raise the MAX BR to 10.0 add iowa bismarck yamato rome alsace jeanbart etc and make scharn like 8.0
1 Like
sadly gaijin probably wont do this
That thing would eat Granits for lunch
The best way is to rework the whole system and buff other classes of ships such as cruisers and destroyers. Destroyers have too many disadvantages, and they should be able to maintain top speed for a much longer time.Torpedoes deal a lot of damage, with a single US torpedo capable of sinking a Japanese Carrier in WW2. Destroyers also need a much lower detection radius so that the Schanhorst would not be able to one-shot snipe 40 kilometers away. Cruisers should have better fire-lighting capabilities for their HE shells, and the lot of them had AP shells (so do a lot of DDs). Giving AP shells to all ships that had them is a great idea, and I think making the secondary cannons aimed by AI is a good idea, just the way gunners in planes are controlled.
1 Like
I played Scharnhorst a few days ago and, honestly, I don’t think it’s all that OP anymore. Its armor is supreme, but its firepower just isn’t great at all. The shells were dealing no damage at all to a Mississippi 9km away- just ricochets and shells being eaten by the armor. Barely damaged a Rodney too.
With armor degradation and compartment destruction mechanics, Scharnhorst’s protection can be overcome like anyone else’s- specially with so many 16 inch BBs already, while the ship’s guns may struggle to even dent the enemy BBs’ armor.
1 Like
These are a true menace when I wan’t to play older BBs or BCs. I like to play SMS Derfflinger, one of the best WW1 battlecruisers with quite a battle history. Or that new 7.0 SMS Yorck battlecruiser (just the hull was built). Bayern, Baden etc. Anything WW1 seems to be unable to survive one or two 16’’ salvos. Its an issue imho. Cause I also wan’t to play the older WW1 BBs and BCs. Yorck outright explodes when focused by a 16’’ BB.
It was somewhat managable as long as there just was Mutsu. But now there are just too many of these.
Yeah, it’s a shame that compression renders many cool WW1 ships literally unusable.
What are Early WW1 BBs armed with 283-305mm guns suppossed to do against Interwar and WW2 16-inchers?
I would love to play 6.0-6.3 BB lineups… but they are unplayable against 7.0s; while these 6.0-6.3 ships render 5.0-5.7s unplayable too…
Compression is a way too big problem in Naval.
3 Likes
That is why we should have separtate tree lines, with a battleship, cruiser, destroyer, and submarine line, just the way AIR has bomber, fighter, and interceptor lines. Only tree that has different classes all jumbled up in lines.
2 Likes
What Gaijin really needs to do is use the separate air BRs to decompress naval, preferably to at least 10-11BR. That way, they can have the same 7.X jets as usual fighting the current top tier, but with 3-4 more BR brackets between the tip-top ships and WW1 boats.
3 Likes
It’s basically the best ship equipped to mitigate the 16" guns in the game still. If Scharnhorst has a bloody nose from Amagi salvos, now imagine what kind of beating everyone else with significantly inferior protection experiences.
Sure, Amagi, Colorado and Rodney guns ruin everyone’s day. But at least most ships can give them a few good hits in return. Scharnhorst armor is so idiot-proof that there is no point in even shooting back when one wants you dead, they’re guaranteed to outlast you if you don’t have help to take them down.
3 Likes
I think you’re exaggerating the effectiveness of Scharnhorst’s firepower against top tier BBs, particularly after the ballistics update in this major. The 28cm guns have never been great at taking down tough targets like Hood, Rodney, Tennessee etc. In fact even before the ballistic fix it can barely hurt a properly angled Amagi. After the major update I can literally sail in Rodney without even angling and give a big middle finger on its face.
I have stopped playing Scharnhorst for a while, because I really dislike the 28cm gun lacking brutal slams like the big ones. I play the top tier to fight enemy capital ships, not for farming cruisers/bots.
1 Like
But lack of “slam” is compensated for high rof!
For farming cruisers yes, for duel with well protected battleships no. If you can’t penetrate the vital area in the first place it is useless regardless you can fire twice or three times of shells on your enemy. Even with the new hull breaking system, the big gunners will still break the hull sections faster than fast firing small guns thanks to much higher KE damage from heavier shells and better velocity retention at distance.
I can’t recall how many times watching Scharnhorsts helplessly throw everything they can on my Tennessee while can’t even scratch 2% out of my crew because I stay at a range where they can’t penetrate anywhere of my citadel armour. On the other hand I can slam my big AP shells on their barbette again and again until they go boom. Yes it takes a lot of patience but watching ppl in Scharnhorst suffering is an unusual mean of entertainment.
2 Likes
Tennessee after the dispersion and ballistic changes is a joy to play. Doesn’t necessarily hold up the best under 15” and 16” fire but can absolutely maul other ships’ crew especially with ranging shot. 5”/38 likes to overshoot closing enemies a lot after the ballistic change but you can dial it back in quick enough in the long salvo interval.
What I’m really looking forward to is getting a South Dakota class hopefully this year and ideally Massachusetts. Looking at just the belt armor thickness I don’t think a lot of people appreciate just how tough they will be, since the 19 degree belt angle means that by the 7.5-10km range bracket where armor starts to actually matter the compound angle will make many shells use their 30 degree modifiers, reducing their penetration by nearly a quarter. Combined with the external sts plating and fuel tanks over the main belt, as well as a decent splinter plate spaced behind the main belt the armor should stand up fairly well to contemporary ships while shrugging off fire from all but the best guns in game currently. Scharnhorst especially will have a very hard time against the armor, while the ~80% improvement in broadside weight per minute of the 16”/45 vs 14”/50 will absolutely chew it to pieces.
3 Likes
North Carolina would also be a tough cookie herself. While her armor is not as angled as South Dakota her magazines did receive an addition 3.95" armored backplate.
Of course, its probably more than likely that their barbettes can be easily sniped and set off the magazines anyway.
2 Likes
I have a spaded Scharnhorst too. Barely play it, because it’s just boring and OP. They brought it years too soon into the gameplay.
1 Like
no where as op as it used to be its guns are so mid nowadays and all its got going is high rate off fire and decent survivability what naval needs is decompression that just gaiijin refuses to happen we need larger maps around 8 Miles should be start off naval engaugments with removal of costal from top tier and right now most engaugements happen at 4 miles larger maps and a increse of br for scarn to 7.7 should be fine and 8.0 for 16 inch monsters ww1 dreads can probably be 7.0
more open ocean maps too as most enagaugments dont take place near land
Yeah the North Carolinas should be pretty strong. My main concern is the comparatively poor machinery protection will probably make them very vulnerable to crew bleed. I expect the modernized Nagato to have a similar issue. Shell rooms will continue to be an Achilles heel but at least the barbette protection is generally better than the standards, though to a degree that’s mostly valuable against lower br ships. To the best of my knowledge all US fast battleships should have an armor arrangement similar to that of Alaska inside the barbette, meaning in theory the powder handling room shouldn’t be part of the magazine hitbox like it is on Tennessee for example. Booklets of general plans generally have the fast battleship magazines slightly below the waterline at trial displacement rather than almost exactly at it for the standards, so that should be an improvement also. Even better if they model one at deep load, as iirc per Friedman Massachusetts in certain conditions had a draft of ~37ft vs ~33ft at standard, while current US battleships generally clock in around ~30ft.
3 Likes