also point out that Kirishima and the IJN fleet did have several hits on South Dakota ranging from a BB 14in hit down to 5in DD guns. While South Dakota did disable itself, the IJN did cause alot of damage to her.

http://www.navweaps.com/index_lundgren/South_Dakota_Damage_Analysis.php

 

[Paladin1954]

I really like the cruiser killer concept. While 14" AP won't do much damage on other battleships HE spamming with a secondary build is fun.

[Sailor_Moon]

I don't have a problem with, say, 356mm guns or smaller at Tier VII or higher, as long as they are given something to justify their existence at those tiers. For example, King George V has ten 356mm guns at Tier VII. Now she's a bit undergunned by two guns and they're only 356mm caliber at Tier VII. However, her 25s reload AND improved HE shell damage + high fire chance (41%!) makes up for those deficiencies. Likewise, Florida has twelve 356mm guns at Tier VII. While she does have a slow reload of 33.5s and slightly reduced damage per shell, she does moreorless make up for those deficiencies by having battlecruiser dispersion. If she had a higher sigma value, she'd be a tier VII Slava.

But then you have a ship like California, which also has twelve 356mm guns at tier VII....and a VERY slow reload at the tier. 34.2s. But what does she get to compensate for such a slow reload? She doesn't get battlecruiser dispersion. She doesn't even get improved secondaries to supplement her main battery damage (thankfully, Wee Vee '44 has taken this role, and it works quite well for her!). She doesn't even get improved AP bounce angles like Duke of York gets. She doesn't even get improved AP penetration. Really, she gets nothing of value in direct, "consistently used every battle" stats. No perks. Not even gimmick consumables like main battery reload booster!

(and yes, she has decent ballistics, but that's ALL she has. That's not remotely enough to justify such poor main battery stats. Arizona has similar ballistics AND stats....at Tier VI. An entire tier lower.)

Long story short, you gotta justify lower caliber guns at higher tiers. You need SOMETHING to entice players to using lower-caliber guns at high tiers, or else they'll just choose 406mm guns, or 457mm guns, or 460mm guns or higher. Why would you ever choose a battleship with Tier VI-grade gunnery and naught else? Even Poltava has improved AP penetration and a 28s reload, and she's not even THAT good.

[KJ82]

I really like the Mecklenburg. Low caliber, but i got several 15-20k salvos on other BB in Assymetric. Not to mention the countless cruisers i oneshot. Found her far more useful there than the Ohio, despite the lower gun caliber. I know rear firing arcs are bad, but 8 front gun still can do alot of damage.

[Sailor_Moon]

7 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

"Only accurate rifles are interesting." - Colonel Townsend Whelen

This quote isn't entirely wrong, tbh. This is exactly the reason why I don't complain about Minnesota's 40s reload so much, despite her basically being a Tier IX California. She gets that all-important dispersion mod in Slot 6. She now has the improved accuracy to go with that heavy broadside, to land said heavy broadside more often, generating those big hits she's designed to deliver. She fulfills her role successfully as a heavyweight sniper because of this. Kansas and California, on the other hand, struggle because they DON'T have that improved accuracy, they don't get access to dispersion mods. And they still have super-long reload times to deal with. 

[Sailor_Moon]

23 minutes ago, KJ82 said:

I really like the Mecklenburg. Low caliber, but i got several 15-20k salvos on other BB in Assymetric. Not to mention the countless cruisers i oneshot. Found her far more useful there than the Ohio, despite the lower gun caliber. I know rear firing arcs are bad, but 8 front gun still can do alot of damage.

Mecklenburg should be DARN fun in Asym Battles, as she has 2.05 sigma AND crazy fast reload times (22.9s) that you can further build into with using Furious and CQC (partial secondary build). So....with BOTH buffs on....that's like 18.5s reload on SIXTEEN 305mm guns (!). That's bonkers fun right there.

[Sailor_Moon]

On 1/11/2024 at 4:26 PM, Wrath_of_Deadguy said:

Good guns aren't fun if the rest of the package isn't there

Well said : ) Sometimes even just improved turret traverse and better firing arcs can make a WORLD of difference in terms of gunnery comfort. Wee Vee '44 proves this by having 45s stock turret traverse time and slightly better firing angles than Cali. The result? Less issues with turrets being unable to track targets due to slow turret traverse (you start having tracking issues past 50s). Increased chances of having all guns firing due to better firing angles. Slightly less side being shown while unmasking the rear turrets. Overall, more comfortable, enjoyable gunnery.

[b101uk]

1 hour ago, Sailor_Moon said:

I don't have a problem with, say, 356mm guns or smaller at Tier VII or higher, as long as they are given something to justify their existence at those tiers. For example, King George V has ten 356mm guns at Tier VII. Now she's a bit undergunned by two guns and they're only 356mm caliber at Tier VII. However, her 25s reload AND improved HE shell damage + high fire chance (41%!) makes up for those deficiencies. Likewise, Florida has twelve 356mm guns at Tier VII. While she does have a slow reload of 33.5s and slightly reduced damage per shell, she does moreorless make up for those deficiencies by having battlecruiser dispersion. If she had a higher sigma value, she'd be a tier VII Slava.

 

By rights though in terms of armour the KGV's should be sitting at tier IX, to fit them at tier VII (which they did based on calibre) they compromised them in armour and its scheme etc, if WG were doing it all again now the UK BB line would look very different. 

[pepe_trueno]

i dont dislike BBs with small calibers but they do feel underwhelming.

overmatch and higher penetration allow large caliber guns to damage ships in situations smaller guns would fail miserably, This means large caliber guns have a much easier time when it comes to compensating BBs bad dispersion.

 

small caliber guns in the other hand may have slightly better dispersion and reload but at the end of the day they are still in the BB ballpark. i mean many look at illinois and think of it as a BB hull with cruiser guns but the reality is illinois may have cruiser DPM but its accuracy is nowhere near a cruiser. as a result small caliber BBs will have to either HE spam or require better positioning / be closer to the target to do any real damage with AP.

 

giving small caliber BBs cruiser dispersion would be a bad idea so i will go with give them better survivability, make them tankier so they can live long enough to make those guns work.

 

 

[BOBTHEBALL]

On 1/12/2024 at 9:25 AM, kriegerfaust said:

I know ships like the Scharnhorst are loved but ships like Odin and Brandenburg are not loved so much in general how are ships that have smaller guns perceived.  I know ships like the Brandenburg and Anhalt have more guns and ships like the Roma and Odin have a greater rate of fire but is that enough for most players.  Which do people prefer heavier shells or more of them do you love the 17-18-20-inch shells, or do you want more shells even if they do less damage. 

Eh I'd say Scharnhorst is only loved ever in ranked or OPs, same with Odin and Brandenburg. All three of them aren't anything special in random battles and aren't really worth loving. Anhalt has horrible penetration which is what makes her extremely bad to play and Roma has insane penetration with 380mm guns at tier 8. Now I'm not sure if I'd consider them small for their tier but I feel as though they actually offer something unlike the others.

On 1/12/2024 at 9:25 AM, kriegerfaust said:

The American 16' is perfect with no flaws,

No definitely not, especially if this is the 16 inchers of the NC, Alabama and Massa. Those things can't hit anyone with a brain, sure they might work in co-op. Actually I've had quite some success with them in co-op but if you're facing anyone with working eyes and hands then you won't be doing much to them. However if this is the Montana 16 inch shell then I'd slightly agree, I do think it could do with a slight penetration boost to make it adequate for not having 30mm overmatch.

[MnemonScarlet]

I'm ok with BBs that have smaller guns, though generally the ship should be better in other areas purely for the balance budget. Overmatch does matter (generally more for convenience), although if you can't win engagements reliably without it, you're not as good of a BB player as you think you are.

Edited January 13 by MnemonScarlet

[Sailor_Moon]

38 minutes ago, MnemonScarlet said:

I'm ok with BBs that have smaller guns, though generally the ship should be better in other areas purely for the balance budget. Overmatch does matter (generally more for convenience), although if you can't win engagements reliably without it, you're not as good of a BB player as you think you are.

As some who frequently uses 356mm guns, you do end up appreciate the finer perks that battleships can get. Like speed and overmatch, among other things. Faster reload times help too! 😄

But yep, if you've got subpar tools to work with, well then that's just what you gotta work with. If you can make it work with those subpar tools though, consistently....that's when you know you're getting to be a decent player : ) You can take a disadvantageous position and make it work, regardless. That's true skill, imo.