Jump to content

armando30

Beta Testers
  • Content count

    13
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    297

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About armando30

  • Rank
    Seaman
  • Insignia
  1. Battleship Dispersion

    you must have heard of RNG (random number generator) right? it's the variable that decides if you hit a target or not, it also has influence in the amount of damage you cause it can make your shell bounce or do minimal damage or do average damage or even do max damage it's there so that the game isn't just "click and you hit all the time doing the same amount of damage all the time", you often see it in WoT in how sometimes you hit a track and do damage or other times you hit the track and don't even detrack the enemy in WoT it's 25% and in WoWs it might be the same or lower, in Armored Warfare you have 15% RNG
  2. Battleship Dispersion

    they will probably need to balance the dispersion they are thinking of introducing WoWs on esports and +/- 25% RNG is too much with the dispersion we currently have in the game, one way of doing it would be reducing RNG or simply reducing dispersion
  3. I've also seen it and most designs are pretty much unrealistic someone commented it was simply a task given by Tillman (I believe he was a Governor or member of the Senate or something) to design a BB that represented the limit of what american shipbuilding could actually achieve at the time, hence being called "Tillman Max/Maximum Battleship", the result was several designs that don't differ that much in terms of dimensions when compared with Iowas and Montana (although longer it was expected to have the same width and draft) but are nonetheless unrealistic those designs had no less than 12 guns, wich would be equal to a Montana-Class, and went as far as 13/15x18in guns in 5 turrets (one with 4 double and 1 triple and the other with 5 triple turrets) or 24x16in guns in 4 turrets (meaning 6 guns per turret), someone posted that it would be impossible to keep the same width of the Iowa-class simply because the barbettes would need to be weidened to accommodate larger guns, in the case of the 18in guns, and on the case of the 24 gun BBs it would simply be impossible to make it wide enough and still be able to go through the Panama Canal
  4. New Calling - IJN Cruisers?

    you know that stats are also displayed separately by nation right? well I guess if you are aiming for a good personal rating, like in WoT, you would want to only count the ships you are better with, on the other hand personal rating means nothing to the MM or to the eyes of others, what matters is how you play the game regardless of having USN cruisers "pulling your leg" in the personal rating once again about stats, you can compare how you do in IJN, USN, Soviet or German ships
  5. Flagship Takao

    ever since I first joined CBT that I've been wondering why the Heavy Cruiser Takao was neither chosen as a regular ship in the Japanese cruiser line or as one of the first premium cruisers to be added to the game the reason I noticed the absense of the Heavy Cruiser Takao in the game is because for a long time this ship was the flagship of the IJN, for that historical value alone this ship should have at least been picked as the first premium for the IJN tech tree with the current colaboration between WoWs and "Arpreggio of Blue Steel" some might think I'm bringing this up because of the character on that Anime but, although I'm a fan of that work and knew the character before WoWs entering Alpha, I'm bringing this up since I knew about this particular ship before from the "Battlestations" game series, although I agree that also being one of the characters of the Anime is a extra reason as to why this particular ship should already be in the game
  6. Time for the Alaska

    I think that at least the Baltimore-class was classified as a heavy cruiser, but then again if you look at the tendency in the US Armed Forces their "heavy" is usually "lighter" than on other nations, like how Iowa-class are BBs but in reality are more like "heavy-battlecruisers" since their armor is only really effective at range when hit by high calliber main guns
  7. Battleship Dispersion

    at least US battleships should get a dispersion rebalance/buff (it would be more like making it more realistic) since at the end of the war US Navy ships had all kinds of range-finding devices as well as analog computers and radar-assisted guidence for both AAA and main guns I don't know where exactly they found the dispersion data since I doubt any reliable data could ever be assembled on main gun dispersion over distance at sea, well other than for pure balance reasons but even then american ships should have better dispersion (AKA less dispersion) because their cruisers have no torpedos, their lower tier BBs have low top speed and firing range and top tier BBS have less armor (because they were designed as fast battleships that could get through the Panama canal) another proof of wrong dispersion values for american ships main guns is how effective they were at bombarding land positions
  8. you can't complain about not having torpedos because they never had them currently in-game all american ships that had torps instaled IRL have them in the game except for the tier 6 Pensacola that IRL had 3 tubes on each side, much like the tier 6 Japanese cruiser, but that would be a early modification since they removed it IRL in 1941 the upgraded Pensacola in-game would also lose those, but it could be nice to make the early grind easier the only point wich we could complain about american cruisers, well american ships in general, would be a stupidily large dispersion during WWII pretty much every single ship class in the US navy went through some kind of modernization/upgrade and at the end of the war many had radar-assisted aiming as well as range-finder equipment and analog computers to calculate the elevation and angles to wich the guns had to be placed to hit targets, this doesn't mean much IRL because back then the ranges of engagement were so big that it was almost impossible to hit another ship with main battery fire, one exception was the Warspite having destroyed one german battleship or battle cruiser still in terms of the game it would be expected for most american ships to have great accuracy, not only to compensate the lack of torpedos (wich would be a natural balance parameter) but also to become a bit more "historically accurate"/realistic one example of doing the oposite of what would be normal is how in the naval legends video about the Iowa they talk about how american 16in (406mm) guns had much higher velocity making them equal to the Yamato 18in guns (and this wasn't said by an american but by their russian historical consultant), don't know about you guys but I know that if "shell A" travels at higher velocity than "shell B" it has less probability of missing the target than "shell B", meaning the dispersion would be smaller now we just need to hope they fix it in-game
  9. I was checking the suggestion thread and I found a post of a player suggesting the Tillman Max Battleship, apparently they were real projects from 1917 before the british and the american made all those naval treaties regarding the size and firepower of their ships whats interesting is that those ships were similar to what the Iowa and Montana became in both dimensions and displacement but with a lot more firepower proposals were made with 12 16 inch guns to 24 16 inch guns (in 4 turrets with 6 guns each, but I guess if it were chosen they would change to 6 turrets with 4 guns each) and even 15 18 inch guns in 5 triple turrets, the downside would be that since it was a 1917 design it wouldn't be armed with sufficient AA
  10. well I don't what you read on my post but I believe I said the -----"Bureau of Ordenance"----- believed that the 16in/50 Mark.7 guns in combination with the 2700lb Mark 8 "Super-heavy" shell were equal to the Yamato 18.1 in firepower, more exactly the armor piercing capabilities we are talking about the Bureau of Ordenance that managed wich guns should be used in every ship BravoBigBoom you said: "-If they made 12 x 16" Guns, there would be no major improvement for Montana other than armor. Also, there is no way that Iowa would be able to use 9 x 18" Guns even for an initial proposal, as it would need bigger barbettes to mount the planned 3-Gun 16" and require massive changes to the design and would result in substantial weight penalties, as it supposed to be a fast battleship after all. Besides, this initial proposal for Plan A had been continued & studied for Montana-class, though, it was cancelled. -The Iowa-class had reached its top speed as fast as 35kn with light load capacity during the Gulf War, IIRC. -Perhaps this model might a better design than Plan A, with the same barbettes used for 3-Gun 16", and mounts 2-Gun 18" instead." you are right about that but I believe what I posted was that those 18 inch guns were requested before the design phase startedevery ship is designed after an initial request is made by a special board in th USN (the same happens until today) where they discuss wich characteristics are needed to fulfill the role intended for the new class of ships, from there results a very rough outline of what the future ship should be (for example having X14in guns or X16in guns and being no heavier than Xtons)after that engineers start researching how can they meet those requests and chose the best solutions by presenting several alternative designs I believe this was the reason why they never presented a design mounting 18 inch guns because they couldn't make it work with the other design restrictions such as fitting the Panama Canal and since the initial request also contained 16 inch guns they choose those instead, but even so there must be a design somewhere in the archives with the 18 inch guns and showing that it would exceed the requested measures this happens with both ships, tanks, aircraft etc.... about the image you posted, since the Plan A had 4 turrets they could at least mount 8 18in guns or even 9 if the second turret had 3 guns instead of 2
  11. yeah but things could be different, and besides still no match for Yamato in raw firepower no the guns were the same and in fact you could almost call the Montana Class as Iowa II because, like with the Iowa Class, it's dimentions were still limited by the Panama canal (both the Montana and Iowa had to fit in the canal) the design was pratically the same and the major differences were that the Montana class was 20 meters longer and 3 meters wider, apart from the increased armor (for example it was proposed that the belt armor would be 409mm thick while the same armor on the Iowa was 310mm thick), being 4.5 knots slower (still 28knots isn't really that bad for a ship that size) and having one more turret with 3 16 inches Mark.7 (same as the Iowa) the reason why the guns are still the same was because it could fire the Mark 8 "Super-heavy" shell that the "Bureau of Ordenance" believed to give the Iowa class guns the same firepower as the Yamato Class battleships the Iowas weren'treally meant to fight one-on-one with the Yamato-Class ships, they were actually designed to survive anything IJN heavy cruisers would fire at them (generally 8 inch [203mm] guns) that's why it was buit as a "cruiser-killer", and that's also why it was required that the Iowa could maintain a 32.5 knots top speed and classifed "Fast Battleship" the Iowa-Class was one of the 3 classes intended for that role along the Alaska-Class and Lexington-Class battlecruisers (proposed in 1916 and cancelled later with either 10 14in guns or 8 16in guns and 8 torpedo tubes, 2 partially built being converted into the Lexington-Class carriers) well the Iowa-Class was designed as a cruiser killer but it could be a serious threat if there was a chance to upgrade the tier 9 Iowa with either the 12x16in guns or 9x18in guns (remember the Yamato has 18.1in guns) that were requested before the initial proposals were presented in the end they went with Proposal "B" with 9x16in guns and 32.5 knots top speed while Proposal "C" was slightly longer but could reach 35 knots while keeping the same gun arrangement (3x3 16in guns) Poposal "A" was the largest but could still reach 32.5 knots while having 4 triple turrets instead of 3 just imagine having an Iowa Hull "C" upgrade (top speed increased to 35 knots), a and 3 triple turrets armed with 18 inch guns although having a Hull "C" upgrade would also mean needing a propulsion upgrade ("A":277,000Hp; "B":225,000Hp; "C":300,000Hp) and increasing the amount of xp we would need to "elite" the Iowa battleship
×