Jump to content


Beta Testers
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles


Everything posted by Air_0374

  1. I like the part where the the the Lion/Conq's 419mm shells are slower and lighter than the Iowa/Montana's 406's yet somehow retain better penetration at range.
  2. Battleship Roma

    It happens at that angle, the shells can still pen the bow and avoid the turtleback layer and hit the bulkhead or corner side of the citadel.
  3. What's wrong to Montana?

    They aren't affected, they still have 38mm weather decks. What's funny is that the thickness change isn't listed with the citadel volume and superstructure/extremity hp changes.
  4. What's wrong to Montana?

    Yeah how dare the Montana think about bouncing shells off its weather deck like every other battleship, silly Montana. Hell, the Iowa's is still 38mm...
  5. What's wrong to Montana?

    You guys realize that 19mm deck was always there at the waterline in the high citadel version. All they are doing is lowering the citadel box to that deck. The 150mm deck is still in the middle of the ship. This is the same thing that happened to the Alabama. Edit: I didn't even realize the weather deck was reduced, pitchfork out. What is it with WG and messing up the US battleships...
  6. The armor model is a lot more complicated than just one layer. The citadel bulkhead is that thin but there are much thicker ones in the stern.
  7. Because its public knowledge.
  8. Insert correct armor model. Rebalance soft stats to compensate for any performance changes. WEOW SO BAD OF A CHANGE.
  9. YES, HENCE "test the change internally." Its like "Hey this ship's armor is inaccurate, lets implement it in supertest like every other armor change we've done before and if it needs adjustment afterwards we shall do so." There's your golden WG balance for you.
  10. Nobody is saying to have this changed for release. All that is needed is for WG to acknowledge the inaccuracy and test the change internally, just like every other armor change they've made before.
  11. You guys act like WG's balance is infalable, or that they've never rebalanced tanks or ships after armor changes.
  12. G. Kurfurst - Damage Saturation

    I feel like that many torpedoes would just split a ship in half. Also why the wide spread exists.
  13. So you want a ship dropped a tier because you believe its too weak, yet want to put in what is essentially the same ship with an easier to hit citadel in the same spot?
  14. Just because this thread was made I'm gonna throw matches in BB's. Just kidding, that's my regular play.
  15. Montana Useless?

    So how is the Montana's deck armor any better than the Kurfurst? The citadel deck is the same and the Kurfurst bomb deck is almost twice as thick.
  16. Question about anchors

    They bounce shots better.
  17. HE spam from smoke. Sounds dynamic.
  18. Soviet battleships in 2017

    So in between the Izumo and Iowa/Montanna penetration when quality isn't an issue. Basically everything I've read sounds like it'll be a Yamato with 16"s. I'd still expect them to give it the Moskva treatment though regarding accuracy.
  19. Soviet battleships in 2017

    I'm assuming there were huge quality issues at play, similar to the armour. And of course this is WG, so those problems will be thrown away when wg gives them the same quality everyone gets.
  20. Soviet battleships in 2017

    The 16's should be enough if they do follow the navyweaps info, 1108kg shell at 830-870m/s. For comparison the Izumo shoots the type 91 apc shell (1080kg) at 870 ingame.
  21. Being spotted first from its firing range doesn't help.
  22. More like designed to fight the Colorado.
  23. Makes more sense, too bad we still can't see displacement ingame despite it being tied to hp.
  24. So basically a minimal weight difference for 10k health, wg logic.
  25. German Battleships in

    T34 to M103 swap anyone?