NEW SHIPS - CLOSED TEST 13.6

[Clodenjoy]

https://blog.worldofwarships.com/blog/539

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

Brawling battleship!

Vulnerable citadel...

Proof WG doesn't understand their own game.

[tfcas119]

Svea will most likely in the hands of a good player be absolute asinine to play against, but in the hands of a potato will explode in 2 minutes

Hoffmann is what happens when you remove everything that makes Elbing work, keep all the downsides, and then force it to play like a Z-52. This will never work without some serious rethinking

[torino2dc]

7 hours ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Proof WG doesn't understand their own game.

The brawling BBs with invulnerable citadels are already in the game: German Battleships. No sense in further invalidating them by stealing one of their main selling features. 

This might come as a surprise to some, but close quarters combat can be done without exposing the citadel, the player just has to a bit careful in their positioning.

[pepe_trueno]

12 hours ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Brawling battleship!

Vulnerable citadel...

Proof WG doesn't understand their own game.

dont forget bad gun angles and poor turning speed so people have to expose that citadel if they want to use all the guns.

 

Edited June 7 by pepe_trueno

[Kruzenstern]

What about the lower tiers? There are quite a few historical south american BBs that could fill tiers 4-7...

Like I would put Minas Gerais at tier4, Rivadavia at tier5, an improved Agincourt clone at tier6 (Rio de Janeiro), and a supercharged Almirante Latorre at tier7.

But of course WG only cares about bottom line and most people only ever care about high tiers (and why not, the game only really promotes 8+), so why bother with historical ships.

[Project45_Opytny]

22 hours ago, torino2dc said:

The brawling BBs with invulnerable citadels are already in the game: German Battleships. No sense in further invalidating them by stealing one of their main selling features. 

This might come as a surprise to some, but close quarters combat can be done without exposing the citadel, the player just has to a bit careful in their positioning.

For example: Sinop, Schlieffen and Georgia are all brawlers with vulnerable citadel configuration.

Or in other words: think Atlantico, then exhange her potato-positioning-proof citadel protection for much desired speed and main battery HE.

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

5 hours ago, Project45_Opytny said:

For example: Sinop, Schlieffen and Georgia are all brawlers with vulnerable citadel configuration.

Or in other words: think Atlantico, then exhange her potato-positioning-proof citadel protection for much desired speed and main battery HE.

None of those ships are brawlers...

WG and I must define brawler differently.

I suspect their definition, like most of their thoughts about the game, focuses too much on damage output and not enough on a ships ability to position and sustain fighting.

[Kruzenstern]

10 hours ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

None of those ships are brawlers...

Schlieffen is not a Brawler? It is pretty much the best brawler in the game imho. Definitely owns most other ships in brawls and asyms.

Unless you count random pvp meta, which kinda means there are NO brawlers at high tiers.

And while a protected citadel is nice to have for any ship, it is by no means neccessary for a good brawler. Then again I guess I agree with WGs brawler definition, what makes or breaks a ship as brawler is whether they can get in that superior damage at closeish range, which means good secondaries and possibly torps. First protective things for me after that me would be a decently armored bow, and then hydro. Protected citadel is not that important as that can be mitigated by manovering, and even with a protected citadel, getting hit in the flat broadsides is very unhealthy even without getting citaed. Sometimes ships with turtleback seem to take MORE damage from that kind of punishment, because all the hits end up as penetrations, whereas another ship might catch a cit, but the other hits end up being overpens.

[TimurGlazkov]

11 hours ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

None of those ships are brawlers...

Sinop isn't a brawler because it is so overpowered it can do anything. It even has improved secondry dispersion and 26mm IFHE pen 😂. The only thing it lacks is a full 50mm deck like Scharnhorst-class (it has a partially-exposed 35mm main deck but a big 26mm raised deck on top) and turtleback.

[torino2dc]

12 hours ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

WG and I must define brawler differently.

I suspect their definition, like most of their thoughts about the game, focuses too much on damage output and not enough on a ships ability to position and sustain fighting.

It would be helpful if you offered your personal definition of brawling since your statements are causing several of us considerable confusion. 

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

1 hour ago, torino2dc said:

It would be helpful if you offered your personal definition of brawling since your statements are causing several of us considerable confusion. 

I think the key point is my realization that WG defines 'brawling' differently than I do.

Since the word has no agreed upon definition outside of the game for the activities in the game...I feel no need to argue about what it SHOULD mean in game.

The point of contention seems to be WGs inability to recognize just how open to various meanings the term 'brawling' battleship is...though I suppose this is standard practice for them as vague definitions allow the widest possible choices of meaning to be expressed so that WG wins.

Personally, a brawling battleship is one that thrives fighting in close.

It means good maneuverability (including turning radius and acceleration) and turret traverse, armor that allows for extended periods in close and allows flexible maneuvering when in close (vulnerable citadels don't allow that). Useable secondaries and torpedoes are bonuses, but not actually required.

Sinop can't maneuver freely in a brawl. She gets locked into position too easily.

Georgia and Schlieffen are better examples, but they don't actually want to get too close to the enemy, as that negates some of their advantages.

[torino2dc]

4 hours ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Personally, a brawling battleship is one that thrives fighting in close.

It means good maneuverability (including turning radius and acceleration) and turret traverse, armor that allows for extended periods in close and allows flexible maneuvering when in close (vulnerable citadels don't allow that). Useable secondaries and torpedoes are bonuses, but not actually required.

I appreciate that you took the time to lay out a definition that we can work with. My next question is: what ships do you think meet all of those criteria?