How can Destroyers and Cruisers be balanced to BBs and CVs (and the OP SSs)?

Each ship has a different function in the fleet - DDs and CLs are AAW and ASW ships, but vulnerable to gunfire, CAs are fast, small and nimble gunships with good (the best in the game) AAW capabilities.

Already some CAs have a lot of power compared to BBs, as with the much higher reload rate they dispense as much damage as a BB in close ranges.

I personally like the rock, paper, scissors feeling in the game, every ship is useful and must work together for victory.

48 minutes ago, S Gorskov said:

in fact the Mogami is almost unusable, only as air cover because the fighters launch time is accetable

the times might be long, but will still manage to get some torp bombers in the air - even if not in the same rate as an experienced crew CV. It is the only CA that can successfully protect a fleet from a battleship and harass submarines.

My build is partly based on that, a CA assisted by planes but not fully dependent on them. (the biggest sacrifice of my build is not having upgraded torp planes - but i still hold armour more important).

7 hours ago, Davmak said:

Mogami 1944 is relatively weaker than other CA

I've got my mogami44 with 3 main gun, 2 armour, 2 flying deck and 1 speed.

It has 6x1020=6120 broadside damage with 1420 reload and 2306 range and 2 squads of planes.

For comparison the Hipper has 8x1179 = 9432 broadside damage with 1592 reload and 2355 range and County 8x1301 = 10408 broadside with 1580 reload and 2347 range.

In my opinion Mogami44 is much more useful in a fleet action (because of the planes) and can hold itself in 1v1 vs the other CA41s, provided it can get a torpedo hit or two to make up for the reduced damage dealt by her guns. With vet crew the speed is 26kn standard and 43kn overspeed, so I consider 1 engine upgrade adequate to both escape subs and control distance to other CAs (but not enough to chase down a CV with guns).

It is my understanding that my build on the mogami44 might be unique in the game with most other players preferring the mini CV build with full deck and plane upgrades (thus cutting back on armour and guns as you say).

5 minutes ago, 007 said:

Yes, it is very sad that bb100s are better than bb90s. Actually in my opinion the places of them should be switched and bb110s and bb120s taken away. Those are just unhistorical (not saying I would not like to play with QV 😉). Then of course current bb90s should be made better. Maybe as good as bb110s now.

While we agree that fictional ships should not be in the game (including some CLs), pandora's box is open and there is no taking away of ships from players that have already paid (bb110 & 120 cost gold - lots of it) without a major shitstorm happening and players leaving the game.

Gradual changes are required to bring them down to more sensible levels (submarines too - even though i enjoy enormously my XXI, i admit it is way overpowered).

On the other hand this is a casual game - not a simulation (and should remain so in my opinion) so some flexibility is allowed in order to get the game enjoyable by all players regardless of level.

6 hours ago, Davmak said:

Historically the strongest ship should be bb90 (Montana, Lion, H44, Soyuz and Super Yamato)

These were only drawing board ships, some more developed (Lion, Montana) and sensible enough to be constructed, some requiring more time to mature (Soviets could not make Soyouz's armour as planned, IJN needed to develop 20" guns). H44 for me is entering the realm of pure fantasy.

Thanks Davmak and Altavilla for adding the info (and correcting the Yamato stats).

It seems that with the huge damage, better range (except for H39) and brit armour Vanguard has a definite advantage.

According to Mimoto's tables:

Iowa 9x1920 = 17280 broadside damage at 2867 range, 1790 reload, 35850 Hull

Yamato 9x2107 = 18963 9x1848 = 16632 broadside damage at 2865 range, 1766 reload, 35000 Hull

H39* 8x1806 = 14448 broadside damage at 3242 range, 1740 reload, 34200 Hull

Stalingrad: 12x1572 = 18864 broadside damage at 2888 range, 1858 reload, 34500 hull

Vanguard: 12x1980 = 23760 broadside damage at 2692 range, 1790 reload, 34700 hull

with 20-30% more damage per broadside you have to close distance quickly - then most German ships are short work (I have a vet lvl 100 battleship and I'm scared of Hoods and Ganguts getting in range - nevermind an Iowa of Yamato)

* my ship, not in Mimoto's tables

(if anyone reading can add Vanguard and Stalingrad stats please do)

13 hours ago, 007 said:

Solution is: make more 50-120 level DDs, CLs and CAs and 100-120 level CVs and SSs.

I have to agree with diddy:

6 hours ago, 1diddy said:

Asking for new ships is not the solution

It will drive lower level players away faster as the top tier ship will be much further away. Now you can get top CL in a few days or a week and top CA soon after. If you get top tier to lvl 100 as you suggest... it took me more than a year to reach lvl 100 (can be much sooner with premium account and by playing more hours)

There is place in Great battle for a CL or DD - escort. A BB with a good escort can and will win vs 2 stronger BBs, the reason is that gun range is much bigger than sight radius, thus if the scout planes are shot down the stronger BBs will have to fire blindly (I suggest CL/DD and not CA as it will also have to do anti-sub duty).

In addition a BB firing at a (fast and manoeuvring) DD/CL at extreme range is wasting time that would be better spent killing a BB/CV (as it is very hard to hit at range).

Proof of that is that you'll often see a CL in War of Fleets - where the prerequisite is veteran (often master) crew BB120, SS79/92, CV 79/92

6 hours ago, 1diddy said:

Proper and decent matchmaking is the only thing that can keep veteran captains interested and newer Captain's willing to continue. It can be done in such a way that you wouldn't even need online expert anymore. I never liked the idea of half my fleet playing online great battle the other half playing online expert. It doesn't make for a cohesive unit.

You forgot offence/defence further diluting and splitting (the seemingly reducing number of) players.

13 hours ago, 007 said:

that is the problem. Eventually there will be many more bb120 so it is impossible to survive as lower level ship (excluding high level CVs and SSs). This will drive new players away from the game as it is just too hard and as old players get bored there will be no one to play any more.

Only solution to this is to make players realise the value of their DD/CL and play them as they should - not as suicidal bots. and getting close to a BB to fire upon it with your DD/CL is suicidal (exception for the high range and tiny/fast Premium CL 18s and possibly DD50s).

A CA is harder to find a place in a fleet. Best use is AAW escort for stronger units (and adding firepower), hunter/destroyer of CVs and weaker units - but lacking sonar and ASW is not as useful (in the extremely slim chance that a developer happens to read this: please DO NOT add ASW capabilities to CAs, it will make DDs/CLs obsolete).

Could keep the ship's name and settings and delete the captain's name (or change it to "Mindless Bot"). When I see RedBaron in the battle I want to fight RedBaron not an AI.

Note: nothing against RedBaron, name used just for example, could be anything.

38 minutes ago, 1diddy said:

Heavy Guns Never Miss. I mean they really never miss.

To the point it seems that the shells are guided if they can hit a manoeuvring XXI sailing at 40 knots (or DD at 55+)

In auto aim it's very common for A turret shells to land one side of the target and B turret shells the other. It seems that turrets don't aim independently but as a group, thus being deadly in right angles and miss when alignment is not perfect. (No BB120 experience yet, speaking with H39/BB100 in mind)

Fully agree on first point. I was actually happy to see RedBaron yesterday - a nice battle ahead i thought. Then another RedBaron appeared in the same battle... both sailing in a straight line, not bothered from heavy fire by my H39

No opinion on the second point. I don't do HA.

The wof participation is something to be discussed with your fleet chief and leaders.

We (Neptune's Inferno) generally have a call in fleet chat when we intend to setup a WoF and select players based on who is available and eager to participate (people often don't want, can't commit or suffer lag problems). I'm sure most fleets do the same or something similar.

In the past it was suggested to have a "join WoF" announcement pop-up (much like the join online battle announcement) even when already in online battle or operations, HA etc.

The ability to cancel participation in online battle is a prerequisite as long as the button pops up in front of chat or other buttons and gets inadvertently pushed.

1 hour ago, 1diddy said:

When you press the Coca-Cola button you don't expect to get 7UP?

You get Pepsi sometimes

I think the problem here is if we want:

a) semi accurate modelling of submarines or,

b) submarines having a place in WWII naval battles

we can pick a) OR b) as WWII subs were too slow submerged (7-10 kn, except the XXI that could do 17), one shot from (almost) any gun would prevent them to dive, were generally fragile*, periscope was needed (or at least used) for final attack, generally detectable (at close range), would *only* carry 12 (S-class) to 24 (Gato) torpedoes... During WWII a submarine would hide and pray if detected by any warship.

On the other hand, pattern following (not straight line until fuel runs out) and acoustic homing (from 1943) torpedoes with magnetic triggers were used.

Trying to make a realistic model of submarines would make them useless in the game.

* Wikipedia "Ramming": On 29 January 1943, the Japanese submarine I-1 was rammed and wrecked by the New Zealand naval trawlers, Kiwi and Moa in shallow water at Kamimbo Bay, Guadalcanal, during Operation Ke. The submarine of 2,135 tons was much larger and more heavily armed than the minesweeping trawlers of 607 tons each.

Of course many other things are not very realistic in-game to make it playable. e.g. CVs starting and restricted to fight in very close ranges, damage of shells (also hull strength, speed, turn rate) depending on crew experience, unrealistic speeds (50-60+ knots for DDs and CLs, 35-40+ for everything else), all ships within class and nation sharing same speeds (e.g Nelson and King George V, Colorado and Iowa), WWI battleships being stronger than WWII BBs (the 4 ships of the Izmail-Borodino class were scrapped in 1923/1931 as obsolete)

__________

Wikipedia IJN I-1: On 29 January 1943 she encountered the New Zealand minesweepers, Kiwi and Moa. Unable to penetrate I-1's hull with their deck guns,^{[citation needed]} the minesweepers rammed and chased her to shallow water, eventually driving her aground on the reef at Kamimbo Bay, Guadalcanal.^[2][3] The wreck partially protrudes from the water.

Kiwi and Moa had 4" guns. Submarine hulls were not that fragile after all.

21 hours ago, 1diddy said:

ship will stop repairing itself once its damage is down to 25%. I guess this means the damage control teams are the first to take to the lifeboats. 

I prefer to think of it like a sinking ship. Still afloat but taking in waters uncontrollably (something like Musashi that, without sustaining any further damage, was trying -unsuccessfully- for 5-6 hours just to stay afloat)

(Photo of Musashi from Wikipedia)

On 6/23/2018 at 1:34 PM, S Gorskov said:

the repair kit restores 33% instead of 25%

I would say less (like 10%) rather than more - with a bit faster "reload", then reduce the cost to 5 or more for 10 gold.

Fireworks I haven't thought about, maybe because I haven't run out of them in any ship yet (I don't think I would spend 10 gold for a reload though).

43 minutes ago, S Gorskov said:

 

Hello Baldrick

I know very well all this but the real important difference is in the use frequency; the IJN was focused on the torpedo tactical war also on the CAs, while the other Navies did not consider the torpedo as a predominant weapon, only accessory for heavy ships, excluding the WWI seems to exist a single torpedo case between BBs (Rodney against Bismarck only to accelerate the sinking) a little bit to put the torpedoes on the Provence (hehehe), while there are many examples of the use (with success) of the torpedoes by the Japanese CAs, btw, i would see the Furious with 18" and tha SS90 RN with one 305" too, now it is useless and much more weak that SS79 RN; anyway in my precedent post i mean that if the IJN must be "unique" i think right that have one of his most developed and most famous weapon system, only imho , of course and telling the truth, the IJN seems (inexplicably) a bit weak in this game (mainly in BBs sector), only my personal opinion, perhaps i wrong

True, looks like IJN BBs are weak (at least as far as BB50 and BB70 are concerned, didn't check further Mimoto's tables)

I wondered as well about the M type's (RN SS92) but never checked how they modeled the 305mm gun. It's a shame they didn't give it some punch, especially considering the size and vulnerability of this sub on the surface.

Nelson class was also armed with 24.5 in torpedoes, many other battleships and most heavy cruisers were also armed with torpedoes - usually of the "standard" 21in varieties.

Battleships and cruisers also carried impressive AA guns (Yamato was re-fitted with 162 25mm AA guns in 1944/45 in addition to 30 5&6 inch guns and AA "Sanshiki" shells for her 18" guns).

Trying to model all these in the game will result in completely useless DDs and CLs.

________

Edit: I'd rather see the Furious given the 18" guns that were designed and made for her, but never got them. (This won't unbalance the game as a CA with just 2 18" guns will still be severely outmatched by every battleship of the game - she will just be an oddball like kitakami or mogami'44)

17 hours ago, Davmak said:

For example, Amagi Engine 3A has better OH performance, while Engine 3B has better normal speed; Gun 3A has high shell damage but shorter range, and vice versa for Gun 3B; Armour 2A focus more on deck defence, while Armour 2B gives up some deck defence but has early belt armour.....

Then the difference between nations will become narrower, or all nation could build similar ships. I think the idea that USN is balanced, RN hard-hitting and well armoured, IJN fast (and unique ships), KM long range and Soviet (someone help here - I need to unlock Soviets and see myself) works well as different play-style/tactics are needed for each.

Also giving a 9th slot won't work any better than 4 star crews do - paying or high scoring players (playing long hours each day) get an advantage over more casual players - this may alienate and eventually drive away the more casual players.

4 hours ago, Davmak said:

Market for selling crews and ships please

also resources. and a chance to pirate the ship that transports them on the way arrggh

I got a single ship (the Emden - have to invest that gold I got). This purchase unlocked the "Be Cool! - Purchase # ships" achievement and got it in full.

"The rich" achievement I also have got just by having >5k in the bank (got to save for the kaiser)

Maybe I miss the point.

I play the game to fight other players in naval battles, not complete achievements. In my view I got a lot of gold and xp out of the blue and I'm grateful for what I got, not feel sorry for what I can't because the achievements happened late in the game.

6 hours ago, Polina Kitty said:

This game is starting to become a chore rather than being something fun to play 

I see you've got 3200 gold, so you're not "poor". You also have most premium ships.

You don't have to do every achievement. Just pick your favourite ship and enjoy the game.

Awaiting to meet you in the field.

What I understand is:

1. You would like to have more options in gun/aircraft etc. for your ship setup so that you could fine tune a ship to your likes - long range, massive damage close by, etc.

2. You do not know how to turn caps lock off, use punctuation or make your text readable.

My view is:

1. Some options are nice to have but as this is a game made for casual gamers, not gaming enthusiasts it should be kept simple, enjoyable and not requiring a huge micromanagement (you want to choose type of bombs loaded on planes? really?)

2. I struggled to read your message, I'm not sure I got your point of view, but I'm afraid to try and read it again.

11 hours ago, Pauls said:

I have no lag, but simply chat doesn't update after while. I must change, or reload nation to see new messages. Of course since last update.

Same here. also it seems that it's not all messages that don't update after a while but random messages/people. It's funny to see replies to unseen messages.

As you said, usually changing or reloading nation updates, but sometimes messages appear out of order

I guess the developers/programmers have time to waste...  I wonder what their "to do" list looks like.