Jump to content


Montana, Iowa/Missouri citadel buff finally coming


  • Please log in to reply
78 replies to this topic

mofton #61 Posted 20 May 2017 - 01:23 AM

    Commander

  • Members

  • 3,031
  • Member since:
    10-22-2015

Thank heavens they're buffing the 55% WR Missouri!

 

 

More seriously, if it makes the ships a bit easier to play I'm for it. My Iowa's been in mothballs since I heard they'd do this as there just didn't seem much point. I think like the RN BB traverse buff WG is moving to 'even if balanced, ships shouldn't be super non-fun in one aspect'.


light.png

Iowanna be a rockstar - Salmon - Ctrl-Click-Schiffe - Le Dunkerque - Grand Old Lady - ~5 Mil in IJN Scrap

Gearings of Poor - Trashcan - Biscuit-tweaker - Tachi-Ali-Baba - Not-quite-Minekaze - Zit-23 - Shinbone - Your-a-gnome

Dakka Moines - AbSchorring - Dakka-Dakka-taur


Frederick_The_Great #62 Posted 20 May 2017 - 01:36 AM

    Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 75
  • Member since:
    08-20-2016

View Postbsbr, on 20 May 2017 - 01:12 AM, said:

 

TenguBlade shows perfectly why Iowa is fine the way she is without this huge buff.

 

Hows that?  If your answer is that he knows how to play the ship, then that is not a good answer.  That still doesn't change how well the performs compared to others, and how unforigiving it is.  Angle a few degrees to far and your are dead/crippled.  especially in the hands of your average person.

 

i do find it fascinating with how much you are opposed to making Iowa and monty more enjoyable to play, but think the Yamato needs to have a buff to compensate.  One of the best ships in the game mind you.

 

but i feel like i might be wasting my time.  There was some good debates in your Buff Yamato thread with regards to which ship was better IRL, and how they play in game.  I don't recall you ever really participating in it, outside of saying the Yamato should be buffed, and they are wrong.  I dont remember you really trying to counter any of their points.   I don't recall you giving any good game play reasons as to why it should be buffed and quite a few people said the ship was fine as is, or a minor buff to something like AA would be all it needs.  perhaps i managed to miss/forget some of your posts in the that super long thread, that ended up derailing all over the place. 

 

 


Edited by Frederick_The_Great, 20 May 2017 - 01:42 AM.


UrPeaceKeeper #63 Posted 20 May 2017 - 01:41 AM

    Ensign

  • Supertester

  • 1,030
  • Member since:
    04-09-2015

View PostReymu, on 19 May 2017 - 07:11 PM, said:

Citadel buff doesn't look like it matters a lot. Will it deflect more citadels from cruisers?

 

I'd have thought only changes these BBs need is rudder shift time reduced to like 12 seconds or so. I like my Missouri's ability to print credits, but that *bleep* rudder shift time (as a cruiser main) is an insult.

 

I would much rather have my maneuverability from CBT back and the IJN torp nerf reverted honestly.  If i didn't have to spend an eternity turning around to deal with the flow of battle the ship would be better. One need only look at the performance of Alabama to see what a highly maneuverable battleship looks like and how well it performs. 

Ever wondered how to play a USN BB or USN DD's?  Or maybe you just want to watch some fun WoWs videos?  Have I got the videos for you! Check out my YouTube channel here for How to Videos and More:

https://www.youtube.com/c/Whiskey11Gaming

TenguBlade #64 Posted 20 May 2017 - 01:46 AM

    Vice Admiral

  • Members

  • 9,225
  • Member since:
    06-21-2015

View PostFrederick_The_Great, on 19 May 2017 - 08:06 PM, said:

What are the odds of them fixing any of other issues with Iowas armor(if what you said is true) when they update the citadel?   I thought i remember them saying the citadel was suppose to be fixed in 6.3 or 6.4(think it was octavian in a reddit post), but it was pushed back.  Perhaps one can hope that since they pushed it this far back, they will fix any other issues with the ship.

There really aren't any other fixable issues besides Iowa's 25mm torpedo bulge.  I've messaged Sub_Octavian about this, and I'm not the only one who brought it up, but at the moment I haven't heard back.  Of course, WG may take the opportunity to fix it with this update, since they're updating Iowa's armor model already.

 

The rest of Iowa and Montana's problems are common to most high-tier BBs.  Bad handling, immense size, and poor torpedo defense.  Alabama is about the only exception to this, with Yamato joining her on the TDS part.  The Iowa's secondaries aren't remotely good, or even mediocre, but that has more to do with Cleveland having the same weapons at T6 than intentional imbalance on WG's part - at T6, the 5"/38 with a 6-second reload and 5km base range is quite intimidating.  For the same reason, the 128mm/60 KM40 has a rate of fire of 12 RPM instead of its historical 15 minimum - at T7, a weapon with such ballistics and rate of fire is simply too powerful.

 

The 5"/54 on Montana is about as potent as it could get historically - 15 rounds/minute is the bottom end of where it was historically, which is pretty par-for-the-course.  The only secondary guns with higher base RoF than their historical figure stock are the variants of the 127mm/40 Type 89 - whether the rest use optimistic or average values seems to be for balance reasons.

View Postbsbr, on 19 May 2017 - 08:12 PM, said/

TenguBlade shows perfectly why Iowa is fine the way she is without this huge buff.

It also took me hundreds of hours of practice (and more of experience) and the insistence that the ship could be made to work instead of giving up to get to where I am now.  The bottom line is that the ships are very unforgiving, which is the main reason why their stats lag despite people like me being able to do very well with them.  They're fun to drive and very rewarding if you can use them right, but they're not easy to use right. 


Edited by TenguBlade, 20 May 2017 - 02:08 AM.

Don't know if you have a dark sense of humor?  If you laugh at this, you do.

IJN: Yamato, Amagi, Ibuki, Mogami, Shokaku, Hiryu, Akatsuki, Shiratsuyu, Kamikaze R, Katori, MikasaKongō, Myōkō, Kirishima, Haruna, Hiei, Ashigara, Nachi, Haguro, TakaoSouthern Dragon

USN: Montana, Iowa, New Mexico, New Orleans, Pensacola, Cleveland, Langley/Bogue, Farragut

European Navies: Gnevny, Shchors, Nürnberg/Yorck, Bayern, Fiji, Blyskawica (Gift from Compassghost), Scharnhorst (First and only bought), Admiral Graf Spee


JToney3449 #65 Posted 20 May 2017 - 02:07 AM

    Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 134
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

Lets be honest folks you can not balance a tree around AA, why? Cause AA is only effective in matchs with CV, discounting spotter planes obviously.  So if you are in a match where there is no CV you are just SOL balance wise.  Since no ship type is 100% chance to be in a match you cant effectively balance trees around ship types they must be balance against their peers.  Since AA is never used in ship to ship combat with cruisers, bb, and dds you have to balance the ships around their armor/hp/mobility/and armorments.

 

So is the Iowa balanced against the other 9 and 10 bbs in firepower, yes. In hp, yes. In mobility, yes. In survivability? No. Not even close.  Before anyone jumps in saying hey I have good games in Iowas, ya so do I but i also know in that same game in my IJN or KM bb id be doing better, unless its got tons of planes and the cvs are dumb and like to throw em into my AA.  The Yamato has its 18" guns and its thicker armor so it has a good trade off for its cit size.  Iowas get that same cit with less armor cause its all or nothing, for AA which as I meantioned is not something ANY ship should be balanced around.  AA is more of an 'added' feature.  

 

Id like to say wg figured this out themselves but the recent HMS Hood..... any how I think this is the main reason the Iowas got the buff, that and HE dmg was utterly wrecking them because WG left out the splinter decks.  This was the easiest fix to the problems without having to remodel the whole damn thing.



Carl #66 Posted 20 May 2017 - 03:30 AM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Beta Testers

  • 2,163
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostPhoenix_jz, on 19 May 2017 - 10:49 AM, said:

 

Yeah, but back when CVs were at that peak, USN BBs and Cruisers were valued pretty well, because of what CVs could do to ships with poor AA. Those two ships on the enemy team were a lot more powerful than any other ship on their team, and they were there for the whole match.

 

It's certainly stupid now when AA isn't much of a threat... But it when it was...

 

Right because one specific ship class having it;s ships have a greater impact than any other is so balanced. Much WoW. E.t.c.

 

Seriously CV's had no business being as strong as they where then, or any business being as strong as they are now, (in the best players hands). As WG'ing themselves have admitted. 

 

View PostTenguBlade, on 19 May 2017 - 11:44 PM, said:

 

Since you hid your stats, I can't make an accurate judgement; however, judging from your overalls, it's not the ship that's the problem.  With Iowa and especially Montana, this fact is not automatically indicative of a poor player, but nevertheless I encourage you to look at how you're playing the ship rather than blaming the ship for your faults.

 

Montana is far from helpless against other battleships.  In fact, against a skilled battleship captain, I would rather drive her than the Yamato.  Speaking of her, the lolpen cannons are only as scary as you let them be.  If you try to catch the shots with your superstructure, bow, and stern, of course you will take massive damage.  But just under 75% of the ship's length is covered by  a 410mm armor belt, and your frontal bulkhead is 457mm thick.  Even without the aid of autobounce, you can easily angle your belt enough to cause it to defeat the shells at distances beyond 10km.  Below there, it's a gimme to Montana, as the Yamato's octagonal citadel and slow turret traverse leave her vulnerable.  When your ship is angled at 40-ish degrees, which is enough to protect your main belt with autobounce once the slope is taken into account, your frontal bulkhead has 914mm effective thickness.  Yamato's guns don't penetrate that kind of armor until below 5km (see here).  You might eat a normal-pen or two, but 8k damage is hardly consequential when half of it can be healed and your reply will spit out 30k+ at close range no matter what angle the Yamato's at - plus you can always maneuver for a better shot.  If anything, the Izumo is more dangerous to the Montana due to her shells having flatter arcs, much higher kinetic energy at effective engagement ranges, and substantially higher base penetration due to their 875m/s velocity.

 

Montana can't take Grosser Kurfuerst on in close quarters, but beyond secondary range, the ball is in her court.  Even less if the GK captain doesn't have Manual Control for Secondary Armament.  She has faster rate of fire and better accuracy, especially if the GK captain is running the 420mm guns.  The 406s have a substantial penetration and alpha disadvantage even if they do reload slightly faster than the 16"/50 MK7.  GK also has a massive superstructure and weakly-armored turrets, holes in her defense that can be easily exploited.  Firing straight at the turret faces will usually net an incapacitation or sometimes outright blow them up, and the superstructure is so long and thick you will normal-pen it from any angle (not to mention stray hits will trash the secondary battery).  The only advantage GK has is a 7% higher per-shell fire chance, which doesn't matter when they do substantially less damage and when Montana is easier to saturate.

 

The one part of this assessment that I will agree with is the danger posed by being impatient.  If you don't make sure absolutely nobody has your side before moving it, the chances are rather high someone will attempt to shoot at it.  That is not a problem with the ship, it comes from you not being attentive.  The same thing will happen to a GK or Yamato driver that gets caught flat.  Hell, Yamato has the same high citadel that extends nearly as high up the hull with only 4mm more of armor, and Montana has a significant concealment advantage to avoid being in that kind of spot to begin with.

Posted Image

On a side note, I also encourage you to stop wasting resources on an AA build and focus on secondaries instead, as long as carriers remain rare at T10.  Montana's secondaries have the highest base fire chance of all T10 BB secondaries, the most base HP of all T10 secondary mounts, and the highest base RoF.  They are also blessed with very good arcs of fire surpassed only by Yamato's bow-facing 155mm mount: you can bring 4 of your 5 mounts to bear while nowhere close to sacrificing autobounce protection on your hull, whether the target is ahead of or behind you, and the 5th can still be firing away within the 30-degree window towards the front (although it's tight).

 

Full AA build doesn't stop a half-decent Hakuryu or Midway driver anyways, and the HP/speed gap between T9 and T10 aircraft is great enough that even secondary build Montana (which will still have AFT at least, maybe BFT too if you want to give up stealth - I didn't) can cause substantial damage to a T9 carrier.  Plus, just being a Montana is often enough to deter CVs from attacking you until late-game where your AA will have taken a pounding from HE spam (if you're running AUXAM1 for secondary build, that's no more of an issue than if you were running it for AA build).

 

Where the hell your getting such fantasy numbers from i have absolutely no idea. At a 40 degree angle your front bulkhead is just 557mm effective. Yamato smashes that out to beyond 15km. Your belt, i'd have to look into it as i'm not sure what the slope is. But it would have to be very steep indeed to be an autobounce. Likely your looking at sub 600mm. Which a yamato can also pen from about 13km down.



crzyhawk #67 Posted 20 May 2017 - 05:00 AM

    Admiral

  • Members
  • Beta Testers

  • 10,831
  • Member since:
    05-08-2015

View PostPhoenix_jz, on 19 May 2017 - 05:49 AM, said:

 

Yeah, but back when CVs were at that peak, USN BBs and Cruisers were valued pretty well, because of what CVs could do to ships with poor AA. Those two ships on the enemy team were a lot more powerful than any other ship on their team, and they were there for the whole match.

 

It's certainly stupid now when AA isn't much of a threat... But it when it was...

 

USN ships were valued because the IJN was the only other thing to choose from.


Pope_Shizzle #68 Posted 20 May 2017 - 07:06 AM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Members

  • 2,411
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

Glad to see the change.  I think the BB meta was changed for the worse when KM battleships were introduced with almost no reliable way to citadel them.  My German BB's, when getting too close, just turn around and sail away.  I can do that because I don't worry about citadels and whatever damage I take is repairable.  I can't do that in my Iowa/Missouri/Montana.  I eat cits and can't repair them.  Which is why you see so much of the bow in crap.  When a Missouri/Iowa and Monty (to a lesser extent) get in too deep he has no choice but to nose in and hit reverse.  Hopefully, lowering the citadel makes it easier for USN battleships to stay mobile, which is good for the game.

 

 



DeliciousFart #69 Posted 21 May 2017 - 06:57 AM

    Seaman

  • Members

  • 31
  • Member since:
    04-28-2017

I saw this over on reddit.

 

http://imgur.com/a/5m1Ve

 

Citadel at or below waterline now, like on the Alabama.



AutonomousRedux #70 Posted 23 May 2017 - 06:28 AM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Beta Testers

  • 343
  • Member since:
    04-15-2015

View PostPeregrinas, on 19 May 2017 - 12:37 AM, said:

Once again, WG buffing ships that don't need buffs because CVs were nerfed hard and are now nearly nonexistent in high tier.

 

Seriously, an AA-focused ship line is suffering because there aren't any CVs? Gee I wonder why.

 

What happened to the good days in OBT and launch when IJN ships had some advantages over USN ships, but were prone to CV attacks. AA and CVs are now like just an afterthought. Balancing ships in a no-CV environment and then throwing away USN's AA specialization and making every ship equal.

 

That AA was never powerful enough to keep USN BBs from being alpha'd by either T9 or T10 carriers. Maybe survive on 10% health, but usually sunk from the get go.

 

Furthermore, AA was usually the focus for USN cruisers.



icyplanetnhc #71 Posted 23 May 2017 - 08:51 AM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 273
  • Member since:
    08-28-2016

The updated models of the Iowa/Missouri and Montana have their citadel volumes lowered to the third deck slightly below the waterline, which is largely the convention that all non-Kriegsmarine battleships follow (sans Yamato after this update). In game, this essentially improves the Iowa-class broadside survivability to that of the Alabama, which is an appreciable, though not overpowered, improvement. After all, when caught out of position and presenting a broadside, the Alabama (and North Carolina) can still take citadel hits quite consistently, just not the alarming regularity of the pre-buff Iowa-class. Furthermore, much of the third deck can be overmatched, so the plunging nature of shells even at medium engagement can achieve citadel hits even when they penetrate the belt above the waterline.

 

In that regard, this change is frankly more beneficial for the Iowa-class than it is for the Montana. Again, since much of the third deck can be overmatched, the Montana's greater beam allows shells to hit the lowered citadel volume at a shallower angle, which corresponds to closer range and/or shells that hit the belt higher above the waterline (whereas the Iowa-class' narrower beam will require a slightly steeper angle of descent). In fact, using the Yamato's guns as reference, at ranges greater than 11 km, the Montana's lower citadel will make no difference because even shells that strike the top of the belt (where the top of the citadel formerly was) will plunge under the third deck. Keep in mind that this is for a perfectly broadside target; when angled, the shell has greater horizontal distance to plunge, which makes the required angle of descent even shallower (almost counter-intuitive in a way).

 

In summary, I believe this change brings a modest, not overwhelming, improvement to the Iowa-class' and Montana's broadside survivability. At medium ranges, the benefits are rather slight because of plunging nature of shells due to ballistics; even at close ranges, it's not overwhelming. Again, the best way to think about these ships is that now they'll be as difficult to citadel as the North Carolina and Alabama; in other words, still easily punishable when presenting a broadside.


Edited by icyplanetnhc, 23 May 2017 - 08:55 PM.


Sakuzhi #72 Posted 23 May 2017 - 01:23 PM

    Captain

  • Beta Testers

  • 5,055
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View Postmofton, on 20 May 2017 - 01:23 AM, said:

Thank heavens they're buffing the 55% WR Missouri!

 

 

More seriously, if it makes the ships a bit easier to play I'm for it. My Iowa's been in mothballs since I heard they'd do this as there just didn't seem much point. I think like the RN BB traverse buff WG is moving to 'even if balanced, ships shouldn't be super non-fun in one aspect'.

 

Gift/Special Ships always have superior W/R. Just look at the Flint with it's 66% W/R.

 

It's a bit of a needed change to the Iowa/Montana hulls however.


  • Mostly plays battleships and is excellent in them (warships.today)

OscarMike_ #73 Posted 23 May 2017 - 01:30 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Members

  • 1,681
  • Member since:
    11-06-2015

View PostPeregrinas, on 19 May 2017 - 05:37 AM, said:

Once again, WG buffing ships that don't need buffs because CVs were nerfed hard and are now nearly nonexistent in high tier.

 

Seriously, an AA-focused ship line is suffering because there aren't any CVs? Gee I wonder why.

 

What happened to the good days in OBT and launch when IJN ships had some advantages over USN ships, but were prone to CV attacks. AA and CVs are now like just an afterthought. Balancing ships in a no-CV environment and then throwing away USN's AA specialization and making every ship equal.

 

+1

 

Carriers are fine says WG.



OscarMike_ #74 Posted 23 May 2017 - 01:34 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Members

  • 1,681
  • Member since:
    11-06-2015

View PostAutonomousRedux, on 23 May 2017 - 06:28 AM, said:

 

That AA was never powerful enough to keep USN BBs from being alpha'd by either T9 or T10 carriers. Maybe survive on 10% health, but usually sunk from the get go.

 

Furthermore, AA was usually the focus for USN cruisers.

 

Again, skill vs lack of skill.

 

alpha'd by a CV in a tier 10 US BB (Montana) LOL.

 

Some things you did not mention were that those BB players 1. Did not dodge or 2. turned the wrong way to dodge 3. were NOT AA builds or 4. did not target lock planes or 5. Your being sarcastic and the BB died from attack #2. or 6. the BB was baited on his damage control and used it too soon then the CV just dotted him to death.

 

Alpha striking a T10 BB with a CV is only done by 1. a good CV captain 2. a lesser skilled BB captain 3. RNG helps. (but still rarely happens).  Again if were both talking about "alpha" strike.


Edited by OscarMike_, 23 May 2017 - 01:35 PM.


Sakuzhi #75 Posted 23 May 2017 - 01:40 PM

    Captain

  • Beta Testers

  • 5,055
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

Block Quote

 alpha'd by a CV in a tier 10 US BB (Montana) LOL.

 

You really have no idea what you are talking about.

 

I've seen Midways take out Montana's on the games opening wave, and there is nothing you are going to do to 'turn' a 900 Foot long Battleship fast enough to stop a cross-weave Midway from ending you. Granted, that was when the Midway had 2 TB groups.

 

That is of course before US BBs were getting AA nerfed. 

 

And in all likelihood the Hakuryu can do about the same.  

 


  • Mostly plays battleships and is excellent in them (warships.today)

OscarMike_ #76 Posted 23 May 2017 - 01:42 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Members

  • 1,681
  • Member since:
    11-06-2015

View PostSakuzhi, on 23 May 2017 - 01:40 PM, said:

 

You really have no idea what you are talking about.

 

I've seen Midways take out Montana's on the games opening wave, and there is nothing you are going to do to 'turn' a 900 Foot long Battleship fast enough to stop a cross-weave Midway from ending you. Granted, that was when the Midway had 2 TB groups.

 

That is of course before US BBs were getting AA nerfed. 

 

And in all likelihood the Hakuryu can do about the same.  

 

 

Are we talking about now or 2-3 years ago?  Im confused.

Sakuzhi #77 Posted 23 May 2017 - 01:57 PM

    Captain

  • Beta Testers

  • 5,055
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostOscarMike_, on 23 May 2017 - 01:42 PM, said:

 

Are we talking about now or 2-3 years ago?  Im confused.

 

Few years back, and now depending on which TX CV you are looking at. The point being even when the USN AA for BBs was at it's peak

 

It still wasn't good enough.


Edited by Sakuzhi, 23 May 2017 - 01:58 PM.

  • Mostly plays battleships and is excellent in them (warships.today)

Frederick_The_Great #78 Posted 23 May 2017 - 08:34 PM

    Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 75
  • Member since:
    08-20-2016

Indeed, you need go AA focused on your US BBs if you really want to dent the incoming attack.  If you are not really AA focused, then really wont dent the attack.  Perhaps a few planes kills as they leave.  The all or nothing AA can be painful.

 

If your AA is given time to work(like when you are going the opposite way from the incoming strikes planes) you can knock a fair amount of them down.  If you are heading towards the strike, you wont knock as many down.   The planes are fast enough to get in and out of the area quick enough to avoid heavy loses. 

 

My Iowa captain only has AFT, and the only module i use is the increased AA range.  I can knock down 2-4 IJN cv(tier 9-10) torp bombers before they drop their bombs, and maybe another 2 before they leave if i am heading in the direction they attacked from.  If i am going the opposite, i can knock at least one squad, and damage another pretty heavily before they strike.  Of course, there is always the RNG factor where you don't drop a single plane, or your drop them all like they are made of paper. 

 

IDK how good the AA would really be if one took BFT and manual AA.  Of course, that is 7 points spent on that could be better spent else where, especially with CVs being rare in higher tiers.  though, part of me still feels a little meh at the idea that an AA focus nation Would need to spend points on all of that, plus maybe other modules to knock aircraft down at a great rate.  of course, at the end of the day it has to be balanced, so i am fine with the way it is for the most part.  If you are with other ships, your AA has the range to be good at helping others and the combined AA will knock down most strikes. 



mikeownage #79 Posted 23 May 2017 - 09:16 PM

    Seaman

  • Beta Testers

  • 12
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

I run full AA build on my mighty mo, let me tell you this right now i fear nothing in the skies. My AA rating has to be way over 100. My 7.2km guns do 362(181 x 2 due to manual control for AA) damage per second, the next at 5.1km do 382 and my close in 2.9km guns do 212. Now lets factor in that a squadron of midway torp bombers has 2060 hp, I will have killed that entire squadron before they have reached my close in defense (usually). It's easier to avoid 2-3 torps bombers (rare - usually none as they are all dead even if two squadrons are sent) that might make it through alive than 7-8.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users