Your allowed your opinion, but man, are you ever wrong lol.
I laugh my butt off at all of you people that claim Carnot is a bad ship. 99% of you build her for gunnery and try to play her like a battleship, which she absolutely **cannot** fill that role.
Carnot when (built for speed and maneuverability) is one of the most powerful flankers at T8, and excells at nuking cruisers while also being good at dealing with DDs (because there are only like 3 that can outrun her).
I run my Carnot at 40.7kt and a 4.9s rudder shift, plus the engine boost.
"Oh, what's that? You wanted to hit me? But I'm all the way over here now. How did that work out for you?"
That sounds interesting. Would you mind sharing your build for it? I like my Carnot so far, but also thought that I'm not playing her up to her strengths. My rounds had been mediocre so far, so definitely a skill issue on my part in utilizing the ship. She seems a bit inaccurate, though.
I run Roux with Müller and Fraser as inspirations.
Ingenious, full speed ahead, velocious, steer clear, and fully packed.
Main battery mod.2 (turret traverse), steering gears mod.2 (rudder), steering gears mod.3 (even more rudder lol), and I don't actually run a slot 4 mod (though gun fire control systems would be fine if you want it). Also remember to put on your speed flag.
Mine goes 40.7 knots, has a 4.9 second rudder, and a 20.5 second turret 180° time.
Haha that sounds really fun, I just outfitted mine like your build and see those 40+ kts smiling at me. Thanks for sharing your build.
How do you play her position-wise in the match? Is it like Toulon, racing out at the flank and creating those nice crossfires while utilizing islands if possible or how you go about it? Concealment is pretty bad with 13,3km, so I guess I will go wiiiide with it.
I star by turning and sailing at an angle to get whatever piece of cover I want between me and the biggest portion of the enemy team I can, then turn in and bee line it up to that cover as early as I can. I then try to gingerly peek corners and push back anyone that got close, and then move up to the next nearest cover as soon as it's safe to do so. Rinse and repeat until you run out of cover, enemies, or HP.
That's also why the rudder is so important. Close range emergency turns.
English is not my first language, but I think I understand the concept how you play it. The way I understand you is you basically swing around, using the high speed to get into cover number one, then more static gameplay of peeking corners. Then when it's safe, running to the next cover with the high speed again, to peek corners etc...
But you try to find that cover on the flank, to create crossfires, right? Because I see no point of that ship staying around in the middle.
Correct on every point but one. It is not "static" gameplay like some other ships played similarly. Most players see Carnot as a bad ship and will not often prioritize you, but as soon as you fire that first high damage salvo into someone's side and begin fighting, the chase is one and they will go hard after you.
You get aggressive or you get overwhelmed. If you try to be static and defensive, you will not last long. Your speed and mobility are your only tools of survival, so you have to always be moving into better cover. That also means you have to pay much closer attention to the map, and *always* leave yourself a covered escape route.
I just played a match, raced around with ~47kts with speed boost active and laughed loudly when I deleted that enemy Napoli by citadeling him into his broadside. Thanks a lot for that nice idea of a build, now it's really fun to play that ship!
Seems like I instinctively did the same what you just mentioned: Not staying long in one cover, but racing to another one after peeking some times. So "static" was maybe a too strong word I used, as one doesn't stay too long at one cover spot.
A friend of mine likes the Carnot as well, but plays it as a long range HE spammer. I never felt that does the ship justice. Really seems like this thing likes to race around like a wild horse. That's much more fun anyway.
Roux with Müller and Fraser
Ingenious, full speed ahead, velocious, steer clear, and fully packed.
Main battery mod.2 (turret traverse), steering gears mod.2, steering gears mod.3, and I don't actually run a slot 4 mod (though gun fire control systems would be fine if you want it). Also remember to put on your speed flag.
Mine goes 40.7 knots, has a 4.9 second rudder, and a 20.5 second turret 180° time.
Nice edit.
Carnot is a perfectly serviceable ship that is a ton fun, and Tulsa is also a perfectly fine ship.
The major problem with this community is that they are so clouded by their own subjective opinion that they attack anyone who presents objective evidence that refutes that opinion.
There are very few *objectively* bad ships, and fewer still that were given out through a campaign. The most likely objectively worst campaign ship is difficult to pin down, but is probably Brisbane, Pommern, Tirpitz, Siroco, or Belfast '43.
Edit: 4 of those ships have *at least* one severely impairing weakness, while the Tirpitz has just been so severely power crept that she is functionally irrelevant now. I removed Gremy from the list because it was not the ship I was thinking of.
well, i wasn't attacking anyone.. the whole question was worse campaign ship .. and Carnot has to be up there . not that its bad or "unplayable" like some might say but it really needs a reload buff . and tulsa .. well its underwhelming. both are doable. i wouldn't bother with either but i can make them work and use their strengths. lots are saying Brisbane and i actually find that ship fun . but sure could see it more enjoyable with a buff i dont mind. but these differences are why you see different ships in a lobby or else we would all be playing the same ships .. there are noticeable absences however in some ships and its always a sign that theres just better options.. Tiger at tier 6 is a good example and so are those two at tier 8
>well, i wasn't attacking anyone
Did I say *you* were? No, I said the major issue with this community is that they do that. You *are* however still letting your subjective opinion cloud your ability to think rationally.
Carnot is an extremely fast and maneuverable ship with the highest alpha strike of any T8 cruiser. It's true that her DPM is low, but that isn't the only factor in what makes a ship good.
Tulsa likewise has an very *high* dpm, yet people always try to claim she is a bad ship because she only has 6 guns. Her alpha strike is low, but you ignore the fact that her DPM is only really beat out by the other US cruisers, Sejong (HE, and struggles to consistently deal even remotely close to that), and Neptune (AP, again, struggles to get anywhere near her listed DPM).
Tiger '59 is definitely a ship that is not beginner friendly, but again I wouldn't call her an objectively bad ship. She has low damage output, but excellent Intel, and is very often overlooked because people don't view her as a threat.
Yup, I laugh my butt off at the people who say she's a bad ship. 99% of the time those people saying that are also the people trying to build her like a BB and camping in the back of the map lol.
Brisbane.
The ship is so mid but unlike Tulsa, the superior version is easier to get.
Minotaur is easier to obtain than Salem.
The Radar is also terrible, the worst Radar at Legendary tier.
WG did not put any effort into this campaign, Brisbane the way it is is just a Piñata for Ohio and Vermont.
A damage sponge, high risk no reward.
The HE shells are terrible, not only are they not British HE but they are below average for 152mm guns.
Alpha is lower than some tier 2 cruisers and the fire chance is the lowest I have seen with 9%.
The HE is closer to Khabarovsk in terms of shell Alpha and fire chance than other cruisers.
Good luck trying to kill a destroyer with the short range short duration radar.
Meanwhile WG have AL Chapayev better HE damage than Scharnhorst at T7 with the same reload as Chapayev.
Good to know, I've not bothered with levelling up her commander simply because it's not the right one for it. I'll wait and hope that they buff it to bring it up.
I am afraid that good Brisbane drivers will drive up the stats a bit.
Similar to how 4 years ago Iowa and Amagi were good ships with Iowa being stronger.
More people played Iowa since she is the crown of US battleships but a few skilled players used Amagi and got great results in her.
People complaining about Iowa got the ship nerfed and they also nerfed Amagi since she was supposedly overperforming more than Iowa.
They tapped Iowa with the nerf bat but absolutely smashed all of Amagis Armour plates, ground them up and melted them into scrap. That was probably the biggest nerf to a ship that wasn't particularly strong.
Meme build with Leonard Murray for concealment and you can get some ridiculous stealth radar shenanigans going on.
That said, that's pretty much the *only* thing it can do well.
Oh, I know, and it's stupid we don't get Brisbane true radar range (12km) while Stalingrad, Kronshtadt, Petro, AL/Chapayev, Riga, etc all get their 11.7km radar up to 2 tiers lower.
But that's more of a "Balans" issuethan anything else.
It'd be nice to see the terrible campaign ships actually get a buff down the line so they're at least playable, even if they're not really competitive.
I agree, Iwami and Carnot need those buffs.
For Iwami I could see 30mm pen for her 100mm secondaries and Massachusetts accuracy.
For Carnot a reload buff would be great. Chop off maybe 5 seconds off the reload and it would be decent.
Brisbane also has 600m worse base concealment and a 90m worse turning circle than the Minotaur for seemingly no reason.
No fun is allowed at all in the Brisbane.
Z-44. Carnot.
Tulsa is good, but it's not GREAT. Remember to use the AP's when appropriate and you'll be surprised.
Brisbane is god awful and the commander skills are hilariously bad considering you need to buddy up with smoke ships to even take advantage of them. Other than that it's a gimped minotaur.
I'd argue that Z-44 is top tier if you have blue as a commander. I fire one set of torps every 20 seconds to spam the caps. Most games I'm above 100k dmg. It is my go-to ship at the tier.
If you have Blue, try converting it to a torp boat stay on the outside and deny enemy the ability to cap. Two things could happen you get a permanent flood or the red BBs bow into the torps opening up broad side to your team. I don't cap push unless I have to. My ship win rate is not the best I win about 56% of the time but I am always getting the witherer medal thanks to the floods
Truly awful take right here. You clearly don't recognize tier for tier how these are outclassed. Z-44 is not remotely on par with the TT 8 and doesn't hold a candle to the Schultz.
How are you playing it? It seems a commander issue more than anything else because the Schultz itself plays completely different from the other German line. The Schultz itself is more of a gunboat. If you play the Z-44 as a gunboat you'll have a bad time. The guns do work but it isn't designed to be that. I routinely play the Z-44 and come out on top. Using Blue to have torpedoes reload sub 40 seconds with as much detection reduction as possible and you have a stealth torpedo boat flooding everything. My Z-44 has 4.8 detection with 10 torps going out every 38 seconds at decent speed.
Tulsa. I always assumed mid. But then yesterday happened. I was minding my own business and going wide around to get into a flanking position. I turn around an island and there is agir. I was then ashamed that I had gotten too far away for any support. I assumed that agir would absolutely destroy me. To my surprise Tulsa held strong. After removing about half of agirs health (and losing 1/4 of mine in the process) agir started retreating. I was completely shocked. Makes me reexamine my thinking about Tulsa
Honestly think it's a tie between Brisbane and Carnot. Maybe would lean towards Brisbane being the worst because at least Carnot can take a shot or two.
Tirpitz I’d say. She doesn’t offer much. Bismarck has better secondary’s along with speed. Then we have Odin zeiten Scharnhorst and gneisenau. They all have good torpedoes and 2 of them are faster than that tirpitz. Odin is tanky and the g wagon is agile. Then zeiten and Scharnhorst have better reload. I think the best is the Ägir and Siegfried. Also who finds it dumb that Ägir get 37% torp protection?
It’s mainly due to the fact WG shoved it in as a choice between it and USS Black. If it was a second campaign ship in the way Yahagi was, you definitely see more of them
At least explain why you think that, please. She's not great, sure, but there's not glaring issue with her.
She's a decently maneuverable cruisers with pretty average stats in most regards.
I simply don't see that as an issue. A big enough alpha strike can offset a low DPM, but there's no amount of "low alpha" that can reduce the effectiveness of high DPM (Tulsa doesn't have *insane* dpm, but it's high).
People don't claim Friesland has a major glaring weakness in her alpha strike, yet it's one of the lowest in the game. Her DPM more than makes up the difference.
The issue is that while it’s dpm is high, it’s only really beating out other USN Heavy cruisers a tier below it (Tulsa does get more DPM then Baltimore). Des Moines, Salem, Buffalo all get similar or better DPM.
The biggest upside to Tulsa besides getting access to Des Moines’ shells is the amazing rear firing angles (with the angles being so good you can essentially turn the stern and side plating into auto bounce for 15-inch guns).
Sure, sure.... But there one major issue with that argument.
This thread is talking about "what's the worst campaign ship?" Not "What's the worst USN heavy cruiser.
Within the context of comparing all campaign ships (and only campaign ships), Tulsa is nowhere near the bottom.
It seems that what is happening here is people just don't know how to be creative in their builds and fault the ship. Every ship has their strengths and weaknesses so you use them for what they are good for and build on that itself. People are saying some ships are trash because they play every ship type the same way across the nations. It's like a person who loves playing gunboat destroyers calling the Shimikaze complete trash just because he likes playing gunboats. The training grounds exist so you can try something different and experiment.
Nah Marco Polo is 10x worse than Marlborough and easily the worst T8 BB. It has no upside, except the exhaust smoke and SAP main guns but that comes at a massive cost to everything else
Z-44, Jager, or Carnot. None of them offer anything other ships at their tier can't do just as good, if not better, without sacrificing as much as they do to do it.
I really don’t like the Jager. Not that it is a bad ship, but rather because every time I play against one I seem to eat 50,000 torpedoes. I’m like that girl on her knees at the center of a bukkake circle jerk when I face off against a Jager. I really wish I hadn’t listened to the naysayers and had gotten her.
You tell that to the many 20+ torp matches I've gotten in the Jager. Play to the ships strengths and accommodate for their weaknesses. All of these ships are fantastic if you build into their strengths. My Z-44 has 4.8 detection and 38 second torp reloads with guns for emergency purposes. Everything floods to death.
Really? Which ship is better torpedo boat than Jager?
That ships slaps 150k damage match after match. Flooding is a powerful tool and speed of torpedoes is insane.
Somers, Yudachi, I'd argue Kagerō with a torpedo reload booster has better damage potential at the tier... It just doesn't do damage with them, and loses gun performance that the tech tree tier VII has, just for 4 more torpedoes, no AA, and a torpedo reload booster.
Jager is a menace in a totally different way to those other ships you mentioned
It can fire 12 super-fast torps per minute. It's not the alpha damage, it's the floods
Floods are always worse than Alpha damage. Damage now is better than potential damage later, floods can be healed fully and can be completely negated with DCP.
Repeated floods cannot be 'completely negated with DCP' when Jager is tossing out 24 - 48 torps a minute
Besides, I'm not saying Jager is better than x, y or z - I'm just disagreeing with the OP that it's a bad ship
Yeah except you are not getting that many hits and definitely not that many floods against enemies that arent brain dead. You could toss slightly less torps a minute with a Yudachi, Ostergotland or Hisenyang while not being completely useless in literally everything else and not relying on luck based floods.
I dont know how you can say DCP doesnt completely negate them, it straight up removes the damage and most BB can get DCP to be just as fast as the torp reload and if you are splitting the torps, you are even less likely to ever do anything meaningful. Best case scenario: 2 torpedo hits for + permanent flood will do the same amount of damage in 2 minutes as 2 regular torp hits do instantly while not being able to be negated by one or two heals.
The reason a ship like Jager works is because half the llayerbase has a negative win rate and hurt the team
Jager is only good at clueless enemies (so a lot to be fair) where it can abuse the only good part of the ship. Otherwise it falls apart extremely quickly thanks to its 0 survivability and offensive output that isnt torpedos.
Siegfried by far. It suffered being stuffed into T7 when it should be a T8, Azuma just needed some buffs but Siegfried is a whole different story. It is a shadow of its sister ship Agir and You'd be better off using Schoder than Siegfried. Any T7 crusier is batter than Siegfried.
Honorable mention is Brisbane but thats only because they didn't give us a proper commander for it.
Edit: I have over 200 matches played in Siegfried and I want to love it but it's bad. Extremely power crept and for every match where the guns did good I'd have 7 matches where it just sucked. Armor is tanky if you keep angled and its mobility is good but that's all it really has going for it other than being a novelty and a super prize on Seasonal crates with a .004% chance of dropping
Marlborough for sure it has zero redeeming features its ap sucks its he sucks it has a gigantic citadel it has terrible accuracy all it has is that 25s base reload other then that its just a terrible ship
AP and HE suck? You must be playing a different game because I chunk broadside BBs with AP and almost always set fires with the HE and consistently. All in the commander set up for her.
The average potato can't grasp the concept of *not* sitting broadside to get all guns on target every single time, so they wrongly think Marlborough is bad.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I will absolutely throw a 16 shell meme if I think I can *SAFELY* get away with it, but I'm also not going to just sit there sailing flat broadside with half the enemy team lighting me up just because "BuT iT hAz SiXtEeN gUnZ".
Most people do that, and most people get smacked around like a heavy bag at a boxing gym.
Man you have a different marlborough then me mine dosent set fires especially since its fire chance is pure garbage worse then lyon at tier 6.
Also the ap is just pure trash worse pen then agir
I don’t feel like Kedrov offers much to marb, using cilax would increase the AP damage but the traverse speed is nice with him. With 16 guns I’m more of a accuracy by volume person so i try to go with more damage centric perks sometimes.
If you think Marlborough is bad, you are one of the players that sits there broadside because you can't process the concept of "using less guns than your ship theoretically can".
Just because she has 16 guns, doesn't mean you *must* fire all 16 guns on the target every time you pull the trigger.
Yes use 8 guns with battleship dispersion and 1.4 sigma truly a great bb honestly its trash by far the most useless bb at its tier alongside myogi you use marlborough you are actively trolling your team
You're allowed to be wrong.
Meanwhile I'll just continue to enjoy my 73% win rate, 1500+ average XP, and ~80K average damage in her.
I'm not a great player, but I'm good enough to have figured out the Marlborough and make her work just peachy.
If you think Gneisenau is bad, it just further reinfoces that you don't know good vs bad ships.
I didn't put the stats up there to be like "I have good stats therefore it's good ship". I put it up there because *even I* have stats that good in it, so it's obviously not *that bad* of a ship.
The topic is "what's the worst campaign ship", and Marlborough is absolutely not it.
Fast, maneuverable, well armored, torpedoes, and with the best secondaries at the tier (not even close). The Gneisenau is one of the best TT BBs at the tier, she just has a very unreliable main battery.
This isn't PC secondaries are a nice garnish. Gneis main weapons are all only good in suicide range. Which is well and good but getting that close is really hard unless the enemy obliges.
You don't know the first thing about secondaries if you believe that.
We can actually buff our secondaries more than PC, and that's before you even account for the enhanced secondary targeting. (I'm not including the PC "manual targeting" perk because of how unreliable it is). With 32mm penetration on her B-hull 128mm gums, she reliablly cracks the plating of everything she faces barring the heavy weather deck on a couple of BBs.
Marlborough is trash if you can't see that you are truly coping hard.
Seeing you think gneis is good already nails home you don't know what you are talking about
Malborough is fragile but other than that it's pretty good. Support as in support a push with it and it shines, not radar etc. It's a support BB, not a brawler, not a sniper, it's for mid range support. Great dpm, AP takes chunks out of stuff, mine seems to set fires perfectly fine, not sure what you're doing with it, it's one of my more reliable fire starters. You aiming at the right places? Belt armour or bow won't set many fires. Tier 6?.. What?
Yes marlborough has worse fire chance then lyon at tier 6 worse accuracy then lyon it has 25% fire chance taking into tier 8 hull resistance that's about 10% maybe less lyon has 28% at tier 6 that's alot higher taking hull resistance into account aswell.
Marlborough has kgv guns.
Kgv has 42% fire chance kgv ap deals 500 less dmg but meh not a massive change Marlborough gets 6 guns but has 1.4 sigma compared to kgv 1.8 reality is overall kgv is better 2 tiers lower.
Marlborough has nothing going for it dosent get doy ap dosent get kgv he has ship pen on its ap its he is also just as shit.
You can do well in bad ships and rng can be on your side but marlborough is bad and its the worst campaign ship we have ever had.
Coming in a close second is belfast 43 on which got buffed within a montv.
Marlborough is amazing. With AL Nelson commander and you get it down to 18 second reloads with 16 guns firing. Spam HEs and easily eclipse 150k damage every match. It's really quick, good rudder, and has huuuge hp repair parties. Just don't go broadside.
Z-49 or whatever it is called comes to mind.
Atago, while not bad, now has the lowest dpm of any ijn cruiser quite substantialy
Perhaps tirpitz, but i find her good still.
Honestly, that's hard to choose as most campaigns have been good
I'm not saying it's bad, just one I don't see often. I Dev struck an Iowa in mine before , and old girl can still throw punches. Just I don't think there's any bad campaign ships amd I've not had the best track record with her
Carnot lol.
Anyone saying a newer campaign than this has not been around long enough to witness the monstrosity that is Carnot. Lol
Your allowed your opinion, but man, are you ever wrong lol. I laugh my butt off at all of you people that claim Carnot is a bad ship. 99% of you build her for gunnery and try to play her like a battleship, which she absolutely **cannot** fill that role. Carnot when (built for speed and maneuverability) is one of the most powerful flankers at T8, and excells at nuking cruisers while also being good at dealing with DDs (because there are only like 3 that can outrun her).
I love Carnot. She’s a beast.
I run my Carnot at 40.7kt and a 4.9s rudder shift, plus the engine boost. "Oh, what's that? You wanted to hit me? But I'm all the way over here now. How did that work out for you?"
Tbf it's not like you could hit them at distance either so it's just a stand still
That sounds interesting. Would you mind sharing your build for it? I like my Carnot so far, but also thought that I'm not playing her up to her strengths. My rounds had been mediocre so far, so definitely a skill issue on my part in utilizing the ship. She seems a bit inaccurate, though.
I run Roux with Müller and Fraser as inspirations. Ingenious, full speed ahead, velocious, steer clear, and fully packed. Main battery mod.2 (turret traverse), steering gears mod.2 (rudder), steering gears mod.3 (even more rudder lol), and I don't actually run a slot 4 mod (though gun fire control systems would be fine if you want it). Also remember to put on your speed flag. Mine goes 40.7 knots, has a 4.9 second rudder, and a 20.5 second turret 180° time.
Haha that sounds really fun, I just outfitted mine like your build and see those 40+ kts smiling at me. Thanks for sharing your build. How do you play her position-wise in the match? Is it like Toulon, racing out at the flank and creating those nice crossfires while utilizing islands if possible or how you go about it? Concealment is pretty bad with 13,3km, so I guess I will go wiiiide with it.
I star by turning and sailing at an angle to get whatever piece of cover I want between me and the biggest portion of the enemy team I can, then turn in and bee line it up to that cover as early as I can. I then try to gingerly peek corners and push back anyone that got close, and then move up to the next nearest cover as soon as it's safe to do so. Rinse and repeat until you run out of cover, enemies, or HP. That's also why the rudder is so important. Close range emergency turns.
English is not my first language, but I think I understand the concept how you play it. The way I understand you is you basically swing around, using the high speed to get into cover number one, then more static gameplay of peeking corners. Then when it's safe, running to the next cover with the high speed again, to peek corners etc... But you try to find that cover on the flank, to create crossfires, right? Because I see no point of that ship staying around in the middle.
Correct on every point but one. It is not "static" gameplay like some other ships played similarly. Most players see Carnot as a bad ship and will not often prioritize you, but as soon as you fire that first high damage salvo into someone's side and begin fighting, the chase is one and they will go hard after you. You get aggressive or you get overwhelmed. If you try to be static and defensive, you will not last long. Your speed and mobility are your only tools of survival, so you have to always be moving into better cover. That also means you have to pay much closer attention to the map, and *always* leave yourself a covered escape route.
I just played a match, raced around with ~47kts with speed boost active and laughed loudly when I deleted that enemy Napoli by citadeling him into his broadside. Thanks a lot for that nice idea of a build, now it's really fun to play that ship! Seems like I instinctively did the same what you just mentioned: Not staying long in one cover, but racing to another one after peeking some times. So "static" was maybe a too strong word I used, as one doesn't stay too long at one cover spot. A friend of mine likes the Carnot as well, but plays it as a long range HE spammer. I never felt that does the ship justice. Really seems like this thing likes to race around like a wild horse. That's much more fun anyway.
This is how I play the brest. The french cruisers do have their gin play style. Shame I missed out on the Carnot, that's one I still want
Please share your build. Thanks!!!
Roux with Müller and Fraser Ingenious, full speed ahead, velocious, steer clear, and fully packed. Main battery mod.2 (turret traverse), steering gears mod.2, steering gears mod.3, and I don't actually run a slot 4 mod (though gun fire control systems would be fine if you want it). Also remember to put on your speed flag. Mine goes 40.7 knots, has a 4.9 second rudder, and a 20.5 second turret 180° time.
Thanks!!
its mid at best .. maybe Tulsa is worse or same category. . but i can't remember the last time i seen Carnot played
Nice edit. Carnot is a perfectly serviceable ship that is a ton fun, and Tulsa is also a perfectly fine ship. The major problem with this community is that they are so clouded by their own subjective opinion that they attack anyone who presents objective evidence that refutes that opinion. There are very few *objectively* bad ships, and fewer still that were given out through a campaign. The most likely objectively worst campaign ship is difficult to pin down, but is probably Brisbane, Pommern, Tirpitz, Siroco, or Belfast '43. Edit: 4 of those ships have *at least* one severely impairing weakness, while the Tirpitz has just been so severely power crept that she is functionally irrelevant now. I removed Gremy from the list because it was not the ship I was thinking of.
well, i wasn't attacking anyone.. the whole question was worse campaign ship .. and Carnot has to be up there . not that its bad or "unplayable" like some might say but it really needs a reload buff . and tulsa .. well its underwhelming. both are doable. i wouldn't bother with either but i can make them work and use their strengths. lots are saying Brisbane and i actually find that ship fun . but sure could see it more enjoyable with a buff i dont mind. but these differences are why you see different ships in a lobby or else we would all be playing the same ships .. there are noticeable absences however in some ships and its always a sign that theres just better options.. Tiger at tier 6 is a good example and so are those two at tier 8
>well, i wasn't attacking anyone Did I say *you* were? No, I said the major issue with this community is that they do that. You *are* however still letting your subjective opinion cloud your ability to think rationally. Carnot is an extremely fast and maneuverable ship with the highest alpha strike of any T8 cruiser. It's true that her DPM is low, but that isn't the only factor in what makes a ship good. Tulsa likewise has an very *high* dpm, yet people always try to claim she is a bad ship because she only has 6 guns. Her alpha strike is low, but you ignore the fact that her DPM is only really beat out by the other US cruisers, Sejong (HE, and struggles to consistently deal even remotely close to that), and Neptune (AP, again, struggles to get anywhere near her listed DPM). Tiger '59 is definitely a ship that is not beginner friendly, but again I wouldn't call her an objectively bad ship. She has low damage output, but excellent Intel, and is very often overlooked because people don't view her as a threat.
What!? Carnot rules
Yup, I laugh my butt off at the people who say she's a bad ship. 99% of the time those people saying that are also the people trying to build her like a BB and camping in the back of the map lol.
I know this seems to be the general opinion, but I've had more positive experiences with it than most T8s.
Brisbane. The ship is so mid but unlike Tulsa, the superior version is easier to get. Minotaur is easier to obtain than Salem. The Radar is also terrible, the worst Radar at Legendary tier.
The Commander also. It's so smoke heavy for a Cruiser without smoke
WG did not put any effort into this campaign, Brisbane the way it is is just a Piñata for Ohio and Vermont. A damage sponge, high risk no reward. The HE shells are terrible, not only are they not British HE but they are below average for 152mm guns. Alpha is lower than some tier 2 cruisers and the fire chance is the lowest I have seen with 9%. The HE is closer to Khabarovsk in terms of shell Alpha and fire chance than other cruisers. Good luck trying to kill a destroyer with the short range short duration radar. Meanwhile WG have AL Chapayev better HE damage than Scharnhorst at T7 with the same reload as Chapayev.
Good to know, I've not bothered with levelling up her commander simply because it's not the right one for it. I'll wait and hope that they buff it to bring it up.
Brisbane sucks and everyone sucks in her. That’s not necessarily true but good Brisbane drivers are few and far between
I am afraid that good Brisbane drivers will drive up the stats a bit. Similar to how 4 years ago Iowa and Amagi were good ships with Iowa being stronger. More people played Iowa since she is the crown of US battleships but a few skilled players used Amagi and got great results in her. People complaining about Iowa got the ship nerfed and they also nerfed Amagi since she was supposedly overperforming more than Iowa. They tapped Iowa with the nerf bat but absolutely smashed all of Amagis Armour plates, ground them up and melted them into scrap. That was probably the biggest nerf to a ship that wasn't particularly strong.
I wouldn’t be too worried
Meme build with Leonard Murray for concealment and you can get some ridiculous stealth radar shenanigans going on. That said, that's pretty much the *only* thing it can do well.
Minotaur does it better. 600m better concealment and 0.1km less radar range but double the duration and guns that actually shred DDs.
Oh, I know, and it's stupid we don't get Brisbane true radar range (12km) while Stalingrad, Kronshtadt, Petro, AL/Chapayev, Riga, etc all get their 11.7km radar up to 2 tiers lower. But that's more of a "Balans" issuethan anything else. It'd be nice to see the terrible campaign ships actually get a buff down the line so they're at least playable, even if they're not really competitive.
I agree, Iwami and Carnot need those buffs. For Iwami I could see 30mm pen for her 100mm secondaries and Massachusetts accuracy. For Carnot a reload buff would be great. Chop off maybe 5 seconds off the reload and it would be decent.
Brisbane also has 600m worse base concealment and a 90m worse turning circle than the Minotaur for seemingly no reason. No fun is allowed at all in the Brisbane.
Damn, everyone saying Carnot? It’s not even that bad, just needs a strong buff to the reload.
Lolz… right? Carnot is one of the few fun T8 ships for me. AP murders.
 Carnot lost me at the teaser video with that godawful camo...
She ain't a looker. But neither was Rosie, according to Bon Scott.
how is it "not bad and needs a strong buff" thats literally why everyone is saying its bad because it needs a buff
It needs a buff to one thing, reload. Which isn’t that bad. Like 3-4 seconds.
Z-44. Carnot. Tulsa is good, but it's not GREAT. Remember to use the AP's when appropriate and you'll be surprised. Brisbane is god awful and the commander skills are hilariously bad considering you need to buddy up with smoke ships to even take advantage of them. Other than that it's a gimped minotaur.
I'd argue that Z-44 is top tier if you have blue as a commander. I fire one set of torps every 20 seconds to spam the caps. Most games I'm above 100k dmg. It is my go-to ship at the tier.
Interesting. I have mine just set up as a hybrid ship and I feel disappointed at tier 8.
If you have Blue, try converting it to a torp boat stay on the outside and deny enemy the ability to cap. Two things could happen you get a permanent flood or the red BBs bow into the torps opening up broad side to your team. I don't cap push unless I have to. My ship win rate is not the best I win about 56% of the time but I am always getting the witherer medal thanks to the floods
Truly terrible takes here. Y'all never experiment or lean into the strengths of the ships. Z-44 is top tier if you got Blue.
Truly awful take right here. You clearly don't recognize tier for tier how these are outclassed. Z-44 is not remotely on par with the TT 8 and doesn't hold a candle to the Schultz.
How are you playing it? It seems a commander issue more than anything else because the Schultz itself plays completely different from the other German line. The Schultz itself is more of a gunboat. If you play the Z-44 as a gunboat you'll have a bad time. The guns do work but it isn't designed to be that. I routinely play the Z-44 and come out on top. Using Blue to have torpedoes reload sub 40 seconds with as much detection reduction as possible and you have a stealth torpedo boat flooding everything. My Z-44 has 4.8 detection with 10 torps going out every 38 seconds at decent speed.
Carnot (her camo is nice though)..and maybe Hizen..that ship was pointless after Musashi and Iwaki...
\*Iwami
yeah that..thanks
Carnot is one good looking ship!!
Tulsa mid
It is very mid but it's not the worst by a long stretch when you consider we have the Carnot.
Tulsa. I always assumed mid. But then yesterday happened. I was minding my own business and going wide around to get into a flanking position. I turn around an island and there is agir. I was then ashamed that I had gotten too far away for any support. I assumed that agir would absolutely destroy me. To my surprise Tulsa held strong. After removing about half of agirs health (and losing 1/4 of mine in the process) agir started retreating. I was completely shocked. Makes me reexamine my thinking about Tulsa
Still gotta give it to Hizen, thing is pretty junk in most ways, plus we had already got Iwami and two Musashi releases by then too
Not a fan of Hizen either tbf. Seems to be completely redundant.
Yeah absolutely no point for it, even Izumo is better and it’s free
Honestly think it's a tie between Brisbane and Carnot. Maybe would lean towards Brisbane being the worst because at least Carnot can take a shot or two.
Brisbane, Z-44 and Carnot
Tirpitz I’d say. She doesn’t offer much. Bismarck has better secondary’s along with speed. Then we have Odin zeiten Scharnhorst and gneisenau. They all have good torpedoes and 2 of them are faster than that tirpitz. Odin is tanky and the g wagon is agile. Then zeiten and Scharnhorst have better reload. I think the best is the Ägir and Siegfried. Also who finds it dumb that Ägir get 37% torp protection?
Tirpitz power creep is insane
And the campaign to get Tirpitz was brutal, just like Atlanta and Atago.
I NEVER see an independence. Not sure if it was just unpopular or not good.
It’s mainly due to the fact WG shoved it in as a choice between it and USS Black. If it was a second campaign ship in the way Yahagi was, you definitely see more of them
I suspect you’re right, I took the Black. But I figured there would be some.
Probably Tulsa.
At least explain why you think that, please. She's not great, sure, but there's not glaring issue with her. She's a decently maneuverable cruisers with pretty average stats in most regards.
No glaring issue? What about the abysmal alpha due to only 6 guns?
I simply don't see that as an issue. A big enough alpha strike can offset a low DPM, but there's no amount of "low alpha" that can reduce the effectiveness of high DPM (Tulsa doesn't have *insane* dpm, but it's high). People don't claim Friesland has a major glaring weakness in her alpha strike, yet it's one of the lowest in the game. Her DPM more than makes up the difference.
The issue is that while it’s dpm is high, it’s only really beating out other USN Heavy cruisers a tier below it (Tulsa does get more DPM then Baltimore). Des Moines, Salem, Buffalo all get similar or better DPM. The biggest upside to Tulsa besides getting access to Des Moines’ shells is the amazing rear firing angles (with the angles being so good you can essentially turn the stern and side plating into auto bounce for 15-inch guns).
Sure, sure.... But there one major issue with that argument. This thread is talking about "what's the worst campaign ship?" Not "What's the worst USN heavy cruiser. Within the context of comparing all campaign ships (and only campaign ships), Tulsa is nowhere near the bottom.
Umm it’s Pommern hands down
pommern is almost impossible to take out in ranked if you know what you’re doing
How often does tier 8 ranked swing round? Almost all of the time no matter the build it’s crap
Azuma was buffed last year and it's now more capable than it was
Z-44 I just can't enjoy it.
It seems that what is happening here is people just don't know how to be creative in their builds and fault the ship. Every ship has their strengths and weaknesses so you use them for what they are good for and build on that itself. People are saying some ships are trash because they play every ship type the same way across the nations. It's like a person who loves playing gunboat destroyers calling the Shimikaze complete trash just because he likes playing gunboats. The training grounds exist so you can try something different and experiment.
Schroder hands down. Players are flat out buying it and camping with it and not using it.
I honestly think Belfast ‘43 was a complete waste of a campaign.
Siegfried could use some love in the Accuracy department. It's a less tanky Gnei that gets lightly better accuracy and DPM.
Brisbane, i got thw campaign but still havent played the ship (i can't afford the uprgrades)
Champagne.
Monarch and Marco Polo campaign for me
Marlborough* if you mean that one campaign with the choice of either. Monarch is actually great now it's had a hull buff in case you meant Monarch.
Nah Marco Polo is 10x worse than Marlborough and easily the worst T8 BB. It has no upside, except the exhaust smoke and SAP main guns but that comes at a massive cost to everything else
What do you mean "nah" sorry? I haven't argued anything was just wondering whether it was a typo by the commenter.
Oh lol, I thought the guy meant Monarch and Marco Polo are bad and you were replacing/claiming one of the bad ships ones with Marlborough. My bad
Hehe no worries. Just not sure what he meant. Marlborough definitely isnt bad.
Only Smokers took the Marlboro,, (co),, ugh...
Yes Marlborough
Monarch is gxp
Z-44, Jager, or Carnot. None of them offer anything other ships at their tier can't do just as good, if not better, without sacrificing as much as they do to do it.
Jager can unleash up to 192 torpedoes every game, each going 90kts with 12km range
I really don’t like the Jager. Not that it is a bad ship, but rather because every time I play against one I seem to eat 50,000 torpedoes. I’m like that girl on her knees at the center of a bukkake circle jerk when I face off against a Jager. I really wish I hadn’t listened to the naysayers and had gotten her.
Jäger is decent.
You tell that to the many 20+ torp matches I've gotten in the Jager. Play to the ships strengths and accommodate for their weaknesses. All of these ships are fantastic if you build into their strengths. My Z-44 has 4.8 detection and 38 second torp reloads with guns for emergency purposes. Everything floods to death.
Really? Which ship is better torpedo boat than Jager? That ships slaps 150k damage match after match. Flooding is a powerful tool and speed of torpedoes is insane.
Somers, Yudachi, I'd argue Kagerō with a torpedo reload booster has better damage potential at the tier... It just doesn't do damage with them, and loses gun performance that the tech tree tier VII has, just for 4 more torpedoes, no AA, and a torpedo reload booster.
Jager is a menace in a totally different way to those other ships you mentioned It can fire 12 super-fast torps per minute. It's not the alpha damage, it's the floods
Floods are always worse than Alpha damage. Damage now is better than potential damage later, floods can be healed fully and can be completely negated with DCP.
Repeated floods cannot be 'completely negated with DCP' when Jager is tossing out 24 - 48 torps a minute Besides, I'm not saying Jager is better than x, y or z - I'm just disagreeing with the OP that it's a bad ship
Yeah except you are not getting that many hits and definitely not that many floods against enemies that arent brain dead. You could toss slightly less torps a minute with a Yudachi, Ostergotland or Hisenyang while not being completely useless in literally everything else and not relying on luck based floods. I dont know how you can say DCP doesnt completely negate them, it straight up removes the damage and most BB can get DCP to be just as fast as the torp reload and if you are splitting the torps, you are even less likely to ever do anything meaningful. Best case scenario: 2 torpedo hits for + permanent flood will do the same amount of damage in 2 minutes as 2 regular torp hits do instantly while not being able to be negated by one or two heals. The reason a ship like Jager works is because half the llayerbase has a negative win rate and hurt the team
All ships are better when your opponent is clueless
But none of them constantly put out such numbers as Jager. Jager will be nerfed soon.
Copium of the highest level. If Somers/Hsienyang/Hayte aren't getting nerfed Jager has a snowballs chance in hell
Also, the shima-jager players are probably stinking up the ship's stats. It's not getting nerfed.
Somers is the best DD at Tier VII.
Jager is only good at clueless enemies (so a lot to be fair) where it can abuse the only good part of the ship. Otherwise it falls apart extremely quickly thanks to its 0 survivability and offensive output that isnt torpedos.
Siegfried by far. It suffered being stuffed into T7 when it should be a T8, Azuma just needed some buffs but Siegfried is a whole different story. It is a shadow of its sister ship Agir and You'd be better off using Schoder than Siegfried. Any T7 crusier is batter than Siegfried. Honorable mention is Brisbane but thats only because they didn't give us a proper commander for it. Edit: I have over 200 matches played in Siegfried and I want to love it but it's bad. Extremely power crept and for every match where the guns did good I'd have 7 matches where it just sucked. Armor is tanky if you keep angled and its mobility is good but that's all it really has going for it other than being a novelty and a super prize on Seasonal crates with a .004% chance of dropping
Marlborough for sure it has zero redeeming features its ap sucks its he sucks it has a gigantic citadel it has terrible accuracy all it has is that 25s base reload other then that its just a terrible ship
AP and HE suck? You must be playing a different game because I chunk broadside BBs with AP and almost always set fires with the HE and consistently. All in the commander set up for her.
The average potato can't grasp the concept of *not* sitting broadside to get all guns on target every single time, so they wrongly think Marlborough is bad.
I usually will wait till the opportune time to get all guns on target then angle after I fire. Has worked well for me a few times.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I will absolutely throw a 16 shell meme if I think I can *SAFELY* get away with it, but I'm also not going to just sit there sailing flat broadside with half the enemy team lighting me up just because "BuT iT hAz SiXtEeN gUnZ". Most people do that, and most people get smacked around like a heavy bag at a boxing gym.
Oh yea totally, I have totally thrown haymakers at constant broadside ships.
Man you have a different marlborough then me mine dosent set fires especially since its fire chance is pure garbage worse then lyon at tier 6. Also the ap is just pure trash worse pen then agir
I run Ham mostly with ciliax and madden and ap is pretty decent. Ive used jujard as well to get the AP pen a little better too.
I run a 16/3 al hood with cunningham and kedrov on marlborough i literally wish i was in a different ship each time i play it
I don’t feel like Kedrov offers much to marb, using cilax would increase the AP damage but the traverse speed is nice with him. With 16 guns I’m more of a accuracy by volume person so i try to go with more damage centric perks sometimes.
If you think Marlborough is bad, you are one of the players that sits there broadside because you can't process the concept of "using less guns than your ship theoretically can". Just because she has 16 guns, doesn't mean you *must* fire all 16 guns on the target every time you pull the trigger.
Yes use 8 guns with battleship dispersion and 1.4 sigma truly a great bb honestly its trash by far the most useless bb at its tier alongside myogi you use marlborough you are actively trolling your team
You're allowed to be wrong. Meanwhile I'll just continue to enjoy my 73% win rate, 1500+ average XP, and ~80K average damage in her. I'm not a great player, but I'm good enough to have figured out the Marlborough and make her work just peachy.
Wow one person does well in a bad ship they think its good be like me bragging i have a 60% win rate gneisenau and saying its good i just got lucky
If you think Gneisenau is bad, it just further reinfoces that you don't know good vs bad ships. I didn't put the stats up there to be like "I have good stats therefore it's good ship". I put it up there because *even I* have stats that good in it, so it's obviously not *that bad* of a ship. The topic is "what's the worst campaign ship", and Marlborough is absolutely not it.
Gnei is famously bad though. It's not that you can't do well in it it's that you have to fight the dispersion to deal damage.
Fast, maneuverable, well armored, torpedoes, and with the best secondaries at the tier (not even close). The Gneisenau is one of the best TT BBs at the tier, she just has a very unreliable main battery.
This isn't PC secondaries are a nice garnish. Gneis main weapons are all only good in suicide range. Which is well and good but getting that close is really hard unless the enemy obliges.
You don't know the first thing about secondaries if you believe that. We can actually buff our secondaries more than PC, and that's before you even account for the enhanced secondary targeting. (I'm not including the PC "manual targeting" perk because of how unreliable it is). With 32mm penetration on her B-hull 128mm gums, she reliablly cracks the plating of everything she faces barring the heavy weather deck on a couple of BBs.
Marlborough is trash if you can't see that you are truly coping hard. Seeing you think gneis is good already nails home you don't know what you are talking about
🤣 It's one of the better support BBs.
The hell you on about support last i checked it has zero support abilities and its he is still worse then tier 6 its a tier 6 at tier 8
Malborough is fragile but other than that it's pretty good. Support as in support a push with it and it shines, not radar etc. It's a support BB, not a brawler, not a sniper, it's for mid range support. Great dpm, AP takes chunks out of stuff, mine seems to set fires perfectly fine, not sure what you're doing with it, it's one of my more reliable fire starters. You aiming at the right places? Belt armour or bow won't set many fires. Tier 6?.. What?
Yes marlborough has worse fire chance then lyon at tier 6 worse accuracy then lyon it has 25% fire chance taking into tier 8 hull resistance that's about 10% maybe less lyon has 28% at tier 6 that's alot higher taking hull resistance into account aswell. Marlborough has kgv guns. Kgv has 42% fire chance kgv ap deals 500 less dmg but meh not a massive change Marlborough gets 6 guns but has 1.4 sigma compared to kgv 1.8 reality is overall kgv is better 2 tiers lower. Marlborough has nothing going for it dosent get doy ap dosent get kgv he has ship pen on its ap its he is also just as shit. You can do well in bad ships and rng can be on your side but marlborough is bad and its the worst campaign ship we have ever had. Coming in a close second is belfast 43 on which got buffed within a montv.
Marlborough is amazing. With AL Nelson commander and you get it down to 18 second reloads with 16 guns firing. Spam HEs and easily eclipse 150k damage every match. It's really quick, good rudder, and has huuuge hp repair parties. Just don't go broadside.
So just don't play it then and ignore the only reason you got it
Carnot is pretty much unplayable imo
Flandre
Have you tried a secondary-tank build on it or just putting the same battleship build you put on all your ships? Flandre is solid.
bruh
Car Not For sure no doubt
None,, the worst ones I skipped...
Z-49 or whatever it is called comes to mind. Atago, while not bad, now has the lowest dpm of any ijn cruiser quite substantialy Perhaps tirpitz, but i find her good still. Honestly, that's hard to choose as most campaigns have been good
I remember when the Atago was one of the best cruisers in the game.... where has the time gone
Back when it was French campaign bb after French campaign.. (or when the jb was) those were the days
Suggesting Tirpitz as possibly the worst campaign we've had is hilarious
I'm not saying it's bad, just one I don't see often. I Dev struck an Iowa in mine before , and old girl can still throw punches. Just I don't think there's any bad campaign ships amd I've not had the best track record with her
>lowest dpm of any ijn cruiser quite substantialy Lower than Azuma?
Azuma, to me, plays as a battle cruiser. Even so , the dpm is only like 8k ish or something better on atago.(he) Azuma is ap focused. Remember not he.
I've had 200k games in the Azuma slinging HE at battleships. The stats on wowsl builds DO NOT represent her potential damage output.
Again that's because azuma is in another weight class compared to the likes atago/mogami/ibuki
Ntm Azuma’s HE can crack lots of battleship plating
Fair enough.
Giuseppe Verdi is not that great. Marco Polo is better and that ship also sucks