Jump to content


Alabama's armor model is already massively in error

Alabama armor model error

  • Please log in to reply
733 replies to this topic

djholley #561 Posted 20 March 2017 - 04:13 PM

    Seaman

  • Members

  • 21
  • Member since:
    03-05-2013

Comparative cross sections show the development of US battleship Armor Schemes from the North Carolina on. A) Although not Battleship the Battle Cruiser Alaska - B) North Carolina Class - C) South Dakota Class - D) Iowa Class 

 

 

Second image was the Originally planned Belt for the South Dakota Class 

 

 

 

Attached Files

  • Attached File   IMG_2704.PNG   198.57K
  • Attached File   IMG_2705.PNG   96.55K

Edited by djholley, 20 March 2017 - 04:18 PM.


Big_Spud #562 Posted 20 March 2017 - 04:15 PM

    Commander

  • Beta Testers

  • 3,091
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostLittleWhiteMouse, on 20 March 2017 - 11:11 AM, said:

 

As someone who has extensively played (and loved) the current version, I'm worried that some of the elements I've come to love about Alabama might change.  People may get the (frankly unnecessary) citadel drop only to sacrifice stuff which makes her great, like her ability to throw the ship and guns about while being able to maintain speed in a turn.  Here's hoping any changes preserve her strong points and that it's just a flat out buff.

 

Considering this whole ordeal has specifically NOT been about the high citadel (which Sub already said in no uncertain terms that they were definitely NOT going to change), and has been about the taper of the armor belt itself, I very much doubt anything major will be different at all.

Short, fat battlebote when.

 

Check out this thread to see how the community managed to rescue Alabama from mediocrity: http://forum.worldof...18#entry2868718

 

No stats, because posting with purple numbers makes your opinion worthless for some reason.


lemekillmister #563 Posted 20 March 2017 - 04:15 PM

    Ensign

  • Members

  • 957
  • Member since:
    07-30-2016

deleted 

 


Edited by lemekillmister, 20 March 2017 - 04:17 PM.

I'm a spudman, I got eyes all around.

 

 

 


renegadestatuz #564 Posted 20 March 2017 - 04:18 PM

    Commander

  • Members

  • 3,421
  • Member since:
    07-03-2013

View PostLittleWhiteMouse, on 20 March 2017 - 11:11 AM, said:

 

As someone who has extensively played (and loved) the current version, I'm worried that some of the elements I've come to love about Alabama might change.  People may get the (frankly unnecessary) citadel drop only to sacrifice stuff which makes her great, like her ability to throw the ship and guns about while being able to maintain speed in a turn.  Here's hoping any changes preserve her strong points and that it's just a flat out buff.

 

I hope so too.


dark.png

djholley #565 Posted 20 March 2017 - 04:26 PM

    Seaman

  • Members

  • 21
  • Member since:
    03-05-2013
Good Source on US Battleships is the "US Battleships" by Norman Friedman Published by the United States Naval Institute in 1985

godzilla5549 #566 Posted 20 March 2017 - 04:49 PM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Beta Testers
  • In AlfaTesters

  • 2,066
  • Member since:
    03-01-2015

View Postdjholley, on 20 March 2017 - 11:26 AM, said:

Good Source on US Battleships is the "US Battleships" by Norman Friedman Published by the United States Naval Institute in 1985

 

Which I am sure quite a few people in this thread have (I have a copy myself).

 

Also, take a look at the WoWS RU portal for their update 0.6.2.2 notes: https://worldofwarsh...on/update_0622/

 

Block Quote

 Скорректированы параметры линкора USS Alabama, находящегося на этапе тестирования силами разработчиков, участников супертеста и коллекционеров. Корабль недоступен для покупки, однако может встретиться в бою.

 

Translation gives:

 

Block Quote

 Adjusted parameters of the battleship USS Alabama, currently in testing by developers, supertesters and community contributors. The ship is not available for purchase, but you may meet it in combat.

 

 


If you want my stats, go look for them yourself. I won't be playing much at all for a bit so it won't matter anyways.

My French Battleship Tech Tree Proposal - My French Destroyer Tech Tree Proposal - My French Cruiser Tech Tree Proposal

Spoiler

 


Mavairo #567 Posted 20 March 2017 - 04:56 PM

    Lieutenant Junior Grade

  • Beta Testers

  • 1,226
  • Member since:
    04-03-2015

View PostLittleWhiteMouse, on 20 March 2017 - 11:11 AM, said:

 

As someone who has extensively played (and loved) the current version, I'm worried that some of the elements I've come to love about Alabama might change.  People may get the (frankly unnecessary) citadel drop only to sacrifice stuff which makes her great, like her ability to throw the ship and guns about while being able to maintain speed in a turn.  Here's hoping any changes preserve her strong points and that it's just a flat out buff.

 

I just can't see how they can nerf a ship which is worse than the worst T8 bb in the game already... then again this is WG so..who knows

djholley #568 Posted 20 March 2017 - 05:20 PM

    Seaman

  • Members

  • 21
  • Member since:
    03-05-2013

looks like the ship will be slightly less expensive then Tirpitz as the wiki has the Alabama price grayed out at 12,200 where as the Tirpitz  is 12,500. So any hints this week or next when we can buy?

So Tirpitz at this time most expensive ship - 2nd Alabama and 3rd Atago - Missouri does not count as it would be the most expensive if you had to convert the Free XP from Zero which would put it at over $100

 

 


Edited by djholley, 20 March 2017 - 05:23 PM.


CybrSlydr #569 Posted 20 March 2017 - 05:58 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Beta Testers

  • 1,967
  • Member since:
    02-19-2013
I'd gladly take a 30% TDS for better survivability against shells.

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.

 


KaptainKaybe #570 Posted 20 March 2017 - 06:00 PM

    Lieutenant Junior Grade

  • Members

  • 1,384
  • Member since:
    08-14-2012

Glad to see Sub_Octavian is taking a fresh look. There's no reason for that high citadel or cruiser thin armor at the waterline whatsoever. With a proper thick citadel at or below the waterline, she'd be perfectly balanced.

 

- Alabama's worse accuracy is balanced by her increased agility to allow her to get in closer.

- Alabama's worse HP and marginally worse AA is balanced by that incredible torpedo belt.

 

The problem with saying that she's good to play if you "know how to play her" is the same thing as saying "she's underpowered but will do well in the hands of a unicum player". Fact of the matter is that said players would be good in ANY ship. They have amazing map awareness and many thousands of matches of experience to know where hidden battleships may lie in wait. But premiums should not be balanced for just excellent players, *especially* not a T8 premium as those have, up till now, all been extraordinarily competitive ships in the hands of anyone but the worst potatoes. No one ever complains about Tirpitz or Atago or Kutuzov. They are much beloved.

 

If they drop her citadel the way they will drop Iowa's and Missouri's citadel, I would pull out my wallet so fast, I'd light my pocket on fire. I LOVE maneuverable battleships. Warspite is still one of my favorite ships to play because of how agile she is. But I also play battleships because I love to tank. I want the enemy to shoot ME instead of my squishy cruiser and destroyer escort. And if it's that easy to one-shot her because of an unseen threat to my side, then my sole purpose of being as a battleship is ruined. North Carolina *can* take big citadel hits for showing her side, but it's typically 1 or 2 at the most, not the 3 or 4 that Iowa and Montana currently have to deal with. I have *never* taken a volley that knocked off three quarters of my health in the NC.

 

If I want to play a cruiser with battleship guns and a heal, I'll play the Graf Spee. I love that ship. If I want to lead the charge and taunt the reds to shoot at me, I want a battleship with battleship durability. Because I can already do that in North Carolina. I don't see why it should be harder in Alabama, a ship with all the traits to get in closer and see the enemy sweat.



Airbane425 #571 Posted 20 March 2017 - 07:04 PM

    Petty Officer

  • Beta Testers

  • 76
  • Member since:
    08-14-2014

View PostKaptainKaybe, on 20 March 2017 - 01:00 PM, said:

Glad to see Sub_Octavian is taking a fresh look. There's no reason for that high citadel or cruiser thin armor at the waterline whatsoever. With a proper thick citadel at or below the waterline, she'd be perfectly balanced.

 

- Alabama's worse accuracy is balanced by her increased agility to allow her to get in closer.

- Alabama's worse HP and marginally worse AA is balanced by that incredible torpedo belt.

 

The problem with saying that she's good to play if you "know how to play her" is the same thing as saying "she's underpowered but will do well in the hands of a unicum player". Fact of the matter is that said players would be good in ANY ship. They have amazing map awareness and many thousands of matches of experience to know where hidden battleships may lie in wait. But premiums should not be balanced for just excellent players, *especially* not a T8 premium as those have, up till now, all been extraordinarily competitive ships in the hands of anyone but the worst potatoes. No one ever complains about Tirpitz or Atago or Kutuzov. They are much beloved.

 

If they drop her citadel the way they will drop Iowa's and Missouri's citadel, I would pull out my wallet so fast, I'd light my pocket on fire. I LOVE maneuverable battleships. Warspite is still one of my favorite ships to play because of how agile she is. But I also play battleships because I love to tank. I want the enemy to shoot ME instead of my squishy cruiser and destroyer escort. And if it's that easy to one-shot her because of an unseen threat to my side, then my sole purpose of being as a battleship is ruined. North Carolina *can* take big citadel hits for showing her side, but it's typically 1 or 2 at the most, not the 3 or 4 that Iowa and Montana currently have to deal with. I have *never* taken a volley that knocked off three quarters of my health in the NC.

 

If I want to play a cruiser with battleship guns and a heal, I'll play the Graf Spee. I love that ship. If I want to lead the charge and taunt the reds to shoot at me, I want a battleship with battleship durability. Because I can already do that in North Carolina. I don't see why it should be harder in Alabama, a ship with all the traits to get in closer and see the enemy sweat.

 

This. 'Nuff said.

Grizley #572 Posted 20 March 2017 - 07:25 PM

    Commander

  • Beta Testers

  • 3,904
  • Member since:
    12-08-2013

Who else thinks things went something like this.

 

Plans for ST only Alabama, and it leaks out.

Boards erupt.

Dumb comment, "Well ST work hard so we want to give them something special no Alabama for you evar!"

Boss gets word of it, "Uh, I mean.  Totally we will have an Alabama for sale just with a different skin."

 

At WG HQ:  Ok, the Americans really want this.  We can throw any crappy stats out there and they'll still buy it.  Look how many posts the threads got.  I mean uh, make sure it isn't any better than the worst T8 BB so we can point at it when people say pay to win.

Boards:  wth, I want the Alabama not a nerfed North Carolina.

WG:  Crap, they noticed.  Ok friends, we will rebalance!



Laynester #573 Posted 20 March 2017 - 07:40 PM

    Seaman Recruit

  • Members

  • 3
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

Dear World. Simple reason for United States to have a big citadel. Alabama can travel over 15,000 nautical miles. Tirpitz can travel around 8,000 nautical miles. American fast battleships were built for following carrier battle groups in the Pacific and need big fuel tanks.

 

Tirpitz was built for the flat trajectory of World War 1. Alabama was built for plunging fire and u boat torpedos. Someday War Gaming will allow historical battles and while Taffy 3 may not be allowed The Yamato's last run might. 



LittleWhiteMouse #574 Posted 20 March 2017 - 07:42 PM

    Captain

  • WoWS Community Contributors
  • Members
    Beta Testers

  • 5,374
  • Member since:
    01-04-2013

View PostGrizley, on 20 March 2017 - 02:25 PM, said:

Who else thinks things went something like this.

 

Plans for ST only Alabama, and it leaks out.

Boards erupt.

Dumb comment, "Well ST work hard so we want to give them something special no Alabama for you evar!"

Boss gets word of it, "Uh, I mean.  Totally we will have an Alabama for sale just with a different skin."

 

At WG HQ:  Ok, the Americans really want this.  We can throw any crappy stats out there and they'll still buy it.  Look how many posts the threads got.  I mean uh, make sure it isn't any better than the worst T8 BB so we can point at it when people say pay to win.

Boards:  wth, I want the Alabama not a nerfed North Carolina.

WG:  Crap, they noticed.  Ok friends, we will rebalance!

 

The timing is off.  Alabama's stats were leaked on December 2nd.  The forums didn't learn about it being exclusively a reward ship until around December 12th with the announcement.

Airbane425 #575 Posted 20 March 2017 - 08:23 PM

    Petty Officer

  • Beta Testers

  • 76
  • Member since:
    08-14-2014

View PostLittleWhiteMouse, on 20 March 2017 - 02:42 PM, said:

 

The timing is off.  Alabama's stats were leaked on December 2nd.  The forums didn't learn about it being exclusively a reward ship until around December 12th with the announcement.

 

Still, his point is somewhat valid. Methinks shenanigans.:sceptic: 

YamatoA150 #576 Posted 20 March 2017 - 08:28 PM

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • In AlfaTesters

  • 4,105
  • Member since:
    03-29-2015

View PostAirbane425, on 20 March 2017 - 02:23 PM, said:

Still, his point is somewhat valid. Methinks shenanigans.:sceptic: 

 

Not really, considering there was a non-ST entry for Alabama discovered at the same time.  NA just whined over a ship with limited-exclusivity duration for STs.


My massive list of suggestions (Updated 05/17/2016).  Feel free to constructively debate and discuss.

Remember remember the 17th of September, the Tirpitz; which cost a lot.  Some say it's a fortune, and that it's extortion; but the price will never be forgot.

 

"I call her the Sandman.  She tells other tier 3 ships, "Hush now.  Only dreams," as she murders them."LittleWhiteMouse on Konig Albert - 08/30/2016


renegadestatuz #577 Posted 20 March 2017 - 08:31 PM

    Commander

  • Members

  • 3,421
  • Member since:
    07-03-2013

View PostYamatoA150, on 20 March 2017 - 03:28 PM, said:

 

Not really, considering there was a non-ST entry for Alabama discovered at the same time.  NA just whined over a ship with limited-exclusivity duration for STs.

 

Still does not explain Trevzor's post stating that Alabama will be for SuperTesters only.


dark.png

Airbane425 #578 Posted 20 March 2017 - 08:36 PM

    Petty Officer

  • Beta Testers

  • 76
  • Member since:
    08-14-2014

View Postrenegadestatuz, on 20 March 2017 - 03:31 PM, said:

 

Still does not explain Trevzor's post stating that Alabama will be for SuperTesters only.

 

My only guess is that they wanted to keep the regular Alabama on the hush-hush. Still, its not entirely out of the realm of possibility that shenanigans are afoot.

YamatoA150 #579 Posted 20 March 2017 - 08:41 PM

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • In AlfaTesters

  • 4,105
  • Member since:
    03-29-2015

View Postrenegadestatuz, on 20 March 2017 - 02:31 PM, said:

Still does not explain Trevzor's post stating that Alabama will be for SuperTesters only.

 

Simple answer is lack of communication, stemming from the fact that WG does not normally discuss leaks.  They refuse to even discuss potential balance issues that appear in leaked info since it's "leaked info".  And further, they're quite secretive about their ST program and plans, so it's no surprise that ships and elements pertaining to the ST program would not completely be revealed to regular mods and other branch staff members until WG itself is ready to go public with their plans.


My massive list of suggestions (Updated 05/17/2016).  Feel free to constructively debate and discuss.

Remember remember the 17th of September, the Tirpitz; which cost a lot.  Some say it's a fortune, and that it's extortion; but the price will never be forgot.

 

"I call her the Sandman.  She tells other tier 3 ships, "Hush now.  Only dreams," as she murders them."LittleWhiteMouse on Konig Albert - 08/30/2016


renegadestatuz #580 Posted 20 March 2017 - 08:45 PM

    Commander

  • Members

  • 3,421
  • Member since:
    07-03-2013

View PostYamatoA150, on 20 March 2017 - 03:41 PM, said:

 

Simple answer is lack of communication, stemming from the fact that WG does not normally discuss leaks.  They refuse to even discuss potential balance issues that appear in leaked info since it's "leaked info".  And further, they're quite secretive about their ST program and plans, so it's no surprise that ships and elements pertaining to the ST program would not completely be revealed to regular mods and other branch staff members until WG itself is ready to go public with their plans.

 

Considering Trevzor is the one at NA who runs the ST program, would he know that info though?


dark.png





Also tagged with Alabama, armor, model, error

3 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users