Offered just as a review aid, all bluewater ships, sorted by BR, with the change proposed in the right column and their K/Ds for May (courtesy Statshark) for AB and RB (note: far right column should read “proposed change in BR steps (RB)”):
7.0
Spoiler
Don’t see how Mississippi/Colorado/Tennessee don’t struggle here
6.7
Spoiler
Nevada/Texas/Arizona look to struggle, Marat and PK should do well though
Leningrad looking to do very well here, all its competition is gone
4.0
Spoiler
Lot going on there, and it’s only one stat and one month, but still it’s a pretty important stat. A lot of US ships going up more than last month’s K/d stats would seem to dictate, in particular. Possibly making assumptions based on more aircraft (so better US AA makes more of a difference) plus the planned damage model changes to reduce ammo racking?
Thanks for booting the jets with guided bombs. Ideally though, it would be preferable to make naval prop planes only or up to rank 4 aircraft in naval modes. Just my personal preference because I like the lower rank aircraft.
I already reported the lack of that as a bug, and the reply was that whether a ship has or hasn’t got the emptying ammo racks is up to the dev team, and the decision made was not to give it to the Dunkerque class. And to be clear: I’m not saying that it’s not happening, I’d just love to see the source of that claim.
Also, either way: Both ships of the class should be in the same BR, IMO. There isn’t enough of a survivability gap to justify 0.3 BR difference (it makes a huge difference in the window of enemy ships it’s going to see or not-to-see, and Dunkerques are best-used in reverse angling, making the difference in the frontal armor immaterial for a more skilled fights).
Scharnhorst at 8.0? That’s completely mental. She would not survive against any of the 8.7 BBs, and it’s likely a safe bet that the 8.0s and 8.3s are all getting uptiered by MM into the 8.7 meatgrinder.
In this change, the only beneficiary is Soviet. They both have powerful BB and IL-28 with 3t nuke. In test server, sink an Iowa class is the same way as sink an Alaska class. And AA bots will never let any propeller plane near their fleet.
Although you do still have auxiliary ammunition storage, you can at least empty upper shell room and magazine by loading half round.
Plus, the height of citadel has reworked so even upper shell room and magazine is directly below the waterline, while in live server they are around the waterline.
Except it’s ATGM is bugged and has a high chance of not launching (about 80% chance of spawning with it un-launchable in my experience) so 4 out of 5 times if you spawn with the ATGMs you are just using guns with a bunch of extra weight on the plane, and on the rare occasion it dose fire half the time it just goes “dumb” and doesn’t follow it’s guidance. There is a reason nobody remembers it, because it’s not functional so nobody uses it.
Naval decompression was long overdue so this is very welcomed, however there are some further changes that needs to be made IMO:
Dupleix needs to go down to 5.3 like the Colbert. It only has SAP shells, and going from 50 to 60mm for the main belt and marginally better AA over Colbert does not justify the BR increase. It especially does not justify being the same BR as Hipper/Eugen (and it’s kind of weird that both of those aren’t going up BTW)
Scharnhorst needs to go to 7.7. Yes, the recent changes made them easier to kill, but easier ≠ easy. It’s still a very oppressive ship and the current cramped map design still unfairly favor its armor scheme.
Amagi should go up to 8.0. Yes its armor isn’t the best, but 5x2 410mm with a RoF that can go up to 2.5 RPM and has is incredibly potent and is certainly better than Mutsu or Hood.
That would indeed significantly help. But still… 7.3? 7.0 wouldve been good for both ships. Mind you, they barely have any armor as is, nevermind the guns, penetration is… meh, to say the least.
Its also rudicilous they never adressed that issue in the first place upon release. Playing dunkerque after it came out is just pure suffering. 400k rp for a ship that instantly goes kaboom by even the slightest hit. Nevermind the listing issue.
Strasbourg (the much better ship) is an event ship so people cant even grind the better ship in its class normally.
They shouldve swapped the tech tree and event vehicles, then at least it wouldnt have been so bad.
And then bretagne… why is bretagne going to be at 6.7? It will face us standards with much better armor and firepower.
I just entirely skipped the early battleships beceause they are literally unplayable. You do no damage, your armor is paper thin, you’re hella slow… idk why bretagne is the outlier here? Beceause of the extra gun maybe? No clue
Could you please explain to me why, with this massive push for naval, the separate engine controls for ships where removed? As someone who worked on ships for a decade and has operated multi-screw ships I can assure you engine steering is used all the time, especially when mooring where fine movement is needed. this removal is EXTREMELY disappointing AND un realistic. It needs to be restored yesterday.
Do you think ship have multiple engine controls as spares?
Same thing, just visual, focussing on what are likely to be the key “shark BRs” in the new meta, of 7.3 and 6.0 for the mid-tier, and the feeder BRs for each (on the proven principle 8.7 is going to suck 7.7 up to it, and so on; currently that “shark BR” is 5.7)
Red is “going down”, Green is “going up” (double arrows if it goes up two), and the number is the average of their AB and RB K/Ds in May.
That coastal decompression better come soon too, cause I dare Gaijin staff to look me in the eye and tell me that a 2.3 MV-611 having to fight a 3.3 La Suprise is fair and is not much worse than any other ground or air full uptier.
Extra gun is nice and all over Lorraine but 0 aa is questionable though its not as important in average game. Bretange rangefinders also less accurate but u can play around that too. Being honest due to draggy the shels are the early french bbs will always be questionable and barely usefull vs actual bbs.
Bretagne to 6,7 with 280 pen at 15km when Dunkerque to still be 0,3 above has still 380pen there is a rough jump. Could just keep it at 6,3 at this point.
Some early BB guns are increadibly draggy and needs to be taken into account. Like Courbet APHE range is 13km combined with bad elevation. And italian 305/46 amstrong guns also have barely 13km range on APHE.
13km is enough range for wt battles but lead and penetration at range is just horrible unless u use HE.
Statshark stats for naval ve been unreliable in the past but now after nice fixes are pretty good.
Would be nice to include the game count those ships achieve too. Since we know small how data can be all over the place depending on that. Also there can be huge swings overtime due to that without even major changes to the game.
I think to properly get results from statshark analysis or any stats (for example that gaijin have) you need to play the game and also know all the tiny details of the ships and battle metas.
For example you point out crazy good Kerch stuff, but u can see almost same ship in italian tree (di Savoia) just isnt as great stats wise. Its obviously due to factors outside ship performance and those ships should always be same br.
Also Leningrad being event vehicle having good stats while the Moskva with way worse in tech tree is another example of pure stats not being enough to say what should happen.
Interestingly for lots of boats premium stats seem way better in opposition to whats happening ground and air.
The proposed changes make a lot of sense for a lot of ships but are missing stuff and some stuff is overdone or done in wrong way if they would include some feedback i think it would improve at least.
In terms of stats if a vehicle has good characteristics and bad stats i think there should be deep analysis on why that is and vice versa. I think gaijin did manage to do that for some and take some good decisions for those split vehicles. Theres some clear cases of good vehicle good stats cases not on the proposed changelist people rightfully leave feedback on.
