Having been the first Tier 9 Battleship on the server along with playing it for the last three weeks and being in a fleet with the most number of Tier 9s and hearing from them, I know what I'm talking about. SDE you better listen well.

Tier 9 Battleship Issues

1. Gun Accuracy (lack off | All nations) - For context, I have 5 accuracy gunners at 455 accuracy.

This issue's root cause is hard to identify due to the lack of documentation in terms of what variables affect it (Why SDE is not forth coming with such information and other information is unbelievable, I can only assume they themselves don't know).

But, what we know so far is that across all nations (except IJN) accuracy falls off tremedously at Tier 7. The common denominator are the new set of guns that these nations BBs get at Tier 7 (16"/15"/13.8") at Tier 8 KM get (14.96"). The exceptions are Tier 8 BBs for USN/IJN where accuracy for said ships/guns are very similar to previous tiers.

Accuracy in these ships tend to get better when individual gunner levels are "overleveled." The question remains, is this tied to gun level of each 16"/15"/13."/14.96" or ship level/tier in that your gunner level must reach the minimum level threshold of the ship. The third possibilty, is that the accuracy threshold for these ships/guns are extraordinarily high and without morale boosting no one has reached said threshold. Again, for reference I have 455 accuracy and in the image, you can see that with my gunners, I have almost max gunner potential with about 1/3 actual gunner skill and still am suffering massive accuracy issues in my Tier 9.

(see this thread on my take on SDE morale boosting scam: http://www.navyfield2.com/Forum/View.aspx?num=867&bt=B01&st=1&sw=&rc=20&ot=1)

What this actually means for all Tier 9 Battleships is simply, we have no accuracy at long range, any hits are usually down to blind luck. Medium range is a toss up between blind luck and partial control. Only at short range do we have any control at all.

2. Damage (lack off | USN, North Carolina)

Listed shell damage for upgraded guns on the NC is 6886. On targets with no armour and low ship defense average normal (white damage=normal damage | grey damage=armour damage | orange damage= Critcals) show an abnormally high reduction in damage. This problem quickly exacerbates when fighting ships with high ship defense and armour. I've seen these 16" shells hit for as low as 1500 white damage on high ship defense/armoured targets. Granted critical hits are being calculated correctly (as high as 12000) but for all intents and purposes white damage needs to be the one that is working all the time. For comparisons sake, the guns of a Nevada and New Mexico always list white damage that is close to their stated damage and show reasonably reductions on ships with high ship defense. The North Carolina does not.

I've asked this before and will continue to press for an answer on this issue. There was a bug of this very same issue way back during Nexon's beta in the beginning of 2014. I was told this has been fixed. I disagree.

Battleship progression issues

Before I begin, I want to preface what progression in a game means and in context to NF2. When you progress in a game, you expect that whenever you unlock a "new" level/tier/ship it does something different or better. Progression should never go backwards, the very definition dictates whatever comes next should be a more advanced state or at least different.

So what do we have for NF2 in relation to BBs?

All nations except IJN (arguably IJN dips at Tier 9 as well) have BB progression curves that continually dip and peak. As mentioned above, progression does not need to be a linear incline, a "different" approach could've been implemented, but what we currently have is one that promotes higher tier = better, which in its current form for USN/RN/KM does not exist at all.

USN

USN BB progression starts out strong in comparison to other nations at Tier 4, the Indiana sets a bench mark which the Tier 5 Nevada excedes. Come Tier 7, however, the Colorado immediately dissapoints. The New Mexico at Tier 8 is a vast improvement from the Colorado, but is it "better" than the Nevada? I will concede it's at least different (it has a scout). Tier 9 North Carolina however, shows how much lower the benchmark gets and with the obnoxious grind to Tier 11 Iowa for essentially the same ship, the question remains what's the point?

The common consensus among Tier 9+ USN BB players is simple, screw the useless North Carolina or Iowa and instead just give us a Nevada with a scout, or a New Mexico with better secondaries and AAs as our end game ships. What does this say about how badly designed the USN BB progression is (for the rest as well)?

RN

Similarly, RN starts out strong at Tier 4 & 5. At Tier 7 it drops off dramatically with the QE and drops even further with the Tier 8 Hood. The saving grace is that the Tier 9 Nelson is one of the Tier 9's that is somewhat decent.

IJN

Arguably the only nation that has a linear incline progression, which arguably falls off at Tier 9 Nagato.

KM

Just like USN or RN.

Similar threads

http://www.navyfield2.com/Forum/View.aspx?num=784&bt=B01&st=1&sw=&rc=20&ot=1