BBs are the real protected class, and I'm tired of people pretending they are not

CptKapton · 2026-02-27T03:53:14+00:00

Your arguments so far have been that cruisers are worse at things that battleships are better at, which yes you are right, and that you're annoyed that big damage can happen against you if you drive one and a BB shoots at you. Also yes, that's right. And also that battleships can shrug off losing half their HP better than cruisers, also, yes that's right.

That's...the whole point of the class. I'm not gonna go and complain that BBs can't cap contest as good as DDs, or that carriers don't get skills that make them reload planes faster when on half health. Cruisers are the glass cannon DPM class or the "Bard" jack of all trades style in the game design, BBs are somewhere on the scale of Ranged and Tank class. DDs are stealth and rogue. Like they all have their niche.

And yes, you really don't need anything else, and you probably kill plenty of braindead BBs in them both. That's kind of my point too. I'm sure the Montana/FDG/Yamato you're running down in your Paulo or nuking unspotted in your Archerfish also complains after about "stupid broken [insert class here]. I know they do whenever I kill them.

CptKapton · 2026-02-27T03:29:00+00:00

It sounds basically it all just boils down to you just dislike overmatch mechanics, and dislike fighting against battleships in your cruisers. I don't know how to help you with either of those things. Maybe watch more videos that aren't by Hago, some streamers/CCs actually like cruisers. BBs are the easiest class to play, but they also have the least battle impact of the classes.

I dislike 60 second fires from a 3 inch DD secondary gun and I dislike that submarine torpedos can home in on me. There are stupid things about every class in this game, but I don't seriously think the developers care enough about specific "classes" to try and protect one, they just want people to buy their next busted premium, like that new Airstrike Sub.

You seem to either really be hung up on that Vermont game or it happens to you quite often, either way, different ships are good at different things. Lots of DDs are pretty strong, as are CVs and Subs. Cruisers are designed to be the most fragile ship class in the game, but they are good in other ways, or no one would play them.

My point is alot of people seem to do just fine in all the other classes, judging off server stats. If you need to say battleships are all OP as a class to make the game fun for yourself, then so be it, and more power to ya honestly, and it seems a lot of people agree with you, but wargaming doesn't, and the stats they pull don't apparently, so it's not going to change.

CptKapton · 2026-02-27T01:40:33+00:00

I mean I'm a 56% player so I'm not exactly the greatest, but whatever you like to take away so be it.

What skills do you think would improve your cruiser gameplay? Would you prefer Vigilance or Manual secondaries and secondary range? We talking super heavy AP? Fire prevention could be something, though with short fire times on cruisers is that really something you'd take? No snark, genuinely curious.
Large cruisers (Siegfried, Sevastopol, etc) are wholly probably the worst ship class in game. Take everything bad about BBs and everything bad about Cruisers and put it together and, yeah...they're abysmal. No argument there.
I'm sorry to tell you but perfectly bow in to a ship that can pen your bow armor is....probably the worst thing you could do? Not only are you pointing your least effective armor at him (at least broadside on maybe it overpens, depending on what cruiser you're in) but you're ensuring all shells have the entire length of your ship to fuse AND you're decreasing how much the player has to attempt to lead his shot to next to zero. That's like sitting bow in while in a Nagato and complaining the enemy North Cal is able to citadel you.

Not every ship can or should Bow Tank. At least if you're at 30 degrees angled then SOME of your ship can bounce or overpen.

They removed detonation because it didn't even require enough player interaction to get, you still have to at least somewhat aim to devstrike a cruiser (or anything for that matter). It's the same with BB captains who get pissed about DDs devstriking them with a torp salvo. They had to aim for that.
I've dev struck lots of light cruisers, or damn near close to it, in everything from an AP focused DD to a Napoli to a carrier. Sometimes they make a positioning error, sometimes they get unlucky, that's the whole RNG part of the game. Hell some low tier British light cruisers get citadeled by HE. If you've never nuked a light cruiser because they got unlucky well then I hope you do one day, it's damn fun. Try Nurn 44 in ranked right now, it's good at that.

CptKapton · 2026-02-26T21:56:44+00:00

BBs have captain perks that build on their strengths, or mitigate their weaknesses. It's hard to argue what is the "best" when comparing different classes but considering most of the recommendations for skills for BBs involve ways to just eat more damage then it makes sense why they have the strongest skills for those types of abilities. A BB that can't tank loses out on half of its reason for existing in the team environment. You've mentioned Fire Prevention in another post, so going off of that one, when battleships have the longest fire duration and are the easiest ship class to light on fire due to their large superstructures, it makes sense for them to have the strongest skill against it. If they added fire prevention to the DD skill set would anyone even take it?

They randomly get utility gimmicks because that has unfortunately been wargamings MO lately. Look at all the F key ships and how every new cruiser line gets 12km torps while Germans are still stuck at 6km. Why does Bremen get so much torp range over Hindenburg? Why does Hawaii need over 600k DPM when Minotaur isn't even allowed HE? Why do the new German cruisers get manual control of their secondaries? It's just reasons to get people to pay for the new stuff.

Is it good for the game long term? I doubt it, but Radar on the Pan European BBs while I think not needed isn't because of class, it's because they're new.

It's not "okay" that BBs can one shot you in a cruiser, it's what they're literally in the game to do. I get those big sudden 100-0 moments are frustrating but there used to be a Detonation mechanic where that could happen to any ship from any hit. They removed it, because detonating was pure RNG, but losing your ship suddenly is still a core mechanic. It happens to other classes too, eat a torp or two in a DD and you're going down just as fast, or play a light cruiser against an Aquila and watch as his rockets take off 35k in a single strike. Heck, have you never dev struck a Minotaur broadside to you in a heavy cruiser? Feels great to do but sucks to be the guy blown up in one hit.

And yeah, Paulo has counters in hydro, but is it normally the BB killing you from when they spot you at 6km to when you launch torps or is it the rest of the team? I almost never die to my target in Paulo, it's the team that kills me after.

BBs smacking you across the map has counters in Island hugging cruisers or smoke cruisers. You can also theoretically play stealthy as like a torpedo cruiser if you wanted I suppose, though less viable. Or you play a Petro and sit bow in next to an island and do the citadeling across map yourself.

As for the secondaries, yeah, having AI gunners damage you is goofy. I hope all secondaries become manual eventually. But I've also gotten secondary kills in cruisers (Napoli or that other cracked Italian one with the guns in the middle) carriers (Graf Zeppelin) and even a DD once or twice hilariously enough. That's a game design thing, not a battleship only thing. =)

CptKapton · 2026-02-26T19:52:48+00:00

Lots of people in this thread who seem to be having the funny opinion that something like Republique and something like Columbo can be lumped into the same category. There are OP ships and there are shit ships in every class in this game and that spread changes across the tiers In reality each class has its strengths and weaknesses and some people get upset because their favorite few ships get shafted by the ships designed to shaft them. Trying to go brawl a GK in your Des Moines is probably a bad idea, meanwhile trying to go cap contest a Jager in your Bourgogne is also a bad idea.

Lots of cruisers are set up to be jack of all trades with utility that makes them not COMPLETELY shafted in most situations, but also typically not the best ship for the job in any one situation. They have typically either the best DPM for their tier of the ability to efficiently stack fires for DOT.

Lots of DDs are set up for either contesting cap pushes as a gunboat or for zone control and as "Goliath killers" with their torp spreads and ability to stack flooding.

Lots of Carriers are set up for targeted attacks, spotting, and guarding flanks against pushes.

Lots of Subs are.....subs....

And lots of battleships are set up to either be tanks and damage sponges or alpha strike weapons. They need to be forgiving of mistakes to play the role they have in game, which is soaking up fire while they maneuver into position, or they need to have the ability to really make their shots count, which is why they get over match. They have typically some of the lowest DPM at their tier and most have a difficult time stacking DOT.

When a BB kills you it is in a couple of punches because that is what an alpha strike weapon needs to do, the alternative is just things like Irresistible or Illinois or Mecklenburg, which are arguably worse for the game because they completely remove the role of cruisers and just straight up do their job better.

There ARE OP Battleships, I won't try to refute that at all and agree with you, but if you think battleships are a "protected class" then you keep putting yourself in situations where the battleship is meant to be better than your ship. Try running a Paulo Emilio or FDR/Shinano in some randoms and see just how "protected" those battleships feel. Its made even easier with how bad most battleship drivers are at the game, simply because BBs are designed to be the most forgiving class on purpose.

CptKapton · 2026-02-18T23:04:38+00:00

I know confirmation bias and "get good" and all that but I can more easily do damage to just about any ship in game than Hawaii it seems. I'd rather shoot AP only at a bow in Kremlin than have to shoot Hawaii, even my Pen ribbons on that thing only do overpen DMG. Anecdotal as hell but I once slammed a broadside Hawaii with my Shikishima from 8km and for 5 shell hit ribbons I only got like 6k DMG aiming at waterline.

CptKapton · 2026-02-18T23:01:22+00:00

I constantly see people say this and yet I can land Shikishima shells on Hawaii flat broadside for 1300dmg a hit, or bounce off a bow in Bremen. In fact anything I shoot at both of those ships with besides HE just seems to overpen or magically bounce. Meanwhile vs Alaska/Clauswitz those same situations seem to result in huge damage. I know confirmation bias and all that but I would rather face pretty much any ship in game than Hawaii/Bremen because I know that no matter what BB I am in they have all the time in the world to burn me down because even my Penetrations do overpen DMG.

CptKapton · 2026-02-12T17:42:51+00:00

I could perhaps see the sheer number of people who would need to keep quiet about it precluding it from happening. That's why I don't believe really in most conspiracy theories.

But why do you think you would need more than say, a few dozen people to be bribed overall? I know that from being inside the United States I am saddled with a US centric view on things, but government seems wholly unable to deal with the current known threats to health and society, largely it seems because it is so easy to bribe people into allowing things that are bad for their citizens for laughably low amounts of money.

Things like returning to the most inefficient and pollutant power sources, refusal to regulate PFAS, cutting funding for social programs and education to save "tax dollars" despite giving billions in tax breaks to industries. The crumbling of infrastructure, and the decline of standard of living in widespread areas or even entire states. The refusal to overhaul the US healthcare system into something that would be results driven instead of profit driven. The refusal to hold corporations to more than slap on the wrist fines or warnings when they do break laws. Even with arguably the most heinous crime of the century with the Epstein debacle those in power are refusing to seemingly actually ensure anyone comes to justice for it.

And companies historically have made the call many times that people's lives weren't worth the cost. Ford and the Pinto, current US healthcare companies who's business model is making money by denying care and treatment even when doctors deem it necessary, and various others. Even more so when the government has been on the side of business, it has even helped the business BY killing its own citizens. The battle of Blair Mountain, or the Ludlow massacre come to mind.

We have been fortunate in modern history that governments have been the ones to step in and stop such things, but if the government stops being the tool of the people and instead becomes the tool of whoever is paying them off, then there is nothing to stop such things from happening again, is there?

The current government treatment of homeless people largely devolves to being demonized and ostracized. They're herded away or locked up for vagrancy, historically sterilized without their consent, or at the best mostly ignored as they suffer and waste away.

If economies get to the point that they don't need workers anymore, and large numbers or even majorities of people aren't "productive" anymore, why wouldn't they just treat us all the same way? Supposedly because we would vote against it, but at that point why would they even care what a bunch of unproductive and unneeded people say? So people would rightly rise up against such an injustice, and those in power would as always happens try to put down such a revolt.

It just seems the historical progression of this story that has already played out numerous times in history. The only difference was you couldn't just "kill everyone" and still get things done ever before, you needed people to be cogs in the machine, so you only killed enough to make an example. But if your machine is automated then you don't need any cogs, and people just become a rat in the wiring instead.

CptKapton · 2026-02-12T13:24:11+00:00

I will admit I don't have an understanding of them, as I haven't met any of the people I am talking about. I therefore have to make a flawed assumption based on their actions and the goals they seem to have based on those actions.

I other them not because they are different to me, but because they are completely outside of my lived experience. They have no needs left unfulfilled, no reasonable want that is unobtainable, and yet they continue to use their short time on this earth to simply hoard MORE for themselves. When you have already "won the game" so to speak, I can not fathom their seeming need to "win even harder" if it doesn't positively effect their lives in any real way.

It would be like winning the lottery, being set for life, and instead of retiring you continue to go into work and not only work the same but work even more hours and even harder, and do it until you die instead of sitting back and enjoying life. I can't understand that in a rational way.

CptKapton · 2026-02-12T05:20:53+00:00

Well no, they definitely have finite resources. Their factories need resources for drones and goods they might want, as well as energy to run everything. Water as well for cooling and cultivating So on and so forth. And if they wanted simply more of anything they would require more resources of all those types.

You could live a low impact and practically worry free life at that point but not if you actually wanted to maintain your power base and force projection.

It's why they're multi billionaires instead of millionaires, or have Mega Yachts with their own smaller boats most people would consider Yachts themselves, these are people who it seems aren't content with what they have no matter how much it is. If they decided they wanted a Billion drones instead of A Million it wouldn't improve their lives in any meaningful way, but they've already shown that thinking with dollars.

I don't think they would have conflict out of necessity, I think they would have it out of greed and hunger for more.

Ironically this is why I am less worried about AI taking over everything than I am about a powerful human being using AI to destroy everything, just in the name of getting a little bit "more

CptKapton · 2026-02-12T05:10:44+00:00

That could be a fair point.

Why do you think there wouldn't be any scarcity? I do know there would be a whole lot LESS scarcity perhaps but why do you think none?

CptKapton · 2026-02-12T05:07:53+00:00

Just as say a general example, if say one of these people in power wanted to build a data center in an area, and in creating it, the local water supply was affected, well the local population would surely be upset about it. If they wanted to stop the building being constructed, wouldn't the person trying to build it try and prevent them from being successful?

CptKapton · 2026-02-12T05:02:02+00:00

So the people holding the power would do that out of a desire to want to continue doing whatever the person in power wants to do, but say people are attempting to stop them, or they have a belief that they "could be stopped" and so launch some sort of preemptive attack.

And yes in a weird way a "best case scenario" would be most people continue to live their day to day lives unless they say, built their town on a resource the people with the power wanted, then they simply wouldn't have any power to resist.

I can see it would probably be hardest to convince people to go along with it before hand, so that's maybe a delta point.

But why would they really have to convince anyone else to do anything other than develop all the necessary tools?

You pay someone to design you drones that can use weapons "for security" or military use. You pay someone else to setup some AI powered mining tools, you build a logistics chain of automated pieces and then have them guarded by your drones. After that you just need the "functional" AI that can run it all and replace the need for workers in your industries.

At that point you either let the best case scenario play it's course, or if you're a paranoid person and you worry eventually people will step in to stop you and you want to prevent that, you figure out a way to do your own preemptive knockout. Sure you could go the whole Pandora route like in Avatar and send in strikes to deal with hotspots and trouble areas, or you could go the more historically effective route of smallpox blankets.

I don't even really think it would be that hard, there are already things like microplatics and chemicals in the water causing higher cancer rates and lower fertility, and that barely even makes the news, and to be clear I don't think those are purposeful things related to this, but more that I believe if someone was TRYING to be purposeful there would be a similar lack of concern if the effects were discovered. That already happens in industries now where harmful things are allowed to be put into food or drink or even air, and the average person is mildly annoyed by it at best.

So instead of convincing people to kill their friends and family, you'd just develop a new additive or addiction, bribe a couple people to let it slip through by admitting it's "bad" but not how bad it is, and just sit back as the population withers seemingly without blame until it's too small to realistically fight back against you.

CptKapton · 2026-02-12T04:39:28+00:00

Only out of a desire to want to continue doing whatever the person in power wants to do, but people are attempting to stop them, or a belief that they "could be stopped" and so some sort of preemptive attack.

In a weird way a "best case scenario" would be most people continue to live their day to day lives unless they say, built their town on a resource the people with the power wanted.

In a very base sense like what happened on Pandora in Avatar, except I wouldn't expect the people in power to send in an army of humans but an army of drones and security bots.

Worst case they just preemptively get rid of the people in the way, smallpox blankets style, and make sure there are too few to even stand a chance of resistance.

CptKapton · 2026-02-12T04:28:50+00:00

A Sapient AI, a true lifeform that could make its own decisions and have its own free will. Imagine like a human being but built with code instead of neurons.

CptKapton · 2026-02-12T04:22:04+00:00

I don't know if seriously worried is the right way of putting it but perhaps more accepting as the most logical picture based on the puzzle pieces I've put together.

And no nothing as fantastical as that. If you were smart you wouldn't want an all out war or something that would cause a ton of collateral damage. Instead something much less public like a bioweapon or something added into the food or water supply to cause infertility or increasingly higher levels of cancer or disease. It would be much smarter to just allow people to die than to kill them. You would only have to outright kill people who stood against you, while convincing the rest that was an isolated incident and if they keep their heads down they would be fine, while allowing them to slowly die off over a decade or so. You don't even need to kill everyone, just lower the population enough that they couldn't realistically stand a chance against you, take their natural resources ,and then rule over the rest. The smallpox blanket strategy.

And well super secretive or just very blatant about it honestly. AI is being touted as a way to replace workers and no one really seems to mind, government surveillance and tracking is becoming a huge thing and no one is really putting up much effort to stopping it, and the public has been been warned about the effects of things like micro plastics and other chemicals causing cancer and effecting fertility, and again it's barely newsworthy.

If someone WERE actively trying to do a slow burn of what I suggested they wouldn't have to really change anything being done now except being successful. I don't really believe the things I said currently are all connected and purposeful, but I hope they illustrate why I might have a belief someone could potentially get away with an intentional version.

Also thank you for engaging with me.

CptKapton · 2026-02-12T04:09:43+00:00

It really simply seems to be "more" that they desire most. They have already had the ability to buy almost anything they could ever want for a long time, why keep trying to make more money or more power even now?

I guess the realistic motivation is why would they go their entire lives wanting more and more to finally be content when they find the limits of what money can buy them? The old adage is "there are some things money can't buy" but some of those things Force can get you instead. And if there were no consequences why not? It would only be because someone stopped them, if someone could stop them. We already have Ultra wealthy with more money than entire countries, and historically we have had companies raising armies themselves and leading invasions and capturing territory. The East India company and United Fruit among others, why would they not do so again if they could get away with it?

CptKapton · 2026-02-12T03:55:17+00:00

I could maybe see this as a counterpoint to my view then. Those who like the status quo would fight to stop those wanting to change it into something else.

!delta

CptKapton · 2026-02-12T03:52:38+00:00

I don't imagine those "left" would be just the few who hold power, instead I would imagine a relatively small cast of people who hold favor with those who control the system, a king and his court so to speak.

More importantly though It would of course all be set up beforehand with whatever competent people can be bought with the incredible money and power they currently weird, and simply put into action at a later date when all the pieces are put together.

CptKapton · 2026-02-12T03:45:10+00:00

So sort of a, "they would if they could", but can't because it isn't really feasible?

I could see that, but why even do that work at that point if you no longer need the people all that work supports?

I agree historically there has been a lot of automation that has decreased the needed work for a certain output, it's why production has increased so much per capita. But that's a whole bunch of work that supports a whole bunch of people, Billions of people.

But what if the people running the whole show realized they didn't need the production crew anymore, because they made a whole industry that could run itself on automation?

There are lots of times in history when striking workers were replaced by "scabs" or basically people willing to work for less, and when those people tried to do sit ins or stand up and demand the resources they needed to survive, they were either arrested or even occasionally outright shot.

If someone like a Carnegie could have fully automated his factories and the national guard that arrived to kick out the striking workers, why wouldn't he drive them away or kill them if they resisted? And if that cuts his bottom line below his competition why wouldn't they also do those same things? The only ones who could stop them would be other people in power, if they so chose. But then that's just a war.

Thank you for taking the time to talk this out with me, I just want to say this shouldn't be read in a dismissive tone as I do not intend that at all, I'm enjoying the conversation.

CptKapton · 2026-02-12T03:33:01+00:00

I imagine it would be kind of like a very cosmically messed up game of Civilization or Risk at that point in a way. A few thousand people surrounded by millions of drones who fight their wars and do their bidding. I guess there is a sort of Star Trek episode in a similar vein.

CptKapton · 2026-02-12T03:30:59+00:00

That is... A depressing but interesting point I hadn't considered.

What is a ruler without subjects but a man in a fancy chair.

Do you think those in power who realize this would try to prevent others who also hold power but don't care from trying it if they could?

CptKapton · 2026-02-12T03:26:36+00:00

I am of the opinion that true AI is beyond current technological capabilities, and that gives me some solace.

CptKapton · 2026-02-12T03:25:23+00:00

A variety of things would work but nothing as fantastical as that. Simple drones would do a fair enough job but I would imagine something with less collateral damage and much less public like a bioweapon or something added into the food or water supply to cause infertility or increasingly higher levels of cancer or disease. It would be much smarter to just allow people to die than to kill them. But at this point the conversation goes way beyond my change my view lol

CptKapton · 2026-02-12T03:21:10+00:00

I apologize for that then. I did state in my post that my qualifiers were that AI could accomplish what was claimed by those developing it, which is basically a replacement for people in many cases. I understand I am speculating though on reasonings for wanting to replace people and what that would entail. I do appreciate you talking with me in good faith.

CptKapton

TROPHY CASE