Jump to content

icyplanetnhc

Members
  • Content Сount

    385
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    2475

Community Reputation

203 Valued poster

About icyplanetnhc

  • Rank
    Master Chief Petty Officer
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

1,411 profile views
  1. icyplanetnhc

    Speed bleed when turning

    That's very interesting and informative, thank you.
  2. icyplanetnhc

    Speed bleed when turning

    Yes, if all else are equal, a hull with greater fineness ratio should turn worse, but differences in hullform, block coefficients, and rudder size and placement all affect turning ability. Despite her rather large L/D ratio, Iowa actually turns very well in reality with a 814 yard (744 m) tactical diameter at 30 knots, while the King George V's tactical diameter is 930 yards (850 m).
  3. icyplanetnhc

    Speed bleed when turning

    Nope, I made sure to not use speed flags when running the test. Furthermore, L/B does not explain the apparent differences, or else the Massachusetts would lose less speed than Bismarck and Scharnhorst (opposite of what we're seeing in-game).
  4. icyplanetnhc

    Speed bleed when turning

    Is there some standard percentage that your speed is supposed to bleed off? I recall that there is supposed to be up to 25% speed loss in a battleship when the rudder is hard over, but I've noticed that Iowa and Montana speed loss seem to be well above that threshold. At full throttle and rudder hard over, Iowa's speed drops down to 23.2 knots, or 29.7% loss. For Montana, it's 22.0 knots, or 26.6% loss. For comparison, in the North Carolina and Massachusetts, it's 20.5 knots and 20.7 knots respectively, or 25.5% and 24.7% loss. For Bismarck, it's 23.4 knots, or 24.5% loss, and for Scharnhorst, it's 22.6 knots, or 24.7% loss. Even more puzzling is that Missouri's speed at full throttle and rudder hard over is 23.8 knots, despite having the exact same hull as the Iowa. What's the reason behind these differences? I'm curious to know why Iowa bleeds a considerably larger percentage of her speed compared to other battleships. I understand that some ships like American Standard-type battleships intentionally bleed less speed compared to other battleships, but some of the other outliers seem odd.
  5. Where would I check my damage output distribution between main battery, secondary battery, and fires? By my own estimate, I would say the large majority of my damage in the Massachusetts is from the main battery, with fires being second and secondary hits being third, though that could be because I don't spec for IFHE.
  6. What changes are you talking about? Secondary-spec battleships are generally easy to play against, as you can exploit the poor concealment and often the lack of fire prevention to take the initiative. If you're talking about the proposed IFHE changes, those are still preliminary. If you can't angle or dodge battleship AP shells in a cruiser, that's frankly on you. In any case, a cruiser shouldn't be able to survive as well as a battleship given its immense firepower and utility for influencing a match.
  7. That is correct. The manner with which I've played the Massachusetts would have yielded better results in the North Carolina. I suppose there is an element of skill involved in having the map awareness to know where to position for optimal secondary reach, but that's still not much and feels pretty limiting.
  8. The Massachusetts is a ship that is lauded for its secondary battery, and make no mistake, this is a very strong ship in random matches and also a solid pick in competitive (though overshadowed by Soviet battleships). But personally I can't really make such a build work. A full secondary build forgoes both concealment and fire prevention in order to maximize secondary output, but against most competent players, they'll simply just kite away and whittle you down. At the risk of sounding condescending, it feels like secondary build battleships are optimized towards harassing and killing less skilled players, while leaving little options for combating a skilled player who can exploit your poor concealment and lack of fire prevention. In other words, low skill floor but also low skill ceiling. Perhaps the secondary-spec works random matches (might even be a bit overtuned), as the average skill is not that great. In the end, my Massachusetts spec is somewhat of a hybrid, with only the secondary mod and AFT but nothing else. Fortunately, the excellent turret traverse (rather overtuned, in my opinion) allowed me to still take concealment expert and fire prevention. The relatively poor accuracy of the main battery with only 1.7 sigma still frustrates me to no end, however. I know this sounds odd, but it's for these reasons that I overall found myself not enjoying the Massachusetts as much as I had hoped. For me, the secondaries no matter how potent can't substitute good accuracy and concealment. Both of these factors would otherwise make me feel like I have better control of my combat situation. What are the opinions of secondary-spec Massachusetts among the skilled players?
  9. We're talking about the context of Ranked meta, where you are only matched against Tier 9 ships and there are no aircraft carriers. I also find your assessment of the Musashi's strength compared other battleships questionable. The rudder shift is frankly not significantly worse than most other battleships, and is in fact superior to the Izumo's and Missouri's. The elevated citadel is offset by the sheer thickness of the belt, and "cheek" are frankly very manageable with proper angling and rudder management and not enough to offset the massage advantage in penetration, overmatch, and health pool. The thick weather deck and small superstructure also makes the ship more resistant to HE than many other battleships. I think you're really understating just how power the ability to overmatch 32 mm plating really is. Even with the Musashi's weakness in close quarter combat, the majority of the time you simply won't be able to force an engagement at close range. Did I mention that Musashi's secondaries have nearly the base range, French and German battleships? You don't notice it because Musashi doesn't need to be spec'ed into secondary builds. I played quite a few Ranked battle matches in Season 13, frankly more than I liked, and I think I have a reasonably sufficient understanding of the strengths and weaknesses Tier 9 battleships, at least when fighting them in an Iowa. Premium battleships simply outclass the normal tech tree ones, there's no question about that. To not consider them overpowered simply because their degree of overperformance doesn't match that of even more unbalanced ships is frankly poor reasoning. The reasonable thing would be to expect the developers to actually balance the Musashi and other premium Tier 9 battleships, whether it be through nerfs or buffing the tech tree ones. Frankly I think the former option is preferable in order to rein in power creep. The argument that the ship isn't as good as Tier 10 battleships that it frequently faces is not a valid argument, because matchmaking weights the Musashi the same as any Tier 9 battleship.
  10. No, Musashi should definitely be characterized as overpowered. Simply being able to be countered is not a valid argument against that, as whatever counters Musashi counters other battleships even more. Musashi outperforms nearly all tech tree battleship in most meaningful combat parameters. This is especially evident when you consider that in matchmaking, a Musashi matched against another Tier 9 battleship such as Iowa, Lion, etc. The degree of overperformance compared to Belfast can be debated, but that does not absolve it of being considered overpowered.
  11. The destroyer meta really didn't manifest itself until the Rank 5-2 bracket, where the Kitakaze was the most common ship. The NA server in particular tends to be more destroyer-heavy than the other servers. Frankly, it should be obvious to everyone that Tier 9 is grossly imbalanced, with Kitakaze, Jutland, Black, and premium battleships dominating over others. The fact that the developers have done so little to address the balance problems, as well as adding even more unbalanced Tier 9 premiums, is a pretty bad sign. It's also interesting to note that Ranked is declining in popularity. Frankly, I don't know why this season was run concurrently with Clan Battles, which I think is a major reason; that said, I feel that the terrible balance at Tier 9 is also a large contributing factor to the decline.
  12. icyplanetnhc

    How to citadel BB?

    This is frankly an inaccurate statement, because you certainly can. There have only been two citadel adjustments so far; the first one is back in June 2017 when Montana, Iowa, and Missouri had their citadels lowered to waterline level, the same height as the North Carolina, which means that it's still rather vulnerable when broadside. However, even with their old citadel heights, obtaining penetrating hits with cruiser AP shells only occurs at point blank range and full broadside, which is rare. Even currently, you can still quite consistently score citadels on American battleships with high-penetration cruiser guns at close range when they present a full broadside. The other citadel adjustment was just a few months ago when British battleships from King George V and higher had their citadels raised to slightly above waterline, similar to Vanguard's. As for the original topic, in most cases cruiser guns don't have the penetration to defeat battleship belt armor in most combat circumstances, so generally, use HE when they're angled, and aim at the upper hull with AP when they present a broadside.
  13. icyplanetnhc

    Value of Priority Target on destroyers?

    I play the Fletcher as a hybrid, using both guns and torpedoes. Frankly I'm struggling to win games in this ship, so I'm wondering what I'm doing wrong.
  14. icyplanetnhc

    Montana troubles, would like some help please

    Montana is generally a ship that you need to maneuver to find good firing positions against enemy broadsides in order to be effective, as the guns don't quite have the overmatching capabilities of some of the other battleships. That said, it's also important to note the position of teammates and potential enemies in order to determine how far forward to advance. All this requires a good degree of map awareness that comes with experience.
  15. Having just acquired the Fletcher, I'm not having very much success with the ship. Currently, I have Priority Target as my one-point skill, but I've had several instances of destroyed torpedo tubes. I'm not sure if it was simply bad luck, but I'm wonder if it's worthwhile to drop Priority Target for Preventative Maintenance. Priority Target does have its benefits but it feels rather situational.
×