Jump to content


Alabama Review - Solid But Difficult

Alabama Review

  • Please log in to reply
49 replies to this topic

KnightFandragon #21 Posted 12 March 2017 - 03:16 PM

    Lieutenant Junior Grade

  • Members

  • 1,286
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostPhoenix_jz, on 12 March 2017 - 02:52 PM, said:

The ranges we fight at in WoWs is typically well below the ranges at which the belts of BBs are able to resist BB firepower, which is part of the reason deck-pens (without overmatch) is nigh impossible.

This isn't helped by the game's emphasis on horizontal rather than vertical dispersion, which is somewhat opposite to what happened in naval warfare. This is part of the reason why sailing broadside, aside from firepower benefits, was preferable to sailing at the enemy
My 2¢

So we shouldnt also have the absurd weak [edited], oversized citadel [edited]weakpoint either.  KMS BBs do well cuz they have well protected citadels, USN ships should as well.  Atleast not huge like they are...



Phoenix_jz #22 Posted 12 March 2017 - 03:29 PM

    Commander

  • Beta Testers

  • 3,535
  • Member since:
    05-06-2013

View PostCarl, on 12 March 2017 - 10:04 AM, said:

 

Actually most of the BB guns could penetrate most cruiser citadel roofs if autoubounce wasn't a thing at quite modest ranges.

 

Also the DP thing is a bit of a fallacy. It on;y applies to the T6 and T7. Grober and freddy are worse than the US, as is Tirpitz and Bismark.

 

Lastly the firepower disadvantage is more in dispersion and especially alpha/DPM. Also most of them really don;t have the pen to go through same tier citedels all the way out to maximum range, unlike their contemporaries. I agree it's generally less relevant as not a lot of shooting happens at those ranges, but it is there.

 

I was more considering BB vs BB, but I know exactly what you mean. Auto bounce is a necessary mechanic, because of the power of the guns at the ranges we fight. If not for that, almost everything would be a citadel piñata, even BBs.

 

As for the DP guns, that also applies to tier IV and V. Tier 8+ USN BBs beat it, because you're finally getting to the AA beasts that are the USN fast BBs... and one would hope they could beat them, being 'the AA nation.'

 

And may point is with the citadel pen... they're not exactly extremely vulnerable to citadels at the ranges they can't citadel other BBs, and nor are they at the ranges they can citadel enemy BBs. The same does not hold true for other nations...

 

My point is, there's a big issue for this game relative to firepower over armor, and you won't get another 'tanky' BB nation unless this is fixed. The only other things I can think of would be for them to make gimmicks like super-effective decapping plates, or a nation who's BBs have a special modified that greatly skews shell normalization to make their armor more effective when angled...

 

Until then, it's just a completion to see who's citadel can be the lowest, which is basically a question of still eating loads of 33% regular pens, just not a full 100% pen.


 

My "Directory of Threads" <-- Various threads I've done you might find interesting, feel free to check it out!

​Most recent addition: USN Cruiser Split


Phoenix_jz #23 Posted 12 March 2017 - 03:31 PM

    Commander

  • Beta Testers

  • 3,535
  • Member since:
    05-06-2013

View PostKnightFandragon, on 12 March 2017 - 10:16 AM, said:

So we shouldnt also have the absurd weak [edited], oversized citadel [edited]weakpoint either.  KMS BBs do well cuz they have well protected citadels, USN ships should as well.  Atleast not huge like they are...

 

That's because their armor schemes emphasize better protection at closer ranges. At long range, it's quite vulnerable to plunging fire, which is something, for example, SHS shells were meant to exploit, the power of plunging fire. 

 

Of course, good luck shooting from far enough away to get plunging fire.


 

My "Directory of Threads" <-- Various threads I've done you might find interesting, feel free to check it out!

​Most recent addition: USN Cruiser Split


KnightFandragon #24 Posted 12 March 2017 - 03:33 PM

    Lieutenant Junior Grade

  • Members

  • 1,286
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostPhoenix_jz, on 12 March 2017 - 03:29 PM, said:

 

I was more considering BB vs BB, but I know exactly what you mean. Auto bounce is a necessary mechanic, because of the power of the guns at the ranges we fight. If not for that, almost everything would be a citadel piñata, even BBs.

 

As for the DP guns, that also applies to tier IV and V. Tier 8+ USN BBs beat it, because you're finally getting to the AA beasts that are the USN fast BBs... and one would hope they could beat them, being 'the AA nation.'

 

And may point is with the citadel pen... they're not exactly extremely vulnerable to citadels at the ranges they can't citadel other BBs, and nor are they at the ranges they can citadel enemy BBs. The same does not hold true for other nations...

 

My point is, there's a big issue for this game relative to firepower over armor, and you won't get another 'tanky' BB nation unless this is fixed. The only other things I can think of would be for them to make gimmicks like super-effective decapping plates, or a nation who's BBs have a special modified that greatly skews shell normalization to make their armor more effective when angled...

 

Until then, it's just a completion to see who's citadel can be the lowest, which is basically a question of still eating loads of 33% regular pens, just not a full 100% pen.

 

Citadel issue wouldnt be an issue if WG would just put in all the ships STS, armor plates, put the armor in the right spots, shrink it down properly, make it the right width.  Arizona, New Mex, they already have ships that dont get [edited] by citadels, and its cuz  they put in all the armor.  Those ships are still missing the STS, which would add a few more inches over the entire ship, but yeah....citadels are only an issue at high tier cuz WG has this obsession for huge citadel pens for some reason.  That, or shrink Citadels down to include ONLY the ammo magazines under the main batteries, which is actually where they should be, since ammo is all that actually catastrophically exploded like in this game. 

 

The thickness of armor to have ot go through if WG put in all the armor and STS is like 540mm. before you angle it.  Throw in just the 19 degrees of the belt angle and then a little bit of our own angling and lol, one tough [edited]ship. 


Edited by KnightFandragon, 12 March 2017 - 03:36 PM.


KnightFandragon #25 Posted 12 March 2017 - 03:35 PM

    Lieutenant Junior Grade

  • Members

  • 1,286
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostPhoenix_jz, on 12 March 2017 - 03:31 PM, said:

 

That's because their armor schemes emphasize better protection at closer ranges. At long range, it's quite vulnerable to plunging fire, which is something, for example, SHS shells were meant to exploit, the power of plunging fire. 

 

Of course, good luck shooting from far enough away to get plunging fire.

 

Those SHS are goddamn useless in this game.  They are so hilariously easy to avoid with their speed and angle of impact.  Firing those hunks of useless crapjust means lol 1000 point pens all day cuz they come in at such a [edited]angle they just ring off the tops of cruiser masts and crap.  Id trade in those worthless 16s for the Arizona 14s any day. 

CybrSlydr #26 Posted 12 March 2017 - 03:47 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Beta Testers

  • 1,969
  • Member since:
    02-19-2013

View PostCarl, on 12 March 2017 - 07:08 AM, said:

 

IMO it's really simple mouse. Flexibility is generally considered more useful than extreme's in one or two area's. Although what counts as flexible is very meta dependent. The KM BB's are incredibly flexible as a whole, unless your trying to snipe from extreme range there's little they do poorly. So it's very hard to get them into a bad situation in general terms beyond very obvious basic mistakes.

 

The citadels certainly get a lot of credit, but it's a long way from the whole story.

 

Equally i think a lot of it is meta changes rather than KM BB's specifically that have transformed opinions on citadels. Remember back in beta when most BB drivers advised not targeting cruisers because they were too hard to kill. Now look at the high tier cruiser situation. People have learned about vulnerabilities and adjusted their targeting appropriately. And ofc the KM BB's will have pushed people to target the non-KM BB's even more as their a so much easier target. All of this produces a very real change in perceived durability on the user end and elevates one of the ships weaknesses a little bit more. Simply put the degree to which a tall citadel is a disadvantage has grown in real terms over time IMO. KM BB's just accelerated the percolation to general consciousness by providing a sharp contrast.

 

That doesn't mean i disagree with your Alabam review, but i also don;t think the changes in citadel perception have been entirely driven by how good the KM are in that regard, rather i think they highlighted an issue that was allready there and on the cusp of being generally noticed.

 

Not to mention the gross shift in meta towards, "If you're not KMBB, bow on slow forward/reverse to survive"

 

I [edited]HATE that meta and that's all you're allowed to do in tiers 8-10 with USN BBs.  Now the Alabama is included in the garbage heap.  That is an absolute travesty.


CybrSlydr:  The poster you love to hate so you feel better about yourself.

 

World of Warships:  Video Game version of "Who's Line?..." where the rules are made up and the history doesn't matter.

 


CybrSlydr #27 Posted 12 March 2017 - 03:52 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Beta Testers

  • 1,969
  • Member since:
    02-19-2013

View PostPhoenix_jz, on 12 March 2017 - 10:31 AM, said:

 

That's because their armor schemes emphasize better protection at closer ranges. At long range, it's quite vulnerable to plunging fire, which is something, for example, SHS shells were meant to exploit, the power of plunging fire. 

 

Of course, good luck shooting from far enough away to get plunging fire.

 

Exactly - it's just another way the game mechanics stab the USN ships in the face with a hot bar of "Hahahahahahahaahahaaaaaa!!!!!"

 

Take torpedoes for example - they were removed because they were too huge a liability.  Struck by a shell and the whole ship could go down - so they decided to get rid of them.  That is a HUGE loss in ability in this game that no other nation suffers from - yet they also suffer zero of the drawbacks of having 10+ 600lb warheads sitting on their decks just waiting to explode.

 

It's punative measures like this that drive me up a damned wall when it comes to USN ship representation in this game.


CybrSlydr:  The poster you love to hate so you feel better about yourself.

 

World of Warships:  Video Game version of "Who's Line?..." where the rules are made up and the history doesn't matter.

 


byronicasian #28 Posted 12 March 2017 - 04:05 PM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Beta Testers

  • 2,739
  • Member since:
    04-12-2013
The torpedo decision  seems fairly straightforward. Do you punish 4 to 5 other cruiser lines,  or shaft just one.

LittleWhiteMouse #29 Posted 12 March 2017 - 04:11 PM

    Captain

  • WoWS Community Contributors
  • Members
    Beta Testers

  • 5,380
  • Member since:
    01-04-2013

View PostKnightFandragon, on 12 March 2017 - 10:33 AM, said:

 

 That, or shrink Citadels down to include ONLY the ammo magazines under the main batteries, which is actually where they should be, since ammo is all that actually catastrophically exploded like in this game.

 

To be fair, boilers explode in a pretty dramatic fashion too.  Warspite's boilers typically operated around 525psi if my sources are correct.

KnightFandragon #30 Posted 12 March 2017 - 04:48 PM

    Lieutenant Junior Grade

  • Members

  • 1,286
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostCybrSlydr, on 12 March 2017 - 03:52 PM, said:

 

Exactly - it's just another way the game mechanics stab the USN ships in the face with a hot bar of "Hahahahahahahaahahaaaaaa!!!!!"

 

Take torpedoes for example - they were removed because they were too huge a liability.  Struck by a shell and the whole ship could go down - so they decided to get rid of them.  That is a HUGE loss in ability in this game that no other nation suffers from - yet they also suffer zero of the drawbacks of having 10+ 600lb warheads sitting on their decks just waiting to explode.

 

It's punative measures like this that drive me up a damned wall when it comes to USN ship representation in this game.

 

 

EXACTLY.  Balance or Historical accuracy?  Applied only as it negatively affects USN ships. 

 

High [edited]citadels?  Balance

No STS, Balance

No Torps?  Balance

20knt speed?  Historical accuracy

701ms velocity, historical accuracy

305mm armor belt: Historical accuracy

Dont give the USN Dreadnoughts their latest war refits?  Balance

 

Yeah.......there isnt one instance in this game where balance or historical accuracy is actually benefitting the USN in any way. 

 

Some of these instances combine to really hammer home the [edited]aspects of the USN ships and really make them irritating hunks of junk. 


Edited by KnightFandragon, 12 March 2017 - 04:49 PM.


SpeedingBus #31 Posted 12 March 2017 - 05:52 PM

    Ensign

  • Beta Testers

  • 1,190
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

I am just going to make this MAJOR point these high citadel deniers aren't so bad seem to fail to realize. Nearly all normal IJN BB's with exception of the Yamato all have near water line citadels not a single one comes close to being what Iowa/Montana. Its the same story for US BB's until you get T9/10 they all near waterline citadels.

 

So yeah if you want Alabama that can't do anything but sit at 1/4 speed bow on and shoot with your less accurate guns then the NC go ahead buy it. The Alabama won't reward you anymore then the NC when it comes to skill level.

 


Edited by SpeedingBus, 12 March 2017 - 05:53 PM.


SIEDOGG #32 Posted 12 March 2017 - 10:18 PM

    Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 61
  • Member since:
    04-27-2015
I think she will be just fine. I'm ready to give her a try.

HermanBix #33 Posted 12 March 2017 - 10:52 PM

    Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 180
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

Looking forward to the release of this one.

 



Carl #34 Posted 13 March 2017 - 12:19 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Beta Testers

  • 1,944
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostPhoenix_jz, on 12 March 2017 - 03:31 PM, said:

 

That's because their armor schemes emphasize better protection at closer ranges. At long range, it's quite vulnerable to plunging fire, which is something, for example, SHS shells were meant to exploit, the power of plunging fire. 

 

Of course, good luck shooting from far enough away to get plunging fire.

 

Nah most BB's can shoot far enough away that if autbounce wasn't in they could penetrate some things, (it would depend a lot on ship firing vs target). I'm still in the process of factoring in in-game krupp into these number,s but here's deck pen of a variety of guns calculated using in game back worked formulae using navweps velocity vs range and angle of fall vs range data.

 

 

View PostKnightFandragon, on 12 March 2017 - 03:33 PM, said:

 

Citadel issue wouldnt be an issue if WG would just put in all the ships STS, armor plates, put the armor in the right spots, shrink it down properly, make it the right width.  Arizona, New Mex, they already have ships that dont get [edited] by citadels, and its cuz  they put in all the armor.  Those ships are still missing the STS, which would add a few more inches over the entire ship, but yeah....citadels are only an issue at high tier cuz WG has this obsession for huge citadel pens for some reason.  That, or shrink Citadels down to include ONLY the ammo magazines under the main batteries, which is actually where they should be, since ammo is all that actually catastrophically exploded like in this game. 

 

The thickness of armor to have ot go through if WG put in all the armor and STS is like 540mm. before you angle it.  Throw in just the 19 degrees of the belt angle and then a little bit of our own angling and lol, one tough [edited]ship. 

 

 

STS would make no difference pen is far more than even KM BB total effective armour (>500mm in many cases). USn Citedels are exactly where they should be. New mex's is lower because it was lower IRL.


Edited by Carl, 13 March 2017 - 12:24 AM.


Carl #35 Posted 13 March 2017 - 12:29 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Beta Testers

  • 1,944
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostLittleWhiteMouse, on 12 March 2017 - 04:11 PM, said:

 

To be fair, boilers explode in a pretty dramatic fashion too.  Warspite's boilers typically operated around 525psi if my sources are correct.

 

 

 

Tehehehehehe...



NeutralState #36 Posted 13 March 2017 - 12:37 AM

    Ensign

  • Members

  • 832
  • Member since:
    10-25-2014

Alabama has little stat difference from NC.

 

iChase your videos on NC are all VERY POSITIVE with the video names such as:

 

North Carolina - Mother of God, That Damage 

North Carolina Smashes 2 Yamatos

 

Alabama is not different enough from NC to warrant rating the ship "difficult".

The top rated players in NC performs with avg damage around 100k. The overall win rate for NC is also good. There's no reason for Alabama to be anywhere near "difficult".


Edited by NeutralState, 13 March 2017 - 12:38 AM.

夕雲型一番艦、夕雲、着任しました。

 Mutsuki Overview, Kagero Overview, Yugumo Overview


iChase #37 Posted 13 March 2017 - 12:50 AM

    Ensign

  • WoWS Community Contributors

  • 995
  • Member since:
    07-15-2013

View PostNeutralState, on 12 March 2017 - 07:37 PM, said:

Alabama has little stat difference from NC.

 

iChase your videos on NC are all VERY POSITIVE with the video names such as:

 

North Carolina - Mother of God, That Damage 

North Carolina Smashes 2 Yamatos

 

Alabama is not different enough from NC to warrant rating the ship "difficult".

The top rated players in NC performs with avg damage around 100k. The overall win rate for NC is also good. There's no reason for Alabama to be anywhere near "difficult".

 

The higher citadel and slightly worse sigma does make more demands on the player to be more careful with 1) positioning 2) angling their armour and 3) aiming better

 

She's going to be more difficult to play compared to NC


Core i7-4790K, ZOTAC GTX980 AMP!, 16GB RAM (1866Mhz), 2X128GB SSD, 9TB (1TB + 2X4TB) HDD, EVGA SuperNova 850G2

Youtube Channel | Twitch Channel | Discord Community | The Penguin Alliance - Clan Recruitment |


aethervox #38 Posted 13 March 2017 - 05:47 AM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Alpha Tester

  • 2,079
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostBladedPheonix, on 12 March 2017 - 12:59 AM, said:

Love the new forum icon you choice I-chase!

 

Also hope your mother gets better soon! :aqua:

 

I don't (the forum icon that is). It looks childish. Are you still a child I-Chase?

Cruiser_Chicago #39 Posted 13 March 2017 - 06:21 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 569
  • Member since:
    07-07-2015

View PostNeutralState, on 12 March 2017 - 07:37 PM, said:

Alabama has little stat difference from NC.

 

iChase your videos on NC are all VERY POSITIVE with the video names such as:

 

North Carolina - Mother of God, That Damage 

North Carolina Smashes 2 Yamatos

 

Alabama is not different enough from NC to warrant rating the ship "difficult".

The top rated players in NC performs with avg damage around 100k. The overall win rate for NC is also good. There's no reason for Alabama to be anywhere near "difficult".

 

The Alabama has a skyscraper citadel and weaker belt armor underneath the water line. This means that the ship can and will get smashed by T6 BBs if you're not paying attention. Alabama also has a humongous superstructure similar in design to the Iowa. When I played the Iowa, I would take regular penetrations from plunging BB shells into the superstructure whenever I was angled. The Izumo beats the Iowa in terms of bow on durability against AP because of this. Alabama will probably have the same issue. So good players can wreck your superstructure if you try to angle your belt armor towards them. Pretty anecdotal, but I think it's worth mentioning. 

 

These glaring flaws make the ship more difficult to play than the NC. Does this make the ship trash and unplayable? No. But would I take this ship over the NC based on its pros and cons? Probably not. I will agree with Flamu that it does look like a mediocre version of the NC. The notion that it is a steaming pile of garbage seems to come from his fans who like to spam Twitch memes, not from Flamu himself.



KnightFandragon #40 Posted 13 March 2017 - 06:37 AM

    Lieutenant Junior Grade

  • Members

  • 1,286
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostCruiser_Chicago, on 13 March 2017 - 06:21 AM, said:

 

The Alabama has a skyscraper citadel and weaker belt armor underneath the water line. This means that the ship can and will get smashed by T6 BBs if you're not paying attention. Alabama also has a humongous superstructure similar in design to the Iowa. When I played the Iowa, I would take regular penetrations from plunging BB shells into the superstructure whenever I was angled. The Izumo beats the Iowa in terms of bow on durability against AP because of this. Alabama will probably have the same issue. So good players can wreck your superstructure if you try to angle your belt armor towards them. Pretty anecdotal, but I think it's worth mentioning. 

 

These glaring flaws make the ship more difficult to play than the NC. Does this make the ship trash and unplayable? No. But would I take this ship over the NC based on its pros and cons? Probably not. I will agree with Flamu that it does look like a mediocre version of the NC. The notion that it is a steaming pile of garbage seems to come from his fans who like to spam Twitch memes, not from Flamu himself.

 

That and the fact its gunna cost ya 54 bucks for a rolling citadel.......so worth it lol.





Also tagged with Alabama, Review

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users